The Deformation 6 - Romans 9 De-Calvinized

This chapter ended up being much longer than normal. It also made sense as a standalone book. So I published it as a Kindle and Paperback book on Amazon called Reading Romans 9 from a Non-Calvinist Perspective by Chris White

Romans chapter 9 stands at the center of a significant theological debate—the question of divine sovereignty and human freedom. For many within the Reformed or Calvinist tradition, this chapter is seen as the clearest biblical evidence for their views.

The Calvinist Interpretation of Romans 9

The importance of Romans 9 for Calvinism cannot be overstated. It is viewed as the foundational text for the doctrine of unconditional election—the belief that God, according to His sovereign will and purpose, chooses to save some and not others, entirely apart from anything foreseen in them, whether faith or works.

As The Gospel Coalition summarizes, in Romans 9:

“Paul teaches the (Calvinist) doctrine of unconditional election—the teaching that God chooses to save some and not others, not based on anything in them (whether faith or fruit, present or foreseen), but based solely on his sovereign will and purpose.”

This chapter is also the main passage that Reformed believers turn to in support of predestination—the belief that God, before the foundation of the world, predetermined the course of all things, from the smallest detail to the greatest events. Human history in every detail unfolds exactly as God has decreed it, and that nothing is a result of independent or autonomous human decisions. As Martin Luther famously wrote in The Bondage of the Will, the idea of free will is a “mere lie.”

The Early Church View

While many today associate Romans 9 with the doctrine of predestination, this was not how the earliest Christians understood the passage. In fact, a deterministic reading of Romans 9—one that sees God as arbitrarily choosing some people for salvation and others for damnation—first appeared among certain Gnostic sects in the second century. These groups taught that human destinies were fixed by divine decree, that some were created as “spiritual” and destined for salvation while others were “material” and destined for destruction.

Early Christian leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Chrysostom strongly rejected these ideas. They saw the Gnostic-style interpretation of Romans 9—that some were born good and others born evil or damned—as a distortion of both Scripture and God’s character. For the first four centuries of the church, the freedom of the human will was taken for granted. The early fathers—interpreting Romans 9 within the broader scriptural witness—consistently rejected any notion of unconditional predestination that nullifies human responsibility.

This was the standard reading in the Greek and Latin churches: divine mercy and human freedom work in concert, and the text was never taken to teach a unilateral, unconditional predestination of individuals to salvation or damnation. It was not until the fifth century that a more deterministic view of Romans 9 gained traction in Christian theology—introduced by Augustine of Hippo, a former Gnostic himself. Augustine’s later writings on grace and predestination drew heavily from Romans 9 and became the foundation for what would later evolve into Calvinist theology.

I will be arguing against the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9 by first outlining the major problems I see with that view, and then walking through the chapter verse by verse to address each of the most difficult passages in detail. Before examining Romans 9 though, it’s important to understand what Calvinists believe and why this chapter is central to their system.

The Core of Calvinism

At the core of Calvinism is unconditional election—the belief that God, before creation, chose certain individuals for eternal life and passed over others, not because of anything He foresaw in them—no faith, no merit, no decision—but solely according to His own sovereign will.

Calvinists insist this choice is not “arbitrary,” meaning random or unjust, but rather unconditioned—based on nothing outside of God Himself. Yet from the human perspective, it is precisely arbitrary in that human actions, faith, or response to God make no difference in the outcome.

This unconventional idea is made necessary because of another Calvinist doctrine called Total Depravity, the teaching that humanity is so completely corrupted by sin that no one can even desire God or believe in Him without first being regenerated. According to this view, people are not merely fallen or weak but spiritually dead—incapable of responding to God in any meaningful way.

But this was also the key idea of the early Gnostics, who, though using different terminology, taught that humanity was divided between those capable of receiving divine light and those who were not. The early Christians rejected this fatalistic anthropology as heresy because it denied the freedom and moral responsibility of human beings.

Calvinists believe that because humanity is so corrupted by total depravity, no one can have faith in God by an act of their own free will. Faith, in their system, is not something a person initially chooses, but something that results from being elected—a choice God made apart from anything the individual has done or ever will do.

In short they believe:

* If humans are totally unable, election must be totally unconditional.

* Calvinists claim to teach “salvation by faith alone” but in reality they teach salvation by election alone, since faith itself is possible only for those whom God has already arbitrarily chosen.

Human belief, repentance, or response plays no real role in determining one’s destiny; election is the only thing that matters, and election is something that in their view no one has control over.

Sovereignty, Foreknowledge and Predestination

Before continuing I want to be transparent about the perspective from which I approach this study. I believe that God’s sovereignty and human freedom are not mutually exclusive. The Reformed view often treats God’s sovereignty as if it cancels human will, but Scripture and the early Church fathers consistently present a more dynamic relationship. God reigns absolutely—but He reigns over free creatures, not puppets.

Defining Sovereignty

Even the word “sovereignty” itself has taken on a new meaning within Calvinism. In Reformed theology, sovereignty is often defined as God’s absolute control over every event—that nothing happens that He has not predetermined. But that is not what the word means.

According to Merriam-Webster, sovereignty means “supreme power or authority.” A king, for example, can be sovereign over his country—his rule and authority are unquestioned—yet things can still occur within his realm that he did not personally will or decree. If a thief steals a loaf of bread in his kingdom, it does not mean the king is any less sovereign.

Likewise, God’s sovereignty means that He has ultimate authority over creation, not that He predetermines every act that takes place within it. This is not because He lacks control, it’s because it is seemingly His will to rule over creatures with a free will to choose or not to choose Him. To put it another way, God’s sovereign will was to create creatures with free will.

Predetermination vs. Predestination

One of the most important distinctions to make here is between predestination and predetermination.

* Predetermination means that events and choice are fixed and caused directly by God.

* Predestination, on the other hand, refers to God’s plan or intention—a destiny prepared for those who love Him (Romans 8:28–30).

I like to think of it as a father preparing a destiny for his son. Imagine a father who buys his son land, farming tools, and seeds for planting—everything he needs for a good life as a farmer. That future is prepared, even predestined for the son. But the son still has the freedom to embrace it or reject that predestined future. He may work the field as his father intended, or he can squander his inheritance and waste his life in drugs and alcohol. The father’s plan was good, but the son’s choices still mattered.

Here are a couple quick verses showing that God’s creatures can reject His will for them:

But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John. (Luke 7:30)

… How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37b)

God’s Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

Another important thing to discuss before we get started is the idea of God’s foreknowledge. Throughout Scripture, God’s “choosing” does not seem to be arbitrary or detached from His wisdom. His decisions seem to flow from foreknowledge—from knowing the hearts of people and how they will respond to His grace:

* “Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1:2).

* “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

* “Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined” (Romans 8:29).

God’s sovereignty seems to operate in harmony with His knowledge of the human heart. His plans are never random or unjust; His foreknowledge takes into account who will respond to Him in faith and who will not.

The Early Church on Foreknowledge and Freedom

The earliest Christians taught this as well. John of Damascus wrote:

“We know that God foreknows all things, but He does not predetermine all things. For He foreknows the things that depend on us, but He does not predetermine them.”

God’s foreknowledge, he explained, is timeless awareness, not coercion. He foreknows freely chosen acts as free acts; He doesn’t turn them into necessities by knowing them.

John Chrysostom, commenting on Romans 8:29, emphasized that God’s choosing is based on His foreknowledge of human faith.

“For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate... He did not merely say, ‘He foreknew,’ but, ‘whom he foreknew,’ i.e., whose willingness He knew before...”

Origen likewise wrote:

“For it is not because God knows that an event will happen that it happens; but because it will happen, it is known by God before it happens.”

