Romans chapters 9 – 11

By Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D.

December 22, 2017
Copyright © 1995, 2003, 2017 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

This paper is part of a series of papers devoted to the doctrine of election and its related topics.  To start at the beginning of the series, go to the paper How to Approach the Election Dispute.  Also see the suggested reading sequence at the end of that paper.

A.  Introduction

Chapters 9 - 11 in Romans, just like all the chapters in Romans, relate directly to the important subject of salvation.  So we must look carefully at them and do our best to let the Bible speak for itself.  In this paper we hope to emphasize a few aspects of Romans 9-11 that have been neglected in some commentaries.

These chapters have been widely discussed and scrutinized by Bible scholars who, at times, have sharp differences regarding the basic question: Who decides what individuals will be saved?  Does God decide?  Or does each individual decide?  In view of these persistent differences some have tried to overcome the problem by claiming that both decide, first God, then the individual.

One theologian who recommends this God-and-man approach is Millard Erickson.  His view is explained and evaluated in the paper "The Order of Salvation and Divine Foreknowledge" under the heading Erickson's alternate solution.

The view that both God and man decide is not a real solution as can be seen as soon as we ask the follow-up question: Can an individual decide differently than God?  Of course, everyone would answer No, which means that the attempt to have both God and man genuinely decide simply does not work.  We are concerned about who ultimately makes the decision, and that can only be God or the individual, not both.

In our examination of chapters 9 - 11,

• Our primary focus is on the subjects of sovereignty and election which are commonly misunderstood and misapplied to individual salvation – centering in chapter 9. 
• Our secondary focus is on the supposed future of the nation Israel – centering in chapter 11.

Certain statements, especially in Romans 9:11-21, are often used by Calvinists as support for their doctrine of unconditional election – that God chose which individuals would be saved and his choice was not conditioned in any way on those individuals.

¹¹ … before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God's purpose in election might stand: ¹² not by works but by him who calls – she was told, "The older will serve the younger." ¹³ Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." ¹⁴ What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 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 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. ¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  (Romans 9:11-21)

If, when you look at this passage, you bring certain assumptions (about sovereignty, free will, predestination, etc.) you will see just what your assumptions lead you to see.  For example, Matthew Henry (to cite just one of many) understands the reference to Jacob and Esau in verses 11-13 to be a reference to individuals:

… for wise and holy reasons, not made known to us, he purposed to change Jacob's heart, and to leave Esau to his perverseness.  (Mathew Henry, commentary on Romans 9:6ff)

However, if you pay attention to the context as well as to Paul's other relevant statements both in and out of Romans, you will see that there is a much better interpretation of this passage.  (We will return to Rebekah's sons, Jacob and Esau, later.)

Here is Olson's helpful introductory comment on Romans 9.

Romans 9 is a major focus of the discussion between Calvinists and others, since it is a lynchpin in their case for God's sovereignty manifest in the unconditional election of individuals. In examining this passage in the light of its context and the many Old Testament passages which Paul quotes in their contexts, there is absolutely no case for the unconditional election of individuals. The flow of Paul's thought in the broader context of Romans reveals that the subject is totally other than what Calvinists make it out to be. Careful examination of these contexts is absolutely essential for an honest dealing with the argument of the text.  (C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth, Global Gospel Pub., 2005, p. 298)

Olson highlights two important hermeneurical principles, context and analogy of faith, and thus centers the discussion where it belongs.

B.  Paul's focus

1.  General focus of Romans

In order to gain a better understanding of Paul's train of thought throughout the book of Romans, we begin by looking at the book as a whole.  If you are not familiar with the content of the book of Romans, refer to the outline in Appendix 1.

In chapters 1 - 8, and in 12 - 16, the focus is on individuals (often, of course, in the plural) regardless of their national identity – Jew or Gentile.  Indeed, many times Jews are addressed specifically, but the point is made that they, depending on their individual actions, are just as guilty as any Gentile (in fact, more guilty than a believing Gentile according to 2:28).  Below, selected just from the first three chapters of Romans, are a few of the many examples of this focus on individuals in spite of their particular nation.

