Chapter 16 – Election – Romans 9-11: Paul’s Reasoning in Historical and Theological Context

---

---

A Synopsis of What Paul is Addressing in Romans 9-11

Now, our study of the Old Testament patriarchs and Israel revealed that just because a person was a descendant of Abraham, that is, an Israelite, did not mean they were in a right relationship with God.  Indeed, they came to misunderstand that relationship as a matter of keeping the law, of works of merit, and of privilege as descendants of Abraham.  They failed to perceive what God was doing by way of “promise” as expressed in their election by God. His “purpose in election” was to divest his people of the belief that salvation could be defined, made dependent upon, or realized within the sphere of “the flesh.”  Within the history of the patriarchs, God embedded the fact of his electing or choosing function. That served to demonstrate that Israel as a nation had no exclusive claim upon God or salvation.  God made covenant promises by electing or choosing Isaac and Jacob to safeguard salvation from the encroachment of works of the law and the privileges of being a descendant of Abraham (9:4-5). Rather, salvation was to come by the way of promise, that is, God’s mercy and call, not because of works (9:11). This election guaranteed that the promises would be by grace and come through faith. God would accomplish salvation in Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, not through man seeking his own righteousness. Righteousness could not be attained through the law (10:1-4). The only human response acceptable to God within that plan is faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 10:5-17). God would work salvation in bringing the Messiah onto the scene through his chosen people, Israel. But they rejected him. This raised questions about God’s ability to achieve his intended purposes through Israel (9:6). Israel’s rejection of their Messiah also led to God bringing a partial hardening upon Israel (11:7, 25). And yet, there is a remnant of believing Jews who are described as chosen by grace as contrasted with works (9:27; 11:7-7). Paul uses the example of Pharaoh and the metaphor of the potter and the vessels to show that God is just and fair in both his choosing Isaac and Jacob contrary to social convention (9:9-13) and, at the present time, his judgments upon Israel (9:22). What Paul argues throughout is that God’s ultimate intentions are merciful (9:15-16, 23; 11:30, 32). Israel does not have to remain in unbelief (11:23), and one day “all Israel will be saved” (11:26). Yet Paul understands that Israel’s rejection has brought salvation by faith to the Gentiles (9:20, 30-33). Therefore, just because a person was a Jew, that is, a descendant of Abraham, that did not equate to being a child of the promise (Rom. 9:6-8). Paul distinguishes between election and the gospel (11:28). Election refers to God’s gifts and calling of Abraham and his descendants, Israel (11:28b-29). Presently, they have not fulfilled their calling to bring salvation to the world, but they will in the future (11:26-27). The gospel refers to that message about salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. This message Israel has rejected, and therefore they are “enemies of God.” Yet, God has worked this rejection for the sake of the salvation of the Gentiles (11:28). Paul tells us that the Gentiles were at one time disobedient to God, but they have now received mercy because Israel disobeyed God. But now, the mercy shown to the Gentiles demonstrates to the Jew that they too may now receive mercy (11:30-31). Paul then comes to the following conclusion: “God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all” (11:32). So, what Paul has argued in Romans chapters 9-11 is that God alone decides both the nature and scope of salvation and that Israel must come to accept and believe in God’s Messiah and Savior Jesus Christ. Who then are “the children of the promise?”  Whether Jew or Gentile, for there is no distinction (10:12-13), they are those who acknowledge the one who came as the fulfillment of those promises made to the patriarchs (Rom. 9:9-13), that is, God’s promised One, his Elect One, Jesus (1 Pet. 2:4-6, 9-10; Lu. 9:35, 23:35; Isa. 42:1).  Only those who have faith in Jesus Christ are “the children of the promise.” They are the “children of Abraham” (9:7). They are the “children of God” (9:8). They are whom Paul designates in his epistles as “the elect.”

Note that the issues, questions, and objections Paul addresses and answers in Romans 9-11 have nothing to do with the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. The error Calvinists make is to interpret chapter 9 as teaching us about how God’s unconditional election has predetermined the eternal destiny of every individual. Some people are elected to eternal salvation and all others to eternal damnation. But this interpretation is way off the mark regarding the concerns involved in the text. Paul does not teach, present, or imply the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election anywhere in these chapters. Given the several concerns Paul must counter, as summarized in the synopsis above, that doctrine is not present, nor does it find a place in Paul’s thoughts and arguments with his Jewish interlocutor. These chapters are about the matters outlined in the synopsis. Indeed, a doctrine of unconditional election contradicts the content in these chapters and the message of the “good news” of salvation by faith for everyone that Paul teaches us and testifies to throughout Romans.

---

Introductory Remarks

The Reformed Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 proposes that God has unconditionally elected or predestined some individuals to eternal salvation and all others to eternal damnation.  For the Calvinist, this is the meaning of the phrases ‘God’s purpose in election’ (9:11), ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated’ (9:13), and ‘he has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills’ (9:18). This understanding is supposedly bolstered by the account of Pharaoh (v. 17) and the analogy of the potter and the vessels (vss. 21-23).  God has elected some to reprobation (‘vessels of wrath prepared for destruction’) and others to salvation (‘vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory’) before they were even born ‘and had done nothing either good or bad.’ (v. 11)

To the Calvinist, the questions raised in verses 14 and 19, ‘Is there injustice on God’s part?’ and ‘Why does he still find fault?  For who can resist his will?’ refer to God having chosen some people over others to receive salvation for reasons we cannot fathom, and we ought not inquire into.  If any question is raised as to the justice of the matter or as to why God would do such a thing, the Calvinist’s response is simply, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (v. 20) Such questions are indicative of a proud and non-submissive spirit concerning God’s right to do with each person what he wills concerning their eternal destiny – predestining some to eternal life and all others to eternal damnation.

            But I contend that the above interpretation of Romans 9 amounts to Calvinists imposing their theology on the text rather than gleaning from the text what the author means to tell us.  I also contend that Romans 9 can be responsibly and convincingly interpreted in a non-Calvinistic, non-deterministic, and non-predestinarian fashion. I believe the Calvinist position is hermeneutically flawed.  Here are the reasons why.  They can be placed under two major headings.  The first is “The Old Testament Context and Definition of Election.”  We studied this Old Testament history in a separate section and therefore will not repeat it here. The second hermeneutical principle involves a “Consideration of the Broader and Immediate Contexts.” This contextual principle will be examined in the following sections on Romans 9-11 and the other essays in this chapter in the Table of Contents.  The primary issue is one of interpretive methodology, that is, how one reads and comes to correct conclusions about the meaning of a biblical text.^[1]  To this issue we now turn.

The Hermeneutical Imperative

Before we delve into a study of Romans 9-11, we must emphasize, once again, the hermeneutical principles of coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction when reading and interpreting any text, especially this one.  I have argued on this website the importance of a hermeneutic of coherence, which is just what it means to interpret in context. When an interpreter proposes interpretations that are inconsistent and contradictory to other texts in the immediate vicinity, the epistle as a whole, or the broader canonical context, those interpretations are obviously ignoring these contexts. They simply dismiss the role context plays in guiding us into what the author intended to mean and communicate to his original readers and to us.  But this has allowed Calvinists to present inconsistent and contradictory interpretations between different texts as if they were valid, that is, accurately represented what the author wants to communicate. But interpretive incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction are gross violations of the hermeneutical principle of context.  We presuppose that an author intended to write in one place consistent with what he has written in another. We do not expect him to be inconsistent or contradictory. Hence, these are indicators of a misinterpretation of the text.   I have explained and demonstrated why and how the Calvinists’ hermeneutic of incoherence is the major defeater of Calvinism.

I heartily affirm the words of missionary and biblical scholar H. L. Ellison, who also recognizes the importance of this principle in his book The Mystery of Israel.  Ellison first warns us to be careful to consider the nature of the literature we are examining. This is a sound hermeneutical principle. Attention to the literary genre is crucial.  He points out that in reading Paul’s letters we ought to find coherence between Paul’s earlier writings (e.g., 1 Thessalonians in A.D. 51) and his later writings (e.g., Romans in A. D. 57 and Ephesians in A. D. 60). Ellison states,

“In our task, however, we find ourselves walking a very narrow path between two major dangers.  Paul’s letters, even Romans and Ephesians, are genuine letters.  They are not installments of a great theological work, each part of which ends with ‘To be continued in our next.’  In other words we have no right to interpret one letter by another, except, of course, a second letter by the first.  The meaning of each epistle is self-contained, capable of being understood by its first readers without the aid of those written to other churches. On the other hand the letters were all written by the same man. Unless we can argue for major changes in outlook or development, we must interpret the later letters in conformity with our understanding of the earlier, which means that we must not lightly assume self-contradiction in Paul’s thought.

This principle, applied to our particular problem, means that we must expound Rom. 9-11 as though 1 Thess. 2. 14-16 had never been written; but should our interpretation prove to be in open contradiction to the plain meaning of the earlier passage, we may be confident that we have gone wrong somewhere.  Similarly we should expect that our understanding of Eph. 2. 11-22 will be in harmony with what we have learnt from the passage in Romans.”^[2]

Note Ellison’s warning against self-contradiction and his emphasis on harmony of content. I submit that Calvinists choose to ignore these principles in interpreting this important passage and are therefore led astray from Paul’s line of thought, arguments, and concerns within his own historical and theological context.  Thus, the Calvinist seriously misinterprets Romans 9-11. They are more interested in preserving their traditional Calvinist beliefs than examining whether those beliefs result from interpreting Romans 9-11 according to sound hermeneutical principles.  Therefore, I exhort readers who have not embraced Calvinism but are searching for biblical clarity and resolution to the confusion created by the Calvinists’ misinterpretations of this and other key texts to give careful consideration to the interpretations offered here.  You must adopt sound principles of interpretation in your own study of these texts. One such principle is that of coherence, which is fundamentally synonymous with the indisputable principle of context.

Philip Schaff on the Inadequacy of Calvin’s Interpretation of Romans

In his discussion of Calvin’s theology, historian Philip Schaff gives us numerous examples of the hermeneutical inadequacy of Calvin’s deterministic doctrine of predestination. For instance, he writes,

“Calvin defended the doctrine of predestination in his Institutes, and his polemical writings against Pighius, Bolsec, and Castellio, with consummate skill against all objections, and may be said to have exhausted the subject on his side of the question.  His arguments were chiefly drawn for the Scriptures, especially the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; but he unduly stretched passages which refer to the historical destiny of individuals and nations in this world, into declarations of their eternal fate in the other world; and he undervalued the proper force of opposite passages (such as Ezek. 33:11; 18:23, 32; John 1:29; 3:16; 1 John 2”2; 4:14; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9) by a distinction between the secret and revealed will of God (voluntas arcani and volutas beneplaciti), Which carries an intolerable dualism and contradiction into the divine will of God.”^[3]

Note the inadequacy of Calvin’s solution to the problem of predestination that his erroneous interpretation of Romans 9 created.  That is, the assertion of two wills in God.  God has a secret will that determines all things and a revealed will that requires the opposite assumption, that is, that persons have free will, are responsible for their actions, and will be held culpable by God for their evil actions.  But these evil actions are the very actions God predetermined they would do! The unavoidable conclusion is that Calvin’s interpretation has carried an “intolerable dualism and contradiction into the divine will of God.”  Schaff also states,

“But this distinction overthrows the system which it is intended to support.  A contradiction between intention and expression is fatal to veracity, which is the foundation of human morality, and must be an essential attribute of the Deity.  A man who says the reverse of what he means is called, in plain English, a hypocrite and a liar.”^[4]

Now, we can see that this is a hermeneutical issue. The question is whether interpretations of the text that lead to such problematic conclusions about God’s nature and character can be valid. Are such problems reliable indicators that the text has been misinterpreted? I have argued that they are reliable indicators of misinterpretation. At this point we leave the realm of interpretation or exegesis per se, especially that of proof-texting, and enter the discipline of hermeneutics (i.e., principles of interpretation).  I submit it is an illegitimate and flawed hermeneutic which insists that interpretations that land us in incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions are still valid.  That is not a sound, responsible hermeneutic.  Schaff continues,

“He [Calvin] closes the whole discussion with this sentence: “Now while many arguments are advanced in both sides, let our conclusion be to stand astonished with Paul at so great a mystery; and amidst the clamor of petulant tongues let us not be ashamed to exclaim with him, ‘O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’ For, as Augustine justly contends, it is acting a most perverse part to set up the measure of human justice as the standard by which to measure the justice of God.”

Very true; but how can we judge of God’s justice at all without our own sense of justice, which comes from God?  And how can that be justice in God which is injustice in man, and which God himself condemns as injustice?  A fundamental element in justice is impartiality and equity.”^[5]

Schaff is correct in noting that our sense of justice comes from God and therefore any confusion between what one claims is justice in God and yet injustice in man is a sure sign of misunderstanding the text. Note how Calvin excused the confusion and incoherence that his faulty interpretation created by fleeing to “mystery,” which he supports by quoting Romans 9:20. He, along with Augustine, simply ignores the contradiction they established between God’s justice and what we know of justice. This ignorance is their last resort, for they are intent on maintaining their doctrine of unconditional election or deterministic predestination regardless of how much it calls into question the justice of God. They do not consider that they have misinterpreted Romans 9. We can see how this bears upon the interlocutor’s questions and objections in Romans 9 and how Paul answers them. They are questions and objections about God’s justice (9:14, 18, 19, 21) and fairness (9:19, 22-24; 11:11, 13-24, 32).

So, we can see how hermeneutics is at the foundation of this controversy.  The bottom line is that the Calvinist accepts incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction in his interpretive results.  He does not take these on board as reliable indications of errors in his interpretations. In contrast, the non-Calvinist maintains that coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are necessary elements for discerning valid interpretations.  They are not sufficient elements; that is, an interpretation might meet these criteria but still be mistaken, but as necessary criteria, their absence guarantees that one’s interpretation is wrong-headed.

Hence, we can already declare Calvinism unbiblical and not worthy of belief.  Nevertheless, let us provide an interpretation of Romans 9-11 more in accord with what Paul intended. We’ll start with some key concepts that have bearing on properly interpreting Romans 9-11.

Other Key Concepts for Interpreting Romans 9-11

Israel’s God or the God of Israel?

Jewish scholar the Reverend Dr. Jakob Jocz makes this important observation about the problem Paul is addressing in Romans 9.

“There is a subtle difference between Israel’s God and the God of Israel.  This double genitive expresses two diametrically opposed concepts.  In the first case God is Israel’s property and Israel has an exclusive right to Him; in the second case, Israel is God’s property and He does with him according to His good-pleasure.  Here Israel has no monopoly upon God and does not dictate to Him.  The God of Israel cannot be bribed and has no special favourites; He is Lord and Owner of mankind.”^[6]

This “exclusive right to God,” and the special status and privilege that Israel’s election by God bestowed upon them as “his people,” became a misconception that Israel was laboring under, which Paul needed to address. That misconception was that, as God’s chosen people who lived under God’s covenant in relationship with Israel, they had a legitimate and special claim to God’s favor and expectation of his saving grace.  The problem is they viewed this relationship as excluding all others.  Paul needs to correct this misconception while expounding several related issues which are intertwined and somewhat theologically complex.  Paul must explain Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, raising the question of whether God’s word to Israel has failed (9:6). He must vindicate God’s faithfulness to his word and explain the true nature of being an Israelite, a child of Abraham in the light of the coming of Christ. Jocz explains,

“When we read in the Fourth Gospel that Jesus said: “I am the way” (John 14:6) we must place this statement in the Old Testament context in order to appreciate the import of its meaning.  Thus placed it means that the Messiah is the bride to God – the Mediator in the prophetic and priestly sense.  For this reason Paul could truly say that Christ is the telos of the Law for in him the prophetic and priestly line has come to an end.

The Synagogue’s view points in the opposite direction.  Here man approaches God without mediation though on the basis of the Covenant.  It means that the Synagogue refuses to accept the idea of a broken Covenant which had to be re-constituted. To be a son of Abraham ipso facto means to be a son of the Covenant and thus a child of God.  Here mediation is self-accomplished and is taken for granted by reason of birth.  Atonement therefore has not the radical significance it has in the Church.”^[7] 

This covenant, which God himself established as the means by which Israel was to keep relationship with God, and the privilege it represented as being among the chosen people of God is what is encompassed by Paul’s oft-used summary phrase “works of the Law.”  The Jew rested upon this grace shown to them, which turned into a grace they reserved for themselves alone. We see how these spiritual and historical perceptions come into play in Romans 9-11.

The fact that “Israel is God’s property and He does with him according to His good pleasure” does not entail a Calvinistic exhaustive theistic determinism, nor is it Paul’s purpose to reveal the ontological grounds for every individual’s eternal destiny. A proper understanding of the discussion in Romans 9-11 also helps us perceive divine sovereignty correctly.  Paul must expound on the prerogative of God to harden his specially chosen and privileged people, both for their stubborn rejection of their Messiah, for the purposes of showing mercy to the Gentiles, and for their own restoration and salvation.  For God wants them to be made jealous by his mercy to the Gentiles, and want the salvation the Gentiles now have. Nevertheless, Paul is informing the Jew that God acts not according to Israel’s expectations and misconceptions about what it means to be the privileged, chosen “people of God”, but according to his own nature as merciful and his stated purpose to bring salvation to all people through faith in Christ.  Paul’s task is to clarify the implications of Israel’s election as the people of God, inform them of God’s sovereign prerogative to harden Israel as he hardened Pharaoh, and disclose God’s broader saving purposes, while defending salvation by faith in Christ.  “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring…” (Rom. 9:6,7, ESV) What now defines who are true Israel and who are the true children of Abraham is faith in Christ. That is, those who believe in the way God has brought about salvation according to his “purpose in election.”  That is, as he revealed in the history of Israel with his choice of Isaac and not Ishmael, and Jacob and not Esau.  Salvation would be according to promise, not merely Abrahamic descent. This ultimately shows that salvation is by faith in Christ, not any other way or means. This is what Israel needed to learn.

Without appreciating this context, that is, without penetrating to the deeper theological questions being asked of the relationship between Israel’s special relationship to God in light of the coming of Christ and Israel’s rejection of Christ, we will never follow Paul’s train of thought here and tend to be prone to accept the overly simplistic and incoherent Calvinist interpretation.

Who are “The Jews” and What Does Paul Believe About Them?

      H. L. Ellison draws our attention to 1 Thess. 2:14-16 which is a key early text that gives us insight into Paul’s assessment of the spiritual condition of “the Jews” in his day. Paul writes about the persecution Judean believers suffered.  He then makes an important distinction between Israel and “the Jews.” Here is Ellison’s translation of the text.

       “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God which have come into being in Judea through Christ Jesus.  For you also suffered the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who also killed the Lord, even Jesus, and the prophets, and persecuted us, and do not please God, and are hostile to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles to try and save them, in order to fill up the measure of their sins at all times.  But the Wrath has come upon them eis telos (2. 14-16).”

The Greek words, eis telos, can mean “at last,” “completely,” “forever,” or “to [the] end.”

Ellison then writes,

       “The last two words have been simply transliterated because their meaning has been so hotly debated.  It will be easier to translate them after we have studied what goes before.

       To whom was Paul referring when he wrote of the Jews?  This is not the foolish question some may think it.  The story of the founding of the church in Thessalonica (Acts 17. 1-9) shows that here, as indeed everywhere else on Paul’s journey’s, the Church contained both Jews and Gentiles, though the former were the instigators. So it would seem impossible to make your own compatriots refer to Gentiles only.  It means rather your own townspeople, whether Gentiles or Jews.

       This being so, the Jews cannot mean Jews in general but the Jews of Judea, from whom obviously the churches there had to suffer.  In particular it will refer to the ruling caste in Jerusalem itself.  It would seem then that here we have the first example of a special use of ‘Jew’ which is so common in the fourth gospel.

…Paul, then, was not condemning the Jews in general but the ruling caste in Jerusalem.”^[8]

So “the Jews” is a terminus technicus or technical term for the Jewish leadership opposed to Paul and his gospel message. We find this same technical usage in John’s gospel.  It is important to have this distinction in mind, especially when Paul discusses the rejection of “the Jews” of their Messiah and when referring to “Israel” with different connotations and implications.  Ellison also identifies the cause of the persecution against Paul and the Christians in Judea.

