Israel’s Rejection Considered, 1-29

9:1  I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit—9:2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed—cut off from Christ—for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, 9:4 who are Israelites.

‘In Romans 9–11 Paul presents a sustained theological argument to solve the problem of Israel which was raised in the first eight chapters of the letter. That problem is as follows: although the gospel is to the Jew first (Rom 1:16), most of Israel is closed to the gospel (Rom 10:16) and therefore has not received salvation (cf. Hofius, 175–78). Has God’s promise to Abraham and his seed been annulled (Rom 9:6)? Has God rejected his people (Rom 11:1–2)? These are the questions which, as an Israelite motivated by supreme love for his people (cf. Rom 9:2–3), Paul seeks to answer in this section, showing that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).’ (DPL, art. ‘Restoration of Israel’)

Wright (Paul and the faithfulness of God) remarks that if Romans is primarily about God, this is no more so than in the present chapter (and ch 11).  Here we are confronted with ‘God’s word, God’s children, God’s promise, God’s purpose in election, God’s call, God’s love (and hatred), God’s justice (or injustice), God’s mercy, God’s power, God’s name, God’s sovereignty, God’s will, God’s rights as the potter over the clay, God’s wrath and power, God’s patience, God’s glory and God’s people.’

‘After showing that God’s redemptive action in and through Christ (Rom 1-4) has brought freedom from condemnation (Rom 5), sin (Rom 6), law (Rom 7) and death (Rom 8), Paul brings this part of his letter to a climax with a magnificent description of God’s love in Christ from which nothing can separate us. This glorious doxology is abruptly overshadowed in Rom 9:1-2 by an expression of Paul’s deep pain over the fact that Israel, the people of God, had rejected their Messiah.’ (HSB)

‘The lack of a word or phrase to connect ch. 8 with ch. 9 suggests that there is a pause in Paul’s argument at this point. With the celebration of God’s unchangeable love for Christians (Rom 8:31-39) the climax of his argument to this point has been reached. But it is just this assertion of the certain fulfilment of God’s promises to Christians that leads Paul now to raise the question of God’s promises to Israel. Vs 1-3 show that this question was an intensely emotional one for him. For Paul never lost his sense of identification with his fellow-Jews. He therefore experiences great sorrow and unceasing anguish over those who are from the standpoint of the flesh (kata sarka) his ‘kinsmen’ and brothers (2-3). Although Paul does not tell us why he feels so badly about his fellow-Jews, the parallel in 10:1 makes clear that it is because the great majority of Jews are not saved; for they have refused to believe in Jesus Christ (cf. 9:30-10:21). So strongly does Paul feel this, like Moses before him, (Ex 32:31-34) he is willing to sacrifice his own salvation for the sake of the salvation of his fellow-Jews. The strength of Paul’s assertion (cf. also v 1) suggests that he may have been aware of some Jews who doubted his concern for his ‘kinsmen according to the flesh’.’ (NBC)

Most scholars today believe that Rom 9-11 is not an excursus but rather is the discussion Paul had been preparing for since his argument that Jew and Gentile alike are under sin and condemnation (Rom 1:18-3:20).

‘In his discussion of the fate of the Jews in Romans 9-11 Paul quotes from Isaiah no fewer than eleven times (Rom 9:29 = Isa 1:9; Rom 9:27-28 = Isa 10:22-23; Rom 11:26-27 = Isa 27:9; Rom 11:8 = Isa 29:10; Rom 11:34 = Isa 40:13; Rom 10:15 = Isa 52:7; Rom 11:26-27 = Isa 59:20-21; Rom 10:20 = Isa 65:1; Rom 10:21 = Isa 65:2). These references point both to Israel’s propensity to sin and to God’s determination to deliver them.’ (NDBT)