1:5  — … to call people from among all the Gentiles …
1:16 — … the gospel … the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes …
2:6  — … God "will give to each person according to what he has done."
2:9  — … trouble and distress for every human being who does evil …
2:12 — All who sin apart from the law … all who sin under the law …
2:17 — … you, if you call yourself a Jew …
2:28 — A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly …
3:9  — … Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
3:10 — … "There is no one righteous, not even one …
3:28 — … a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

This focus on individuals is heightened in certain contexts by an explicit statement that includes both Jews and Gentiles.  For example, "Jews and Gentiles alike" (3:9), "Jews only? … Gentiles too" (3:29), and "not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (9:24).  These references to nations might be misunderstood as a focus on nations.  But just the opposite is the case.  These words are added in order to make it clear that the point of the passage applies equally to people in both groups.  These added words do not indicate that the point of the passage should be applied only to one group or the other.  Rather, the focus is on individuals in both groups (and on things that are the same in both groups) rather than on something that is unique to a particular group.

Moo highlights this focus on the individual:

The bulk of Romans focuses on how God has acted in Christ to bring the individual sinner into a new relationship with himself (chaps. 1-4), to provide for that individual's eternal life in glory (chaps. 5-8), and to transform that individual's life on earth now (12:1 - 15:13). Since it is essential to Paul's message that God acts, in a way that he has not previously, to include on an equal basis both Jew and Gentile in this transforming operation, Paul must pay constant attention to the implications of this new equality of treatment. He must explain how his message of individual transformation relates to God's focus on Israel in the OT. This explanation thus becomes a constant motif in the letter and occupies an important section of the letter (chaps. 9-11) in its own right.  (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, 1996, p. 28, italics in original)

2.  Special focus of chapters 9 - 11

At the beginning of chapter 9 Paul introduces a new focus into the discussion by raising the question of God's faithfulness to the nation of Israel.  These three chapters, 9, 10, 11, must be examined together.  Notice what is being discussed at the beginning of each of these three chapters.

• Chapter 9 — Sorrow regarding Israel's lack of belief and questioning if God's word had failed
• Chapter 10 — Paul's prayer for Israelites to be saved.
• Chapter 11 — Paul's question, Did God reject his people?

(Of course, chapter breaks are not inspired, being added centuries after the original manuscripts were written.  But the point would be the same if the chapters were broken in different places.)

The same basic concern runs throughout all three chapters; they belong together and must be treated as a contextual unit.

C.  Paul's Key

In the first five verses of chapter 9 Paul expresses severe emotional strain.  He says "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish" regarding "my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel."  In spite of all their advantages (adoption, glory, covenants, the law, temple worship, and promises) many of them are still lost, and Paul is so burdened that he could wish himself "cursed and cut off from Christ."  This is extreme intensity!

Regarding Paul's beloved nation as a whole (the leadership and many of the people), Israel has failed.  Did God fail to keep his promise?  Did God reject the nation of Israel?  Paul says definitely not.

It is not as though God's word had failed.  (Romans 9:6a)

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!  (Romans 11:1a)

Paul's negative answer is based on a very important fact which he states in concise form:

… not all who are descended from Israel are Israel (Romans 9:6b)

In this verse Paul makes a key distinction, worthy of close examination, so we will take note of several very literal translations:

they are not all Israel, that are of Israel  (American Standard Version, 1901)

they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel  (New American Standard Bible)

not all who are descended from Israel are actually Israel  (Robert Mounce, in the Greek & English Interlinear New Testament, 2nd ed., Zondervan, 2008)

not all those who are of Israel, these are Israel  (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, 1996, p. 570, a translation which Moo calls "very literal" on p. 32)

