Return To Home

<< Conditional Election

Series Index

Prevenient Grace >>

Romans 9 has taken a central role in the Calvinist argument for Unconditional Election. However, should the passage be understood as the Calvinists want it to be? In order to understand 9, we must first understand relevant sections of Romans that have led up to this point¹:

Romans 1 starts with an introduction, and how all will be judged by God, as His wrath has been made evident to all.

in Rom. 2, we read where Paul chastizes the Jews judging others for their sins, yet doing the very things condemned by the law. Note this passage:

For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 2:26-29.

Observation: The Jew of God is not he who is circumcised of the flesh, but he who is circumsized of the heart. We will be noticing a few of these kinds of statements...

Romans 3 continues on, clarifying himself by admitting that the Jew does have an advantage, because they were entrusted with the very words of God. Also, God has been faithful even if we have not. This leads to the next section:

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? ... Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved. 3:5,6, 8

Observation: We see the first sentiment that suggests that God is unjust for judging sin since sin "brings out God's righteousness." Paul clearly rejects this idea.

Paul goes on describing that all Jews and all Gentiles under sin (not just that all do sin, but are under sin-- implying that this is controlling). Because of this, no one is declared right by the law. Righteousness cannot come by observing the law-- only be faith (thus, there is no boasting).

Chapter 4 brings up the example of Abraham. Here we see another important passage:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is 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. 4:9-12, NIV.

Observation: Abraham is the father of all those who are not circumcised yet believe, as well as the believers who are circumcized (note, the statement excludes the nonbelievers of the circumcision. this is important).

We see this again:

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. v. 16.

And again:

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." v. 18.

Abraham is not the father of national Israel, but those "who are the faith of Abraham"-- i.e. this includes the Gentiles.

Paul's argument continues on, but these are the most important points. (I don't discourage people from reading all of Rom. 1-8 before moving on, though!) Now, we move on to Romans 9.

Romans 9:

vv. 1-5. Paul laments over the Jews who rejected their Savior.

v. 6-7: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For 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 will be named."

A dilemma would seem to arise from Paul's argument. Because the Jews have rejected the Messiah and the salvation he brought, it seems as though the word of God has failed. What word? "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." Genesis 17:4-7. If salvation was coming to the Gentiles, to the exclusion to a vast majority of the Jews (not all, of course), then how can He be fulfilling his promises to the Jews? "He owes the descendants of Abraham!" some in the audience may have been thinking.

But no! God's word hasn't failed! No, they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants... That is...

v. 8: That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

The children of the promise, not the natural children, are Abe's descendants. As we have seen from the prior passages, who are the children of the promise? Those who have faith like that of Abraham! 9 and 10 go on, then we get into the passages where the contention comes between Arminians and Calvinists:

vv. 11-13: For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Because of God's purpose, not because of works, God chose Jacob over Esau. "Look! It is proof of unconditional election!" Is it, in the sense that Calvinists think? Look at it in context. First off what was the choice about? Salvation? Not exactly, 12 tells us what they were elected to: "The older will serve the younger." Jacob, to the exclusion of Esau, was chosen to be the Patriarch of national Israel, that it was his family line that received the promises of the Old Covenant. Verse 13 buttresses this by quoting Malachi: "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." Malachi 1:2-3.

The Bible doesn't ever describe Esau actually serving his brother Jacob. Rather, what we see in these passages is the distinction between national Israel and Edom. Israel was chosen over Edom to receive the Covenant promises, and through whose line the Messiah later came. (But, individual Edomites could proselytize into Judaism, just like any "alien").

Likewise, why is God expected to save the natural Isrealites? What obligation does He have to them? Paul here is reasoning by analogy, that if God can choose Jacob over Esau, or Isreal over Edom, why can't he choose the spiritual children of Abe (i.e. those of his faith) over the natural children (those who are Abe's physical seed)? (Interestingly enough, once again we see that individuals of natural Isreal could "proselytize" or convert into spiritual Isreal).

(Note: The "love hate" language here is due to the fact that there is no word in the Hebrew for "like" or "love less." Many interpreters understand the language as terms of selectiveness, not empathy and dislike.)

v. 14: What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

The rhetorical question is raised, Is God unjust? The modern person may miss the supposition behind it, but the Jew of Paul's time certainly wouldn't: Esau was born first! By the legal particulars of the day (as well as all known ancient cultures-- even most today), the firstborn male was legally the primary heir to his father's estate. That is, the promises to Abe (in the eyes of man) rightfully belonged to Esau! Yet, God is not unjust for rejecting the natural order because...

v. 15: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Is it, or is it not, God's right to dispense his grace as He pleases? Heck, I think no one will disagree with that. In this case, He has made His decision: God will have mercy on the children of Abe's faith, not the children in the flesh (though again, the children of natural Isreal could become citizens of spiritual Isreal). Just like it was up to Him, not Esau or Jacob, which one would be the progenitor of his people (of the Old Covenant).