‘C. H. Dodd long ago recognized the special nature of Romans 9-11, suggesting that it was an independent source, possibly a sermon which was inserted by Paul into the letter. Certainly the fact that it is possible to read from Rom 8:38 to 12:1 without a discernible break in thought lends weight to this suggestion. However, many Pauline interpreters feel that Romans 9-11 is an integral part of the overall argument of the letter and do not feel the interpolation approach is warranted. The problem of the fate of the Jewish nation lies at the heart of this section of the letter, but this is anticipated earlier in the letter (as in Rom 3:1-8 and the Abraham image in Rom 4:1-25). Insofar as the section is concerned with the future fate of the Jewish nation, in light of their rejection of Jesus Christ as Messiah, it deals with eschatological matters.’ (DPL)

In many cultures, including our own, we would be tempted to think that a person ‘protesteth too much’ with such an insistence that he is telling the truth. This is just one of the many issues that arise when translating from one culture to another, and illustrates one of the pitfalls of literal translation. A translation that paid attention to Paul’s meaning, rather than to his actual choice of words, might render this verse, ‘I am telling the truth.’

v2 For similar sorrow on the part of our Lord, see Mt 23:27-29.

To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

‘Paul here recognizes and enumerates the great external privileges belonging to the Jews, which aggravated his profound sorrow, on account of their rejection of the Messiah, and their consequent deplorable condition.’ (Haldane)

The people of Israel – he calls them Israelites, rather than Jews, in order to emphasise God’s historical dealings with them.

The adoption as sons – the adoption of the nation as the people of God, Ex 4:22; Deut 7:6; 14:1; Ho 11:1.

Theirs the divine glory – ‘The shekinah or kaboth occurs again and again in Israel’s history. It was the divine splendour of light which descended when God was visiting his people. (Ex 16:10; Ex 24:16-17; Ex 29:43; Ex 33:18-22) Israel had seen the glory of God and yet had rejected him. To us it has been given to see the glory of God’s love and mercy in the face of Jesus Christ; it is a terrible thing if we then choose the ways of earth.’ (DSB)

From them is traced the human ancestry of Christ – This is the culmination. ‘All else had been a preparation for this; and yet when he came they rejected him. The biggest grief a man can have is to give his child every chance of success, to sacrifice and save and toil to give him the opportunity, and then to find that the child, through his disobedience or rebelliousness or self-indulgence, has failed to grasp it. Therein lies tragedy, for therein is the waste of love’s labour and the defeat of love’s dream. The tragedy of Israel was that God had prepared her for the day of the coming of his Son—and all the preparation was frustrated. It was not that God’s law had been broken; it was that God’s love had been spurned. It is not the anger, but the broken heart of God, which lies behind Paul’s words.’ (DSB)

In this impressive list of privileges, there is one notable omission: there is no mention of the land.

Christ, who is God over all – This translation is, according to Moo (NBC) ‘probably correct’, and this passage is, accordingly, one of the few in the NT in which Christ is explicitly called ‘God’. In this case, Paul is in this verse paying dual attention both to the human and to the divine natures of Christ. The alternative translation would place a full stop of ‘Christ’, making a separate exclamation of praise of ‘God over all, forever praised! Amen.’ So RSV and, predictably, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, the argument is not settled by reference to punctuation in the original, for there was none. What we can say is, (a) the majority of the early church Fathers understood the verse as is it translated in the NIV (and AV); (b) the word order is not such as we would expect to find in a doxology. In a doxology, eulogetes (blessed) would come at the very beginning of the sentence, as in Eph 1:3.

Christ is not just the Jewish Messiah, he is ‘God over all’.

This Christ-centred ascription of glory, coming here in the context of a lament, is matched by the monotheistic celebration of Rom 11:33-36.

6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, 9:7 nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” 9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants.