Later Moo offers this expanded rendering:

all those who belong to Israel (in a physical sense) do not belong to Israel (in a spiritual sense)  (Moo, op. cit. p. 573)

No matter which translation you use, it is obvious that Paul is using the word "Israel" in two different senses.  Calvin comments:

… when he says, that all who are of Israel are not Israelites, and that all who are of the seed of Abraham are not children, it is a kind of change in the meaning of words, (παρονομασία [a play on words which sound alike]); for in the first clause he includes the whole race, in the second he refers only to true sons, who were not become degenerated.  (Calvin's commentary on Romans 9:6, available online at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, ccel.org)

Paul's statement is a key concept.  Immediately after denying that God's word had failed in verse 6, Paul says "for," indicating he will now explain the reason for his denial of divine failure.  The reason is that there are two Israels – everything in chapters 9-11 hangs on this distinction.  If we remember that, on the one hand there is national Israel (Calvin's "the whole race," Moo's "physical sense") and on the other hand there is true Israel (Calvin's "true sons," Moo's "spiritual sense"), we will be able to see clearly what Paul is saying in these three chapters.

We will need to sort out those portions of chapters 9 - 11 where Paul is discussing Israel as a nation, and those portions where he is discussing individuals as "true Israel."

D.  A word about context

Ideally, in studying the Bible, the careful student would follow this order:

• First, the student would study every portion of the Bible and gain a precise understanding of what each portion is saying.  This is "biblical theology."
• Second, that student would integrate what he has learned from every portion of the Bible into a meaningful whole.  This is "systematic theology."  Assuming he has the correct interpretation of every portion, integration will be relatively easy.  There will be no real contradictions, for all of the Bible's teachings come from the same ultimate author.

The principle is this:  Biblical theology precedes systematic theology.

Thiessen identifies four aspects of theology (exegetical, historical, systematic, and practical), exegetical being the same as what we are calling biblical theology.  He points out that

Systematic Theology takes the materials furnished by Exegetical and Historical Theology and arranges them in logical order under the great heads of theological study. But we must carefully distinguish between the contributions of Exegetical and Historical Theology. The former is the only real and infallible source of the science ….  (Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans,1949, p. 46. Beware of later versions disrespectfully altered by those who disagree with Thiessen.)

Naturally, the integration process will require some adjustments in the findings of biblical theology as certain passages shed light on others.  Generally, clear passages should help interpret ambiguous passages.  Thus, as we apply the "analogy of faith" we find that integration is not an automatic process.  Nevertheless, here we are making the point that there is a fundamental order to be followed – systematic theology must be built upon biblical theology.

And in following this order, we have to remember to interpret every statement in light of its literary context (the surrounding sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc.), and to look for the flow of thought in each passage (what Moo calls "searching for logical movement," op. cit. p. 32).  We cannot take a "spider" approach, isolating each phrase from the larger continuity of ideas.  Examining context and discovering flow are absolutely essential.

Of course, life is never ideal.  We all tend to generalize based on a few observations, and we tend to draw conclusions before learning all the facts.  In addition, everyone has his own history, often being brought up with certain overall generalizations about the Bible, and perhaps trained in particular beliefs.

So it is very difficult personally to let biblical theology precede systematic theology.  It requires constant, conscious effort.  All too often we study a particular portion of scripture and allow our theology to serve as the context, letting our theology override the true context, which is the literary, historical, and cultural context.  We bring our theological frame of reference with us every time we approach a passage of scripture, so we have to train ourselves to let each passage speak for itself.

In this study of Romans chapters 9 - 11 we will need to pay careful attention to the context of each statement, whether that context is within these three chapters and elsewhere in Romans, or in Paul's other letters, indeed, the entire Bible.

