Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Romans 9: Unanswerable Calvinist Prooftext?

Romans 9: Unanswerable Calvinist Prooftext?

Last updated on: December 28, 2025 at 6:43 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Romans 9: Unanswerable Calvinist Prooftext? 2025-12-28T18:43:23-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: image from Rangpur in northern part of Bangladesh, 27 February 2020, by Shafiul Islam Shaikot [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Romans 9:13-24 (RSV) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! [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.” [16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy. [17] For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” [18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. [19] You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” [20] But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me thus?” [21] Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? [22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, [24] even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

First, let’s look at some linguistic and cultural issues, particularly regarding 9:13. Hebrew culture was given to exaggeration, or hyperbole, in order to illustrate stark contrast. This leads to non-literal figures of speech or idioms, that Protestants too often erroneously take literally. Paul described himself as “of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee” (Phil 3:5). “Hated” in this verse is an example of hyperbole, as will become clearer as we proceed. As an analogous example, consider the following (Jesus speaking):

Luke 14:26 If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Is Jesus commanding us to literally hate family members? No. And how do we know that? We do by comparing the parallel verse in Matthew and applying the universally accepted hermeneutical principle of “interpreting the difficult or unclear verse with one on the same topic that is more clear.” Thus Matthew has:

Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Thus we understand the meaning clearly. We are to love Jesus more than anyone else. Matthew expresses the thought literally, and Luke, hyperbolically, or more in line with Hebrew custom. But analyzing them together provides the harmonious meaning. It’s two ways of expressing the same thing. Moreover, if indeed God is love, as He is (1 John 4:8), then we can hardly use Romans 9 to prove that He is characterized by hate. John Wesley made this point.

E. W. Bullinger’s classic work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898, rep. Baker Book House, 1968, see p. 426, in the category “Hyperbole; or, Exaggeration) agrees:

Luke xiv. 26. — “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother”: i.e., does not esteem them less than me. So the verb to hate is used (Gen. xxix. 31. Rom. ix. 13).

Bullinger thinks that the same dynamic is going on in both Luke 14:26 and Romans 9:13, precisely as I just contended. And he sees it in another passage:

Genesis 29:30-31 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. [31] When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

Note how, once again, loving one person more than another is described as hatred of the person less loved. 29:30 is literal language; 29:31 is hyperbolic language describing the same thing.

Similarly, 9:18: “he hardens the heart of whomever he wills” looks at first glance like God did the hardening and the person had no part in it at all (which sounds like predestination from all eternity solely by God’s will, and not human will at all). But it’s not true. Cross-referencing again helps us clearly understand. The Old Testament states in 17 different ways the notion that “the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex 10:20) or someone else’s heart. But at the same time it states 15 times that Pharaoh and men hardened their own hearts, with their free will. Seven times, the Bible asserts that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34-35; 1 Sam 6:6). For the many cited and other relevant examples, see my article, God “Hardening Hearts”: How Do We Interpret That?

The great Protestant exegete Leon Morris wrote: ““Neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself” (The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans and Inter-Varsity Press, 1988) 361).

So we see that it is both Hebraic paradox and differential expression for the same thing. Pharaoh did it, and God is also said to have done it, in the sense of His permissive will, in His providence. Because He permitted it, it’s said figuratively that He did it Himself. Bullinger addresses this issue, too, with many examples provided under the category of “Idiom” and including Exodus 4:21 (” I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart”) and Romans 9:18 (see above) in his analysis (pp. 823-824):

Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do. Thus :

Gen. xxxi. 7. — Jacob says to Laban: “God did not give him to do me evil”: i.e., as in A.V., God suffered him not, etc.

Ex. iv. 21. — “I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go.” So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. As is clear from the common use of the same Idiom in the following passages,

Ex. v. 22. — “Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people?” i.e., suffered them to be so evil entreated.

Ps. xvi. 10. — “Thou wilt not give thine Holy One (i.e., suffer Him) to see corruption.” So the A.V.

Jer. iv. 10. — “Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people” : i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets, saying : Ye shall have peace, etc.

Ezek. xiv. 9. — ” If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet” : i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself.

Ezek. xx. 25. — “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good” : i.e., I permitted them to follow the wicked statutes of the surrounding nations, mentioned and forbidden in Lev. xviii. 3.

Matt, vi 13. — “Lead us not (i.e., suffer us not to be led) into temptation.”

