Romans 9…The clay has a will of its own...

Keys to Unlocking the Meaning of Romans 9

The students argued, "It's an old lady."  Another said, "No, it's a young lady."  The first student maintained, "No, she's old and ugly.  How can you think she is young?"  The second student retorted, "She is young and beautiful and has a feather in her hair."  On and on they went, each unmoved from their position.  So it goes when any group looks at the famous drawing.  If you haven't seen it, google it.  This scene is a powerful illustration of the myopia we all fall into with our views, esp. our theology. Whether it is because a pastor told you how to interpret the scripture or you accepted your own interpretation without scrutinizing it against opposing views, you are entrenched in your theological views.  It is good to have strong convictions, to be passionate about your beliefs.  It is good to have strong faith, but not when it is misplaced.  Our goal must be to find truth, whatever it may be.  We must be able to seriously consider another's viewpoint when we talk about our scriptural interpretations in case we find that we are wrong.  One day we may find that the old lady we saw actually is a young woman.  This analogy breaks down because in theology, it can't be both, whereas in the picture, it can be either.

There's another exercise I challenge you to do.  Watch the YouTube select attention video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo) where you have to count the number of passes a basketball team wearing white makes.  If you have tried this experiment, you will most likely agree with me that there are things you fail to see in life.  This should be a startling realization to each of us.  It is a sobering reminder of our limitations.  If we are so limited, we should be humble to consider we could be mistaken in our theological perspectives.  Based on this realization, I ask you to humbly consider the foregoing argument, which runs counter to most of the Reformation theologians and a growing number of evangelical churches in the Western world today.  So here we go...

Romans 9 cannot be interpreted in one’s own context.  One should not read it and assume they will understand it without the context from the rest of Paul’s letter.  Furthermore, at least one other letter written by Paul— Galatians-- provides valuable elaboration on the same topic.  Without considering these contexts, the reader is in danger of entering into grave heresy that has beset the Lord’s precious church for centuries. 

Although it is obvious, I will state it because it is easy to misinterpret Romans 9 if we forget it.  Romans 9 was written within the context of Paul’s whole letter to the Romans.  You cannot rightly divide God’s word in Romans 9 apart from understanding it as an extension of the arguments he has already made in Romans 1-8. 

What does this context of Paul’s letter to the Romans look like?  The entire book of Romans is an inclusio.  An inclusio is an ancient literary device authors used to encapsulate a teaching.  The way it worked is the writer would start with a proposition or thesis.  Then they would seek to develop this idea.  Finally they would close the package by restating the original thesis. The beginning and ending thesis statements acted as bookends to the enveloped message.  An inclusio, by definition, should contain a consistent message.  The book of Romans is an inclusio, starting in 1:5 with the thesis, "we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith," (emphasis added) and ending in 16:26 with the same only slightly restated thesis, "so that all nations might believe and obey him" (emphasis added).  Notice the agreement of the italicized words between the two bookends.  “Gentiles” are the “nations” (same root word in Greek: ethne), “faith” is “believe” in noun form, and “obedience” is “obey” in noun form.  The Greek phrase “obedience of faith” is identical in both verses:  “hypokone pisteos”. 

Romans 9 follows the foundation laid in Romans 1-4, where Paul has, in very precise language, spelled out the order of salvation, which he says is based on putting our faith in Jesus' sacrificial death.  As Ephesians 1:12-13 says, once this has been done, then we are included in Christ. 

In Romans 2:28-29, Paul establishes that “a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.  No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.  Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”  In other words, not all physical Jews are spiritual Jews.  The true Jews are spiritually circumcised in their hearts.  They soften their hearts toward God and listen to him.  They receive and believe in him.  They do not close themselves off from God and boast in themselves.  Those who depended on the “written code” of physical circumcision boasted in themselves.  The “written code” is the Law.  Depending on your ability to keep the Law is self-established righteousness, which is the antithesis of faith. 

Paul’s central point is made in Romans 3 and 4.  In Romans 3:20-23, he exclaims that righteousness from God has been made known and that it is received apart from the law.  In v. 20, he clearly states that “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by the works of the law…”  In v. 22, he makes plain the means of receiving this righteousness:  “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” —the most wonderful news ever heard!  It is a free gift!  But, if I am putting my faith in Christ, then isn’t that a work that I can boast in, as the Calvinist argues?  In v. 27-31, Paul contrasts “faith” vs. the “works of the law” and says, in so many words, that nobody who has a faith-based righteousness can boast. 