       “Paul’s offence was that he was prepared to regard a Gentile who had accepted his message not merely as a God-fearer, not even as a Jew, but as the superior of a Jew who had not accepted it. In addition he actively discouraged him from becoming a proselyte and keeping the Law…But when the teaching of a crucified Messiah…was interpreted to mean that Gentiles were now the equals and even superiors of Jews it became intolerable.”^[9]

Hence the Sanhedrin, scribes, and Pharisees, informed by the Judaizers (cf. Acts 15; Gal. 2:12, 6:12), became staunch enemies of Paul and his mission. Understanding the historical nature of this opposition is very important. Note that in 1 Thess. 2:16 Paul states that what ‘the Jews’ were doing by their persecution was “in order to fill up the measure of their sins…”  Ellison explains this phraseology.

“This way of putting it is partly the common prophetic device by which the obvious consequence is ironically expressed as a purpose (cf. Jer. 27:15, R.V.).  In light of the somewhat later teaching of Rom. 9-11 we can hardly exclude the thought of a Divine purpose being fulfilled in their actions as well.”^[10]

It is being suggested that God is fulfilling his purposes through the actions of “the Jews” of that day.  We will see in Romans 9-11 what God’s response is to this resistance to the gospel from “the Jews.”

Now, let’s return to 1 Thess. 2:16 and the translation of the phrase “at all times.”  A number of options present themselves.  Ellison surveys these and suggests an interpretation that has important implications for correctly reading Romans 9-11.  He writes,

“There are no grounds at all for either omitting the at all times or ‘always,’ as does Phillips, or weakening it to ‘all this time’ as in the NEB.  Paul is affirming that the actions of the Jewish leaders were merely the continuation of those of their ancestors. After all, this is the only possible construction to be placed on Christ’s words referred to earlier from Matt. 23:29-39.  The importance of grasping this lies in the fact that Paul is not accusing them of killing Jesus in particular and so bringing wrath upon them.  Rather the things he charges them with are merely the inevitable consequences of what had gone before.  Paul heartily agreed with John 12:39, ‘For this cause they could not believe…’”^[11]

I encourage you to read Matt. 23:29-39.  Ellison points out that Paul recognizes how “the Jews” are responding to Jesus, Paul, the apostles, etc., with the same stubborn, stiff-necked rejection of their “fathers” to the “prophets and wise men and scribes” God sent to them throughout their history.  Jesus’ response is found in the key text of John 12:27-50. Having assessed this issue in this early letter to the Thessalonians and having it in mind throughout his positive presentation of the gospel in Romans 1-8, Paul will deal with this problem directly in Romans 9-11.

Regarding the phrase “the Wrath has come upon them,” Ellison’s exegesis is exemplary regarding the grammatical–historical method.  It involves considerations of grammar, non-contradiction, the immediate and broader biblical contexts, the historical context, and the theological flow of thought. To show this will require a longer quote.  The points he makes are crucial for properly understanding the matters Paul will address in Romans 9-11.  He writes,

“The Wrath is, of course, the wrath of God, but it has been virtually personified.  It is the effect of human sin and is revealed by God’s actions (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28). It is essentially ‘the wrath to come’ (1 Thess. 1:10), for it will find its expression in judgment at the end of this age, but it finds its constant expression in the ongoing life of the world.  Here, however, we face the apparent contradiction that what is in its nature eschatological has come upon these Jews to the full; the end-time has broken into the present.  We can hardly avoid this conclusion, for surely the Wrath must be understood in the light of the earlier ‘wrath to come.’ It seems impossible to solve this contradiction by suggesting that the final judgment has come upon and hangs over Jewry from Paul’s day until the end.  Greek has its way of expressing this but Paul did not take advantage of the possibility of so expressing himself…

Paul knew that the destruction of Temple and city foretold by Christ would come in the lifetime of many of those to whom he was writing, and that nothing could prevent it but a radical national repentance that could no longer be expected.

…The simple fact is that the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 belongs to the same class of events as the ‘birth pangs’ of Messiah before His second coming.  Just as in the Old Testament “the day of the Lord’ is not merely the great final eschatological event, when God intervenes in human history in final judgment, but also those earlier judgments that forced men to believe that the final judgment was already beginning, so in the New Testament and the end of the Temple was essentially and eschatological event projected into time…Titus saw to it that not one stone was left upon another. Nebuchadnezzar had been a warning of an end that might be.  Titus made that end a reality.

So Paul looked at Jerusalem, the city that had been Israel’s glory and Israel’s curse at the same time, and saw that it and all that it stood for had reached their end.  The thundercloud of God’s wrath was lowering over the city, and it would not be long before it broke in final fury, sweeping away all that was so inextricably bound up with it.

If this is the meaning of Paul’s words – and I have no reason for doubting it – it is no statement about God’s relation and attitude to Jewry as a whole, either then or now.  It will matter little either how we translate eis telos.  ‘To the uttermost’ (AV, RV), is possible, but probably incorrect; ‘at last (RSV, tx., NEB, mg.) is less likely and hardly fits the context.  Most likely it means ‘for ever’ (RSV, mg.) or ‘for good and all’ (NEB, tx.) This does not mean the end of the Jewish people as a nation, or even as the people of God’s election.  But all that Jerusalem and its rulers had stood for, in the misunderstanding of God’s will, and in the twisting of it, and in the persecution of those who proclaimed it, was going for ever.”^[12]

What bearing does this have on Romans 9-11?  It is precisely Paul’s concern to explain how God is now dealing with these recalcitrant, rebellious Jews who have so misunderstood God’s revelation in Jesus, indeed, to the point of willfully and stubbornly resisting that revelation, while also persecuting those who proclaim the salvation found only in Jesus Christ. Paul has a deep concern for his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” that is, the Israelites (Rom. 9:3-4, ESV). But he will have to firmly inform his fellow Jews of God’s prerogative to demonstrate his patience and to show mercy to others (the Gentiles) on the basis that he alone has established (Christ’s righteousness by faith), and to temporarily harden his people, for the purpose of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles and making them jealous so they may be saved. But we must not get ahead of ourselves.  Let’s follow Paul’s argument in Romans 9.

Paul’s Affirmation of Jewish Privilege in the Midst of Their Rejection of the Gospel

Note that an unbelieving Jew, as a descendant of Abraham, would readily grasp the import of being “chosen” (i.e., “elect”).  He believed he was among “the elect” by virtue of his Jewish heritage as described in the Old Testament.  He considered himself one of God’s “chosen people” due to his physical descent from Abraham.  Being a descendant of Abraham makes a person a Jew or Israelite; that is, it places them into the context of historical, national Israel as one of the elect people of God with all the privileges and blessings accorded to them by God (Rom. 9:4-5). Therefore, Paul speaks of his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3, ESV), or “the children of the flesh” (v. 8), who are “Israelites” (v. 4).  Now, these “Israelites” are indeed privileged by God as his chosen people. Paul affirms this when he writes,

“They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” (Rom. 9:4-5, ESV)

But although “the promises” came through historical Israel (v. 4), mere physical descent from Abraham does not make all Israelites “children of the promise.” Only the “children of the promise” are “the children of God” (9:8).  Who are the children of promise?  They are those who have the faith of their father Abraham.

 “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.  For if it is the adherents of the law wh are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring – not only to the adherents of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations…” (Rom. 4:13-17, ESV)

This dual aspect of Jewish privilege as God’s elect people, and yet their rejection of God’s salvation and righteousness found only in Jesus by faith, comes to the surface throughout Romans before chapter 9. This indicates that what Paul finally and fully deals with in 9-11 is a primary issue on Paul’s mind.  Even while he lays out the case for justification by faith in Jesus in Romans 1-8, he gives indications that the implications of the gospel for the Jews are his constant concern. These concerns are expressed in the following passages. After describing humanity’s sinfulness in Romans 1, Paul writes,

“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, everyone of you who judges…Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?  Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?  But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Rom 2:1, 3-5, ESV)

This “O man” refers to the Jew. It surfaces again in 9:20 when Paul argues for God’s prerogative to show compassion and mercy to whomever he chooses, as he also has the prerogative to harden whomever he chooses for a time to highlight that mercy.  To this hardening, the Jew will protest, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (9:19, ESV) To which Paul, seeing that the original fault for their present hardening lies with their rejection of Jesus, responds, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (9:20, ESV) Paul will go on to talk about how God, as a potter, has the prerogative to form vessels of mercy, while he has “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (i.e., the recalcitrant Jews).

Paul also affirms Jewish privilege in the phrase “the Jew first and also the Greek” (2:9, 10, ESV), while also emphasizing “For God shows no partiality” (2:11, ESV). Paul indicates that the Jew, while he holds a special place in God’s plans and purposes, is not immune to God’s disciplinary actions (i.e., hardening).  Being a Jew, a descendant of Abraham, while the historical and spiritual blessings of God are certainly theirs, nevertheless, they were not given for the purpose of the exclusion of others (i.e., the Gentiles). And those blessings do not protect them from God’s judgments and hardening when such are necessary.  This issue will come to full fruition in these chapters.  But let us continue to show how this concern reveals itself as on Paul’s mind before chapters 9-11.

In chapter 2, Paul introduces the matter of the law, saying, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (2:13, ESV). Then Paul gets specific, saying, “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law…” and contrasts this with, “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law…” (2:14, 17, ESV).  So, Paul is affirming Jewish privilege in having the law, yet he goes on to accuse the Jew of not keeping the law and concludes, “For as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (2:24, ESV)  Paul then critiques circumcision, concluding, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.  But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.  His praise is not from man but from God” (2:28-29, ESV).  The contrasts are clear.  And these truths would be hard for the proud Jew to accept and take to heart.

Now, given these substantial critiques of the Jews who trust in law and circumcision, Paul must walk the fine line of affirming the true value of these as given by God. So, Paul affirms, “For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law…” (2:25, ESV). And then, being more direct in his affirmation of Jewish privilege, which again is on his mind and heart, he asks, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way.  To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (3:1-2, ESV) But what if some Jews were unfaithful, as their history reveals?  Paul asks, “Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!” (3:3, ESV). And now Paul, revealing the attitude and poor reasoning of his Jewish interlocutors, states,

“But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say?  That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?  But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?  And why not do evil that good may come? – as some people slanderously charge us with saying.  Their condemnation is just” (3:5-8, ESV).

So we see the foolishness of this retort of the Jews to Paul’s teaching about righteousness in Christ by faith.  J. B. Phillips expresses well Paul’s flow of thought in this section of 3:1-8.  He translates as follows:

“Is there any advantage then in being one of the chosen people? Does circumcision mean anything? Yes, of course, a great deal in every way. You have only to think of one thing to begin with—it was the Jews to whom God’s messages were entrusted. Some of them were undoubtedly faithless, but what then? Can you imagine that their faithlessness could disturb the faithfulness of God? Of course not! Let us think of God as true, even if every living man be proved a liar. Remember the scripture? ‘That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged’.

But if our wickedness advertises the goodness of God, do we feel that God is being unfair to punish us in return? (I’m using a human tit-for-tat argument.) Not a bit of it! What sort of a person would God be then to judge the world? It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then why should he repay me by judging me a sinner? Similarly, why not do evil that good may be, by contrast all the more conspicuous and valuable? (As a matter of fact, I am reported as urging this very thing, by some slanderously and others quite seriously! But, of course, such an argument is quite properly condemned.)” (Rom. 3:1-8, JBP)

 Hence, this self-justifying reasoning before God will not hold up, even when the Jew claims to be a physical descendant of Abraham, as he will do in Romans 9.  There too, Paul will dismantle this claim by which the Jew seeks special status before God and immunity against God’s sovereign actions against unbelieving Israel. But before this, Paul again hints at the issue to be discussed in 9-11. Having just placed the law and circumcision in their proper context of an inward obedience, something even the Gentiles may demonstrate, although they do not have the law or circumcision (2:14-16, 26-29). So where is Paul going with affirming the advantage of being a Jew and yet critiquing the Jew on the grounds of breaking the law (2:27)?  In 3:9 he asks,

“What then?  Are we Jews any better off?  Not at all.  For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” (3:9, ESV)

So, this has been Paul’s point in chapters 1-3.  He has argued that everyone is a sinner, and that is the case because the law reveals sin. This especially applies to the people of Israel who were given the law by God at Sinai. The Jew lived under the authority and stipulations of this law.  Paul writes,

“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (3:19-20, ESV).

But what hope is there if we are all sinners and are held accountable by God?  Paul, in a magnificent gospel passage, explains the way out from under the law and the condemnation of sin.  In 3:21-30 he writes,

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith inJesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” (Rom. 3:21-30, NIV) 

This is truly a magnificent passage!  It affirms all the truths that we have discussed that refute Calvinism.  That righteousness comes through faith. That there is no such thing as “pre-faith regeneration,” and that faith is not to be equated with meritorious works. That we are justified freely by God’s grace, which refers to the salvation “that came by Jesus Christ,” and not to any irresistible grace fulfilling one’s unconditional election.  Jesus was presented as a “sacrifice of atonement” to be “received by faith” (v. 24). God is just and “justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (v. 26). The “law of works” is pitted against the “law of faith” (v. 27). Paul states, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” (v. 28) And then Paul reasons that this is so when he asks, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” (3:29-30, NIV) There is only one God who has established salvation by faith for both Jews and Gentiles, that is, for everyone!

And yet, Paul does not want to be perceived as overthrowing the law wholesale! Hence, he continues right away by saying, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” (3:31, NIV) Again, Paul is defending the heritage and privilege of the Jew as far as possible.  But since the Jew claims to be a descendant of Abraham, and to have Abraham as his forefather, Paul reasons for justification by faith, as opposed to the law, based on the very experience of Abraham! Abraham proves Paul’s point of justification by faith as opposed to works of the law.  So, Paul asks, “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”(4:1-3, NIV / Gen. 15:6) Paul then drives home the point.

“We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless… Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.” (4:9-14,16. NIV)

And finally,

“The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” (4:23-25, NIV)

In chapter 5 Paul writes that “since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.” (5:1-2, NIV) He states that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (5:8, NIV) Also, “while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (5:10, NIV) Paul goes on to write about the “free gift” of righteousness (5:15, 16, 17) and “those who receive the abundance of grace” (v. 17) and how the one act of Christ’s righteousness “leads to justification and life for all men.” (v. 18, ESV)

Paul’s teaching of this truly “good news” of God’s grace continued to raise questions about “cause and effect.”  That is, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?  By no means! How can we who died to sin live in it?” (6:1-2. ESV)  Paul reasons, “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (6:14, ESV)  But then another question is raised.  “What then?  Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?  By no means!” (6:15, ESV)  Paul’s conclusion is “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (6:23, ESV)

Indeed, this is truly “good news!”  Therefore, as we move into Romans 9, to receive what was “God’s purpose according to election” (9:11, CSB), that is, to bring to pass a special relationship with God in Christ Jesus by grace through faith, Paul will argue that, in this regard, being a descendant of Abraham and its privileges hold no weight.  But it is in light of God’s original purposes for those privileges given to Israel that causes Paul “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart (9:2, ESV). They should have seen those privileges as the expression of God’s love and witness to all nations. From Israel is the Christ according to the flesh (9:5). But Israel failed to be the messenger through which God would send salvation into the whole world.  Paul expresses this in Romans 9:1-5.

“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. ” (9:1-4a, NIV)

What is the problem here?  It is that Israel, for the most part, remains unsaved. Not only that, but they have stubbornly resisted the gospel for themselves and persecuted those proclaiming it to others (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16).  This is what Paul means when he says he could wish himself accursed “for the sake of my people” (9:3). He wants to see his “kinsmen according to the flesh” or those of “his own race, the people of Israel” acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah and be saved by faith in him.

Note that this is not the sentiment of someone who believes in unconditional election or deterministic predestination of a limited number of people to salvation.  If that were Paul’s soteriology, why then this “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart for their salvation?  Those whom God has chosen will be saved, and those he has not chosen cannot be saved. It’s very simple and straightforward.  There is no need for any anxiety over anyone’s salvation. Those who will be saved have been predetermined by God to that salvation.  This soteriology is therefore, of course, not what Paul intends to be teaching us.

A Brief Outline of the Issues Involved in Romans 9-11

It would do us well to state the issues that Paul must deal with in Romans 9-11.  Briefly outlined, they are:

1) The bewildering fact of Israel’s rejection of Jesus, their Messiah.

2) The questions this rejection raises about God’s faithfulness to his word and Israel.

3) God’s prerogative of sovereign activity to do with Israel what Israel thought God would never do to them as his privileged, chosen people, that is, harden them.

4) The justice question given God’s choice of Isaac, not Ishmael, and Jacob, not Esau, which was based not on works but promise.

5) God’s sovereign activity is also an activity of mercy.

6) The fault-finding or responsibility question given God’s sovereign activity of hardening Israel.

7) There is no distinction between Jew and Greek. Salvation is for everyone who believes.

8) God’s extension of mercy to those who are not Israel, that is, the Gentiles.

9) God’s provoking Israel to jealousy in the hope they will believe.

10) That God has consigned everyone – Jew and Gentile – to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all.

11) Paul’s praise for the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God for his plans and purposes for Israel and the Gentiles which he has revealed to Paul and the church.

As we go through Romans 9-11 in detail, we will see that nowhere does Paul expound on a doctrine of unconditional election as Calvinists interpret Romans 9.  Indeed, several points listed above in Paul’s discussion are contrary to such a doctrine. Let’s begin.

Romans 9:4-8 – Privileged Israel and the Two Israels

In Chapter 8, Paul has just finished comforting and assuring believers who are experiencing suffering and persecution that nothing can separate them from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (8:39).  He has told those who love God that he works all things together for their good (8:28).  He also assured them, as God’s elect, the term applied to believers, that they will reach glorification (8:30).  God loves them, therefore, in all their tribulations, they are more than conquerors (8:37). These reflections on God’s care and assurances for those who believe cause him to reflect on the present unsaved condition of his own people Israel.  And Paul has already expressed that he honestly could say that he wished that he could be cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his people Israel (9:1-4a). Paul is especially concerned given the privileges God has granted to Israel as his own elect people. Paul lists them in 9:4-5.

“Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (Rom. 9:4-5, NIV)

Frederic L. Godet, in his commentary on Romans, writes,

“It seems to us, therefore, beyond doubt that Paul here points, as the crown of all the prerogatives granted to Israel, to their having produced for the world the Christ, who now, exalted above all things, is God blessed forever.

…And yet such prerogatives did not exempt the Israelitish nation from the possibility of a rejection.  In the very history of this people so peculiarly blessed there were antecedents fitted to put them on their guard against this terrible danger.  This is the point the apostle brings out in the following passage, vv. 6-13, borrowing from Israelitish history two facts which prove that from the beginning of this people God has proceeded by way of exclusion in regard to an entire portion of the elect race.  Thus, when Isaac alone received the character of the chosen seed, to the exclusion of Ishmael, son of Abraham though he also was, vv. 6-9; and again, when of Isaac’s two sons Jacob was preferred, and his eldest rejected, vv. 10-13.”^[13]

So, Paul explains what God is doing in these two examples (i.e., Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau) at the very beginning of Israel’s history to answer the question raised by Paul’s Jewish interlocutors whether the word of God to Israel has failed of its purposes (9:6). All that God blessed Israel with was supposed to result in their salvation and the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles through them. The accusation was that if what Paul was teaching is true, that is, that these privileges, especially their possession of the law and circumcision, are not the essential matters by which one obtains righteousness before God, then God’s word to Israel has indeed failed. We should note here that Paul’s concerns and the issue involved have nothing to do with a doctrine of unconditional election. The Calvinists would already have read their doctrine into the text at this point of the discussion about Isaac and Jacob. But such an interpretation has nothing to do with the concerns raised by Paul’s fellow Jews, which Paul is compelled to answer. Let’s continue.

