Seraphim Hamilton

The centerpiece of Reformed argumentation is their interpretation of Romans 9.  They read Romans 9 as a discussion of unconditional predestination unto salvation.  However, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart notes that according to the plain reading of the text, and according to the Greek Fathers, Romans 9 has very little to do with individual election unto salvation at all.  Rather, it has to do with the separation and ultimate reconciliation of Israel and the Church (77).

Let us therefore look closely at the ninth chapter of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans that we may see and understand what it really teaches.  St. Paul begins in verses one through five by identifying his own love for Israel, and that they are honored with the Old Testament Scriptures and prophecies, that they are honored in that the Messiah Himself — God incarnate — comes from their people.

They have been chosen as the covenant people, St. Paul says, and that is their honor.  The question that he deals with, then, is, “how in the world can Jesus be the Messiah if His own people reject Him?”  St. Paul begins his answer in verses six and seven.  He states, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’”

We therefore see the point that Paul is making.  Those who believe not in Jesus as Messiah are not truly part of Israel.  To prove that not all who are descended from Abraham are under the covenant, St. Paul points to the first child of Abraham who was not under the covenant — Ishmael.  Therefore, because not all children of Abraham in the beginning were necessarily under the covenant, the same can be true of the modern fleshly descendants of Abraham.  St. Paul seals this argument in verse eight.  He writes, “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.”  Thus, we see that covenant status is not dependent on fleshly inheritance.

St. Paul continues his argument in verses nine through thirteen, key passages in Reformed theology.  He writes, “For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.’  And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 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 his call — she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’  As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

What does St. Paul mean by this?  Is he talking about election unto salvation?  We see that he is not.  First of all, when St. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 in saying that “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated,” it is not talking about lack of divine love.  Rather, the Old Testament is using hyperbolic covenant terms.  Douglas Moo writes to this effect, “The verbs ‘love’ and ‘hate’ in Malachi are covenantal terms. They do not express God’s emotions…but his actions….  We might paraphrase, ‘Jacob I have chosen, but Esau I have rejected’” (58).

We see something very important in St. Paul’s quotation of the prophet.  If one examines the immediate context of Malachi 1:2-3, one sees that the prophet is not speaking of Jacob and Esau as individuals.  Rather, he is using them as symbols for the nations which they bore — Israel and Edom.  Thus, St. Paul is speaking of the covenant election of corporate bodies for the purposes of God’s plan — not individual people unto salvation.  Furthermore, we see later in the book of Genesis that Esau is reconciled to his brother Jacob and forgiven.  Because we know that at least one Edomite (Esau) was saved, we know that St. Paul is not speaking about election unto salvation.  Edwards states likewise, “In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God’s purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ” (231-2).  Witherington concurs, writing, “The discussion of election in chs. 9-11 is a discussion of corporate election, in the midst of which there are individual rejection by some and selection for historical purposes of others” (246).

In Romans 9:15, St. Paul quotes Exodus 33 in proving the justice of God, where God says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.  While Calvinists have viewed this as explaining God’s lack of mercy for some, this does not fit with what God is actually saying in Exodus 33.  If one reads Exodus 33, God is actually discussing the abundance of His mercy, and that He will have mercy on people even if Moses would rather He not do so.  That is to say, St. Paul is demonstrating that God is free to have mercy on the Gentiles if He so wishes, despite the protests of the Jews.

In Romans 9:17, St. Paul draws our minds back to God’s dealings with Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.  He therefore concludes in verse eighteen that God is free to harden whomever He will.  This is a difficult passage, and we must therefore undertake a study of hardening in the Bible.  St. Paul right now is giving us an example of someone not part of God’s covenant people.  We note that, first, Pharaoh hardened his own heart first in Exodus 8:15, 32, and 9:34.  This is why St. Paul says in Romans 1:22-25 that, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!  Amen.”