Across the early Church, the consensus was consistent: God’s foreknowledge includes human freedom; it does not erase it. This understanding also makes sense of the many passages showing God interacting with humanity in real time:

* God tests people and how they respond to these tests actually matter. (Genesis 22:1; Exodus 16:4; Deuteronomy 8:2; 2 Chronicles 32:31; John 6:6; 1 Peter 1:7)

* God relents or changes His course in response to prayer or repentance (Exodus 32:14; Jeremiah 18:8; Jeremiah 26:19; Amos 7:3; Jonah 3:10; Revelation 2:5)

* God invites all to choose: “I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19; see also Joshua 24:15; Ezekiel 18:30–32; Revelation 3:20).

These scenes and many more in Scripture would be meaningless if every human action were predetermined. The God of Scripture is not an indifferent observer of a fixed story—He is an engaged Father, working with His creation, rejoicing over faith, grieving over rebellion, and responding to prayer.

Chapter 2The Context

Let’s begin talking about the chapter we will be examining in context. Romans 9 is one of the most complex and misunderstood chapters in the New Testament. It’s challenging for two reasons:

Paul builds his entire argument on the Old Testament, and he assumes his readers know it backward and forward. Every time he mentions a line from Scripture he expects his audience to immediately recall the full story and its meaning in context. To follow his reasoning, you have to understand not just the verse he quotes, but what that passage represents in Israel’s history. Without that background, much of what Paul is saying can be misunderstood or oversimplified.

Paul writes in a distinctive, question-and-answer style. He often raises an objection, responds to it, and then anticipates the next one. This was a common rabbinic teaching method, and it makes Romans 9–11 read like a lively dialogue between Paul and an imagined objector—sometimes representing a Jewish perspective, other times a Gentile one. At points, Paul clearly states the question he’s addressing, while at other times he assumes the reader has already asked it. If you don’t follow that flow, it can simply be confusing, because the conversation shifts quickly from one question to another without always signaling the transition.

The Questions Paul Is Answering

Paul’s argument unfolds through a series of questions—each reflecting the real concerns of his audience:

1. If Jesus is truly the Messiah, why have so many Israelites rejected Him? Wasn’t the Messiah supposed to save Israel and bring light to the Gentiles? How can Israel’s widespread unbelief fit into God’s plan—has His redemptive purpose gone off course? (Romans 9:1–6)

2. Has God’s word failed? If the promises were given to Abraham’s descendants, yet most of them do not believe, does that mean God’s word has come to nothing? (Romans 9:6)

3. Who, then, is Israel? If physical descent doesn’t guarantee inclusion in the covenant, how do we define the true “Israel” who inherits the promises? (Romans 9:6–9)

4. Isn’t it unfair for God to choose some (Gentiles) and reject others (Jews)? Why does it seem He has embraced the Gentile church now instead of restoring national Israel? (Romans 9:10–13)

5. Does God’s selective choice make Him unjust? If He shows mercy to some but not to others, is that unfair of Him? (Romans 9:14–16)

6. If God hardens Israel’s heart to the truth of the Messiah in order to bring good from it, namely salvation to the gentiles, how can He hold Israel responsible? (Romans 9:17–21)

7. Did Israel miss out because they never heard or understood the message? If many Israelites remain unbelieving, is it due to them never hearing the gospel or failing to grasp it? (Romans 10:16–21)

8. Has God rejected His people Israel forever? In other words, is Israel’s hardening permanent, or is there still hope for their restoration? (Romans 11:1–12)

The Historical Context

Another aspect that is important to understand before going through this chapter is the historical context. In the first century, this teaching was shocking. Many Jews viewed Gentiles as unclean outsiders—idolaters and moral degenerates. The idea that God would extend His covenant blessings to them without demanding adherence to the Law of Moses was deeply offensive.

To put it in modern terms, imagine discovering that God decided to work primarily through a group you completely disagreed with—say, the Democrats—people you believe are wrong about nearly everything. You might say, “But God, they don’t deserve this!” And God might reply, “You’re right—they don’t. But neither did you. I’m doing this because I have a purpose and a plan. Just because you can’t see it right now doesn’t mean it isn’t guided by My foreknowledge and rooted in My mercy.”

From the Gentile perspective on the other hand, the situation Paul addresses in Romans would have seemed bewildering. Israel—the people through whom the Messiah came, the custodians of Scripture, the “chosen nation”—had, in large part, rejected Jesus. Worse still, many Jewish leaders were now the chief persecutors of those who confessed Him. To a Gentile believer, this reversal would have looked like a theological crisis: How is it that the very people who awaited the Messiah for centuries have failed to recognize Him? How can God’s chosen people be opposing God’s own Son and His followers? Has the long story of Israel simply collapsed? Has God’s word failed?

Reading Romans 9–11 as a Unified Whole

Before proceeding to a verse-by-verse study, it is vital to establish the scope of Paul’s argument. A major error in interpreting Romans 9 is reading it in isolation, cutting it off from the resolution found in chapters 10 and 11. When separated from its context, Romans 9 can appear to be a treatise on fatalism. However, when read as a cohesive unit, the message shifts from fate to faith.

The key to unlocking this section is found in Paul’s own summary at the end of chapter 9. He does not leave us guessing as to why Israel stumbled:

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, (Romans 9:30–32)

This is the lens through which we must read everything that follows. Israel was not excluded by a secret, pre-temporal decree of reprobation, but by a present refusal to submit to God’s method of salvation: faith in Christ.

The Problem of “Hardening”

The danger of isolating Romans 9 is most visible in how one interprets the concept of “hardening.” Calvinist interpreters often view the “vessels of wrath” or those whom God “hardens” as individuals selected for irrevocable damnation. In this view, hardening is a permanent, uncaused status.

However, this interpretation collapses when we follow the argument into chapter 11. If the “hardened” were truly the non-elect—unable to believe and destined for hell—Paul’s subsequent arguments would make no sense. Paul explicitly describes the hardening of Israel not as a final destiny, but as a temporary, reversible condition used by God to facilitate Gentile inclusion. Paul asks directly:

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. (Romans 11:11)

If hardening were permanent reprobation, the answer would have been “Yes.” Instead, Paul argues that this stumbling is a temporary means to an end, and he labors to provoke these “hardened” Jews to jealousy so that he might “save some of them” (Romans 11:14). You cannot save the irrevocably reprobate.

But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Romans 11:13–15)

The “If” of Opportunity

The final blow to the fatalistic reading is the conditionality Paul attaches to their status. In Romans 11:23, he writes concerning the hardened branches:

And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. (Romans 11:23)

This verse proves that hardening is not a fixed identity. It is a condition caused by unbelief, and it is removed by faith. The door remains open.

Follow the Pronouns

Scholars such as Günther Juncker and Matt O’Reilly suggest a simple method for testing the coherence of Paul’s argument: “follow the pronouns.” Throughout chapters 9, 10, and 11, Paul consistently uses “they” and “them” to refer to the same group: unbelieving national Israel.[1]

If the “hardened” of chapter 9 were a different group than the “beloved” of chapter 11, the grammar would disintegrate. Because the pronouns remain consistent, we know that the very people currently under judgment are the same people invited to return.

Chapter 3Romans 9:1-5

We will now begin examining the chapter verse by verse starting with the introduction to Paul’s argument in the first 5 verses.

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:1–5)

The Logic of Grief

Paul opens this section not with a cold theological treatise, but with a cry of the heart. He calls upon Christ and the Holy Spirit as witnesses to his “great sorrow and unceasing grief.” This emotional intensity poses an immediate challenge to the strict Calvinist interpretation of the chapter. If, as some argue, Romans 9 is a command to stoically accept God’s sovereign decision to reprobate men for His glory, Paul’s reaction is inexplicable.