This contrast is clear to his mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles in Rome, who knew the Judaizers boasted, in their flesh, that they kept the law and demanded for Gentiles to be circumcised for salvation (cf. 2:25-29, 3:30, and 4:10-11 reference to “circumcision”).  This works-based righteousness is what Paul is decrying in these verses.  Naturally, as Paul says elsewhere (Gal 2:21), if one could establish righteousness based on the law, Christ died for nothing.  In contrast to this right to boast in one’s own righteousness by being good enough, there is the one who couldn’t establish his own righteousness and instead had to depend on someone else to do it for him.  This weak, miserable person, despised by the strong, is the one who has placed their faith in Christ to be credited His righteousness.  One who does this cannot boast.  Boasting would be as silly as a baseball player who had to have a pinch-hitter that hits a homerun.  To boast that he hit that homerun would be laughable.  Now the man who hit the homerun, by contrast, could rightfully boast that he did so and he would receive glory for doing so.   In the same way, the believer has no right to boast because he did not earn his right stance before God; it was earned for him by Jesus Christ, the only one righteous and the only one who deserves to boast.  And how did the Christian get credited this righteousness?  By choosing to put his faith in Christ rather than himself—something the self-righteous Jews were not willing to do. 

To understand Romans 9, one must understand first that the dichotomy Paul establishes is “Works of the Law” vs. “Faith in Christ”.  So whenever you see this phrase, “Works of the Law” or its shortened form, “works”, let the reader astutely understand that this is the dichotomy in Paul’s mind.  He shouldn’t need to lay that foundation again.  When the reader encounters this phrase in Romans 9, to be specific, he should not think Paul is setting up a new dichotomy between “works of the law” and “God’s election”.  For this would be taken out of the blue and have no continuity from his argument he has worked so hard to establish.  Being a supreme debater that Pharisees were, he would not develop an argument that doesn’t continue to build on itself. 

In Romans 4, Paul continues to build this argument, elaborating further on the dichotomy he has established in Romans 3.  He does a case study on Abraham, the greatest patriarch of the Jews, and the recipient of the law of circumcision.  If Abraham was justified by obeying the law of circumcision, then the Jews have a case.  But to the contrary, Paul proves that Abraham was justified by faith even before circumcision (4:10).  And he makes a couple of statements that are important to remember as we look at Romans 9.

The first of these is:  4:12 “And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”  This builds on what Paul earlier said in Romans 2:28-29.  In other words, those who put their faith in God like Abraham did are sons of Abraham.  Those who are circumcised in their hearts are true sons of Abraham.  However, those who are only circumcised physically and have no faith in God are not sons of Abraham.  The imitable characteristic of Abraham is his faith.  Therefore, faith is the one characteristic that defines his son. 

The second is: 4:13-14 “It was not through 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 live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless…” and in 4:16a, “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring…”  Here Paul is clarifying what happened in Genesis.  Abraham received the promise by his faith, not by relying on the Law.  If the law was able to make someone righteous, the promise would have been completely unnecessary and the faith to receive that promise would have added no value.  This is exactly the same thing Paul argues in Galatians 3:15-29.  In Gal 3:17-18, specifically, he states, “…The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.  For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise…”, and in v.21b, “For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.”  And he comes to the point of explaining the purpose of the law in v.24, “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.”  And if we have faith, we are Abraham’s seed (v.29).   Now the Calvinist may argue here, “I completely agree with the purpose of the law and faith.  Why are you trying to convince me of this?”  The reason I bring this up is that it is crucial to keep this in focus when we study Romans 9.  For this is Paul’s context.  His aim is to expose the reason why not all Jews are saved.  And that reason is not because they weren’t chosen.  It is because they continued to trust in their own flesh to keep the law.  They pursued righteousness through the law rather than by faith in Christ.  They saw no need for a Christ to make them righteous.  They wanted a Messiah to rescue them from political oppression not moral failure.  The latter requires the need to humbly admit failure—something many of the Jews were not willing to do.  And it is something that most people are not willing to do either; it is something our flesh resists.  Again, the reason Paul gives for God’s rejecting most Jews is not because he didn’t elect them but rather that they did not elect him—that they did not agree that they needed a savior from moral failure. 

Romans 5:1 clearly delineates this order by saying, "Therefore, 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."  Notice that Paul does not say, "…through whom we have gained access by grace into this faith in which we now stand."  This would have supported the Calvinist view, since they believe God's grace is the choosing of individuals for salvation and he then gives them faith.  The point Paul reiterates throughout his writings is that salvation (by grace) is received by faith—not that faith is received by grace.  That salvation is every blessing pertaining to it as well.  It includes every spiritual blessing, some of which are enumerated in Ephesians 1.  All of it hinges on and begins with our faith, as Paul states in Eph 1:13:  “And you were also included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.  Having believed…” (emphasis added).  You are not “in Christ” until believing the gospel.  Therefore, unless you have believed, you do not meet this “in Christ” condition of the spiritual blessings enumerated in Eph 1:1-10. 