Wright suggests ‘that Rom 9:6–29 is parallel, within Paul’s overall design, to Rom 11:1–32. This is not just a matter of loose structure. There are numerous thematic parallels as well, ideas which are absent in Rom 9:30–10:13. Both passages have to do with the patriarchs¬ and the promises God made to them. Both stress the ‘call’ of God, the ‘mercy’ of God and the fact that neither are dependent upon ‘works’. Both insist upon the ‘patience’ of God, while emphasizing God’s activity in ‘hardening’ people. Both highlight the ‘remnant’, albeit in perhaps a slightly different sense. Both, interestingly, use the word ‘Israel’ in more than one way.’

It is not as though God’s word had failed – ‘God’s word’ here is usually taken to mean roughly ‘the gospel’ (as in 1 Cor. 2:1; 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; Col. 1:25; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:9), or ‘God’s promises’.

‘Jewish unbelief at the present time does not mean, Paul asserts, that God’s promises to his people have failed because (i) God had never promised to save every single Jew (Rom 9:6b-29); (ii) the Jews are themselves responsible for failing to believe (Rom 9:30-10:21); (iii) God’s promises to Israel are even now being fulfilled in a remnant, of Jewish Christians (Rom 11:1-10); and (iv) God will yet save all Israel (Rom 11:12-32).’ (Moo, NBC)

‘The non-inclusion of part of Israel is attributed by Paul both to God’s predestination and to Israel’s failure. (Rom 9:6-29) In Paul’s thought these elements are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive. Israel’s fault is that most Israelites of Paul’s time did not put their faith in Jesus Christ. He had become a stumbling stone to them. (Rom 9:30-10:4) The reason for this failure to accept Christ has traditionally been regarded as “a self-righteous attitude on the part of Jews.” “They sought to establish their own righteousness” (Rom 10:3) has been understood to mean that Jews thought that righteousness could be achieved by their own effort, that is, by good works. Hence those who made that effort presumed they had succeeded and became self-righteous as a result. They had a zeal but a mistaken zeal. (Rom 10:2) E. P. Sanders in particular has written much to correct this general view of the fault of Israel. He argues that zeal as such is not wrong. They did not err in seeking righteousness but they sought the wrong kind of righteousness-righteousness “of their own” in the sense that it was a righteousness peculiar to Jews as a people and the righteousness of a former dispensation prior to the coming of faith (in Jesus Christ). The fault of this righteousness is its exclusivity and the “coming of faith” means that God’s salvation is open to everyone who has faith, whether Jew or Gentile; there is no distinction. (Rom 10:12) It seems therefore that Paul’s gospel was an offense to many Jews who failed to understand and/or acknowledge the new day that had dawned in Jesus Christ. They saw Paul’s work and message as an absolute threat to the future and well-being of Israel and they opposed it bitterly as a result. But Paul did not perceive it thus-he sees the coming of Christ as confirmation, (Rom 4:16) of the promises made to Abraham and as an extension of the covenant to include believing Gentiles along with the believing in Israel. He refuses to regard Israel as “rejected” but only as temporarily hardened by God until the full number of the Gentiles comes into the kingdom.’ (DPL)

According to Wright, Paul is specifically addressing Gentiles here: ‘Do not imagine that your inheritance of Israel’s promises means that you can discount their history, their scriptures, their very election. On the   p 1187  contrary, their entire story stands firm, makes sense in its own terms and is the foundation of yours as well.’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God)

Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel – Lit. ‘For not all from Israel are Israel.’

Paul distinguishes here between ethnic Israel and the ‘true’ Israel.  Cf. Rom 2:28-29.

Flavel: ‘If Abraham’s faith be not in your hearts, it will be no advantage that Abraham’s blood runs in your veins.’

Or, as Wright puts it, as in Rom 3:21-4:25 and Gal 3:3, it is a matter of ‘grace, not race’.

But what does Paul means by the ‘true Israel’ here?  Two main options are available:-

1. the remnant within ethnic Israel who have true faith.  Moo supports this interpretation, stating that using ‘Israel’ to mean ‘the church’ is rare in Paul (perhaps only in Gal 6:16).  Sanday & Headlam: ‘St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel.’  Murray  concurs, stating that, for Paul, ‘there is a [true] “Israel ” within ethnic Israel.’