In the book “Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique,” edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke, Brian J. Abasciano writes,

“The terrible truth entailed by Paul’s gospel that unbelieving ethnic Israel has not received the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Israel but believing Gentiles have received them calls God’s faithfulness into question, and therefore, Paul’s gospel too for being a message that allegedly demands the conclusion that God is unfaithful.”^[14]

But both Paul and his interlocutors rightly thought that such divine failure could not be the case. Therefore, regarding this issue, Paul responds in 9:6, “It is not as though God’s word had failed.” (NIV) But how so?  Why hasn’t God’s word and work with Israel failed if they have rejected Jesus, their Messiah? Paul explains,

“For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (9:6, NIV)

Now, Paul makes a distinction within the designation “Israel.” One distinction is based on physical descent. Hence, Paul says, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” (9:6, ESV) Phillips translates, “For you cannot count all “Israelites” as the true Israel of God.” (9:6, JBP) Paul adds, “Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.” (9:7, NIV) Phillips has “Nor can all Abraham’s descendants be considered truly children of Abraham.” (9:7, JBP) So, there is a second distinction in the designation “Israel.” It has to do with “the true Israel of God,” or “the children of God” (v. 8), and it is linked to “Abraham’s children” (v. 7). But not all of the descendants of Abraham are “Abraham’s children.” This further distinction among the physical offspring of Abraham refers to something different about them that also makes them “Abraham’s children.” That difference refers to Abraham’s faith. Those who are of the faith of Abraham are the true Israel of God (Rom. chp. 4, esp. 23-25).  Paul then makes things clear,

“In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” (9:8, NIV)

So, not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.  Something other than physical descent is involved here.  And Paul has told us that “it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” Who are these “children of promise?” They are those who see that God alone established Israel, not by physical lineage according to social convention, and not by works (9:9-13), but by virtue of his own promises, election (i.e., choices), and timing. Romans scholar Brian Abasciano writes,

“That is, not all ethnic Israelites/Jews are part of true Israel/the true covenant people of God, the Israel to whom God made his covenant promises.  As Paul made clear in Romans 4 (see esp., vv. 13, 16, and 18), the covenant promise was made to Abraham and his seed.  Paul now clarified 9:6b in the first part of the next verse (v. 7a): “nor [is it] that all [who are his] children are the seed of Abraham, confirming that belonging to the Israel to which God made covenant promises has to do with being the seed of Abraham, and identity that Romans 4 has already established as conditional on faith in Christ.”^[15]

Now, Paul harkens back to Gen. 21:12 where God tells Abraham that “through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” (ESV) It was not through Ishmael, but through Isaac. Isaac was the son promised by God to Abraham and Sarah. These Old Testament promise regarding Isaac are found in Gen. 17:15-22.

“God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”

Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.” (Gen. 17:15-22, NIV)

In Gen. 21:1-3 we read,

“Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore him.” (Gen. 21:1-3, NIV)

And in Gen. 21:12 we have the verse Paul quotes,

“…it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” (Gen. 21:12, NIV)

The CSB translates Rom. 9:7-9 as follows:

“On the contrary, your offspring will be traced through Isaac. That is, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but the children of the promise are considered to be the offspring. For this is the statement of the promise: At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” (Rom. 9:7-9, CSB)

Abasciano states,

“This verse is critical to understanding Romans 9.  It gives the governing principle that refutes the charge that God is unfaithful for (allegedly) breaking his promises to Israel as his covenant people due to rejecting unbelieving ethnic Israel from enjoying the fulfillment of those promises.  The principle is that the covenant people who are heirs to the promises (the children of God) are not defined by ancestry (the children of the flesh) but by promise (the children of the promise).  This is a way of saying that God considers those who believe to be his covenant people; election is based on faith.  From the beginning, God’s promises were not for ethnic Israel based on its character as ethnic Israel but for true, spiritual Israel, those who would believe.”[16]

So, Paul’s point is that God has taken the matter of Israelite privilege out of the hands of his own elect people and has established it on the grounds of promise, that is, based on his own means for becoming “children of God” or “children of promise.” And that means established by promise is faith. The Jew needed to reckon with the fact that within their physical descent from Abraham, God was at one and the same time rejecting en masse the physical descendants of Abraham (i.e., ethnic Israel), while establishing a way of promise by which Abraham’s true offspring would be established (i.e., Isaac and Jacob). His offspring would not be the children of the flesh (i.e., Ishmael and Esau). They have been rejected, not from God’s ultimate salvific purposes, but not as those through whom God would fulfill his purposes of salvation by faith. And the children of the promise – Isaac and Jacob – would bring about Israel through whom God’s salvific purposes would be fulfilled. Abasciano writes,

“But we know from what Paul said previously in Romans (and later for that matter; remember the olive tree of Romans 11) that the seed of Abraham, who are heirs to the covenant promises, are those who are in Christ by faith, whether Jew or Gentile.  The covenant people of God are those who believe in Christ, and covenant membership is granted by faith.  In other words, election is by faith; it is conditional on faith in Christ.  This is in essence what Paul is defending in Romans 9-11 as compatible with God’s faithfulness.”^[17]

Godet adds,

“We must beware of destroying in this place the significant relation between the first and second Israel. The word is used both times collectively, and yet in two different applications. They who are of Israel denote all the members of the nation at a given moment, as descendants of the preceding generation. By the first words: are not Israel, Paul signalizes among the nation taken en masse, thus understood as true Israel, that elect people, that holy remnant, which is constantly spoken of in the O. T., and to which alone the decree of election refers, so that rejection may apply to the mass of those who are of Israel, without compromising the election of the true Israel.

This possibility of rejection for the mass of the people is what is proved by the two following examples. And first, that of Isaac…

…For he is going to speak of the lot of Abraham’s two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.  Both were seed of Abraham: but they did not both for that reason deserve the title of child.  This term, taken absolutely, combines the characteristic of a child of Abraham with that of a child of God; for the subject in question is evidently that of the true members of God’s family.”^[18]

Abasciano reiterates,

“To the allegation that God is unfaithful for not giving the fulfillment of his covenant promises to unbelieving ethnic Israel, Paul replied that God never gave the promises to Israel as defined by physical ancestry but to Israel as defined by God’s promise and God’s call (naming), which, in the context of Romans, refers to those who believe in Christ. That is who is named by God as the seed of Abraham, the new covenant people, and the heirs to the covenant promises.”^[19]

Romans 9:9-13 – The Example of Jacob and Esau

Abasciano writes,

“Romans 9:10-13 adds to v. 9’s support of the principle enunciated in v. 8 (God has not chosen his children by ancestry, but by faith). It provides an even stronger example of the principle by using two brothers (twins) with the same mother and father (Isaac and Ishmael had different mothers). Moreover, it expands the principle by highlighting Jacob’s election as the covenant head to have been before birth and so not constrained by Jacob’s or Esau’s actions. Furthermore, Esau has the natural right as the firstborn to inherit the covenant and its promises.  But God overrode that, sovereignly choosing Jacob rather than Esau as the covenant head in whom the covenant people would be identified.”^[20]

And also,

“God’s unconstrained choice of Jacob shows his right to choose who his people are according to his own good pleasure through his election of the covenant head, which allowed for him to choose Jesus Christ as the head of the new covenant and faith as the condition for union with him.  Faith is the condition of union with Christ and membership in the covenant people. Basing the fulfillment of God’s purpose to bless the world on his sovereign call rather than on works or ancestry facilitates that fulfillment, for it enables God to call his people based on faith rather than works or ancestry and thereby include Gentiles in addition to Jews in the blessings of Abraham.  However, this also entails the heartbreaking rejection of unbelieving ethnic Israel from the covenant.”^[21]

Abasciano notes that the quote from Mal. 1:2-3 “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” is the language of covenantal election and rejection.  It is an example of corporate election which accords with its context in the Old Testament. Paul employs this quote to drive home the principles stated above. Godet makes the following observations regarding this hard saying about Esau.

“As to Esau, let the three following facts be remarked in regard to the hatred of which he is the object: – 1. In speaking of Jacob and Esau, either as men or nations, neither Genesis nor Malachi nor St. Paul have eternal salvation in view; the matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic standpoint, as is proved by the word δουλεύειν, to serve.  2. Esau, though deprived of the promise and the inheritance, nevertheless obtained a blessing and an inheritance for himself and his descendants.  3. The national character inherited from the father of the race is not so impressed on his descendants that they cannot escape it.  As there were in Israel many Edomites, profane hearts, there may also have been, as has been said, many Israelites, many spiritual hearts, in Edom.”^[22]

Paul’s Reasoning Regarding Isaac Not Ishmael / Jacob Not Esau

Godet makes this insightful observation, exposing the weakness in the objections of the Jews to God’s hardening of them given their unbelief.

“The two examples of exclusion, given in the persons of Ishmael and Esau, have served to prove a fact which Israel embraced with their whole heart; God’s right to endow them with privilege at the expense of the Arab (Ishmael) and Edomite (Esau) nations, by assigning to them in the history of redemption the preponderating part to which the right of primogeniture seemed to call those excluded.  Now, if Israel approved the principle of divine liberty which it was followed in a way so strikingly in their favor, how could they repudiate it what it was turned against them?”^[23]

He continues,

“And hence this liberty, thus presented, might appear to degenerate into arbitrariness, and even into injustice.  This gives rise to the objection which he puts in ver. 14, and treats down to ver. 24; this is the second part of this discussion: Does not liberty, such as thou claimest for God in His decrees and election, do violence to His moral character, and especially to His justice?”  It is to this question that vv. 14-18 give answer; the apostle there proves that Scripture recognizes this liberty in God; and as it can ascribe to Him nothing unworthy of Him, it must be admitted that this liberty is indisputable. Then in vv. 19-24 he shows by a figure that the superiority of God to man should impose silence on the proud pretensions of that latter, and he applies this principle to the relation between God and Israel.”^[24]

So, we see Paul’s reasoning here and how it applies to Israel. The Jew will either accept what God showed them from the very beginning of their existence about the way of promise, which is now fulfilled in Jesus and the necessity of faith in him, or they will experience the judgment of God for their unbelief. In addition, as we will see, God is presently hardening unbelieving Israel for his saving purposes for the Gentiles.

The Jews failed to understand the divine purposes of their privileges, that is, God’s establishment of the principle of divine grace, mercy, and promise, and ultimate salvation in Jesus Christ. Paul must now therefore explain why that word of God given in the spiritual and physical history of privileged Israel has not failed in its purpose. Has God failed with Israel in that they now have rejected their Messiah Jesus Christ?  This promise, according to Paul, was patterned by God choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Therefore, it is not the word of God to Israel that failed.  Rather, it is Israel who has spurned the purposes of God for them. They have disregarded their privileged position. Hence, they have entered into divine judgment (i.e., their hardening). Their mistaken confidence in their being descendants of Abraham minus his faith, and their seeking security in their privileged position (e.g., keeping the law and circumcision) minus the promise, would not insulate them from God employing them (9:19-22) for his universal purpose of the salvation of the Gentiles (9:23-26) through his temporary rejection and partial hardening of Israel as a nation because of their unbelief and disobedience (Rom. 11). 

To reiterate, Paul makes an important distinction between the Israelites that are “the children of the flesh” (9:8, cf. v. 3, ESV; NIV, CSB “children by physical descent”; JBP “natural descendants”), and the “children of the promise” (v. 8) These “children of promise” are also Israelites to whom belong the historical privileges listed above.  But Paul also makes it clear that “…not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring” (vss. 6-7, ESV).  The point is that a person becomes one of “the children of God” (v. 8) through God’s way of “promise,” as exemplified in God’s activity of choice, election, or selection right from the beginning of Israel’s history.  So God’s purpose in election is before any of his subsequent dealings with Israel (e.g., the instituting of circumcision and the giving of the law). Paul points out that “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named” (v. 7), and “The older shall serve the younger” (v. 12).  This method of election or selection established the principle that God defines the terms of his relationship with Israel and mankind. The divine definition of that relationship would, of course, be found “in Christ Jesus,” with faith being the means to appropriate to oneself the saving work of Christ on the cross. And according to Rom. 10:18-27, this is something the Jews of Paul’s were fully aware of.

Ellison reminds us,

“Earlier in his letter (2:28, 29), Paul had affirmed that ‘Jew’ should not be used merely as an ethnic or national description.  Now he insists that the mere fact of birth cannot possibly make anyone a member of the people of God.  He expresses it through the phrase Not all who are from Israel are Israel, i.e. ‘Not all descendants of Israel are truly Israel’ (NEB).^[25]

Paul’s point is that this saving relationship with God does not rest upon merely being a descendant of Abraham (which included “the covenants” and “the giving of the law,” 9:4). The righteousness of God, or salvation, would come to people through Jesus Christ by faith.

Given Paul’s reasoning, certain objections from the Jews were brought against him. These are the objections and questions we find raised in 9:14 ff.

Romans 9:14-16 – Objections Regarding Divine Justice and the Moses Account

The text reads,

“What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!” (9:14, NIV)

The CSB has,

“What should we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not!” (9:14, CSB)

Abasciano comments that

“Romans 9:14-18 now supports vv. 10-13 (which join vv. 7-9 in supporting 6b) by addressing an objection to Paul’s demonstration of sovereign divine election in the form of God choosing his people by faith without regard to works or ancestry. The objection is that this would make him unrighteous through violation of his covenant promises to Israel.  How could God not have regard for works or ancestry in light of the Old Testament?  Paul has already answered the objection to a substantial extent through his argumentation in vv. 6-13, but he now expands and strengthens his answer.”^[26]

Godet adds the following comments.

“This opponent is a Jew, who thinks that the sovereign liberty which the apostle ascribes to God, and by which he seeks to justify the rejection of Israel, wrongs the divine character. It must indeed be borne in mind that the Jewish conscience, being developed under the law, was accustomed to consider God’s dealings with man as entirely dependent on human merit or demerit. Man’s doings regulated those of God.”^[27]

Therefore, Paul uses the accounts of God’s dealings with Moses and Pharaoh to emphasize that God, in his character, is merciful. With respect to Moses, out of the whole account in Ex. 33, Paul picks out 19b to quote here in Romans. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” (Ex. 33:19b, Rom.9:15, ESV) The point is that the Jew cannot object to unrighteousness in God when he does not consider merit or ancestry because as Paul has proved, Israel’s existence owes to God first acknowledging the faith of Abraham, not his works or merit, and secondly, working according to the principle of election or promise demonstrated by the birth of Isaac from Sarah by promise, and excluding Ishmael who was born of Hagar and not by promise.  To further the point, Paul recounts the twin sons born of one mother, Rebecca, and their father Isaac; yet, in Gen 25:23, the Lord told her, “the older will serve the younger.” God chose Jacob, not Esau.

So Paul’s argument runs like this. Who from among you Jews can say that there is unrighteousness or injustice in God because he does not take into consideration a person’s works or merits, but establishes his people by his own promise, election, and grace? The very history of you Jews demonstrates that God established you based on the principles of his mercy and compassion. God is free to bestow mercy. It is the principle by which God freely established Israel in the first place.  Verse 16 clearly states Paul’s conclusion: “So then, it does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy.” (9:16, CSB) We are left in the hands of a merciful and compassionate God. Godet writes,

“Ver. 16 enunciates the general principle to be derived from this divine utterance in the particular case of Moses.  When God gives, it is not because a human will (he that willeth) or a human work (he that runneth) lays him under obligation, and forces Him to give, in order not to be unjust by refusing. It is in Himself that initiative and the efficacy are (Him that calleth), whence the gift flows.  He gives not a thing due, but as a fruit of His love; which does not imply that therein He acts arbitrarily.  Such a supposition is excluded, precisely because the giver in question is God, who is wisdom itself, and who thinks nothing good except what is good.  The principle here laid down included God’s right to call the Gentiles to salvation when He should be pleased to grant them this favor.”

But then, God is also free to withhold his mercy when necessary according to his just nature. 

“…We must remain by the example of Moses.  It was neither the wish expressed in his prayer, nor the faithful care which he had taken of Israel in the wilderness, which could merit the favor he asked; and as no man will ever surpass him in respect either of pious willing or holy working, it follows that the rule applied to him is universal.  So it will always be.  Israel, in particular, should understand thereby that it is neither their fixed theocratic necessities, nor the multitude of their ceremonial or moral works, which can convert salvation into a debt contracted toward them by God, and take away from Him the right of rejecting them if He comes to think it good to do so for reasons which He alone appreciates. – But if the words of God to Moses prove that God does not owe His favors to anyone whomsoever, must it also be held that He is free to reject whom he will? Yes.  Scripture ascribes to Him even this right.  Such is the truth following from another saying of God, in reference to the adversary of Moses, Pharaoh.”^[28]

Romans 9:17-18 – Objections Regarding Divine Justice: Pharaoh

Now, if God is free to be merciful and compassionate, he is also free to withhold mercy and compassion, that is, harden persons due to their sin.  That is the point of the example of Pharaoh. I quote from Marvin Richardson Vincent, whose treatment of verses 17 and 18 brings out the accurate meaning of Paul’s words about Pharaoh. Vincent writes,

“(17.) Again, God is vindicated against the charge of injustice by His declaration of the same principle applied to the matter of withholding mercy in the case of Pharaoh. The one statement implies the other. The right to bestow at will implies the right to withhold at will. Thus He says to Pharaoh that He has raised him up in order to show His power through his defeat and destruction.

(18.) Hence the conclusion.  God has the absolute right to dispense or to withhold mercy at pleasure. “He hath mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”  This last statement, on its face, appears to be the assertion of rigid, inexorable predeterminism.  But let it be at once said that Paul commits himself to no such theory.  For to interpret this passage as meaning that God takes deliberate measures to harden any man against holy and gracious influences, so as to encourage him to sin in order that He may show His power in destroying him, is:

1. To ascribe to God the most monstrous cruelty and injustice, according to the standard of His own revealed character and law.
2. To make God the author and promoter of sin.
3. To contradict other declarations of Scripture, as 1 Tim. 2:4; Jas.1:13; 2 Pet. 3:9.
4. To contradict the facts in Pharaoh’s own case, since God gave Pharaoh abundant warning, instruction, and call and inducement to repentance.

The key-note of the discussion must be kept in mind as shaping this particular form of statement.  To repeat: Paul is striking sharply at the assumption of the Jew that God must dispense messianic blessing to him, and must not exclude him, because he is a Jew.  Paul meets this with the bare statement of God’s sovereign right to dispose of men as He will. He does not ignore the efforts which God makes to save men from blindness and hardness of heart, but the attitude of the Jew does not call for the assertion of these; only for the assertion of God’s absolute sovereignty against an insolent and presumptuous claim.

              Bearing this in mind, we are here confronted with a class of facts which we cannot explain – certain arrangements the reasons for which lie back in the sovereign will of God.  Moses was placed under circumstances which promoted his becoming the leader and lawgiver of God’s people. Pharaoh was born to an inheritance of despotic power and inhaled from his birth the traditions of Oriental tyranny. These influences went to harden him against God’s command.  Apparently the circumstances favored Pharaoh’s becoming a cruel tyrant.  Why the difference? We cannot tell. These causes operated according to their natural law.  There was also the operation of psychological and moral law, according to which the indulgence of any evil passion or impulse confirms it and fosters its growth.  Pride begets pride; resistance intensifies obstinacy, encourages presumption, blunts susceptibility to better influences. Again, the penal element entered into the case.  Persistent disobedience and resistance, working their natural result of inflated pride and presumptuous foolhardiness, wrought out a condition of heart which invited and insured judgment. A parallel is found in the first chapter of the epistle, where it is said that the heathen, having a certain revelation of God, refused to improve it; wherefore, as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them us to uncleanness, vile passions, and a reprobate mind. (1:24, 26, 28).

              “It is psychologically impossible that such determined impenitence could be cherished by the monarch, and yet produce no effects in the sensibilities of his heart.  In such necessary working the hand of God must needs be immanent.  When we impersonally say ‘must’ and speak impersonally of ‘necessity’ in reference to the conditions of the human sensibility, we either expressly or implicitly point to the operation of God.  God did harden of old, and still hardens when sin is cherished.” (Morison.)

              And yet the operation of these forces did not exclude moral agency or moral freedom.  No irresistible constraint compelled Pharaoh to yield to this pressure toward evil.  His power of choice was recognized, assumed and appealed to.  He could not plead ignorance, for God instructed him through Moses.  He could not plead doubt of God’s power, for God wrought before his eyes an unexampled series of wonders.  If any “visitings of nature” could have power over him, the misery of his slave population was before his eyes.  Only when all these influences had been repelled, and all opportunities of yielding scornfully rejected, did God have recourse to judgment.  God raised up Pharaoh in order to show his power; but two opposite exhibitions of God’s power in Pharaoh were possible.  If he had yielded, he would have been a co-worker with God in the evolution of the Jewish commonwealth.  God’s power would have been displayed in the prosperity of his kingdom, as it was through the presence of Joseph.  He resisted, and God’s power was terribly manifested in his torment and final destruction.”^[29]

            Godet writes,

              “We must here cite the observation of Bengal, fixing the antithesis Paul has in view, and explaining his words: “The Jews thought that in no case could they be abandoned by God, and in no case could the Gentiles be received by God.”  The apostle breaks the iron circle within which this people claimed to confine the divine conduct toward themselves and the Gentiles, saying: to the Gentiles wrath; to us, the only elect, clemency!”

