The 9th chapter of Romans remains one of the most hotly debated sections in all of sacred Scripture. Is it because it is a text that is unclear? Are there any key textual critical issues? No. The reason that the passage is debated is because of the content of what is being discussed- that being “God’s purpose of election” (Rom. 9:11) and His absolute and complete right to do with His creation what He wills (Rom. 9:18, 21).
The text is one that is seen as clearly establishing a foundation for the Calvinistic doctrines of soteriology, but of course critics of this school of thought have not been without their objections. Throughout this article I will refer to the objector towards Calvinist as a synergist1, rather than strictly Arminian, because there are many critics of Calvinism who do not fall into this camp. A common, perhaps the most common, objection to the Calvinistic interpretation of the text is that the Apostle Paul is not discussing God’s election of individuals but rather nations- specifically the nation of Israel vs the Gentiles.
Now the synergist’s argument may seem attractive to some because, after all, to deny that what Paul is discussing in Romans 9 has anything to do with the Jews as nation is to deny that blue is a color. After all, we see Paul in verses 1-5 making specific reference to his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). But what the synergist has to prove is not merely that national Israel is in Paul’s mind as he is writing, for this is a point that no Calvinist denies (and is, as you will see, critical to our interpretation), rather, what the synergist must prove if his goal is to refute reformed soteriology is that Paul is exclusively making reference to nations in general without any regard towards people as individuals.
The goal in this article will be to set the 9th chapter of Romans before us, exegetically and honestly, to see what it is that the Apostle is saying as it relates to this question. After looking at the text, we will then briefly consider what the implications would be if the synergist’s point was true, and if this would be the deathblow to Calvinism many think it is.
Context, Context, Context
It will not be too hard to convince you that Romans 9 immediately follows Romans 8. This seems like an obvious detail, but it is crucial for examining the nature of this debate, for the Calvinist sees the 9th chapter of Romans as having an inseparable connection to the predestinarian language found in chapter 8, especially verses 28 until the end. The synergist will deal with this in one or two ways, he will either create an impenetrable wall between the two sections (in which case he would still have to deal with the language about foreknowledge, predestination and election in chapter 8) or more likely, he will separate Romans 9 out, create an interpretation, and then seek to read this interpretation back into Romans 8.
Both of these strategies are seen to be false, as they violate basic assumptions concerning human language. In any other written text, you start at the beginning and work your way to the end. You allow the author to develop his thoughts and arguments in his own order. You seek to see the flow of the discussion, where it started, where it is and where it is going. I am willing to bet that when you began reading this article, you didn’t start with reading a paragraph in the middle, one at the end, then the opening. I bet that what you did was you began reading where I, the author, clearly assumed you would- the beginning. This is how you would read any other article, book, email, text message etc. and it should be how you read your Bible!
Now for the purposes of this article, we are asking a specific question about a specific section of the book of Romans, and so we will begin our examination with the relevant portions of chapter 8, we will go in order, follow Paul’s argument and allow the message of the passage to develop as it goes along. And lest any snarky objectors say I am violating my own principles by starting here rather than chapter 1 verse 1, keep in mind I never said it was wrong to simply go to a particular text and discuss it, my point is that it is wrong to create an interpretation of a given text that either ignores its context, or violates its context- and if you think I am doing one of these two things, I would invite you to demonstrate it.
