The attached PDF is a paper I wrote on Romans chapter 9 regarding unconditional election. The attached PDF is better formatted than this blog post.
The Sovereignty of God in Unconditional Election
(A commentary on Romans 9 verses 1 through 24 by Steve Andrews)
This particular passage of scripture is the most misinterpreted passage in all of scripture. Many have not taken the time to study it out and have just believed what they have been told by others. Romans 9 does not state that people do not make decisions or that those decisions do not effect their futures, but it does state that the people of God become the people of God because God elected them and not because of anything people will to happen or physically do. I realize this does not make sense to the natural mind, but that is because it is a spiritual truth. Paul apparently received many objections to the doctrine of unconditional election because he anticipated the objections in the text of Romans 9. Even though the doctrine of unconditional election is contrary to our natural concepts of how we think God should be or act, we should prefer God’s word at the expense of our opinions instead of preferring or opinions at the expense of the word of God. In other words, we should believe the bible even if it is contrary to natural logic and paradoxical to our concept of what is fair or just. So let’s take a look at the text and see if it supports unconditional election.
Rom 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
These first three verses are extremely important in order to understand the theme of Romans chapters 9-11 and more specifically Romans chapter 9. Paul states that he has great sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart for his kinsmen according to the flesh. It is apparent and clear that he is speaking of ethnic Israel when he refers to his kinsmen according to the flesh. He states that he wishes he could be accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his kinsmen (ethnic Israel). Although it is not explicitly stated, Paul is saying this because the majority of his kinsmen were accursed and cut off from Christ due to their unbelief, and Paul’s unceasing anguish is a result of their being cut off from Christ. The fact that the majority of Israel had rejected their promised messiah and were cut off from Christ is the reason why Paul goes into the explanatory discourse on election contained in verses 6 through 23. So the contextual topic of Romans 9:1-23 is drawn from the fact that most of the individuals within ethnic Israel were accursed and cut off from Christ, and Paul’s desire to explain why it had happened. Paul uses verses 1-5 to explain that many of his kinsmen are cut of from Christ, he uses verses 6-13 to explain why many of his kinsmen are cut off from Christ, and he uses verses 14-23 to explain why God is not unrighteous in electing some individuals of ethnic Israel to glory and not others. So we can see that individual election is in view throughout the entire discourse of Romans 9:1-24 because only some of the individuals within ethnic Israel were accursed and cut off from Christ, and we can see that eternal destinations are at stake because being accursed and cut off from Christ will result in eternal wrath and destruction. We must keep this topic in view within the context because it is the reason why Paul is discussing election in Romans 9.
Rom 9:4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Paul refers to unbelieving Israel as Israelites because they are ethnic Israel and they are physically descended from Jacob. The blessings that belong to them are stated in the present tense because God did make the promises to their fathers and God will one day remove the ungodliness from Jacob (ethnic Israel). At that future time all of Israel will be saved because they will say “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”. To say that every ethnic Israelite who ever lived will be saved would be to contradict the words of Jesus when He stated to the Pharisees that if they did not believe that He is who He is then they would die in their sins.
Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Here we see that Paul is concerned that some might think the word of God has failed because most of the individuals within ethnic Israel have rejected Jesus as their messiah and were cut off from Christ. The reason they might have thought that is because they were under the impression that God’s salvation was unto them because they were descended from Jacob. Paul explains that the word of God has not failed because not all of Israel is Israel. That means that not all ethnic Israel is spiritual Israel. Paul goes even further by stating that a person is not a child of Abraham because they are his offspring. Also in verse 7 we see that God declares which of Abraham’s offspring according to the flesh will be the one who receives the inheritance and blessing by saying “through Isaac shall your offspring be named”. This declaration shows that it is God who elects those who will receive the inheritance.
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
This verse starts out by stating that it is not the children of the flesh (ethnic Israel) that are the children of God, and ends with Paul quoting Genesis 18:14 to show that God’s electing Isaac over Ishmael was according to His promise and that God had declared it before the fact. Although Ishmael was a physical offspring of Abraham and he was physically born before Isaac was, Isaac was the child of promise and the one who God declared would be born when He returned. Up to this point Paul has shown us that not all of Israel is Israel because Abraham’s true offspring are the children of promise, and this promise goes back to Genesis 17:4 when it was promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations. As we can see God’s electing power is not limited to the children of the flesh and God’s people are called from every nation, tribe and tongue. Those elected are considered Abraham’s true offspring by faith.
Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
There is a lot packed into verses 10 through 12 and these verses are the ones that are the most misinterpreted. First let’s discover what Paul is saying through these verses before we discover what he is not saying. Paul is using two old testament quotes from Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:3 in regards to Jacob and Esau in order to show that God’s election is not because of our works (what we do), but because of the purposes of Him who calls (what God does). Paul’s intention in this example is to show that “the older will serve the younger” because of God’s electing purposes. It is not as though God was simply predicting the future when He said “the older will serve the younger” because God’s election and subsequent declaration was the cause of the older serving the younger. There would have been no significance in Paul stating “though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad” if God had only been predicting the future by saying “the older will serve the younger”. God did not elect Esau to serve Jacob because He knew Esau would despise his birthright, but rather Esau despised his birthright because God elected him to serve Jacob. The election of God is the root cause of Esau serving his younger brother Jacob, not Esau despising his birthright. Esau despising his birthright and trading it for a bowl of soup was the outworking of Gods purpose in election which was determined before they were born. The reason that the cause of their destinies is placed before they were born and before they had done anything good or bad is so that God’s purpose of election might continue and stand. That purpose is that election not be because of works, but because of God who calls. If their election were based on God’s foreknowledge of something they would do in their futures, then it would have been because of their works and not because of God who calls. In other words, it had nothing to do with anything they did, but it had everything to do with God electing them to their destinies before they were born.
Because verse 11 states that God’s purpose of election is because of God who calls, then the election of God always works in this way because it is linked to the very purpose of God’s election. It is also useful to note that with election “Him who calls” is contrasted with “works” in verse 11 instead of faith. In Romans 3:28 faith is the contrast of works, but election is never grounded in faith. If faith, even foreseen faith, were the basis or initial cause of election then it would be proper to contrast works with faith in verse 11 instead of Him who calls. Paul’s purpose in using “Him who calls” as a contrast to works in verse 11 shows that he is trying to distance the cause of God’s election as far as possible from anything those who are elected would do in their lives.
At this point many will say that because the eternal destinations of Ishmael and Esau are not explicitly spoken of either in the Old Testament context or here in Romans 9 that Paul is only speaking of election as it regards to the role one is to play in history and that God does not elect people to eternal destinations. Also many may say that the text is referring to God’s electing the people of Israel corporately because Jacob was the one elected by God to inherit the blessing and become the head of ethnic Israel, and thus Paul’s election in Romans 9 is not an election of individuals but and election of the Jews corporately. This is a simplification of those two interpretations, but it is the essence of them. There are two huge problems with both of these interpretations.
The first problem with those interpretations is that the subject of election in Romans 9 is drawn from Romans 9:1-6. Election here in Romans 9 comes from Paul’s desire to explain why most of ethnic Israel was accursed and cut off from Christ. It is because the subject of election here originates from Paul’s desire to explain why most of Israel is cut off from Christ that eternal consequences remain in view throughout the chapter. Being accursed and cut off from Christ will obviously result in eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord. (2 Thess 1:9) The opposite of being accursed and cut off from Christ in verse 3 is eternal life in Christ Jesus, so the eternal ramifications of election are clear from the beginning of chapter 9. So Paul is using his discourse of election in verses 6-23 to explain why most of ethnic Israel is cut off from Christ and the rest have obtained salvation. If Paul were going to make Israel’s actions and free will the cause of Israel’s rejection of Christ, then Paul would have replaced his discourse on election with an appeal to works and free will as the cause of Israel’s rejection. Paul does the exact opposite by grounding Israel’s rejection in God’s election, and then anchoring God’s election in Him who calls and not the actions of those elected. In regards to the possibility of a corporate election being discussed in Romans 9, we must take into consideration the individuality of only some individuals of ethnic Israel being elected to eternal life in Christ, and the majority of individuals within ethnic Israel being accursed and cut off from Christ. Also one must take into account that verse 24 states that God calls “from the Jews” and also “from the Gentiles”. This means that God is calling individuals “from” those two groups as the outworking of His purpose in election. It is obvious that election in this context is individualistic and has eternal consequences because He calls whoever He wills from Jews and Gentiles, and those who are not called remain cut off from Christ. This calling can also be seen in 1st Corinthians 1:23-24.