What is meant by the term hardening, and what leads the apostle to use the expression here? …God, in raising up Pharaoh, foresaw his proud resistance and had in reserve to chastise it afterward by a complete blindness which was to be the means of reaching the desired result. – To harden signifies: to take from a man the sense of the true, the just, and even the useful, so that he is no longer open to the wise admonitions and significant circumstances which should turn him aside from the evil way in which he has entered.

…The word harden cannot signify, in the account Ex. iv. – xiv., anything else, as God’s act, than it signifies as the act of Pharaoh, when it is said that he hardened himself. But what must not be forgotten, and what appears distinctly from the whole narrative, is, that Pharaoh’s hardening was at first his own act. Five times it is said of him that he himself hardened or made heavy his heart (vii. 13, 14, vii. 22, viii. 15, viii., 32, ix. 7; we do not speak here of iv. 21 and vii. 3, which are a prophecy), before the time when it is at last said that God hardened him (ix. 12); and even after that, as if a remnant of liberty still remained to him, it is said for a last time that he hardened himself (ix. 34, 35).”^[30]

Godet continues,

“God’s intention in regard to the Jews was moving on to the display of His wrath and the manifestation of His power. In these expressions there is an evident allusion to the saying of God regarding Pharaoh, as just quoted, ver. 17… “This is because unbelieving Judaism was playing toward the church, at the date of Paul’s writing, exactly the same part as Pharaoh formerly played toward Israel themselves.  As this tyrant sought to crush Israel in its cradle, so Israel was endeavoring to crush the church at its first steps in the world. And hence God’s dealings with Pharaoh must be now reproduced in the judgment of Israel. – The manifestation of wrath refers at once to the doom of destruction which was already suspended over the head of the nation in general, and to the condemnation of all unbelieving Israelites in particular; comp. ii. 5, and the saying of John the Baptist, Matt. iii. 10 and 12.  We might refer the manifestation of God’s power to the mighty efficacy of God’s Spirit creating a new people in Israel from the day of Pentecost onward, and thus preparing the spiritual Israel, which was to replace the carnal Israel when the latter is to be rejected.  But it is to vv. 23 and 24 that this idea belongs; and the allusion to the power displayed in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (ver. 17) leads us rather to apply this expression to the near destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish people by the arm of the Romans, which was to be in this unexampled catastrophe the instrument of God’s wrath and power. – The execution of this destruction, long ago determined and clearly announced by Jesus Himself, God delayed for forty years; that is the long-suffering of which the apostle here speaks…. Is not Paul then right in characterizing God’s dealings with Israel by the words: “Though He was already determined to …He endured with much long-suffering”?^[31]

So, we see from the example of Moses that God’s mercy to him was not based on merit. And from the example of Pharaoh, we learn that because of his willful rebellion against God, he was hardened and judged. God has the prerogative to do either.  Godet points out the same type of hardening in Rom. 1:24, 26, and 28, where it is said of those who reject God that “he gave them up.”  By this, “the apostle expressed God’s judgment on the Gentiles for their refusal to welcome the revelation which He gave of Himself in nature and conscience (I, 24, 26, 28). He [Pharaoh] has rejected salvation for himself; he was free to do so; but he cannot prevent God from now making use of him and of his ruin to advance the salvation of others.  From being the end, he is degraded to the rank of means.  Such was the lot of Pharaoh.”^[32]

At this point we must note that Paul, thus far, has neither taught nor mentioned the Calvinist doctrine of the unconditional election of individuals to salvation. That doctrine can only be read into the text based on a superficial reading of chapter 9, while also ignoring the contradiction such a reading creates with chapters 10 and 11. That will be highlighted below. 

The lesson is becoming clear.  It is directed to the Jews who are objecting to Paul’s understanding of salvation by faith in Christ Jesus because that gospel strikes at the heart of Jewish privilege and their election by God to be the people in special relationship with God. Godet notes that Paul “was combating a determined adversary, Jewish Pharisaism, with its lofty pretentions both in relation to the Gentiles, and relatively to God Himself.  Paul, therefore, only unveils the side of the truth overlooked by this adversary, that of divine liberty.”^[33]  Paul has argued from the very beginning of their own history that their ancestry does not provide the secure relationship with God that they think it does. Their keeping of the law and circumcision does not guarantee their status as the children of God. What makes the Jew a child of Abraham is not being his offspring in the flesh.  What makes a Jew the child of Abraham and the children of God is being a child of the promise, as Paul has summarized for us in the births of Issac and Jacob.  Godet offers a keen observation.

“The Jews did not at all disapprove of this conduct on God’s part as long as it concerned only Pharaoh or the Gentiles; but what they affirmed, in virtue of their divine election, was, that never, and on no condition, could they themselves be the objects of such a judgment.  They restricted the liberty of divine judgment on themselves, as they restricted the liberty of grace toward the Gentiles. Paul in our verse re-establishes both liberties, vindicating God’s sole right to judge whether this or that man possesses the conditions on which He will think fit to show him favor, or those which will make it suitable for Him to punish by hardening him. – Thus understood – and we do not think that either the context of the apostle, or that of the Exodus allows it to be understood otherwise – it offers nothing to shock the conscience; it is entirely of the glory or the divine character, and Hosten has no right to paraphrase or rather to caricature the view of Paul by saying: “God shows grace, pure arbitrariness; God hardens, pure arbitrariness.” ^[34]

Now, the fact that Paul’s Jewish interlocutors are getting Paul’s point, that is, that God is not subject to Israel, but Israel and the Gentiles are subject to God’s mercy, while Israel is also subject to God’s just judgment due to their rejection of Jesus their Messiah, is indicated by their next questions.

Romans 9:19 – The Objection Regarding Divine Fault-Finding

Godet states that regarding the above matter of God’s prerogative to harden whomever he wills, that,

“On this point the adversary can make no reply: he is forced to accept the apostle’s demonstration.  But here is his rejoinder: “Granted! Says he, God has the right to harden me.  But at least let Him not claim to complain of me after having hardened me.”  To this new rejoinder the apostle answers first by a figure, which he will afterwards apply to the case in question.  The figure of the potter…”^[35]

So, Paul’s Jewish interlocutors raise two follow-up questions from Paul’s previous discussion.  Paul relays their dialogue to us.  He writes,

“One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” (9:19, NIV) 

Abasciano translates v. 19 as “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his purpose?’ Here Abasciano reviews similar questions from Paul’s interlocutors that Paul has had to address throughout Romans. These questions and responses repeatedly surface. This shows Paul’s willingness to engage in a question-and-answer type of dialogue with his fellow Jews. Abasciano displays the verses together to show their similarities.

3:5 “But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say?  That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us?”

3:7 “But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?”

9:19 “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his purpose?”

To these we can add the following questions:

3:1-2 “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” (NIV)

But note what Paul says next about the unfaithfulness of the Jew.

3:3-4 “What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
    and prevail when you judge.” (NIV / Ps. 51:4)

So, the unfaithfulness of the Jews does not thwart, upset, or derail God’s faithfulness.  This is what we are reading about in Romans 9-11. God is always true, and he is a righteous judge.  These verses also foreshadow Israel’s hardening in chapters 9-11, and the inclusion of the Gentiles by faith in Jesus.  Another question is raised in 3:9 that strikes at the heart of Jewish privilege and exclusivity. The Jew is included with all mankind in sin. Paul asks,

“What then?  Are we Jews any better off?  No, not at all.  For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” (Rom. 3:9, ESV)

So we see that Paul had the issues he more fully addresses in chapters 9-11 on his mind throughout Romans. They were the issues being presented to him by his fellow kinsmen, and the surface in Romans before chapters 9-11. Now, back to 9:19ff, Abasciano writes,

“After implying that God hardened ethnic Israel to accomplish his purposes of showing his power (in judgment and salvation) and proclaiming his name in all the earth (making his mercy and salvation available to all), the objection now arises, why God still finds fault (with Jews for their sin when he uses it to accomplish his purpose, especially when he has provoked them to hardheartedness with an offensive means of salvation)? The clear implication is that God should not find fault in such circumstances with Jews who reject Christ.”^[36]

Abasciano continues,

            “The second question in 9:19, “For who has resisted his purpose?” (author’s translation), grounds or supports the charge and implies that no one has prevented God’s purpose of showing his power and proclaiming his name, but that it has been accomplished.  The argument is that God should not judge Jews for their sin (rejecting Christ) because God accomplished his purpose through their sin.  He has gotten what he wanted and benefited from Jewish sin. So, what does he have to complain about or to blame them for?  Paul answered this basic objection in 3:6 by pointing out that it undermines God’s role as Judge of the world, and indeed, the very notion of divine judgment. Now, in 9:20-21, Paul will complement that answer by bringing in God’s role as Creator.”^[37]

Romans 9:20-24 – Paul’s Response – The Potter and The Objects (Vessels)

            Paul replied with a sharp rebuke to the objection that God should not judge Jewish sin because he accomplishes his purpose by it: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Rom 9:20a). In other words, who do you think you are!”^[38]  The “O man” and “God” contrast suggests the creature answering back to the Creator. We should not think this rebuke is superficial and is meant to shut down the whole matter and put it to an end.  No. Paul will explain further why this rebuke was appropriate here.

Paul expands on his initial response by asking his interlocutor a series of his own questions in 9:20-24.  He asks,

²⁰ “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’’ (Isa. 29:16 and 45:9)

²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

 ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (NIV)

Note that the ESV uses the term “vessel” in verse 21, instead of “some pottery” (NIV) or “one piece of pottery” (CSB).  In v. 22, the ESV has “vessels of wrath,” and in v. 23 “vessels of mercy,” instead of “objects of his wrath” and “objects of his mercy” in the NIV.  H. H. Rowley comments on this passage.  He writes,

“It may be replied that there are passages in the Bible which suggest that God is arbitrary. There are, for instance, those passages which speak of Him under the metaphor of a potter, making now a vessel of honour, and now a vessel of dishonour, of the same lump of clay, or refashioning the clay at will.  When Jeremiah watched the potter at work he observed that “when the vessel that he was making of the clay was spoilt in the hand of the potter, he made it up again into another vessel, just as it seemed good in the eyes of the potter to do”.^[39] And the prophet found here the message of Yahweh, who said: “Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, as this potter does?  Behold, as clay in the hands of the potter, so are ye in my hands.”  And the Apostle Paul says: “Shall that which is moulded say to the moulder, Why hast thou made me thus? Has not the potter the right to make with his clay of the same lump now a vessel of honour and a vessel of dishonour?”^[40]

But is the potter arbitrary in his work?  Neither Jeremiah nor Paul has in mind an aimless dilettante, working in a casual and haphazard way, turning out vessels according to the chance whim of the moment, but a potter who makes vessels according to some plan, and who uses materials under the control of his purpose.  There are some materials which better suit one type of vessel and some which better suit another, and within each category of materials there are varieties of vessels which can be made.  If the material does not work suitably in one form, the potter may convert it to another, but it is another for which he has some use.  There is nothing morally reprehensible about it.  The vessel that is destroyed is one for which he has no use,^[41]and not one that he has made for the express purpose of destroying it.  Similarly, when God destroys, he destroys because His purpose is not realized, and men are not serviceable to Him, and not because He created in order to destroy.

I have always found it hard to understand why it should be supposed that there is anything morally repugnant in God’s electing one nation for one purpose and another for another, or one man for one purpose and another for another.  It is probably largely because of the notion of election to heaven or hell, which men have introduced into the question.  The vessel of dishonour is thought of as a child of hell.^[42] But this is really irrelevant to the meaning of either the prophet or apostle.^[43] To suppose that a crazy potter, who made vessels with no other thought than that he would afterwards knock them to pieces, is the type and figure of God supremely dishonouring to God. The vessel of dishonour which the potter makes is still something that he wants, and that has a definite use.”^[44]

So, although God desired to show his wrath against Israel, he endured them with much patience and long-suffering (9:22).  He withheld his judgment of Israel “in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy which he has prepared beforehand for glory (9:23, ESV). That is, he withheld his judgment for the sake of bringing salvation to those who would receive Jesus Christ by faith, whether Jew or Gentile.  Abasciano writes,

“The Old Testament background to Paul’s potter/clay metaphor is illuminating, though we only have space to skim some key elements of its deep waters.  Paul quoted from Isa 29:16 as well as alluded to Isa 45:9 and Jer 18:6. All these passages are corporate in their focus.  They all have to do with God’s dealings with Israel as a nation, supporting the corporate focus we have observed in Romans 9.

The Isaiah passages both have to do with objection to God’s chosen means of salvation for his people, which we have already seen that Romans 9 is addressing up to this point… What was the chosen means of salvation to which they objected?  Faith, reliance upon the Lord, which prohibited reliance on other nations for well-being, such as Egypt.

In the context of Isa 45:9, God’s chosen means of salvation to which Israel objected was the deliverer he chose for them.  What was the problem with God’s choice of deliverer?  He was a Gentile king (Cyrus)… Israel’s resistance to God’s choice of a savior for them was, in effect, resistance to God’s plan of salvation for the Gentiles.  The objection Paul is dealing with in Romans 9 is similar to God’s chosen means of salvation (faith in Christ) and his chosen savior (Christ), which opens up covenant membership and its salvation to the Gentiles.

Jeremiah 18:6 and its context is even more striking in its relevance.  It uses the potter/clay imagery to argue for God’s right to judge Israel, and Paul alluded to it in response to an objection that is most directly against God’s right to judge Israel.  Moreover, it depicts God as desiring Israel to repent; the potter/clay metaphor is used to call Israel to repentance (indeed, it is used similarly in the Isaiah passages as well).  Furthermore, it depicts God’s treatment of Israel as strongly conditional.  It is almost as if the passage was meant to counter a Calvinist reading of Romans 9… Indeed, it suggests that the hardening in Romans 9 is reversible, that hardened Jews can become unhardened and believe in Christ.  But that contradicts Calvinistic election as well as the Calvinist conception of hardening in Romans 9 advanced by some leading Calvinist commentators, who hold that the hardening of Romans 9 is normally irreversible and unto damnation.  Our reading coheres with Romans 11’s portrayal of the hardening of Israel, where Paul explained that he tried to win hardened Jews for Christ.”^[45]

So, Paul’s point in the metaphor of the vessels is to state that God has the right to make of Israel what he, in his wisdom, deems appropriate to achieve his purposes for the vessels of mercy. God is long-suffering with Israel, which rightly deserves his wrath.  But he is patient so that those from both Israel and the Gentiles might respond in faith in God’s Son for salvation, just as the vessels of mercy already have believed.  Godet comments,

“…those Jews to whom God extends such marvelous long-suffering are none the less already vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.  The term: vessels of wrath, signifies, according to Lange: “vessels on which wrath falls,: that is to say, which he will break in his wrath. But ver. 21 and the completely parallel passage, 2 Tim. ii. 20, show that the point in question is the use, and consequently the contents of those vessels. The meaning is therefore: all saturated with wrath…to taste all its bitterness themselves…But we find in ii. 4 and authentic explanation from the apostle himself on this subject.  If the Jews are actually ripe for judgment, he says it is not the fault of God, who has faithfully pointed them to repentance and salvation; it is the effect of their own hardening and impenitent heart which has changed the treasures of divine grace into treasures of wrath heaped on them… Paul means to designate the result of the historical development of the people: their present state as being that of full ripeness for divine judgement… It is exactly so with Israel.  The development of their state of perdition begins face to face with the Mosaic and prophetic revelations, whose sanctifying influence they reject; it continues in presence of the appearance and work of Jesus Himslef; and now it reaches its goal with the rejection of the apostolical preaching throughout the whole world.  After such a history this people deserved the judgment of hardening which overtook them (xi. 8-10), more even than Pharaoh.”^[46]

 Yet, Godet adds an observation about the individual which is pertinent within the corporate perspective Paul has adopted throughout.

“It is quite obvious, indeed, that this ripeness of the people for condemnation did not prevent the individual conversion of any of its members, any more than the collective entrance of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God, ver. 27, prevents the unbelief and hardening of individuals among them.  And this is what explains the object of God’s long-suffering toward this people even when ripe for destruction; He wished to allow all those who might yet separate from this mass time to respond to the gospel call (Acts ii. 40).  To the long-suffering of God with the already devoted nation, there is added the merciful work whereby God draws from within it the foreknown believers to form the nucleus of the church (vv. 23, 24).^[47]

Abasciano summarizes this potter and clay (i.e., vessels) section of Romans 9.

“Thus, Paul has interpreted and applied the potter/clay metaphor in relation to the objection to God’s naming of believers as his people, and especially, the objection to his judgment against unbelieving Jews based on his purpose being fulfilled through their sin and his hardening of their hearts through the offensive means of salvation.  These two streams of God’s sovereign plan are two sides of the same coin.  And, of course, God the Creator, Namer, Judge, and Elector has the right to choose who his people are based on any conditions he chooses and to judge those who rebel against him.  Surely he has the right to display his judgment and his mercy.  Unquestionably he has the right to name his people by faith in Christ apart from work or ancestry and to reject even the Jews who refuse to submit to God’s righteousness (cf. 10:4). Objecting to this is like a clay pot objecting to the potter’s molding of it.  It is absurd.”^[48]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Romans 9:25-29 – Paul’s Old Testament Textual Support

Godet writes,

“Here should be placed logically the principal proposition, which is interrogative, but understood, on which rests the two preceding subordinate propositions, beginning with now if, ver. 22, and and if, ver. 23: “And if those Jews, already ripe for perdition, are still borne with by God, who holds His arm ready to strike them and cast them far from Him, and if as to those believers whom He has prepared beforehand He does not confine Himself to take them from Israel, but goes in search of them to the very ends of the earth…will mankind be entitled to find fault with God who thus directs their destinies?  Will the Jewish people in particular be able to reproach God for the way in which He exercises His justice on them, seeing that they have so justly brought this judgment upon them, and for the use which He at the same time makes of His mercy, calling His elect from the whole mass of mankind, without disturbing Himself about the reprobation which Israel is pleased to suspend over one whole part of this mass?… Yea, O Jew, who dost venture to dispute with God, what hast thou to say?” And I ask every reader who has attentively followed this explanation of the apostle’s words, what can be said against the defence of God’s dealings? Do not all the divine perfections concur harmoniously in realizing God’s plan, and has not the freedom of man its legitimate place in the course of history, in perfect harmony with God’s sovereign freedom in His acts of grace as well as in His judgments?

The word of God has not therefore been made of no effect by the fact of the rejection of the Israelitish nation (ver. 6).  For 1^st, the principle of divine selection which controlled the early destinies of the patriarchal family is only realized anew in the distinction between believing Israelites and the carnal and rejected mass (v. 6-13).  2d. God, when making choice of this people to prepare for the salvation of the world, did not abdicate His freedom to reject them on certain conditions, and if He came to think this good; neither did He abdicate His liberty of calling other individuals not belonging to this people, on certain conditions, and if He came to see good reason. And the use which He actually makes of this liberty, in rejecting his obstinately rebellious people while sparing them as long as possible, and even after the greatest crimes, is not tantamount to the annulling of His word (vv. 14-24). But 3d, more remains to be said: this double dispensation of the calling of the Gentiles and of the rejection of Israel is nothing else than the fulfilling of His very word; for it was announced beforehand.  This is what is proved by the third part of this discussion, vv. 25-29.”^[49]

Who announced the fulfilling of God’s word beforehand?  The prophet Hosea did.  Paul supports his previous arguments about Gentile inclusion in the people of God by first quoting Hosea 2:23.

“As it also says in Hosea,

I will call Not My People, My People,
and she who is Unloved, Beloved.

²⁶ And it will be in the place where they were told,
you are not my people,
there they will be called sons of the living God.”  (Hos. 2:23; 1:10, CSB)

Not only that, but Paul adds the words of Isaiah about the rejection of the mass of the people of Israel.

“Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
    only the remnant will be saved.

