Understanding God’s election

[DaveXR650]

What does that mean, 'if passive'?

"5. It is a misrepresentation of the decree of reprobation, that God has ordained that men should not be holy, righteous, kind, and merciful, for want of anything on his part requisite to make them so.

"Since, though by this decree God has determined to deny them his grace to make them so, yet he has not by it ordained that they should be unholy, unrighteous, unkind, and unmerciful;

"only has determined to leave them to themselves, and the freedom of their own wills, which issues in their being so, wherefore their being so, is not to be ascribed to the denial of his grace, much less to his decree to deny it, but to their own wickedness;

"nor is his command, even under the penalty of his severe displeasure, that they be holy, righteous, kind, and merciful, inconsistent with his leaving them, or his determining to leave them in an incapacity of being so;

"since, as has been shown, that incapacity is from themselves."

What I mean is that I believe reprobation is a true principle but like the quote above which I guess is from Gill, God doesn't do anything to those who are reprobate. He leaves them as they choose to be and actually respects their own free will. The principle being that without God's grace we descend into evil without God actively doing anything to us.

This is why I get concerned when Calvinists use Romans 9 in a way that makes it seem that God put a fix on Esau so that he would be damned eternally and then they turn around and mistakenly ascribe the warning to not question God's right as a potter to this mistaken application - when actually, the warning is to not question God's right to open up salvation to the gentiles.

God did not put a fix on Esau damning him, as some joyfully claim. Like Gill says, the only thing God does to the reprobate is to leave them alone and respect their free will which some of us value so highly. That is precisely why if you read Bunyan's "Reprobation Asserted", he says that there is nothing preventing even those in that group from being saved except their own refusal to do so.

 

[kyredneck]

What I mean is that I believe reprobation is a true principle but like the quote above which I guess is from Gill, God doesn't do anything to those who are reprobate. He leaves them as they choose to be and actually respects their own free will. The principle being that without God's grace we descend into evil without God actively doing anything to us.

Agree, but Christ did speak in parables and dark sayings for a specific reason.

- when actually, the warning is to not question God's right to open up salvation to the gentiles.

Specifically, which verses leads you to that conclusion? Are you able to 'flesh that out' from the context?

God did not put a fix on Esau damning him

Well, he wasn't favored:

16 lest [there be] any fornication, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright.
17 For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind [in his father,] though he sought it diligently with tears. Heb 12

 

[DaveXR650]

Specifically, which verses leads you to that conclusion? Are you able to 'flesh that out' from the context?

The first few verses of chapter 9 specifically say is about to be a discussion from the Jewish perspective. Then you have the discussion about Isaac and then Jacob and Esau which is to prove that being a descendent of Abraham after the flesh is not the whole story. Then verses 23-24 specifically open it up to the gentiles ( and remember, this would make no sense with the previous chapters of Romans if it were not addressed specifically to the Jewish people reading this). And then in verses 30-33 the failure of the Jews (which goes along with God's sovereign will, yet doesn't trample on man's will) is concluded and along with that hope is still given to any believing Jew because it is concluded that whoever believes shall not be put to shame.

Once again, I am not saying that God has to get our approval in order to save one individual and damn another. He doesn't. But I am saying that that is not what is being discussed in Roman 9. And the warning that we dare not question God is being unfairly applied by some Calvinists to their favorite go to doctrine - which for some is the election of some to damnation. So you are warning people that they had better not question what looks like a gleeful proclamation of God's desire to pick out people for damnation, when in reality they are slandering God because what he really wants understood here is that salvation is open to those who come by faith, all who come, not just Jews. And primarily this was a message Jews needed, although gentiles needed just as much to hear this because they were noticing the resentment to them coming to Christ and they had noticed even high Christian Jewish leaders having reservations about fellowshipping with gentiles. You see this all over the New Testament and if you understand this it makes those other passages easy to understand.

 

[kyredneck]

The first few verses of chapter 9 specifically say is about to be a discussion from the Jewish perspective.