As a last piece of context, consider that in Romans 8:29ff, Paul has established that because God’s Holy Spirit indwells a believer, they are now predestined for glory and can rest securely in this promise.  Be watching for a full treatment of Romans 8 in a separate post. 

Now that we have reviewed this important contextual framework, let me provide a quick overview of Romans 9.  On the heels of Romans 8’s promise of security in God’s acceptance, Paul is deeply saddened for his own blood-brothers—the Jews—because, having received God’s promises, they did not see them fulfilled but were instead rejected.  They did not reach their intended destination.  So he now addresses in Romans 9 how this can be the case and yet God can also be faithful and just in not fulfilling the promises to them.  Paul’s thesis is in v.6:  “It is not as though God’s word had failed.  For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”  God’s word (read: promise) never was to natural Israel but to spiritual Israel.  That is, the promises were made not to works-righteous Israel but to faith-righteous Israel.  He will go on to prove this thesis throughout the rest of Romans 9, then proceed in Romans 10 to prove that Israel had opportunity to hear the promise but rejected it, and in Romans 11 that if they stop persisting in their rejection and unbelief, they will be accepted. 

Before we dive into the depths of Romans 9, let’s start with Paul’s summary, found in 9:30-32.  Paul begins concluding his argument in Romans 9 with the familiar question, “What then shall we say?”  The rhetorical device Paul has employed in prior chapters of this letter, he reprises here.  His conclusion quite simply is this:  The nation Israel did not attain a righteous stance before God because they pursued it the wrong way.  Rather than pursuing it by faith, as even the Gentiles have, Israel pursued it by the self-righteous method of works of the law.  Instead of trusting in Jesus—the “stone that causes men to stumble and [the] rock that makes them fall”—they rejected him and trusted in themselves.  Therefore, they are judged based on their own failing works. 

This conclusion sums up all of Paul’s oft-misconstrued words in Romans 9.  He is not trying to argue Calvinism.  He is not vying for Christians to understand their salvation from a more macroscopic perspective that says, “You did not choose God; He chose you before you were created.”  Nor is he trying to put humanity in his place as if the believer thought their faith was something they could boast about or lest we give man any glory because he thinks he “adds” something to God’s salvific power.  And not because Paul feels like he has to defend this doctrine of Calvinism when he says, “who are you, O man, to talk back to God?”  None of this was in the mind of Paul when he wrote this letter!  These are man-made interpretations read into the text and passed down to us for centuries, now sadly bought into by us with so little inspection or criticism. 

A quick aside here.  We should not think ourselves out of the league of those “great” theologians of old such as Calvin, Luther or Augustine such that we could not be eligible to challenge their way of thinking.  We should consider them above reproach in their doctrine no more than the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.  In fact, nobody is above reproach in their doctrine apart from God himself.  Even Paul was examined by the Bereans, and he commended them for it (Acts 17:11).  The rest of us are human and should be challenged in our doctrine.  Every doctrine must withstand a test of scrutiny that any life-risking teaching should.  If a doctor told you taking anthrax would heal your gout, he should be challenged even though he is the medical authority.  How much more when our eternal life is at risk!  So don’t be overly impressed when someone has PhD, ThD, DMin or any other titles after their name or predates you by centuries or had a major hand in a movement.  We humans are prone to errors.  Every doctrine must stand the test of critical thinking lest we be duped the same as the cults we criticize. 

Finally, on to Romans 9 in-depth. 

In verses 1-5, Paul expresses his deep sorrow over Israel’s rejection.  For God has rejected them for salvation because they rejected his Son, and by extension, him.  It is especially sad because they were the ones to whom God made the promises and entrusted with his Law.  This beautiful salvation was meant for them.  God wants to fulfill his promises to save Israel, but he has not.  Why?  Did God’s word—his promise—fail?  We will see in Paul’s words later that it was because of Israel’s own rejection of Jesus that they were cut off—contingent on Israel’s action, not God’s will to shut them out. 

In verse 6, Paul exclaims, No!  God’s word has not failed.  Here is his Romans 9 thesis.  The reason we are not seeing all Israel saved is because not all who are Israel by blood are Israel by spirit.  Not all who can call Jacob their ancestor are related to Jacob spiritually.  They may look like him in their body but not in their spirit—not in their faith.  Paul sets out to support this thesis. 