2. all believers, both Jews and Gentiles.  This would be consistent with Paul’s teaching in Gal 6:16, and with his redefinition of ‘Jew’ in Rom 2:28f.  De Lacey (DPL) notes that in Galatians Paul develops ‘a sustained argument that his converts already enjoy all the blessings of the covenant—they are already children of Abraham (Gal 3:7, 28–29)…In Galatians then—almost certainly one of the earliest extant letters of Paul—we already see…a deep conviction about the nature of the church as the true Israel of God, with Jew and Gentile on equal standing before God and to each other.’  De Lacey add that ‘within this perspective it is more likely than not that in Romans 11:26 Paul reiterates his redefinition of “all Israel” (cf. Rom 9:6) as a new people in Christ, wherein is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28).’  This interpretation is consistent with Rom 4:16, where Paul says that Abraham’s offspring is anyone who shares Abraham’s faith.  So also Ridderbos, Grudem, Robertson, and some others.

Wright says: ‘We would not know, on the basis of the present passage alone, that Paul had in mind that the sperma Abraam would include Messiah-believing Gentiles, as he insists in chapter 4 and indeed in Galatians 3. He has the soft pedal on at the moment, hitting the same notes but keeping the overtones quiet. But they are there, ready to be reawakened when the music changes key, fleetingly in Rom 9:24 and then, spectacularly, in Rom 9:30–10:13.’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God)

This interpretation is also supported later in the present chapter, when Paul asserts ‘that the people of God, the true Israel, is also extended to include Gentiles (Rom 9:24); taking promises from Hosea (Hos 1:10; 2:23), which in their OT setting referred only to the future of the nation Israel, Paul applies them to the Church (Rom. 9:25f.). Those who were “not my people”—Gentiles—have now become “my people,” “sons of the living God,” by inclusion in the Church. In a real sense, then, the OT promises to Israel are fulfilled in this new definition of the people of God, the Church.’ (ISBE, 2nd ed. art. ‘Eschatology’)

Nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants – ‘that is, ethnic lineage does not guarantee you are part of the people of God. (Note how close this is to John’s teaching in Matt 3.9, and Jesus’ in John 8.39).’ (Ian Paul)

As Ian Paul observes, Paul is recapitulating his earlier argument.  In Rom 1-3 has has concluded that both Gentiles (ch. 1) and Jews (chs. 2-3) are guilty before God.  This is summed up in Rom 3:23 – ‘for all have sinned’ (both gentile and Jew).  In Rom 2:28f Paul distinguishes between a person who is a Jew only outwardly, and one who is a Jew inwardly.

Grudem (Systematic Theology) says: ‘Paul here implies that the true children of Abraham, those who are in the most true sense “Israel,” are not the nation of Israel by physical descent from Abraham but those who have believed in Christ. Those who truly believe in Christ are now the ones who have the privilege of being called “my people” by the Lord (Rom. 9:25, quoting Hos. 2:23); therefore, the church is now God’s chosen people. This means that when Jewish people according to the flesh are saved in large numbers at some time in the future, they will not constitute a separate people of God or be like a separate olive tree, but they will be “grafted back into their own olive tree” (Rom. 11:24). Another passage indicating this is Galatians 3:29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Similarly, Paul says that Christians are the “true circumcision” (Phil. 3:3).’

v7 ‘He shows them, from their own writings, that the principle of election had existed in former times-in the case of Isaac, (Rom 9:7-13) in the writings of Moses, (Rom 9:15) in the case of Pharaoh, (Rom 9:17) and in the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah,’ (Rom 9:25-29) (Barnes)

