top of page

Romans 9 - My Understanding

The theme of Romans 9, 10 and 11 is an explanation of what happened to the Jewish nation, and why, and how this affected the promises given to Abraham. Everything in these chapters deals with the issue of Israel losing her POSITION as The Elect Nation of God, without this meaning that the word of God has failed. I believe the entire text (chapters 9, 10 and 11) can be understood as an apologetic in light of this one statement. 9:6 – “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” Everything from then on is an argument for this statement.

 

In Chapter 9, verses 1-4, it is clear that Paul is speaking of national Israel – “…kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites…” Notice that Israel possessed:

 

1) The adoption as sons

2) The glory

3) The covenants

4) The giving of the Law

5) The temple service

6) The promises

7) The fathers

8) From whom is the Christ according to the flesh

 

There is no question that Israel, as a nation, REALLY possessed these things. The statement in verse 6, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” indicates that it at least appears as if Israel, as a nation, has lost these things - otherwise why ask the question? Paul says in verse 3, “For I could wish myself accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites…” This implies that Israel is accursed and separated from Christ and Paul would switch places with them if he could. Paul acknowledges later that Israel has been cut off (Rom 11:17) and has indeed lost these things, however, there is a remnant of believing Jews. (Romans 9:27, 11:5) Hebrews 8:13 says, “In speaking of a new covenant He treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Even if one were to argue that Israel as a nation has not lost these things because the “gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” it can still be said that Israel did not obtain what it sought because they stumbled over the stumbling stone, which is Christ. (Rom 9:32) I would argue that Israel as a nation has indeed lost these things, but that does not necessarily mean that these things are lost to her irrevocably. (“…if they do not continue in their unbelief, [they] will be grafted in.”) But for now, they are lost to her. (“…a partial hardening has happened to Israel…”) I would also point out that certain things associated with the Old Covenant, i.e. the temple service, are obsolete and have disappeared with the Old Covenant. Any Israelite who wants to participate in the New Covenant must do so by faith in Christ, just like anybody else. The Old Covenant is obsolete and has vanished away. There is now no distinction between Jew and Greek.

 

Yet the word of God has not failed because “…they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but ‘through Isaac your descendants shall be named.’” This references Genesis 21:12 where Sarah tells Abraham to drive out Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham was distressed greatly because of his son (Ishmael). I believe that part of the issue, besides the fact that Abraham loved Ishmael, was the birthright of firstborn sons. God says to Abraham that his descendants - that is his genealogy - will be counted through Isaac, the younger son, instead of Ishmael, the elder. By this illustration Paul is setting up the idea that God reserves the right to bestow adoption, glory, promises etc on whatever nation He wills, it doesn’t depend on he who wills or runs, even to the point of circumventing the law of the birthright of the firstborn that God Himself later gave in codified form to Moses. The issue is NOT Isaac and Ishmael’s individual salvation or reprobation, the issue is the naming of Abraham’s descendants (“…through Isaac your descendants shall be named.”) which in general practice among the ancients is the birthright of the firstborn son.

 

Paul uses Isaac and Ishmael as well as Jacob and Esau, as ALLEGORIES showing that Israel lost its birthright to the Gentiles, even though it (Israel) was the firstborn. He is not using them (Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau) as examples of literal, individual election; he’s using them allegorically. In other words, Paul is illustrating that there are allegorical or symbolic precedents in scripture for what has happened to the nation of Israel.

 

Verses 6 – 9 show how the older Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, which corresponds to Ishmael, lost its birthright to the younger Covenant of Christ, which corresponds to Isaac. I think it’s clear from the context that Paul is speaking of covenants and nations, not individuals. Consider Galatians 4:22-24. “…Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the freewoman. But the son of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son of the freewoman through the promise. THIS IS ALLEGORICALLY SPEAKING FOR THESE ARE TWO COVENANTS…” In verse 25 Paul explicitly says that Hagar and her children, the descendents of Ishmael, correspond to the present Jerusalem (Israel). In verse 28 he explicitly says that Isaac corresponds to the Church, being the child of promise, whose descendents “you” (the church) are. Am I to believe that Paul uses Isaac and Ishmael allegorically in Galatians but uses them literally in Romans? No, Paul is consistent. Paul is using Isaac and Ishmael allegorically in Romans 9 in exactly the same way that he does in Galatians 4.