E.  Evidence for two elections

In chapters 9 – 11 Paul is describing two different types of election.  He is discussing both individual election to salvation and the national election of the Jews, but he never mixes the two.  In 9:6 Paul says that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."  Obviously, here he is using the word "Israel" in two different senses:

1. The nation of people descended from the patriarch Israel (Jacob), national Israel – "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18)
2. All who have faith in Jesus Christ, the saved, true Israel – "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16)

Here is Thomas and Davidson's comment on 9:6.

The promises which he has already mentioned (4) are not broken but fulfilled to the true Israel. God's Israel is henceforth contrasted with Judaism, hitherto the official heir of Abraham, but now rejected owing to its lack of faith and its refusal to accept the claims of the Messiah. … Paul declares that God in the exercise of his sovereign will has decreed that faith, not heredity, is the eternal principle of sonship.  (G. T. Thomas and Francis Davidson, The New Bible Commentary, 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1954, italics added)

This same sort of language, using the same word in two different senses, is also found earlier in Romans.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.  (Romans 2:28-29a)

Here Paul uses the word "Jew" in two different senses, making a distinction between a physical Jew who is one "outwardly" and the true Jew who is one "inwardly."  In the same passage he also uses the word "circumcision" in two different senses, making a distinction between physical "outward" circumcision and spiritual circumcision "of the heart."  This distinction is exactly the same as that found in Romans 9:6.  See the paper Two Israels - Two Threads of Prophecy.

Here are five lines of evidence that Paul is discussing two different types of election and that certain portions of Romans chapter 9 apply to the nation Israel.

Line 1 — "as far as the gospel is concerned" / "as far as election is concerned"

It is commonly understood (misunderstood) that Romans 9:11-21 (quoted at the beginning of this paper) is describing the election of the individual, and his/her reception of the gospel, regeneration, faith, etc. as an individual.  However, Paul explicitly speaks of two different elections:

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, …  (Romans 11:28)

Here is a more literal rendering:

In regard to the Gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of their forefathers.  (Robert Mounce, in the Greek & English Interlinear New Testament, 2nd ed., Zondervan, 2008)

Paul makes it obvious that there are two senses involved by making two statements about Israel.  The first statement has to do with individuals' belief or unbelief and Paul uses the phrase "as far as the gospel is concerned."  The second statement has to do with parentage and Paul says "as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs."  And the statement in verse 29 that "God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" clearly applies to the nation of Israel.

If Paul were discussing only one type of election (the election of individuals to salvation) the contrast implied by "but" in the middle of verse 28 would be meaningless.  He is discussing two types of election.

Line 2 — Mercy on some? Mercy on all?

In 9:15-18 Paul says that God has mercy on some but hardens others.

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 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. … ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
(Romans 9:15-18)

But in 11:32, Paul says that God wants to have mercy on all men.

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Romans 11:32)

If individual election were the only type of election being discussed in these passages, this would be a contradiction.  But the first passage deals with national election, the second with individual election.

Line 3 — Chosen but lost

Compare 9:13 where Israel ("Jacob") is loved/chosen with 9:1-6 where many in Israel are lost.

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Romans 9:13)

Many interpreters identify being "loved" in the sense of being individually saved/elect, and being "hated" in the sense of being individually lost.

I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, …  (Romans 9:2-3)

How can Israel be chosen in the sense of individually saved/elect, if many Israelites are lost?  Again, the first passage deals with national election, the second with individual election.  If we were to insist on only one type of election here, these two passages would contradict each other.

Line 4 — Destiny set by God or by faith?

In Romans 9:11-13 it appears that destiny depends on God, not on man

¹¹ Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God's purpose in election might stand: ¹² not by works but by him who calls – she was told, "The older will serve the younger." ¹³ Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."  (Romans 9:11-13)

But in 9:30-32 and 11:20 it appears that attaining righteousness depends on faith, and inclusion in or exclusion from the olive tree depends on belief and unbelief.

³⁰ What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹ but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. ³² Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."  (Romans 9:30-32)

… they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.  (Romans 11:20)

Again, the first passage (9:11) deals with national election, the other passages (9:30-32; 11:20) deal with individual election.

