Romans 9 Explained According to Jewish Eyes

Soon, I will be beginning a post on the top of justification according to Early Christianity. For now, however, I wish to explore a related topic: problems with the Calvinist views on Romans 9. Broadly speaking, much could be said about the debate on predestination such as the Thomist and the Molinist interpretations of Ephesians 1. My intention here, though, is simply to prove that the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 is theologically inconsistent with the rest of scripture. 

Today, I am starting my first on several posts which take aim at the Calvinist understanding of predestination. In this post, I will be focusing on Romans 9. In the following posts, I hope to cover passages from Ephesians and 1 John concerning both the election and the atonement. 

It's very common in American Evangelicalism to read passages of Scripture according to the perspectives of those in the sixteenth century and afterward rather than through the lens that Jewish believers saw the New Testament. If Evangelicals believe that the reformers are not their Catholic magisterium, though, and truly hold to Sola Scriptura, they are bound to hold the thoughts of the reformation to as much Biblical account as they do Roman Catholicism. 

Before I proceed into Romans 9, it also should be noted that my purpose in this post is not to debate the dispensational vs. replacement theology views of Israel and the church. Rather, I wish to simply demonstrate that Romans 9 concerns the relationship of Jewish believers to Gentile ones rather than God selecting some men for salvation while excluding others, as Calvinists typically claim. 

Here, the Calvinist read an allegorical interpretation of Romans 9. Many of the Calvinist Evangelicals who would insist in the importance of Biblical literalism often suddenly do not read this passage literally. To them, the Israel mentioned is not the church but themselves. To justify their view, they would likely point to Galatians 6: 16 where Paul the Apostle called the church ''Israel.'' Although more could be said about the teaching of Paul's letter to the church at Galatia concerning the role of Jews who do not accept Christianity in the church today, I will simply be refraining from that topic today. 

In Romans 9, Paul's use of Israel is arguably different than in Galatians 6: 16. In the latter, he is clearly using the term allegorically for the church while in the former he is describing those holding to Judaism. If we conceded that the Israel mentioned in Romans 9 is actually the church, we would find ourselves having major exegetical problems with Romans 8-11. For example, when Paul said that he wished that he was cursed on account of his countrymen (Romans 9:3), it would leave us wondering why he would want to himself to be cursed for the church. Likewise, when Paul affirms in Romans 11: 25 that the hardening of Israel will bring Gentiles to the faith, it seems quite forced to assume that Paul is simply referring to Israel in these passages. Furthermore, to separate the contexts of Romans 9 from Romans 11 would also be problematic as Paul begins Israel's relationship with the believers in Romans 3-4 as well. Indeed, the entire book of Romans has more to do with the relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers to teach other (as demonstrated in these passages) than about God selecting some men for salvation over other. 

So what does it mean when God said that He loved Jacob but hated Esau (Romans 9: 13)? I argue that it is not about salvation, giving the context. Rather, God has shown consistent grace on the Israelites over the Gentile nations at least up until the time of the New Testament. This is confirmed in Malachi 1, which is what Paul quotes in Romans 9. In Malachi 1, the prophet shows us that ''Esau'' is a figurative term for the nations outside of Israel. Truly, the Calvinist view of Romans 9 is speed in Medieval allegory which hardly resembles in the case of Romans 9, anything that Paul was talking about. 

I'm sure that at this point in the post, many Calvinists would love to quickly turn to other passages of Scripture which they believe justify their view such as Ephesians 1. However, in Ephesians 1, Paul describes God's gracious choice to choose men for salvation---a point agreed by many Thomists and Lutherans who hold to unconditional election. The passage, nevertheless, says nothing about the atonement being limited or God condemning some to hell simply for His own glory. And as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I am not here to discuss every passage about predestination or free will in scripture but simply to take down the many false claims proposed by Calvinists that Romans 9 is somehow allegorical in that when the Bible says that God hated Esau (Romans 9: 13), that somehow Esau represents all the non-elect in history. Once again, the Calvinists, oftentimes the same Calvinists who read Genesis 1-3 literally, the same proponents who would see the various curses on Old Testament Israel as applying to Israel alone, are theologically inconsistent in that they suddenly interpret this passage according to an allegorical understanding. 

While it may be easy for Calvinists to separate Romans 9 from the chapters before and after it, they should be aware that the western Bible includes chapters formed by Archbishop Stephen Langton in the thirteenth century. Thus, while chapters can be beneficial to us in finding passages within the Scriptures, they themselves are not the inspired text. 

At the end of the day, there will be many Calvinists who object to this post (often for reasons that have nothing to do with Romans). They will claim, for example, that God not predestinating people to hell for His glory somehow makes God weaker. This is because many of them judge God's character not by both His mercy and wrath but simply by the latter. 

It is a forced interpretation of Romans 8-11 to say that Paul is talking about the church in these passages but not ethnic Israel. The same Calvinists who insist that the Israel mentioned in these passages is somehow the church don't want the curses inflicted on Israel in the Old Testament nor to be associated with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees which Jesus rejected. 

The purpose of this post was not to prove limited or unlimited atonement. I did not write this to elaborate on conditional or unconditional election. Rather, I believe that I have rightly proven the Calvinist's view of Romans 9 dead wrong---a view which had little support in church history before the sixteenth century. This does not mean that Calvinism is wrong Per se, simply the interpretation of Romans 9 proposed by many Calvinists. 

In conclusion, the Calvinists assume that Romans 9 is talking about their election (even though the same chapter never even mentions either predestination or election), they assume that God's favor of Jacob over Esau is about God's favor towards them over the non-elect, they assume that the Israel mentioned in the chapter is reduced simply to the meaning of the church (without any scriptural justifications for such a view), they assume that the election described in Romans is the same as the election described in Ephesians, they assume that Romans 9 was meant by Paul to be read allegorically (without any Biblical justifications for their view), they assume that most in church history got it wrong considering that essentially no one read Romans 9 in the light that they read it, and they ignore the fact that Romans 9 quoted Malachi 1 on Jacob and Esau---with the Old Testament passage bringing further clairry and content to the meaning of Israel in Romans 9.