Romans 9 has always been one of the most contested battlegrounds in Reformed-Arminian disputes, so much so that R. C. Sproul has proclaimed that Arminian theology is demolished by a single verse from the chapter: "So then it does not depend on human will or effort, but on God who shows mercy." How can anyone read that verse and then claim that salvation
does depend on human will or effort? Arminians, for their part, do not help themselves by making outrageous statements like, "Oh, I don't believe in predestination," and by more or less ignoring the book of Romans in their preaching and theology.
This is especially unfortunate given the potential that Romans has for both Arminian and open theist readings, provided we keep in mind the unity of the letter as a whole and the covenantal issues that Paul is dealing with. So without attempting to be entirely comprehensive or persuasive, I do want to give a reading of Romans 9 that free-will theists can offer as a more plausible interpretation than the Reformed version.
The basic Reformed reading of Romans sees the declarations that God has mercy on whomever he will, that human beings are clay in his hands and that God accepted Jacob but rejected Esau prior to anything they did as straightforwardly teaching that God chooses some individuals for salvation and others for damnation based on nothing but his own sovereign decision. Needless to say, I think that is a deeply misguided reading, for a number of reasons.
Most primarily, Paul is not dealing with the salvation of individuals here. He dealt with that in cc. 3-6. What Paul is dealing with here is God's covenant-faithfulness. Paul establishes his anguish over the fact that, by and large, Israelites are rejecting Jesus while non-Jews are entering into the promises God made to Israel. The center of the debate is located in verse 6, as James White (of all people) correctly notes. The promises God made to Israel seem to be unfairly being given to another group of people. "Has the word of God failed?"
But Paul says that it has not failed, because not all who are biological descendants of Jacob are truly Israel. Nobody deserves to be counted as 'Israel' because they were born Jewish, or because they keep the works of the law. To illustrate why this is the case, Paul points out that God chose to continue Israel's line through Jacob instead of Esau, for no reason that can be found in either of them. But there is a serious problem if we take this to mean that Esau was damned, because Paul is clearly referring to being chosen
to carry on the line of Israel.
This is even more clear if we follow the reference that Paul is making in verse 13, "As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," which is from the first few verses of Malachi. In it (a sort of prophetic play), God tells Israel how he has loved them, and Israel responds, "How have you loved us?" God replies, "Look at Esau. Even though he was the older brother, I loved Jacob and hated Esau. Look at how Esau's mountains are a wasteland, and how his inheritance is being consumed by jackals of the desert." It is the same situation as the Genesis account and the same situation that Paul is addressing: God has chosen one group of people as his representatives on earth, and overlooked another. It has nothing at all to do with individuals being chosen for salvation or damnation.
Still, Paul senses a possible objection, which is that God is unfair to decide who his covenant people are. Paul's answer to this objection is simply that God is free to choose. What is significant for a free-will reading of the passage is to recognize that while God is free to harden whomever he wants, his decisions are not arbitrary. Later in chapter 9, Paul summarizes his thoughts, observing that
Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained righteousness—namely the righteousness that comes from faith. But Israel, pursuing the law for righteousness, has not achieved the law. Why is that? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works.
So if God has hardened Israel, it is not because of his prior decision to do so, but "because they did not pursue [righteousness] by faith." In chapter eleven (cc. 9-11 form one literary unit, all dealing with the question posed in 9:6), Paul, utilizing the metaphor of pruning a vineyard, observes that "[Israel's branch was] broken off by unbelief" (11:20), but "even they, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again" (11:23). Paul does not believe that God has decided irrevocably in advance that Israel will not be saved, but rather portrays God responding to Israel's faith or lack of faith as it arises. In fact, Paul seems to portray a partly open future, although he ultimately believes that "all Israel will be saved," though it is difficult to say what exactly he means by this, given his statement that not "all who are descended of Israel are Israel."
Paul's vision of a partly open future also comes across in his choice to quote Jeremiah 18, which far from presenting God as statically exercising his will as determined in ages past, presents God flexibly responded to his creatures as situations change.
Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Here in particular Calvin's analysis of the biblical text looks clumsy, as he describes passages like this as examples of God "lisping" to us, speaking baby-talk, the way a nursemaid babbles nonsense to an infant.
A case study for Paul's understanding of hardening is presented in Pharaoh's role in the Exodus, where the text first tells us several times that Pharaoh hardens his own heart and only then tells us that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Paul is certainly right that God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and hardens whom he wants to harden. But why would we take from Romans 9 that he has no basis for determining who he wants to have mercy on or harden? He hardens Pharaoh because Pharaoh wanted to play hard ball. God hardened Israel "because of their unbelief." God shows kindness to you "provided that you continue in his kindness." Across the board, Romans 9 shows God responding to the morally responsible choices of his people.
So when my Reformed brothers and sisters point to Romans 9 as the linchpin of their theology, I'm just not convinced. Paul simply isn't talking about individuals being appointed to salvation, and his thinking all seems to assume that God acts based on the response he gets from people. I think the burden is definitely on Reformed readers to demonstrate that Romans 9 has anything to do with their doctrines.
What are your thoughts on this interpretation of Romans 9? Do you agree or disagree, and how do you come to that conclusion?
True
Comments (16)
I agree with this, and I also believe the end of Romans 9 has strongly Arminian themes, so if Reformed theologians point to the beginning, I will happily point them to the end.
If anyone would like to see the my retort (Reformed view) to this please go to Nick's site.
While I have deep feelings about this and believe the Reformed view holds a better explanation and exegesis of these passages I do not wish to do the body of Christ any more harm by fighting or arguing in this forum where non-Christians can see us and be turned off by our behavior.
Great minds have wrestled over this for 2,000 years. it will not be put to rest by anyone here on Xanga.
To God be the glory!
~Michael
The exegesis looks solid. You clearly know the material, and have a grasp of the opposing view. You have written a good post. Now let's hope this post receives some good, reasonable, sane discussion.
I think this is an excellent take on Romans 9. I'm a little skeptical of the interpretation of how God says he hates Esau. But that's irrelevant to the current debate. I think you've clearly shown how God's hardening and saving follow our choices, not the other way around.
Sorry, but nobody believed in free will until the Catholic Papal Bull of 1713 against the Jansenists. Free will is so American...
@Todd - FYI, the issue of Free Will and Predestination is older than scripture itself. In fact, as I mentioned on the other calvinism/free will post on Revelife today, the religious parties were divided by it in Jesus' day. The Sadducees believed entirely in free will, the Essenes thought everything was predetermined from the beginning of time, and the Pharisees were somewhere in the middle. To say that "nobody believed in free will" until 1713 is ignorant of the history of the subject.
BTW, good post. I read a socio-rhetorical commentary by Ben Witherington III that offered a good non-reformed take on Romans. It included many of these same points.
Finally a non Calvinist post! Good insight.
Are you advocating open theology here, or a partly open theology, or what? Just curious to see how far you're willing to carry this logic.
I recommended not because I agree with the post but I think it's all great discussion ;) Well, when done in a right spirit, that is :)
@MC_Shann@xanga - You are so right there!
@WasaiWarrior@xanga - I myself am an open theist, but I think any free-will reading of Romans 9 (Wesleyan, general Arminian or open) is preferable to a determinist reading. Determinist readings work on individual verses, but the larger the scale the more difficulties you face.
When I was an Arminian I believed many of these arguments but in light of God's sovereignty its ultimately impossible to accept them.
Even if Romans 9 were talking *only* about nations and not individuals as well, determinism is still deducible from God's omniscience and sovereignty. And thank God He is totally sovereign and controlling everything, otherwise all of man's decisions would be nonsensical and arbitrary. Justice would be meaningless. Bruce Ware discusses this here in the first 2 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eHjQHMWp1M
Some points to note about Romans 9:
1. Specific individuals are discussed, particularly Pharaoh
2. Paul's reactionary tone indicates that he knows his readers will be shocked by what he's presenting. It seems strange that he would be so defensive if he were only speaking about nations in general and not individuals.
3. If the vessels of wrath and mercy are nations then it makes no sense that Paul in verse 24 suddenly switches to talking about his readers. Obviously he did not consider his readers a nation!