If God has irrevocably determined the damnation of these Jews for His good pleasure, why is Paul filled with “unceasing grief” over it? As we have already noted, Paul’s grief here fuels his mission in Chapter 11 to “save some of them” (11:14). One does not grieve over, pray for, or attempt to save those whom he believes God has eternally barred from salvation.

He would effectively be praying for God’s eternal decree to fail. It is incoherent to argue that Paul views them as “vessels fitted for destruction” by a sovereign decree in one breath, and then weeps and prays for that decree to be reversed in the next.

Establishing the Subject: National Israel

This contradiction creates a logical crisis for the Calvinist interpreter. To resolve it, they are forced to argue that the “vessels of wrath” in the latter half of the chapter are not the same group as the “kinsmen” Paul weeps for in the beginning.

In verses 3–5, Paul clearly defines who he is talking about: “my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.” He then lists their corporate privileges: the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the Law, the temple service, and the promises.

This is the crucial anchor for the entire chapter. Paul is explicitly addressing National Israel—the ethnic, corporate people of God.

However, because the Calvinist view demands that “vessels of wrath” refers to individuals who are irrevocably reprobated for hell, they cannot allow the subject to remain “National Israel.” As noted, if the subject remains the nation, then Paul is praying for the salvation of “vessels of wrath,” which implies their condition is not irrevocable. Therefore, to save their theology, they must insist that Paul abruptly switches topics mid-stream—abandoning his lament for the corporate nation of Israel to instead deliver a argument on why God picks specific individuals for heaven or hell.

This will be discussed in more detail later on.

Chapter 4Romans 9:6-10

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.” 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. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; (Romans 9:6–10)

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” (v. 6)

Here Paul states the objection he is answering. Many of his Jewish contemporaries believed that if Gentiles were now inheriting Israel’s promised blessings through Christ, then God must have abandoned His covenant with Israel. After all, everything Paul listed in Romans 9:4–5—the adoption, the covenants, the promises, the patriarchs, even the Messiah Himself—belonged to Israel.

So how could it possibly be that the majority of Israel was rejecting the gospel, while Gentiles were streaming into the kingdom? Had God changed His plan? Had His word failed?

From their perspective, the situation seemed outrageous. Israel had been told for centuries that the kingdom was theirs. The prophets spoke of Gentiles coming to Israel’s light, not Israel being displaced by Gentiles. And the cultural context only intensified the perceived scandal: first-century Jews typically regarded Gentiles as unclean idolaters, “fuel for the fires of hell.” They avoided eating with them, entering their homes, or sharing intimate fellowship.

In that world, Paul’s message—that Gentiles were becoming full heirs of God’s promises through faith in Christ—was not merely unexpected; it was offensive. Paul’s point is that God’s plan has not failed. Rather, the assumption behind the objection was wrong: it was never the case that every physical Israelite was automatically a participant in the covenant blessings.

“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” (v. 6b)

Here Paul begins to redefine “Israel” in covenantal—not ethnic—terms. If the promises were made to Israel, and yet many Israelites are rejecting Christ, then the question must be asked: Who, then, is Israel?

Paul’s answer is both surprising and deeply rooted in the Old Testament: there has always been an Israel within Israel. To prove this, Paul turns first to Abraham’s own household. Ishmael was a physical descendant every bit as much as Isaac. Yet God declared, “Through Isaac your descendants will be named” (v. 7).

In other words, the covenant line did not flow through every child Abraham fathered, but only through the one God chose by His promise. Paul then clarifies: “It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise” (v. 8).

This distinction between fleshly descent and promise-based sonship has always been present. The true heirs are those aligned with God’s promise, not merely those possessing Abraham’s DNA. Paul is therefore not undermining God’s promises to Israel. He is clarifying who Israel truly is—and has always been.

At the same time, he is grieving that so many of his Jewish kinsmen, though physically descended from Abraham, are not embracing the Messiah and thus are standing outside the very covenant they assumed was theirs by birthright.

“And not only this, but there was Rebekah also…” (v. 10)

Having shown that Ishmael’s exclusion proves God’s freedom in defining the covenant line, Paul anticipates a possible rebuttal: “Yes, but Ishmael’s birth was irregular—he was born of a slave woman. That’s why he wasn’t chosen.”

So Paul brings in a second example—Rebekah. Here the situation is airtight: There is nothing irregular, nothing that could explain the difference between Jacob and Esau on natural grounds. They share the same parents, same lineage, same womb, even the same miraculous promise of conception.

And if one wanted to argue that birth order should determine covenant privilege, the example becomes even stronger: God chose against the normal custom by selecting the younger, Jacob. Paul’s point is unmistakable. He strips away every imaginable ground for claiming covenant status by natural privilege—ethnicity, parentage, or birth order. None of these ever guaranteed inclusion in the true Israel.

And if that is true, then the situation Paul is describing in his day—where Gentiles enter the covenant through faith while many Israelites reject it—is not a failure of God’s word at all. It is the continuation of the very pattern seen in Abraham’s own family: a distinction within Israel between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise.

Chapter 5Romans 9:11-13

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.” (Romans 9:11–13)

Paul has already addressed the first objector—the one claiming that being in covenant with God is based on physical lineage. He now pivots to address a second anticipated objection. The objector might think: “Okay, maybe being a true descendant of Abraham isn’t based on physical descent, but surely it must be based on good works. Surely God chooses the righteous over the unrighteous.”

In verses 10 through 13, Paul refutes this. His point is that when the twins (Jacob and Esau) were still in the womb, the prophecy was given to their mother that “the older will serve the younger.” This was done so that God’s purpose—specifically His covenantal line—would stand.

The Calvinist Stronghold: Verse 11

It is at verse 11 that most Calvinists plant their flag. The following 12 verses are the heart of their theology regarding Unconditional Election. To be fair, a reading of this section in isolation can reasonably be interpreted that way. However, I argue that when we follow the flow of Paul’s arguments and look at the context of the Old Testament passages he is quoting, it becomes impossible to believe the Calvinist interpretation.

Paul is not teaching that individuals are elected to heaven and hell without consideration of anything they have done (including having faith). As we are about to see, that cannot be the point, because Paul’s main argument throughout the book of Romans is that the reason Abraham and his true descendants are chosen is because of their faith. That is how one becomes part of “True Israel.” And All are called to this high purpose.

Faith vs. Works: The Consistent Theme

“for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad...” (Romans 9:11)

Paul’s main point in mentioning that the prophecy was given before the twins were born is to answer the objection that the choosing of Jacob over Esau was about works. How could it be about works if the prophecy was made before they did any works?

I argue that Paul is making essentially the same argument here that he makes throughout the entire book of Romans: Israel missed the call of the Messiah because they were focused on achieving righteousness by works rather than by faith. Paul explicitly summarizes this conclusion later in the same chapter:

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, (Romans 9:30–32)

If Paul were teaching Unconditional Election as the sole reason for Israel’s state, he would have summarized by saying Israel failed because they were not chosen. Instead, he explicitly says they failed because of their pursuit by works.

The Calvinist Dilemma

Why do Calvinist theologians (like John Piper and R.C. Sproul) insist that Paul is not making his usual “faith versus works” argument in Romans 9:11? They do this to protect the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

The Calvinist Stance: Calvinists believe that God chooses who to save based entirely on His own will. He does not look for anything good in the person beforehand—not even their future faith.

The Conflict: This is why they cannot accept that Paul is contrasting “works” with “faith” in verse 11. If Paul means that God chose Jacob because He foresaw Jacob’s faith, then God’s choice would depend on something Jacob did (believing). That would destroy the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election.