 

Likewise, Paul is using Jacob and Esau as an allegory of the Gentiles and Israel, just like he uses Isaac and Ishmael allegorically in Galatians 4. In Romans 9, are we to take Paul’s use of Isaac and Ishmael allegorically and yet, in the same context, take his use of Jacob and Esau literally?

 

Esau/Israel, the firstborn, lost the birthright “Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.” Because of Esau/Israel’s sin, the birthright was taken from Esau/Israel and bestowed on Jacob/the Gentiles, the younger, by grace, before they had done anything good or bad to deserve it, illustrating that mercy and compassion do not go to the nation “who wills or runs.” In Isaiah 65:1, which Paul refers to in Rom 10:20, God, speaking of the Gentiles says, “I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, ‘Here am I, here am I’ to a NATION which did not call on My name.” Elsewhere the scripture says that God took the Kingdom away from Israel and gave it to a PEOPLE (the Greek could be translated, “nation” or “race”) producing the fruit of it. (Matt. 21:43) Jesus, in verse 42, uses the same scriptural metaphor of the stone that the builders rejected as Paul does in Romans 9:33 and Peter in 1 Peter 2:6,7. (Peter and Paul got it from Jesus!)

 

Irrelevant Rabbit Trail: I would also ask the question, “What then if that people (the Gentiles) do NOT produce the fruit of it?” Mercy and compassion have gone to the Gentiles who did not pursue it. Not producing the fruit will cause it to be taken and given to another. In Romans 12 it says, “…for if God did not spare the natural branches [Jews], He will not spare you [Gentiles] either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” At that point perhaps some future apostle would have to write an apologetic on the failure of the Church and explain that the word of God has not failed because, “…not all Church is Church.” Just a thought!

 

In verses 14-16 Paul, speaking of God’s sovereign selection of what NATION will be the Elect Nation of God, says it’s NOT on the basis of any man wanting it or running for it, but is given only because God grants it. Consider that God said to Pharaoh “This is why I provoked you to come against me, to show you that I am God Almighty, and that the whole world might know it.” In other words, it is God who decrees what nation is favored, and God has the right to withdraw that favor because of disobedience. Consider that the consequences of Pharaoh’s actions were NATIONAL in scope. God was not just dealing with Pharaoh; He was dealing with Egypt, which He had favored 400 years before. Samuel says (1 Samuel 6:6) that the Egyptians hardened their hearts. Egypt was the instrument of God for the saving of the infant nation of Israel from famine. It was later remade by the Potter because it enslaved the Israelites into hard bondage and thus was remade into a vessel of wrath to demonstrate to the whole world that God is God Almighty and that He shows mercy to whom He will - those He favors and who obey - and hardens whom He will – those who turn from Him and disobey. In dealing with Egypt as He did God was remaining true to His promise to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse.” (Gen 12:3) In Exodus 2:24, we see that the reason God delivers Israel from Egyptian bondage is because “God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Remember that the issue that Paul is dealing with is that God’s apparent rejection of Israel does not mean that the promises to Abraham are null and void. (“For it is not as though the word of God has failed.”)

 

Verse 18-26 paraphrased - So, God not only favors the nation He likes, but He also hardens the nation He disapproves of. Now I am sure you will ask “So why is Israel to blame if they were hardened? Can Man resist God’s decisions?” But who are you to criticize God? Will the clay say to the Potter: “what is this thing You fashioned me into!” Does not God, as the Potter, have the right from the same batch to make one nation attain an office of high honor, but to the other give a demeaning charge because of their disobedience? (Jeremiah 18:10) What if God, wanting to warn them of the coming wrath, and make them aware of the great things possible in Him, tolerated these nations readied to be discarded, with great expectation of repentance, (Jeremiah 18:8) that He might reveal the magnitude of His glory to the nations (plural) He is grooming for glory (here are invited not only from Jews but from Gentiles also)? Is this not what He said in Hosea,

