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.