Debunking Calvinism — Romans 9

I've always known that one day as a passionate anti-Calvinist Christian, I'll learn enough to feel confident to exegete Romans 9 verse by verse. Romans 9 in my view is by far the most twisted passage by many Protestants who often identify as Calvinist, but not all of them. Some of them steer clear from this label and call themselves Biblicist or simply Christian, even though what they believe and teach is ultimately what John Calvin believed and taught. In short, Calvinists believe that God picks Jacob, but not Esau, Isaac, but not Ishmael, you, but not your neighbour, etc, etc, for salvation before you're even born or have done anything good or bad. They believe this mostly based on their understanding of Romans 9 and specifically based on verses 10-13 where Paul says:

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

While I commend their zeal for God and their commitment to the Bible so far as to even believe in such an obviously evil theology, just as I commend the zeal of radical Muslims who join terrorist groups like ISIS to shed the blood of others and themselves for the sake of their god, I'm sorry to tell them both that they're in serious error. But this type of emotional appeal does not work on such people who only care about what the scripture says or what God says. Which is why I'm always passionate to learn more about the scriptures in order to be able to argue with such people and perhaps convince them that they're wrong.

Romans 9 is the bread and butter passage for Calvinists. It's where they go when everything else seems to fail, especially when they're confronted with anti-Calvinists who do not believe that true believers can "lose" their salvation. In other words, believers like me who are said to adhere to the P of TULIP in some form, which stands for the perseverance of the saints. This view I believe is very Biblical and as apostle John said in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." or as Hebrews 10:39 says, "But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved." Having said that, let's jump straight to Romans 9 to see what Paul is trying to tell us.

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Paul starts this chapter by expressing his anguish and hurt feelings towards his own people, aka the people of Israel. There is nothing to dispute in the first paragraph up to verse 5 other than an interesting verse in which Paul wishes that he himself was cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his people. This type of sacrifice that Paul wishes to show towards his people does not seem to sit very well with the type of god that Calvinists believe in. If one was honest, they would have to conclude that Paul has more love towards the lost than the god of Calvinists who admittedly is indeed inspiring the very scriptures that are being written by Paul. This I believe is a tremendous conundrum for Calvinists who do not believe that God desires literally all men to be saved. In the traditional view however, the impossibility of the fulfilment of this desire due to man's freedom of choice and will does not create such a conundrum.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

I believe verse 6 is very important here because it sets out the picture of what Paul is trying to explain in this chapter. Paul says that God's word hasn't failed and he goes on to explain why or how. The first question we should ask is why would someone think that God's word has failed in the first place? Paul seems to think that the rejection of Christ by Israel might make someone think that God's word has failed, which is why he expresses his anguish over the matter right before verse 6. He goes on by saying that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Now we need to ask what the first and second Israel here refer to? I think everyone would agree that the first Israel refers to Jacob while the second Israel refers to the spiritual Israel. Or could the second Israel refer to the seed of Abraham, in other words Christ? Paul makes a very beautiful case about this seed in Galatians 3 and goes on about how it's a singular word and not plural and therefore, it refers to one person, who is Christ . Back to Romans 9, Paul goes on by saying that not everyone who's a child of Jacob is considered to be the seed or offspring of Abraham. This understanding of what Paul is saying here is very important, because Calvinists think that Paul is talking about individual salvations, and then goes on by saying that Isaac or Jacob were chosen to be saved before they were even born or had done anything good or bad, while Ishmael or Esau were doomed from the womb! But that is not even remotely close to what Paul seems to have in his mind. Paul is clearly talking about whether God's promise, or God's word, or Abraham's seed or in other words, Christ, has failed or not. Therefore, he goes on by saying that Abraham's seed was said to be reckoned through Isaac, and not through any of the other children that Abraham had.

8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

In verse 8, Paul switches around to explain the relationship between believers and this singular seed and how they get to become part of this single seed. He talks about this in Galatians 3:29, by saying that if you belong to Christ, who he claims to be Abraham's single seed in Galatians 3:16, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. In other words, although Abraham's seed is one person, who is Christ, others can become part of this seed by believing in Him and going from being in Adam or belonging to Adam, to being in Christ or belonging to Christ. Therefore, becoming a child of God has nothing to do with who your grand daddy is! This is the major point that Paul is making here. He goes back to the promise again by referring to how God prophesied to Sarah that she's going to have a son.

