Romans 9 is often used by Calvinists as a kind of cornerstone for their theology. If you read it on its face, it’s understandable how Calvinists came to the conclusion that humankind lacks free will. However, I think there’s a reason why the early church fathers weren’t swayed by this chapter, and a lot of it comes down to translation and context.
The first several verses don’t raise any controversy. Paul sets the stage by saying he’s torn up at the fact that, while Gentiles were coming to Jesus en masse, his own Jewish people rejected Jesus and were far less open to Christianity:
“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…To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all” — Romans 9:1-5 (abridged)
For a Jew living in the first century, the fact that the Gentiles would have been the ones to receive the Christ and not the Jews would have caused a lot of pushback. Paul begins to explain how the God always welcomed outsiders to the faith:
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring”
It’s after this that Paul brings up the first controversial verse. He uses Jacob and Esau as examples of how God isn’t a respecter of bloodlines, and says this:
“…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election (*eklogē*) might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (*miseō*).’” — Romans 9:11-13 ESV
Whenever Calvinists use the word “the elect”, they are referring mainly to this verse. If you rely on the common English translation of this verse, it’s very understandable how this could trip someone up. However, there are some very unfortunate translations throughout this chapter. Let’s start with *miseō* (translated as “hated”):
“Hated”
This word is also used by Jesus in Luke 14:26:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate (*miseō*) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” — Luke 14:26 ESV
Clearly Jesus doesn’t want us to hate our children or our own life. A better translation for this word would be “preferring one over the other”, so perhaps “demote”?
Paul had many other ways to use the word “hate” here. Bdelyssomai (To abhor, loathe, or detest with disgust”), kataphroneō (To despise, look down on contemptuously), Apostygeō (To abhor intensely, shrink from in horror, or detest as vile.), his choice to use a mild “demote” word is notable. If Paul’s point here is that Esau has been chosen by God to be eternally condemned (as Calvinists suggest), Paul’s choice of words avoid a much more direct way of saying so.
Election
The last word I want to dig into on this verse is “election” or eklogē. According to Calvinists, the “elect” are those whom God chose to save “before the foundations of the world”. Out of the 7 times this word is used in the New Testament, several talk about the fact that God clearly does choose us:
“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect (*eklogē*)? It is God who justifies.” — Romans 8:33 ESV
“There has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice (*eklogē*)” — Romans 11:5 ESV
“Those who were chosen (*eklogē*) obtained it, and the rest were hardened” — Romans 11:7 ESV
However, this begs the question: “God chooses us, but do we need to choose Him back?”. This is where we find two more instances that answer that question:
“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election (*eklogē*), they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” — Romans 11:28 ESV
According to Calvinists, being “elected” by God means that you are irresistibly a part of God’s kingdom, so then how can you be “elected”, and yet an enemy of the gospel? Keep in mind this verse is a mere two chapters after the one we’re studying now.
Peter weighs in as well:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choice (*eklogē*) of you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble” — 2 Peter 1:10 ESV
Here not only does Peter say we need to have diligence to recognize God’s calling and “choice” (eklogē), but he wraps God’s “choice” in a conditional “as long as you practice these things”.
If you need to diligently recognize God’s “election” of you, then it must require a human response. God chooses you and calls you, but you must accept His choice of you, otherwise you could not only stumble (2 Peter 1:10), but you could become an enemy of the gospel entirely (Romans 11:28).
So we’re already finding that the true translations of these words are posing a challenge for the Calvinist. Let’s continue:
If Esau was the one whom God “hated”, we should expect to see him reject God and live a life marked by God’s condemnation right? However, we get no hint of that. Esau reconciled with Jacob:
“Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept. … Esau said, ‘I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.’” — Genesis 33:4, 9 ESV
So Esau had a little redemption arc of his own within this story, which further supports Pauls mild “demote” word (not “hated”) for Esau.
So to summarize, God chose Jacob to lead Israel, not Esau. However, this choice needed reciprocation on Jacob’s part, and we have no indication that it was a damnation sentence for Esau.