Romans 8
At this point in the text, the Apostle Paul is discussing the role that the Spirit plays in the life of the believer. In chapters 1-5 he has discussed and explained the Gospel in very technical, theological language and in chapters 6 up until this point, he explains that very practical outworking of these theological truths, in particular the believer’s relationship with sin. In verses 1-11 of chapter 8 he talks about the Spirit’s power of setting us free from bondage to our sin and empowering us to live righteous lives. In verse 9 he makes the statement, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him”. It is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith that the Spirit dwells within each individual believer. This is not an issue that any Christian disputes, but I simply call your attention to it so that we can see, quite clearly and obviously, that what Paul is here discussing pertains to the lives of individual believers. The relationship between the Spirit and believer is further developed in verses 12-17 as Paul discusses the testimony that the Spirit gives to individual believers. In verses 18-25 Paul shows us that this testimony of the Spirit is a great comfort to believers in their sufferings, as believers await the “revealing of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19) and receive “the redemption of our bodies” (v. 23). This may be obvious but, who has bodies? Individual human beings have bodies. Not classes of people, not nations but individual people possess bodies. In verses 26-27 Paul discusses then the Spirit’s work of intercession, when we do not know how to pray as we ought. Then we get to verse 28, where we have that gloriously beautiful statement, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose”. These same believers who possess the Spirit are those who love God, as they have the assurance that God will providentially work all things for their good (a promise that is completely meaningless unless God is sovereign). In verse 28 Paul adds another descriptive phrase to these believers, that they are “called according to his purpose”.
Now there are two, essentially interchangeable, Greek words for “called” in the New Testament- κλητός (kletos) which always carries with it the notion of being called, or appointed to some specific end or the term καλέω (kaleo) which can, and often does mean that same thing (see its usage in such places like 1 Cor. 1:9, 1 Cor. 7:15-24, Eph. 4:1,4, 1 Thess. 4:7) but can also have a broader application, such as calling someone’s name, or calling in the sense of referring to something- for instance the angel tells Joseph, “you shall call (καλέω (kaleo) his name Jesus” in Matthew 1:21. Paul uses the specific term κλητός (kletos) in verse 28, the other more general term καλέω (kaleo) is used in verse 30 of chapter 8, and is the term used in Romans 9.
When Paul says that those who love God are called, what are they called to? We see that they are called according to the purpose of God, but what actually is God’s purpose in calling these individuals? The answer is given in verses 29-30, the “golden chain of redemption” as these verses are often referred to.
The Golden Chain of Redemption
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” - Romans 8:28–30 (ESV)
In the citation above I have emboldened the word “those” that you might see visually that Paul has one group of people in mind throughout this whole thing. Ultimately, we see that the purpose God has in calling these individuals is that they would be “conformed to the image of his Son”, this will be complete at the last day when they are “glorified”, or “raised in glory” to use the language of 1 Corinthians 15:43. You may notice how very consistent this is with what was being discussed previously in verses 18-25 concerning the “redemption of our bodies”.
It is not the purpose of this article to give an in-depth discussion of each element in this golden chain, the important thing to notice for right now is simply that there is a specific group of people (those who love God and are called by God) whom God has foreknown (which is a verb, an action of God, not simply God knowing of individuals beforehand but an actual intimate connection), these same people “he also predestined”. Their destiny before they were ever born was to be conformed to the image of God’s Son. This same group of people whom He foreknew and predestined, “he also called, and those whom he called he also justified”. Paul has discussed justification quite fully in chapters 3-4, and he is saying that the same group of people who were foreknown, predestined and called by God also receive this justification. There is no sudden change or break in the text, it quite simply says “those whom he called he also justified”, therefore no one who is called is not also justified. Finally, “those whom he justified he also glorified”, remember again, what was the purpose of God in calling these individuals? It was that they would be conformed to Christ’s image, and this will be complete when believers are raised in a resurrection body like His.
We call this the golden chain because each element is linked to another, you do not have redemption if anyone of these “links” is missing. The chain cannot be broken either, for if you follow the text through all those who were initially foreknown will eventually be glorified at the last day, this gives believer’s the assurance that their salvation will never be lost. It is also one of the clearest places where the doctrine of predestination is seen.
