Does Romans 9 Address Individual or Corporate Salvation

Romans 9 is one of the most difficult chapters in the Bible. In this chapter, Paul first (v 1-6) laments the fact that many of his Jewish brethren by blood have rejected the gospel of Christ and are thus cut off from the Kingdom. But, says Paul, this doesn’t mean that God has failed. Indeed, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v 6). Rather, all along it has been the children of God’s promise who are to inherit the Kingdom, not necessarily the children of the flesh.

Then, Paul starts saying things that have riled Christians up for centuries. God, desiring to preserve his purpose in election, loved Jacob but “hated” Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad (v. 11-13). Paul asserts that God is not unjust for doing this. Far from it! We shouldn’t even be surprised, for God said to Moses that he would have mercy and whom he has mercy (v. 15). This mercy does not depend on human will or exertion, but only on the inscrutable will of God (v. 16). Paul uses the example of Pharaoh to prove his point. God raised Pharaoh for the expressed purpose of glorifying God through his judgment and destruction (v. 17). Paul closes this section of scripture by reemphasizing that God has mercy on whomever he will and he hardens whomever he wills.

Then comes one of the hardest hitting verses in an already hard-hitting passage. Paul (intuitively and correctly) predicts an interlocutor who will object “Why does God still then find fault? No one can resist his sovereign will!” Indeed, this is the problem of evil asked in one of its many forms. Paul answers it quite simply: “But who are you , O man, to answer back to Go? Whill what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (v. 19-21) Thus, Paul emphatically states God’s sovereignty and answers the problem of evil (though not to most people’s liking. While not untrue, it is a rather poor apologetic to answer the unbeliever wrestling with evil with “Who are you to question God! He’s God! Just believe!)

But that’s not all. Paul continues: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory - even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles"?” (v. 22-23).

The Problem

The problem here should be pretty clear. We do not like the idea that God created individual people as objects of wrath. Neither do we like the idea that God chooses some and not others based on absolutely nothing we have done, but rather according to his own (inscrutable) good pleasure. This has led many modern and historical Christian theologians throughout history to posit an interpretation of this passage that will relieve the pressure such thoughts bring on. Namely, they have posited that Paul, in verses 9-23 is talking about a historical and corporate "elect”. In other words, Paul is talking about how God has chosen one people group or nation (Israel) over other people groups to accomplish his will, but that these people groups consist of individuals who maintain some form of libertarian free will that God foresees, and therefore God places these individuals in “the elect” before the foundation of the world. Furthermore, since it is evident that “God loves everyone,” then Paul must be recognizing and restating hyperbole from Malachi when he says that God “hated” Esau. This is akin to Jesus saying one must “hate” their mother or father in order to follow him.

The question is: Is this a faithful reading of the passage? Is this what Paul actually meant to communicate? Was he discussing only the historical (non-eternal) destiny of ethnic groups or nations? Perhaps he was discussing eternal realities, but only in the corporate understanding of “elect” discussed above? I offer the following reasons why I think it is problematic to think that Paul is only intending to communicate a historical/national understanding of God’s sovereign election in mercy.

Individual Salvation is in View

First, Paul makes it abundantly clear in verses 1-5 that he is bringing up this topic because he is anguished about the eternal state of individual fellow Jews. Clearly, he is not lamenting of the lostness of the Jewish people, for many of his fellow believers at the time were Jewish by blood. Therefore, those interpreters who Paul is only describing a historical destiny of a nation in the absence of a discussion of eternal destiny must ignore the context in the first few verses of the chapter. An eterna focus is definitely at play here.

Second, there is significant grammatical evidence that Paul has individual election in mind. In verse 15, Paul cites Exodus 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” In the greek, the world whom (ον) is singular, indicating specific individuals. This is also the case in verse 16 in which Paul writes that God’s mercy does not depend on “the one” who wills, nor “the one” who runs. It is clearly an individual who wills or runs that is irrelevant to God’s sovereign mercy, not a nation or a group of individuals. Moreover, the conclusion to this section in verse 18 utilizes the same singular ον when Paul writes that God has mercy on whom he wants and hardens whom he wants. Paul’s interlocutor also uses the singular when they ask then “Who (singular) can resist his will?” Finally, the vessels of mercy and wrath are also singular vessels in verse 21. Such repeated use of the singular by Paul in the greek (a much more specific language than english) makes little sense if Paul wanted to make his point in corporate or national sense.

Third, the selection of God of a remnant of Israel (as he discusses in the first few verses of chapter 9 as well again in Romans 11:1-6) is clearly a selecting out of certain individuals from a larger corporate group. The remnant itself is a group, and it is elect, hence it isn’t inconsistent to say that Paul is also talking about corporate groups here. However, Paul clearly has more in mind. Specifically, Paul uses himself as an example as one who has been chosen by God as part of the remnant (Rom 11:1). Elected individuals are part of a group that is the elect. These are not at odds with each other, and Paul can be (and evidently is) discussing both.