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;
5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

K. I agree, the topic so far is as you say, 'Jews only'.

Then you have the discussion about Isaac and then Jacob and Esau which is to prove that being a descendent of Abraham after the flesh is not the whole story.

Wrong. It's to prove that the word of God did not come to nought with the real Israel of God, the children of promise which are 'not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles'. Galatians 6:15-16; Galatians 4:28

Romans 9:6-8
But [it is] not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.

I fail to understand your need to force Romans 9 to apply to 'Jews only', when it clearly does not. All those OT characters are there FOR OUR EXAMPLES.

 

[DaveXR650]

I fail to understand your need to force Romans 9 to apply to 'Jews only', when it clearly does not. All those OT characters are there FOR OUR EXAMPLES.

Yes. The idea that the children of the promise are not strictly race based is for gentiles too. But since the chapter starts out specifically talking about Jews, and specifically corrects a belief that they had, I say the illustration using Jacob and Esau, twins, would be a message to the Jews. And more importantly, the message is an increasing and expanding inclusion of those who can be saved. Thus it is tragic when some Calvinists take this message and make it seem as if God's purpose is to rub our noses in the fact that God picks out some people like Esau to damn and then warns us not to complain about it. Carefully reading the chapter without any preconceived theological perspective, shows us that indeed God does choose, and he is choosing people from the gentiles as well as Jews.

Now I believe that we all start out in a fallen condition and sin as soon as we are able and are truly guilty before God. He indeed has a right to damn some or all of us and to choose how this works without owing us an explanation. But I just don't think that this is the purpose of Romans 9. If you don't believe me here just go on and read chapters 10 and 11.

Like I said, if the desire was truly to show that God has the right to damn anyone he wants I would have thought that the emphasis would have been on the fact that Jacob and his brother were both born depraved and prone to sin. Instead, it is emphasized, on purpose I think instead, that neither one of them had done anything right or wrong when God chose, and they were the exact same in family bloodline. This isolates the point being made for a Jew, but tends to slide by us gentiles.

It's no big deal. Election of individuals is still true, but as more study is being done about what the Jews of the day believed I think Calvinists would be wise not to camp on Romans 9 as the definitive text for individual election.

 

[kyredneck]

It's no big deal. Election of individuals is still true

It must be a big deal with you, or you wouldn't go so far to somehow in your mind negate it or soften it or make it more palatable or acceptable by forcing the bulk of Romans 9 to apply to 'Jews only' when the text clearly states, 'not from the Jews only', and I'm sure God is happy that individual election meets your approval.

You're common, Dave. Your objections are common.

 

[kyredneck]

@DaveXR650

Do you believe God had a people among the Gentiles during the Old Covenant?

 

[DaveXR650]

It must be a big deal with you, or you wouldn't go so far to somehow in your mind negate it or soften it or make it more palatable or acceptable by forcing the bulk of Romans 9 to apply to 'Jews only' when the text clearly states, 'not from the Jews only', and I'm sure God is happy that individual election meets your approval.

You must have some kind of a comprehension problem or you are being deliberately obtuse. It's addressed to the Jews, specifically. What is said to them is in regards to the fact that salvation is not for Jews only, but also gentiles, and for all of us, by faith.

 

[kyredneck]

You must have some kind of a comprehension problem or you are being deliberately obtuse. It's addressed to the Jews, specifically. What is said to them is in regards to the fact that salvation is not for Jews only, but also gentiles, and for all of us, by faith.

Wrong.

Jews and Gentiles:
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Jews and Gentiles:
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy."

Jews and Gentiles:
" So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth"

Jews and Gentiles:
"Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, [even] us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"

 

[kyredneck]

being deliberately obtuse

Are you deliberately being namby pamby?

I think 'obtuse' is precisely what you need to hear.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Alan. Sometimes I don't know what you are trying to say with the use of quotes from Gill. The ones above I agree with.

O.K.