The second problem is that those two interpretations above do not take into careful consideration Romans 9:22-23 and its clear and obvious implications with regard to individuals and eternal destinations in Paul’s context here in chapter 9.
Paul’s intentions in using the Old Testament quotes in the context of Romans 9 is to show the principal of God’s sovereignty in election apart from what those who are elected do within their lives. That is the meaning of “not because of works, but because of Him who calls” in verse 11. The Old Testament quotes are not brought into the context so that one can draw inferences to the scope of election because Paul does not speak of those limitations of election in the context of Romans 9. The only limitation drawn from the Old Testament quotes is the limitation of our own ability to effect our elections because it is not dependent on what we do in our lives, but on Him who calls before we were born.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
At this point Paul realizes that many of his readers will object that God would be unrighteous to elect people unconditionally based on Him who calls (God’s choice) and not works (their actions). Paul was right to anticipate this objection because it was not only a strong objection to the sovereignty of God in Paul’s day, but it continues to be the heart of the “free will” debate today. I am certain that Paul had heard this objection, and also the objection in verse 19, every time he taught on unconditional election. That is the very reason why Paul answers these two common objections in verses 14 and 19. So Paul anticipates one of their most common questions “Is there injustice on God’s part?” Paul’s answer is a straight forward “By no means”. Paul begins his defense of God’s righteousness by quoting Exodus 33:19 which states “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. Paul is conveying to them that it is the very nature of God to have mercy and compassion on whoever He chooses to. In Exodus 33:19 God also says to Moses that He will proclaim His name before Moses. This is in the text of Exodus 33:19 just before He tells Moses “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. The close proximity of these in Exodus (in the same verse) shows that it is God’s very nature to have complete sovereignty over His mercy and to whom He will distribute it to. In order for God to have complete sovereignty over His mercy, it must be based on His choice in election and not based upon the wills or actions of His creatures. That means that our wills and actions, as it pertains to salvation, are a result of God’s election (before we were born) and God’s calling (in our lives), and not the other way around. It is not our willingness or actions that bring about the saving purposes of God, but it is God’s saving purposes that bring about our willingness and actions in regards to salvation. Although it flies in the face of our natural sense of justice, Paul’s initial response to those who might think God is unrighteous to elect unconditionally is to state that He is not unrighteous because unconditional election is His natural method of choosing who will receive His mercy and who will not. Paul makes this even clearer in the next verse.
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
As if Paul had not already made it clear that election is not based on human action but based on the God who calls, he tightens the clamp even tighter on the opponent of his view of unconditional election by including human will as one of the things that does not determine God’s election. It is as if Paul could hear someone saying that it might be by an act of the will (a decision or conviction) and not a physical work or deed that could be the cause or basis of God’s election. Paul, as if knowing this would come up, shuts the door on human will and deeds for being the basis or cause of God’s election. This is where the term “unconditional election” comes from because God’s election cannot be based on the will or works of the one being elected. It is based on the election or choice of the “God who has mercy”, and as verse 15 clearly states, He has mercy on whom He wills to have mercy. Also the word “whom” in verse 15 shows that God’s mercy in election is individualistic and not corporate.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Although Paul has touched on the negative aspect of election in verses 10 through 13 regarding Esau, Paul apparently wants to further define the negative aspect of election by bringing the principal of God’s “hardening” into the context by quoting Exodus 9:16. One might think it would be better to introduce the concept of God’s hardening of hearts into the context of election in Romans 9 by actually quoting a text from Exodus that used the word “hardened” in the quote itself, but it is Paul’s intent to show why God hardens hearts and not the fact that He does harden hearts. Many of the recipients of Paul’s letter were Jews and they knew very well that God was able to harden hearts. So instead of wasting his time trying to show the fact that God hardens hearts, he went straight to the purpose of the hardening of Pharaoh. The purpose behind it was so God could show His power in Pharaoh through the hardening, and that God’s name would be proclaimed in all the earth. Paul is making a case here that the proclamation of the glory of God’s name and the displaying of His power are of greater value to God than His showing mercy equally to every individual. He could have softened Pharaoh’s heart and lead him to repentance if He had desired to, but God’s greatest desire was to proclaim His name and show His power by hardening Pharaoh’s heart and sending 10 plagues on the people of Egypt. This principal of God’s greatest desire can be more clearly seen in verses 22-23, and will be spoken of in more detail there.
In verse 18 Paul draws the conclusion that God is free not only to show mercy on whomever He wants to apart from their wills or actions, but God is also free to harden whomever He wants to apart from their wills or actions as well. The term “whomever He wills” implies that God is free and unconstrained by anything outside of Himself in the showing mercy to some and the hardening of others.
There are some who contend that God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was a judicial hardening because Pharaoh (according to their view) hardened his own heart up until the end of the 6th plague. Although the phrase “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh” was not used in the text of Exodus until the end of the 6th plague, this interpretation is extremely improbable. God told Moses that His intention was to harden Pharaoh’s heart so he would not let the people go. This was before Moses ever left to go back to Egypt in Exodus 4:21. Also in Exodus 7:3 God again tells Moses that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart before Moses and Pharaoh meet for the first time in Egypt. One other thing to keep in mind is that God told Pharaoh “For this purpose I have raised you up, to show my power in you, and so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” If this was Gods purpose for Pharaoh’s rise to prominence, then God’s plans for hardening Pharaoh’s heart preceded Pharaoh’s rise to prominence in Egypt as well. Let’s go through the hardenings of Pharaoh’s heart up until the end of the 6th plague and see exactly what is said. Remember that God had told Moses twice that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart before they met before the first hardening occurred.
Hardening # 1
Exo 7:13 Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
It says Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as the Lord had said. It does not say Pharaoh hardened his own heart in the first hardening.
Hardening # 2
Exo 7:22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
This hardening states that Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened as the Lord had said. Here as well it does not say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.
Hardening # 3
Exo 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
I take “he hardened his heart” to mean Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but because it states “as the Lord had said”, it was a fulfillment of God prophetic decree.
Hardening # 4
Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
In this hardening it again says Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as the Lord had said.
Hardening # 5
Exo 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.
This is the first hardening when “as the Lord had said” is not designated, but considering it is contained within the first 4 hardenings, this would also be a continuation of the fulfillment of God’s purposes as well. Despite the phrase “Pharaoh hardened his heart” being used here, it would have to be taken as an outworking of God’s purposes designated in His prophetic word.
Hardening # 6
Exo 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the livestock of Israel was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
This hardening also says the heart of Pharaoh was hardened and not that Pharaoh had hardened his own heart. The phrase “as the Lord had said” is left off of this hardening as well, but the writer of Exodus has made his point that all the hardenings are a result of God’s purposes in His prophetic decrees as stated in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3.
Hardening # 7
Exo 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses.
This is the first hardening that explicitly states that the Lord hardened the heart he Pharaoh. As we have seen it was the purpose of God before Moses left for Egypt that God would be the one to harden the heart of Pharaoh and that the people not be let go until the purposes of God were fulfilled in that prophetic decree.
