A Hermeneutical Study of Romans 9:13 in Support of Unconditional Election

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

While Scripture is replete with many passages that uphold the essential tenets of Calvinism, the bastion for those who align with this theology can be found in Romans 9. To successfully storm this well-fortified theological exposition of individual predestination and God’s sovereign choice in election, Arminians attempt all manner of assaults so as to further entrench themselves in their position upholding the freewill response to God’s elective efforts. One of their more common strategies is to undermine the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9:13 where Paul employs a quote from Malachi 1:2-3 to further his argumentation: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[i] One of their hermeneutical strategies is to suggest that Paul is alluding to two separate people groups descending from Jacob and Esau as opposed to two separate individuals. A second effort involves deflating what Paul means when he speaks of love and hate. In this article, the context and wording of Romans 9:13 will be examined for evidence that upends the Arminian stance and supports the Calvinistic interpretation.

In Romans 9:1-5, Paul opens up about his strongly held desires for all of the Jews to come to the faith. In the midst of this multitude who have yet to be saved, Paul introduces his own individual salvation: “I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (9:3-4). Despite Paul’s own wishes, he acknowledges that “it is not as though the word of God has failed” (9:6). On the surface, given Paul’s unfulfilled longing for the salvation of all Israel and his admission that this has not occurred, it may perhaps seem as if God’s word had failed. Nevertheless, Paul’s firmly states that it has not failed even though its success, in the context of his present argument, seems solely conditioned upon his own individual salvation in the midst of the rest of Israel.[ii]

Before proceeding, one should observe that Paul does not credit himself at all in his salvation nor does he discredit those who fail to receive salvation. Rather, the lynchpin upon which salvation hinges is the Word of God. For Paul, the Word of God successfully accomplishes its salvation work. Since the Word of God has not failed, it would seem that the lack of salvation work among the unsaved Jews, over whom Paul laments, must be due to the lack of deployment of the Word of God (by God) in their regard in terms of salvific effort.

Paul, as a faithful preacher who clearly loves his people, no doubt faithfully declared the Word of God according to his call (and in line with the example of Christ Himself in John 8:12-59). At least among the unsaved Jews to whom he references in Romans 9:3-5, Paul could have easily felt his preaching to be powerless given his “great sorrow and unceasing grief in [his] heart” at the thought of the great multitude of his fellow Israelites who were apparently doomed to destruction. Despite his emotional state, he continues his theology of divine victory despite the rejection of the Word of God by so many.

As Paul continues to build his case, he declares, “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (9:6). In his day, Jews commonly took comfort in their physical descent from Abraham believing this to be a guarantee in regard to their salvation. Jesus Himself argued with the Jews over this matter and permanently dispelled their false belief (John 8:31-59). These Jews, to whom Christ was speaking, had made some form of individual response to the Lord’s message even though their response, as the Lord’s reply indicated, was powerless in terms of salvation (8:30, 44).[iii]

Within Paul’s line of thought, his statement that “not all Israel…are descended from Israel” is shown in the context to the reason why “it is not as though the word of God has failed.” In the immediate context of v.6 where these two phrases appear, Paul limits his remarks to simply informing his audience that the failure of his unconverted fellow Jews to attain salvation has nothing to do with the physical descent from Abraham, a point which he makes certain in v.7 when he says this about them: “nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants.” Logically, his listeners have now been prepared to hear his argumentation concerning the cause of success or failure when it comes to being saved.

Paul continues, “‘through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son’” (9:7-9). In this passage, Paul differentiates between “the children of the flesh” and “the children of the promise.” These “children of the promise” are a group of individuals within the larger group which includes all who physically descend from Abraham. For these “children of God,” the Word of God has not failed according to Paul (cf. 9:6).

When Paul refers to those saved as “the children of the promise,” one should observe that the characteristic which makes this group unique is the promise. The obvious question would concern the originator of the promise. In v.9, Paul answers this question by introducing the promise giver as God Himself when he offers the promise God gave to Abraham in Genesis 17:19 (cf. 15:4-7) concerning the miraculous birth of Isaac.

Returning back to v.6, Paul in his discussion has already shifted the focus away from the individuals being saved and those who were not to the role of the Word of God in the matter. By v.9, Paul has further directed his argument away from the people involved and placed attention solely upon the Promise Giver. To further explain the salvific role of the Promise Giver, Paul now turns to the birth of Esau and Jacob: “there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

In his example, Paul now speaks clearly about actual individuals: Rebekah, Isaac, and their twins Esau and Jacob. Instead of building his argument upon individual decisions that they had made, Paul discounts the matter thus demonstrating that the role of individual choice in salvation is foreign to his present argument.  As opposed to a focus on any individual decisions, Paul points to decision that was birthed in mind of God long before it played out. The Promise Giver, therefore, is now being heralded as the Divine Chooser (cf. Gen 25:21-26).