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Paul goes on by saying that this promise continued on as it had to until the actual seed who is Christ would later come into the world. This time he refers to the election of Jacob over Esau. He says that this election had nothing to do with either Jacob or Esau, and it was decided before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad. In other words, God's promise or word does not depend on whether His chosen people are good or bad, otherwise it might fail! He then refers to a verse from Malachi which is about God taking the side of Jacob, or the Israelis, over Esau or the Edomites, almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau are born, in a war in which Edom, or the Edomites are attacking Jacob, or Israel. It's noteworthy that in those days nations were commonly referred to by their patriarchal head. Based on the context of this passage in the Tanakh, this election is about nations and not individuals ie. Jacob, or the nation of Israel vs. Esau, or the nation of Edom.

In Genesis 25:23, God Himself says to Rebekkah that two nations are in her womb and that the older will serve the younger which is what Paul is quoting here. It's also about election for service and not election for salvation. In other words, since Christ or Abraham's seed is going to come into the world through Jacob, or the nation of Israel, God is going to love and protect this nation even against Esau, or the nation of Edom, or the Edomites, who are basically their brothers! And that's essentially what's going on in the context of Malachi where God takes the side of Israel and defends Israel against the attack from their brothers, the Edomites. Therefore, this has nothing to do with individual salvations, but rather everything to do with how God's promise or word hasn't failed. It's also noteworthy to mention that the word "hate" here should not be taken literally, because it's idiomatic. To choose someone or something over someone or something else, idiomatically leads to loving the former and hating the latter. By choosing Jacob over Esau, who would become the nation of Israel through which the Messiah would later come into the world, God has idiomatically loved Jacob and hated Esau. This however does not in any way mean that Esau was doomed from the womb. Another thing that is worthy to mention is that this verse is written almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau were born and after God loves and protects Jacob(Israel) against Esau(Edom), their brothers! God literally loves Jacob, and hates Esau for attacking Israel as expressed in Malachi. Therefore, the original "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." which is in Malachi 1, revealed almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau were born, when Israel is being attacked by the Edomites, is indeed a literal hate which is conditional, in the sense that God has to protect Israel for the sake of His promise or word, even against their brothers, the Edomites, while it's unconditional, in the sense that God would do the same for Esau or Edom if He had chosen them to carry the lineage of Christ, instead of Israel.

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

The important question we should ask here is who is the objector in Paul's mind? Is it an anti-Calvinist who is objecting to God for choosing to save Jacob and damn Esau, before they're even born or have done anything good or bad? Or is it an Israeli who's been cut off and is objecting to God for showing mercy to Gentiles while rejecting His chosen nation, Israel? Or could it be a third party observer here who takes issue with God's unconditional election of Jacob or the nation of Israel over Esau or the nation of Edom, to carry the lineage of Christ, and therefore gives them special privileges or provides them with extended mercy and grace, such as taking their side when there is a war between them and their brothers, the Edomites? I believe it's most likely the third case, however it could also be the second case; either way Paul says not at all, and goes on by quoting from Exodus 33:19 saying that as it is written, God will have mercy and compassion on whoever He wants!