In consideration of the text in Exodus regarding the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, it would not be sound biblical interpretation to come to the conclusion that God had nothing to do with the first six hardenings of Pharaoh’s heart. God had declared in advance in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3 that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart. Also we must keep in mind that the first four hardenings included the phrase “Just as the Lord had said”, which point back to God’s declared prophecy in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3. Only two of the first six hardenings state that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but God would still be the underlying initial cause since it was a fulfillment of prophecy. The clearest evidence that the “God only hardens people who harden themselves first” interpretation is incorrect is the fact that Paul brings God’s purpose for Pharaoh’s hardenings into the context of Romans 9 by quoting Exodus 9:16, and draws the conclusion that “God hardens whomever He wills”. If it were true that God only hardens people who have hardened themselves first then Paul would not have said “God hardens whomever He wills” in Romans 9:18. So we can see that following this interpretation would be due either to someone not studying it out and just believing what others say, or it is an attempt to dodge the true context of unconditional election in Romans 9.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Let’s do a quick recap. In verses 1-3 Paul states that he is in anguish over his kinsmen according to the flesh (ethnic Israel) who are accursed and cut off from Christ. He goes over a list of blessings and promises that were given to them in verses 4-5. In light of those promises appearing to fall to the ground as ineffective, Paul says “It is not as though the word of God has failed because not all of Israel is Israel”. Paul then starts a lengthy discourse on God’s election to explain why most ethnic Israelites are accursed and cut off from Christ. The individuality of those cut off from Christ and the eternal ramifications of being cut off from Christ remains to be in view and the underlying topic of Romans 9:1-23. Paul then continues on by stating that the reason not all of Israel is Israel is because God chooses or elects those who will be His before they are born. This election is based on the God who calls and shows mercy, and not on human will or actions. By stating it this way, Paul places election not only outside of the elected one’s capacity, but also before they are born by saying “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” in verse 11. Paul then explains why God is not unrighteous for operating this way by quoting Exodus 33:19 and showing that it is God’s natural method for election by showing mercy on whoever He wills. Although this response would not completely satisfy those who would try to put God on trial, the picture will gain clarity later. Paul has touched on the positive side of election with Isaac and Jacob, and the negative side with Esau, but he wants to further show God’s sovereignty on the negative side by bringing Moses and Pharaoh into the picture. Paul explains that God is not unrighteous by hardening whomever He wills to harden because His greatest purpose and desire is to show His power and to glorify His name by proclaiming it to all the earth. Needless to say, to the natural mind and it’s concept of what is right and wrong, this would be unacceptable behavior for a just and loving God. It is no wonder that Paul anticipates the next question that would come after all of this. The question in the text is this “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?”, but I will paraphrase it in modern language like this “How can God possibly judge me for the things that I do if I am only doing them as a result of His election?” This is a very good question, and I am sure that if someone had asked Paul this question in an open and teachable way, he would have probably responded differently than the response in verse 20. I am sure that when the conversation got to that point it was quite heated and his objectors were just flat out refusing to listen and just denying everything because it does not make sense to our natural sense of justice. This is the point at which we should trust God’s wisdom and say “God’s ways are higher that mine”. Paul does not answer the question directly, but tells those who have such objections that they have no right what-so-ever to talk back to God or challenge His wisdom and justice. He then goes on to ask the objector if the creature has the right to say to the creator “Why have you made me like this?” This is a quote from Isaiah 45:9 and speaks of the sovereignty of God over His creatures, and that His creatures do not have the right to question Him. The mindset that would ask this question shows a rebellious heart and an insolence of the highest order. To not understand and have honest questions with a teachable spirit is one thing, but to challenge God’s authority by declaring to God what He can or cannot do with His creatures is open rebellion to His authority. That is no doubt what Paul had encountered many times regarding this foundational doctrine and that is why he reacted so strongly to his hypothetical objector. It is Paul’s intention to pull up a rebellious spirit by the roots and declare that no one has the right to challenge God’s sovereignty regarding His creation. If you have objections yourself, please remain open and teachable and let the text of Romans 9 speak to you and not your natural concepts and presuppositions.
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the (same lump) one vessel (for) honorable use and another (for) dishonorable use?
In verse 21 Paul uses a popular metaphor of the potter (creator) and the clay (creature). The response Paul makes to the question “Why have you made me like this?” is “Doesn’t the potter have the right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” Basically this is a response to the question of verse 19 and would paraphrase like this, “Doesn’t the creator have the authority over His creatures, to create from the same group of people one person for honorable purposes and another for dishonorable purposes?” The term “same lump” represents the totality of ethnic Israel since the subject of the Gentiles being included in this principal of election does not appear until verse 24. It is clear that the terms “one vessel” and “another” here is referring to individuals and that Paul is further explaining why not all of ethnic Israel (the same lump) is spiritual Israel (vessels individually made for honorable use). The vessels individually made for dishonorable use would be those who Paul was anguishing over in verses 1-3 who were accursed and cut off from Christ. This would be the only clear contextual conclusion to draw from the context being brought forward from verses 1-6 and on up to verse 20. The individuality of the vessels is clearly shown in the usage of “one vessel” and “another” and the term “same lump”, which represents ethnic Israel, is clearly being brought forward from the contextual subject of why not all of Israel is Israel in verse 6.
Paul uses a similar metaphor in 2 Timothy 2:20-21 and in that metaphor the dishonorable vessels are encouraged to cleanse themselves of what is dishonorable so that they will then be a vessel for honorable use. The context of 2 Timothy 2:20-21 is one of admonishment of the church and in that context eternal destruction is not in view. In 2 Timothy 2:20-21 the vessels are in the “great house” which would signify belonging to God already, and the vessels cleansing themselves of what is dishonorable should be taken as the process of sanctification by the renewal of the mind and spiritual disciplines. They would then be cleansed for honorable use in the church.
The context here in Romans 9 is regarding unconditional election and as we have seen from the context brought forward from verses 1-6, and will also see most clearly in the next two verses, eternal destinations of glory and destruction are in view throughout the entire discourse of Romans 9:1-24.
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath (prepared) (for) destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has (prepared beforehand) (for) glory—
Now we have come to verses 22 and 23 which display God’s greatest desire. In verse 22 God endures with much patience the vessels of wrath that were prepared for destruction so that He may show His wrath and make His power known. God has brought about what is in verse 22 in order to make known the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy that were prepared beforehand for glory.
In these two verses, verse 22 is a contrast for verse 23. They are the polar opposites of one another in the end result of those who are elected by the election of Romans 9. In these verses we can see most clearly that the eternal destinations of those who are elected are in view. These two verses contrast wrath with mercy as it pertains to God’s judgment, and they contrast destruction with glory as it pertains to eternal destinations. As we can see from John 5:24, those who believe in Christ as their Lord will not come into God’s judgment, so the word “wrath” in verse 22 is referring to someone who is under God’s judgment. The word “destruction” is referring to consequence of being under God’s judgment in the eternal state. This word “destruction” can also be seen in 2nd Thessalonians 1:9 as pertaining to eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord. Although the word “destruction” in Romans 9:22 and 2nd Thessalonians 1:9 are different Greek words, their definitions are not significantly different to warrant rendering “destruction” in Romans 9:22 as anything other than an eternal state. This is especially true since it is used in conjunction with “wrath” and the natural consequence of being under God’s wrath is destruction in the eternal state. The same is true for verse 23 in regards to the eternal destinations of the vessels of mercy. The second usage of the word “glory” in verse 23 is referring to the eternal state of the vessels of mercy. Glorification is the final state of believers as also evidenced in Romans 8:30 when the word “glorified” is used at the end of the verse regarding those whom God has predestined. Glorification is the result of those who are under God’s mercy in the eternal state. So we can see how these two verses contrast one another pertaining to God’s judgment and the eternal result of destruction or glorification for those elected.
Because the subject of election originated from Paul’s desire to explain why most of ethnic Israel were cut off from Christ and because of the clear eternal implications in verses 22 and 23, we can conclude that God’s election in the context of Roman 9 is an election to either glorification or destruction.