Now in v. 6 Paul makes a startling yet greatly-clarifying statement, completely consistent with the foundation he has laid in Romans 1-8.  He answers the objection of the infidels that God’s word (read: promise) has failed if Israel is cut off.  Paul says the reason God’s promise has not failed is because “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”.  In other words, not everyone in Jacob’s (Israel’s) family tree beneath him are truly spiritual Israel- a title used to describe one who followed in the footsteps of the same faith exhibited by Israel, who himself followed the faith of his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham.  Paul is going to expect the reader here in this thought to remember what he clearly stated in Romans 4:12 and surrounding passage:  “And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”  Remember also that Paul has already said something to this effect in Rom 2:28-29.  So this is nothing new.  However, if the reader loses sight that Paul first defined this idea earlier in his letter, they will be completely unfounded in their interpretation of Paul’s words here in Romans 9.  Paul does not divorce his ideas now expressed in Romans 9 from his thoughts already expressed in Romans 2 and 4.  This greater context requires that Paul be alluding to the spiritual Israel (or spiritual Jew) that is defined by not only his blood relation to Israel the man, but also his or her faith in Christ.  This understanding enlightens the foregoing passage. 

But Paul does not start with Jacob (later named Israel).  He goes back to his grandpa, the most important patriarch, Abraham, the one to whom God had made the promise.  In vv. 7-9, Paul’s first argument to support this thesis is that not even all Abraham’s children were heirs to this promise.  Remember that the promise God made Abraham was that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3b) and “to your offspring I will give this land” and, when comparing their number to the stars in the sky, he said “So shall your offspring be” (Gen 15:5b).  In Gen 17:21, after agreeing to bless Ishmael, Abe’s first son, God clarifies that his covenant would not be with Ishmael but with Isaac.  God’s everlasting covenant comprises the promises already stated, with one additional point:  that he would be the God of Abraham’s children (17:8b).  Not only would God bless Abraham by so multiplying his offspring and giving them this land, but he would also be their God.  Being their God is a characteristic that would define those who are Abraham’s children, as we shall see.  These “offspring” God was promising were not all the blood offspring but the ones who had the same kind of faith in God that Abraham had. 

Paul now cites Genesis 21:12 as biblical support for his argument.  “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”  Paul introduces his interpretation of this OT passage with the words, “In other words…”  And he interprets the OT passage to mean that it is not the natural children who are considered as God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.  I offer my interpretation of Paul’s words here.  What Paul means is that it is not the offspring in Abraham’s family tree, which are related solely by blood, that are counted as God’s children.  No, these are the biological parents’ children alone.  For that is the natural relation, created by the physical birth.  However, God’s children are the ones that become children of promise through the means Paul has already laid out in Romans 2 and 4 (i.e. through faith in Christ, the Promised One). 

Paul parallels faith and promise in Romans 4:13ff, where he forever dismisses the notion that the promise could be received by those natural children of Abraham, who do share in the law of Abraham (i.e. circumcision).  Although they share in the circumcision law of Abraham, their forefather by blood, they do not share in the promise of Abraham.  They only share in the promise to be an heir of God if they accept God’s promise, just as Abraham received it- by faith.  Abraham first accepted a promise of inheritance from God without any requirements.  But Abraham later accepted the law of circumcision from God as a requirement to be followed.  The first requires faith; the second works.  One can have the first one without the second; and one could have the second without the first.  But the ones without the first do not receive the promise tied to it.  These are the Jews Paul speaks of who trust in their own righteousness rather than Christ’s.  The ones who have the first are children who believe God’s promise and do not trust their own righteousness but Christ’s.  These Paul refers to in Romans 9:8 as “children of promise”.  He encapsulates the foregoing discussion from Romans 4:16 neatly into this catch phrase.  In this verse he explained, “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 are of the faith of Abraham.  He is the father of us all.”  Taking the idea of Abraham’s offspring who put their faith in Christ to receive the promise, he abbreviates this idea into the phrase “children of promise” in Romans 9:8.  It is reasonable for Paul to expect his reader to understand what he has already taken great pains to communicate earlier in the same letter, and which he will recapitulate in v.30 in case the reader does not make the connection.  This is consonant with the thoughts also expressed by John in John 1:13 and 3:3.  One must be born again, spiritually, to become a child of God and receive his righteousness.  By so doing, they are trusting God’s promise of salvation.  Receiving the promise by faith gives birth to one's spirit, contrasted with relying upon one's own righteous works (pursuit of God through the Law), which is the only possible result of physical (natural) birth alone- the flesh.  Here is a chart of the contrasts:

Children of Promise                                     Natural Children

Faith                                                            Works

Christ's works                                              Own (self's) works

Promise                                                        Commandment

Grace                                                           Law

Spirit                                                            Flesh

In Galatians 4, Paul argues the same thing, using the phrase “children of promise”.  He describes them as those who have trusted in Christ as opposed to relying on the Law, as the Judaizers were doing.  The analogy he uses is that of Sarah and Hagar, the free woman and the slave woman.  They figuratively represent two covenants—the new covenant (the way of Christ) and the old one (the way of Law).  Those who rely on Christ are free and belong to the Jerusalem above while those who rely on Law are in slavery to the Law and belong to modern-day Jerusalem (unbelieving Jews).  The former believe in Christ; the latter believe in themselves. 