As John Piper argues:

“[Paul] did not contrast works with faith, but with ‘Him who calls’ — not even faith is in view here as a condition.”

There is a profound inconsistency here. In any other chapter of Romans, a Calvinist would be the first to point out that Paul contrasts ‘works’ with ‘faith.’ But in Romans 9, their theological system overrides the text. Because their doctrine of Unconditional Election cannot tolerate any condition—not even faith—they are forced to deny the presence of Paul’s most famous argument. They must claim that in this one instance, Paul is not contrasting works with faith, but works with an, arbitrary decree.

Corroborating Evidence: Romans 4

As further proof that Romans 9 is consistent with Paul’s broader “Faith vs. Works” theology, we can look back to Romans 4:11-13. Paul notes that Abraham received the sign of circumcision because of the faith he had while uncircumcised. The purpose was for him to be the father of all who come to righteousness by faith, not through works of the Law.

and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:11–13)

The Crucial Question: Foreknowledge or Arbitrary Will?

You might say to yourself: “Okay, I understand that Paul is making the Faith vs. Works argument. I understand the Calvinists reject this because it contradicts Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. But we still have to answer the text itself.”

When Paul says God chose Jacob over Esau “not of works but of Him who calls,” what is the mechanism of that choice?

* Foreseen Faith: Is Paul saying God chose Jacob because He foreknew that Jacob would have faith and Esau would not?

* Arbitrary Decree: Or, as the Calvinists insist, does this passage teach that God chose Jacob for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jacob, Esau, or their foreseen actions—an arbitrary decision made before the foundation of the universe?

I will try to answer that question while addressing the next passage.

“Just as it is written, ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.’” (Romans 9:13)

We have now arrived at the epicenter of the Calvinist argument. This is where they insist that Paul is teaching that God loves and hates individual people for no reason other than His own will. For their theology to work, it is crucial that God’s hatred of Esau was not based on anything He saw Esau would do in the future.

Because Calvinists believe in “Unconditional Election”—and believe that no one can do anything good (like have faith) without God causing them to have or not have it—they argue that God’s hatred of Esau must therefore be just as unconditioned as His love for Jacob.

Context: Israel not Individual

A good place to start refuting this is by considering the broader context and by reminding ourselves that Paul’s main argument here is about a corporate group of people—the Israelites—and not merely individuals.

As we saw earlier, Calvinists must reject the idea that Paul is broadly talking about nations because they need this passage to support the doctrine of Unconditional Election of individuals to heaven and hell.

If Paul is talking about nations here, their argument collapses. Because later in Romans 11, Paul explicitly hopes that some of those who have been “hardened” (part of the non-elect nation) will be saved. If the “rejection” or “hatred” mentioned in chapter 9 meant an irrevocable decree of individual damnation, Paul could not hope for their salvation in chapter 11.

We can demonstrate that nations are in view here by looking at the old testament passage Paul is quoting in Romans 9:12.

Romans 9:12 “...it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’”

This is the prophecy given to Rebekah in Genesis 25. When Rebekah asked God why there was turmoil in her pregnancy, God did not tell her “two individuals are in your womb.”

The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:23)

The struggling in the womb was indicative of the future of two nations: Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau). Paul’s readers almost certainly would not have missed the significance of his partial quotation of that passage which has immeasurable significance to the nation of Israel.

The Malachi Connection

The second proof that Paul is talking about nations, rather than individuals, is found in the specific verse he quotes next: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This phrase comes from the book of Malachi. This is crucial context because Malachi was written more than 1,000 years after Jacob and Esau had died.

Any student of the Old Testament in Paul’s day would have known this. Malachi was not discussing the eternal destiny of two babies in a womb; he was explaining God’s judgment on the nation of Edom (Esau’s descendants) after centuries of hostility. Specifically, Malachi was writing in the wake of Edom’s ultimate betrayal. When Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, Edom did not help their “brother” Israel. Instead, they stood by and cheered, even capturing fleeing refugees to hand them over to the enemy.

God’s indictment in Malachi reflects this national history:

“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” Though Edom says, “We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins”; thus says the Lord of hosts, “They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.” (Malachi 1:2–4)

Why does Paul quote this?

Paul quotes this verse to vindicate God’s original choice. He uses the end of the story (Malachi) to explain the beginning of the story (Genesis).

Paul’s argument seems to be that God possessed foreknowledge of these events. Before the twins were born, God foresaw that the nation descending from Esau would eventually betray the nation descending from Jacob. God’s “hatred” (covenant rejection) of Esau was not a random roll of the dice; it was tied to His foresight of that future treachery.

This is why the text says the choice was made so that “God’s purpose... would stand.” God’s purpose was to build a nation that would preserve His word and ultimately bring forth the Messiah. That purpose depended on choosing Jacob (who would become Israel) rather than Esau (who would become Edom). God chose the protector of the promise over the enemy of the promise.

Foreknowledge and Character

Even though Paul’s main point is about nations, we can still apply this to individuals.

If you read the Bible’s description of these two twin brothers, one man had faith and was considered blameless and the other did not and was considered a profane man.

Jacob

Despite his faults, Genesis describes him as a “blameless” man (Genesis 25:27). This is a rare word (tam) used to describe uniquely righteous people which was also used of Job when God was commending Job’s righteous behavior. But Jacob’s faith goes beyond just a single word description. We see it clearly in the events of his life:

* Valuing the Covenant: While Esau despised his birthright for a temporary meal, Jacob coveted the spiritual blessing. He understood the value of the promise God made to Abraham.

* The Vision at Bethel: When God appeared to him in a dream (Jacob’s Ladder), Jacob didn’t respond with indifference. He responded with awe and worship, setting up a pillar and making a vow to the Lord, saying, “The Lord will be my God” (Genesis 28:20-21).

* Wrestling with God: Perhaps the defining moment of his life was at Peniel, where he wrestled with God all night. His refusal to let go—”I will not let you go unless you bless me” (Genesis 32:26)—demonstrated a desperate, tenacious faith that valued God’s favor above his own physical safety.

* The Hall of Faith: Finally, the New Testament explicitly lists him in the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11, noting that by faith, even while dying, he worshipped God (Hebrews 11:21).

Esau

In contrast to Jacob, the Bible paints a dark picture of Esau. The New Testament explicitly calls him sexually immoral, and a “godless person”(or a profane man) in Hebrews 12:16. This word describes someone who has no regard for spiritual things and lives only for the moment. We see this lack of faith play out clearly in his life:

* Trading the Birthright: Esau famously sold his spiritual inheritance—the right to carry the covenant line—for a single bowl of stew. This wasn’t just a hungry man making a mistake; it was a declaration of his values. He despised the promise of God because he preferred immediate physical satisfaction.

* Grieving His Parents: Long before the dispute over the blessing, Esau showed his disregard for the covenant family. Genesis 26 tells us that he married two Hittite women—foreigners who worshipped other gods. The Bible notes specifically that these marriages were “a source of grief” and bitterness of spirit to Isaac and Rebekah. He had no interest in maintaining the spiritual purity of the line.

* The “Godless” Man: Finally, the New Testament removes any ambiguity about Esau’s spiritual state. The author of Hebrews explicitly warns believers not to be “sexually immoral or godless like Esau“ (Hebrews 12:16). The Greek word used here (bebēlos) means “profane”—someone who tramples on the sacred.

While Jacob was flawed but valued the holy things of God, Esau was a man who treated the sacred with utter contempt. He is the biblical archetype of the secular man who lives entirely for the flesh and has no capacity for spiritual reality.

It is entirely biblical to say that God foreknew what kind of men these two would be. The Calvinist argues that because the choice was made “before they were born,” God couldn’t have looked at their future faith or lack thereof. But the timing of the choice doesn’t stop God from seeing the future.

