Romans 9 is one of the more controversial chapters in the Bible. I’m going to be breaking down the entire chapter, offering a steelman for Calvinism, as well as (hopefully) a fresh take on what Paul was saying, and perhaps more importantly, what he wasn’t saying.
In my experience, Calvinists bring up Roman’s 9 as their most cited chapter for their theology, and the confusion is understandable. However, I believe there’s a reason the early church fathers were never swayed by this chapter, and a lot of it comes down to translation. Let’s unpack his words:
Paul’s audience
First, for context. Paul writes to a mixed Jewish-Gentile church in Rome, addressing tensions over God’s promises. Paul is clearly torn up for his fellow Jews, going so far as to say that he wishes he could trade places with them and be damned himself on their behalf:
“I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 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.” — Romans 9:3-5
These are perhaps the strongest words Paul has ever used to start a chapter, so we need to make sure we’re taking note of his tone and audience, and there’s no mistake he’s referring to the Jewish nation as a whole:
“They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” — Romans 9:4-5
Weren’t the Jews supposed to be the ones to usher in Jesus?
This raises an issue: If God’s chosen nation rejects Christ, does God’s word fail? Paul anticipates this and addresses it directly:
“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, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 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. 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 Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac” — Romans 9:6-10
Paul redefines ‘Israel’ as a spiritual community of faith, including Gentiles, not just ethnic Jews, which falls in line with his mixed target audience; the Romans. He writes similar things elsewhere in Galatians:
“If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” — Galatians 3:29
It’s always been about God’s promise, not bloodlines
God has never followed convention when it came to His promise; Jews would know His promise never relied on bloodline, even from Abraham’s day:
“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— she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” — Romans 9:11-13
We encounter our first controversial verse. Let’s clear a few things up:
First, the word “hated” is a bad translation (I think Calvinists agree with me here). It’s the same word as in:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate 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
Clearly Jesus doesn’t want us to hate our parents or our own life. A better way to translate this would be that you esteem one over the other.
The second word I want to focus on is the word “election” (eklogē). Does “election” mean individual salvation (as Calvinists suggest), or the chosen nation of Israel and the Jews? It’s helpful to study where else Paul uses this word:
“As regards to 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
Wait, how can you be “elected”, but enemies of the gospel? This is the same author, same book, and a mere two chapters later. If he is referring to individuals, then why would he use the same word to reference the Jewish people as a whole in the same conversation without any clarification?
Also, many Calvinists believe this verse points to Esau not being a part of the “elect”, but then we would expect to see Esau lead a more cursed life (think Cain and his descendants), but that’s not the case. Esau reconciled with Jacob (Genesis 33:1-11) and his descendants, like Teman, were later linked to wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7). Contextually it makes more sense that Paul is referring to God’s promise and whom He chose to lead His people.
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 have compassion.” — Romans 9:14-15
Some helpful context would be to go to the original Hebrew that Paul is quoting from in Exodus:
“And he said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy’” — Exodus 33:19
In the Hebrew, the word “gracious” here is translated as “to bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior” and “mercy” is translated to “to love, love deeply, have tender affection, have compassion”. So perhaps the most accurate translation would be this:
“I will show kindness to whom I will show kindness, and will show affectionate compassion to whom I will show affectionate compassion towards.”
Thus far, we don’t have any reason to believe Paul is referring to salvation. God, who judges the heart and motives, has prerogative as to whom He chooses to show kindness and compassion towards.
God can also oppose whomever He wants
Paul continues:
“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 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 9:16-18
Just as God can show kindness towards whom He wants, He can also oppose whom He wants to oppose. Human will or exertion doesn’t welcome God’s mercy, but our heart condition towards Him does (“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” — James 4:6).