Now we should discuss God’s role as it pertains to verses 22 and 23. It appears that Paul is showing God as more deterministic in the role of election in the vessels of mercy in that he says “He has prepared beforehand” in verse 23. In using this language regarding the vessels of mercy, Paul is explicitly stating that God Himself is the one that has prepared the vessels of mercy, and that He did so “beforehand”. The word “beforehand” would at the very least mean before they were born as in verse 11 regarding Jacob and Esau, but considering that Ephesians 1:4 states that those who God chooses or elects are chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world”, it is more likely that “beforehand” means before the foundation of the world. The word “prepared” shows more determination and purpose beyond the previous use of the word “make” in verse 21. Verse 22 uses the term “prepared for destruction” but leaves off the word “beforehand” and the explicit designation that God did the preparing. Some have said that the vessels of destruction prepare themselves for destruction because it leaves off the specific designation that it was God that prepared them for destruction. This is true in the sense that they will be judged for their sins and that they are the ones who committed the sins that they will be judged for. As it pertains to election in the context of Romans 9, verse 21 shows that it is the potter that “makes” the dishonorable vessels “for” dishonorable use. Also the word “prepared” in verse 22 is past tense and shows that it is most likely not the vessels of destruction who are preparing themselves. It seems more probable that the term “preparing themselves” would have been used if that were the intended meaning. Since the word “beforehand” is used in verse 23 pertaining to the preparation of the vessels of mercy, it is most likely that the preparation in view for both the vessels of mercy and destruction is God’s determination in election from the foundation of the world.
The most natural conclusion to arrive at after taking both the positive and negative aspects of election is that Paul is teaching a dual election and predestination. The vessels of mercy are elected from the foundation of the world and predestined for glory. The vessels of wrath are elected from the foundation of the world and predestined for destruction. The dual nature of election and predestination can be clearly seen in the contrast of verses 22 and 23, and also in verse 18 which states “he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” Also the connection of the phrase “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” in verse 22 with the potter making a vessel for dishonorable use in verse 21 cannot be ignored. So the clear conclusion is that it is God Himself who prepares the vessels of wrath for destruction in verse 22.
So God’s greatest desire is to show the riches of His glory towards the vessels of mercy so that in and through them He will be glorified in this age and all the ages to come. God has created a backdrop of wrath and destruction so that the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy would be displayed in the greatest splendor imaginable. The proclamation of His name and the display of His glory and power is His greatest desire. If it were God’s greatest desire that no one should perish, then no one would perish, and God would have elected everyone. This means that God has a greater desire than saving everyone, and this greatest desire is that His name be proclaimed and glorified by the display of His mercy on those whom He shows mercy to, and also that His power be displayed in those whom He hardens and shows wrath towards. Many believe that God’s greatest desire is that His creatures have the freedom to reject His offer of salvation, but as we have seen from Paul’s appeal to election in verses 7-23 as the cause of Israel’s rejection instead of free will, proclaiming His name and showing His power through the election of His vessels to either glory or destruction is His greatest desire. Although this does not seem to be the way a God of love would distribute His mercy, it is Paul’s clear teaching here in Romans 9.
There is a mystery involved in that God elects whom He chooses to be the recipients of His mercy and wrath in such a way that it does not absolve those who reject Christ of their responsibility for their sins. God is not unjust in sentencing the vessels of wrath to destruction because they willingly reject God’s offer of salvation in Christ. This is evidenced in John 5:40 where Jesus tells those who were rejecting Him “You refuse to come to me that you may have life”. So those who are vessels of wrath do genuinely reject God’s offer of salvation, and those who are vessels of mercy do genuinely accept God’s offer of salvation. How this can be true and God’s election remain as the root cause of who receives His mercy and wrath is paradoxical to human understanding. What we can say is that in God’s infinite understanding and knowledge He has elected vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath in such a way that it does not remove the creature’s responsibility for decisions made and actions taken in their lives.
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Verse 24 also shows the individuality of God’s election in the He calls “from the Jews” and “from the Gentiles”. It is individuals from both groups that are being called. This calling is the outworking of God’s election in that election is because of “Him who calls” as shown in verse 11. In verse 21 Paul uses the term “same lump”, and it could be that Paul now has two “lumps” in mind when he specifies that the Gentiles are called according to God’s election the same as the Jews. It could be just as easily interpreted that Paul includes the Gentiles in this “same lump” of verse 21. Either way, Paul is showing that God’s election and calling works the same way with the Gentiles as it does with the Jews. The term “even us whom He has called” shows that verse 24 is being linked back to the discourse of election in verses 1-23, so it cannot be interpreted that the Gentiles are elected or called in a different manner that the Jews.
The calling of God is mentioned here in verse 24, and it is a clear connection with verse 11 where the phrase “Him who calls” is used. Here in verse 24 Paul makes the calling of God the clear outworking of God’s purpose of election stated in verse 11. As we have seen in verse 11, God’s purpose of election continues or stands because of Him who calls and not because of works (actions). This means that God’s calling is based on God’s election and not human will or action. The word “called” in verse 24 is the same Greek word that is in 1st Corinthians 1:9 which states “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” The phrase “called into the fellowship” would seem to imply that the calling actually causes or brings about this fellowship of the Son one is called into. At this point some maintain that God calls everyone with this type of calling, and the external preaching of the cross is the same as the calling that is spoken of in 1st Corinthians chapter one. Let’s take a brief look at 1st Corinthians 1:22-24 where Paul further defines this calling he is speaking of.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
If we take a careful look at verses 23 and 24 we can see that all are preached to because it says “we preach Christ crucified” at the beginning of verse 23. Paul then separates the people in verse 24 from the people in verse 23 by the phrase “but to those who are called” at the beginning of verse 24. This clearly means that those who were preached to in verse 23 who thought the message of Christ crucified was a stumbling block or foolishness were not called with the calling of verse 24. The calling in view in verse 24 actually causes those who are called to believe “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”. This is known as the effectual or effective call of God because it affects those called so powerfully that it causes those who are called to believe “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”. So we can see that although everyone in verses 23 and 24 were preached to, all those in verse 23 remained in their unbelief because they were not called. We can also see that all those in verse 24 were called and came to believe that Christ was the power and wisdom of God as a result of being called. So the calling of verse 24 is required in order to move from the unbelievers in verse 23 to the believers in verse 24. It is clear in the text that those in verse 23 are unbelievers and those in verse 24 are believers, but Paul is placing emphasis on the call of God as what brings them from verse 23 to verse 24.
The election of God is first, and the call of God is the outworking of God’s election that causes the faith of those in verse 24 to come about. As we have seen with Romans 9:24, the calling of God is the clear outworking of God’s election in that is says “us who are called” and then connects it with “from the Jews” and “from the Gentiles”. The election of God is grounded in “Him who calls” and not the wills or actions of those who God elects. To say that our faith causes God to call us is to say that God’s calling, which is the outworking of His election, is dependent on an act of our will or our actions. This is a direct contradiction of 1st Corinthians 1:23-24 and Romans 9:1-24. Our faith is a result of His calling as shown in 1st Corinthians 23-24, and His calling is shown to be the outworking of His election in Romans 9:24. God’s election is shown not to be based on human will or actions in Romans 9:16, but is ultimately based on the determination of “Him who calls” in Romans 9:11. So our coming to Christ and faith is a result of His calling, and His calling is based on His election. His election is not based on our wills or actions, but solely on His determination from before the foundation of the world to show mercy on us. This is what the bible teaches.