Line 5 — Rebekah's sons, Jacob and Esau

Isaac's wife, Rebekah, had twin sons, Jacob and Esau.  Esau was the older, being born first.  When Paul refers to these two sons, how is he thinking of them, as individuals or as nations?

Before they were born they "jostled each other" (Genesis 25:22) and Rebekah asked the Lord why this happened. 

The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger." (Genesis 25:23)

The statement from Genesis, "the older will serve the younger," is directly quoted by Paul in Romans 9:10-13 in his discussion of election.  Certainly Paul is discussing the election of the nation Israel, not the salvation of Jacob as an individual.

Look closely at Paul's statement about Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:13.

Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."  (Romans 9:13)

Paul is explicitly quoting scripture, for he says "Just as it is written."  This quotation comes from Malachi 1:2-4.

² "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, ³ but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." ⁴ Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.  (Malachi 1:2-4)

Here is Thomas and Davidson's comment on Paul's quotation:

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (13) must be interpreted in the sense of nations, not individuals, which is the original reference in the two Old Testament quotations (Gn. 25:23; Mal. 1:2-3)  (G. T. Thomas and Francis Davidson, The New Bible Commentary, 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1954)

Olson adds:

Is it not obvious that Jacob and Esau are euphemisms for the nations in the brief portion which Paul quoted? Malachi has personalized the nations by using the names of their progenitors. Certainly the Apostle Paul did not intend to wrench these sentences out of their prophetic contexts to make them teach a doctrine of unconditional individual election.  (C Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth, Global Gospel Pub., p. 299)

————————————

The above five lines of evidence make it impossible to miss the fact that there are two different types of election woven into chapters 9 – 11.  But before sorting out which passages are speaking of which type of election, we need to raise the issue of logical order in the mind of God.

F.  God private logic revealed

According to Calvinists the reason for some individuals being chosen while others are not chosen is left entirely hidden in the eternal and holy wisdom and pleasure of God.  For example, the Westminster Confession says,

1. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 3, Par. 1-4)

By the way, in paragraph #2 above, notice the phrase "not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future."  This is simple foreknowledge – knowing something before it happens.  But it is this kind of foreknowledge that the Westminster Confession is saying did not play a part in God's election.  This kind of foreknowledge is very different than the kind of foreknowledge which Calvinists wrongly assume appears in Romans 8:29 and which they essentially equate with election.  (We deal more with this error of Calvinists below in the section on Romans 8:29-30.)

As Miley contends, if there truly were no cause-effect in God's election, his choice of some and not others can legitimately be labeled arbitrary:

It is in the doctrine of predestination that God did sovereignly elect A, B, C, a part of mankind, to everlasting life, and that he did reject and ordain D, E, F, the rest, to everlasting misery. It is also in the doctrine that there was no reason in his thought why he should so elect A, B, C, insted of D, E, F, or why he should reprobate D, E, F, instead of A, B, C. The fact is definitely expressed in the formulation of the doctrine, that the election of A, B, C, was without foresight of any thing in them as the reason why they were chosen instead of D, E, F. Here, then, is a decree of predestination so arbitrary in itself, so vast in the sweep of its absolute determination of eternal destinies, that it well might daze even celestial intelligences, and yet a decree for which, in its most vital facts, there is no reason in the thought of God. The very nature of election and reprobation, as thus disclosed, suffices for their utter refutation.  (John Miley, Systematic Theology, vol 2, Eaton & Mains, 1894, p. 266, available online here)

It is our contention that God has the most excellent reason for selecting some and not others and that this selection is done according to his plan.  This is how he "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).  In addition, God has revealed this particular reason – he has repeatedly stated the logical order involved in his gracious salvation, as we will see in many of the passages cited in the next two sections.