An Inseparable Love
“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” - Romans 8:31–39 (ESV)
This is one of the most powerful sections in all of Paul’s writings. He says in verse 31 “What then shall we say to these things?”, the “these things” he refers to are the works of God listed in the golden chain. The response that Paul has to the golden chain is that no believer can be separated from the love of God. You will notice that in the citation above I have emboldened every instance in which the terms “we” or “us” were used to help you see that a particular group of people are in view here. Since Paul is responding to the golden chain of verses 29-30, then the “us” are the same people who in verse 28 are those who love God and are called according to His purpose. The same people, whom God works all things together for good for are those who have been predestined to be made like Christ. God is going to truly accomplish this goal of His, and therefore those who love God can have absolute assurance that God will always love them. These people are referred to in verse 33 as “God’s elect”. Again, the themes of God’s sovereignty in election in salvation are inescapable here. Salvation is pictured as an act of God, “It is God who justifies”.
And thus chapter 8 ends with a discussion of the elect of God, who are individual people called by God who will experience the resurrection of the body (Rom. 8:23, 30). Nations do not resurrect with glorified bodies, but people do. We now turn to the 9th chapter of Romans to see how Paul’s discussion continues, remembering that there were no chapter divisions when the epistle was initially written.
Romans 9
“I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 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.” - Romans 9:1–5 (ESV)
The eyes of the synergist flame with excitement as he shouts, “look! Paul is talking about the Israelites!” as the Calvinist responds, “right, exactly”.
Paul enters here into a discussion concerning the Israelites, his “kinsmen according to the flesh”. But does anyone ever stop to ask the question, “why?” What would be the reason for the Apostle Paul, at this specific point in the letter to discuss national Israel?
Well, look at what is mentioned here in the text, Paul has “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart. Why is this? What would cause him to grieve so heavily over the Jews? Because they had rejected the Messiah. Now, why would this be a relevant discussion for Paul to engage in at this point in the letter? What is it that he was talking about (just one verse earlier) that this would be relevant towards?
Paul was just discussing the absolute power of God in salvation, to perfectly accomplish His purposes and in verse 39 he makes the bold statement that nothing can “separate us form the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Now the very next sentence (use whiteout on the chapter divisions and headings if you need to) Paul says, “I am speaking the truth in Christ- I am not lying”. Now, why would anyone, at this point, think Paul was lying? Because if God’s purposes in redemption are really such as Paul described in verses 28-39, then how come the Jewish people are no longer following God in Christ? Paul anticipates the objection, and so he gives the assurance, “I am speaking the truth in Christ- I am not lying”. The synergist wants to artificially separate chapter 9 from 8, but he must reckon with the fact that the very transitional sentence in verse 1 of chapter 9 is in direct response to the truths just spoken of in chapter 8.
What we then see in the rest of chapter 9 is Paul’s explanation of this issue, of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews in light of the fact that His elect (v. 33) cannot be separated from His love.
Who is Israel?
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” - Romans 9:6–8 (ESV)
When Paul says, “it is not as though the word of God has failed” we again have to ask the question, “why would anyone think the word of God has failed?” It is because of the fact that the Jews, the very ones to whom the Messiah came, have not embraced the Messiah. Paul’s explanation of how this truth can be reconciled with the notion that God’s word never fails is that “not all who are descended from Israel” (that is, not all who are ethnically Israelites) “belong to Israel”. You see, in Paul’s theology there is more to belonging to Israel than simply being ethnically Jewish. This is very reminiscent of things we read about in Galatians 3 and this same theme was seen earlier in the letter to the Romans in chapter 2 when Paul said, “no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly… but a Jew is one inwardly” (Rom. 2:28-29).
So, there is a broad category of Israel, as in ethnic Israel, but within this larger group there is a smaller group that we might consider spiritual Israel. Not everyone who is in this larger group belongs to the smaller group. What we see (and this will be seen again in chapter 9) is somewhat of a whittling down, to use that language.
