A friend of mine, Chris Date, and I decided to record a discussion on the Greek text of Rom 9:6–29 and its theological relevance to the nature of divine election. Readers can view that discussion (here). The purpose of this discussion was to drill down into the discourse to see the points that Paul sought to emphasize in his appeals to scripture. Specifically, Paul makes several inferences that reveal the theological meaning he finds in the OT passages he cites throughout this text. I believe that some misinterpretations of Rom 9 have come about because interpreters depart from Paul’s explicit inferences by appeal to their own interpretations of the OT texts he cites. Whether those interpretations are valid is not at issue. To understand Paul, one must follow his argument and give care to his exegetical method (i.e., midrash) to see why he strings together the texts he uses in light of the theological points he wrings from those texts. We sought to explain some of this for audiences who may not have taining in Greek so they can see what Paul’s actual words commend to interpreters.
Since by the very nature of a discussion we sometimes get a little off script, I wanted to include some notes here that readers and viewers could reference for further study. Below are the notes on the grammar of Rom 9:6–26 that observe points I believe are most helpful for discerning Paul’s theological point in the text, which may not be so obvious when reading the English translations alone. I hope readers will find this and the video helpful as they seek to understand this magisterial text.
v. 6
οὐχ οἷον δὲ—Despite the apparant failure of God’s word (i.e., the gospel), such is not the case. Paul has a theology of the divine λόγος such that it categorically cannot fail—lit. “but it is not such.”
The γάρ clause (“for…”, 6b–7) supplies the grounds. Paul is working with a fundamentally different definition of “promissory Israel” (to borrow Michael Bird’s term) from his opponents. On the basis of a proper understanding of Israel, there is no question that the divine word/call (Rom 4:17; 8:28–30) has remained effective.
vv. 7b–8
The quotation from Gen 21:12 is the first reference to scripture in Rom 9, which is important because it uses the verb καλέω (“to call”), a key term throughout the section. Abraham’s children (the beneficiaries of the covenant) are “named” or “called” with reference to Isaac, not by default simply because they are descendants.
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν (“that is”) marks the interpretation or inference Paul is drawing from this text. There are a number of these inferential markers throughout the section. These are probably the most important aspect of the Greek to grasp because they clue us into Paul’s use of scripture and the theological deductions he is extracting from it. These mark his use of scripture as midrash, particularly the use of gezerah shawah, the identification of verbal correspondences to link passages together to form a theological argument from scripture (on midrashic interpretation in Paul see Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 18–24; E. Earl Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 120-4). Paul’s use of midrash in Rom 9–11 is acknowledged by most interpreters.
v. 11
γάρ marks the point Paul wants to make from the story of Jacob and Esau. It’s interesting to see the way he expresses it too. He could have said “neither had done good or evil” (negated concessive participles). Instead, he adds the indefinite pronoun (τι) to say more emphatically that there isn’t “anything” these two said or did that served as a condition for God’s calling Jacob and passing over Esau.
What is the sole condition? It’s expressed by the purpose ἵνα clause of 11b–12 (“in order that…”). What Paul sees as primary in God’s design is not that objects of his mercy/call meet a particular condition. Rather, it is the sustaining (μένω, “remain” cf. Isa 14:24) of “God’s purpose with regard to election” (ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ).
vv. 12–13
Readers will know that there are a number of significant antitheses in Romans—faithful allegiance to Jesus vs. works of the Torah; human vs. divine initiative etc. V. 12a introduces a new distinct antithesis that we will misconstrue if we interpret it the same way as the faith vs. works antithesis. The latter is between two potential conditions (ἐκ, “by,” “from,” or “because of”) the objects of justification might meet. The former is between “works” (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων)—human agency—and “the one who calls” (ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦκαλοῦντος)—divine agency. We need to keep this in mind because the antithesis extends and intensifies when we get to v. 16. Because (καθὼς γέγραπται, “just as it is written”) God determined that election would happen on the basis of divine calling rather than human works, God determined that Esau would serve Jacob, and he “loved” (i.e., chose) Jacob while he “hated” (i.e., did not choose) Esau (vv. 12b–13). The citation of Mal 1:2–3 is used to validate Paul’s point that God’s covenantal love is not conditioned on works of the Torah or other conditions, either negatively or positively, but on the divine call.