Hodge even goes into treatment of whether it's God who creates people or "fits" them to be evil, or suffers them to do so, and he explains how this works,

1.) whether it's God who creates people to be evil or "fits" them to be evil

2.) or whether God creates people and suffers them to be evil

and how it is said that in either case God can be said to "cause" the scenario.

it is said that in either case God can be said to "cause" the scenario;

1.) God creates people to be evil or "fits" them to be evil

2.) or God creates people and suffers them to be evil

"Now the Grace of God is His Own, and He may do what He will with it, bestow it on whom He Pleases,

and withhold it from whom he thinks fit, without any impeachment of His Moral Perfections;

"wherefore to leave men without His Grace, and in an incapacity of loving, fearing, and obeying Him,

and to Determine to do so

This is where someone mentioned, "passively", or as it has been often called, "negatively", both of which mean that God has Passively, or Negatively Determined by An Eternal Decree, what?

To choose, purposely, simply to NOT Extend the Mercy and Grace of God to certain souls, that He requires, i.e., loving, fearing, and obeying Him, etc.

It is a negative Determination or negative Decree. They are "left" in their sins, where God sees them.

even though He Determines and approves of these things

loving, fearing, and obeying Him

cannot be contrary to the Perfections of His Nature

...

It is not to be doubted of, that God requires the very devils to love, fear, and obey him;

"they are under obligation to these things, and it is their sin that they do not do them;

"and should they be done by them would be approved of by God:

and yet they are not only in an incapacity to do them, but are all of them: and that for ever, left in this incapacity.

"Now if it will comport with the Moral Perfections of God, to leave the whole body of apostate angels, for ever, in an incapacity of loving, fearing, and obeying Him;

"though He requires these things of them, and they would be grateful to Him if done,

it cannot be contrary to the perfections of His Nature, to leave,

and to Determine to leave, even the greatest part of mankind, and that for ever, in such an incapacity.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is where someone mentioned, "passively", or as it has been often called, "negatively", both of which mean that God has Passively, or Negatively Determined by An Eternal Decree, what?

To choose, purposely, simply to NOT Extend the Mercy and Grace of God to certain souls, that He requires, i.e., loving, fearing, and obeying Him, etc.

It is a negative Determination or negative Decree. They are "left" in their sins, where God sees them.

Right. If you are starting with the idea that 1. The inability to love, fear and obey God is of a moral nature, and due to men following their free will. 2. That therefore all men are really and truly guilty before God.

Because if the above is true, they can be left in a state of damnation which is just according to everything else we have revealed to us about God's nature and sense of justice.

Given the above then, as far as election in general as a teaching I think I would be with you on your post above. Let me explain it this way and you tell me if you agree.
I believe in election and reprobation of individuals. I do not believe that there is a "symmetry" of election and reprobation in God's willingness to save or damn someone. And this is precisely why I object to the way some Calvinists express what is taught in Romans 9. Not only do they demand such a symmetry, which falsely portrays God as showing malice in an arbitrary way, but then after falsely setting up what is happening they warn people reading this not to complain because we are all just clay in the potter's hands.

The fact that we are indeed clay in the potter's hands does not mean that God is equally desirous of and pleased when people go to hell as when they repent and come to Christ. That is why in that same chapter 9 it is repeatedly stated for Jews and gentiles to come by faith. And it's also why I think the message is that Jews should not be offended when God now opens up salvation to the gentiles seeing as how they never had a guarantee that salvation was theirs because of their bloodline.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It is a misrepresentation of the Decree of Reprobation, that God has Ordained that men should not be holy, righteous, kind, and merciful, for want of anything on his part requisite to make them so.

"Since, though by this Decree God has Determined to deny them His Grace to make them so

yet he has not by it Ordained that they should be unholy, unrighteous, unkind, and unmerciful;

God,

"only has Determined to leave them to themselves, and the freedom of their own wills, which issues in their being so,

wherefore their being so, is not to be ascribed to the denial of His Grace,

much less to His Decree to deny it, but to their own wickedness;

...