Verse 7 introduces us to the first Old Testament citation when Paul says, “not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named’”. Think about what is being said here, what does it mean to be a child of Abraham? The question might seem rudimentary, obviously those whom his seed physically progenerated would be his children, but Paul reveals to us that this is not the case. To be a child of Abraham means something more than simply being physically descended from him. The text cited is Genesis 21:12 after the birth of Isaac. Now you know that before Isaac was born, Sarah (doubtful of God’s promise to bring them a child in their old age) had Abraham go into her servant Hagar, and this instance brought forth Abraham’s son Ishmael. So, at this point Abraham has two children, Ishmael and Isaac but God says to Abraham “through Isaac shall your offspring be named”. Now humanly speaking, all the offspring of Ishamel would be Abraham’s offspring as well- until you remember the covenant that the Lord made with Abraham in chapters 12, 15 and 17. This was obviously something on Paul’s mind as he wrote Romans 9 because he mentions the covenants in verse 4.
God made a covenant with Abraham that he was offspring was to possess the land of Canaan, and that through this one nation the whole world would be blessed. Ishmael would be the father of a nation as well (Gen. 17:20) but it is Isaac who is given the particular everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:19, 21). What this tells us is that there is something more to the covenant than merely existing as a nation. If all that was meant by this covenant was simply to be the father of a nation, then Isaac and Ishmael receive the exact same thing, which makes what God says in Genesis 21:12 (the verse quoted by Paul in Romans 9:7) completely meaningless.
Obviously, those of us who know our Bibles know that the offspring of Isaac would bring blessing to the world in a way Ishmael’s offspring never would, and that is because through the seed of Isaac comes the Messiah, Christ Jesus. Therefore, the covenant made with Abraham is redemptive in nature.
Then, when we look at Paul’s utilization of this text in Romans 9:7, it makes sense how he can talk about “children of the promise”- the promise made to Abraham is redemptive in nature, and not all of his physical progeny share in this promise. Hopefully at this point you see how this makes sense with what Paul is dealing with in Romans 9, that not all who are ethnically Israel share in the promise of the Messiah. Paul gives the explanation in verse 8, “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring”.
This is the beginning of an argument that Paul will unfold in greater detail throughout the chapter, and it is concerning God’s discrimination in choosing to give His promise (which is more than simply being the father of a nation, but has redemptive elements that are fulfilled in Christ) to whom He will. Remember how before Abraham had any children, God already made the promise. There was confusion because of his old age, but God chose Abraham anyways. And He chose a particular one of his sons to bring this promise through. Why? Because that is what God wanted to do.
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated
“For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” - Romans 9:9–13 (ESV)
Paul quotes from Genesis 18 where it is specifically mentioned that Sarah would be the mother of the child of promise simply to reinforce that the particular child in God’s plan was Isaac, not Ishmael. Verse 10 says, “And not only so”, Paul is going to give us a further example of this same thing. We saw quite clearly God’s discrimination in choosing only one of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac, but now we see that even of Isaac’s sons, God will continue whittling down and setting his promise (which we’ve already seen is redemptive in nature) on only one of Isaac’s children.
Verse 11 makes an astonishing statement, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”. In my mind, this verse is key in demonstrating that even in this present conversation, Paul still is thinking about individuals rather than merely nations. Verse 11 says “thought they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad”. Who is being referred to here? Well we see contextually that it is Isaac’s two sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob and Esau were the ones who had not yet been born and had done nothing either good or bad. The synergist wants us to see that the only thing in view here is Jacob as the father of the Israelites, and Esau as the father of the Edomites. He uses for his argument that the Old Testament citations in verses 12 and 13, Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3 display the two brothers as fathers of varying nations. Now the Calvinist does not deny this. He knows that, considered historically, that is who the two brothers are, Jacob the father of the Israelites and Esau, father of the Edomites. What we need to see though, if we are going to understand Romans 9, is how does Paul use these respective texts?