We need to think clearly about the passages in the next two sections.  There are a number of passages cited below for which the Calvinist will be able to supply an alternate explanation (illustrated in the very first passage below).  Often a passage will address a number of subjects related to individual salvation (including such things as faith, regeneration, works, understanding, etc.) and it will spell out, in a limited fashion, some relationship between these things.  The relationship could be a variety of types, such as association, sequence, means-end, contrast, etc.  In these cases there might be various interpretations regarding whether the passage indicates a real cause-effect relationship.

However, several of the passages we will cite below are explicit regarding a logical relationship, that is, cause-effect, indicated by the use of such terms as "because," "since," or "for this reason."   For example, if a passage merely says that a person had faith in Christ and says that God chose him, we are left with various possible interpretations.  However if a passage says that a person had faith in Christ because God already chose him, we have a clear statement of cause-effect.  Similarly, if a person is said to be lost or condemned and also says that he rejected Christ, again we are left with various possible explanations.  But if the passage says that he is lost or condemned because he rejected Christ, again, we have a clear logical statement of cause-effect.

Some of the passages cited in the next two sections will have this strong logical statement.

G.  Guidance from the first 8 chapters

In chapters 9 - 11 Paul is providing an extended answer to questions he has already raised in 3:1-4.  We can expect that everything Paul says in chapters 9 - 11 will remain consistent with what he has already said in the first 8 chapters. 

Do these earlier chapters teach that God unconditionally chooses which individuals will be saved?  Or do they teach that God's choice of individuals takes their exercise of faith into account?

Romans 1:16-17

In 1:16 Paul states

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." (Romans 1:16-17)

Here the condition of salvation is clearly belief, that is, faith.  An individual's salvation depends on that individual exercising faith in the Christ of the gospel.  Of course, a Calvinist will reply that the individual will be able to believe only if God chooses and regenerates him.

Saving faith, like repentance, is a fruit of regeneration … . … Faith is created in the hearts of God's elect when they are made alive by the almighty power of the Holy Spirit, who works when and where He wills.  (Steele and Thomas, Romans: An Interpretive Outline, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963, p. 84)

Thus, Steele and Thomas claim that, because of man's inability to choose God, God must choose man and must regenerate and enlighten him before he can understand the gospel or exercise faith.

The point we are making here is that this idea, that regeneration precedes belief, comes from one's theology, not from what Paul says in this passage.  Nor does it come from any other Bible passage, and certainly not from Romans 9-11 as we will show below.  The focus in this passage is squarely on belief/faith.

Here is a brief retort from Spurgeon regarding the order of regeneration and faith:

In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false. It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints. It is anything but a ministry of free grace.  (Charles H. Spurgeon, "The Warrant of Faith," a sermon at Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, Sept. 20, 1863)

Moo appears to have the balance right when he states,

… another focus of Romans is the insistence that faith is in no sense a "work." Therefore, although we must never go to the extreme of making the person a totally passive instrument through whom "believing" occurs – for Paul makes clear that people are responsible to believe – we must also insist that believing is not something we do (in the sense of "works") but is always a response, an accepting of the gift God holds out to us in his grace ….  (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, 1996, p. 67, italics in original)

… the individual's standing before God is the center of Paul's gospel, which offers salvation only on the basis of a personal response (1:16).  (op. cit. p. 552)

Romans 1:18-28

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. ²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. ²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. … ²⁸ Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  (Romans 1:18-28)

Several times in this passage Paul states the logical basis for God's wrath falling on sinful mankind.

• the wrath of God is revealed from heaven "since" they plainly understood the truth but suppressed it (v. 18-19)
• God's invisible qualities were understood "so that they are without excuse" (v. 20)
• although they knew God they exchanged the glory of God … "Therefore God gave them over" (v. 21-24)
• they worshiped and served created things ... "Because of this God gave them over" (v. 25-26)
• "since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over" (v. 28)

Paul takes great pains here to identify the cause and effect.  An individual's belief/faith/actions are the logical basis for God's response of "giving them over."  See the long list of passages that state that God responds to people in the paper "God's Sovereignty and Human Free Will."