v. 14
All this gives good account of the objection in the form of a rhetorical question “God is not unjust, is he?” Readings that try to find a condition in the individual by appeal to the OT (such as Abasciano) do not account well for the objection at this point. If it was a matter of people not meeting conditions, then there would be no question of God’s justice.
v. 15
Paul again cites scripture (Exod 33:19) to validate his contention. God is not unjust (μὴ γένοιτο, “certainly not!” v. 14) and the defining story of Israel’s existence (the exodus) says that only God’s mercy and compassion created and continue to sustain them. This verse is a hinge in the argument. It serves to validate Paul’s theological point up till now and to introduce the intensification of that point in what follows. See John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of romans 9:1–23, 2nd ed. (Baker, 1993), 75-90, who offers a detailed exegetical argument to show that the Hebrew idiom involved in “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (known as idem per idem) means “it is the glory of God and his essential nature mainly to dispense mercy (but also wrath, Ex 34:7) on whomever he pleases apart from any constraint originating outside his own will” (pp. 88-9). This fits hand-in-glove in Paul’s context.
v. 16
ἄρα οὖν (lit. “so then, therefore”) is an emphatic way to draw out an inference (used again in v. 18). The presence of two inferential particles in succession tells the reader that this is the bottom-line Paul sought to drive home for his audience. Paul also offers another antithesis. Based on Exod 33:19, Paul argues that God’s mercy does not come on the basis of will (οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος) or striving (οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος) but God’s mercy is its own condition (ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ). Thus, the antithesis now is not simply between doing and calling, but additionally between “willing” (οὐ τοῦθέλοντος) and God’s unconditioned mercy. This is the only time the human will is mentioned in the pericope and it is brought up to eliminate it as the grounds of God’s calling and mercy. Throughout the passage, on the other hand, the divine will is mentioned a number of times (using various terms—i.e., πρόθεσις [“purpose”] v. 11, βούλημα [“intention” or “decision”] v. 19, and θέλω [“to will” or “desire”] as a verb and twice as a participle in v. 18 and once again in v. 22) as the sole basis for the situation facing Israel. The use of substantival participles (“the one who…”) in the singular (i.e., individuals, which is a notable feature throughout) here in v. 16 expresses a gnomic sense. Paul’s grammar here means that, principally, God’s mercy is never conditioned on human will, worth, or works, but only on God’s character as the one who freely mercies as he determines.
v. 17
Pharaoh’s story also substantiates this. This is a citation from Exod 9:16, but Paul has made some interesting changes when we compare his version with the MT and LXX. The LXX has ἕνεκεν τούτου (“for the sake of this”). Paul has changed that to the more emphatic εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο (“for this very reason”). BDF says that Paul’s αὐτὸ τοῦτο means “just this (and nothing else).” The expression stresses the singularity of God’s aim in his manipulation of Pharaoh (on the Hebrew grammar involved in Pharaoh’s hardening, see G. K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharoah’s Heart in Exodus 4–14 and Romans 9,” TrinJ 5 (1984): 129-54). For Paul, God did not simply “cause [Pharaoh] to stand” (הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ, MT; hiphil verb) or “preserve” (διετηρήθης, LXX) him—that is, he did not simply confirm Pharaoh’s obstinance. God actually orchestrated the whole thing. God didn’t simply sustain Pharaoh, he raised him up (ἐξήγειρά σε). Again, for Paul, the primary point isn’t God’s judicial response to Pharaoh’s disobedience, but the divine purpose. This is again emphatic with two uses of ὅπως (“in order that”) + the subjunctive, with God as the subject. The repeated use of the possessive first person personal pronoun with God as the referent (μου…μου, “my…my”) makes it clear that the divine purpose alone compelled the episode of the Exodus plagues, with Pharaoh serving as little more than God pawn (ἐν σοί, “in/by you”).