I have done my best to show that God’s unconditional election is the clear biblical teaching of Romans 9, and that 1st Corinthians 1 clearly defines how the effective call of God bring about His purpose in election. It required much studying of the scriptures for me to arrive at the conclusion that election is completely unconditional because there was a part of me that did not want to believe it. However, if the scriptures support it, I will believe it, even if it goes against my preconceptions of God and how He relates to His creatures. There are many other scriptures that support unconditional election in the bible. I will list only a few.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (We are appointed to eternal life before belief)
2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (God chose us to be saved)
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (We believe because we are His sheep, we do not become His sheep by believing)
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (We are chosen in Him from the foundation of the world and predestined to adoption as sons according to His will)
1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (God destined us to obtain salvation)
Php 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, (God granted that we should believe in Him before belief)
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (We are given to Jesus before we come to Him, and are who are given “will come to Him” after being given)
Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (One must be “of God” to hear God’s words. One must hear God’s words in order to believe them)
The Sovereignty of God in Unconditional Election
(A commentary on Romans 9 verses 1 through 24 by Steve Andrews)
This particular passage of scripture is the most misinterpreted passage in all of scripture. Many have not taken the time to study it out and have just believed what they have been told by others. Romans 9 does not state that people do not make decisions or that those decisions do not effect their futures, but it does state that the people of God become the people of God because God elected them and not because of anything people will to happen or physically do. I realize this does not make sense to the natural mind, but that is because it is a spiritual truth. Paul apparently received many objections to the doctrine of unconditional election because he anticipated the objections in the text of Romans 9. Even though the doctrine of unconditional election is contrary to our natural concepts of how we think God should be or act, we should prefer God’s word at the expense of our opinions instead of preferring or opinions at the expense of the word of God. In other words, we should believe the bible even if it is contrary to natural logic and paradoxical to our concept of what is fair or just. So let’s take a look at the text and see if it supports unconditional election.
Rom 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
These first three verses are extremely important in order to understand the theme of Romans chapters 9-11 and more specifically Romans chapter 9. Paul states that he has great sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart for his kinsmen according to the flesh. It is apparent and clear that he is speaking of ethnic Israel when he refers to his kinsmen according to the flesh. He states that he wishes he could be accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his kinsmen (ethnic Israel). Although it is not explicitly stated, Paul is saying this because the majority of his kinsmen were accursed and cut off from Christ due to their unbelief, and Paul’s unceasing anguish is a result of their being cut off from Christ. The fact that the majority of Israel had rejected their promised messiah and were cut off from Christ is the reason why Paul goes into the explanatory discourse on election contained in verses 6 through 23. So the contextual topic of Romans 9:1-23 is drawn from the fact that most of the individuals within ethnic Israel were accursed and cut off from Christ, and Paul’s desire to explain why it had happened. Paul uses verses 1-5 to explain that many of his kinsmen are cut of from Christ, he uses verses 6-13 to explain why many of his kinsmen are cut off from Christ, and he uses verses 14-23 to explain why God is not unrighteous in electing some individuals of ethnic Israel to glory and not others. So we can see that individual election is in view throughout the entire discourse of Romans 9:1-24 because only some of the individuals within ethnic Israel were accursed and cut off from Christ, and we can see that eternal destinations are at stake because being accursed and cut off from Christ will result in eternal wrath and destruction. We must keep this topic in view within the context because it is the reason why Paul is discussing election in Romans 9.
Rom 9:4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Paul refers to unbelieving Israel as Israelites because they are ethnic Israel and they are physically descended from Jacob. The blessings that belong to them are stated in the present tense because God did make the promises to their fathers and God will one day remove the ungodliness from Jacob (ethnic Israel). At that future time all of Israel will be saved because they will say “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”. To say that every ethnic Israelite who ever lived will be saved would be to contradict the words of Jesus when He stated to the Pharisees that if they did not believe that He is who He is then they would die in their sins.
Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Here we see that Paul is concerned that some might think the word of God has failed because most of the individuals within ethnic Israel have rejected Jesus as their messiah and were cut off from Christ. The reason they might have thought that is because they were under the impression that God’s salvation was unto them because they were descended from Jacob. Paul explains that the word of God has not failed because not all of Israel is Israel. That means that not all ethnic Israel is spiritual Israel. Paul goes even further by stating that a person is not a child of Abraham because they are his offspring. Also in verse 7 we see that God declares which of Abraham’s offspring according to the flesh will be the one who receives the inheritance and blessing by saying “through Isaac shall your offspring be named”. This declaration shows that it is God who elects those who will receive the inheritance.
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
This verse starts out by stating that it is not the children of the flesh (ethnic Israel) that are the children of God, and ends with Paul quoting Genesis 18:14 to show that God’s electing Isaac over Ishmael was according to His promise and that God had declared it before the fact. Although Ishmael was a physical offspring of Abraham and he was physically born before Isaac was, Isaac was the child of promise and the one who God declared would be born when He returned. Up to this point Paul has shown us that not all of Israel is Israel because Abraham’s true offspring are the children of promise, and this promise goes back to Genesis 17:4 when it was promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations. As we can see God’s electing power is not limited to the children of the flesh and God’s people are called from every nation, tribe and tongue. Those elected are considered Abraham’s true offspring by faith.
Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
There is a lot packed into verses 10 through 12 and these verses are the ones that are the most misinterpreted. First let’s discover what Paul is saying through these verses before we discover what he is not saying. Paul is using two old testament quotes from Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:3 in regards to Jacob and Esau in order to show that God’s election is not because of our works (what we do), but because of the purposes of Him who calls (what God does). Paul’s intention in this example is to show that “the older will serve the younger” because of God’s electing purposes. It is not as though God was simply predicting the future when He said “the older will serve the younger” because God’s election and subsequent declaration was the cause of the older serving the younger. There would have been no significance in Paul stating “though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad” if God had only been predicting the future by saying “the older will serve the younger”. God did not elect Esau to serve Jacob because He knew Esau would despise his birthright, but rather Esau despised his birthright because God elected him to serve Jacob. The election of God is the root cause of Esau serving his younger brother Jacob, not Esau despising his birthright. Esau despising his birthright and trading it for a bowl of soup was the outworking of Gods purpose in election which was determined before they were born. The reason that the cause of their destinies is placed before they were born and before they had done anything good or bad is so that God’s purpose of election might continue and stand. That purpose is that election not be because of works, but because of God who calls. If their election were based on God’s foreknowledge of something they would do in their futures, then it would have been because of their works and not because of God who calls. In other words, it had nothing to do with anything they did, but it had everything to do with God electing them to their destinies before they were born.
Because verse 11 states that God’s purpose of election is because of God who calls, then the election of God always works in this way because it is linked to the very purpose of God’s election. It is also useful to note that with election “Him who calls” is contrasted with “works” in verse 11 instead of faith. In Romans 3:28 faith is the contrast of works, but election is never grounded in faith. If faith, even foreseen faith, were the basis or initial cause of election then it would be proper to contrast works with faith in verse 11 instead of Him who calls. Paul’s purpose in using “Him who calls” as a contrast to works in verse 11 shows that he is trying to distance the cause of God’s election as far as possible from anything those who are elected would do in their lives.
At this point many will say that because the eternal destinations of Ishmael and Esau are not explicitly spoken of either in the Old Testament context or here in Romans 9 that Paul is only speaking of election as it regards to the role one is to play in history and that God does not elect people to eternal destinations. Also many may say that the text is referring to God’s electing the people of Israel corporately because Jacob was the one elected by God to inherit the blessing and become the head of ethnic Israel, and thus Paul’s election in Romans 9 is not an election of individuals but and election of the Jews corporately. This is a simplification of those two interpretations, but it is the essence of them. There are two huge problems with both of these interpretations.
The first problem with those interpretations is that the subject of election in Romans 9 is drawn from Romans 9:1-6. Election here in Romans 9 comes from Paul’s desire to explain why most of ethnic Israel was accursed and cut off from Christ. It is because the subject of election here originates from Paul’s desire to explain why most of Israel is cut off from Christ that eternal consequences remain in view throughout the chapter. Being accursed and cut off from Christ will obviously result in eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord. (2 Thess 1:9) The opposite of being accursed and cut off from Christ in verse 3 is eternal life in Christ Jesus, so the eternal ramifications of election are clear from the beginning of chapter 9. So Paul is using his discourse of election in verses 6-23 to explain why most of ethnic Israel is cut off from Christ and the rest have obtained salvation. If Paul were going to make Israel’s actions and free will the cause of Israel’s rejection of Christ, then Paul would have replaced his discourse on election with an appeal to works and free will as the cause of Israel’s rejection. Paul does the exact opposite by grounding Israel’s rejection in God’s election, and then anchoring God’s election in Him who calls and not the actions of those elected. In regards to the possibility of a corporate election being discussed in Romans 9, we must take into consideration the individuality of only some individuals of ethnic Israel being elected to eternal life in Christ, and the majority of individuals within ethnic Israel being accursed and cut off from Christ. Also one must take into account that verse 24 states that God calls “from the Jews” and also “from the Gentiles”. This means that God is calling individuals “from” those two groups as the outworking of His purpose in election. It is obvious that election in this context is individualistic and has eternal consequences because He calls whoever He wills from Jews and Gentiles, and those who are not called remain cut off from Christ. This calling can also be seen in 1st Corinthians 1:23-24.