‘The Jewish people prided themselves in the fact that God had chosen Israel and had not chosen the Gentiles. Part of this theme is picked up in the argument in Rom 9:7-13. While Abraham had more than one son, God chose Isaac as the one through whom the promise would be passed down. Isaac also has more than one son, but God chose Jacob and not Esau. Any Jewish reader would nod affirmingly, especially if he or she had not read the opening verse: (Rom 9:6) “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (RSV). Paul’s reason for arguing this is not to prove that God could choose the Hebrew people for his purposes and reject others. All Jews knew this. Paul is pointing out that if this is the case, God can also choose some Jews and reject others. Paul is using the Jews’ own teaching against their national complacency.’ (HSB)

9:9 For this is what the promise declared: “About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son.” 9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac—9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)—9:12  it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” 9:13 just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

But Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac – Moo thinks that this should be translated, ‘…but also Rebecca, when she conceived children in one act of intercourse with Isaac, our ancestor’.  Paul’s point (according to Moo) is not simply that Jacob and Esau had the same father (as did Isaac and Ishamael, who were both Abraham’s children), but that they were twins.  ‘Paul would then be highlighting the utter lack of natural distinguishing characteristics separating Jacob and Esau.’

v11 ‘The Jewish people also prided themselves on their adherence to the Mosaic law. Surely God would reward their careful observance with salvation; surely he would not select Gentiles for salvation when the Jews were so much more righteous. Paul argues that this is not the case. In the opening parts of the book he has argued that there is no one who is righteous, so no one has a claim on God’s salvation. Any salvation which people get is mercy and grace, not just deserts. Now in this chapter he goes out of his way to point out that God’s choice in the case of Isaac and Jacob was not based on their character. It was made before they developed their character. It does not help to argue that God knew what sort of people they would become, for that would be to deny what Paul is arguing. He is arguing that God simply chose.’ (HSB)

Not by works – ‘God’s choice not only came before they had done anything but also was not based on anything they had done.’ (Moo)

Contra Dunn, who understands ‘works’ here to refer to ‘works of the law’ (i.e. ‘faithfulness to the law’), this expression should be understood as referring to ‘deeds’ of any kind.  For one thing, Paul was well aware that Jacob and Esau lived long before the giving of Mosaic law (cf Gal 3:17).  For another thing, Paul has already virtually defined ‘works’ as ‘anything good or bad’ (v11).

v13 ‘In a discussion of election and predestination, questions about Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:13) arise, as do questions about God “hardening Pharaoh’s heart.” (Rom 9:17-18) These verses could be interpreted to mean that God beforehand had planned things out without any regard for human response. The worst scenario would suggest that God had taken a nice young Egyptian prince and turned him into a monster. Rom 9:13 could mean that God really hated Esau and played favorites among his children. I do not believe this is the proper way to understand these passages. Paul, their human author, is looking back. Interpretations are easier after the fact. Whereas God is no respecter of persons whom he has created, he does not violate the free will he gave to humankind. God works with it. A better interpretation of these passages is to say that God used what Esau and Pharaoh had become. Esau, a compulsive man who sought instant gratification of his desires, would not be the kind of person who becomes a patriarch. Pharaoh, a ruthless man, God confirmed and judged as an oppressor; Pharaoh’s harsh and cruel acts were punished. In that punishment God received glory to himself, even out of Pharaoh’s disobedience.’ (Holman, art. ‘Predestination’)

Belleville (DPL, art. ‘Enemy, Enmity, Hatred’) writes: ‘Did God determine before the birth of either nation to love the one and hate the other? Some think that the word “hate” is an instance of the Semitic use of a direct opposite to express a lesser degree of comparison: “God loved Jacob more than Esau.” But this does not take into account the overarching theme in Romans 9 of God’s sovereign choosing and rejecting. Others have taken “hate” at face value to refer to God’s intense animosity toward and ultimate condemnation of Esau/Edom. This, however, overlooks the intimate link in Romans 9:12–13 between “the older serving the younger” and God’s hatred of Esau (“as it is written, Esau I hated”). The solution surely lies in seeing that Paul’s overall argument in Romans 9:1–29 has to do with corporate “election” and “rejection” based on promise as opposed to natural descent. Here the very act of choosing the one (= “love”) by default results in rejecting the other (= “hate”). That “hate” can be used of the rejection implicit in the action of choosing one party over another is well illustrated by Matthew 4:24, where to choose between two masters is to “love” the one and “hate” the other, and by Luke 14:26, where to choose to follow Christ is effectively “to hate father and mother.”’