Remember the overall thing being discussed, that the Jews in the first century have rejected the Messiah and thereby they are not inheriting the promise of salvation. Paul just made reference to Isaac and Ishmael, that though they were both naturally born children of Abraham, only one received the promise. In the exact same way, though Jacob and Esau are both the naturally born children of Isaac, only one inherits the promise (which is redemptive in nature). That this is to be seen of the two brothers, considered as individuals, is seen in verse 11 when Paul says that God’s choice was made before either had done anything, good or bad. If all Paul had in mind was the nations they would father, rather than the two men themselves, Paul would reference not their particular works, but the works of the perspective nations they would father. He then says, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”. God has a purpose in election, that is, in choosing whom he will choose. Paul says that his choice is not based upon works.
Now why would Paul make this statement, “not because of works”? In what other context does he use this language? Throughout the book of Romans, when Paul talks about “works” as a plural noun, he is always discussing works of the law. And whenever he is discussing something being “not of works” he is referring to the fact that believers are not justified by works, but rather faith (see Rom. 3:28, 4:5). Every other time Paul uses this language in Romans, it is in the context of redemption- remember that we have already seen that redemption is in view in the covenant promises being discussed in chapter 9. If Paul uses this language to describe justification in salvation, then how does verse 11 of Romans 9 make any sense at all if he is strictly speaking about the nations of Israel and Edom, rather than the men Jacob and Esau? Paul never speaks of nations being justified by faith and not works, but always people- individuals.
What Paul has done in verses 7-13 with the references to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is to show that the way God was working in the first century was the way He had always worked in the past. Abraham has two sons, one of them receives the promise. Isaac has two sons, only one of them receives the promise. And then even of all Jacob’s children, of all Israel, not all of them are spiritually Israel.
The Objector
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”” - Romans 9:14–20 (ESV)
At this point Paul begins anticipating and dealing with potential objections that might be made against his teaching. And this is very helpful for our understanding of the text- we can know that we are interpreting the text rightly if our interpretation leads to the same objections Paul anticipates. If people hear our interpretation of this chapter, and they say it makes God sound unjust (as the objector in verse 14 says) then our interpretation is probably right. If someone says to us, “how can God judge people if they aren’t able to make a choice and resist His will?” (which is what the objector in verse 19 says) then that is another indicator we accurately understand Paul’s teaching.
One of the things I find fascinating about this section, as Paul anticipates and responds to potential objections, is Paul’s background as a Pharisee. We know that before he was saved, Paul was of the sect of the Pharisees (Philip. 3:5). Now most people are aware, because it comes up in the Gospels, that one of the disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees is that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead, whereas the Pharisees affirmed it. But this is not the only disagreement they had, the 1st century Roman-Jewish historian Josephus tells us of some of the other disparities between these two sects, one of them being very relevant to our present discussion:
“Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them, they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in anything which they have introduced; and, when they determine that all things are done by fate [destiny], they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of men can act virtuously or viciously.” Jewish Antiquities 18:2:3, Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 477.
One of the beliefs that the Pharisees held was that all things were predetermined before the world began “all things are done by fate”. Notice also, that they did not believe this did violence to man’s will or choices, but that men still act “as they think fit”. This is almost exactly what is said in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith when we read in chapter 3, paragraph 1:
“God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.”
Put anachronistically, the Pharisees essentially held the view of God’s sovereignty and man’s choices that we would consider compatibilism, that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility for his actions do not contradict but are compatible with one another.
The reason I take the time to consider this historical background information, is because it helps us see how Paul is able to anticipate the objections to his teaching. After all, when he was a learned Pharisee, this was probably a subject he debated quite frequently, as well as the doctrine of the resurrection! And then as he went and preached this doctrine to gentiles, he would’ve encountered their objections as well.
Let us now consider the objections, that this might bring injustice on God’s part (v. 14) and it would be unfair for God to find fault with people if His will can’t be resisted (v.19). The pathetic position of the synergist at this point, is his whole scheme of making this text exclusively about nations and not individuals, is that he is trying to avoid these objections, and yet Paul knows that his teaching will lead to these charges! What we then see is that the synergist himself is the objector in Romans 9. He hears what the Calvinist says, and he thinks it makes God sound bad. But this is exactly what the Apostle Paul’s opponents said to him, it is the same argument, different century. The Calvinist stands with Paul, and the synergist accuses them, both, of making God sound unjust.
