Romans 9:6-29

Long passage but belongs together and therefore to be taken as a whole. Undoubtedly one of most difficult passages in whole of Romans and whole of Bible. Paul is justifying God’s ways in relationship to Israel. God’s rejection of Israel is not inconsistent with His purpose, and therefore His Word has not failed. The promises made to Israel were not based on physical descent and national life, but from the first were associated with spiritual blessing. Spiritual Israel was within limits of national Israel. Seen already in Old Testament.

Promises to Israel were to limited portion and not whole of nation. Even Abraham’s natural seed were not automatically in the covenant. Therefore choice of Isaac, and not Ishmael, to be child of promise. Then among the sons of Isaac there was the choice of Jacob rather than Esau. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (9:13), i.e. loved less. This choice was before birth and could not be based on their character or actions. Not a question of personal feeling but deliberate decision in favour of one. Therefore from the first there has always been a distinction within Israel based on God’s sovereignty.

Then considers objection – if promise is restricted to one part of Abraham’s seed and to Christ Jesus, is this not unjust? God forbid (9:14). Paul does not try to explain to human reason, but answers by quotation from Exodus 33:19 I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. God’s mercy is not merely a response to human resolve (him that willeth v16), or human effort (him that runneth v16). His Divine will is the only source of mercy. He is as free to choose and pardon Gentiles as Israel. Jews had no right to God’s mercy just because they were Jews. God had every right to refuse Jew who rejected Gospel.

Pharoah was also proof of God’s sovereignty and freedom in dealings with men. He was free to be severe as well as merciful. Problem here when we read God hardened Pharoah’s heart. N.B. Not mean Pharoah was hardened for mere sake of hardening, because ten times in Exodus it says Pharoah “hardened himself”. Therefore God’s power was seen in the outcome of Pharoah’s hardening of his own heart. I raised thee up (v17) does not mean he was created for the purpose of being hardened, but that God brought him onto the stage of history. Therefore though Pharoah was free in his actions, he was used by God to display His own power. But notice it was Pharoah’s disobedience alone which led to his being hardened. He was not created to be hardened, but he was used as a public example of God’s displeasure at sin.

But here comes another objection – if God is sovereign, why does He find fault with sinners who cannot resist His will? If Pharoah did God’s will, why then was he punished? Paul’s answer shows a reverent attitude towards God to be adopted (not speaking here of men’s freedom and responsibility as he does later on). Creature not to quarrel with creator. Foolish and wicked for men to judge God. God not give His reasons. Be quiet before His sovereignty. Potter has a perfect right over the clay (v.21).

Then Paul’s argument enters realm of human experience. Paul justifies God’s dealing with men as characterised by suffering. Therefore His relationships with men are not fully explained by potter and clay. He illustrates with the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath. N.B. He prepares vessels of mercy, but vessels of wrath are fitted to destruction (v.22), i.e. fitted by themselves through their own sin. Men fit themselves for hell, but it is God who fits them for heaven. C.f. Matthew 25:34 Inherit the kingdom prepared for you. Everlasting fire is prepared (not for you but) for devils and angels. Therefore God is not responsible for sin, only for grace. “All blame to man in damnation, but all praise to God in Salvation”. If man is saved, it is because of God’s grace. If lost, it is his own fault. God bears a long time with vessels of wrath, for he intends to give man long time for repentance (Romans 2:4).

In verses 25-29, the Old Testament foretells the calling of Gentiles and the preservation of the Jewish remnant. (V.25-26 have reference to Gentiles with quotations from Hosea 2:23 and Hosea 1:10. V.27-29 have reference to Jewish remnant with quotations from Isaiah 10:22-23 and Isaiah 1:9). Therefore no proof from the Old Testament that man is saved simply because happened to be a Jew. Hence the rejection of many of Israel, and choice of Gentiles is fulfilment of God’s ancient promises. Therefore in refusing to accept as His sons those Jews who refuse His grace, and in receiving Gentiles who accept Christ, God is acting in accord with the Jewish Scriptures.

In conclusion, these verses are only part of Paul’s argument in chapters 9-11. So far he has seen matter only from God’s side. Human aspect follows. It is beyond our power to reconcile God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Much is hidden from us, e.g. why Jacob, and not Esau, was chosen. Throughout, Paul rebukes human presumption and pride. God is God. Yet though God’s choice is independent of descent and merit, it is not to be forgotten that He has mercy on those who return to the Lord. Let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him (Isaiah 55:7).

God hardened Pharoah, who had already hardened himself against God. Also, men are fully responsible. They are lost, not because they are not chosen, but because of sin and refusal of grace. Calvin taught double decree. But Augustine said “However little we can understand it, man’s sin is the only cause of his ruin, but special grace is the only cause of his salvation.”