Also, Pharaoh’s story shows free will—he hardened his heart at the beginning (Exodus 7:13, 8:15), and God’s later hardening (Exodus 9:12) continued his choices, a pattern that repeats (Exodus 9:34, 10:1). We also know that God preserved Pharaohs life in order 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. …You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go.” — Exodus 9:15
We know that “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart” — 1 Samuel 16:7, and “For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.” — 2 Chronicles 16:9. So there’s nothing in this verse to suggest God’s grace, or His “hardening” is indiscriminate. Just like how God exalted Jacob over Esau in order to accomplish His promise, God can also humble you on the world stage in order to accomplish His purposes. Calvinists attach “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” to Pharaoh as well, but is that fair to do so? (more on that later)
The potter and the 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 me like this?’ 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?” — Romans 9:19
The key part to this verse is “to make out of”. The greek word in question is “poieō” which is very agnostic word with multiple meanings. Including:
- To author, to make a thing out of something
- To make ready, to prepare
- To put one forth, to lead him out
In a few cases, “poieō” refers to being the actual creator of something:
- “Peter responded and said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good that we are here. If You want, I will make (poieō) three tabernacles here: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.'” — Matthew 17:4
However, in the hundreds of references I checked, I could only find a few where the word means “to make from scratch”. Every other time it’s in reference to “producing out of” or “to do”, or “to bear”. For instance:
“So every good tree bears (poieō) good fruit, but the bad tree bears “poieō” bad fruit.” — Matthew 7:17
So in this context, did God make the lump of clay from scratch, or did He purpose the lump of clay for a use, based on the state that the clay was in already? A few years later, Paul wrote to Timothy and he used the the exact same words and analogy:
“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.” — II Timothy 2:20
It’s surprising to me that more non-Calvinists don’t reference this verse. Using II Timothy, we can conclude three things:
- Your course isn’t fixed. You can transition from “common” to “valuable”.
- Whether we are used for valuable or common use isn’t some indiscriminate choice on behalf of God, it is dependent on whether or not we are “cleansed” and we are told to cleanse ourselves.
- We don’t need to make this about salvation. With both vessels residing in the same house with the same master, it would even suggest that that we’re speaking about two saved individuals.
There’s more evidence to support the idea that how we are used/rewarded, depends on how we’re cleansed, and that our salvation doesn’t depend on it. Paul uses a similar metaphor in Corinthians:
“If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light … if what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” — 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
If you use precious materials (gold, silver, costly stones), you’ll receive a reward. If you use common materials to build your life (wood, hay, straw), you won’t receive a reward and it’ll be like “escaping through the flames”, but you’ll still be saved. So once again, this potter/clay metaphor doesn’t need to be referring to salvation, and in fact, Paul uses similar metaphors to suggest that being used for “common” things has no effect on your salvation.
This goes right along with everything Paul has been saying about Pharaoh: if you don’t cleanse yourself, God will still use you to accomplish His purposes, and sometimes those purposes might be to not let you have the easy way out and instead, humiliate you or catch you in your own pride.
Thus, using II Timothy to prove that these aren’t fixed paths that God ordained, we can say that “poieō” doesn’t mean “make from scratch”. In context, I think the best translation would be “prepare/appoint/decree” and that really changes this verse meaning:
“Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you decreed me for this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to decree out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?”
It falls in line with the rest of the context and verses. God chose Jacob over Esau as the leader of the Jews. God used Pharaoh’s pride to display God’s glory. But in every instance, the salvation of the person wasn’t what was appointed, only how God used them. In context, this creates a perfect metaphor for Paul’s greater point: the Jews in general aren’t being used to usher in Jesus, the Gentiles are. It wasn’t indiscriminate (the Jews missed it on their own accord) but who are the Jews to question why they weren’t chosen? And on top of that, Paul clearly isn’t referring to all of the Jews, since he was a Jew himself, speaking to the mixed church in Rome, his message is corporate. Paul refines his point:
“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, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” — Romans 9:22-24
Remember how I mentioned that Calvinists attach “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” to Pharaoh as well? There’s an interesting distinction in this verse: the word “prepared” (katartizō) in reference to destruction is different than the word “prepared” in reference to “glory” (proetoimazō). Katartizō means: “to complete, adjust, make one what he ought to be”, suggesting a continuation of what was already set in motion. While Proetoimazō translates to: “to make ready beforehand”, and that word is only used one other time in the new testament:
“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand (proetoimazō) so that we would walk in them” — Ephesians 2:10
“Walk” (peripateō) translates to:
- To regulate one’s life
- To conduct one’s self
So God prepares good works for us, be we must “regulate our lives” in order to see them. These works are something that requires participation; we must willingly walk them out. It falls perfectly in line with what I mentioned earlier about building with good materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 and “cleansing yourself” in II Timothy 2:20.