Matt, xi 25. — “I thank thee, O Father . . . because thou hast hid (i.e., not revealed) these things,” etc.

Matt. xiii. 11. — “It is given to know unto you,” etc. (i.e., ye are permitted to know . . . but they are not permitted to know them.[)]

Acts xiii. 29. — “When they (i.e., the rulers, verse 27) had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre”: i.e., they permitted Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to do so.

Rom. ix. 18. — “Whom he will he hardeneth”: i.e., he suffereth to be hardened. Not that this in any way weakens the absolute sovereignty of God.

Rom. xi. 7. — “The rest were hardened”: i.e., were suffered to become blind (as in A.V. marg.).

Rom. xi. 8. — “God hath given them the spirit of slumber”: i.e., hath suffered them to fall asleep.

2 Thess. ii. 11. — “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”: i.e., God will leave them and suffer them to be deceived by the great Lie which will come on all the world.

The simultaneous assertion of God and man doing the same thing is expressed elsewhere by Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

This is Hebrew “both/and” paradox, which is foreign to our much more Greek, rationalistic “either/or” outlook. Calvinism too often follows the latter paths of thinking, and therein lies one of the biggest underlying causes of the theological and hermeneutical problem. None of Romans 9, as we shall see, with much further analysis, necessitates the abolition of human free will and causation.

It’s not talking about things that God alone does, without any consideration of men’s behavior. Therefore, it doesn’t bolster up the notion of predestination of the damned to hell from all eternity, without consideration of their rebellion and disobedience and rejection of God. I’ve only just begun to prove that. But I’m providing a little “sneak preview” of where I’m going with all this.

Moreover, Paul’s reference to Esau is a citation of Malachi. Examining the passage in context provides us more clues:

Malachi 1:1-4 The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. [2] “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How hast thou loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob [3] but I have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” [4] If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the LORD of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, till they are called the wicked country, the people with whom the LORD is angry for ever.”

Esau here represents the people of Edom, as seen in v. 4 (just as Jacob’s name was changed to Israel [Gen 32:28]and he represented the Israelites: see, e.g., Ps 147:19; Mic 3:8-9). New Bible Dictionary (1962, “Israel”) states (p. 578): “Israel appears throughout the Old Testament as an occasional synonym for Jacob . . .” God is talking about Esau’s descendants (Gen 32:3; 36:1-21, 30; Num 24:18), not him, personally. Note that in v. 4, God is “angry” with the Edomites.

The Edomites rejoiced over the fall of Judah (Ps 137:7), and so the prophets foretold their judgment (Jer 49:7-22; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:15; Joel 3:19; Amos 9:12; Obad 1-21). St. Irenaeus pointed this out in the second century (Against Heresies 4.21.2). God even referred to Jacob and Esau to Rebekah as “Two nations . . . in your womb, and two peoples” (Gen 25:23). Paul cites the second part of the same verse in Romans 9:11-12.

The great Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce agrees, as to the nature of Genesis 25:23:

The prophecy relates not to the individuals Esau and Jacob (for Esau never rendered service to Jacob) but to their descendants; it relates to the long periods during which the Edomites were in servitude to Israel or Judah. (Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985], 192)

Likewise, the potter and the clay metaphor that Paul cites in 9:20-23 refers completely to the nation of Israel — not to individual persons –, in its original form in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 18:1-11 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: [2] “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” [3] So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. [4] And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. [5] Then the word of the LORD came to me: [6] “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. [7] If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, [8] and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. [9] And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, [10] and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. [11] Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: `Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.’

The only “election” here is of Israel, God’s chosen people, not individuals. This is what the Malachi and Paul mean, I submit, by the language God “hating” Esau. God judged the Edomites because they set themselves against His people, Israel. Conversely, God “loving” Jacob (the nation of Israel) is because He elected them to be His people (Dt 7:6-8). But the Israelites were not allowed to despise the Edomites (Dt. 23:7). Malachi is thought to come from the 5th century BC, whereas Jacob in the 18th century BC, 1300 years earlier. God’s not talking about the persons of Jacob and Esau, but about their descendants: the nations of Israel and Edom. Edom fell into Arab hands in this same century, and two centuries later was taken over by the Nabataeans. God had judged.

Paul makes a similar analogy to the potter and the clay in 2 timothy, and it also illustrates the free will choice of man and not an unconditional election reference:

2 Timothy 2:20-21 In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. [21] If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.