God Has the Right to Give Favor to Whomever He Wants
Paul continues:
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” — Romans 9:14-15 ESV
Calvinists use this verse to claim that Paul is once again referring to salvation, but is that fair?
Both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists agree that human will isn’t what justifies us or brings God’s favor. However, even though it isn’t dependent on works, it is dependent on faith:
“a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” — Galatians 2:16 ESV
God always looks at our heart condition first. Human will or exertion doesn’t earn God’s kindness, but our posture before Him matters:
“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” — James 4:6 ESV
“…For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” — 1 Samuel 16:7 ESV
“For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him…” — 2 Chronicles 16:9 ESV
So it depends on God, who judges and responds to our heart (1 Samuel 16:7), not our works. But while it’s God’s choice to show kindness, we need to be careful to note that Paul also wrote Galatians, and explicitly outlines faith’s role in receiving and responding to it (Galatians 2:16).
God Can Also Oppose Whomever He Wants
Paul continues:
“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.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” — Romans 9:17-18 ESV
God clearly hardened Pharaoh. The question is, was the hardening orchestrated from the beginning, or was it in response to Pharaoh’s choices up to that point? First, his story shows he hardened his heart on his own:
“Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.” — Exodus 7:13 ESV
“But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the Lord had said.” — Exodus 8:15 ESV
God’s later hardening continued Pharaoh’s choices:
“But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.” — Exodus 9:12 ESV
This pattern continues, as seen in Pharaoh hardening his heart again (see Exodus 9:34) and God reinforcing it (see Exodus 10:1).
We also know God preserved Pharaoh’s life to work miracles, but Pharaoh exalted himself:
“‘For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go.’” — Exodus 9:15-17 ESV
Calvinists, citing Exodus 4:21 where God plans to harden Pharaoh, argue God’s sovereignty predetermines outcomes. Yet, the sequence of Pharaoh’s self-hardening (Exodus 7:13, 8:15) before divine hardening (Exodus 9:12) suggests God responds to, rather than initiates, his rebellion. This Pharaoh, a self-proclaimed deity, perpetuated Israel’s brutal oppression (Exodus 1:8-14), which persisted during Moses’ 40-year exile in the desert (Acts 7:30). So the context points towards God using Pharaoh’s longstanding defiance to display His power.
Just as God chose to exalt Jacob over Esau for His promise, He can also choose to wield someone’s pride and stubbornness for His glory. Calvinists would claim that God chose to harden Pharaoh without any free-will involvement, but then we wouldn’t expect to see any instance of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Calvinists also use the earlier example of Jacob and Esau to say that God made the choice “before he was born”, but we’ll see later in this chapter that it’s erroneous to apply “before he was born” to Pharaoh.
So let’s recap a little: God chooses us for a specific purpose (like Jacob chosen to lead the Jewish people). We must recognize and respond to that choice, or else we could stumble or become enemies of the gospel entirely. God can also harden us, but His hardening isn’t indiscriminate.
The Potter and Clay
“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made (*poieō*) me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make (*poieō*) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” — Romans 9:19-21 ESV
The word “poieō” is key in this verse. Does poieō mean “create from scratch” as Calvinists suggest? If so, then it looks like we’re all just lumps of formless clay, and our destinies are shaped in God’s hand. However, up until this point, Paul has had this theme of God needing reciprocation from us (eklogē needing our diligence, and God continuing Pharaoh’s choices). So what does poieō actually mean? The Greek word *poieō* appears 568 times in the New Testament with two main meanings:
- “Shape” or “prepare” in nearly all cases (e.g., “Prepare (*poieō*) the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” — Mark 1:3 ESV).
- “Create from scratch” in less than 2% of cases (6–10 instances), like constructing a tabernacle (Hebrews 8:5) or divine creation (Matthew 19:4)
The more common meaning is to continue something already in place. In Mark, John the Baptist didn’t create the way of the Lord; he continued what was already being built for generations (the coming of Jesus); he prepared it. So why rush to rule out the common meaning? What does the context tell us? Fortunately, Paul uses the exact same vessels metaphor when writing to Timothy:
“Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.” — 2 Timothy 2:20-21 ESV
We can use this verse to conclude 3 things:
- Your course isn’t fixed—a lump of clay can transition from “dishonorable” to “honorable”.