²⁸ For the Lord will carry out
    his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”(Isa.  10:22,23 (see LXX), NIV)

“It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
    had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
    we would have been like Gomorrah.” (Isa. 1:9, NIV)

Hence, Paul supports both sides of his argument, not only by addressing the objections raised by his Jewish interlocutor throughout Romans 9, but also by quoting the prophets who affirmed the inclusion of the Gentiles as the people of God and affirmed God’s rejection of the majority of Israel.  Romans 9 is about ethnic Israel: the people of God were judged and hardened by God, with only a remnant that will be saved. Yet we are also told that the Gentiles who were “Not My People” would be called “My People,” “Beloved,” and “sons of the living God.”  In these quotes, Paul affirms that what he wrote in Romans 9 was about Israelite judgment and hardening, but also Gentile inclusion in salvation by promise.  Paul affirms this clearly in the next verses.

Romans 9:30-33 – Paul’s Own Summary Statement of His Previous Arguments

If there is any doubt about what Paul intended to communicate in Romans 9, he makes it clear in vv. 30-33.  In verse 30 he asks his own probing question of his interlocutor. He asks, “What then shall we say?”  Or perhaps, “Where have we come to in our debate over these issues?  What is the conclusion of your objections and questions about Israel’s relationship to God and God’s faithfulness to Israel?  And how do the Gentiles fit in?” (9:30) Paul answers his own question because it is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached given the historical facts about Israel, their present rejection of Jesus, and their attempts to thwart the spread of the gospel.  Paul concludes,

“That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹ but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. ³² Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. ³³ As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall,
    and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (9:30-33, NIV / Isa. 8:14; 28:16)

So, Paul speaks of Christ, who for those who will not believe becomes a stone over which they stumble and fall (cf. Isa. 8:15 with Rom. 11:11). The placing of this stone in Zion is God’s doing.  It refers to Jesus, the one the Israelites rejected. But there is also the promise that “the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”  Godet writes,

“Paul can with good reason make it a charge against the Jews that they have not sought righteousness in the way of faith; for he had shown (chap. iv.) by the example of Abraham that this way was already marked out in the O.T.”^[50]      

Romans 9 – Conclusions

Since Romans 9 is such a key chapter for Calvinist who claim it teaches God’s unconditional election of individuals to salvation, all we had to do is present a coherent exegesis of the chapter showing that Paul is addressing matters that concern the Jews about their relationship to God and God’s present actions with Israel and the Gentiles that resulted from Paul’s preaching of the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ Jesus. The key themes and purposes of Romans 9 were those we presented above and had nothing to do with unconditional election. And since this has been accomplished, it becomes obvious that the Calvinist is reading his theology into the text. This doctrine or theology is not what Paul taught or even had in mind. Godet summarizes the chapter as follows,

“What are we to conclude from all this? That the apostle in this chapter, far from vindicating, as is ordinarily thought, the rights of divine election over against human freedom, vindicates, on the contrary, the rights of God’s freedom in regard to His own election relating to Israel.  His decree does not bind Him, as an external law imposed on His will would.  He remains sovereignly free to direct his mode of acting at every moment according to the moral conditions which he meets with in humanity, showing grace when he finds good, even to men who were not in His covenant, rejecting, when he finds good, even men who were embraced in the circle which formed the object of his election. St. Paul did not therefore think of contending in behalf of divine sovereignty against human freedom; he contended for God’s freedom in opposition to the chains which men sought to lay on him in the name of His own election.  We have here a treatise not for, but against unconditional election.”^[51]

Godet is right. Romans 9, correctly interpreted, refutes the doctrine of unconditional election. Paul writes nothing about particular elect individuals being predestined for salvation. Rather, the chapter grapples with a defense of God’s actions concerning Israel and the Gentiles. Concerning Israel: hardening and judgment. One has only to read the gospels to observe the stubborn, willful, and hateful response of the Jewish leadership towards Jesus.  And the book of Acts continues those attitudes of animosity, which include active persecution of Paul and his companions as they sought to proclaim and teach the gospel to both Jew and Gentile. Thus Paul, who once also persecuted Christians, had first-hand experience with this Jewish rejection and physical abuse of believers in Jesus. Concerning the Gentiles: mercy extended to those who were once disobedient. The conclusion: “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (9:32, ESV). Again, Godet is correct. “We have here a treatise not for, but against unconditional election.”

Is it any wonder that Paul realized that God was within his rights to judge and harden the Jews, even though they were his own chosen people? But even more amazing is Paul’s compassion and desire for the salvation of his “kinsmen according to the flesh” expressed in 9:1-3 and 10:1. And right from the beginning of Romans 9 we see that Paul will make a distinction between Israel in the flesh and the Israel of promise.  And this will be the argument that will thwart the Jews’ insistence that because they are descendants of Abraham, God must be faithful to his word to retain their special place in relationship to him and his purposes for them. As the Jew saw it, Paul’s theology of salvation in Jesus Christ by faith subverted their position as God’s elect.  But Paul had to show them that this heritage, although of great value, was of no avail without acknowledging and believing in God’s saving work in Jesus Christ. This is why Paul could rightly employ the term “elect,” once unique to Israel, to now refer to believers in Jesus.

It might be said that the whole point of Romans 9 rests on a firm grasp and appreciation of the fact that it was God himself who chose Isaac, not Ishmael and Jacob, not Esau, to bring into existence a nation – Israel – to be his special people for the purpose of revealing himself to them and the world, and to play the essential historical role in God’s plan to save mankind in Christ Jesus. As such, their unbelief and their rejection of their Messiah needed an explanation, for the Jew was raising several questions and objections to the situation they found themselves in, especially given Paul’s gospel message.  Therefore, Paul teases out that explanation, which has nothing to do with unconditional election.  Rather, he focuses on the beginnings of Israel to show that God acted by way of promise, not according to their Abrahamic ancestry in the flesh or keeping the law and the ceremony of circumcision.  God’s choice of Isaac, who was the child of promise through Sarah, eliminated Ishmael, the child of the flesh through Hagar. Moreover, this time, from one mother, Rebecca, God told her that “the older will serve the younger.”  That is, Esau would serve Jacob as the child of promise. This was decided by God before the boys were born and had done nothing either good or bad to show that it is God who determines who are the true children of God, that is, the true Israel.  They are the children of promise.  This prerogative of God’s election did not refer to the eternal destiny or salvation of Ishmael and Esau. This was a matter of through whom the Messiah would come. But this prerogative of God also allowed him to justly harden his own people, that is, ethnic Israel, for even as they were formed by his own choosing and mercy, they could not argue that God was unjust or beholden to them based on ancestry or merit when they were formed with no regard to either.  So, God justly hardened Israel due to their rejection of Jesus, the gospel message, and for the purpose of showing mercy to the Gentiles.

In all this, Paul discerns a purpose in God’s election (9:11, ESV). It begins with his choice of Isaac and then Jacob. God’s dealings in the Old Testament with Israel demonstrate his election and his mercy.  Paul’s example of God’s words to Moses demonstrated that it was God’s prerogative to whom he would show mercy. This is to point out that it was his prerogative to show mercy to the Gentiles. In the Exodus from Egypt, God showed mercy to his people, Israel, intending that through them the world would be introduced to God’s mercy in Christ (Rom. 10:12-13, 11:32). Israel was to have done this willingly and joyfully, but they chose to be stubborn and rebellious. Nevertheless, they would fulfill God’s role for them. So, like Pharaoh, who was also stubborn and rebellious, Paul gives Israel the lesson that it is also God’s prerogative to harden whom he wills (9:18). Thus, Paul’s example of God’s hardening of Pharaoh depicts God’s hardening of Israel.  So, in that they rejected Jesus, their Messiah, Paul then argues that God, although he sought to bring upon Israel his wrath (1 Thess. 2:13-16) as “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” was long-suffering with them for the sake of the salvation of the Gentiles. Hosea clearly predicts this, while Isaiah confirms Israel’s hardening, although a “remnant” of them will be saved, not by works but by God’s grace, meaning faith in that which God did in Christ. Paul then sums up all that he has said in Romans 9 in verses 30-33. J. B. Phillips expresses it well.

“Just as in the past you [Gentiles] were disobedient to God but have found that mercy which might have been theirs [Israel’s] but for their disobedience, so they, who at the present moment are disobedient, will eventually share the mercy which has been extended to you. God has all men penned together in the prison of disobedience, that he may have mercy upon them all. Frankly, I stand amazed at the unfathomable complexity of God’s wisdom and God’s knowledge. How could man ever understand his reasons for action, or explain his methods of working?” (9:30-33, JBP)

If you have tried to follow Paul’s reasoning throughout chapters 9-11 about God’s purpose and involvement with his people Israel and the Gentiles and the interrelationship between these three, you too will stand in awe of the means by which God has accomplished both mercy and judgment. Hence, God is sovereign even with his elect people, but obviously not in a deterministic way.  Contrary to Calvinism, God did not determine Israel’s stubbornness.  If he did, it would be nonsense for him to harden and judge them for it, which was an objection the Jews hoped would convince Paul of their special status before God, and freedom from condemnation, except that Paul had to point out their sin of unbelief in their rejection of Jesus.

A Word About Divine Foreknowledge

Here we can say something about Paul’s understanding of how God sovereignly interacts with people as free agents. Paul mentions foreknowledge in 8:29 and 11:2. Godet’s comments are helpful here.  He writes,

“As to the speculative question of the relation between God’s eternal plan and the freedom of human determinations, it seems to me probable that Paul resolved it, so far as he was himself concerned, by means of the fact affirmed by him of divine foreknowledge. He himself puts us on this way, viii. 29, 30, by making foreknowledge the basis of predestination. As a general, who is in full acquaintance with the plans of campaign adopted by the opposing general, would organize his own in keeping with this certain prevision, and would find means of turning all the marches and countermarches of his adversary to the success of his designs; so God, after fixing the supreme end, employs the free human actions, which He contemplates from the depths of His eternity, as factors to which He assigns a part, and which He makes so many means in the realization of His eternal design.  Undoubtedly Paul did not think here of resolving the speculative question, for that did not enter into his task as an apostle; but his treatment furnishes us by the way with the necessary elements to convince us that if he had meant to do so, it would have been in this direction he would have guided our thoughts.”^[52] 

The Corporate Nature of Romans 9

We should also be reminded of the corporate nature of the discussion throughout chapter 9.  H. L. Ellison writes,

“It should be clear that in these chapters Paul is not particularly concerned with the question why this Jew or that had not accepted Jesus as the Messiah.  After all, the Old Testament has cases enough of Israelites who turned their backs on God.  It is questionable whether Jews have ever believed that the mere fact of Jewish birth was sufficient to give a man his standing before God in the world to come…

Paul’s concern is why Israel, the people created by God to be the channel through which He could communicate Himself to the world and finally come into the world, should as a corporate body have rejected its Messiah.

…To say that the Jews rejected Christ is not to pass any judgment on the majority of the people.  It merely states that the ‘establishment,’ all those institutions that had any claim to represent the people, did so.

…we can and must affirm that Jewry rejected Christ because the majority of Jewry affirmed the rejection by the rejection of the Apostolic message. In so saying we do not pass any condemnation on the attitude of any particular individual…It is this failure of Israel, rather than any particular Israelite, that occupies Paul’s thoughts at first; so in his discussion on predestination he is not looking at the eternal destiny of the individual but at the manner in which God’s purposes are worked out in this world by the individual or people of his choosing.”^[53]

Furthermore, we see the true nature of divine sovereignty in the objections, arguments, and historical events referenced in Romans 9.  Paul speaks about God’s freedom of activity in the midst of his use of the free agency of persons for service (i.e., Moses and Pharaoh) and groups (i.e., Israel, the Gentiles) for his ultimate purposes. We do not see here a static divine determinism in which everything has been planned and caused by God, right down to the minutest details, including everyone’s eternal destiny.  I hope you can see that the Calvinist’s interpretation of Romans 9, which they claim teaches unconditional election, never entered Paul’s discussion because it never entered Paul’s mind. It is a Calvin-centric and anti-gospel reading of these chapters.

Brian Abasciano summarizes well what Paul wanted to communicate in Romans 9.  He writes,

“…our exegesis of Romans 9 has found it to reflect a corporate and conditional election based on faith.  At issue in the chapter is the most pressing objection to Paul’s gospel of justification by faith, that it would make God unfaithful to his promises to Israel due to it exclusion of unbelieving Jews from the covenant people.  Paul argued that according to this gospel God is faithful to his promises to Israel (v. 6a) because the promises were made to the seed of Abraham/the children of the promise, which God names/identifies by faith, rather than to physical Israel or based on works or ancestry (vv. 6b-13, esp. v. 8), with scriptural support provided throughout. Election by faith apart from works or ancestry is ironically the way God fulfills his covenant promise – the promise to bless the world through Abraham – because it enables both Jews and Gentiles to be part of the new covenant and share in its promises/blessings (vv. 11-12), though it excludes Jews who refuse to believe.”^[54]    

Godet tells us why the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 fails.  He states,

“…it is forgotten that the apostle does not think for a moment of speculating in a general way on the relationship between human freedom and divine sovereignty, and that he is occupied solely with showing the harmony between the particular fact of the rejection of the Jews and the promises relating to their election.  Then it would be impossible, if he really held this point of view, to acquit him of the charge of self-contradiction in all those sayings of his which assume – 1^st. Man’s entire freedom in the acceptance or rejection of salvation (ii, 4, 6-10, vi. 12, 13); 2d. The possibility of one converted falling from the state of grace through want of vigilance or faithfulness (viii, 13; 1 Cor. X. 1-12; Gal. v. 4; Col. i. 23, a passage where he says expressly: “if at least ye persevere”). Comp. also the words of Jesus Himself, John v. 40: “But ye will not come to me;” Matt. xxiii. 37: “How often would I…but ye would not.”  Finally, throughout the whole chapter which immediately follows, as well as in the four verses we have just expounded, vv. 30-33, the decree of the rejection of the Jews is explained, not by the impenetrable mystery of the divine will, but by the haughty tenacity with which the Jews, not withstanding all God’s warnings, affected to establish their own righteousness and perpetuate their purely temporary prerogative.”^[55]

The Hermeneutical Principles of Coherence and Non-Contradiction

Let’s not overlook the hermeneutical principle that Godet mentions above and that I have affirmed repeatedly on this site, which divides the Calvinist interpretations from the non-Calvinist interpretations.  Godet says that Paul could not be affirming or teaching the determinist doctrine of Calvinism because “it would be impossible, if he really held this point of view, to acquit him of the charge of self-contradiction…”  In other words, if Paul really held the Calvinist point of view in Romans 9, as Calvinists claim he does, then Paul would be rightly accused of contradicting himself given all the other texts in which he affirms free agency, a non-deterministic worldview, and the gospel message. Some of those passages are cited in Godet’s quote. The Calvinists, of course, ignore the incoherence and contradictions their interpretations generate with other clear texts of Scripture that speak of human freedom and responsibility.  I have called this Calvinist approach a hermeneutic of incoherence.  In contrast, the non-Calvinist holds to a hermeneutic of coherence.  For the non-Calvinist, consistency, coherence, and non-contradiction are necessary in a responsible hermeneutic that leads to responsible interpretations.  I have labeled these diametrically opposite hermeneutical approaches the hermeneutical divide. This divide is the essential flaw in Calvinist interpretation that perpetuates this controversy and the Calvinist’s heretical soteriology.

So why have I provided this extended treatment of this text.  It is to show that the non-Calvinist has a coherent exegesis of the text while the Calvinist does not.  So, can exegesis, in and of itself, solve this controversy?  Not unless the exegesis is further evaluated according to a hermeneutic of coherence. As long as Calvinists are allowed to read and interpret the controverted texts as incoherent, inconsistent, and in contradiction with each other and other biblical texts, then Calvinists will continue to propagate their erroneous doctrines.

The Calvinist’s exegesis and interpretation is incoherent, inconsistent, and in contradiction with what Paul has stated about the nature of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ for all persons throughout Romans. We have seen that in Romans 9 Paul goes in-depth into a concern that he has had on his agenda throughout Romans 1-8, that is, how to explain the Jew’s rejection of Jesus and how to respond to the objections of the Jews given God’s prerogative to show mercy to the Gentiles while hardening the Jews, even though they are God’s elect or chosen people. Given Paul’s gospel and the divine privileges granted to Israel, and Israel’s rejection of Jesus, the primary question that needed to be answered is, “Has the word of God to Israel failed?”  If Paul is right about righteousness by faith in Christ, if God has bestowed such privileges upon Israel as his people and they have rejected the Messiah whose presence was the purpose of their calling, then hasn’t God’s historical creation, blessing, and revelation to Israel failed? And if God has now established righteousness in Christ Jesus, isn’t he being unfaithful to Israel whose righteousness is found in the law and the rite of circumcision as descendants of Abraham? Paul rebuts this by his thesis that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.  He goes back to the very beginning of Israel’s history to show that God demonstrated that the children of God are not the children of the flesh but the children of promise. Paul wanted to prove that God has the prerogative to establish his people, not on the grounds of ancestry, keeping the law, or ceremonial circumcision, but showing mercy to whomever he wants to show mercy. In this, God could include the Gentiles as “the people of God.” But the corollary was also true. God could harden whomever he wants to harden.  And since Israel rejected God’s mercy in Christ and by persecuting those preaching the gospel, God hardened Israel. The Jews further objections in 9:14 and 19 are addressed by Paul in the historical example of Pharaoh and the potter and the vessels. Both depict God’s response of judgment and hardening upon Israel for their rejection of God’s salvation in Jesus Christ.

Note that all this has nothing to do with the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election or predestination. Furthermore, the Calvinist’s interpretation of Romans 9 is wrong because it stands in contradiction to Paul’s gospel message in chapter 10, and that Paul holds out the possibility of grafting the unbelieving Jews back into the olive tree if they do not continue in their unbelief. The Calvinists’ contradiction here is that they say these hardened souls are the very reprobate from chapter 9 who cannot be saved because they are not among the elect.  So, the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 stands in direct conflict with the immediate context of chapters 10 and 11. To these chapters we now turn.

Moving Past Romans 9: The Context and Teaching of Chapter 10

The Calvinist position is flawed in that it does not sufficiently incorporate the broader context into its interpretation of Romans 9.  If one takes care to interpret Romans 9 considering Paul’s flow of thought through chapters 10 and 11, it becomes obvious that Paul is not referring to the unconditional election of individuals to salvation in chapter 9.  To discern Paul’s flow of thought in the broader context is an important principle of sound interpretation. Calvinists are notorious for neglecting this principle. They avoid this principle by offering proof-texts from chapter 9 that make it appear as if Paul is teaching their traditional doctrines.  It must be carefully noted that the same Paul that wrote Romans 9:11-24 wrote Romans 9:30 through chapter 11.

Whereas in chapter 9 Paul was not elaborating on individual salvation, in Romans chapters 10 and 11 Paul clearly speaks about the way of salvation for the individual. And yet, Paul shifts back and forth from referring to the individual to the corporate references of Israel and the Gentiles. Moreover, a careful reading shows that these chapters conflict with the Calvinists’ explanation of unconditional election and predestination as referring to individual salvation in Romans 9:6ff.  We have seen that the Calvinists’ interpretation of Romans 9 is wrong. This is because Paul is not expounding on the process of individual salvation in Romans 9. Rather, Paul is wrestling with how it is that Israel, God’s very own elect people, are unbelieving and have rejected Christ, their Messiah. He is also explaining God’s present hardening of Israel for a time, what this means for them as the elect people of God, and how God has worked historically with Israel and the Gentiles to bring salvation to all.

Good interpretation requires that we seek the author’s intent by understanding his statements within the larger context.  In that we can expect that Paul is not purposefully contradicting himself, the better interpretation is one that best harmonizes the perspective of all three chapters – 9, 10, and 11. The following verses clearly reveal that the Calvinist interpretation of chapter 9 is inconsistent with Paul’s theology of salvation in chapters 10 and 11.  Therefore, Paul was not speaking about individual salvation in Romans 9, except for this last prophetic reference in 9:33.

9:33 “…whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (ESV)

Note that even this is a broad reference to “whoever believes,” testifying to the universal scope of salvation. Anyone can be saved by believing. The scope of God’s saving grace and the potential for salvation are clearly stated by the word ‘whoever.’ The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election contradicts the universal scope of salvation according to Paul’s gospel.