We see that God turned them over to their own sin in response to their continuous rebellion against Him.  The cause and effect is that the people rebel against God, and God says “Thy will be done” and turns them over.  This is precisely the relationship described between God and Pharaoh in the book of Exodus.

One must always remember the subject of Romans 9 is explaining the relationship of fleshly Israel to God in the present time.  They are not presently under the divine covenant, because they have rejected Christ.  St. Paul gives an example of one who was not in a covenant with God, paralleling the Jews who reject Christ.  We see that God has now turned fleshly Israel over to their own darkness and unbelief, for St. Paul writes in Romans 11:7-8, “What then?  Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking.  The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’”

Israel has been hardened due to their unbelief.  If Reformed theology were true and this hardening refers to predestination unto reprobation, it is not going to be reversed.  On the contrary, St. Paul later says in Romans 11:26 that all Israel will be saved!  With that said, turn your eyes back to Romans 9 for a moment.  The chapter discusses God’s purposes in corporate elections.  He elects corporate bodies according to His own will and wisdom in order to bring about salvation for the maximum number of people.  Why, then, has God not elected fleshly Israel?  Why has He now elected the body of the Church?  St. Paul answers this question in Romans 11:11, saying, “So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall?  By no means!  Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”

Yet, God still desires salvation for Israel, and thus their jealousy will ultimately lead to salvation, as it is written in Romans 11:26 and in the Prophet Zechariah.  The prophet writes in Zechariah 12:10, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.”  Thus, God has wisely elected the Church in this present day that salvation may flow to the Gentiles, making Israel jealous, leading to Israel’s rejoining of the olive tree.  How great is the wisdom of God!

In Romans 9:19-21, St. Paul analogizes God to a potter, molding things into whatever He wishes.  St. Paul is alluding to a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah, where the Lord says through the prophet, “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord.  Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.”  As we can see, this is still dealing with corporate groups, rather than specific individuals.

Some Protestant translations translate Romans 9:22 as saying, “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.”  However, Witherington notes in his commentary on Romans that 9:22 can be translated, “Although God desired to show his wrath and to make known his power, He endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (257).

This makes much more sense with verse twenty-three, which says, “in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”  That is, God endured the unfaithfulness of Old Israel in order to bring about salvation within the New Covenant Church.

How does one deal with the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  This is not an example of God unconditionally predestining individuals to reprobation.  Actually, the vessels of wrath are preparing themselves for destruction.  According to Witherington, “Paul uses two different verbs when talking about the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath….  Katertismena, used of the vessels of wrath, is a perfect passive participle.  Proetoimasen, used of the vessels of mercy, is an aorist active indicative.  This change cannot be accidental, and it suggests that Paul means that the vessels of wrath are ripe or fit for destruction.  Indeed, one could follow the translation of John Chrysostom here and understand it in the middle voice: “‘have made themselves fit for’ destruction” (258).

With this point made, St. Paul’s quotation of Jeremiah makes perfect sense.  Jeremiah is discussing God’s relationship to the house of Israel, those descended from Jacob according to the flesh.  He has a right to do with them what He wishes.  Then St. Paul explains that God endured the wickedness of the people of Israel as long as He did because it enabled Him to make known His mercy within the New Covenant Church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

We have seen thus far two very important things.  First, St. Paul is not speaking about salvation.  Second, St. Paul is not speaking about individuals, but covenant groups.  With these things proven, St. Paul’s argument is this: God’s covenant was never with a fleshly body.  Rather, he elected covenant nations according to His own wisdom and purpose.  Who can question the will and wisdom of God?   He has a right to mold His covenant people into whatever He wishes.  He has never broken His promise to true Israel, for true Israel is now all who are faithful to Jesus the Messiah, that is, the people of the Church.  God has elected the Church rather than fleshly Israel in order to save Gentiles, and eventually to bring salvation full circle so that all Israel may be saved as well.  Gentiles are now a part of true covenant Israel, and hence St. Paul quotes the prophet in verse twenty-five, saying “As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call my people, and her who was not beloved I will call beloved.’”