v. 18
Thus the emphasis on the divine will (θέλει…θέλει) in Paul’s next inference (ἄρα οὖν once again) is not surprising. As he decided with Pharaoh, Paul argues that God is free to extend mercy or to harden individuals (again, note the use of the singular ὅν) within Israel as he determines, conditioned on nothing other than his purposes (ὅν θέλει, “whom he wills”).
v. 19
We are at the second objection. That we are on the right track is clear. Only if Paul’s words are intended to eliminate the human will in order to give sole place to the divine will (τῷ…βουλήματι αὐτοῦ, “his intention”) does the objection that none resists God’s will make sense of the argument at this point.
vv. 20–21
The interpretation of v. 20 is debated. Does Paul really answer the objection or does he malign those who would even ask it? Maybe we don’t have to decide between these options. Paul again appeals to scripture (Isa 29:16; 45:9; cf. Jer 18:1–12; Sir 33:7–15) by raising the famous potter/clay analogy.
The point of Paul’s appeal to Isaiah is clearly to express that God’s designs are beyond human scrutiny. Thus, he offers his own rhetorical question. The potter (God in the analogy) is free (ἔχει ἐξουσίαν; lit. “he has the authority”) to make what he wants from his clay (Israel in the analogy). Paul suggests that God molds “a vessel for honor” (εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος) or “for dishonor” (εἰς ἀτιμίαν). The preposition εἰς (“for”) in both lines functions in the same way in vv. 22b–23 to express the end for which the vessels were designed.
v. 22
God’s desire (θέλων, “willing”) is “to show wrath and make known his power.” Purpose is expressed again with two infinitives—ἐνδείξασθαι…γνωρίσαι (“to show…to make known”). This is where Paul brings the analogy of Pharaoh to bear on Israel’s current situation—the same dynamic is at work now. God is patiently bearing with “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” The genitives ὀργῆς (“of wrath”) and ἐλέους (“of mercy”) communicate destination. This appeals to the day of the Lord motif which was emphatic in Rom 2 (on the connection between Rom 9–11 and the day of the Lord motif, see Matthew Arnie and Donald Hartley, The Righteous & Merciful Judge: The Day of the Lord in the Life and Theology of Paul [Lexham Press, 2018], 144-56). The near-universal consensus of scholars is that the perfect participle κατηρτισμένα is not middle voice (“have fitted themselves”) but passive (“have been fitted”; see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Zondervan, 1996], 417-8). The scholarship (from various theological perspectives) is virtually unanimous that κατηρτισμένα is a passive voice with God as the agent (known as a “divine passive”). Despite the attempts of a small number of detractors who say otherwise, identifying God as the agent of the verbal action is most natural since Paul is building on the potter/clay analogy (these people are “vessels” after all). The reason that Paul is using the passive voice here, rather than a construction with the active voice as in the parallel line in v. 23, is to maintain the responsibility of those prepared “for destruction” (εἰς ἀπώλειαν) that is, eschatological wrath at the judgment. But the grammar expresses that the nature of the divine determination is asymmetrical. God, the potter, is the definitive agent in the preparation of each vessel, even though this comes about differently in each case.
vv. 23–24
Where v. 22 had two infinitives to express purpose, v. 23 is a ἵνα clause (“in order that”) signaling that Paul now has in view the more ultimate purpose of God’s patient enduring of the vessels of wrath. The accent is placed here on God’s purpose to reveal (γνωρίσῃ, “to make known”) his magisterial glory upon those “vessels of mercy prepared for glory.” The emphasis falls on God’s aims in revelation through mercy rather than wrath. Those vessels of wrath serve the greater purpose of magnifying the splendor of God’s glorious mercy, which is not conditioned by human acts or will (v. 16).