v. 16: So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

This is the capstone of Paul's point. As much as Esau and the natural children beg and plead, how much they work, trying to satisfy a Law that cannot save, but only convict, they will never, NEVER be saved, apart from God's mercy. Salvation comes from God, and God alone. Only He may dispense his mercy as He sees fit.

v. 17-18: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

Paul brings up a second example of this-- Pharaoh. This is probably the closest we will get to what seems to be individual unconditional election in the chapter. Yet again, it has to be understood in context. What is it about Pharaoh that has Paul interested in him? Arminians come up with all sorts of crazy ideas of how to fit this into corporate election, but is that necessary? I have no problem with God lifting up Pharaoh to glorify Himself. Paul is using Pharaoh as an example of how God has every right to do what He sees fit with his grace and His hardening. If the unbelieving Jews (those of natural Isreal) are going to be rejected because of their disbelief, that is God's right to do so, regardless of whatever inherited rights they think they have.

v. 19: You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Calvinists often put this question on the lips of the Arminian. They see an Arminian who is challenging Paul's clear teaching of unconditional election. But, by doing so, the passage is ripped out of its context. This, folks, is a Jew arguing back at Paul, not Wesley or Arminius. Quite frankly, the fictional Jew Paul is arguing against doesn't care about any Calvinist doctrine, but is offended by the fact that God is doing to the unbelieving Jews what He did to Pharaoh: lifting them up to smash them for the sake of his glory. It is the same kind of objection we saw earlier in 3:5: But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? Paul's response, which would be a non sequitur if he were responding to a pre-Arminian, makes perfect sense if we interpret the question in this fashion.

vv. 20-23: On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 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? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...

Enter Paul's harsh rebuke. Does God not have the right to do as He sees fit with the pots he has made? What if He bore with great patience Abe's natural descendants, destined to destruction, to make His wrath known? What if He did this to make the riches of glory known to the children in the faith of Abraham?

v. 24 caps off whole discourse from 19 to 24: ...even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

The believing Jews and Gentiles are are the objects of mercy.

vv. 25,26: As He says also 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."

Continuing on, Paul further builds this idea, focusing on the entry of the Gentile Christians. They are the ones through whom the Promise to Abe will have been fulfilled. They are the many nations that descend from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are God's people, His loved one, who weren't His people nor His loved one.

vv. 27-29: Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly" And just as Isaiah foretold, "Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a posterity, we would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah."

Likewise, the marred pot, the physical descendants of Abraham, the natural Isreal, is destined for destruction, with exception to a mere remnant.

vv. 30-33: What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

I find it ironic that where we expect Paul to speak further about personal election (if that were his purpose), he instead speaks of the entry of the Gentiles through their faith, to the exclusion of the Jews who tried so hard in their works. They didn't obtain the righteousness the sought because the didn't seek it by faith.

And now to add irony to irony, this passages not only fails to support Unconditional Election, it actually refutes it!² It may seem strange to say that the Calvinist's last best hope becomes its own undoing, but let me explain. From a strongly contextual exegesis of Romans 9, we see that it is not an argument for personal, unconditional election, but instead a rebuttal of specifically Jewish concerns about the rejection of the nationalist Jew for the sake of the "spiritual" Jew. However, if we go back to the first few verses in this section, we observe something that doesn't fit in the Calvinist framework. If the argument is about why God is just in electing the faithful over the doers of the Law, then Paul just established a condition on how people are selected: faith. Therefore, Unconditional Election cannot be true. And in fact, instead of finding a strong case for Unconditional Election in Romans 9, we find a strong case for an election which is predicated by faith: which is precisely the view of Arminius, the Remonstrants, Wesleyans, and Classic Arminians today.

So, what can we conclude from the discourse in Romans 9? First off, Paul isn't rebutting any sort of "pre-Arminians," but Jews who object that if the majority of Jews are rejected, then the Promise has failed. However, Paul responds by noting that the promise hasn't failed, because the heirs aren't the natural children of Abraham, but are the children of the promise. Paul goes on to snipe off some other objections that come up, like how unfair it may seem for God to show mercy in this manner... but in fact it is God's sovereign right to deal out his grace as He sees fit. Also, an objection comes up that this is unjust for God to still find fault, but Paul returns the objection on the objectors, noting that they have no right to judge God in the first place. Paul then concludes the section by returning to the point of his whole book: that righteousness and justification are attained by faith, not by the works of the law. To support this, he contrasts this with the Gentile Christians, who are saved by faith, with the unbelieving Jews, who try to find it by obeying the Law.

Therefore, I conclude that this isn't about election being unconditional, but about the promise rightfully foregoing the unbelieving, national Israel and going to the faithful, "spiritual" descendants of Abraham. Although I do not think this is about election per se, the implications to election we do find turn out to support the Arminian view, rather than the Calvinist view.

<< Conditional Election

Series Index

Prevenient Grace >>

Notes and Citations:

1. As much as I'd like to claim credit for this exegesis, it is actually based loosely on a post on TWeb on the same subject. The post can be found here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=219094&posted=1#post219094

2. This is based on an point by Arminius himself. His work on Romans 9 (which is my source for this) can be found here: http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius202.htm