Evidence to support the fact that not all Abraham’s children are heirs is that only Isaac (Rom 9:7) would receive the covenant—not Ishmael.  Paul’s point (v.8) is that Abraham’s offspring are not the natural-born children—not the children born through our effort.  But rather, they are the children born through God’s effort—spiritually born children through faith, to fulfill his promise.  Paul equates “Abraham’s offspring” here to “God’s children” to say they are born as a result of his work not man’s.  How do we know when God has done so?  It’s when it takes a divine intervention.  It can’t happen by Law—whether natural or the covenant Law.  It has to be, as Paul earlier stated in Romans 4, “as a result of a promise”.  This means it requires God’s miracle. 

Was God’s work needed for Ishmael to be born?  No.  It was the manipulative planning of Sarah in turning to the fertile slave-woman, Hagar, to bear her a son.  And it was a result of fleshly effort to attempt to realize God’s promise.  It was not reliance on God through faith.  By contrast, Isaac was born as the result of God’s work.  How?  Sara was a barren woman in her old age and unable to ever bear children through natural means.  God had to miraculously intervene to fulfill that promise.  And because it required God’s miraculous intervention, everyone knew he was the one who did it.  Therefore, he was glorified for his faithfulness and power.  He kept his promise that was clearly stated in Gen 18:10,14 (Rom 9:9). 

The second piece of evidence Paul submits toward proving his thesis is that Jacob (v.10-13) also received this covenant.  Just as Isaac and Ishmael had the same father, Abraham, so also Jacob and Esau had the same father, Isaac.  This time, however, they also had the same mother, Rebekah.  Even though having the same free woman as their mother, they were not both children of promise.  For the line of Christ could only go through one seed, not through two.  And through whom was God going to choose for this to go?  The firstborn or the second-born?  In order to establish a paradigm for salvation that did not require self-righteous works (for by it nobody could be saved), he chose for it to go through the second-born, Jacob.  For by the Law later given, the firstborn should have been the primary heir and received a double blessing (Deut 21:15-17).  We know that the priority on the firstborn existed before the Law was given by the fact that Esau expected the blessing (Gen 27:19-20, 36-37). 

This is why in v. 11 Paul says, “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls…”  He determined whom was going to be heir to his covenant with Abraham “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad”.  God chose the younger, the second-born, for the blessing to establish that the blessing would come not through works of the flesh (righteous acts) or any merit of the flesh (e.g. being firstborn).  It would have to come “by him who calls”.  That is, it had to come to the one who trusts not in his works or his natural birth—as self-righteous Israel later did—but to the one who trusts in the God “who calls” people to receive his grace and mercy.  God elects the one who trusts not in his own flesh but in God’s power and promise. 

Verse 13 is a stumbling block for many people.  There is no evidence that God hated Esau before he was born.  This verse is quoted from Malachi 1:2 and 3 when God tells Israel that he had loved Jacob but hated Esau.  This was said by God after Esau had mistreated his chosen one, Jacob.  Moreover, it is said not of Esau the man but of Esau’s descendants for their mistreatment of Jacob’s descendants.  The verse quoted in Romans continues in Malachi 1:3, “…and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals”, and in v.4b, “They may build, but I will demolish.  They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD”.  For God to call Esau’s descendants “wicked” refers to their works.  How does this support Paul’s statement in Romans 9:12?  It shows the fulfillment of that prophecy that the older would serve the younger.  God did not curse Esau before he was born, but he did bless Jacob before birth.  The unfolding in time of this in Edom was the vendetta Esau had toward Jacob that matured into wicked acts of Esau’s descendants toward Jacob’s descendants.  And God judged them for their wicked acts.  This is similar to Cain’s jealous response when Abel was blessed for his good sacrifice but Cain’s sacrifice was rejected. 

In v.14, we find Paul’s rhetorical argument as he anticipates the foolish objection of his Pharisaical opponents.  Only they would argue that God is unjust for not requiring the way of salvation to be by the Law.  They are jealous because, in their view, God changed the plan on them.  He had told them he would bless the one who keeps the Law and curse the one who doesn’t (Deut 28).  Now he is blessing the one who does not keep the Law but gets a free ticket in.  The Pharisee has worked hard and received no credit, while sinners did nothing but received everything!  That is not fair, they argued.  How can God simply overlook the righteous obedience they had accomplished and overlook the sinners’ sins?

God answers that he can choose to have mercy and compassion on whomever he wants to.  Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 when God told Moses he would do as he had asked and show him his glory.  Why did God agree to do so?  Not because Moses had been perfect (he had just broken the two stone tablets out of anger).  But because God was pleased with Moses and knew him by name (33:17).  And how was this possible?  By Moses’ faith.  And whenever a man has faith in God and trusts him, God has mercy and compassion on him, not holding his sins against him.  God has the right to do so.  He can have compassion on whomever he wants.  He is not beholden to the Jews to hold a sinner’s sin against them. 