The second problem is that those two interpretations above do not take into careful consideration Romans 9:22-23 and its clear and obvious implications with regard to individuals and eternal destinations in Paul’s context here in chapter 9.
Paul’s intentions in using the Old Testament quotes in the context of Romans 9 is to show the principal of God’s sovereignty in election apart from what those who are elected do within their lives. That is the meaning of “not because of works, but because of Him who calls” in verse 11. The Old Testament quotes are not brought into the context so that one can draw inferences to the scope of election because Paul does not speak of those limitations of election in the context of Romans 9. The only limitation drawn from the Old Testament quotes is the limitation of our own ability to effect our elections because it is not dependent on what we do in our lives, but on Him who calls before we were born.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
At this point Paul realizes that many of his readers will object that God would be unrighteous to elect people unconditionally based on Him who calls (God’s choice) and not works (their actions). Paul was right to anticipate this objection because it was not only a strong objection to the sovereignty of God in Paul’s day, but it continues to be the heart of the “free will” debate today. I am certain that Paul had heard this objection, and also the objection in verse 19, every time he taught on unconditional election. That is the very reason why Paul answers these two common objections in verses 14 and 19. So Paul anticipates one of their most common questions “Is there injustice on God’s part?” Paul’s answer is a straight forward “By no means”. Paul begins his defense of God’s righteousness by quoting Exodus 33:19 which states “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. Paul is conveying to them that it is the very nature of God to have mercy and compassion on whoever He chooses to. In Exodus 33:19 God also says to Moses that He will proclaim His name before Moses. This is in the text of Exodus 33:19 just before He tells Moses “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. The close proximity of these in Exodus (in the same verse) shows that it is God’s very nature to have complete sovereignty over His mercy and to whom He will distribute it to. In order for God to have complete sovereignty over His mercy, it must be based on His choice in election and not based upon the wills or actions of His creatures. That means that our wills and actions, as it pertains to salvation, are a result of God’s election (before we were born) and God’s calling (in our lives), and not the other way around. It is not our willingness or actions that bring about the saving purposes of God, but it is God’s saving purposes that bring about our willingness and actions in regards to salvation. Although it flies in the face of our natural sense of justice, Paul’s initial response to those who might think God is unrighteous to elect unconditionally is to state that He is not unrighteous because unconditional election is His natural method of choosing who will receive His mercy and who will not. Paul makes this even clearer in the next verse.
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
As if Paul had not already made it clear that election is not based on human action but based on the God who calls, he tightens the clamp even tighter on the opponent of his view of unconditional election by including human will as one of the things that does not determine God’s election. It is as if Paul could hear someone saying that it might be by an act of the will (a decision or conviction) and not a physical work or deed that could be the cause or basis of God’s election. Paul, as if knowing this would come up, shuts the door on human will and deeds for being the basis or cause of God’s election. This is where the term “unconditional election” comes from because God’s election cannot be based on the will or works of the one being elected. It is based on the election or choice of the “God who has mercy”, and as verse 15 clearly states, He has mercy on whom He wills to have mercy. Also the word “whom” in verse 15 shows that God’s mercy in election is individualistic and not corporate.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Although Paul has touched on the negative aspect of election in verses 10 through 13 regarding Esau, Paul apparently wants to further define the negative aspect of election by bringing the principal of God’s “hardening” into the context by quoting Exodus 9:16. One might think it would be better to introduce the concept of God’s hardening of hearts into the context of election in Romans 9 by actually quoting a text from Exodus that used the word “hardened” in the quote itself, but it is Paul’s intent to show why God hardens hearts and not the fact that He does harden hearts. Many of the recipients of Paul’s letter were Jews and they knew very well that God was able to harden hearts. So instead of wasting his time trying to show the fact that God hardens hearts, he went straight to the purpose of the hardening of Pharaoh. The purpose behind it was so God could show His power in Pharaoh through the hardening, and that God’s name would be proclaimed in all the earth. Paul is making a case here that the proclamation of the glory of God’s name and the displaying of His power are of greater value to God than His showing mercy equally to every individual. He could have softened Pharaoh’s heart and lead him to repentance if He had desired to, but God’s greatest desire was to proclaim His name and show His power by hardening Pharaoh’s heart and sending 10 plagues on the people of Egypt. This principal of God’s greatest desire can be more clearly seen in verses 22-23, and will be spoken of in more detail there.
In verse 18 Paul draws the conclusion that God is free not only to show mercy on whomever He wants to apart from their wills or actions, but God is also free to harden whomever He wants to apart from their wills or actions as well. The term “whomever He wills” implies that God is free and unconstrained by anything outside of Himself in the showing mercy to some and the hardening of others.
There are some who contend that God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was a judicial hardening because Pharaoh (according to their view) hardened his own heart up until the end of the 6th plague. Although the phrase “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh” was not used in the text of Exodus until the end of the 6th plague, this interpretation is extremely improbable. God told Moses that His intention was to harden Pharaoh’s heart so he would not let the people go. This was before Moses ever left to go back to Egypt in Exodus 4:21. Also in Exodus 7:3 God again tells Moses that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart before Moses and Pharaoh meet for the first time in Egypt. One other thing to keep in mind is that God told Pharaoh “For this purpose I have raised you up, to show my power in you, and so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” If this was Gods purpose for Pharaoh’s rise to prominence, then God’s plans for hardening Pharaoh’s heart preceded Pharaoh’s rise to prominence in Egypt as well. Let’s go through the hardenings of Pharaoh’s heart up until the end of the 6th plague and see exactly what is said. Remember that God had told Moses twice that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart before they met before the first hardening occurred.
Hardening # 1
Exo 7:13 Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
It says Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as the Lord had said. It does not say Pharaoh hardened his own heart in the first hardening.
Hardening # 2
Exo 7:22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
This hardening states that Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened as the Lord had said. Here as well it does not say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.
Hardening # 3
Exo 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
I take “he hardened his heart” to mean Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but because it states “as the Lord had said”, it was a fulfillment of God prophetic decree.
Hardening # 4
Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
In this hardening it again says Pharaoh’s heart was hardened as the Lord had said.
Hardening # 5
Exo 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.
This is the first hardening when “as the Lord had said” is not designated, but considering it is contained within the first 4 hardenings, this would also be a continuation of the fulfillment of God’s purposes as well. Despite the phrase “Pharaoh hardened his heart” being used here, it would have to be taken as an outworking of God’s purposes designated in His prophetic word.
Hardening # 6
Exo 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the livestock of Israel was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
This hardening also says the heart of Pharaoh was hardened and not that Pharaoh had hardened his own heart. The phrase “as the Lord had said” is left off of this hardening as well, but the writer of Exodus has made his point that all the hardenings are a result of God’s purposes in His prophetic decrees as stated in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3.
Hardening # 7
Exo 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses.
This is the first hardening that explicitly states that the Lord hardened the heart he Pharaoh. As we have seen it was the purpose of God before Moses left for Egypt that God would be the one to harden the heart of Pharaoh and that the people not be let go until the purposes of God were fulfilled in that prophetic decree.