In the original account of the birth of Esau and Jacob, Rebekah is show to be barren until God sovereignly chooses to answer a prayer from Isaac on her behalf (Gen 25:21). Since her pregnancy was difficult, she sought the Lord for the reason, and He told her what would become of the unborn twins, as if individual choice were a non-issue. At that time, God declared that the two boys would become two nations, with one being stronger than the other (25:23). While some (especially in the Arminian camp) will still argue for the role of individual choice by limiting God’s promises to Rebekah as mere fore-knowledge, Paul upholds God’s sovereign choice to be the sole explanation.

According to Paul, God had already determined that “[t]he older will serve the younger,” and this divinely decided outcome would occur irrespective of whether their decisions were “good or bad” (Rom 9:11-12). If any confusion remains, Paul provides the reason why God decided the futures of Esau and Jacob: it was “so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls” (9:11). For God, His choice in regard to these two individuals (Esau and Jacob) was the deciding factor as His primary concern is His own purpose. For Esau and Jacob, their “good or bad” “works” had no role in deciding their ultimate outcome which in the context of this verse (as has been noted already) refers to their eternal salvation. Rather than their own efforts, Paul points solely to “Him who calls” as the means to their individual eternal futures.

After elevating the role of God in salvation and conversely rendering the human role as non-efficacious, Paul then makes a final remark to underline his previous argumentation: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (9:13). So far in his discussion, Paul has already introduced Esau and Jacob as individuals whose choices played no role in their salvific futures. In v.13, Paul provides terminology that describes God’s choice related to each individual. In his words (which are taken from Malachi 1:2-3), God chooses to “love” the child of the promise, Jacob, irrespective of his sinfulness, while at the same time, he opts to “hate” Esau.

For their part, Arminians would argue that Paul in Romans 9:13 is referring to corporate election. To support their claim, they rightly note that the passage which Paul is quoting from in Malachi 1:2-3 is indeed speaking of corporate election. In the context of these verses from Malachi, Esau and Jacob are being used to refer to two countries, Edom and Israel (cf. 3-5). Throughout the Old Testament (OT), it is not uncommon to see Esau and Jacob being used to refer to these people groups (see endnote).[iv]

Before one too quickly concedes to the Arminian interpretation of Romans 9:13 that perceives corporate election to be the topic of Paul’s statement based upon arguments related to the context of the verses Paul quoted and OT usages of Esau and Jacob to refer to entire peoples, one must remember not to discount the context that Paul himself has already provided for v.13. Already, it has been observed that Paul has previously introduced Esau and Jacob in their individual capacities by directly mentioning their birth. Paul has also pointed to a unique and personal call from God being given to Jacob and not Esau. If one were to assume that Paul has expanded his mention of Esau and Jacob to include whole peoples, then one would also have to charge Paul with deliberately reverting the course of his argument and once again affirming the role physical descent in election. If this were the case, then Paul would be bringing his position back into alignment with that of his Jewish detractors and thereby undermine his argument completely (9:6-8).

Besides attempting to make v.13 support corporate election, Arminians also focus on Paul’s usage of love and hate to describe God’s choice. Some among them attempt to interpret Paul’s usage of hate to mean ‘loved less’ or not preferred. Regardless of such attempts to soften Paul’s language, the point of v.13 still remains. Specifically, Paul is marking a distinction between two individuals irrespective of any “good or bad” choices that they would make after being born (9:11). In conclusion, Paul, in Romans 9:13, is providing an OT reference to further support his argument for unconditional election, which he will continue to build throughout the chapter. Despite the desire of Arminians to redirect Paul’s discussion away from this doctrine which coincides with individual predestination and God’s sovereign choice in election, the context of Paul’s assertion reveals that God’s salvific efforts never fail because His Word never returns void. Rather, His divine choices and promises ensure that those whom he calls will indeed be saved regardless of their sin.

---

[i]All Scripture is taken from NASB1995.

[ii]Paul is delivering a theological argument, so he is referring to all Israel in general. Clearly, he was aware that some among his people were also saved.

[iii]In the verse referenced, John declares that these Jews “came to believe in” Christ, but then he immediately shows Christ rebuffing their belief and even calling them the children of the devil. In the context, these so-called believers will ultimately try to harm Jesus.

[iv]Cf. Gen 36:8; Num 23:7; Deut 2:4-5, 8, 12, 22, 29; Ps 14:7; Is 41:8; 59:20; Jer 49:8, 10.