Paul draws a conclusion from Exodus 33:19.  “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”  The desire or effort alluded to is a self-righteousness; self-justification; a reliance on one’s own ability to adhere to the Law.  As Paul earlier stated in Romans 3:20, “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law”.  It is only through faith in the atonement of Christ (3:25) on the mercy seat that God’s wrath can be turned away.  So it does depend on God’s mercy.  Those He chooses to have mercy on are those with a repentant heart and a contrite spirit—those who recognize their need for redemption. 

In Romans 9:17-18, Paul contrasts this mercy with hardening.  God hardened Pharaoh in order to “display [his] power in [Pharaoh] and that [God’s] name would be proclaimed in all the earth.”  But remember that this hardening only happened after Pharaoh had hardened his own heart multiple times (after years of torment on the Jews).  Not until Exodus 9:12 does God harden Pharaoh’s heart.  God foresaw it would happen but did not harden Pharaoh until Pharaoh had refused to listen (Exo 4:21).  And God hardened him and “bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction”, as he also says of the Jews in Romans 9:22.  It was done for the purpose of displaying his power and having his name heralded throughout the world as a result of what he would do to the most powerful nation in the world—Egypt—when God delivered them out of Pharaoh’s hand.  God can plan destruction for a nation that rejects him in order to reach other nations with the gospel (Abrahamic promise).  As with Pharaoh, it isn’t a random hardening. 

In Romans 9:19, Paul anticipates another foolish objection by his Pharisaical opponents.  They argue that if God has mercy on some and hardens others, he is making people the way they are and therefore, they should not be blamed then.  For nobody can resist his will.  This is not what God does, but the Pharisees turn to these childish arguments to attempt to show how ludicrous the apostle’s logic was.  Recall prior objections in Romans 3:1,3,5,7,8,9; 6:1,15; 7:7,13.  They start with a false premise, twisting what Paul said.  Paul turns to Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9 to shine a mirror at the Pharisees, showing them their predecessors who did the same thing to God then.  They were just as duplicitous as the Pharisees.  For they turned things upside down and thought they could do their work in darkness without God knowing.  They said, “He knows nothing.”  Their lack of faith was revealed in this mentality that God did not see the evil plans and activities.  Because they did not see God act for so long, they were truly convinced he did not see.  And because of this, they twisted the truth and acted like they could do whatever they wanted with no accountability. 

Interestingly, in both of these places in Isaiah, he turns to bless other nations beyond Israel.  Lebanon in 29:17 and 45:22, all the ends of the earth.  And in Romans 9 now he describes how he has turned to the Gentiles to bless them. 

The answer comes from an analogy of a potter and his clay in Jeremiah 18.  Let’s look at it.  Pay special attention to my underlines. 

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: ² “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” ³ So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. ⁴ But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

⁵ Then the word of the Lord came to me: ⁶ “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. ⁷ If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, ⁸ and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. ⁹ And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, ¹⁰ and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

¹¹ “Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways…” (Commentary:  God has a plan because of their evil ways.  Why then would He tell them to change unless that would determine a new outcome?) “…, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’ ¹² But they will reply, ‘It’s no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.’”

¹³ Therefore this is what the Lord says:

“Inquire among the nations:
    Who has ever heard anything like this?
A most horrible thing has been done
    by Virgin Israel.
¹⁴ Does the snow of Lebanon
    ever vanish from its rocky slopes?
Do its cool waters from distant sources
    ever cease to flow?^[a]
15 Yet my people have forgotten me;
    they burn incense to worthless idols,
which made them stumble in their ways
    and in the ancient paths.
They made them walk in bypaths
    and on roads not built up.
¹⁶ Their land will be laid waste,
    an object of lasting scorn;
all who pass by will be appalled
    and will shake their heads.
¹⁷ Like a wind from the east,
    I will scatter them before their enemies;
I will show them my back and not my face
    in the day of their disaster.”

God makes it clear to us in Jeremiah 18:8-10, that he is not playing around.  He means business.  He makes promises and declarations about the future, but his execution of those plans is dependent on how the objects of his mercy or wrath behave.  If the objects of his wrath repent of their evil ways, he will relent and not destroy them.  If the objects of his mercy turn to evil, he will cancel his plans for good.  In Romans 9, the point is that God patiently tolerated Pharaoh of Egypt, although he was destined for wrath because of his evil ways—this is why he was hardened--, so that he could show his mercy to Israel.  But both in Jeremiah’s day and now, in Paul's day, Israel is the one destined for wrath (because of their turning to evil)—God has reconsidered the good he had planned for them—and he is patiently tolerating them so that he can show his mercy to the Gentiles, the new objects of his mercy.  Why are the Gentiles now the objects of his mercy?  Simply because they have received Jesus by faith rather than rejecting Christ in favor of their own self-established righteousness.  God had always planned to extend his blessing to all the nations beyond Israel (remember God promised to make Abraham the father of many nations, not just Israel).  Now that the gospel had been rejected by the Jewish religious establishment, he rejects them and moves on to offer it to the Gentiles. 