Once we are “created in Christ”, God indiscriminately prepares good works for all of us (before we have done anything good or bad). However, God “endures with much patience” (which wouldn’t make sense if the vessels are fixed, but I digress) those who aren’t in Christ, and barring repentance, will continue what you set into motion: your own destruction. Thus, it would do a disservice to the context of this chapter to attach “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” to Pharaoh. Paul separates how God deals with the righteous and the prideful by using two words with very different definitions, and so should we.
Paul ends corporately
So Paul’s point is that God has been dealing with the Jews’ stubbornness for centuries, and like Pharaoh, He’s using their own hard heart and stubbornness to spread the “riches of His glory” to both the Jews and the Gentiles. However, God clearly isn’t doing it universally to Jews, since Paul himself was a Jew. So there must be something that separates those Jews who are “vessels of wrath prepared (katartizō: rendered in continuation of their choices) for destruction, and the Jews (like Paul) who were prepared for good works? That’s exactly how Paul closes out the chapter:
“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
There it is. The Jews who are in the category of a “vessel rendered in continuation of their choices for destruction” are the ones who “did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.” — because the core message of the Gospel is: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” — and God’s mercy isn’t indiscriminate, or else Paul would have no need to end this chapter by telling us WHY the Jews missed out.
The Jews learned all about God, but when God appeared to them in person, they rejected Him because they couldn’t get past their own religious pride and stubbornness. They put Him to death. So now, God is using their own unrighteousness to further his purpose, and who are we to question or resist that? The most important part being the fact that God didn’t condemn them until, like Pharaoh, they had already condemned themselves. And the kicker is that many Jews (like Paul) still received the promise, so this judgement only applied to those who personally rejected Jesus.
Calvinist Steelman
I want to make sure I’m not ignoring any of the arguments made by Calvinists and straw-manning their side. Many Calvinists would say:
- Paul is referring to both at the same time: corporate and personal and would point to the fact that Paul is using individual cases to prove his point, so we shouldn’t be so quick to say He’s not referring to the nation, and also the individual
- The clay is something that is formless and shapeless, and thus, wouldn’t have any properties to begin with: combining the Esau and the potter metaphor, God could have made the vessel “before they could do anything good or evil”
- At the end when Pauls says the Jews missed it because they chose works over faith, he’s just outlining the evidence of their human condition — a condition they can’t escape without God’s preselected grace.
When you zoom in, I can understand how Calvinists interpret this verse they way they do. However, when you zoom out and you include other verses, I believe those points get refuted:
- In the case of Esau, his path was reconciled with Jacob in the end. It’s not like Cain where God outcasts him (because he killed Abel) and he never returns.
- Pharaoh hardened himself first. Then continued to exalt himself, even after the plagues. There’s nothing to suggest that God’s hardening was indiscriminate
- The bible doesn’t contradict itself (something I think Calvinists believe as well). II Timothy forces us to reexamine the potter/clay metaphor and clearly shows that we can switch from “dishonorable” to “honorable” based on “cleansing ourselves”. So God forming the “lump of clay” isn’t fixed and preordained…it’s a consequence of our own free-will choices.
- The fact that Paul uses two different words for “prepared” show that it isn’t appropriate to use the same “before they could do anything good or evil” phrase to Pharaoh. And using Ephesians 2:10, we know that God only indiscriminately prepares good things for us, and we still need to “walk it out” in order to receive it.
- Paul could have wrapped up this chapter in a variety of ways. He could have said “Why did the Jews miss it? Because, like Esau, God didn’t choose them”. Paul gives us the reasons God didn’t choose the Jews, and it comes down to faith vs works…a pattern he repeats over and over throughout his letters.
- Paul begins and ends with the Jewish nation as a whole. It would be very out of context of Paul to switch to personal lens in the middle, steer very close to the Pagan beliefs at the time (predestination), and then zoom back out without explaining himself.
Conclusion
Let’s review a little: 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 paths are predestined (steering very close to the pagan 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 an absolute mess when you put it into context.
After diving into Romans 9, this chapter is no longer a “gray area” where you just have to say “God’s ways are mysterious”. There’s a difference between living life to its full God-given potential, vs your eternal home in Heaven or Hell. Early fathers like Irenaeus saw Romans 9 as God’s plan for nations, not predestined souls, aligning with free will. I feel like a lot of Calvinists have infused salvation into this chapter, when there was no need to do so. Once you do a little etymology, it’s pretty straightforward and you would actually need to bend over backwards to try and make this chapter apply to salvation.