In fact, when Paul circles back to clarify the status of Israel in Romans 11, he uses this specific word to explain God’s loyalty to His covenant. He doesn’t attribute it to a blind, random decree, but rather links it directly to God’s prior knowledge.

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew…(Romans 11:2a)

If foreknowledge is the basis for God not rejecting His people in chapter 11, it is perfectly consistent to see it as the basis for His choice in chapter 9.

Conclusion on the Choice

Therefore, when we look at Jacob, we must conclude that he was not chosen because of his works. He did not earn his position through moral superiority. He was chosen because of his foreseen faith.

When Paul says the choice was made before birth “not of works,” he is proving that God didn’t pick Jacob based on a checklist of good deeds or law-keeping. But that doesn’t mean God was blind to the future. God foreknew that Jacob would be a man of faith—a man who would value the promises—through whom the Messiah could come. He also foreknew that Esau would be a man of the flesh who despised those promises.

Chapter 6Romans 9:14-15

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:14–15)

Paul now transitions to the next objection. In the previous verses he demonstrated that God’s covenantal blessings cannot be claimed on the basis of physical lineage or works. But even if that objection is settled, something deeper presses in upon the mind of the reader—something emotional, ethical, even existential: If God has temporarily set aside Israel while opening the floodgates of mercy to the Gentiles, isn’t that unfair? Doesn’t that make God unjust?

This is not a trivial question. Paul has just explained that Israel as a nation, though chosen to bear the Messiah, is largely in a state of unbelief, and that Gentiles—so long considered outsiders—are now becoming the people of God in great numbers. The Jewish objector would naturally respond, “But this looks like God has revoked His earlier commitments. How can this be righteous? How can this be just?”

Paul voices that objection himself: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?” His answer is emphatic, as emphatic as possible in Greek: “May it never be!”

But notice how Paul defends God. He reaches back to one of the most important moments in Israel’s history—Moses’ request to see God’s glory—in order to explain not only that God is just, but how God is just.

Paul quotes Exodus 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Calvinists often read this text as if it meant, “I will have mercy on who I have mercy and I will smite who I will smite,” but that is not what the passage says. Both actions in this verse are positive: mercy and compassion. When God declares His sovereign freedom, what He highlights is not His freedom to condemn but His freedom to be merciful.

To appreciate how Paul intends for this citation to function, we need to recall the original setting. Israel had made the golden calf. They were guilty of idolatry immediately after receiving the covenant. God had every reason to abandon them. Moses pleads for the people, and in response God declares:

And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” (Exodus 33:19)

Before anything else, God speaks of His goodness and His intention to proclaim His Name. This already shifts the meaning of the passage. God is not merely asserting His right to do whatever He wants. He is revealing who He is—His inner character, His Name. And when the next chapter reveals that Name, the emphasis becomes unmistakable.

The Lord descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the Lord. Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” (Exodus 34:5–7)

This is the Name of God. It is a list of divine attributes, a revelation of His inner being. And while justice is certainly part of it—He “will by no means leave the guilty unpunished”—the primary thrust is compassion, grace, patience, steadfast love, forgiveness. That is what God wants Moses to understand. And that is the context Paul deliberately pulls into Romans 9.

Thus when Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 (I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion) he is not making the point that God arbitrarily chooses some individuals for heaven and others for hell. Rather, he is grounding his argument in the fact that God’s very Name is bound up with mercy, compassion, patience, lovingkindness, and forgiveness. The reason Paul cites this passage is to declare that God’s dealings with both Jews and Gentiles are rooted in that character.

God is not unjust—He is merciful.

And this is profoundly important for understanding Paul’s larger argument in Romans 9–11. Everything God is doing—whether hardening, showing patience, grafting in Gentiles, provoking Israel to jealousy—is part of a majestic plan driven by mercy. Mercy for the Gentiles, yes. But also mercy for Israel. Paul will later say explicitly:

For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. (Romans 11:32)

This is the crescendo of the three-chapter argument. But Paul begins laying the foundation here in 9:15 by reminding us that God’s identity—His Name—is mercy. When we keep all of this in mind, it becomes much easier to understand where Paul is going next.

The real theme of Romans 9–11 is not God choosing some and rejecting others—it is God’s desire to show mercy. The word mercy appears 8 times in these chapters and only one other time in the book of Romans, and that is not an accident. Paul’s point is that God is not being unfair, because everything He is doing with both Jews and Gentiles comes from His merciful character and his desire to save as many from both groups as possible.

And this sets up the next examples Paul uses. When he brings up Pharaoh, and later the potter and the clay, Paul is not changing subjects. He is showing how God can take even human stubbornness and rejection and turn it toward a merciful purpose. God used Pharaoh’s hardness to make His name known and bring freedom to Israel. In the same way, God is using Israel’s current unbelief to bring salvation to the Gentiles, and He will later use the Gentiles’ salvation to bring mercy back to Israel.

Chapter 7Romans 9:16

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Paul begins this verse with “So then…”, which signals a conclusion from everything he has argued so far. And what has Paul already demonstrated? That covenant membership is not based on physical descent and not based on works of the law. Instead, the true children of Abraham are those who come to God by faith.

Calvinists tend to read this verse as if Paul were saying that salvation has nothing to do with anything in a person—not even their faith—and that God simply selects some individuals for salvation while bypassing others. But as we have seen this interpretation cannot be correct because Paul himself directly tells us the real reason Israel missed salvation, just a few verses later:

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, (Romans 9:30–32)

* The Gentiles attained righteousness by faith.

* Israel failed because they pursued righteousness as though it were by works.

Paul could not be any clearer. The issue was faith vs. works, not “chosen vs. not chosen.” If Romans 9:16 were really teaching that salvation has nothing at all to do with faith, Paul would be contradicting himself in the same chapter.

Why Calvinists Cannot See This

Once again, Calvinists are boxed out of this interpretation because they believe in total depravity, which teaches that a person cannot have faith unless they are already regenerated. Therefore, they must interpret Romans 9 in a way that removes faith from the discussion entirely. They simply cannot accept that Paul is continuing his normal “faith over works” argument here because it would overthrow the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

“The man who wills” and “the man who runs”

In the flow of Romans 9–10, “willing” and “running” refer specifically to Israel’s reliance on works of the law. No people on earth “willed” or “ran” harder than Israel did. They poured themselves into Torah observance. They sought righteousness through zeal, rigor, sincerity, and effort.

And yet Paul says their effort failed because: “…they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.”

Israel’s problem was not a lack of activity—it was a lack of faith. They trusted their effort instead of God’s promise. So when Paul says salvation “does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs,” he is saying: Salvation does not come from human effort, religious achievement, Torah observance, or anything a person can do—but from God who shows mercy to those who believe.

“But on God who has mercy” — Mercy Connected to Faith

This is important. “Mercy” in this passage does not mean arbitrary acceptance or rejection. Mercy is God’s gracious acceptance of faith as righteousness. It is mercy—not works—that allows God to look upon a believing sinner and receive them as righteous.

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy… (Titus 3:5a)

Mercy in Romans 9-11 seems to be related to the concept of salvation by grace through faith. It is not God’s mercy in the sense of random selection; it is mercy as in His willingness to save those who have faith in Him. God’s plan advances because of His mercy, not because of human effort or religious achievement.

Chapter 8Romans 9:17-18

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. (Romans 9:17–18)

Romans 9:17–18 cannot be understood in isolation. This section is in response to Romans 9:14 which says:

“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?” (v. 14)

Paul raises the question of injustice precisely because he has just mentioned God choosing Jacob over Esau (vv. 10–13), which stand as examples of his real point about the Jews and Gentiles. From Esau’s (or Israel’s) perspective, that choice looks like unfairness. But Paul’s point, beginning in v. 14, is to show that God is not unjust, because His purposes—even His acts of choosing and hardening—ultimately serve His merciful plan.

