Many people, when they read Romans 9, begin to think that Calvinists have a point about His choosing some to be saved and some to be lost. Since the Bible teaches that man has free will (see “Predestination” from February 8, 2009) and does not contradict itself, we must be careful to study this lengthy passage in such a way as to harmonize with other Biblical texts. Because God elects certain things does not mean He determines everything. The following analysis, although revised, first appeared in the 1998 Spring lectureship book on Calvinism.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen (Rom. 9:3-5).
Paul begins by expressing concern for his fellow Jews (kinsmen according to the flesh). He implies that the majority of them are accursed and wishes he could somehow be accursed in their stead, much as Moses once expressed himself: “Yet now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written” (Ex. 32:32). Of course, Paul was well-versed in the Law and knew the futility of such a request; God had told Moses: “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (Ex. 32:33).
They had received so many privileges (the covenants, the law, the promises), yet they were now accursed from Christ. Why? Earlier in Romans, when Paul had demonstrated that the Jews were under the condemnation of sin just as the Gentiles were, he asked this question, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?” (Rom. 3:1). Again, the oracles of God were entrusted to them (Rom. 3:2). A similar theme recurs here in Romans 9, but it turns in a new direction. Despite their numerous advantages, the majority of the Jews are out of favor with God (since they had rejected Christ).
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son” (Rom. 9:6-9).
Paul explains that it is not the Word of God that is ineffective. The fact is that not all Jews descended in the flesh from Abraham are true Israelites. The apostle had written earlier: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly…but he is a Jew who is one inwardly” (Rom. 2:28-29). To bolster this point, Paul refers to the fact that Isaac was born as a result of a promise that God made to Abraham—and not of the flesh (by which Ishmael was conceived).
This theme is also developed in the book of Galatians, in which Paul contrasts the children of the promise (Isaac through Rebecca, the free woman) and the children of the flesh (Ishmael through Hagar, the bondwoman). The children of the free woman are Christians (whether Jew or Gentile); the children of the flesh are the Jews (Gal. 4:22-31). The point is that the true seed of Abraham does not refer to just those born of his flesh—but rather those born of his spirit. Abraham was a man of faith (Gal. 3:9); “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Many of the physical descendants of Abraham were not his spiritual descendants. Today those who are Christ’s are Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:28).
God had chosen Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to receive the aforementioned spiritual blessings and advantages (Rom. 9:4), not the least of which was to bring Christ into the world (Rom. 9:5). He made of them a great nation, but told them when He gave them the land that they should remain humble about it. He makes it clear that what they had received was the result of a promise.
The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any other people; for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers… (Deut. 7:7-8a).
God does make choices and exercises His sovereignty in some matters—if the options are equal. The first full day of school, for example, a teacher who as yet knows very little about her students may select one for a particular task. After she determines how many students want milk for lunch that day, she sends him to the office with the total written on a piece of paper. Did he earn that honor? No. Was he the best qualified, the smartest, or the quickest? No. He was chosen at the teacher’s discretion. Does her choosing him for that duty mean he will receive an A in all his subjects? No.
So it is with some of God’s choices. Was there no other man besides Abraham that God could have chosen? Of course there was. When was Jacob selected over Esau? Before birth, they were both equal; God chose one—not for salvation, but for a special purpose. Despite the disclaimer in Deuteronomy, the Israelites came to feel that God chose them on the basis of merit—because they were better than others, an attitude typified by the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. As Paul explains the reason that not all Israel is of Israel, he knows what the Jews will think on this matter. He anticipates their objections by pointing out the prerogatives God had exercised.
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom. 9:10-13).
Israel did not earn the right to be chosen to bring Christ into the world—or for any of their other advantages. However, Calvinists lose sight of this point; when they read this passage, they ignore the context and think of one word: election. But Esau was not lost because Jacob received this honor; nor was Jacob saved by it. God did not choose to save one brother and condemn the other, just as He did not save all Israelites and condemn all Gentiles. Consider, for example, Achan and Rahab. Achan (the Israelite) was stoned to death because of his sin; Rahab (the Gentile) was saved because of her faith.
This point is made repeatedly in Romans: “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). If the Jews thought they could be excused when they committed the same sins as the Gentiles on the basis of their election, they were 100% wrong (Rom. 2:1-3). “But God gave us His holy law.” Yes, but it is not just the hearers of the law (or the trustees of the law) who are justified, but the doers of it (Rom. 2:12-13). Besides, “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves” (Rom. 2:14).
Likewise, God did not choose to condemn all descendants of Esau or save all of Jacob’s posterity. But Jacob was chosen by God before either one was born, before either one even had the possibility of doing good or evil, to be the seed line through which Christ would come. One might think that God’s choice would give the Jews advantages for salvation over all other nations, but New Testament history reveals that the Jews rejected Jesus, which is the focal point of Romans 9. When God chose them for those special privileges, His selection did not guarantee personal salvation when Christ came into the world.