Romans 10:1-3 – Paul’s Desire and Prayer for the Salvation of Israel

As Paul previously expressed his burden for the salvation of his fellow Israelites in 9:1-3, here too, at the very beginning of chapter 10, Paul states his desire for the salvation of Israel.

10:1 “Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.”

This passionate expression of desire for the salvation of his fellow Israelites is inconsistent with Calvinist unconditional election. For one to have a heart’s desire and make it their prayer “that they may be saved” speaks of an open issue regarding all the Israelites.  Limitation and exclusion are not in Paul’s mind or part of his soteriology. Although he requests God’s intervention, even this does not cohere with unconditional election. This expression of passion is not indicative of one who is confident that the Lord has his elect who will certainly be saved, and that all others cannot be saved. If one’s ontological salvific status cannot be altered, as in unconditional election, what is Paul praying for?  Rather, Paul’s prayer is that they may be saved, which presupposes that the Israelites, without exception, can be saved. The statement indicates the potential for salvation based on the response of faith. Faith, as Paul makes clear throughout Romans and his other epistles, is not only essential to salvation, but is also the responsibility of the individual. The person themselves must believe.  That Paul prays to God for Israel to be saved confirms that in Paul’s mind God has not fixed anyone’s eternal destiny.  Petitionary prayer presupposes a non-deterministic theology and reality.  Prayer would be incoherent given an eternal, immutable decree of God that has preordained “whatsoever comes to pass.”  As much as Calvinists will aver that prayer is for our benefit, petitionary prayer is a certain type that must encompass more than self-benefit by its very nature as petitionary.  The word “petition” is rendered meaningless if this type of prayer is simply “for our own benefit.” Paul’s passion for the Israelites is genuine and can only have substantive meaning in a non-determined context. Let’s move further into chapter 10.

10:2-3 “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. ³ Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.” (NIV)

Paul clearly faults the Israelites for seeking to establish their own righteousness and their lack of submission to what God was revealing to them in Christ. The Reformed doctrine that God preordained and decreed this lack of submission does not accurately account for Paul’s words, “they did not submit,” and would have God acting at odds with himself, for clearly this is something presented as the response that God himself did not desire from his people to his saving work in Christ.

Romans 10:4 – Righteousness for Everyone Who Believes

10:4 “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” (NIV)

Note that Paul says the person and work of Christ is the culmination, fulfillment, or goal of the law. It has reached its end in Jesus.  Therefore, righteousness, which was never tied to the law, is for “…everyone who believes.”  These words speak of the scope of God’s saving work and the simplicity of access to the salvation so graciously provided. Now, righteousness, or being justified, is for “everyone who believes.”  It comes to those who have faith in Jesus. This corrects Israel, who sought to establish their own righteousness through the law as if it were based on works. It also corrects Calvinists. There is nothing secret here. There are no restrictions here about who can and cannot believe and be saved. Salvation is by faith, so it can be for all persons – both Jew and Gentile.

Romans 10:5-13 – The Gospel Message of Individual Salvation

Now Paul will continue to expand on the gospel message.  Here he moves into speaking about how salvation is to be individually received.  In 10:5-7 he makes the point that there is a righteousness that is by the law which cannot be lived out, and a “righteousness that is by faith” (NIV) or “the righteousness based on faith.” (ESV).  Paul also says, “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim…”  And what is that message?  Paul makes it perfectly clear.  He states,

“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (10:9-13, NIV)

The universal scope of the gospel is clearly stated here. Paul’s gospel is truly “good news: supported by the Old Testament references of Isa. 28:16 and Joel 2:32. Godet comments on these verses.

“Salvation being free, there is no longer any restriction to its application: it is necessarily universal. It is this logical consequence which the apostle expounds (ver. 12), and which he confirms (ver. 13) by a new Scripture passage. – What formed the separation between the two fractions of mankind, the Jews and the Greeks, was the law (Eph. ii. 14, the partition wall). This wall once broken down (as has just been proved) by the work of the Messiah, mankind no longer form more than a single social body, and has throughout the same Lord, and a Lord rich enough to communicate the blessings of salvation to this whole multitude on one single condition: the invocation of faith. Israel had never imagined anything like this; and yet it was so clearly announced, as is proved by ver. 13.

…The true profession of faith is, in fact, this cry of adoration: Lord Jesus!  And this cry may be equally uttered by every human heart, Jewish or Gentile, without the need of any law.  Behold how the universalism founded on faith henceforth excludes the dominion of law. – The idea: rich unto all, establishes the full equality of believers in their participation in the blessings of salvation. The common Lord will give not less abundantly to one than to another; comp. John i. 16: “and of his fulness have all we received.”^[56]

Romans 10:9-13 – The Calvinist’s Soteriology is Nowhere to Be Found in Paul’s Gospel

Furthermore, we must point out that nothing in this “good news” message reflects the Calvinist “doctrines of grace” (i.e., the TULIP doctrines), which, according to Calvinists, are the full and final explanation of how and why a person is saved. Well, Paul explains salvation without mentioning any one of these TULIP doctrines. Indeed, what Paul proclaims contradicts the Calvinist doctrines. Those doctrines are antithetical to Paul’s gospel, because the beauty of salvation by faith is that it transcends all the exclusivity and limitation inherent in Calvinism. It also negates Israelite national privilege, social status, good works, etc., and makes salvation available to anyone.  Paul is clear about this. “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (10:12-13, NIV) Confessing Jesus and believing that God raised him from the dead is the God-ordained means by which one gains an imputed righteousness and is saved.  Furthermore, Calvinists are mistaken when they insist that faith, if it is a genuine response of sinners themselves to God and Christ, must then be a meritorious act.  Godet comments on this Calvinist misconception.

“We must beware of confounding liberty and arbitrariness on the part of God, and aptitude and merit on the part of man.  To begin with this second distinction, the free acceptance of any divine favor whatever, and of salvation in general, is an aptitude to receive and possess the gift of God, but does not at all constitute a merit conferring on man the right to claim it.  We have already said: How can faith be a merit, that which in its essence is precisely the renunciation of all merit?”^[57]

Biblically speaking, faith is not to be declared an impossibility for any person according to the erroneous Calvinist doctrine of “total depravity” or “total inability.” This too is reading Calvinism into the Bible. Let’s examine 10:9-13 in more detail.

10:9 “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.  For it is with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (ESV)

The word “if” tells us that one’s destiny is not fixed but contingent upon confessing and believing. We cannot read into this “if” the meaning “if you are among the elect and God causes you to confess…” No!  Faith is the only response that God has ordained for sinners to receive the salvation God has provided.  Moreover, grace refers to God alone having provided salvation for all as undeserving sinners. It does not mean that he decided in eternity past to create the mass of humanity and, from these, He predetermined to save some and leave all others without the possibility of salvation for reasons unknown to us. So, the Calvinist designations, “sovereign grace” and “doctrines of grace,” present an unbiblical, secretive, irresistible definition of grace. Contrary to Calvinism’s “irresistible grace,” we reference Paul’s words in Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people…” (ESV).  And in 3:4, Paul states, “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy…” (ESV).  Indeed, the grace of God is not a secret, irresistible happening in the life of the unconditionally elect. Rather, the grace of God has appeared in Jesus. He brings salvation for all people, meaning, of course, each person without exception, as we clearly saw Paul stated in Rom. 10:12-13.

10:12-13 “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And here we see that Paul has reconciled Jew and Gentile in the gospel; the arguments and questions this gospel raised in the mind of the Jew were answered by Paul in chapter 9.

Here we have Paul’s “one Lord” reasoning.  There is now no difference between Jew and Gentile, because the same Lord is Lord of all.  That being true, then the salvation that that one Lord has accomplished is for all people. God is not of two minds, wills, or loves. Salvation is for all, and he bestows his riches upon us when we call upon him.  Again, we have the affirmation of the necessity and responsibility of faith.

Romans 10:14-21 – Israel Heard and Understood, But Did Not Obey The Gospel

In 10:14-15 Paul now emphasizes that there must be a preacher if people are to hear the gospel.  Someone must be sent to preach the “good news” to the people.  But again, what is on Paul’s mind is Israel’s resistance to the gospel.  In 10:16, Paul states. “But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.”  The ESV has, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel.” In 10:17, Paul makes this “philosophy of ministry” statement: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.” (CSB) Again, faith is affirmed.

Now Paul addresses the Jews once again, this time with his own questions regarding their responsibility as having heard the gospel.  He says, “But I ask: Did they not hear?”  And he answers, “Of course they did…” (10:18, NIV). The ESV has “Indeed they have…” Paul then proves this conclusion by quoting Psalm 19:4.

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
                        their words to the ends of the world.” (NIV)

Paul then focuses on Israel, saying, “Again I ask: Did Israel not understand?”  Paul answers in vv. 19-21 with quotes from Deuteronomy and Isaiah indicating that Israel both heard and understood.  Paul then answers first by affirming God’s inclusion of the Gentile nations, that is, God’s mercy shown towards them, which made Israel jealous and angry. Paul writes,

“First, Moses says,

“I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
               I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”(Deut. 32:21, NIV)

²⁰ And Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;
              I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”(Isa. 65:1, NIV)

But now Paul once again speaks about God’s care for Israel, yet he also cites God’s own assessment that they have been a disobedient and obstinate people.

^“21 But concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands
              to a disobedient and obstinate people.” (Isa. 65:2, NIV)

This is God’s complaint against Israel. These verses place responsibility squarely on the Israelites for not responding to God’s revelation, which was clearly communicated to them.  First, Israel could have responded by way of jealousy at God’s merciful revelation and inclusion of the Gentiles. Secondly, they should have responded positively to God’s continual direct care and love for Israel. But they did not. They responded in stubborn disobedience. Paul’s answers to the Jews’ objections in Romans 9 were completely justified. It is God’s prerogative to show mercy to whomever he desires to show mercy and harden whomever he desires to harden (e.g., Pharaoh and Israel). But whether showing mercy or hardening, God always acts with purpose (not arbitrarily) and in accord with his just nature.  What we learn from Romans 9 and 10 is that God is faithful to his promises and to Israel, but that included a justified hardening for their rebellion.

As far as our inquiry goes, we saw that Calvinists completely misunderstood Romans 9.  We now see that confirmed again because their interpretation of Romans 9 contradicts what Paul has just presented in Romans 10 about the gospel message and Israel’s culpability for rejecting it. What Paul writes is incompatible with the Calvinist’s universal divine causal determinism, that is, that God had predetermined and caused Israel’s historical disobedience to God, their rejection of Jesus, their Messiah, and the salvation that is only found and offered in Him. Again, given the Reformed Calvinist doctrines of an eternal decree that ordained “whatsoever comes to pass,” unconditional election, and a deterministic predestination, they make God out to be acting contrary to his own purposes, contrary to Paul’s explanations, and the “good news” he proclaimed of salvation for all by faith.  In short, Calvinism is incoherent with the concerns that faced Paul in his historical and theological context.

Moving Past Romans 9: The Context and Teaching of Chapter 11

Having fully assessed Israel’s present situation, which certainly looks bleak, Paul asks his next question at the beginning of chapter 11. “I ask, then, has God rejected his people?” (CSB) Paul gives us the answer, “Absolutely not!” (CSB). This is the flip side of the verdict Paul reached regarding Israel’s historical and present disobedience and rejection of God and Jesus, their Messiah. But Paul uses himself to affirm that God has not rejected his people “whom he foreknew.”  Note that Paul is talking about the whole of the people of Israel.  In contrast, Calvinists interpret the phrase “his people whom he foreknew” as referring to those individuals God has unconditionally elected or predestined to salvation, that is, to be “his people.”  Godet comments on this Calvinist misinterpretation.  He states,

“This meaning is inadmissible; for, as we have already seen in ver. 1, the matter in question here is not the lot of this elect portion, but that of the people as a whole. Is it not of the entire people that the apostle speaks when, in vv. 28 and 29, he says: “as touching the election, they are loved for the Father’s sake; for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance?” These words are the authentic explanation of the expression in ver. 2: His people whom He foreknew. Of all the peoples of the earth one only was chosen and known beforehand, by an act of divine foreknowledge and love, as the people whose history would be identified with the realization of salvation.  In all others salvation is the affair of individuals, but here the notion of salvation is attached to the nation itself; not that the liberty of individuals is in the least compromised by this collective destination.  The Israelites contemporary with Jesus might reject Him; an indefinite series of generations may for ages perpetuate this fact of national unbelief.  God is under no pressure; time can stretch out as long as He pleases.  He will add, if need be, ages to ages, until there come at length the generation disposed to open their eyes and freely welcome their Messiah.  God foreknew this nation as believing and saved, and sooner or later they cannot fail to be both.”^[58]

Romans 11:5-6 – The Remnant

In 11:5 Paul now speaks about a “remnant chosen by grace.” The definition of the remnant is nuanced depending on which biblical scholar you’re reading.  H. H. Rowley comments on the meaning of this phrase.

“That Paul thought the Church in terms of the Remnant is beyond dispute.  “They are not all Israel which are of Israel: he says, [Rom. 9:6] and he goes on to note…that the limitation of the Abrahamic covenant to the seed of Isaac in itself implied that physical generation could not alone control the heritage of the election [Rom. 9:7f.].  He cites Isa. 10:22, [in Rom. 9:27] and Isa. 1:9, [in Rom. 9:29] in which the doctrine of the Remnant was enunciated, to reinforce his argument, and finds in the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal in the time of Elijah the prelude to his assertion that “in the same way there is at the present time a remnant according to the election of grace.” [Rom. 11:4ff.]  But with the thought of the limitation of the election of Israel to but a part of the Israel according to the flesh he combined the thought of the extension of that election beyond the bounds of the nation to those amongst the Gentiles who should come to share the faith and the task of Israel. “Therefore it is of faith”, he says, “so that it may be according to grace, to confirm the promise to all the seed, not alone that which is of the law, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” [Rom. 4:16] In the same Epistle he speaks of some of the branches of the tree of Israel having been broken off through unbelief, and Gentiles grafted in to take their place.^[59] It is of the grace and goodness of God that they are grafted in, and it can only be as they respond to that grace by faith that they can remain in the tree.”^[60]

Romans 11:7 – “The Elect” and “The Rest Were Hardened”

Having spoken about a “remnant” in v. 5, Paul now asks his next question in v. 7, “What then?” (ESV). Phillips translates it as “What conclusion do we reach now?”  Which Paul answers clearly by saying,

“What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened…” (11:7, NIV)^[61]

Who were “the elect among them?”  The thesis I have presented on this website is that the Gentile believers were spoken of in terms of Israel’s election. That is, the New Testament references to “elect” and “election” do not refer to a doctrine of unconditional election. As terms that applied to national and spiritual Israel, Paul and the New Testament writers have taken them up to refer to believers in Jesus. Rowley affirms this by the following,

“He [Paul] contrasts the “Israel according to the flesh” [1 Cor. 10:13] with the “Israel of God”, [Gal. 6:16] which is the Church.  “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart.” [Rom. 2:28f.] “Now we, brethren, are children of the promise, as Israel was.  But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now.” [Gal. 4:28f.]  “If you are Christ’s, then ye are the seed of Abraham, and heirs of the promises.” [Gal. 3:29] “Wherefore remember, that at one time ye who are Gentiles in the flesh, called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh, made by hands, ye were at that time strangers to the covenant of promise, having no hope and being without God in the world…Ye are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God.” [Eph. 2:11f., 19.] “The Gentiles are fellow-heirs and of the same body and are sharers of the promise in Christ Jesus.” [Ep. 3:6]”^[62]

Regarding “the elect among them,” or “the chosen people of God,” Rowley also states,

“Beyond the Pauline Epistles we find the same thought…In the First Epistle of Peter that Church is declared to be the Chosen People of God.  ‘Ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a special people, that ye may declare the excellences of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” [1 Pet. 2:9] It is by no accident that phrases from Ex. 19:5 are found here.  E. G. Selwyn observes: “Since his purpose is to assert that the Christian Church has now inherited the peculiar character and privileges of Israel, Ex. 19, which records the divine establishment of Israel’s status and call as a result of the deliverance from Egypt, is no doubt the ground-base of the passage.”^[63] Like the election of Israel, that of the Church is revealed in the mighty acts of grace, and its purpose is the proclamation of the revelation.

Throughout the New Testament the term “elect” is found many times for the Church, testifying to the belief that the Church was the elect of God, and in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is declared that that election belongs to the eternal purpose of God, and that it was made before the foundation of the world.” [Eph.1:14f.]^[64]

I find Rowley’s point here to be correct.  In the New Testament, “the elect” refers to believers in Jesus. It refers to Christians without any reference to them becoming Christians as a result of an unconditional election.

Godet takes a slightly different view.  He primarily limits the remnant to believing Jews.  He comments, “The remnant, of whom the apostle speaks, evidently denotes the small portion of the Jewish people who in Jesus have recognized the Messiah.”^[65] And he also states, “The idea contained in the words: “according to the election of grace,” is therefore this: In virtue of the election of Israel as the salvation-people, God has not left them in our days without a faithful remnant, any more than He did in the kingdom of the ten tribes at the period when a far grosser heathenism was triumphant.”^[66]  Godet also notes that this phrase “might apply to the individuals more or less numerous who are embraced in this remnant, now become the nucleus of the church.”^[67]

Whatever one thinks of the remnant, what we learn here is that when Paul and Peter use the terms “elect” or “election,” they were not writing about the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election or any deterministic predestination of individuals to salvation. Again, these Calvinist doctrines are nowhere to be found in the text.  Rather, we are reading about how Israel, as the elect people of God, forfeited their election by their unbelief, and, therefore, how the terminology of election was assigned to the Church, that is, believing Jews and Gentiles, even as the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 1:4). This is consistent with the use of the term “elect” and “election” in the New Testament to refer to believers in Christ, whether individually or corporately.

Romans 11:11 – Did Israel Stumble and Fall Beyond Recovery?

In 11:7 Paul told us that God imposed a hardening on unbelieving Israel. In 11:8-10 he confirms this divine hardening by quoting from Deut. 29:4; Isaiah 29:10, and Psalm 69:22,23.  But prompted by this divine action on unbelieving Israel, Paul asks his next question,

“Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?” (11:11, NIV)

Paul’s answer with his reasoning follows,

“Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. ¹² But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!” (11:11-12, NIV)

So, in God’s hardening of Israel, Paul discerns God’s purposes. One of those purposes is to extend his mercy and salvation to the Gentiles. The other purpose is to provoke Israel to envy so they may repent and receive salvation.  Paul’s “heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is that they may be saved.” (10:1, ESV) Paul hopes that because Israel will see that all their privileged heritage and election is now being applied to and enjoyed by Gentile believers, they will become jealous and turn to Christ in faith. Israel is suffering for their transgression, that is, their unbelief evidenced by their rejection of Jesus. But if that meant “riches for the world” and “riches for the Gentiles,” how much more riches will their full inclusion back to faith mean? Why?  Because God’s intent for them all along will have been realized!  So, Paul holds out hope for the repentant return of unbelieving Israel.  God worked into the historical process of his choice and establishment of the nation of Israel his larger plan and purpose of salvation for all people. Paul perceives the situation as still open in the plans and purposes of God.  Indeed, Paul magnifies his ministry among the Gentiles “in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.” (11:13) Paul always has the salvation of Israel on his heart and mind.

Note again here that the Calvinist deterministic doctrines are nowhere in Paul’s statements. He does not think in that way about the historical and theological issues he deals with in Romans 9-11. Saying that his fellow Jews may become jealous, and some may be saved in that manner, does not at all reflect the belief that God has already predetermined who will and who will not be saved.  Paul has not expressed or affirmed any conception that God is working salvation by unconditional election. Paul is not a theistic determinist.  Paul affirms that God can achieve his purposes despite the unbelief of his own people. God achieved his purposes despite Pharaoh’s hardness of heart. That is what divine sovereignty is about. Although his own people Israel reject his salvation, God brings that salvation to the Gentiles. These chapters demonstrate that God’s sovereignty functions within the sphere of genuine human free agency. Divine sovereignty is obviously not a universal divine causal determinism as Calvinists insist it must be for God to remain “in control.”  Rather, Paul views the salvation of his people as an open, contingent issue. What else could Paul’s words in 11:23 affirm when he says, “And even they [Israel], if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”  Israel being “grafted in” again is contingent upon their not continuing in unbelief.  If they believe, God’s power will then be active to save.