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

The first word "it" in verse 16 here is key. We need to ask ourselves what does "it" in this verse refer to? Does it refer to the salvation of individuals such as Jacob over Esau? Or does it refer to God's promise or word not failing? This is why I previously said that verse 6 in this chapter is very important. Anyone who's been following can tell that "it" in verse 16 refers to God's promise or word not failing, because it does not depend on human desire or effort but on God's mercy! This is where Calvinists error again and treat "it" in verse 16 as if it refers to individual salvations such as the salvation of Jacob over Esau. But that is not the case and this is why Paul immediately goes to Pharaoh's example of how he was hardened by God in his rebellion in order for God to accomplish a greater purpose through him. Calvinists often think that the phrase "I raised you up" somehow means like a parent raising up their child, but that is not what it means here. In fact, many translations translate this verse as "I spared you". NLT says, "But I have spared you for a purpose—to show you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth." Furthermore, no single Jewish commentary that I've read so far interprets Exodus 9:16 the way Calvinists understand it. Paul concludes by saying that God has mercy on whoever He wants to have mercy and He hardens whoever He wants to harden, and that is how His promise or word cannot fail. I believe that even Calvinists would agree that the hardening of Pharaoh or anyone else in the scriptures has always been what is known as "judicial hardening." In other words, God never hardens someone unless they harden themselves first.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Another hypothetical objector here! We need to ask ourselves again whether he's an anti-Calvinist who is objecting to God blaming them for perhaps not believing in Calvinism, even though they can't resist His will, or is it referring to the Pharaohs of the time who have been hardened by God in their rebellion, just like Pharaoh in his rebellion, in order to accomplish a greater purpose, which in this case would be the crucifixion of Christ for the sins of the world? I think anyone who's been following should be able to tell by now that it's definitely the latter. In other words, just as God hardened Pharaoh in his rebellion to accomplish the first Passover which was just a shadow, He has now hardened Israel and even some Gentiles such as Pilate, in their rebellion, in order to accomplish the real Passover. It's also noteworthy to refer to Jeremiah 18 where the concept of God being the Potter and us being His clay is first introduced long before Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Paul responds to the objector by asking him who he thinks he is to question God, aka the Potter? The reason Jeremiah 18 is important to remember here is because unlike what Calvinists teach, the clay in Jeremiah 18 actually gets to choose what kind of a pot, the Potter makes with them! Make sure you read this passage for yourself if you haven't already. And if Calvinists do believe in judicial hardening, they too would agree that God never hardens people unless they harden themselves first. Not only that, Paul himself uses a similar language in 2 Timothy 2:20-21, and as we can see there as well, the pots have a choice! In verse 20-21 he says, "In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work." Therefore, the objector in Romans 9:19 is not an anti-Calvinist.

22 What if God, although choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Here Paul is hypothesising about everything he's been saying so far. He says what if God has been patient and has spared the Pharaohs of our time who are prepared in advance, for destruction? In other words, people who God has given up on their salvation because of the hardness of their hearts, yet has spared and hardened them in their rebellion, a concept known as judicial hardening, for accomplishing a greater purpose through them. What if He did this to make Himself known to the objects of His mercy whom He has prepared in advance for glory? Not only people like us from the Jews, but also people like you guys from the Gentiles? Now Calvinists might say, "Hang on a minute, did you just say prepared in advance? Isn't that predestination before the foundation of the world? Isn't that what we believe? You can't say that!" The answer is no. Preparing in advance for glory or destruction does not have to mean predestining individuals before they're even born or have done anything good or bad. That is a non-sequitur which is natural to think if you're a Calvinist or hold to deterministic presuppositions. I would argue that given the concept and doctrine of judicial hardening, the preparing of objects for destruction must take place at a time when the objects are not only born and alive, but also hardened by themselves through their own choosing. This makes sense of passages like Jeremiah 18 as well as 2 Timothy 2:20-21 in both of which the pots are made by the potter through their own choosing!

25 As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” 27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For the Lord will carry out His sentence on earth with speed and finality.” 29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.”

Paul then quotes from a few passages in the Tanakh to support his claims. I don't think any of these passages are at dispute and in fact, Calvinists often stop reading when they get to verse 25 which I always find amusing, because right after these passages, Paul summarises what he's been saying by his favourite, "What then shall we say?" statement, and his conclusion here which is actually about soteriology, is far from John Calvin's theology, which further proves the point of how wrong Calvinists are in understanding Romans 9. According to Paul's conclusion, the reason that Gentiles are believing the gospel while Israel is rejecting it, is not because God has predestined them to, but rather because of the whole faith vs. works dichotomy which Paul has been tapping into in the previous chapters of his letter to the Romans. He concludes that the people of Israel have stumbled over the stumbling stone as prophesied by Isaiah, because they have been pursuing the Law not by faith, but as if it were by works.

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”