That Paul is discussing those special advantages that the Jews had is seen both from Romans 9:4 and from the prophecy that “the older shall serve the younger” (9:12). This prophecy is not of individuals but nations. Esau lived in the area south of the Dead Sea. Jacob lived in various locations north of there when he returned from the land. They had a brief meeting in Genesis 33:1—20, at which time Jacob gave Esau many animals as gifts. Any other meetings between them, except for the burial of their father Isaac (Gen. 35:29) are not mentioned; certainly neither one served the other. It was long after the deaths of Esau and Jacob that the nation of Edom served Israel.
Paul, then, in Romans 9 is not discussing the sovereignty of God with respect to individual, personal salvation, but rather as it pertains to His election of a certain nation for a certain work. When God chose Israel, His decision was in no way related to their inherent goodness nor any other commendable quality. In response to this teaching on election, Paul anticipates a complaint coming forth from the Jews in Romans 9.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteous-ness with God? Certainly not! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens (14-18).
This passage emphasizes that God can use individuals to accomplish His will just as He can nations. But the passage in no way supports Calvinist doctrine about the salvation of individuals. Do these verses teach that God ordained from all eternity that Pharaoh would be condemned in hell and that there was absolutely nothing he could do about it—even if he wanted to? No. Do these verses say that Pharaoh had no freedom of choice? No. Is it fair to conclude from this passage that the salvation of each individual is determined from eternity? Hardly. Calvinism is built on a number of assumptions that are unwarranted.
The Calvinist does not know and cannot prove that Pharaoh had no freedom to decide whether or not to let Israel go. There may have been a number of nations which might have enslaved God’s people: Sumer, Elam, Ur, or others. God chose Egypt. There might have been a number of Pharaohs who were proud and arrogant; God selected this one. There is no proof that he was any more stubborn than any other world leader at that time—or any more stubborn than many individuals today.
And how did God harden his heart? Can anyone seriously imagine Pharaoh lamenting, “I really wanted to let the Israelites go, but God wouldn’t let me. He keeps imposing His will upon mine, and no matter how hard I try, I can’t give the release order”? God hardened Pharaoh’s heart with a series of events (plagues). Pharaoh was a willing participant in this process; a number of verses describe Pharaoh as hardening his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34).
In the Scriptures, God frequently allows people to believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do because they are committed to ungodliness. Paul writes: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thes. 2:11). What? Do we read this verse correctly? Will God send a strong delusion when He has devoted Himself to truth? Actually, He is said to send it because He allows it to occur, but it is really “the god of this world” who blinds “the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor. 4:4). The reason God grants the devil such success is that many have no love of the truth (2 Thes. 2:10). God therefore gives them up (Rom. 1).
People choose evil over good, error over truth, and moral abominations over righteousness because they treasure these things; they desire them in their hearts (Matt. 6:19-21). They resist God by hardening their hearts; they are stubborn and want things to suit themselves. God did not make them that way. Men devote themselves to wickedness because they like it, not because He compels them. God has never forced anyone to practice evil—not Pharaoh, not Ahab, not Judas!
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempt-ed by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed (James 1:13-14).
Since most Jews will resist what Paul writes here, he anticipates and answers one final objection.
You wilt say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 9:19-24)?
The natural response to the previous argument is, “So Pharaoh really helped to show the power of God; therefore, he did God’s bidding. So why should Pharaoh be blamed?” Of course, the application for the Jews would be, “We did God’s bidding in rebelling against the law and crucifying Christ; so why find fault with us?”
The answer is that, although God used Pharaoh to His advantage, this ruler over Egypt was nevertheless ungodly and was in no sense cooperating with God in order to show His power. Likewise, the chief priests and rulers of the Jewish nation had no noble motives in mind at all when they crucified Jesus—even though one of them prophesied the event (John 11:47-53). They were moved by envy (Matt. 27:18); they did it in ignorance (Acts 3:17); and they would have refrained from doing so had they known and understood (1 Cor. 2:8).
God’s role as the potter does not mean that anyone is predetermined at birth to follow a certain course. Two people can go completely opposite directions though they are made from the same lump of clay. The fault lies not in the clay but how they respond to God as they grow and develop. God can take a Pharaoh or a chief priest and make him a vessel of wrath without imposing or infringing on his freedom at all—just as Jesus did not force Peter, James, or John to be His disciples. No one disputes the fact that God works in the lives of men and uses events to mold them. It is the means He uses to accomplish His will that serves as the focal point of the disagreement.
Some would insist that because God is sovereign, He simply chooses arbitrarily some for destruction and some for glory. In reality, He fits for destruction those who have rejected Him and hardened their hearts, which is the reason the text says He endures them with longsuffering. He is merciful to those whose hearts remain open to Him. When God makes an arbitrary choice, His decision involves only WHICH Pharaoh or WHICH high priest He will use. He does not choose good men, ruin them, force them to practice evil, and then destroy them. He gave the Amorites 400 years to repent (Gen. 15:15), after which they were perfectly fit for destruction.