Paul explains that ‘Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking.  The elect (i.e., believers) obtained it, but the rest were hardened.’ (11:7) Israel’s situation is described in the following terms: “stumbling” (11:11), “failure” (11:12), “rejection” (11:15), “broken off” (11:17). And although Paul detects a ‘partial hardening’ (v. 25) by God in all this, contrary to a strong determinism Paul already gave us the reasons for Israel’s present situation; “They did not pursue it [righteousness] by faith” (9:32), “They did not submit to God’s righteousness” (10:3), they were a “disobedient and contrary people” (10:21).  What this means it that there is no deterministic, eternal decree at work here that has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass.”  That would be incoherent with all that Paul has said.

Romans 11:13-15 – “I’m Speaking to You Gentiles…”

Now, in 11:13 Paul feels the need to speak more directly to the Gentiles because there are two sides to this present situation of the stumbling and hardening of Israel. Paul wants the Gentiles to know, “I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.”  (11:13-14, NIV) We must note that contrary to Calvinism’s exclusivism, throughout chapter 11 Paul continually speaks of the open, conditional nature of faith that brings salvation to both Jews and the Gentiles. In 11:14 Paul does not have in mind that the “some of them” he mentions are those who are unconditionally elected to be saved.  That would be to impose the doctrine on the text and result in nonsense. How could Paul have “the hope” that through envy he might save some of them, meaning, as the Calvinist claims, that Paul is hoping to save some of the unconditionally elected among the many? The problem seems to be the word “some.”  If unconditional election is true, then the some among the many would definitely be saved, and only those would be saved. So, what is there for Paul to “hope” for?  That some of those unconditionally elected might be saved? That makes no sense, for all those unconditionally elected will be saved! Is Paul hoping that those who are unconditionally elected will be saved?  That’s just a given! The point is that the doctrine of unconditional election does not comport with the idea Paul expresses here or anywhere else in 9-11. More simply, Paul hopes that by magnifying his ministry to the Gentiles he will “arouse” his own people Israel to envy, and that by this means he might save some of them. That statement’s sentiment and logic imply libertarian freedom, not deterministic unconditional election.  There is no hint of salvific determinism here. Contingency, possibility, and the hope of persuasion are all in play here. The situation is an open one.  It is more likely that Paul thought envy might move some of the Jews to consider the gospel, but his statement obviously implies that the final decision of faith is left to the individual Jew.

It should be stated that we obviously have seen that Paul can talk about Israel as a group, or corporately. Paul says God has hardened Israel. And yet, he does not leave behind the possibility of salvation for the individual Jew or Gentile. Both aspects are present – the corporate and the individual.  God’s grace in Christ is for “everyone,” that is, each individual. Paul also writes about the Gentiles receiving salvation, while Israel receives God’s judgment (Rom. 11:22).  The point is that Paul’s argument for justification by faith throughout Romans and his reasoning in chapters 9-11 affirm libertarian freedom.

Again, Paul makes the point that if Israel’s rejection “brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (11:15, NIV)

Romans 11:16 – Analogy #1: The Firstfruits

Now, lest the Gentiles gloat over Israel’s stumbling and hardening, in Romans 11:16 Paul provides two analogies from the Old Testament law of the harvest and agriculture to show that Israel has not stumbled “in order that they might fall” (11:11). He says that,

“If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.” (ESV)

The analogies are enigmatic and difficult to interpret in context. But I think the point is to emphasize the special place God has for Israel in salvation history, given the inclusion of the Gentiles via the general hardening of Israel. Since the Gentiles are included by virtue of Israel being rejected by God (v. 15), they may tend to be arrogant (v.18), as if they have supplanted Israel in God’s program. Speaking to the Gentiles (11:13), Paul wants to be sure they know that Israel, then and now, is considered the “firstfruits” and “holy,” “the whole batch,” and “the root,” that is, a sanctified offering to God. 

The salvation of the Gentiles depended on national Israel because “from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ…” (Rom. 9:4-5, ESV). And we have the same term in 2 Thess. 2:13, where God chose the Thessalonians “as the firstfruits to be saved.”  This is to place the Gentile Thessalonians into the same spiritual sphere as Israel in their relationship to God. Another take on Paul’s analogies could be that “the dough offered as firstfruits” refers to Gentile believers, like the Thessalonians, who are now considered an offering to God because they were chosen by him to be saved.  They are now “holy” to God.  And if they are “holy,” and they are indebted to Israel for their salvation (Rom. 11:18b), then Israel and the Gentile believers as “the whole batch” are also holy.  Paul’s reasoning may go like this. “If you Gentiles are the firstfruits, that is, new to ‘the people of God’ through the gospel (Eph. 2:11-3:13) and as such an initial offering to God making you holy, then surely the nation of Israel from which you came is also holy.  So don’t be arrogant and proud; rather, humbly stand in awe of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God for his plan of salvation for both the Jew and you Gentiles.” (Rom. 11:33-36)

Let’s refer back to 2 Thess. 2:13. When Paul wrote, “God chose you as the first fruits for salvation …” (NRSVUE) he was referring to the Old Testament law of the harvest in which the first portion of the dough from the grain harvest is to be offered to the Lord (Lev. 2:12, 14, 23:17, 20; Num. 18:12-13, 28:26; Deut. 26:2, 10; Ps. 78:51; Prov. 3:9).  It is “holy” in that it is separated to the Lord.  This was the offering of the “firstfruits” to God. But this is what Old Testament Israel was to God. Paul’s use of “firstfruits” in his ministry to the Gentiles highlights that they too, as believers, are now separated and offered to God.

It is noteworthy to see who is doing the offering here.  Amazingly, God is offering the Gentiles as firstfruits for salvation. What could this mean, given that, according to the following Old Testament references, the offering of the firstfruits was to be brought to God? Well, note what is said in these verses in Jeremiah 2.

“The word of the Lord came to me: “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem:

“This is what the Lord says:

“‘I remember the devotion of your youth,
              how as a bride you loved me
and followed me through the wilderness,
    through a land not sown.

Israel was holy to the Lord,
    the firstfruits of his harvest;
all who devoured her were held guilty,
    and disaster overtook them,’”
declares the Lord.” (Jer. 2:1-3, NIV, Emphasis mine)

It is as though God viewed Israel as his planting and harvest, giving Israel to himself as the firstfruits of his own harvest.  Therefore, I would say that as Israel was called the firstfruits of God’s harvest, now the Gentiles are also called the firstfruits of God’s harvest.  Israel and the Gentiles were to know that the Gentiles were now the firstfruits of God’s harvest just as Israel was. The nature of God’s relationship to Israel is now applied to the Gentiles.  This becomes very important for properly interpreting Paul’s epistles (cf. Eph. 2:11-22). It can therefore be said that God has now chosen the Gentiles, especially the Thessalonians, as the firstfruits of God’s new gospel harvest, that is, he has chosen them for salvation.  He has now chosen the Gentiles to be in special relationship with him through faith in Christ. But as it was with Israel’s election, so it is with the present Gentile election.  This is not an unconditional choosing or electing of certain individuals to a particular eternal destiny as is taught in Calvinism.  This is not speaking as to how an individual receives salvation, as if Paul means to teach us that God has unconditionally chosen some Thessalonians to be saved by regenerating them and working faith in them. This has no precedent in God’s relationship with Israel throughout the Old Testament. Rather, Paul is dealing with the spread of the gospel by the direction of God, by his Spirit, and making application of the nature of God’s relationship with Israel to those Gentiles who now believe the gospel.  Note that as Israel was free to rebel against God, so too are the Gentiles.  That is why Paul in Romans 11 warns them as follows – warnings that make no sense on Calvinism’s determinism.

“Then you [Gentiles] will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” True enough; they were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but beware, because if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Therefore, consider God’s kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you—if you remain in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again.” (Rom. 11:19-23, CSB) 

So, we see that this situation regarding both Israel and the Gentiles, as far as it has to do with their standing in God’s plan of salvation, is conditional – that conditional element being their faith.

Romans 11:17-26 – Analogy #2: The Grafting of the Olive Tree

As we continue in vv. 17-18, Paul has strong words for the Gentiles. He employs the metaphor of an olive tree to speak about the relationship of the Gentiles to Israel.  Paul warns the Gentiles not to be arrogant towards the branches (Israel) that were broken off so they (Gentiles) could be grafted in (v 18).  They must realize that they get their nourishment from the root (Israel), and they (Gentiles) do not support the root (v. 18).  Furthermore, the Gentiles should not become proud. It’s true, the branches (Israel) were broken off because of their unbelief, but you Gentiles stand fast through faith (v. 20). The Gentiles need to know that if God did not spare the natural branches (Israel), neither will he spare them. (v. 20)

In 11:22-23, Paul makes an important statement that directly contradicts the Calvinist doctrines. He states,

“Therefore, consider God’s kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you—if you remain in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again.” (11:22-23, CSB)

Here Calvinism is defeated once again. Its determinism finds no place in Paul’s thought or theology.  Note that in this whole discussion Paul presupposes human freedom, contingent situations, potentialities, and possibilities.  The Gentiles are warned not to become proud (v. 20).  If they do, they will not be spared.  And if the Jews, those the Calvinist has designated the non-elect in chapter 9, that is, “the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” who cannot be saved, do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted back into the olive tree (11:17-24). Also, faith is spoken about in terms of human responsibility.  Nothing here is coherent with the fixity of the deterministic Calvinist soteriology and definition of God’s sovereignty. The potentiality and contingency in Paul’s words are clear. For Israel, there is the possibility of a “full inclusion” (11:12), “acceptance” (11:15), and the “grafting back into their own olive tree” (11:23-24).

We see here that the reason why the Israelites were “broken off” is because of their unbelief, not because God decreed or caused their unbelief.  God caused their hardening, but not their unbelief.  Again, another example of how divine sovereignty should be defined and how it works in the world. It is incoherent to hold that God determined their unbelief, precisely because it is they who, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in again.  Paul’s point and reasoning are clear.  The situation is conditional, not unconditional.  Individual salvation clearly involves a response of faith by the individual to God that is not wholly determined by God.  God looks for faith alone as important in relationship with him, especially regarding the saving relationship that man is helpless to accomplish.  Paul’s flow of thought and theology in both chapters 10 and 11 cannot be reconciled with the Reformed Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Romans 11:28 – The Difference Between The Gospel and Election

Paul now begins to end his complex treatment of the objections and questions of his Jewish interlocutors, along with his discussion of the present situation with Israel and the implications for the Gentiles. These closing remarks will also reveal the incoherence of Calvinism. In 11:28 Paul writes,

 “Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of the patriarchs,…” (CSB)

This is an interesting and important verse in our critique of Calvinism. It distinguishes between “the gospel” and “election.”  This indicates that for Paul, the gospel is not election, and election is not the gospel. Contrary to some Calvinists who claim that their TULIP doctrines, including their doctrine of unconditional election, comprise the gospel, what Paul writes here proves that to be wrong.  Indeed, for the Calvinist, the TULIP doctrines are the full and final explanation of how and why a person becomes saved. One would think that how a person becomes saved would have everything to do with “the gospel.” Yet election, especially defined as unconditional election, is not the gospel, because it is not what Paul has written about the gospel in Romans and his other epistles. Election in this verse is not the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. Election throughout these chapters is not the doctrine of unconditional election. In context, election is just what Paul has been explaining about God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob in the establishment of the nation of Israel. What this tells us that these Calvinist doctrines are concocted by those in the past (e.g., Agustine, Calvin, et al.) who seriously misinterpreted the Bible by reading their theistic determinism into various texts like Romans 9 regardless of the incoherences, inconsistencies, and contradictions they created with other clear texts and teachings of Scripture

Furthermore, those Calvinists who do not claim that their TULIP doctrines are the gospel nevertheless set up a conflict between the gospel and their definition of election as unconditional election to salvation.  That is the way they interpret Romans 9.  They insist that Paul is teaching about unconditional election to salvation. But we have not gleaned that doctrine from Romans 9 properly interpreted according to the historical and theological context.  The gospel and the doctrine of unconditional election cannot both be the way of salvation because Paul is distinguishing between the two with the gospel standing on its own as the way of salvation and election referring to God’s establishment of national Israel as adopted by God and with all its privileges such as the law, covenants, worship, the promises, and most importantly, “from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever.” (Rom. 9:4-5, ESV) So, the Calvinist is just wrong to associate the gospel and salvation with his doctrine of unconditional election, because Paul does not define election in terms of unconditional election by God to salvation.  Paul does not define election as referring to salvation and more particularly to unconditional election. The unbelieving Jew is an enemy of the gospel of salvation because they refuse to believe that gospel, or “good news” of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ by virtue of his death and resurrection.  But the unbelieving Jew is still elect, that is, “…as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” (11:28, ESV) But Jewish unbelief is an advantage to the Gentiles because the Jew’s rejection of Jesus has fostered bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. But as regards election, that is, Israel being advantaged and preserved according to Rom. 3:1-2; 7:7, 12, 13; 9:4-5; 11:1-2, 11, they are “beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” (11:28, ESV) Paul adds that this election of Israel – these gifts and their calling – are irrevocable. (11:29, ESV)

Now, lest the Gentiles be conceited, Paul wants them to understand a “mystery.”  That is, that “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved…” (11:25-26, ESV) Godet comments,

“… their meaning is clear: Till the accomplishment of the conversion of the Gentiles, there will be among the Jews only individual conversions; but this goal reached, their conversion en masse will take place…

When Israel shall see the promises of the O. T., which ascribe to the Messiah the conversion of the Gentiles to the God of Abraham, fulfilled throughout the whole world by Jesus Christ, and the Gentiles through His mediation loaded with the blessings which they themselves covet, they will be forced to own that Jesus is the Messiah…- Paul, in expressing himself as he does, does not mean to suppress individual liberty in the Israelites who shall live at that epoch.  He speaks of the collective movement which shall take hold of the nation in general, and bring them as such to the feet of their Messiah.  Individual resistance remains possible.”^[68]

Romans 11:28b-31 – Israel’s Election and God’s Gifts and Calling

In Romans 11:28b-31, Paul writes about Israel’s election and their gifts and calling as irrevocable. James Daane comments,

“God’s election of Israel is not merely to special privilege and special service. Her election is no mere passing historical phenomenon of temporary privilege and service. It is to salvation. “All Israel shall be saved” (11:26), and this is certain because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. God called a nation, and the election of this nation is not subject to a divine change of mind. Why not? Paul does not urge the immutability of God. He urges rather that Israel’s election is not undone because of God’s love for their forefathers. God has chosen Abraham and his seed, and the election of God persists both forward from the fathers to the children, and backward from children to fathers. Even the nation’s unbelief cannot undo God’s election of it. Paul’s whole argument contradicts the idea that God’s election of the nation of Israel is merely an historical, passing thing, something of a special privilege and service but not salvific.

Is Israel’s special privilege lost through unbelief? In Romans 3 Paul answers this question, and the answer is the substance of his discussion in Romans 10 and 11. In the first two chapters of Romans Paul had urged that the Jew, although he had the law, was no less than the Gentile under the condemnation of God. He imagines that the Jew may protest and appeal to their special status before God, asking, “What advantage has the Jew?” (Rom 3:1). Paul does not deny their special status before God; in fact, he confirms it. “Much in every way” (v. 2). The Jew, says Paul, has an advantage because he was given the oracles (revelation) of God, and this advantage is not dissipated by the fact that some Jews did not believe in Christ (vv. 2-4). The faithfulness of God – God’s commitment to his gracious election – will not and cannot be undone! The Jews have special gifts and privileges, and the advantage of these remains even when the Jew is under the same condemnation as the Gentile. No sin or unbelief on the part of some, or of the nation as a whole, can undo either this advantage or God’s faithfulness. The unrighteousness of men, says Paul, does not annul the righteousness and faithfulness of God; on the contrary, it only makes God’s righteousness and faithfulness more obvious.

In Romans 11 we again encounter the idea that God uses man’s sin to further the righteousness and faithfulness of elective purpose. Here Paul reveals the mystery that through Israel’s unbelief salvation is opened up to the Gentiles. But even this occurs, he asserts, to provoke the Jews to jealousy, so that they may also be saved and God’s election of Israel to salvation may stand. Even the salvation of the Gentiles, according to Paul, occurs for the sake of God’s election of the nation of Israel. Gentiles are saved and through this God’s election of the nation of Israel is both actualized and demonstrated.

This priority of the national election of corporate Israel over the election of the Gentiles is reflected in Paul’s definition of the gospel as that in which the righteousness of God is revealed, as “the power of God for salvation…to the Jew first and then also to the Greek [Gentile]” (Rom. 1:16-17). God’s corporate election of the nation of Israel, and his immutable and faithful commitment to this election, is no mere temporary, passing thing. Just as it is not undone by Israel’s unbelief, so it is not displaced by the election and salvation of the Gentiles. On the contrary, the election and salvation of the Gentiles is a means by which God achieves and demonstrates the purpose of his election of the nation of Israel.”^[69]

Daane then makes application from what Paul has written to what Calvinists claim Romans 9 is about, that is, the doctrine of unconditional election.  Daane states,

“Romans 9-11 does not form a biblical commentary on the truth of individual election. Rather, it is a commentary on the fact and inviolability of God’s election of Israel as a nation. If Paul had meant to demonstrate the truth of individual election and reprobation, these chapters would hardly have been some of the most difficult in the New Testament. In these chapters Paul struggles on the one hand with Israel’s unbelief in the light of her election, and on the other hand reveals the mystery that Israel’s unbelief results in the salvation of the Gentiles, who are saved in order that the purpose of God’s election of Israel may be achieved.

One thing is clear from Romans, especially chapters 9-11: no doctrine of individual election, whether of Jew or Gentile, can claim full biblical sanction unless it takes its shape and definition from and within God’s election of the nation of Israel. In other words, the Bible knows nothing of an isolated, individualistic doctrine of election; it knows only of a divine election that involves both the father and his seed, one that moves in history “throughout their generations.” The Bible knows nothing of an individual election with a direct reference to eternity; it knows only of a divine election that is historical, one that moves and is actualized in the continuity of father and son, family and nation.”^[70]

            This conclusion is certainly correct. We have not found, and could never fathom, that Paul would believe or expound on a doctrine so antithetical to his gospel as “good news” for all persons.  Unconditional election surely removes the “good news” from the gospel, nullifying its message of the assurance of God’s love and our inclusion in the salvation we have by faith in Jesus.  The Calvinist deterministic doctrines of unconditional election and predestination can only sow doubt and despair over one’s eternal destiny, of which they are ignorant and past finding out.  One may presume they have been predestined to salvation, but that is merely to pretend one has been unconditionally elected to salvation. This is not the assurance of salvation that the true biblical gospel provides.

Romans 11:30-32 – Paul’s Final Conclusion

And finally, we have reached Paul’s grand summary, or the rationale, of what he has argued in chapters 9-11^[71]. Speaking to the Gentiles, he states,

 “Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, ³¹ so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.” (Rom. 11:30-31, NIV) 

Note Paul’s emphasis on Israel now receiving mercy as a result of God’s mercy to the Gentiles. Paul never completely abandons Israel because he knows that God has not.  Recall in v. 29, “…for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” (NIV)

Now, finally, Paul clearly states the conclusion of all his arguments.

11:32 “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (ESV)

This verse summarizes Paul’s theological and historical insights about what God was accomplishing with Israel and the Gentiles. It is a gospel pronouncement encompassing all that Paul has said God was doing with the patriarchs, Moses, Pharaoh, along with the potter and olive tree metaphors. The meaning of chapter 9 must be placed in the context of chapters 10 and 11, and especially this verse 11:32. Again, this is a gospel conclusion to all he has said to both his fellow Israelites and the Gentiles.  The message is clear.  God’s mercy extends to all.  If both the Gentiles and the Israelites have been “consigned to disobedience,” then God’s mercy extends to both the Gentiles and the Israelites. Paul has referred to both groups corporately.  And we have discussed that even the hardening that has occurred in Israel did not preclude any individual from responding in faith to the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. Paul made that clear in chapter 10. But Paul’s corporate reference to Israel and the Gentiles is telling us that he is referring to all people.  Therefore, when he says that “God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all,” he is expressing that salvation, the mercy of God, is for all persons. Everyone is included in God’s mercy extended to them in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we too, of course, are being told by this text that you and I and everyone else have been consigned to disobedience so that God might have mercy on us all.  And he has accomplished this in Christ Jesus. Throughout Romans, Paul was clear about teaching that salvation is found in Jesus and received by faith.  Salvation is for everyone who believes (10:4, 9-12).