Fourth, Romans 9:30-10:21 (which is the passage immediately following the one in question) discusses how Israel had pursued righteousness through works of the law. This was a corporate problem, yes. But it was also an individual problem. Individuals within Israel were condemned because they pursued works-righteousness. Moreover, Paul and his readers/audience would be well aware that there were some individual Jews who had submitted to the righteousness that comes from God and not succumbed to pursuing works-righteousness. It simply makes no sense to interpret this passage, which immediately follows Romans 9:1-29, only through a lens of national/corporate identity.

Fifth, Paul purposefully uses the example of Pharaoh (an individual) to establish his point in God’s purposes in election, both in exercising mercy and in hardening. The choice of Pharaoh on Paul’s part both emphasizes the individuality of God’s purposes in election and God’s sovereignty over heads of state (and therefore entire nations). If Paul was only concerned with historical national bodies of individuals, then there would have been other options to choose from with far less ambiguity (the mass of Egyptians come to mind whom God moved to give away their riches, thereby plundering the entire nation). As it was, Paul chose the individual of Pharaoh to make his point.

Sixth, Paul’s interlocutor is perhaps the greatest evidence that individual, eternal election by God is in primary view here. We must ask the question, “Why would Paul foresee such an emotional and nonplussed response from a listener?” Clearly, Paul recognizes what he just said is of such great weight and import, and that it is so intrinsically distasteful, that someone is bound to object with the strongest of terms. Furthermore, Paul knows that the reasons for such a theoretical objection will seem warranted and justified using human logic. It just doesn’t make sense that God would hold a person accountable if they couldn’t have chosen otherwise! That is the basis on which we intuitively know we can be held accountable. If that is taken away by an almighty sovereign God, he can’t possibly still find fault! But, notice carefully, how this reaction must substantially subside or disappear if corporate or national entities are at play. If you are an American and the US congress declares war today, you are at war whether you like it or not. You may disagree. You may lobby. You may throw a fit. But, what you likely wouldn’t do, is claim that it’s unjust of God to hold you responsible for what you corporate body did. It’s one of those life-situations that men throughout history have disliked but acknowledged as reality. Therefore, in my own mind, Paul’s prediction of the interlocutor and Paul’s emphatic rejection of the question, solidify that Paul has individual salvation in mind in this passage.

Why the Different Views

So, why is there such stringent disagreement among people who believe the Bible and love Jesus on this passage? In my opinion, it comes down to two primary motivations. First, there is widespread and deep conviction that libertarian freedom must be true in order for men to be held morally responsible for their actions. I have argued elsewhere that this is both logically and biblically false. But, if one takes this position, then Romans 9 simply cannot mean what it seems to say. It must mean something else. And, if one finds themselves in such a situation, it is nearly psychologically impossible to see one’s own bias. This is not to say I am in some unbiased position myself. Of course that’s not the case. It may even be that my bias unfairly stacks the deck in my position’s favor in my own mind. But, it is issues like this one that the Lord has used to empassion me toward the topic of human free will, as it is a critical foundation for these issues.

Second, modern Christianity has long held that, since God is loving (he is love after all, 1 John 4:8), then he must love everyone. He must have given his son for the possible salvation of every individual (a point I have argued against here). How many times have we heard the saying “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin” after all? If we hear it enough, it must be true! Now, I have written elsewhere that, while God does love every individual in some sense, there is another biblical sense in which he does not. Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 11:5 are clear. God hates the wicked and the sinner. Moreover, we are all sinners. Our best works are filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), we are conceived and born in sin (Ps 51:5), we have all turned aside and are unrighteous (Rom 3:9-20), and we all deserve death (Rom 6:23). These truths, and the reality that God hates such people is what makes the Gospel so absurdly beautiful! “One will scarcely die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:7-8). Elsewhere Paul reiterates that, even those of us where are now believers, were once children of wrath (Eph 2:3). This is what makes God’s mercy and grace exactly that, perfectly merciful and gracious. We 100% deserve his hate and wrath, which God could justly carry on with, since he is just and righteous. However, in pursuing his own glory, he had mercy on whom he had mercy, according to perfectly inscrutable good pleasure.

Does God Love Everybody?

Modern Evangelical Christian belief is full of teachings and assumptions that God loves every individual. “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin” we are told. But is this idea biblical? Is it true that God loves every individual on earth today? Or every individual who has ever existed in history? Is God merely disappointed that some reject him even in the face of his love for them?