V. 24 is a relative clause (οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς , “even us whom he called”) that stands in apposition to the “vessels of mercy.” The vessels of mercy are those whom God “has called,” both Jew and gentile. The divine call forms them to be vessels of divine mercy (Paul may be alluding to Isa 43:1, 7, 10, 21–22; 44:2; cf. Ps 33:15). It is a creative and effectual call (cf. Rom 4:17; 8:28–30; 2 Clem 1:7–8, which appears to be an early reflection on Rom 9).
vv. 25–26
Paul bolsters this with two citations from Hosea (2:23; 1:10). God’s call creates his beloved people out of those who were formerly not his people. Anticipating Rom 11, this includes both gentiles and in the future Israelites who currently do not believe.
vv. 27–29
The standard translations of Rom 9:27 are misleading to varying degrees. The ESV is typical: “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved.’” First, this translation renders the conjunction δέ as “and,” even though it is more likely an adversative to be rendered “but” (so CSB). The adversative reading of δέ is most natural given that the citations from Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 in vv. 25–26, cited as positive support for Paul’s argument, are each introduced with καί in vv. 25–26. Second, ὑπέρ is translated “concerning” (which would normally be indicated by περί) when it more typically means “on behalf of” with a personal object in the genitive (so NET; cf. BDAG 1030.1a). This makes best sense here in the context of Paul’s lament and hope for Israel. Third, the typical translation wrongly renders the quote from Isaiah as a concessive clause (“though”). However, ἐάν with a verb in the subjunctive mood marks the protasis of a conditional clause (so LEB has “if”; cf. BDAG 267.1a; BDF § 371.4; 373.1). Finally, this translation adds “only,” without justification from the Greek text itself. John Paul Heil (“From Remnant to Seed of Hope for Israel: Romans 9:27–29,” CBQ 64 (2002): 703-20) has argued that Rom 9:27–29 introduces the climax to Paul’s argument which is then fully realized at the end of chap 11. He offers the following as a better translation, and I concur: “But Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel: ‘If the number of the sons of Israel be as the sands of the sea (surely, at least) a remnant will be saved.” (p. 705, my emphasis). As Heil goes on to show, this means that Rom 9:27-29 expresses Paul’s hope for the future salvation of a remnant of Israelites who currently did not believe, in addition to the already believing remnant of which Paul was a part in his day (Rom 11:1–5). These make up the “all Israel” who will certainly be saved in the future (note the future tense σωθήσεται [“will be saved”] occurs in both 9:27 and 11:26) from among those Israelites who currently do not believe.
Paul uses the expression συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων in Rom 9:28. It is variously translated and understood—“fully and without delay” (ESV); “completely and quickly” (NET); “quickly and decisively” (NRSV); “with speed and finality” (NIV). However, Heil has demonstrated that the nature of Paul’s conflated citation of the LXX of Isa 10:22b–23 and 28:22b, in comparison with the Hebrew text, suggests that the pair of participles express the idea of “definitively deciding” (ibid., 713-6). Thus, the CSB’s rendering—“completely and decisively”—is closest among contemporary translations. Paul’s point is to anticipate his proclamation at the conclusion of Rom 11 that “all Israel” will certainly be saved in accordance with God’s word of promise. God’s word has not failed, but it is a divine decree which guarantees the results it speaks. This is supported by the quotation of Isa 1:9 in v. 29. Thus, even though Israel is currently “enemies according to the gospel” (i.e., they have not believed, Rom 11:28a) since they are “beloved according to election” (Rom 11:28b), God will certainly have mercy on them (Rom 11:31–32), which is an effective mercy that will result certainly in the salvation of “all Israel” (Rom 11:25–26).
Jesus and Paul and the New Testament 