John Calvin himself made Romans 9 the centerpiece of his argumentation regarding the predestination of the damned without their sins and response to God taken into account. This occurs in chapter 21-23 of Book III of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and in his Commentaries on Romans and Exodus. So in a large sense he has made the argument stand or fall on Romans 9. If his interpretation of it fails, then it seems the entire idea of double predestination is in rough shape (being largely based on a huge misunderstanding of Romans 9).

Calvin believed that Esau was damned, that God made Pharaoh disobey His commands, and that God creates some people (the reprobate or non-elect) only for the express purpose of being damned. Romans 9 supports none of these contentions. Nothing in the Bible indicates the damnation of Esau. In Institutes, 3.21.7, Calvin indicates that he knew the Malachi Esau passage applied primarily to nations. Yet he still maintains that he was damned and that this was what Paul — in citing Malachi — meant.

Reformed Baptist apologist James White expresses the Calvinist outlook on Romans 9:

The point is that even though, and I have said many times, if what bothers you about Romans 9:13 is “Esau I hated” if you really understood the depth of your own sin and the holiness of God, what would blow you away about Romans 9:13 is not “Esau I hated” it would be “Jacob I loved.” And I suggest to you if “Esau I hated” bothers you, you don’t understand the holiness of God. And you don’t understand the deadness of man in sin. And you do not understand how absolutely repugnant the sinner’s heart is to a holy God. What should amaze you is “Jacob I loved” not “Esau I hated.” But the point is, the point is that it was God’s choice as to how He responded to the two and it was not based on some looking down from the corridors of time to see what these guys are going to do. Which in essence just simply makes God the Great Responder, not the Free Sovereign God of Scripture. We don’t even need to get into the arguments ” well that just means loved less and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” Don’t even need to get into that, the point of the whole statement is God was free to treat Jacob with grace and Esau with justice. That’s the point. Okay? (“Romans 9 Transcript, Part I of II,” 8-4-07)

As usual with White’s hyper-polemical style, he doesn’t even grapple with serious opposing arguments. Rather, he determines what we need to “get into” and not “get into” and dismisses a major argument as “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” As a person who has dealt with him for literally over 30 years now, the pattern is all too clear. He continues a bit later:

It amazes me when I see people, — I think it was Norman Geisler in Chosen But Free —, he can look at this and say “Here we have the free will of man.” I just go, “What? No! Here we have the free will of God! Not the free will of man!” It is not of the one willing. . . . nor of the one running or striving. What do those two terms mean? It refers to human actions. It is not based upon what man does.

The problem with this is that Paul does address why many Jews weren’t or won’t be saved, and the reason lies in their free will choices, not solely God’s decree from all eternity to damn those who will end up in hell:

Romans 9:27, 30-32 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; . . . [30] What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; [31] but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. [32] Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works.

Romans 10:1-4 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. [2] I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. [3] For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. [4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.

Romans 11:5-6 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. [6] But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:20 . . . They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.

They weren’t saved — according to Paul — because they didn’t accept God’s grace through faith and relied on works to the exclusion of both; not because God decreed that they would be damned no matter what they did.

Roy Ingle, writing for the Society of Evangelical Arminians, observes:

This morning I spent the morning reading and re-reading Romans 9. Over and over again I was struck by how clear it is that Paul is not speaking about election unto salvation. It is clear to me that Paul the Apostle is arguing against the Jews who would argue that by virtue of race, they are the promised elect of God. Paul is saying “no” to that. He is arguing that God is sovereign in His choice to reject Israel whom He had previously chosen because they rejected His righteousness because of their pursuit of it through the Law.

Let us briefly cover the chapter. Notice how Paul begins in Romans 9:1-5. It is clear from these verses that Paul is not speaking about individual unconditional election to salvation. Not once in Romans 9:1-5 does he mention salvation. He mentions the blessings that have come to his people, his kinsmen (v. 3) because of God’s choice (vv. 4-5) but he never mentions salvation. His point is national Israel and not individual salvation.