 

“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’

And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’

And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’

There they shall be called Sons of the Living God”

 

Was Israel hardened because of God’s predetermined will? No, Paul, by referencing Jeremiah 18 is saying, “Israel is as a spoiled vessel in the hand of God, and God will remake them, because of their disobedience, into a different vessel, and God has that right because of Israel’s disobedience. God is not unjust to do so. The reason for God hardening Israel is in Israel, not God. Remember, “But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; SO he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.”

 

Romans 9:30 – “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, [“Those who were not My people”], who did not pursue righteousness, [it does not depend on he who wills or he who runs] attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. WHY? [Because it is not of him who wills or runs, but is God’s sovereign decree in eternity past? No!] Because they did not pursue it by faith…” The Gentiles were elected, by no virtue of their own, it was by the grace of God, and his sovereign choice, but Israel was spoiled in the hand of the potter through disobedience and was consequently hardened.

 

God’s monergistic decree concerning a nation, then, according to Jeremiah 18, occurs in time, not eternity past. “…at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom (Israel) to build up, or to plant it…” From then on, God deals with that nation ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS! “…IF it does evil in My sight by not obeying my voice, THEN I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. SO NOW THEN, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning a calamity against you and devising (PRESENT TENSE) a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.” God’s plan of calamity is His response to the evil ways and deeds of Israel, not His predetermination of Israel’s ways and deeds. His plan for Israel was not established from eternity past, but was being devised in the present moment. Furthermore, the plan He was devising could be altered by Israel’s behavior. Turning from their evil ways and reforming their ways and deeds are the CONDITIONS under which God will change His mind concerning Israel.

 

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? No, there isn’t. He chooses a nation, to bless it. (Israel) That’s HIS prerogative and it doesn’t depend on he who wills or runs. IF that nation turns away from God, and does evil in His sight, is not God justified in remaking that nation into something other than what He had previously determined? Yes, it is just for Him to do so. Can that nation (Israel) say, “Why are you making me thus?” and be in the right? No, Israel did not obey the Lord and He has thought better of the good with which He had promised to do it. This is what Paul is saying. He’s explaining what happened to Israel. Furthermore, in verse 22, he’s saying that even though God would be justified in tossing Israel onto the garbage heap of history, He is enduring Israel (a vessel of wrath) with much patience, SO THAT He could make known the riches of His glory to the Gentiles (vessels of mercy).

 

Verse 22 – “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”

 

The words “and to make his power known” appear in the Greek as “kai gnorisai to dunaton autou” which is better translated “and to reveal the possible [in] Him,” or plainly “to show the things possible to God.” This understanding of “kai gnorisai to dunaton autou” is verified by Weymouth’s translation; “to make known what is possible with Him.” This has a distinct salvific overtone, intended to show that God’s patience in enduring these “vessels” in Jeremiah, which are NATIONS, was suffered to give them a chance to turn back and avoid destruction:

 

Jeremiah 18:8 – “If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.”

 

So then, God, ALTHOUGH WILLING to demonstrate His wrath – DOES NOT demonstrate His wrath but endures with much patience the vessels of wrath in order to reveal the salvation possible in Him.

 

A typical misunderstanding involves Paul’s words: “…vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” The Greek words associated with “fitted” and “prepared” mean the same thing. It is assumed here by Calvinists that these “vessels” were “prepared (or fitted) for destruction” before creation. But this assumption is unfounded. As we have previously noted, Paul, by referencing Jeremiah, shows instead that they were fitted for destruction after “the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the Potter,” at which time “he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.”

 

It is absurd to believe God needed to create beings for punishment, to show His wrath against sin (the Calvinist proposition) because His wrath against sin was sufficiently demonstrated in crucifying His own Son, making any need for predestined damnation painfully redundant.

 

Verses 23,24 – “And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles.”