Yes and No

The short answer to the question, “Does God love everyone?” is an emphatic “Yes and no.” As far as the “yes,” the Bible is clear that God’s common grace extends to everyone. “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt 5:45). “Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). The Psalmist is perhaps most explicit when he writes “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made” (Ps 145:9).

Does this “mercy” that God has for all his creation constitute what we moderns understand to be love? In other words, does God love those that exist in consistent and perpetual denial and hatred of him in the same way that he loves those that turn to him and repent? The biblical answer to that question must be '“no.”

All it would take to establish this truth (that God does not love everyone) is to show one counterexample in scripture. If God doesn’t love (or hates) even one individual, then he doesn’t and can’t love everyone as is commonly assumed. Luckily, we don’t have to depend on one obscure scriptural text to establish such an example, as there are several.

Malachi 1 and Romans 9

The first such example comes first from the Old Testament book of Malachi. In establishing God’s particular love for the nation of Israel, the prophet Malachi notes that Jacob (the father of all Israel) and Esau were brothers, yet it was Jacob that God loved and not Esau. “I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated” (Mal 1:2-3). Paul takes up this argument in the New Testament as he is discussing his lament that some individual Israelites persisted in unrepentance while some Gentiles were repenting and believing. How could this be so at an individual level? Well, it is apparent that some individuals are chosen, and some are not. But they are not chosen based on anything they do. “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - she (Jacob and Esau’s mother, Rebekah) was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I hated’” (Rom 9:11-13). (To stress the point that Paul’s intent is to show God’s sovereign election and love (and hatred) of certain individuals and not just nations, he goes on to discuss the individual of Pharaoh and how God raised him to destroy him and make his glory known.)

Thus, here we have an example of one (or possibly two, if we include Pharaoh) individual who God “hates.” Some, noticing that such hatred does not fit with the popular narrative in evangelicalism today, have posited that this is not true hatred, but rather just a “loving less.” In other words, when God says he “hates Esau,” he really means that he just loved Esau less than Jacob. This, they argue, is akin to Jesus saying, “If anyone 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” (Lk 14:26). Of course, Jesus cannot contradict the Word of God which explicitly states one must honor one’s mother and father, so this “hatred” must be relative hyperbole. Therefore, God must “hate” Esau in the same way. And, if this were our only example of God’s hatred toward individuals, that might be where we would feel compelled to land. But that’s not all the Bible has to say.

Psalms 5 and 11

Two of the more explicit passages that help answer our question come from the Psalms. In Psalm 5 we read, “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man” (Ps 5:5). Furthermore, Psalm 11 says, “The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence” (Ps 11:5). This is unambiguous language that destroys the notion that “God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” No. Emphatically, No. God hates sinners. He abhors them. They are objects of his wrath.

In fact, we were all once in this position. “We all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph 2:3). All of us has sinned. All of us has gone astray (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23; 1 Jn 1:8). As sinners, we were all objects of God’s wrath, just like everyone else. This is actually a very important point in the gospel. The Apostle Paul pointed out that a person might dare to die for a righteous and good person, but Christ did something radically different. “God shows his love for us (believers) in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” In a very real sense, Christ did not die for those he loved. He died for his enemies, objects of his wrath. This is powerful stuff.

As a side note, it’s also logically necessary that God hates sinners. He is perfectly righteous and just. He cannot simply turn the other way when someone commits evil. He must execute justice, and justice is not executed against a crime, but a criminal. It is the individual who is subject to wrath and retribution, not the individual’s actions. This is why the person of Christ has to suffer and be crucified. It makes no sense to say that only Christ’s sin was crucified and not his person. In the same way, it makes no sense to say that God loves the sinner, but hates merely the sin.

Israel and the Church

The truth of scripture is that, every time God is said to “love” or “know” a person or a people group, he is loving or knowing either Israel in the Old Testament or the Church in the New. God says to Israel, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). Does this mean that God isn’t aware or know of the Egyptians or other foreign nations and individuals of that time? Of course not! Such “knowing” refers to being loved in a particular way by God. In the same way, Paul notes that “those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). And the time will come when some will approach Jesus who are not known by him: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt 7:22-23).

Those who are known in this way are loved by God. Those who are not, are not.

But aren’t we supposed to love our enemies?

Absolutely! We are commanded by our Lord repeatedly to love our enemies to do good to those who hate us (Matt 5:43-48; Lk 6:27). We are to pray for our enemies and turn the other cheek. But does this necessarily mean that God loves those enemies? Once again, Paul gives us a peek behind the curtain of how God uses our love for our enemies. It may be that our persistent loving kindness leads some to repentance, which is of course a wonderful thing! But in the event that they persist in unrepentance, Paul paints a different picture: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head" (Rom 12:20). In other words, in God’s providence, there are times when us loving our enemies is God’s way of maximizing the wrath they will ultimately receive, thereby maximizing his own glory.