9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 9:15 For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 9:16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 9:18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.

‘Paul’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God in salvation raises certain objections, as he well knew from many years of preaching. Paul deals with two of these in this section. Is not God unfair to choose some and reject others (v14)? And how can people be blamed for rejecting God if he himself determines that rejection (v19)? Such questions are our natural response to the biblical teaching about God’s sovereignty. It is significant that Paul here offers no ‘logical’ explanation for the compatibility of God’s sovereignty with the equally biblical teaching that God is scrupulously fair and that human beings are justifiably blameworthy for their actions. We would do well to follow his approach: to affirm the truth of these great biblical doctrines without eliminating or weakening one or the other through an insistence on an exhaustive explanation. This is a point at which, with Paul, (cf. Rom 11:33-36) we should be prepared to recognize a mystery beyond our comprehension.’ (Moo, NBC)

He says to Moses – Ex 33:19.

‘Paul’s way of defending God’s justice is to proclaim his mercy. It sounds like a complete non sequitur. But it is not. It simply indicates that the question itself is misconceived, because the basis on which God deals savingly with sinners is not justice but mercy v16.’ (Stott)

Samuel Davies: “The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the great and only remedy for a ruined country- the only effectual preventative of national calamities and desolation, and the only sure cause of a lasting and well established peace.”

‘If justice be thy plea, remember this: that, in the course of justice, none of us should see salvation.’ (The Merchant of Venice, Act 4 scene 1)

‘Sinners have no claim upon God. He does not owe us anything; or if he does, it is only punishment for our sins. Therefore, those whom God passes by are condemned by his strict justice. The real mystery of salvation is not that God rejects some, which is perfectly just, but that he chooses any at all, which is sheer mercy.’ (Ryken, The Message of Salvation, 71)

Calvin:

‘Paul deduces from this statement the incontrovertible conclusion that our election is to be attributed neither to our diligence, zeal, nor efforts, but is to be ascribed entirely to the counsel of God. Let no one think that those who are elected are chosen because they are deserving, or because they have in any way won for themselves the favour of God, or even because they possessed a grain of worthiness by which God might be moved to act. The simple view which we are to take is that our being counted among the elect is independent either of our will or [of] our efforts.… It is rather to be attributed wholly to the divine goodness, which freely takes those who neither will to achieve, nor strive for, nor even think of such a thing.’

See Ex 9:16.

‘Paul knew that the OT spoke not only of God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 4:21; 7:3,4,13; 9:12,15-17,34-35; 10:1,20,27; 11:9,10) but also of Pharaoh hardening his own heart, (Ex 8:15,32; 9:34; 1 Sam 6:6) thus making him responsible for the sins he committed. That God could work his will in and through the acts of humans in such a way that his will was done and yet the human will was not violated, coerced or ignored is fundamental to biblical thinking. (See, e.g., Pr 16:1,4,9,33.’ (EDBT)

‘Pharaoh did not arise by chance or by his own power, but God had raised him up. Why would God raise up such an obstinate ruler? So that God’s power could be clearly seen when he brought about the exodus. Pharaoh’s hardening was part of God’s plan for God’s own purposes.’ (HSB)

‘This passage is designed to illustrate the doctrine that God shows mercy according to his sovereign pleasure by a reference to one of the most extraordinary cases of hardness of heart which has ever occurred. The design is to show that God has a right to pass by those to whom he does not choose to show mercy; and to place them in circumstances where they shall develop their true character, and where in fact they shall become more hardened and be destroyed, Rom 9:18.’ (Barnes)

