They became the remnant on their own, and
he kept them alive.
You might think that that would be implied
in the words, kept for myself.
The problem with that is, it would not
help Paul's argument at all if that's what
he were saying.
Because the question that he's trying to answer
here is not, Are there believing Jews who've
been kept from dying, who've been kept alive?
That's not the question.
The question is, are Israelites believing in being
saved and inheriting the covenant promises?
And it looks like it isn't happening, or
it's not happening on the scale that it
should if God keeps His promises.
Now that, he has to answer in a
different way.
Verse 4, I have kept for myself 7
,000 men.
Does not mean I saw to it that
they stayed alive.
It means I saw to it that they
were faithful.
I saw to it that they believed.
Now that makes Paul's argument work.
That's exactly the point that he draws out
of Elijah's day for his own day.
Just as God kept for Himself a people
believing, just as He saw to it that
there would be 7,000 who believed in
Him, so too today there is a group
chosen by grace.
In other words, the link between Elijah's day
and Paul's day is not historical likelihood, but
divine certitude.
God did it there, and since He has
power and authority and commitment and rights, He
will and He does do it here.
Paul says, I myself am a Jew.
That's the connection that he makes.
So also, there is a remnant chosen by
grace.
The way God did the choosing was by
grace.
That's what we need to think about.
What does it mean that election or God's
choosing of a remnant for Himself is by
grace?
This is huge.
Paul evidently thought the point of it would
be missed at the end of verse 5.
Knowing that it's relevant for history, it's relevant
for your life, it's relevant for how you
pray, how you witness, it's relevant for your
marriage, it's relevant for your faithful obedience of
missions and your sacrifices of love, he now
says, so too at the present time there's
a remnant chosen by grace or there's an
election.
It's according to the election of grace.
And then he adds this, verse 6.
If it is by grace, it is no
longer on the basis of works.
Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.
In other words, Paul is really jealous, really
jealous that we not turn grace into something
else with a wrong understanding of election and
how God preserves a remnant for Himself.
He really is jealous.
That's why he adds that amazing verse 6.
If it is by grace, that is, if
keeping a remnant for myself by election is
by grace, then it's not by works and
otherwise grace wouldn't be grace and I don't
want grace not to be grace and so
I'm telling you this, let grace be grace.
And I wonder if you know what grace
is.
Let's remove a misunderstanding here immediately.
Notice something.
He is not contrasting works and faith, which
he does often.
Romans 3.28, Romans 9.32. Faith is
not mentioned in these verses.
He's not contrasting works and faith.
He's not saying works are the sort of
thing you do that earns God's favor and
faith is the sort of thing you do
that receives God's favor freely.
That's true and not here at all.
Very important.
That's not the point.
What does he contrast?
He contrasts not works and faith but works
and grace.
Verse 6.
If it is by grace, it is no
longer on the basis of works.
Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.
So the contrast is not between two kinds
of human acting.
It's between all human acting and divine human
acting.
That's really important.
Things people do and grace.
That's the contrast here in this text.
And he says, if election, if God's choosing
of people is based on what they do,
grace is no longer grace.
If we provide the decisive act in causing
our election, it is not an election of
grace.
It is a response to our decisive work.
Whatever the thing is, we provide.
Think of it for a moment.
What meaning could it have for election to
be gracious if it depended on our decisive
initiative?
God contemplating in eternity, as it were, waiting
in eternity, wondering, as it were, in eternity,
what will they do with the will that
I have given them?
Waiting, watching.
What possible meaning would gracious election have if
He waited and we decided and determined and
constrained that act of election?
It would be wholly dependent on us.
How could that be called grace?
God would be a responder.
We would determine His action.
And grace would no longer be grace.
Let me try to confirm the trajectory that
we're on here.
Let's go back to Romans 9, because what
he's doing here is reasserting what he said
in Romans 9, 11, and 12.
So it would be good to confirm this
with a more detailed statement of it, which
we saw a couple of years ago in
Romans 9, 11.
What God is doing, or what Paul is
doing here in Romans 9, is describing God's
free choice of Jacob over Esau before they
were born.
And he says this, verse 11 of chapter
9.
Though they were not yet born and had
done nothing, either good or bad, in order
that God's purpose of election might continue, not
because of works, but because of Him who
calls, she was told, the older will serve
the younger.
You see the parallels all over the place,
don't you?
Human works are mentioned and they are contrasted
with free grace in election.
Nothing that they had done, either good or
bad, before they were born, constrained God's choice
of Jacob over Esau.
What does he contrast faith with?
God's calling.