And so, this brings us back to Paul’s conclusion in vv.30-32 that I started with.  All that he has argued in Romans 9 has been to prove that God’s promise to Israel did not fail.  It was never intended for all the blood-born descendants of Abraham.  It was always intended for the spiritual descendants of Abraham, who look like him not physically but spiritually—through their faith.  This is reminiscent of Romans 4:12, where he said, “And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”  What does this look like?  Not relying on the flesh (not firstborn privilege, not works-based, not human desire, not man’s solution) but on mercy, on God’s promise in the gospel.  That person is a child of promise because he has been born again, born not of the flesh but of the spirit, through faith in the seed God promised Abraham:  Jesus Christ, as Galatians 3:16 says. 

Now, the chapter divisions in the Bible are not inspired.  They were placed there by men in an attempt to easily refer to a specific line of text.  So one should not think of Romans 10 as a new thought.  Paul continues the same thought, which really continues until the end of chapter 11.  So in 10:3, he restates his 9:30-32 conclusion another way:  “Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”  This is the only reason Paul gives for their not being saved.  So when the Calvinist argues that the reason not all Israel is saved is because God chose only a select number for salvation before the world was created, this is not proven from Romans 9.  Paul says the opposite.  God rejects them only because of their choice.  This bears repeating.  God rejects Israel only because of their choice.  They chose to reject Christ for their righteousness and sought to establish their own.  So God will judge them based on their own righteousness.  He later says this in Romans 11:20, “But they were broken off because of their unbelief; and you stand by faith.” 

Romans 10 goes on to argue how faith is the way.  Paul answers the question, Did Israel hear the gospel?  Did they have someone to preach to them?  Did they understand?  He concludes that God sent his prophets to communicate it, but he held out his hands to a disobedient people.  They are culpable for their disobedience and rejection of the truth in the light of the prophetic word.

In Romans 11, Paul asks if God rejected natural Israel?  Paul basically says No, because he has preserved a remnant who have believed in him.  Proof of this is Paul himself.  He is a natural Jew and was accepted.  God was very patient with him.  But ultimately his acceptance was because of his faith in Christ.  The Gentiles have been grafted into the covenant promise because Israel was broken off.  But this breaking off is not permanent.  God still wants to graft them back in and he will use the Gentiles to do so in the end when he drives the Jews to such envy toward the Gentiles’ manifestation of God and for the obvious mistake they made in rejecting Jesus as Messiah in the end times. 

There are a few stumbling points for Calvinists in this chapter that I must address.  First, in verse 2, the use of “foreknew”.  Calvinists argue that God had chosen individuals for salvation before the creation, and in this sense he foreknew them.  The problem with this interpretation is that it does not support Paul’s foregoing argument or his conclusion.  The thrust of his argument has been that the reason not all Israel is being saved and that many Jews are rejected is because they have not believed in Jesus.  In Romans 10:3-4 he clearly said they “sought to establish their own” righteousness rather than submitting to God’s in Christ. In v.9, the way is made clearly as Paul elaborates on how one believes.  “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”.  And in vv. 11 he says this offer is open to everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike.  In other words, the Jews were not excluded as if they were given the Law and expected to establish their righteousness in a difficult way while the Gentiles were given the easy way.  Any Jew who called on the name of the Lord would be saved. 

Where Paul goes next in his argument is again to faith vs. works (11:6) and rejection and acceptance (11:15), and unbelief vs. belief (11:20,23).  His argument has not changed from Romans 9, nor from Romans 4 and Romans 1.  His argument throughout the letter has always been about salvation by faith instead of works.  By grace instead of by law.  Works are the antithesis of faith!  Grace requires nothing but receiving it freely; law demands perfection!  By God’s righteousness instead of man’s own.  It would be awfully strange and counter-productive for Paul to suddenly introduce an idea that would not further his argument.  On the contrary, it would distract from his argument at best and contradict his argument at worst.  What if Paul were to argue in Romans 8-11 that, even though you must have faith in Christ to be saved, the reason why many Jews did not have faith is because God did not choose them?  How would that be a more comforting thought for his audience?  How would it demonstrate God’s justice and emphasize his mercy?  It wouldn’t.  It would actually do the opposite.  It would tell the unbelieving Jews that they are rejected because God did not choose them, not because they rejected Christ.  It would be the opposite of what Paul has been arguing all along—that if someone believes in Christ (condition), then he will save them (result).  If God chooses first, it would turn Paul’s overarching argument on its head by saying:  if God saves (condition), then they will put their faith in Christ (result).  This would be a poor way to argue, and it would leave his audience confused and scratching their heads.  Since we know Paul was a master in argumentative law as a Pharisee and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, it would be uncharacteristic of him to argue so poorly. 