‘The meaning of the word and the truth of the case may be expressed in the following particulars:

1. God meant to accomplish some great purposes by his existence and conduct.
2. He kept him, or sustained him, with reference to that.
3. He had control over the haughty and wicked monarch. He could take his life, or he could continue him on earth. As he had control over all things that could affect the pride, the feelings, and the happiness of the monarch, so he had control over the monarch himself.
4. He placed him in circumstances just fitted to develop his character. He kept him amidst those circumstances until his character was fully developed.
5. He did not exert a positive influence on the mind of Pharaoh; for,
6. in all this the monarch acted freely. He did that which he chose to do. He pursued his own course. He was voluntary in his schemes of oppressing the Israelites. He was voluntary in his opposition to God. He was voluntary when he pursued the Israelites to the Red Sea. In all his doings he acted as he chose to do, and with a determined choice of evil, from which neither warning nor judgment would turn him away. Thus he is said to have hardened his own heart, Ex 8:15.
7. Neither Pharaoh nor any sinner can justly blame God for placing them in circumstances where they shall develop their own character, and show what they are. It is not the fault of God, but their own fault. The sinner is not compelled to sin; nor is God under obligation to save him contrary to the prevalent desires and wishes of the sinner himself.’ (Barnes)

He hardens whom he wants to harden – ‘Neither here not anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself.’ (Morris)

Stott adds, ‘So God’s hardening of him was a judicial act, abandoning him to his own stubbornness, much as God’s wrath against the ungodly is expressed by “giving them over” to their own depravity, Rom 1:24,26,28. The same combination of human obstinacy and divine judgement in the hardening of the heart is seen in God’s word to Isaiah (“Make the heart of this people calloused” Isa 6:9f), which Jesus applied to his own teaching ministry, Mt 13:13ff; Mk 4:11-12; Jn 12:39-40, and Paul to his, Acts 28:25 ff.’

‘Neither the bestowal of God’s mercy nor his hardening are based on human actions (although it should be remembered that God acts on people who are already lost in sin and that his exclusion of some from salvation is in some sense simply a confirmation of the choice they have already made). It should also be remembered that God’s decisions on these matters are not disclosed to us and that they are not meant in any way to cause despair. The Scriptures make plain that God will never refuse to accept, or cast away, those who diligently seek him.’ (Moo, NBC)

9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” 9:20 But who indeed are you—a mere human being—to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?

“Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” (Rom 9:19) This objection surely proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Apostle has been teaching that salvation is entirely the result of the sovereign will and election of God and nothing to do with us at all. There is nothing new in this objection to this doctrine. People were objecting to it in the first century and they have been objecting to it ever since. It has nothing to do with modern learning, modern knowledge, modern science—nothing at all. People have always done it. (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones)

Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? – As Bruce points out, there are different ways of answering back to God.  There is the answering back of Job, or Jeremiah, for example, which questions why God is acting in a particular way.  This is even seen in Jesus’ cry of dereliction from the cross.  Such cries come from a fundamental conviction that God is righteous, as well as omnipotent.  But there is the cry that arises out of unbelief and disobedience, where the complainant attempts ‘to put God in the dock and sit in judgment on him.’  It is this attitude that Paul condemns here, just like Isaiah before him (Isa 45:9).

Ryle makes a general application of this, regarding our reading of Scripture: ‘Dare not to say, “I believe this verse, for I like it. I reject that, for I do not like it. I receive this, for I can understand it. I refuse that, for I cannot reconcile it with my views.” Nay, but, O man, “who art thou that repliest against God?” (Rom. 9:20.) By what right do you talk in this way? Surely it were better to say over every chapter in the Word, “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.”’ (Practical Religion, p467)

9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 9:23 And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory—9:24 even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

What if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath – According to Sam Storms (Deciphering Difficult Texts) this could be understood in either of two ways:

(a) What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath’

(b) What if God, because willing to demonstrate his wrath’

Storms thinks the second is probably correct.