- Whether we’re used for honorable or dishonorable purposes depends on our response (cleansing yourself), not an indiscriminate choice by God.
- God is clearly the “master of the house,” and since both vessels are in the “great house,” we’d be taking liberties by claiming dishonorable vessels are damned by default.
How do we know that having a vessel made from “wood and clay” isn’t a damnation sentence? Paul uses yet another building metaphor in Corinthians, and he’s careful to separate sanctification from salvation:
“Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” — 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 ESV
Here, even when the materials are worthless, our salvation is not affected, just our reward. So we can conclude that “dishonorable” isn’t a prerequisite for a condemned vessel. It also adds more doubt to the Calvinist claim that sanctification is inevitable and void of human agency, since the fact that we can get to Heaven “as escaping a fire” introduces a level of imperfection in the sanctification process that warrants a flawed human component.
Given this context for the vessels metaphor, it seems unlikely Paul uses the rare “make from scratch” translation of *poieō*; the common meanings “shape” or “prepare” fit better:
“Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you shaped (*poieō*) me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to shape (*poieō*) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”
The difference between “make” and “shape” may seem subtle, but it matters greatly. When I “make a case,” I start from scratch to reach a conclusion. When I “shape a case,” I build on an existing narrative, implying the clay’s initial state plays a role in its purpose.
Lastly, as even more reinforcement for the “shape” translation, this exact metaphor is also used in the Old Testament. There can be little doubt Paul was referring to this verse while writing this part of Romans, and the Jewish audience would have been familiar with it; notice how in Hebrew, the word is translated as “shape” (“I am shaping disaster against you”):
I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. Then the word of the Lord came to me: “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. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ — Jeremiah 18:3-11
God is shaping the clay based on free will choices, and always offering an avenue for repentance; to just those whom He chose? No, He’s giving that opportunity to everyone: “return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds”.
So after studying context and Greek definitions, even the Potter and clay metaphor that is a Calvinist staple poses a challenge for their theology.
Vessels of Wrath and Mercy
In order to interpret Romans 9 in a way that fits the Calvinist theology, we need to presume that when Paul says “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad”, it applies to both the righteous and the unrighteous equally. For the righteous, it would mean that we are chosen for salvation. For the unrighteous, it would mean we are chosen for damnation (Unconditional election, and Limited Atonement). However, if God’s “election” uses a different approach towards choosing the unrighteous vs the unrighteous, then much of the Calvinist foundation crumbles, because it means that our choices must impact how God responds to us.
Prepared
Paul’s next verse is the most damning to the Calvinist argument. If I needed one verse to summarize Romans 9 and refute the Calvinist’s take on it, this would be it; Notice how he uses two different words for “prepared”:
“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared (*katartizō*) for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared (*proetoimazō*) beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” — Romans 9:22-24 ESV
Remember how I mentioned applying “though they were not yet born” to Pharaoh is erroneous? This verse offers a key distinction: “prepared” for destruction is *katartizō* (to adjust, continue what’s in motion), while “prepared” for glory is *proetoimazō* (to make ready beforehand). Curiously, Paul uses *proetoimazō* only one other time:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared (*proetoimazō*) beforehand, that we should walk (*peripateō*) in them.” — Ephesians 2:10 ESV
“Walk” (*peripateō*) means to regulate one’s life, to conduct oneself. So once again, God prepares good works for us “beforehand” indiscriminately, but we need to respond and walk it out.
How can we be sure of that? Remember the verse that talks about how you can be elected and yet enemies of the Gospel? Here’s the verse that comes directly after:
“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” — Romans 11:28-29
We all have a God-given calling (eklogē) and predetermined good works (Ephesians 2:10) that cannot be taken away from us (Romans 11:29), but it takes the recognition of that calling (eklogē) (2 Peter 1:10), we must respond and cleanse ourselves (2 Timothy 2:20-21) and we must walk out that purpose (Ephesians 2:10), otherwise we can stumble (2 Peter 1:10) or even become enemies of the gospel entirely (Romans 11:28).