In consideration of the text in Exodus regarding the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, it would not be sound biblical interpretation to come to the conclusion that God had nothing to do with the first six hardenings of Pharaoh’s heart. God had declared in advance in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3 that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart. Also we must keep in mind that the first four hardenings included the phrase “Just as the Lord had said”, which point back to God’s declared prophecy in Exodus 4:21 and 7:3. Only two of the first six hardenings state that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but God would still be the underlying initial cause since it was a fulfillment of prophecy. The clearest evidence that the “God only hardens people who harden themselves first” interpretation is incorrect is the fact that Paul brings God’s purpose for Pharaoh’s hardenings into the context of Romans 9 by quoting Exodus 9:16, and draws the conclusion that “God hardens whomever He wills”. If it were true that God only hardens people who have hardened themselves first then Paul would not have said “God hardens whomever He wills” in Romans 9:18. So we can see that following this interpretation would be due either to someone not studying it out and just believing what others say, or it is an attempt to dodge the true context of unconditional election in Romans 9.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Let’s do a quick recap. In verses 1-3 Paul states that he is in anguish over his kinsmen according to the flesh (ethnic Israel) who are accursed and cut off from Christ. He goes over a list of blessings and promises that were given to them in verses 4-5. In light of those promises appearing to fall to the ground as ineffective, Paul says “It is not as though the word of God has failed because not all of Israel is Israel”. Paul then starts a lengthy discourse on God’s election to explain why most ethnic Israelites are accursed and cut off from Christ. The individuality of those cut off from Christ and the eternal ramifications of being cut off from Christ remains to be in view and the underlying topic of Romans 9:1-23. Paul then continues on by stating that the reason not all of Israel is Israel is because God chooses or elects those who will be His before they are born. This election is based on the God who calls and shows mercy, and not on human will or actions. By stating it this way, Paul places election not only outside of the elected one’s capacity, but also before they are born by saying “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” in verse 11. Paul then explains why God is not unrighteous for operating this way by quoting Exodus 33:19 and showing that it is God’s natural method for election by showing mercy on whoever He wills. Although this response would not completely satisfy those who would try to put God on trial, the picture will gain clarity later. Paul has touched on the positive side of election with Isaac and Jacob, and the negative side with Esau, but he wants to further show God’s sovereignty on the negative side by bringing Moses and Pharaoh into the picture. Paul explains that God is not unrighteous by hardening whomever He wills to harden because His greatest purpose and desire is to show His power and to glorify His name by proclaiming it to all the earth. Needless to say, to the natural mind and it’s concept of what is right and wrong, this would be unacceptable behavior for a just and loving God. It is no wonder that Paul anticipates the next question that would come after all of this. The question in the text is this “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?”, but I will paraphrase it in modern language like this “How can God possibly judge me for the things that I do if I am only doing them as a result of His election?” This is a very good question, and I am sure that if someone had asked Paul this question in an open and teachable way, he would have probably responded differently than the response in verse 20. I am sure that when the conversation got to that point it was quite heated and his objectors were just flat out refusing to listen and just denying everything because it does not make sense to our natural sense of justice. This is the point at which we should trust God’s wisdom and say “God’s ways are higher that mine”. Paul does not answer the question directly, but tells those who have such objections that they have no right what-so-ever to talk back to God or challenge His wisdom and justice. He then goes on to ask the objector if the creature has the right to say to the creator “Why have you made me like this?” This is a quote from Isaiah 45:9 and speaks of the sovereignty of God over His creatures, and that His creatures do not have the right to question Him. The mindset that would ask this question shows a rebellious heart and an insolence of the highest order. To not understand and have honest questions with a teachable spirit is one thing, but to challenge God’s authority by declaring to God what He can or cannot do with His creatures is open rebellion to His authority. That is no doubt what Paul had encountered many times regarding this foundational doctrine and that is why he reacted so strongly to his hypothetical objector. It is Paul’s intention to pull up a rebellious spirit by the roots and declare that no one has the right to challenge God’s sovereignty regarding His creation. If you have objections yourself, please remain open and teachable and let the text of Romans 9 speak to you and not your natural concepts and presuppositions.
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the (same lump) one vessel (for) honorable use and another (for) dishonorable use?
In verse 21 Paul uses a popular metaphor of the potter (creator) and the clay (creature). The response Paul makes to the question “Why have you made me like this?” is “Doesn’t the potter have the right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” Basically this is a response to the question of verse 19 and would paraphrase like this, “Doesn’t the creator have the authority over His creatures, to create from the same group of people one person for honorable purposes and another for dishonorable purposes?” The term “same lump” represents the totality of ethnic Israel since the subject of the Gentiles being included in this principal of election does not appear until verse 24. It is clear that the terms “one vessel” and “another” here is referring to individuals and that Paul is further explaining why not all of ethnic Israel (the same lump) is spiritual Israel (vessels individually made for honorable use). The vessels individually made for dishonorable use would be those who Paul was anguishing over in verses 1-3 who were accursed and cut off from Christ. This would be the only clear contextual conclusion to draw from the context being brought forward from verses 1-6 and on up to verse 20. The individuality of the vessels is clearly shown in the usage of “one vessel” and “another” and the term “same lump”, which represents ethnic Israel, is clearly being brought forward from the contextual subject of why not all of Israel is Israel in verse 6.
Paul uses a similar metaphor in 2 Timothy 2:20-21 and in that metaphor the dishonorable vessels are encouraged to cleanse themselves of what is dishonorable so that they will then be a vessel for honorable use. The context of 2 Timothy 2:20-21 is one of admonishment of the church and in that context eternal destruction is not in view. In 2 Timothy 2:20-21 the vessels are in the “great house” which would signify belonging to God already, and the vessels cleansing themselves of what is dishonorable should be taken as the process of sanctification by the renewal of the mind and spiritual disciplines. They would then be cleansed for honorable use in the church.
The context here in Romans 9 is regarding unconditional election and as we have seen from the context brought forward from verses 1-6, and will also see most clearly in the next two verses, eternal destinations of glory and destruction are in view throughout the entire discourse of Romans 9:1-24.
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath (prepared) (for) destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has (prepared beforehand) (for) glory—
Now we have come to verses 22 and 23 which display God’s greatest desire. In verse 22 God endures with much patience the vessels of wrath that were prepared for destruction so that He may show His wrath and make His power known. God has brought about what is in verse 22 in order to make known the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy that were prepared beforehand for glory.
In these two verses, verse 22 is a contrast for verse 23. They are the polar opposites of one another in the end result of those who are elected by the election of Romans 9. In these verses we can see most clearly that the eternal destinations of those who are elected are in view. These two verses contrast wrath with mercy as it pertains to God’s judgment, and they contrast destruction with glory as it pertains to eternal destinations. As we can see from John 5:24, those who believe in Christ as their Lord will not come into God’s judgment, so the word “wrath” in verse 22 is referring to someone who is under God’s judgment. The word “destruction” is referring to consequence of being under God’s judgment in the eternal state. This word “destruction” can also be seen in 2nd Thessalonians 1:9 as pertaining to eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord. Although the word “destruction” in Romans 9:22 and 2nd Thessalonians 1:9 are different Greek words, their definitions are not significantly different to warrant rendering “destruction” in Romans 9:22 as anything other than an eternal state. This is especially true since it is used in conjunction with “wrath” and the natural consequence of being under God’s wrath is destruction in the eternal state. The same is true for verse 23 in regards to the eternal destinations of the vessels of mercy. The second usage of the word “glory” in verse 23 is referring to the eternal state of the vessels of mercy. Glorification is the final state of believers as also evidenced in Romans 8:30 when the word “glorified” is used at the end of the verse regarding those whom God has predestined. Glorification is the result of those who are under God’s mercy in the eternal state. So we can see how these two verses contrast one another pertaining to God’s judgment and the eternal result of destruction or glorification for those elected.
Because the subject of election originated from Paul’s desire to explain why most of ethnic Israel were cut off from Christ and because of the clear eternal implications in verses 22 and 23, we can conclude that God’s election in the context of Roman 9 is an election to either glorification or destruction.