Objects of wrath prepared for destruction – Bruce Milne notes that this is the passage most frequently appealed to in support of a doctinre of reprobation, or ‘double predestination’.  But, he cautions:

‘While logically the election of some implies the rejection of others, Scripture is clearly reluctant to set these two ideas in strict balance. The passage most commonly appealed to (Rom. 9:14–24) needs to be read in its context: it refers to the special case of Israel, not to humankind in general.’ (Know the Truth)

Harrison and Hagner (ECB, revised ed.) ask:

‘Is Paul teaching a double predestination? This is improbable, because he avoids involving God in this case, whereas God is involved in showing mercy to the objects of his mercy (v. 23). Furthermore, God’s patience in bearing with the objects of his wrath suggests a readiness to receive such on condition of repentance (cf. 2:3–4; 2 Pe 3:9). So “prepared for destruction” designates a ripeness of sinfulness that points to judgment unless there is a turning to God, yet God is not made responsible for the sinful condition. The preparation for destruction is the work of human beings, who allow themselves to deteriorate in spite of knowledge and conscience.’

The same writers point to:

‘a remarkable asymmetry in Paul’s (and the NT’s) viewpoint that should keep us from the conclusion of double predestination. Those who are saved are saved only by the mercy of God; those who are lost are lost only because of their refusal to repent.’

Who does the ‘preparing’?  Some think that it is God.  Moo, however, slightly inclines to the view that Paul has deliberately left the question open.

9:25 As he also says in Hosea:
“I will call those who were not my people, ‘My people,’ and I will call her who was unloved, ‘My beloved.’ ”
9:26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”
9:27 And Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved, 9:28 for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth completely and quickly.” 9:29 Just as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of armies had not left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
and we would have resembled Gomorrah.”

‘In vs 7–13 Paul has shown how God called from within ethnic Israel a smaller number of Jews who formed a “spiritual” Israel. Now he shows that this sovereign call of God has in the present time created a new people, composed of both Gentiles (25–26) and a Jewish remnant (27–29).’ (Moo, NBC)

The quotation in v25f comes from Hos 2:23 and Hos 1:10.

Hos 1:10f is taken by some (e.g. Ryle, in Coming Events and Present Duties) to predict the gathering and conversion of national Israel in the last days.  But, clearly, Paul applies this to both Jews and Gentiles.

Edwards comments: ‘In applying the Hosea prophecy to the Gentiles…Paul affirms that they too are heirs of the promises to Israel.’

Mounce, similarly: ‘Although Hosea was speaking of the restoration of Israel, Paul freely applied the words to the Gentiles coming into the church.’

Hos 1, 2 teaches, by means of an acted parable, that Israel was to be rejected and then restored.  It is noteworthy that what originally referred to literal Israel is now applied by Paul to the church.  See also Acts 2:16f, quoting Joel 2:27ff.  See the discussion in George Eldon Ladd, “Israel and the Church,” The Evangelical Quarterly 36.4 (Oct. 1964): 206-214.

Israel’s Rejection Culpable, 30-33

9:30 What shall we say then?—that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith, 9:31 but Israel even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it. 9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible) by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 9:33 just as it is written,
“Look, I am laying in Zion a stone that will cause people to stumble
and a rock that will make them fall,
yet the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

‘This [Rom 9:30-10:21] is not a passage about “human responsibility” as such, but about how through the Messiah and the preaching that heralds him, Israel is being transformed from an ethnic people into a worldwide family. The Gentiles are entering in, while the Jews are missing out because they are still misguidedly pursuing the Torah in the wrong manner.’ (Steven Harris, summarising N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant)

As it is written – Cf. Isa 28:16

A stone that cause men to stumble – 1 Pet 2:8.