This is why Paul answers the charge of divine injustice by quoting Exodus 33:19:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy…” (v. 15)

Paul is grounding his argument not in arbitrary sovereignty, but in God’s mercy. Verses 15–16 are about mercy, not about arbitrary reprobation.

So when Paul brings up Pharaoh in vv. 17–18, he is not introducing a new point about unconditional predestination. He is illustrating the very thing he just stated: that God is supremely merciful, even when His actions initially appear severe.

Paul’s message is: What looks like harshness (Pharaoh hardened, or Israel being rejected) is actually part of a plan designed to show mercy on both Jews and Gentiles.

To see this, we need to track Paul’s logic all the way to his own summary in Romans 11:30–32. Most commentators miss the flow of Romans 9–11 because they do not read the whole 3 chapter argument. But Paul tells us at the end of the argument exactly why God hardened Pharaoh—and why He hardened Israel.

For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. (Romans 11:30–32)

This is the key to everything:

* Pharaoh’s disobedience becomes mercy for Israel

* Israel’s disobedience becomes mercy for Gentiles

* Gentile mercy leads to Israel provoked to return

* Result: God uses the disobedience of each group to bless the other

This is why the chapter ends with Paul marveling:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? (Romans 11:33–34)

Not the depth of God’s arbitrary decrees, but the depth of His wise ability to weave all things together for mercy, even human rebellion.

Paul’s Use of Pharaoh: Not Arbitrary Predestination, but Redemptive Strategy

“For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Two crucial observations come from the original context of Exodus 9:

(1)”Raised Up” Does Not Mean “Created.”

First, it is vital to notice what the text does not say. God does not tell Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I created you.” The language of “raising up” refers to God allowing Pharaoh to ascend to the stage of history. God permitted this specific man, whom He knew to be proud and stubborn, to obtain the throne of Egypt at this precise moment. God did not force Pharaoh to be wicked; rather, in His sovereignty, He utilized a man He knew would be obstinate to accomplish a global demonstration of His power.

(2) The Order of Hardening.

Second, the narrative timeline of Exodus reveals that Pharaoh was not a passive victim. Before God ever steps in to judicially harden Pharaoh, the text explicitly states multiple times that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 7:22; 8:15, 19, 32).

But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the Lord had said. (Exodus 8:15)

Only after Pharaoh had repeatedly steeled himself against God’s command do we read that God hardened him. Thus, the hardening in Romans 9 is not an arbitrary decree from eternity, but a judicial act—a judgment upon a man who had already chosen persistent rebellion.

This aligns perfectly with how Paul explains Israel’s hardening later in the letter. Just as Pharaoh was hardened after rejecting God’s word, Paul clarifies that Israel was hardened because they refused to pursue righteousness by faith (Romans 9:32; 11:7–8). In both cases, God’s hardening is a response to human unbelief, not the cause of it.

What Paul Is Demonstrating: God Brings Mercy Out of Human Rebellion

Why does Paul bring up Pharaoh right after discussing Jacob and Esau? Because he is giving a scriptural example of the very thing he is arguing: that even when God seems to be showing severity (e.g., choosing Jacob, rejecting Esau; hardening Pharaoh), His actions are actually ordered toward mercy.

This becomes obvious in Romans 9:22–23, which is Paul’s immediate summary of the Pharaoh illustration:

“…What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath…in order to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy…?” (vv. 22–23)

Here Paul is explicit: the reason God endured Pharaoh’s rebellion was to display mercy on others. Pharaoh’s stubbornness ended in the deliverance of Israel, the Passover, the Red Sea crossing, and a world-wide proclamation of God’s name. These events became the foundation of Israel’s identity and hope and the announcement of God’s saving power to the nations.

Thus Paul’s point is: God’s hardening of Pharaoh was part of His strategy to show mercy on Israel and ultimately on the nations.

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:18)

As we just saw God’s hardening was Judicial based on the actions of Pharaoh, not an arbitrary decree. Before God ever hardens Pharaoh, the text repeatedly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exod 8:15; 8:32; 9:34). God’s hardening does not come until after Pharaoh has already entrenched himself in persistent rebellion.

This fits exactly with Paul’s own teaching earlier in Romans. In Romans 1:24, 26, and 28, he describes God’s judgment in precisely these terms:

* “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts…” (Rom 1:24)

* “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions…” (Rom 1:26)

* “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind…” (Rom 1:28)

And Scripture reinforces this understanding by repeatedly warning people not to harden themselves. The author of Hebrews writes:

* “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts…” (Hebrews 3:7–8).

* “…lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” (Hebrews 3:13)

These warnings make no sense if hardening is an irresistible decree imposed on certain individuals before they ever live. They assume that humans have the real capacity to respond to God’s voice—and that the hardening of a heart is something one can resist or, tragically, choose.

Even more, such hardening is not always final. Moving just two chapters forward, Paul explicitly says that Israel’s current hardening is temporary and has a redemptive purpose:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” (Romans 11:25–26)

The Severity of the Sovereign Prerogative

While we have established that hardening often serves a redemptive purpose we must be careful not to downplay the terrifying reality of this judicial act.

While judicial hardening is not necessarily permanent (as seen in the potential restoration of Israel in Romans 11), there is an aspect of hardening that can become a fixed, permanent condition—a point of reprobation reached after prolonged resistance to the Spirit of Grace.

The author of Hebrews warns of this terrifying possibility in chapters 6 and 10, describing those who have trampled the Son of God underfoot to the point where renewal becomes impossible.

This reinforces that the hardening described in Romans 9 is strictly non-arbitrary; it is a direct, judicial response to a lifetime of prioritizing the profane over the holy.

The Variable Outcome: Wax vs. Clay

The effect of God’s hardening judgment probably depends on the nature of the “surface” it strikes. As one early church father noted, the same sun that melts wax will harden mud. The difference lies not in the sun, but in the material.

A heart that retains a capacity for humility, the pressure of God’s hand (judicial hardening) can indeed lead to brokenness and repentance (melting). But for the obstinate heart, that same pressure calcifies into brittle reprobation.

Trusting the Weaver of History

Therefore, when Paul asserts, “He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires,” we must read this through the lens of God’s omniscience. Paul is reminding us that God knows the future; He knows the composition of every human heart. He is weaving thousands of threads—rebellion, judgment, and mercy—into a tapestry that displays His glory.

The point of verse 18 is that we are not in a position to question His methodology. He knows how to use the temporary hardening of a Pharaoh or a nation to bring about ultimate mercy.

Chapter 9Romans 9:19

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (Romans 9:19)

To understand this verse, we must reject the impulse to view it as a detached philosophical question about fatalism. Instead, we must anchor it firmly in Paul’s ongoing argument about the history of Israel, the inclusion of the Gentiles, and the conditions of the Old Covenant versus the New.

The Context: Mercy, Hardening, and the Divine Prerogative

Paul has just established in verse 18 that God “has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” This is not an arbitrary selection of individuals for heaven or hell, but a description of God’s historical method of dealing with rebellion.

* Mercy: Extended to those who pursue Him by faith (the Gentiles and the believing Jewish remnant).

* Hardening: Applied to those who stubbornly pursue righteousness by works (the majority of ethnic Israel).

God is not bound by Israel’s ethnic heritage; He is free to harden a rebellious people to accomplish a greater purpose, just as He hardened Pharaoh.