Well, how does Paul deal with these objections? He shows us that these objections do not arise out of thoughtful, intelligent exegesis of Scripture, but rather these objections are emotional and came from a place of spiritual immaturity.
When someone accuses Paul of putting injustice on God’s part (v.14) he references what God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. Note that in the original language, the phrases “have mercy on” and “have compassion on” are actually not phrases, but individual verbs. Ἐλεήσω (eleeso)- mercy, οἰκτιρήσω (okitereso)- compassion. Put in English, a literal translation would be “I will mercy whom I mercy, and I will compassion whom I compassion”. These are actions of God that pay respect to individuals- “whom”, ὃν ἂν (hon an), singular pronoun. There is no injustice on God’s part for He has the right to set His love upon whomever He chooses.
Verse 16, “then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”. The “it” refers to being a recipient of the mercy of God, which does not depend upon human will or effort. Again, how would this statement make sense if Paul was not talking about individual humans? Nations do not have “human will” but humans do. And just as receiving the promise of salvation depends not on human works (v.11) receiving God’s mercy depends not on human will either.
God’s right to do with His creation what He wills is further demonstrated with the example of Pharoah, who is raised up for the purpose of demonstrating God’s power in him, that the name of God would be proclaimed throughout all the earth (v. 17). When one reflects upon the story of Pharoah found in the book of Exodus, he remembers God’s hardening of his heart (Ex. 4:21, 9:12, 10:1, 14:8) and the subsequent plagues that were poured out upon Egypt. The power God demonstrates is the power of His wrath, and it was truly proclaimed throughout all the earth, we see that when the Israelites come to Jericho, the prostitute Rahab has heard of the terrible judgements of the Lord (Joshua 2:9-10). The application Paul makes of this is that God “has mercy on whomever he wills. and he hardens whomever he wills” (v. 18).
In verse 19 we get the objection, which we have already referenced a few times, that it would be unfair for God to still find fault with individuals, “for who can resist his will?” The “who” there is, again, a singular pronoun τίς and so we know that it is no individual who can resist God’s will. And then we get to verse 20, where Paul delivers his most powerful objection, “But who are you (singular pronoun σὺ), O man (ἄνθρωπε anthrope, singular noun), to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”
Here Paul shows us what exactly it is that lays at the heart of all objections to the total sovereignty of God, and His discriminating election in the salvation of particular individuals- and that is, that man’s flesh simply doesn’t like it. These were the objections Paul faced in his day, and these are the same objections that Calvinists and reformed Christians face in our own day. We see that man objects to God’s ability to do with His creation whatever He will. Paul’s answer to this is rhetorical, “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” You are but man, you are but God’s creature. You need to learn your place, God will do what God wills to do, and you have no grounds of objecting.
If we really understood the holiness of God, and the depravity of our sin, this truth would be easier to accept. But in our day of humanism, and the exaltation of the self, it is no wonder that so many, even professing Christians, object to what Paul teaches clearly in the 9th of Romans. But if you truly understood how sinful sin really was, you wouldn’t be shocked at God’s reprobation of Esau, you would be shocked that He loved Jacob.
The Potter’s Freedom
“Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” - Romans 9:21–24 (ESV)
Paul continues his response to the objector by stating again the total freedom God has in doing with His creation what He wills. Drawing from imagery found in the Old Testament prophets, God is described as a potter, and man as clay. God has the right to take one lump of clay, and make from it two different vessels- one for honorable use, one for dishonorable. Vessels of mercy, and vessels of wrath.
In verse 22, Paul asks the rhetorical question, what if God desired to make a vessel of wrath, prepared specifically for the purpose of destruction? It is a sobering question to think upon. But what Paul means by this is, “What if God did this? Would it be wrong for Him to do so?” It would be a worthwhile thing for all Christians who struggle with these doctrines to ask themself this question, “If what the Calvinist says is correct, would that mean God was morally wrong?” As a pastor writing this, I hope that all Christians take a moment to seriously pray and meditate upon this text.