For unbelievers (like Pharaoh), God’s preparation (*katartizō*) aligns with their choices up to that point and continues what’s already in place, yet even then God “endures with much patience” (why would God need “much patience” if God destined them to be that way and they never had the capacity to change, as Calvinists suggest?). For believers, God prepares (*proetoimazō*) good works indiscriminately (“before they could do anything good or evil”), yet we must choose to walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).
Paul could have easily used *proetoimazō* in both instances, and would have been most appropriate if he wanted to convey that it’s God who orchestrates our salvation, so his choice not to is telling.
This is further clarified once again, just two chapters later in Romans 11. Paul talks about how these same Jewish people he’s referring to in this chapter (whom God hardened) can still be grafted back in, and have an easier time than the Gentiles, as long as they “do not continue in their unbelief”:
“And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in… how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.” — Romans 11:23-24 ESV
Thus, the two “prepared” words in verses 9:22-24 show it’s inappropriate to apply “before they could do anything good or evil” to Pharaoh—Paul uses different words to distinguish God’s approach to the righteous and the prideful, and so should we. This poses one more challenge for the Calvinist, since their theology depends on God making indiscriminate choices about our salvation, and applying that choice equally. Here we see that God indiscriminately gives everyone a purpose, but then has “much patience” for the unrighteous and uses their rebellion for His purpose, yet still offers them a chance to be “grafted back in”.
We see this played out practically all the time. How many celebrities and rock stars have an immense amount of talent and purpose, and yet aren’t using it for God? How many leaders in the corporate world have a natural gift for their field, and yet aren’t using those gifts for the Kingdom? Their gifts and callings were irrevocable and their purpose was decided before they were born, regardless of whether or not those gifts were going to be used for good things, or evil things. Yet God still “endures with much patience” those who haven’t decided to give their lives to Him, and always offers them a way to be grafted back into the Kingdom.
Paul Ends Corporately
“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone…” — Romans 9:30-32 ESV
There it is. The Jews who are “vessels of wrath prepared (*katartizō*) for destruction” are those who “did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works”. God rejected and hardened them based on their own religious pride, not indiscriminately.
The Jews learned about God but rejected Him. They put Him to death. So, God uses their unrighteousness, like Pharaoh’s, to further His purpose, while still “enduring much patience”, and offering them a chance to be grafted back in (Romans 11:23-24).
Paul is using a corporate lens, yet many Jews, like himself and the Roman believers he addresses, received the promise, so this judgment only applied to those who rejected Jesus personally. Paul confirms as much two chapters later:
“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite… God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” — Romans 11:1-2 ESV
Conclusion
Let’s review: Calvinism would force us to believe that Paul starts Romans 9 talking about the Jews as a whole, abruptly switches to a personal lens and drops a theological bomb, announcing that all of our eternal destinies are predestined (steering very close to the pagan determinism views at the time), then goes back to talking about Jews as a whole again without explaining himself or going into detail.
Then at the end of the chapter he plainly tells us he’s referring to the Jews as a whole and how God rejected them because they chose works over faith, but somehow God also rejected them before they were born, to no fault of their own, because they weren’t “elected”?
As if that’s not enough, two chapters later he tells us that the “elect” are the Jews and can be enemies of the gospel. Years later, he uses the exact same “vessels” analogy writing to Timothy, but lists both vessels as being in the same house, avoids predestination entirely, and commands a free-will action (“cleanse yourself”) — which would be redundant and unnecessary if God already predestined it.
The Calvinistic view of Romans 9 is very difficult to reconcile when you flesh out the words and context. It seems to me that the early church, with a perfect translation, would have known that Paul different words for “preparing” the righteous and unrighteous, and with cultural context (Roman and Greek beliefs at the time), they knew he wouldn’t have abruptly brought up a pagan view on predestination without a lot of explanation.