Romans 11:33-36 – Paul’s Doxology

Once we see the grand scheme of God’s activity that involves the just treatment of Israel in their hardening and the merciful treatment of the Gentiles in their salvation, with the potential of Israel’s restoration to faith and salvation, and how God has worked all this out by his sovereign knowledge and wisdom, we can join Paul in his hymn of praise to God.

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
    How unsearchable his judgments,
    and his paths beyond tracing out!
³⁴ “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
    Or who has been his counselor?”
³⁵ “Who has ever given to God,
    that God should repay them?”
³⁶ For from him and through him and for him are all things.
    To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Rom. 11:33-36. NIV / Job 41:11; Is 40:13; Jr 23:18

Godet comments on this doxology.

“Like a traveller who has reached the summit of an Alpine ascent, the apostle turns and contemplates.  Depths are at his feet; nut waves of light illumine them, and there spreads all around an immense horizon which his eye commands.  The plan of God in the government of mankind spreads out before him, and he expresses the feelings of admiration and gratitude with which the prospect fills his heart.”^[72]

There are three questions within this doxology. They come from Job 41:11, Isa. 40:13, and Jer. 23:18. They affirm the magnitude of God’s works in what Paul is both experiencing and what he has just written about to the church at Rome.  The questions are: Who is there who could ever know the depths of God’s mind and plans?   Who can counsel him in what he does?  Who is in his debt that God should owe anyone an explanation?  We can sense in these questions that Paul is echoing the issues and attitudes that the Jews revealed in their debate with him about their relationship to God.  Godet comments on the point of these questions.

“The matter in question is a service rendered to God, a present which man is supposed to have made to Him so as to merit a gift in return.  Such, indeed, is the position which the Jews were taking, and by which they claimed especially to limit the freedom of God in the government of the world on account of their meritorious works.  “There is no difference,” said the Jews of Malachi’s day pettishly, “between the man who serveth God and him who serveth Him not.  What have we gained by keeping His commandments?”  The spirit of pride had been growing; it has reached its apogee in Pharisaism.”^[73]

Even in this doxology, Paul is still reflecting on, even reviewing, Israel’s attitude towards God, as Paul expounded in chapters 9-11.  But he is also reflecting upon God’s work among Israel and the Gentiles. Paul’s special concern is what God is doing with Israel because of their unbelief.  He sees them as being hardened by God, and yet also sees that in doing so God is bringing salvation to the Gentiles.  And furthermore, Paul understands that God is not finished with Israel.  Not only does he hope Israel becomes jealous because God has granted to the Gentiles all that was Israel’s by virtue of their spiritual heritage, that is, that the terminology that was once unique to Israel now applies to and describes the Gentiles (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9-10), but Paul also says “a partial hardening has come to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  And in this way all Israel will be saved.” (11:25-26, ESV)

For our purposes, the point is that Paul never refers to a doctrine of unconditional election in these chapters.  We see nothing of that doctrine that throws the assurance of one’s salvation and eternal destiny into a dark unknown that can only produce personal despair and confusion about God’s nature. This certainly has not been what Paul has been teaching.  Rather, Paul was expounding on God’s mercy, which brings salvation to all. That is the pronouncement that directly precedes the doxology:

“For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (11:32, NIV)

Not only is Paul praising God for his salvation offered to all by faith in Jesus Christ, but Paul also praises God for his sovereign activity – that is, “the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (11:33a, NIV, ESV). What we have witnessed in Paul’s explanation is God’s sovereignty. Divine sovereignty is not a universal divine causal determinism as in Calvinism. Paul never indicated that God has predetermined “whatsoever comes to pass.” Such a theological worldview is incoherent with what Paul told us in these three chapters and throughout Romans. After properly reading Paul in Romans and his other epistles, we know that Calvinism is false. Why? Because we non-Calvinists do not accept incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction in our hermeneutic, as do Calvinists. Neither do we cover logical and moral difficulties in “mystery,” “incomprehensibility,” “antinomy,” or “the Bible teaches both,” as the Calvinist does. Yes, Paul states God’s judgments are unsearchable and his paths beyond tracing out (11:33b, NIV). But that refers to persons who will not accept what God has revealed, especially in Jesus. Hasn’t Israel and their leadership (i.e., the scribes, the Pharisees, “teachers of the law,” the Sadducees, the chief priests, etc.) been a prime example? Regardless of the stubborn rebellion that is the result of natural man’s refusal to acknowledge God and Jesus – a hardness and rejection for which God holds them responsible – Paul testifies that God has clearly revealed to us what he wants us to know, especially regarding our salvation. Godet correctly states,

“But it must not be forgotten that St. Paul’s exclamation is called forth, not by the obscurity of God’s plans, but, on the contrary, by their dazzling clearness.  If they are incomprehensible and unfathomable, it is to man’s natural understanding, and until they have been revealed; but says the apostle, 1 Cor. ii. 10: “God what revealed them unto us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep thing of God.” It is therefore in view of the unveiled mystery that the exclamation is raised, as is done by Paul here: “O the depth of the riches!” A fact which does not prevent the mind which understands them in part from having always to discover in them new laws or applications.”^[74]

Now, regarding verses 34 and 35, Godet states simply that,

“Here is the Scripture proof that God’s designs are impenetrable until he reveal them Himself to His apostles and prophets, and by them to His people.”^[75]

Because that is precisely what God has done. This is one of the major themes in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Paul writes, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he richly poured out on us with all wisdom and understanding. He made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he purposed in Christ…” (Eph. 1:7-9, CSB) Also, Paul prays that God would give them “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.” (Eph. 1:17, CSB) Paul then states,

“For this reason, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— assuming you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that he gave me for you. The mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have briefly written above. By reading this you are able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ. This was not made known to people in other generations as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: The Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and partners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Eph. 3:1-6, CSB, Italics mine.)

Paul continues,

“Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.  In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.” (Eph. 3:8-12, NIV, Italics mine.)

This is why Paul, in his doxology, speaks about “the revelation of the mystery,” which is “now revealed and made known.”

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept silent for long ages but now revealed and made known through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God to advance the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles— to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ—to him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Rom. 16:25-27, CSB. Italics mine. Cf. Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21; 10:20; Gal. 3:22-24)

Paul ends his doxology with,

“For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (11:36, NIV)

Godet expresses the point of this praise,

“God’s absolute independence, man’s total dependence in everything which might be a matter of glory to him: such is the thought of this verse, the termination of this vast survey of the plan of God.”^[76]

Godet then summarizes Romans 9-11.

“The contrast between the Jews and Gentiles appears therefore as the essential moving spring of history.  It is the actions and reactions arising from this primary fact which form its key.  This is what no philosophy of history has dreamed of, and what makes these chaps. ix.-xi. the highest theodicy.

…And as to the intention of the whole passage, it is evidently to show that those who should have been first, though now put last, are not, however, excluded, as the Gentiles might proudly imagine, and that if the πρῶτον, firstly, ascribed to the Jews by God’s original plan (i. 16) has not been historically realized (through their own fault), the divine programme in regard to mankind will nevertheless, though in another way, have its complete execution…it is the defence of the plan of God Himself addressed to the whole church.”^[77] 

Concluding Thoughts

I conclude that the Reformed Calvinist interpretation of chapter 9 represents nothing of what Paul has expounded upon in that chapter.  This is also supported by the extended context of of Romans as a whole, especially in light of Romans 3:23-30 and 5:8,15-17. Furthermore, the Calvinist’s interpretation of Romans 9 is defeated by Paul’s statements in chapters 10 and 11. In these chapters, Paul speaks in a contingent manner about the salvation of the same Israelites that the Calvinist interpretation has deterministically reprobated or assigned to the category of the non-elect “vessels of wrath” in chapter 9. These persons can never be saved. They are not among the unconditionally elect.

In contrast, according to Paul, these individuals may still believe. Paul clearly states, “And even they [the Israelites], if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.” (Rom. 11:23, ESV) This directly contradicts the deterministic definition of election Calvinists assign to the word “election” and Paul’s other descriptive analogies in chapter 9.  In other words, the Calvinist interpretation of chapter 9 is inconsistent and even contradictory with chapters 10 and 11. These chapters affirm the individual’s personal responsibility for both belief and unbelief, for obedience and disobedience.

The Calvinist claim that Paul is teaching us about unconditional election in Romans 9 is an overly simplistic reading of the text characterized by proof-texting and willful ignorance of the context before the chapter and afterwards in chapters 10 and 11. The Calvinist’s interpretation of Romans 9 is incredible given the alternative interpretations that explain more of the text in a coherent manner. Hence, the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement are incoherent given Paul’s reasoning and arguments.

We may point out here that if Paul was teaching us the doctrine of unconditional election, he could have perhaps done so in one short chapter rather than in the three historically and theologically complex chapters we do have from his pen! 

Also, of special note is Rom. 11:28.  Here Paul makes a clear distinction between the gospel and election.  Hence, the gospel is not to be equated with election, especially as defined as unconditional divine predetermination of who will be saved and who will not. Paul never introduces this doctrine anywhere in Romans 9-11. Election applies to the creation of Israel by virtue of the choices God made. Those choices tell us that righteousness and our salvation would not be by any human design, means, lineage, religious privilege, or social conventions, but by faith in Christ. So, in the New Testament, Paul informs the Jews of God’s mercy extended to the Gentiles. He also teaches us that righteousness comes through faith in Christ and not by being a physical descendant of Abraham, that is, a member of God’s elect or chosen people. Now, Paul’s gospel puts the faithfulness of God’s word to Israel in jeopardy; yet Paul responds to the questions and objections of his Jewish interlocutors in an orderly manner.  Indeed, within three chapters there are 28 questions (ch. 9/10; ch. 10/10; ch. 11/8, ESV). Paul addresses the fact that even though Israel is the elect people of God, God still has the prerogative to do with Israel as he sees fit to accomplish his larger purposes. Israel could not hold God captive to their expectations by the fact that they were his elect people. Here those purposes of election (9:11) are the salvation of the Gentiles, and the restoration and salvation of the Israelites by faith in Christ Jesus.  The way God worked his promises with Sarah and Rebecca established the fact that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (9:6, ESV) Paul wanted to communicate this to his fellow Jews who could not, and would not, submit to what God’s methodology meant for the spiritual and physical history of Israel and their salvation and that of the Gentiles. This is the problem, along with the questions and objections that arose from it that Paul had to address, at times diplomatically (ch. 9), and at times head-on (chs. 10 and 11). But nowhere does Paul expound any Calvinist doctrine.  In fact, again, chapters 10 and 11 contradict the Calvinist interpretation of chapter 9.  Hence, Paul can say that.

 “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are the enemies of God for your sake [the Gentiles].  But as regards election [their special place in history], they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.  Just as you [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their [Israel’s] disobedience, so they [Israel] have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you [Gentiles] they [Israel] also may now receive mercy.  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Rom. 11:28-32, ESV)

Here we have a clear distinction between “the gospel” and “election.”  Elect Israelites are deemed enemies of God and the gospel. This means that the doctrine of election has nothing directly to do with who believes the gospel, except that in the New Testament believers are termed “the elect.” When Paul mentions election, he does not mean unconditional election or the predestination of certain people to salvation while all others are assigned to damnation.  Such an interpretation is foreign to Paul’s concerns in chapters 9-11. It must be imposed on or read into these texts. Rather, Paul is addressing the present unbelief and disobedience of Israel and God’s prerogative to harden his own chosen people. With respect to the gospel, Israel has rejected it; yet, on the other hand, with respect to election, that is, Israel’s historical status as the people of God’s creation and favor, God loves them for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So, there is always a positive element to being a Jew, and Paul does his best to defend their place in God’s plans and purposes. But because they have rejected their Messiah, they are being hardened by God for the furtherance of God’s mercy in the gospel to the Gentiles who were once disobedient too.  Paul therefore sees God’s strategy as having consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (11:32). God’s purpose in election is that salvation would be in Christ Jesus for all by faith. Paul writes,

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,
              and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” (Rom. 9:30-33, 10:1-4, NIV)

Therefore, righteousness is not guaranteed by being of the offspring of Abraham, that is, not merely by being part of the elect people of God. It comes through faith in Jesus Christ as preached in the gospel.  Paul is perfectly clear about this in Romans 3:21-4:25.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (Rom. 1:16-17, NIV)

J. B. Phillips translates these verses as follows,

“For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I see it as the very power of God working for the salvation of everyone who believes it, both Jew and Greek. I see in it God’s plan for imparting righteousness to men, a process begun and continued by their faith. For, as the scripture says: ‘The just shall live by faith’.”

In Philippians, Paul speaks of “…not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God that depends on faith…” (Phil. 3:9, ESV).

God’s purpose in choosing Abraham and creating the nation of Israel was to bring salvation to all people (Gen 12:1-3). In establishing Israel by making promises to the patriarchs, that is, through the election of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God was revealing to Israel that salvation would be through his way of promise, that is, faith in Christ and not by works, human lineage (i.e., being a descendant of Abraham), or human designs. Paul understood this progressive and culminating revelation of the way of salvation as the working out of God’s mercy to all mankind.  This was God’s “purpose of election” (Rom. 9:11).  It was to lay the foundation for belonging to true “Israel” and for the Gentiles to become the “children of Abraham” based on faith in Jesus Christ and not “works.”

Hence, as quoted above from Rom. 10:1-4, Paul prayed for “his kinsmen” (v. 3) that are the “children of the flesh” (v. 8), that is, those Israelites that are merely descendants of Abraham but are not “children of promise” (v. 8). They are those Jews that are “descended from Israel” but do not “belong to Israel” (v. 6) now defined by faith in Christ Jesus. Paul also expands on the concept of righteousness and accessibility (10:6-21) and the universality of the salvation God sent down to us in Jesus Christ. Paul states,

“Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom. 10:5-13, NIV)

We can see that any conclusion that election can be defined as an unconditional choice God has made in eternity past to irresistibly effect salvation only in some people and not in any others not only misapprehends Paul’s historical concerns about Israel’s rejection of Jesus, God’s hardening of Israel, but also the salvation that hardening has brought to the Gentiles. Hence, Calvinists read their unconditional election into the text of Rom. 9, and that is why they cannot interpret that chapter coherently with chapters 10 and 11, let alone the rest of Romans. In that Calvinists do not have a coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory interpretation of Rom. 9-11, we must conclude that their interpretation is wrong.  It is not what Paul intended to say.

---

Return to Chapter 16 – The Doctrine of Election According to Scripture

---

Footnotes

[1] See An Introduction to the Theology Of The New Testament, Alan Richardson, Chapter 12 – The Israel of God, pp. 267-281, and Why I Am Not A Calvinist, Jerry L. Walls and Joseph Dongell, Chapter 2 – Engaging the Bible, pp. 84-95.

[2] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel: An Exposition of Romans 9-11, 3^rd ed. (Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1975), 13-14.

[3] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church. vol. 8 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 561.

[4] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church. vol. 8, 581.

[5] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church. vol. 8, 561.

[6] Jakob Jocz, The Spiritual History of Israel (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1961), 53.

[7] Jakob Jocz, The Spiritual History of Israel (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1961), 162.

[8] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel: An Exposition of Romans 9-11, 3^rd ed. (Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1975), 14, 15.

[9] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel, 17.

[10] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel, 17-18.

[11] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Israel, 18.

[12] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Election, 19-20.

[13] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977), 345-346.

[14] Brian J. Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2022), 315.

[15] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 316-317.

[16] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 319-320.

[17] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 317.

[18] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 347.

[19] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 320.

[20] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 320-321.

[21] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 322.

[22] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 350-351.

[23] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 351.

[24] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 351.

[25] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Election, 43.

[26] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 322-323..

[27] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 351-352.

[28] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 352-353.

[29] Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 136-137.

[30] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 354-355.

[31] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 360.

[32] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 355.

[33] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 356.

[34] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 355-356.

[35] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 356.

[36] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 328-329.

[37] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 329.

[38] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 329.

[39] Jer. 19:4.

[40] Rom. 9:21.

[41] Calvin observes, with reference to this passage, that “nothing is taught with Jeremiah than that Israel is in the hand of the Lord, so that for his sins he may break him in pieces, as a potter may his earthen vessel” (Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, English Tr. By H. Beveridge, 1844, p. 268).  This clearly recognizes that in the teaching of Jeremiah the potter is not arbitrary.

[42] Cf. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, English Tr. By H. Beveridge, ii, 1869, p. 210: “Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.”

[43] Cf. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC), 5^th ed, 1920, p. 260: “The potter is represented not merely as adapting for this ot that purpose a vessel already made, but is making out of a mass of shapeless material one to which he gives a character and form adapted to different uses, some honourable, some dishonourable.” C.H. Dodd observes that this “is the weakest point in the whole epistle” (The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [MC], 1942, p. 159). Its weakness lies, as J. Denney remarks (Expositor’s Greek Testament, ii, p. 664 a) in the fact that “the relation of God to man is not that of the potter to dead matter”. This is clearly recognized by Jeremiah in the application of the parable.  In Rom. 9:22 Paul goes on to speak of “vessels of wrath”, but Denney (loc. Cit., p. 664 b) thinks the word “vessels” is “perhaps prompted by the previous verse, but the whole associations of the potter and the clay are not to be carried over”. He says that are expressly excluded by the “endured with much longsuffering”. When the apostle speaks of them as “prepared of destruction”, he can hardly have been thinking of a potter preparing vessels for the sport of destroying them.

[44] H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1950), 40-41.

[45] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 330-332.

[46] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 360-362.

[47] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 362.

[48] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 333.

[49] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 364.

[50] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 369.

[51] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 373.

[52] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 373.

[53] H. L. Ellison, The Mystery of Election, 42-43.

[54] Abasciano, “Romans 9 and Calvinism,” 335.

[55] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 370-371.

[56] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 384-385.

[57] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 372-373.

[58] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 392.

[59] Rom. 11:17ff. Paul’s spiritual principles are sounder than the metaphor by which he expresses them, which betrays an ignorance of the real effect of grafting in the botanical realm, unless, as J. Denney (Expositor’s Greek Testament, ii, p. 680) argues, Paul deliberately used a figure which “turns on the fact that the process was an unnatural one”.

[60] H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1950), 144-145.

[61] Regarding “the others” who “were hardened” see Hebrews 3:1-4:13. There the writer warns his fellow believing Jews, who are experiencing persecution, to hold fast to their faith. But in doing so he mentions the hardness of heart (vv. 3:8, 13, 15; 4:7), unbelief (3:12, 19; 4:2) and disobedience (3:18; 4:6, 11). Paul has spoken about this hardness of heart, unbelief, and disobedience as characteristic of his Jewish kinsman in Romans 9-11.

[62] H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 145-146.

[63] Cf. The First Epistle of St. Peter, 1946, p. 278. Cf. F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 1947, p. 101: “The entire description is taken from the Greek Old Testament, with slight adaptation; he claims for the Church that place in the divine economy which the teachers of Israel had set before their nation as the destiny to which it was called…He has gone far beyond the thought of St. Paul….His thought is not that the Church has now supplanted or superseded Israel, but rather that the Church has been the object of God’s concerns all the while.”

[64] H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 146-147.

[65] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 393.

[66] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 394.

[67] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 393-394

[68] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 411.

[69] James Daane, The Freedom of God: A Study in Election and Pulpit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 112-114.

[70] James Daane, The Freedom of God, 114-115.

[71] I think the complexity and difficulty we sense in reading this text, especially chapter 9, comes from Paul’s efforts to affirm what God has established in his chosen people Israel, while also being true to what God has done through Israel for the salvation of the world, and also being forthright about the ramifications of Israel’s unbelief and how that has altered who is to now be considered the true Israel of God and the true children of Abraham. Paul juggles several theological issues all at once while adding historical examples (i.e., Moses and Pharaoh) and metaphors (i.e., the potter and the vessels, and the olive tree) to support his arguments. The bottom line is the distinction between ethnic, national Israel and Israel according to the promise, that is, those who have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

[72] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 416.

[73] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 418.

[74] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 417-418.

[75] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 418.

[76] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 418.

[77] Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans, 419-420.