Unfortunately I can't say that the author of this post is a biblical teacher because it is remarkable that one could say that determinists rely on individuals passages whereas open theists rely on the entirety of scripture. The exact opposite it true. Open theism has always relied on "plucked passages" (e.g., God repenting or supposedly changing His mind). God's total sovereignty is presented beginning to end; I don't even know where one would begin in quoting scripture.
Gen 50:19 Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."
Likewise if the Jews "might have" chosen to receive the Messiah then it is not true that His death would have been promised. But God determined beforehand that they would choose to reject Christ and His people redeemed.
Let us study God's word, not vain human philosophy. If God's sovereignty offends you or disturbs you then ask yourself whether the problem is with God, who always does good, or with your lack of trust in Him.
@razzendahcuben@xanga - Well said!
@razzendahcuben@xanga - I didn't mean to represent Romans 9 as only discussing nations. If that came across in my post or comments then I happily take it back. What I intended to say was that Romans 9 only discusses election in terms of people-groups being elected to covenant, as opposed to individuals being elected to salvation. I think a fair Reformed reading of the passage could come to the same conclusion, and as you point out, still retain a Reformed doctrine from other considerations.
I read Ware's God's Lesser Glory not long ago, and wasn't impressed. Thiessen offered a much more balanced critique. I always felt that Ware was pulling in too many extra-biblical philosophical commitments about what deity has to be and reading scripture through those lenses.
Without trying to debate you, I'd at least like to record some responses to your points.
1. I hope I clarified what I meant about individuals/nations in the above paragraph, and in regard to Pharaoh I stand by the standard free-will reading of the exchange (Pharaoh first hardened, and then God hardened). To pluck a relevant passage from its context, it's interesting to note that God at least implied that it might not take all ten plagues to free the Israelites (e.g. Ex. 4:8 "Then the LORD said, "If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first miraculous sign, they may believe the second.")
2. This is a very good point that I considered going into. Paul uses hypothetical interlocutors as a rhetorical device throughout his letters, but especially in Romans. What point of view does that interlocutor represent? Witherington argues (and I don't see how anyone could disagree) that it's a Jewish nationalist, aghast that Paul would teach that God could take mercy on those outside the house of Israel, and conversely could require an ethnic Israelite to justify himself by faith in Christ. If that's the case, it strengthens the argument that Paul is referring here to the extent of God's covenant and not to individual salvific election.
3. I think this is another case where the verse itself seems strongly deterministic, but the surrounding context (especially vv. 25-29) qualifies it sharply. In any case, Paul's summary in verse thirty abolishes the idea that unconditional election of individuals to salvation/damnation is in mind, as he says that Israel stumbled for a reason of their own making, "Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." In chapter eleven Paul points out that they have not stumbled beyond recovery, but they may not continue in their unbelief, and if not, God will graft them onto their olive tree again. I know I'm plucking again, but it's a strong argument that Paul viewed the future as partly open.
I'm sorry if my response to @WasaiWarrior@xanga gave offense. I didn't mean to imply that Reformed thinkers don't work from the whole of scripture, only that in the case of Romans 9, the more of the text you try to incorporate, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a deterministic reading. I presume that why Sproul and Piper both more or less ignore chapter eleven in their treatments.
But now that you bring it up, it's an interesting accusation that open theists don't like to engage with scripture as a whole. John Sanders (admittedly not my favorite exponent of the open view) devotes a full 100 pages to exegesis in The God Who Risks, and while Boyd can be accused of many things, inattention to scripture is not chief among them (see, for instance, Is God To Blame?, which presents an open theist account of pastoral counseling/theodicy).
Contrary to Ware's assessment of the open view, I don't believe any proponent of open theism disbelieves in God's sovereignty. We just don't believe that God needs to exercise meticulous control to still be in control. It is a glorious god who can use the evil intentions of eleven brothers and intend their intentions for good. I'm somewhat less impressed with the god who sins so that grace may more abound.
I just came across this post (3 years old!). What a breath of fresh air to read this. You did a great job explaining this.