"nor is His Command, even under the penalty of His severe displeasure, that they be holy, righteous, kind, and merciful, inconsistent with His Leaving them,

or his Determining to leave them in an incapacity of being so;

loving, fearing, and obeying Him

"since, as has been shown, that incapacity is from themselves."

"God's having mercy on one, and hardening another, are according to his sovereign will and pleasure; then another objection rises, up, if so, God has no reason to find fault with men that are hardened in sin, since they are according to his will, and in sinning do but fulfil it, and which no man resists; and this objection is formed in a very pert and sneering manner, and insinuates that God is cruel and acts unreasonably, Romans 9:19,

"to which he answers, by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made;

"and by observing the folly and madness of replying against God, and the absurdity of such a procedure, taken from the consideration of the one being a creature, and the other the Creator, Romans 9:20, and by instancing in the case of the potter, who has power over his clay, to form it in what shape, and for what use he pleases, Romans 9:21, and accommodates this, both to the affair of election and reprobation, and to the business of the latter first, Romans 9:22,

"where he observes the end of God in it to show forth his power and wrath, and describes the subjects of it, which clears him from injustice, and points at the patience of God towards them, which frees him from the charge of cruelty, Romans 9:22, and then proceeds to apply the metaphor before used, to the objects of election styled vessels of mercy, and the end of the Lord to manifest the riches of his glory in them, and the method he takes to bring them to eternal happiness, by preparing them for it by grace, Romans 9:23, which is done in the effectual calling, the objects of which are both Jews and Gentiles, Romans 9:24,

"That it is the will of God that the Gentiles should be called, he proves, Romans 9:25, from some passages in Hosea, Hosea 2:23, and that God had chosen, and so would call some among the Jews, he clearly makes appear, Romans 9:27, from some prophecies of Isaiah, Isaiah 10:22, and then he concludes the chapter by observing the free and distinguishing grace of God, in the calling of the Gentiles, and the justification of them by the righteousness of Christ; that such who were far off from it, and sought not after it, should enjoy it, Romans 9:30, when the Israelites, who were diligent and zealous in seeking after a righteousness to justify them before God, yet did not arrive to one, Romans 9:31,

"the reasons of which are given, Romans 9:32, because it was not the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of Christ received by faith they sought; but a legal one, and by works which can never be attained by sinful men: they sought after a wrong righteousness, and in a wrong way, because they stumbled at Christ, and rejected him and his righteousness;

"and this removes an objection which is suggested in the two preceding verses, that God is unrighteous in calling the Gentiles, who never sought after righteousness, and in rejecting the Jews that followed after one: and that they did stumble at Christ and his righteousness, is no other than what was foretold in Isaiah 8:14, and that whoever believes in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be saved, he suggests is a doctrine agreeably to Isaiah 28:16, which passages are referred to, Romans 9:33."

 

[DaveXR650]

Are you deliberately being namby pamby?

I think 'obtuse' is precisely what you need to hear.

Like I said. The part about Isaac and Jacob and Esau tends to slip by us gentiles and it slipped by you. Even though it is clearly laid out in the first 12 verses or so.

 

[DaveXR650]

"God's having mercy on one, and hardening another, are according to his sovereign will and pleasure; then another objection rises, up, if so, God has no reason to find fault with men that are hardened in sin, since they are according to his will, and in sinning do but fulfil it, and which no man resists; and this objection is formed in a very pert and sneering manner, and insinuates that God is cruel and acts unreasonably, Romans 9:19, to which he answers, by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made;

Alan. This is where you confuse me. Are you quoting someone here or is this your thoughts?