Now we should discuss God’s role as it pertains to verses 22 and 23. It appears that Paul is showing God as more deterministic in the role of election in the vessels of mercy in that he says “He has prepared beforehand” in verse 23. In using this language regarding the vessels of mercy, Paul is explicitly stating that God Himself is the one that has prepared the vessels of mercy, and that He did so “beforehand”. The word “beforehand” would at the very least mean before they were born as in verse 11 regarding Jacob and Esau, but considering that Ephesians 1:4 states that those who God chooses or elects are chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world”, it is more likely that “beforehand” means before the foundation of the world. The word “prepared” shows more determination and purpose beyond the previous use of the word “make” in verse 21. Verse 22 uses the term “prepared for destruction” but leaves off the word “beforehand” and the explicit designation that God did the preparing. Some have said that the vessels of destruction prepare themselves for destruction because it leaves off the specific designation that it was God that prepared them for destruction. This is true in the sense that they will be judged for their sins and that they are the ones who committed the sins that they will be judged for. As it pertains to election in the context of Romans 9, verse 21 shows that it is the potter that “makes” the dishonorable vessels “for” dishonorable use. Also the word “prepared” in verse 22 is past tense and shows that it is most likely not the vessels of destruction who are preparing themselves. It seems more probable that the term “preparing themselves” would have been used if that were the intended meaning. Since the word “beforehand” is used in verse 23 pertaining to the preparation of the vessels of mercy, it is most likely that the preparation in view for both the vessels of mercy and destruction is God’s determination in election from the foundation of the world.
The most natural conclusion to arrive at after taking both the positive and negative aspects of election is that Paul is teaching a dual election and predestination. The vessels of mercy are elected from the foundation of the world and predestined for glory. The vessels of wrath are elected from the foundation of the world and predestined for destruction. The dual nature of election and predestination can be clearly seen in the contrast of verses 22 and 23, and also in verse 18 which states “he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” Also the connection of the phrase “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” in verse 22 with the potter making a vessel for dishonorable use in verse 21 cannot be ignored. So the clear conclusion is that it is God Himself who prepares the vessels of wrath for destruction in verse 22.
So God’s greatest desire is to show the riches of His glory towards the vessels of mercy so that in and through them He will be glorified in this age and all the ages to come. God has created a backdrop of wrath and destruction so that the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy would be displayed in the greatest splendor imaginable. The proclamation of His name and the display of His glory and power is His greatest desire. If it were God’s greatest desire that no one should perish, then no one would perish, and God would have elected everyone. This means that God has a greater desire than saving everyone, and this greatest desire is that His name be proclaimed and glorified by the display of His mercy on those whom He shows mercy to, and also that His power be displayed in those whom He hardens and shows wrath towards. Many believe that God’s greatest desire is that His creatures have the freedom to reject His offer of salvation, but as we have seen from Paul’s appeal to election in verses 7-23 as the cause of Israel’s rejection instead of free will, proclaiming His name and showing His power through the election of His vessels to either glory or destruction is His greatest desire. Although this does not seem to be the way a God of love would distribute His mercy, it is Paul’s clear teaching here in Romans 9.
There is a mystery involved in that God elects whom He chooses to be the recipients of His mercy and wrath in such a way that it does not absolve those who reject Christ of their responsibility for their sins. God is not unjust in sentencing the vessels of wrath to destruction because they willingly reject God’s offer of salvation in Christ. This is evidenced in John 5:40 where Jesus tells those who were rejecting Him “You refuse to come to me that you may have life”. So those who are vessels of wrath do genuinely reject God’s offer of salvation, and those who are vessels of mercy do genuinely accept God’s offer of salvation. How this can be true and God’s election remain as the root cause of who receives His mercy and wrath is paradoxical to human understanding. What we can say is that in God’s infinite understanding and knowledge He has elected vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath in such a way that it does not remove the creature’s responsibility for decisions made and actions taken in their lives.
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Verse 24 also shows the individuality of God’s election in the He calls “from the Jews” and “from the Gentiles”. It is individuals from both groups that are being called. This calling is the outworking of God’s election in that election is because of “Him who calls” as shown in verse 11. In verse 21 Paul uses the term “same lump”, and it could be that Paul now has two “lumps” in mind when he specifies that the Gentiles are called according to God’s election the same as the Jews. It could be just as easily interpreted that Paul includes the Gentiles in this “same lump” of verse 21. Either way, Paul is showing that God’s election and calling works the same way with the Gentiles as it does with the Jews. The term “even us whom He has called” shows that verse 24 is being linked back to the discourse of election in verses 1-23, so it cannot be interpreted that the Gentiles are elected or called in a different manner that the Jews.
The calling of God is mentioned here in verse 24, and it is a clear connection with verse 11 where the phrase “Him who calls” is used. Here in verse 24 Paul makes the calling of God the clear outworking of God’s purpose of election stated in verse 11. As we have seen in verse 11, God’s purpose of election continues or stands because of Him who calls and not because of works (actions). This means that God’s calling is based on God’s election and not human will or action. The word “called” in verse 24 is the same Greek word that is in 1st Corinthians 1:9 which states “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” The phrase “called into the fellowship” would seem to imply that the calling actually causes or brings about this fellowship of the Son one is called into. At this point some maintain that God calls everyone with this type of calling, and the external preaching of the cross is the same as the calling that is spoken of in 1st Corinthians chapter one. Let’s take a brief look at 1st Corinthians 1:22-24 where Paul further defines this calling he is speaking of.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
If we take a careful look at verses 23 and 24 we can see that all are preached to because it says “we preach Christ crucified” at the beginning of verse 23. Paul then separates the people in verse 24 from the people in verse 23 by the phrase “but to those who are called” at the beginning of verse 24. This clearly means that those who were preached to in verse 23 who thought the message of Christ crucified was a stumbling block or foolishness were not called with the calling of verse 24. The calling in view in verse 24 actually causes those who are called to believe “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”. This is known as the effectual or effective call of God because it affects those called so powerfully that it causes those who are called to believe “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”. So we can see that although everyone in verses 23 and 24 were preached to, all those in verse 23 remained in their unbelief because they were not called. We can also see that all those in verse 24 were called and came to believe that Christ was the power and wisdom of God as a result of being called. So the calling of verse 24 is required in order to move from the unbelievers in verse 23 to the believers in verse 24. It is clear in the text that those in verse 23 are unbelievers and those in verse 24 are believers, but Paul is placing emphasis on the call of God as what brings them from verse 23 to verse 24.
The election of God is first, and the call of God is the outworking of God’s election that causes the faith of those in verse 24 to come about. As we have seen with Romans 9:24, the calling of God is the clear outworking of God’s election in that is says “us who are called” and then connects it with “from the Jews” and “from the Gentiles”. The election of God is grounded in “Him who calls” and not the wills or actions of those who God elects. To say that our faith causes God to call us is to say that God’s calling, which is the outworking of His election, is dependent on an act of our will or our actions. This is a direct contradiction of 1st Corinthians 1:23-24 and Romans 9:1-24. Our faith is a result of His calling as shown in 1st Corinthians 23-24, and His calling is shown to be the outworking of His election in Romans 9:24. God’s election is shown not to be based on human will or actions in Romans 9:16, but is ultimately based on the determination of “Him who calls” in Romans 9:11. So our coming to Christ and faith is a result of His calling, and His calling is based on His election. His election is not based on our wills or actions, but solely on His determination from before the foundation of the world to show mercy on us. This is what the bible teaches.
I have done my best to show that God’s unconditional election is the clear biblical teaching of Romans 9, and that 1st Corinthians 1 clearly defines how the effective call of God bring about His purpose in election. It required much studying of the scriptures for me to arrive at the conclusion that election is completely unconditional because there was a part of me that did not want to believe it. However, if the scriptures support it, I will believe it, even if it goes against my preconceptions of God and how He relates to His creatures. There are many other scriptures that support unconditional election in the bible. I will list only a few.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (We are appointed to eternal life before belief)
2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (God chose us to be saved)
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (We believe because we are His sheep, we do not become His sheep by believing)
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (We are chosen in Him from the foundation of the world and predestined to adoption as sons according to His will)
1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (God destined us to obtain salvation)
Php 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, (God granted that we should believe in Him before belief)
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (We are given to Jesus before we come to Him, and are who are given “will come to Him” after being given)
Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (One must be “of God” to hear God’s words. One must hear God’s words in order to believe them)