To back this up, notice Romans 9:6-13. When we read these verses the idea that Paul is speaking of national Israel is clear. When we come to verses 10-13 and compare these verses to Genesis 25:19-26 we find the story is clearly speaking of nations or peoples and not individual salvation. Malachi 1:2-3 is cited in Romans 9:13 and when we read Malachi 1:2-3 in its context, we see that again God is speaking of nations and not individual salvation. (“Working Through Romans 9,” 7-10-13)

Kevin Jackson, at the same site, adds:

Arminians come to a different conclusion about Romans 9. We hold that it’s about the election of the nation Israel to serve God’s greater purposes. Specifically, it’s about how God is just in how he has treated Israel; and it’s about how he has kept his word in the way that he has treated them. It is not about Calvinistic individual election. Paul is asking if the nation of Israel can be saved, and if God is fair in the way he goes about treating them as a group. Are Jews saved by their genealogy? Or must Jews believe in Jesus in order to be saved? Paul argues that even though Jews are descendants of Jacob and Abraham, they don’t get a free ticket because of their ancestry (Romans 9:8). Israel has been blessed as a people group, because salvation comes from the Jews. However, individual Jews are saved the same way that Gentiles are — by having faith in Jesus (Romans 9:31, Romans 10:11-13). (“Arminian Principles for Interpreting Romans 9,” 2-17-15)

He notes that Paul is referring to the nation of Israel at the beginning of he chapter (“my brethren, my kinsmen by race. They are Israelites”: 9:3-4) and at the end (“Israel”: 9:31, over against “Gentiles”: 9:30). Jackson writes about Jeremiah 18, which was cited above:

Especially of note in the Jeremiah passage is that God (the Potter) does not decree what the nation does, but rather he first sees what the nation does, and then forms something out that nation afterwards as a result of their corporate behavior. This is the opposite of “unconditional individual election.” God changes his mind on how to treat a nation based on whether or not the nation follows him. This is particularly relevant to Paul’s argument in Romans 9. Israel was not following God as revealed in Christ, and as a result, God (the Potter) is going to treat them accordingly.

Another fascinating thing to ponder is Paul’s statements in 9:3 (“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race”) and 10:1 (“my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved”). Calvinists (limited atonement) don’t believe that God desires all Jews to be saved. Are we to believe, then (granting that for a moment) that Paul desires a thing contrary to God’s will, and that he was more merciful and self-sacrificing than Jesus?

Exodus 33:16-20 For how shall it be known that I have found favor in thy sight, I and thy people? Is it not in thy going with us, so that we are distinct, I and thy people, from all other people that are upon the face of the earth?” [17] And the LORD said to Moses, “This very thing that you have spoken I will do; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.” [18] Moses said, “I pray thee, show me thy glory.” [19] And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name `The LORD’; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. [20] But,” he said, “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.”

Paul cites Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:15. So what was the context of the earlier passage? James Rochford opines:

Paul cites Exodus 33:19 to show that God is free to give grace however he sees fit. The context for Exodus 33 is God revealing himself (and his glory) to Moses. Why does Paul cite this passage?

First, both phrases speak of God’s love—not his justice. . . . God is free to show mercy on whomever he wants.

Second, this does not refer to salvation for Moses. In its original OT context, Exodus 33 is not about Moses going to heaven or hell. It is about Moses seeing the glory of God (Ex. 33:18). (“Romans 9: An Arminian Interpretation,” Evidence Unseen)

He makes another great point, with which I will conclude:

Calvinists often object to critics claiming that their view makes humans like “puppets” or “robots” in God’s universe. However, they also appeal to Paul’s analogy of a lump of clay to support their rejection of libertarian free will! But what is the qualitative difference between a “puppet,” a “robot,” or a lump of “clay”? [Leighton] Flowers writes, “Some Calvinists want to have their cake and eat it too on this point. If they are going to interpret these biblical analogies in such a way that removes mankind’s responsibility in the process, then they cannot object to another analogy which draws the exact same conclusion. After all, what more or less responsibility does a puppet have in relation to the puppet master than a lump of clay has in relation to the Potter on Calvinism’s interpretation? If one wishes to interpret Paul’s analogy of the Potter and the clay literally to mean that man has no say in how he believes and responds, then own it. Do not object to other analogies that draw the exact same implications unless you are not willing to live with those implications.” (citation: The Potter’s Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology, Trinity Academic Press, 2017, 133-134)

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis, in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Summary: I attempt to collect as many biblical and linguistic arguments as I can to counter the Calvinist use of Romans 9 in favor of their belief-system. I find it all rather compelling.

Calvinism & General Protestantism

"Esau I hated"

Calvinism

double predestination

Jacob and Esau

Predestination to Hell

Romans 9

Previous Post

December 26, 2025

Defense of Sola Scriptura Critique, Part II