Anyway. Which way do you want it? If like you said earlier, God is merely leaving some to continue in sin and be hardened and rescuing others, then it would be true that people would be objecting in a pert and sneering manner. But what if they are really being offended not by what God is doing, but by what is being claimed God is doing. What if what is going on is that God is leaving some to their own free will and suffering them to continue to provoke God and then finally gives them their just punishments, while others he rescues. The scripture answers the charge with it's own words. God is indeed doing just that and suffering sinners to continue on in increasing sin and hardening, like Pharaoh, but the charge is false that God is arbitrarily "doing" something equally active to damn some and save others. In other words, the charge itself is false because God has done you no evil if you are damned. You earned it and will pay for your own sins.

Some get justice and some get mercy but none get any evil from God that they do not earn. And the use of the potter and the clay is not meant to teach otherwise hence the reminder that it was after a long time enduring the evil of those suffering wrath that it finally comes down on them and the several encouragements for Jew and gentile to come - but come by faith, not expecting favor due to your bloodline or performance.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It's addressed to the Jews, specifically.

My writings interjected within Gill's Romans 9 Introduction, here, in bold black.

While, speaking to the members of the church at Rome, many of whom were Jews, Paul showed them his heart of Christ, as Jesus had over Jerusalem and had wept there, to assure them that they were in his utmost interest, concern, and desire, even though, to much of his audience, to talk to them, "nothing was more disagreeable to them, than to talk of their rejection of God, and the calling of the Gentiles;", however, that The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation are central to Paul's discussion, which he repeatedly uses to teach them, from their own Old Testament.

Bare with me, Gill just lays things out and talks plainer than me;

Gill's Exposition
INTRODUCTION TO Romans 9

After speaking of Justification and Sanctification, in Romans 8, Paul proceeds to treat of Predestination AND Election the source and spring of all the blessings of Grace; he observes how this Distinguishing Act of God's Sovereign Will has taken place, both among Jews and Gentiles.

"The apostle having discoursed of Justification and Sanctification, and of the privileges of justified and sanctified ones, proceeds to treat of Predestination, the source and spring of all the blessings of Grace; and to observe how this Distinguishing Act of God's Sovereign Will has taken place, both among Jews and Gentiles;

"in treating of which, he knew he should go contrary to the sense of his countrymen the Jews, who have a notion that all Israel shall have a part in, or inherit the world to come (q): and that the Gentiles will be forever miserable;

"and nothing was more disagreeable to them, than to talk of their rejection of God, and the calling of the Gentiles;"

"wherefore that it might be manifest, that it was not out of pique and ill will to them, that the apostle said the things hereafter related; he expresses the most cordial affection to them imaginable, and which he introduces in Romans 9:1, by way of appeal to Christ, who knew the truth of what he was about to say, and who could, together with the Spirit of God and his own conscience, testify for him that it was no lie: the thing he appeals for the truth of, is in Romans 9:2,

"that the salvation of the Jews lay near his heart; that it was no pleasure to him to think or speak of their rejection, but was what gave him continual pain and uneasiness: and his great desire for their good is expressed in a very strong and uncommon manner, Romans 9:3,

"the reasons of it are partly the relation they stood in to him, being his brethren and kinsmen; and partly the many privileges they had been favoured with of God; an enumeration of which is given, Romans 9:4,

"and foreseeing an objection, he prevents it, which might be made, that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people that he would be their God, would become void, and the preaching the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect;"

Election and Reprobation shown, by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the Elect of God among them, and those that were not;

"to which he answers by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the elect of God among them, and those that were not;"

"wherefore though the latter were rejected according to the purpose of God, the promise and preaching of the word had their effect in the former, Romans 9:6,"

"and that there was such a distinction, he proves from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, who were both Abraham's seed;"

Election and Reprobation shown by the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, one was a child of promise, and the other a child of the flesh;

"yet one was a child of promise, and the other a child of the flesh, and were emblematical of the children of the promise, and the children of the flesh among that people; Romans 9:7,"

Election and Reprobation shown by Jacob and Esau, where one was in the favour of God, and the other not;

"and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau, who were born of the same parents, and were twins; and yet one was in the favour of God, and the other not;"