Based on the various reasons I have presented, “foreknew” cannot mean chosen before creation (Calvinist’s unconditional election). 

The other places the Calvinist stumbles in Romans 11 are in vv. 5 and 7.  In v. 5, a “remnant chosen by grace” and in v. 7 “elect” and “hardened”.  The reasons I gave for “foreknew” not working in the Calvinist interpretation also apply here.  They would not be congruent with Paul’s overarching argument throughout the letter.  Specifically, in v. 5, the reader must understand that the phrase “by grace” all throughout the letter has always been understood to mean “through faith” a free gift is given.  And it is contrasted to “by works of the law”.  So when Paul says in v. 6, “And if by grace, then it is no longer by works”, he is calling the reader to remember what he has already explained in chapters 3-4 and reprised throughout.  What Paul is saying, therefore, is that a remnant is chosen by grace because of their faith.  God’s election is completely conditional, contrary to what Calvinists believe.  The condition is always a humble position of faith rather than a prideful self-justification.  God chooses all who accept his righteousness provided in Jesus Christ.  And he always rejects the one who tries to stand by his own works.  He must reject the latter because their works fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). 

Again, the use of “elect” and “hardened” in Rom 11:7 should be understood as a reprisal of what Paul clearly stated in Romans 9:18,22; 9:30-32 and 10:3-4.  Again, Israelites that are “children of promise” by believing the gospel received mercy.  Those that rejected Christ and sought to establish their own righteousness were hardened and used by God to cast out the believing Jews beyond Israel to the Gentiles.  Ultimately, this will serve to make the Jews envious and to repent of their unbelief.  Paul exploits this in his ministry (11:14) in hopes that some of his Jewish brethren may be saved. 

Paul goes on to argue in chapter 11 that the Gentiles should not be proud as if they have replaced the Jews and gloat in the Jews’ rejection.  Rather they should fear because the only reason they have been accepted and grafted into the covenantal tree is because of their faith.  Likewise the only reason the Jews were cut off was because of their unbelief.  Just as we have seen in the potter and clay analogy earlier, if God has destined an end for somebody based on their current behavior, that plan can change.  That destiny is not written in stone.  If the Gentile believers fail to continue in God’s kindness, they will be cut off.  And if the unbelieving Jews turn and believe, they will be grafted back in and saved.  This thought flow is in beautiful congruence with Paul’s overarching argument. 

Paul’s argument is unchanging throughout his letter to the Romans.  His logical bookends to this argument are found in 1:5 and 16:26.  His mission is to reach all nations with the gospel so that they might believe and obey God.  His logical arguments and reasoning have an objective:  to turn the hearts of people to Jesus!

It is my hope that God’s work (and Paul’s) would not be hindered by distractions and contradictions introduced into the plain argument Paul has presented in Romans and other letters. 

There are several possibilities I see for what Paul meant by “foreknew” in Romans 11 here, but I will talk only about two of them.  First, it is possible that Paul is saying that he knew the faith that Abraham expressed would also be possessed by some of his descendants. 

Secondly, Paul may have meant by “foreknew” that God has had a relationship with Israel before his current-day.  God chose Jacob (Israel) and has carried on a relationship with them for all those past centuries.  He related to his people in a personal way even if they did reject him.  For he did not reject them; they rejected Him.  This foreknowledge then describes the faithful commitment to his chosen people as a nation.  Even when they rejected him, he stayed committed to the nation because there was a remnant that continued to love him and more importantly because of the promise he had made Abraham.  His commitment to Israel is evident by the patient way he dealt with them while they as a nation committed idolatry and did not recognize him.  Even in Elijah’s day, there were many who did not follow him.  And although Elijah did not know it, there were others beside himself that were following Him.  God reserved the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal because they had not bowed the knee to Baal.  Their faith in God was evident by this outward resistance to Baal.

He extends this idea to the present day.  The remnant chosen by grace are those who have not trusted in their own works but have received God’s grace for salvation, just as he has described throughout the letter. 

The Calvinist argument is an erroneous human construct, a case of unwitting eisegesis, propagated by an uncritical audience and faith in the ancient theologians and contemporary multitudes who hold to it. And I was one of them but no longer.  Despite the odds against modern-day Christians to rightly divide this word of truth in Romans 9-11, there is hope if we will humble ourselves and reexamine Paul’s words in the right context. 

Comments are welcome.  I would love to hear your thoughts.