 

In the Greek, “prepared beforehand” comes from a single word: “proetoimasen,” which means simply, “prepared”. English translations add “afore” or “beforehand” which is redundant. One should not translate “proetoimasen” as “prepared beforehand” because the “pre” in “prepared” already suggests “beforehand.” It SHOULD be translated simply, “prepared” or “fitted”. Furthermore, this same word (proetoimasen) is used daily by Greeks who do not imply what Calvinists hope to imply by it. This is illustrated by, for instance, the fact that the word “provaton” (lamb) could be literally translated “that which walks ahead,” from “pro” + “vaton,” but acknowledging the prefix would be ridiculous in Greek. Protasis (proposition) and prochoro (walk) adhere to the same rule - the significance of the prefix is ignored. Greeks use words habitually and in patterns established by tradition, without analyzing word components the way theologians do. The word “prepared” is also used in English every day without meaning what Calvinists read into it. I prepared beforehand this paper for you to read. Before when? Before you read it. God has prepared beforehand vessels for glory. Before when? Before the glory.

 

Secondly, even if we accept the English translation that appears to strengthen the Calvinist implication (“prepared beforehand”), it still does not support the Calvinist view in that Paul never states that vessels of wrath were prepared beforehand, only that vessels of mercy were prepared beforehand. Vessels of wrath were “remade” into vessels of wrath having been “prepared beforehand” for mercy - but because of their actions, in this case Israel’s unbelief, they were re-made into vessels of wrath. In Jeremiah 18, when God speaks against a nation, to uproot it, to tear it down, that nation has already had God speak to plant it, to build it up, otherwise it couldn’t be torn down and uprooted. He is tearing it down and uprooting it because it disobeyed. It could be argued that God only pre-pares vessels for glory. Vessels of wrath are “re-pared” by the Potter for wrath after being prepared for glory because they were spoiled by unbelief and disobedience in the hand of the Potter. To coin a term – redestined to wrath. For instance, God planted and built up Edom, and then, centuries later, spoke against it because of its disobedience, and uprooted and tore it down. The same thing happened to Israel – which is the point Paul is making.

 

Thirdly: Still accepting the English translation “prepared beforehand.” Before what? When? Again I say, Paul’s reference to Jeremiah 18 argues against the Calvinist notion that “vessels” are individuals and that “beforehand” is God’s sovereign election in eternity past. Jeremiah 18 explicitly states that the vessels are nations and that the “election” occurs “at one moment” or “at another moment” and we can most certainly say His decree is NOT immutable, based on the fact that God “remakes” vessels based on their disobedience or obedience. We see in Jeremiah 18 that vessels are prepared or fitted for wrath or glory at any given time in history. Paul’s “prepared for mercy” is no less a historical event than is being “prepared for destruction.” The idea that this verse (Romans 9:23) supports immutable predestination from eternity past is Calvinist eisegesis and is not supported by the context. Neither is the idea of immutable predestination from eternity past supported by the OT text (Jer 18) that Rom 9:23 references.

 

Fourthly, the vessels of mercy were “called”. It says nothing about being chosen. True, all who are chosen are called, but “chosen” would be the more appropriate word to use IF this were referring to “the elect” of Calvinism - wouldn’t it? Some Calvinists rightly make a distinction between “called” and “chosen” – some say, “…the call is general but the election is specific…” - yet they take this verse to be speaking of the “chosen” when it actually says “called”. Many Calvinists make no distinction between “called” and “chosen”. They use the term “effectually called” to communicate the idea that anyone who God calls will respond; they have no choice. This definition of “called” destroys the distinction between “chosen” and “called”. This is in spite of the fact that the Greek here could also be translated “bidden”. Both “bidden” and “called” imply an invitation, not a monergistic, immutable decree. And an invitation presupposes a choice.

 

In verse 33, Paul quotes, “Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed” Rom 9:30 – the Gentiles attain righteousness – by faith. The Jews stumbled over the stone – why? Verse 32,33 - because of unbelief. Not a hint of any predestination – it’s ALL conditional.

 

Romans 10 - My Understanding

bottom of page