"and that this was owing not to works, but to the sovereign Will of God in Election, he proves by observing that this was before good or evil were done by either of them, Romans 9:11,"

"and that this was notified to Rebekah before, Romans 9:12, as appears from a passage in Genesis 25:23,"

"and by another passage in Malachi 1:2, which is cited, Romans 9:13,"

Election and Reprobation shown proving both Election and Reprobation, as being not of the works of men, but of the Will of God;

"then an objection is started, Romans 9:14, that if God loves one, and hates another, both being in equal circumstances, as Jacob and Esau were, he must be guilty of unrighteousness;"

"which he answers and removes, first by a detestation of such a charge against God,"

"and then by producing testimonies out of the books of Moses, proving both Election and Reprobation, as being not of the works of men, but of the will of God;"

Election;

"the former of these he proves, Romans 9:15, from Exodus 33:19,
by which it appears, that the choice of men to salvation is not according to the will of man, but according to the grace and love of God, Romans 9:16,"

and Reprobation;

"the latter he proves by the case of Pharaoh, Romans 9:17, and the Scripture relating to that, Exodus 9:16, and from both testimonies concludes, Romans 9:18."

 

[yc205]

John 6:63-65 - 63. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Maybe the thing with election is that, even though we as humans might not know who's elected, God knows who He elected.
Hence God's Will is for us to preach the Gospel to all nations, and those that God elected, will hear His voice and follow Him.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I do not believe that there is a "symmetry" of election and reprobation in God's willingness to save or damn someone.

Asymmetry in Salvation and Reprobation.

Secondly, note how the text talks of these two vessels. The vessels of wrath were prepared for destruction – it is a passive construction. Although God is implied as the subject of the verb, these vessels were passively prepared for destruction. God does not have to do anything to make sinful humanity worthy of judgment but just leave them to their sin. The world already stands condemned (cf. John 3:18) and the wrath of God remains on him (cf. John 3:36) because we all have sinned (Rom. 3:23).

However, note how the text talks about the vessels of mercy which “He has prepared beforehand for glory”. Here God is the active agent. Unlike the vessels of wrath, God actively prepares the vessels of mercy for glory. Here, God has to actively do something to save people. We saw in Romans 8 that He foreknew them, predestined them, called them, justified them and glorified them. All those were active verbs where God was doing everything.

God stands asymmetrically behind salvation and reprobation.

In respect to the reprobate, scripture shows us that God does not have to tempt anyone to sin because they are tempted from their own evil desires (James 1:13-15), and that He gives them over to their evil desires (cf. Rom. 1:18-32)—takes His hand of grace off, so to speak—and lets them reap their just condemnation. Furthermore, scripture plainly tells us that God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked (see Ezek. 18:32; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:1-4; 2 Pet. 3:9).

However, for those whom He saves, He actively accomplishes their salvation. While they were dead in trespasses, God makes them alive together with Christ and raises them up to be seated with Christ in the heavenly places so that He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace and kindness (cf. Eph. 2:1-7). “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9) Both salvation and faith are the gift of God’s grace so that it precludes all boasting.

 

[kyredneck]

It is referring to two individuals, both Jews, and that is the whole point in a chapter devoted specifically to Jews.

Lol,

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.

 

[DaveXR650]

@kyredneck. Are you actually trying to say that because I said "both Jews" in referring to Jacob and Esau and Pharaoh who is not a Jew is mentioned later that that has some significance? Go for it I guess.
Could it be possible though that when discussing God's sovereignty over bloodline rights to blessing that direct descendent twins of the Patriarch would be the best examples to use, especially if the people being addressed were of the favored lineage; and then when discussing judicial "hardening" it just might be that the person used though not a Jew, was a direct player in the biggest, most known drama in Jewish history and is the most discussed example of the process of hardening in all of scripture, as well as the most powerful man in the world or so he thought - when in actuality, his purpose was just to help God illustrate God's wrath and sovereignty? Nah. You must be right.