Identifying the Objector

The question, “Why does He still find fault?”, is not coming from a generic philosopher or a hypothetical pagan. It is the anticipated objection of unbelieving ethnic Israel and is based on Paul’s conclusions up to this point.

Their objection essentially says: “Paul, if God is using our rejection of the Messiah to bring salvation to the world—if our ‘hardening’ is part of His plan—then we are actually helping Him achieve his goals as you say! How can He blame us for doing something that ultimately serves His purpose?”

This mirrors the logic Paul previously dismantled in Romans 3:5–8. There, the objector asks:

But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just. (Romans 3:5–8)

In both Romans 3 and Romans 9, the objection is a deflection used by those who refuse to submit to God, claiming that because God is powerful enough to bring good out of their evil, the evil itself should not be judged.

“For Who Resists His Will?” — Plan vs. Pre-determination

The phrase “For who resists His will?” is often misinterpreted as a claim that humans cannot resist God’s commands or saving influence. However, this interpretation collapses under the weight of Scripture, which is replete with examples of humans successfully resisting God’s desires.

* “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.” (Acts 7:51)

* “I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts,” (Isaiah 65:2)

* “Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention;” (Proverbs 1:24)

* “But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. “They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.” (Zechariah 7:11–12)

* “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

Romans 9:19 cannot therefore refer to an irresistible force that controls every human decision. Rather, it refers to God’s overarching redemptive plan (boulēma).

Paul’s point is that while individuals like the Pharisees can and do resist God’s moral will (to their own peril), they cannot thwart God’s ultimate objective to save a people for Himself from both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul’s point is that God’s plan to bless the world through Abraham’s seed will succeed regardless of human cooperation. However, the fact that God uses human rebellion for His glory does not absolve the rebel of responsibility for that rebellion.

Chapter 10Romans 9:20-21

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? (Romans 9:20–21)

In the previous verse, the objector—representing unbelieving Israel—asked a pointed question: “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

Their argument was that if God is going to use Israel’s rejection of the Messiah to bring salvation to the Gentiles (thereby fulfilling His plan), then God shouldn’t blame Israel for that rejection since good came from it. Paul’s response is to appeal to the ultimate metaphor of God making the best of a bad situation: The Potter and the Clay.

Unlike the Calvinistic interpretation, which views this as a lesson in unilateral determinism, Paul is alluding to a specific Old Testament story that teaches the exact opposite: The Potter changes his initial plan based on the free will of the clay.

The Source Code: Jeremiah 18 and the Spoiled Clay

When Paul asks, “Does not the potter have a right over the clay?” he is not inventing a new illustration. Any Jewish reader would immediately recognize the reference to Jeremiah 18, the only place in the Old Testament where this specific imagery is developed.

To understand Paul’s point, we must look at what happens in Jeremiah’s pottery house. In Jeremiah 18:4, we read:

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. (Jeremiah 18:4)

Crucially, the text does not say the Potter intended to spoil the vessel. The Potter began with a plan for a “vessel of honor.” Yet, the clay resisted; it was marred or “spoiled” in his hands.

Consequently, the Potter shifted to “Plan B.” He exercised his sovereign right not to throw the clay away, but to press it into a different shape—a vessel of dishonor or common use.

God explains the theology of this metaphor explicitly in the subsequent verses, proving that the outcome depends on the “clay’s” response:

“At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. “Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 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. (Jeremiah 18:7–10)

God has the right to change His plan. If the clay spoils (through the pursuit of works and rejection of Christ), God has the right to re-mold them into vessels of dishonor to serve a different purpose (salvation of the Gentiles).

Paul’s Own Commentary: The Condition for Honor

We do not have to speculate on whether Paul viewed the “Honor vs. Dishonor” distinction as a matter of free will or fatalism. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul uses the exact same metaphor and explicitly states how one becomes a vessel of honor.

Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20–21)

Paul states that the difference between a vessel of honor (gold/silver) and a vessel of dishonor (wood/clay) is not a secret decree made before the foundation of the world, but whether the individual “cleanses himself” from iniquity, an act of free will.

When Paul asks, “Does not the potter have a right over the clay?” he is defending God’s justice in responding to human agency.

* In Jeremiah, the vessel is reshaped only after it spoils in the potter’s hand.

* In 2 Timothy, the vessel becomes honorable only if it cleanses itself.

Therefore, in Romans 9, the “vessels of dishonor” are those stubborn Israelites who, having resisted God’s righteousness by faith, were judicially hardened by the Potter. God found fault (v. 19) because the spoiling was their own doing; He is justified (v. 21) because He has the right to use that spoiled clay to bring about the redemption of the world.

Chapter 11Romans 9:22-24

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, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:22–24)

Having established in the previous verses that the Potter has the right to re-mold stubborn clay into a “vessel of dishonor,” Paul now addresses the historical reality of his day. Why has God allowed unbelieving Israel—who has rejected the Messiah—to continue? Why hasn’t He wiped them out?

Paul’s answer is not that God created them for the purpose of hell, but that God is exercising a strategic postponement of judgment to facilitate a greater mercy.

The Identity of the Vessels (The Contextual Argument)

To avoid abstract speculation, we must identify who these vessels are. Paul does not leave us guessing. In verse 24, he explicitly identifies the “vessels of mercy” as “us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles” (the Church).

Logically, the “vessels of wrath” are the counterpart to this group: Unbelieving National Israel.

This passage is not explaining the eternal destiny of every human being in history; it is explaining the First Century crisis. The “vessels of wrath” are the Jews who were currently resisting the Gospel. Paul is explaining why God is waiting to judge this “dishonorable vessel” (Israel)—because their continued existence, and the patience God shows them, is the very mechanism allowing the Gospel to spread to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11).

Fitted for Destruction: A Self-Made Tragedy

A careful look at the grammar in these verses dismantles the Calvinist view of “Double Predestination”—the idea that God creates some people for heaven and others for hell with equal enthusiasm. Paul intentionally changes his grammar between verse 22 and 23 to prove that the two groups are not treated symmetrically.

Vessels of Mercy (God takes the Credit)

In verse 23, Paul uses the active voice. He explicitly says that God “prepared beforehand” these vessels for glory. God is the subject of the sentence; He is the active doer. The grammar leaves no doubt: God is the Architect of salvation, and He takes full credit for preparing believers for heaven.

Vessels of Wrath (Man takes the Blame)

However, in verse 22, Paul makes a sudden and significant switch. When describing the vessels of wrath, he does not use the active voice. He does not say “God prepared them for destruction.”

Instead, the text uses a passive phrasing that describes their state of being: they “were fitted” or “were ready” for destruction. Many scholars note that this reflects the Greek “middle voice,” which implies a reflexive action—meaning they did it to themselves. It could rightly be translated: “Vessels of wrath who fitted themselves for destruction.”

This mirrors Paul’s warning in Romans 2:5, where he tells the self-righteous judge, “You are storing up wrath for yourself.” God did not manufacture them for the purpose of hell; they fitted themselves for judgment through their own persistent rejection of the truth.

Ripe for Judgment

Furthermore, the Greek word used here (katartizo) carries the meaning of being “fully developed” or “ripe.” It echoes God’s patience in Genesis 15:16, where He waited to judge the Amorites until their “iniquity was full.”

Therefore, these “vessels of wrath” are not people born for the purpose of hell. They are people who have resisted God for so long that they are now fully ripe for judgment. God did not create them that way; they became that way through a lifetime of resistance.

The Logical Necessity of Patience

Paul states that God “endured with much patience” these vessels. This simple phrase refutes the idea that they were designed for destruction.

* The Contradiction: If a Potter designs a pot specifically to be destroyed to show his wrath, he does not need “patience” to endure it. He simply breaks it. Patience implies that the object is acting contrary to the subject’s desire.