Does John 3:16 Teach that Jesus Died for Every Individual?

In John 3:16, Jesus famously declares, “For God so love the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Does this then mean that Jesus died for (that the Father gave his Son for) every individual so that, and that God is simply waiting to see if each individual in human history will turn belief in Him or not? This verse is often used as a foundational verse for such a theological framework, but is that what it is teaching?

A Look at John’s Other Writings

The best exegesis will always look at how the author understands their own ideas and how the context of the particular passage informs its interpretation. In this case, the author is the Apostle John, who has several books credited to his name in Scripture, and who speaks about this topic in numerous other passages. This topic is addressed by other biblical authors, all to uniform effect, but John’s writings are actually the most clear, and as the writer of John 3:16, this short analysis of his writings will prove beneficial.

First, let’s look at a few other passages within the same book of the gospel of John. For example, in John 10, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd, I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice“ (John 10:14-16). So, Jesus is explicit in saying he is laying down his life for his sheep. Moreover, his sheep includes members of his audience (Jews) and those outside of his audience (Gentiles). This will also be a refrain that shows itself later when we return to the context of John 3.

But couldn’t Jesus’ sheep be everyone on earth? Couldn’t he still be laying down his life for all people, both Jew and Gentile? Jesus continues: “I told you and, you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:25-29). All it takes for the answer to our question to be “no” is to find one person or group of people that Jesus explicitly did not die for. Here, the Jews that Jesus was speaking to did not believe because they were not of his sheep. Therefore, he was not laying down his life for them. To emphasize the point, he even declares that he gives his sheep (NOT the audience) eternal life, and they (NOT the audience) will never perish.

John hits on this topic again in John 17. In Jesus’ ‘High Priestly Prayer’, Jesus once again declares that he gives eternal life “to all whom the Father has given him” (John 17:2). He also declares that he is “not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them” (John 17:9-10). Importantly here, Jesus says specifically that he is not praying for the “world”, but for those that have been given to him (believers to the exclusion of all unbelievers). Seemingly, then, whatever “world” means here is different than the “world” recorded in John 3:16. Later in chapter 17, when Jesus speaks of these select believers (whom God has given him), he says that it is for their sake that he consecrates himself (John 17:19).

John writes about those whom Jesus has died for elsewhere in Scripture. For example, in Revelation 13, John notes that all unbelievers will worship the beast “everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lam who was slain” (Rev. 13:8). What is important for our conversation here is not that there are individual names of believers past, present, and future in the Book of Life (although this is a very important fact), but rather that this book was written before the foundation of the world. The people who are recorded in the book of life (names recorded by God) are clearly the people Jesus died for, for what happens to those whose names are not written therein? “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15).

What should then be made of John 3:16? Is it misleading? Is everyone who believes saved? Well, yes, but this isn’t the whole picture as John sees it. Indeed, In John 6, Jesus says, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29). Thus, the same belief that Jesus speaks of in John 3:16 is a work of God. Therefore, while it is true that “whosoever beliefs shall not perish, but have eternal life,” it is equally true that this very belief that saves is a work of God… at least, according to John’s understanding, and that just 3 chapters later.

The Context of John 3:16

We now arrive at the important issue of the context of John 3. In this passage, Jesus is engaged in conversation at night by Nicodemus. Nicodemus is a Pharisee, a Jewish religious leader who is genuinely curious about the person of Jesus. He comes at night so as to not draw attention to his questioning one who is seen as problematic by his Pharasaic peers. Nicodemus wants to know if Jesus really could be the long awaited Messiah. This is all very important context to the conversation, for Nicodemus (like the rest of the Jewish people) is expecting the Messiah to come and save Israel. Some believed such salvation would be a military saving from Roman control. Whether that was Nicodemus’ belief or not is not made clear, but Jesus goes to great length to show Nicodemus is mistaken in his core understanding of the Messiah’s purpose. God didn’t just love the Israeli people. He loved the whole world. He loves people from every tongue, tribe and nation. He loves Jews and Gentiles. To a Jewish leader, this would have been astounding talk! But Jesus wasn’t done, not only did God send the Messiah for Jew and Gentile, the Messiah would see to is that whosoever believes in him won’t just be saved from physical oppression, they would be given eternal life!

This is the context of John 3:16, and it makes the most sense out of how it fits with the rest of John’s biblical writings, which clearly and unapologetically paint of picture of Jesus dying for those, and only those, whom the Father has given him… his sheep… and not those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life from before the foundations of the world.