Getting back to the polemical side of things, the two categories we see here are vessels wrath and vessels of mercy. And it is at this point that I believe we have the smoking gun, so to speak. I truly believe that what we read in verses 23-24 is the irrefutable proof that Paul is discussing the salvation of individuals in Romans 9, rather than merely the election of nations. One of God’s purposes in these vessels of wrath, is that they “make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy”. Those who have received God’s mercy, see it more clearly when they recognize that there were many people whom God had passed over, and He could just as easily have passed over them, but He chose not to. This is penetrating to the soul.
Now, similarly to the vessels of wrath, these vessels of mercy have also been prepared beforehand, but who or what are they? Are the vessels of mercy the nation of Israel? No, because Israel has apostatized. Are they gentile nations? No, because not all gentiles follow Christ either. In verse 24, Paul tells us who these vessels of mercy are, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles”. The “us” is the Christian church, therefore the vessels of mercy are the Christian church. And not just Jewish Christians, but all whom the Lord God has called to Himself “not from Jews only but also from the Gentiles”. The synergist who wants this text to only be about God choosing one nation over against another will really struggle to deal with the fact that Paul is specifically saying he isn’t talking about one nation receiving mercy while another nation doesn’t, but that he is talking about all Christians who are called by God, whether Jew or Gentile.
This, then, makes sense of the issue Paul is dealing with at the beginning of this chapter. Though national Israel has rejected Christ, the word of God has not failed because not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. It is specifically those who receive the word of God’s promise, that have the inseparable salvation described in chapter 8. And these people are all those whom God chooses, whether Jew or Greek. He has the right to discriminate and make these choices, and this is how God has always worked. His promise rests upon the individuals who believe in Christ and is not a promise that anyone receives simply by virtue of the nation they are born into.
Such is the exposition of the key sections in Romans 9.
What if the Synergist is Right?
Although I believe I have demonstrated convincingly that this chapter is, in fact, talking about individual salvation, as opposed to some kind of “class election” of nations, for the sake of discourse I thought it might be worthwhile to think through the implications that would follow, if this were not the case, that the synergist who says “this is only about God choosing nations” is right.
First, would this destroy Calvinism as so many think it would? Not hardly. Read any meaningful Calvinistic theologian, and he will be able to demonstrate to you all the tenants of reformed soteriology (all 5 points) without ever making a single reference to this chapter. Now we obviously think that this chapter is important, and we will use it in our systematic, I am just simply saying that this is not the only place in Scripture where God’s sovereignty in salvation is taught, so even if we were wrong about this one chapter we would still have countless other places in the Scriptures to derive our theology from.
Secondly, what would it actually mean if this text was only about nations? All that the synergist would prove by this is that the individuals in some nations receive the blessings of God, whereas individuals in other nations don’t. And what exactly does the synergist gain by this? Well, nothing really, because while he seeks to demonstrate so fiercely that this is about nations and not individuals, he forgets that nations are made up of the people who live in those nations! And so just as God would be choosing to withhold His mercy from individuals (as in our understanding) He would be choosing to withhold his mercy from entire nations of people. How this is somehow preferable to the simple truth that God chooses individuals from every nation “not from Jews only but also from the Gentiles” I do not understand.
Synergism, referring to more than one party at work in salvation. The synergist (be he Arminian, Provisionist, Roman Catholic etc.) believes that man, or man’s free will in some capacity cooperates with the grace of God in the work of salvation. The monergist is he who believes that God alone is the author and determiner of salvation. The Calvinist is a monergist.
Thank you for this. But with all your good points, I think you are still missing the main point, which is that the "hardening of hearts" is due to how this hardening serves the "glory of the story", or rather, the spectacle (that my power might be displayed in you). https://honorshamebible.substack.com/p/vv15-chosen-to-be-the-villain