* The Purpose of Patience: As Paul established in Romans 2:4, God’s patience is intended to lead to repentance.

God “endured” Israel’s rebellion for centuries—and specifically during the apostolic age—when He had every right to wipe them out immediately. He held back His wrath in hopes of their return, not because He decreed their fall.

“Children of Wrath” is a Reversible Status

If someone is currently a “vessel of wrath,” are they doomed forever? Paul’s own theology says no. In Ephesians 2:3, Paul describes the past life of believers:

“Among them we too all formerly lived... and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

Paul himself was once a “child of wrath” and a persecutor of the Church. This proves that being a “child/vessel of wrath” describes a real exposure to God’s judgment due to sin, but it is not an irreversible caste. It is a state one can be saved from. Therefore, Romans 9 describes the current condition of unbelieving Israel, not their unchangeable fate.

Chapter 12Romans 9:25-33

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.” 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 to us a posterity, We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.” 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.” (Romans 9:25–33)

The “Forgotten” Verses of Romans 9

It is a common observation that many strict Calvinist expositions of Romans 9 tend to run out of steam—or stop entirely—before reaching these final verses. (For example, John Piper’s The Justification of God, a seminal Calvinist work on Romans 9, focuses almost exclusively on verses 1–23 and hardly addresses the end of the chapter).

The reason for this silence is clear: Verses 25–33 provide the inspired interpretation of everything Paul just said.

If Romans 9 were about individual, unconditional election to heaven and hell, this conclusion would be incoherent. However, because Romans 9 is about God’s sovereign right to include Gentiles by faith and judge Jews by their works, this conclusion fits perfectly.

The Prophetic Witness: Jews and Gentiles (vv. 25–29)

Paul first summons two witnesses from the Old Testament to prove that his teaching—that God is saving Gentiles and judging the majority of Israel—was the plan all along.

* Hosea (The Call of the Gentiles): Paul quotes Hosea to show that the “Vessels of Mercy” (v. 23) include those who were previously “not My people” (Gentiles). God’s sovereign plan was always to expand His covenant family beyond ethnic lines.

* Isaiah (The Judgment of Israel): Paul quotes Isaiah to confirm that the “Vessels of Wrath” (v. 22) correspond to national Israel. Isaiah predicted that despite their massive numbers (”sand of the sea”), only a remnant would be saved.

This definitively settles the context. Paul is not discussing the election of random individuals from the mass of humanity; he is discussing the historical destiny of two specific groups: the Gentiles (who are being brought in) and national Israel (who is being judged, save for a remnant).

The Grand Conclusion: Faith vs. Works (vv. 30–32)

In verse 30, Paul asks, “What shall we say then?” This is his summary statement. He boils the entire chapter down to one shocking historical reality:

* The Gentiles: They were not running the race (did not pursue righteousness), yet they won the prize.

* Israel: They ran the race with all their might (pursued a law of righteousness), yet they lost.

The Crucial Question: In verse 32, Paul asks the most important question in the entire chapter: “Why?”

If the Calvinist interpretation were correct, Paul would have to answer: “Because God did not choose them,” or “Because they were not of the elect,” or “Because the Potter secretly decreed their failure.”

But Paul does not say that. He gives the explicit reason for Israel’s failure:

“Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.”

This verse is the “smoking gun” that refutes the deterministic reading of Romans 9. The cause of Israel’s hardening, their becoming “vessels of wrath,” and their exclusion from the covenant was not a divine decree of reprobation, but their own refusal to submit to God’s method of salvation (Faith) in favor of their own method (Works).

The Stumbling Stone (v. 33)

Finally, Paul explains that Israel “stumbled over the stumbling stone.” This imagery is vital for understanding human responsibility.

A stone is an inanimate object placed in a path. To “stumble” implies that the obstacle was there, and the runner failed to navigate it. The Stone is Christ. God placed Christ in Zion as the only way of salvation. Israel fell not because God pushed them, but because they were so focused on their “works” that they tripped over the simplicity of “faith” in Jesus.

The conclusion of Romans 9 vindicates the non-Calvinist reading of the chapter. Paul explicitly defines the “purpose of God according to election” not as a lottery of souls, but as God’s sovereign decision to save those who have faith (Gentiles and the Remnant) and to reject those who rely on works (Unbelieving Israel).

The “fault” (v. 19) lies with Israel, because the stumbling was the result of their own self-righteous pursuit.

Chapter 13Conclusion

We began this journey by acknowledging that Romans 9 is often viewed as the impenetrable fortress of Calvinism—a chapter that seemingly depicts God as a sovereign Puppet Master who arbitrarily selects some for heaven and creates others for hell. However, after examining the text in its historical context, weighing the grammar, and consulting the Old Testament sources Paul quotes, a very different picture has emerged.

We have found that Romans 9 is not a detour into fatalism; it is the climax of Paul’s gospel of grace. It is a defense of God’s right to save the world by faith rather than by works.

The Great Contrast

To summarize our study, it is helpful to place the two interpretations side by side. When we read Romans 9, we are forced to choose between two fundamentally different views of God’s character and His plan.

1. The Basis of Election: Mystery vs. Methodology

* The Calvinist View: Teaches Unconditional Election. It argues that God’s choice is based on a secret, pre-temporal decree that has nothing to do with the individual’s faith, character, or choices. In this view, God’s sovereignty is defined by His freedom to ignore human agency.

* The Biblical View: Teaches election based on Foreknowledge and the method of Faith. As we saw, Paul argues that the true children of Abraham are those of the promise (faith), not the flesh (lineage/works). God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was not random; it was consistent with His foreknowledge of their character—one who valued the covenant and would end up in the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11, and one who was “godless”.

God is sovereign, but He has sovereignly chosen to save those who believe.

2. The Nature of Hardening: Irresistible vs. Judicial

* The Calvinist View: Views hardening as a unilateral action where God actively creates unbelief in a person’s heart to demonstrate His wrath.

* The Biblical View: Views hardening as a judicial response to persistent rebellion. Just as Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God hardened him , Israel was hardened because they first rejected the righteousness of God in favor of their own works. We saw that the “vessels of wrath” were not created for destruction by God, but “fitted themselves” for judgment through their own obstinacy.

3. The Scope of the Plan: Fatalism vs. Hope

* The Calvinist View: Often isolates Romans 9, leading to the conclusion that the “vessels of wrath” are the non-elect who are eternally barred from salvation.

* The Biblical View: Reads Romans 9–11 as a unified whole. We discovered that the very people currently “hardened” are the same people Paul is praying to save and God is inciting to jealousy. Their hardening is partial, temporary, and strategic—designed to facilitate the salvation of the Gentiles so that mercy might eventually return to Israel.

“Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.”

The tragedy of Romans 9 is not that God arbitrarily excluded people who wanted to be saved. The tragedy is that Israel refused to submit to God’s method of salvation. They wanted to earn it. They wanted to claim it by birthright. They wanted to be the “vessel of honor” by their own effort. And because they refused to submit to the righteousness of faith, they stumbled over the Stumbling Stone, Jesus Christ.

A God of Mercy

Far from portraying a God of arbitrary doom, Romans 9 reveals a God of mercy. He is a Father who endures with much patience vessels that are ripe for judgment, keeping the door open for repentance.

As we close this book, we return to the consensus of the Early Church: Divine sovereignty and human freedom are not enemies. God is sovereign over the plan—the plan to save the world through Christ. But in His sovereignty, He has issued a genuine invitation to all people.

The promise of Romans 9 is not that God has predetermined your fate, but that if you stop pursuing righteousness by works and trust in Christ, you will never be put to shame.

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.” (Romans 9:33)

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com