Romans 2:5-6

Paul continues the same logic in 2:1-11 showing that the same basis for judgment applies to the Jews.  He explicitly states that

… because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done."  (Romans 2:5-6)

Romans 4:3-5, 23-24

In 4:3-5 Paul states that just as Abraham's belief (not his works) formed the basis for his righteousness, so our belief (not our works) forms the basis for our righteousness.

³ What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." ⁴ Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. ⁵ However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.  (Romans 4:3-5)

²³ The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, ²³ but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness – for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.  (Romans 4:23-24)

Both for Abraham and for "the man who … trusts," God grants positional righteousness which is based on our faith which is clearly distinguished from works.

Of course, there is a very basic sense in which this granting of righteousness is based on God's grace, for no one could be saved apart from the gracious substitutionary death of Christ and no one would even understand his need, or want to be saved, apart from the enlightening and drawing work of the Son and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

Enlightening

The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. (John 1:9)

Convicting

When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: (John 16:8)

Drawing

But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32)

God's grace, shown in these actions, is clearly said to extend to all human beings.  But the point of these two passages in Romans 4 is that the single factor which makes the difference is the individual's choice – to trust in Christ or reject Christ.  Since God requires us to place our faith in Christ in order to be saved, it is proper to speak of righteousness as based on faith.

Calvin taught something quite different — that it is God's unconditional choice that forms the sole basis for our righteousness, and our faith comes after our regeneration.

If the determining factor were God's choice of the individual rather than the individual's own choice, this would have been the perfect place for Paul to make that idea clear.  But that idea is missing here just as it is missing in all of Romans.

With such consistent teaching in the early chapters of Romans, it is inconceivable that Paul would turn around and teach unconditional election of individuals to salvation in chapter 9.  If we look at the flow of thought in chapters 9 – 11 we will see that Paul is teaching the same thing there that he taught earlier.

Romans 8:29-30

Verses 29 and 30 are found in a section of Romans chapter 8 that has a strong emphasis on expectation and hope in difficult circumstances.  Notice Paul's repeated pattern: mentioning a negative situation now, but highlighting something positive to come.

	Negative	Positive
v 18	Our present sufferings	Later glory
v 19-22	Creation's frustration and groaning	Creation will be liberated
v 23-25	We groan	The redemption of our bodies
v 26-27	Weak and don't know how to pray	The Spirit intercedes

Then Paul summarizes:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.  (Romans 8:28)

In other words, God is at work for you!  What could be more encouraging?  Then Paul adds to the certainty of all this by spelling out five things God does for the believer:

… those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.  (Romans 8:29-30)

(Notice, by the way, that the predestination is not to salvation, but to being "conformed to the likeness of his Son.")

Here we have a chain of five different verbs and God is always the subject:

God foreknew → God predestined → God called → God justified → God glorified

Is there sequence here?  On the one hand, keep in mind that this five-fold chain is part of an effort to encourage the Roman believers in a difficult situation.  So it is included primarily for its comforting and strengthening effect.  On the other hand, there are three hints of sequence within the chain itself: (1) the "fore" part of the word "foreknew" implies a prior time element, (2) the Roman believers were presently justified, and (3) they were not yet glorified.  So, even though the chain of God's actions is not presented as a formal statement of logical or chronological steps as might be found is a theological textbook, still there is obvious sequence here.  And it all starts with foreknowledge.  Foreknowledge is the same starting place mentioned by Peter:

To God's elect, … who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father  (1 Peter 1:1-2)

This subject of foreknowledge is an obvious case where we must exercise extra care to let the passage speak for itself and avoid making our theology the context of the passage.  Be aware that Calvinists have redefined foreknowledge to fit their theological assumptions.  They claim that "foreknew" means fore-loved or fore-favored.  But this claim is just plain incorrect.  It is based largely on bogus and highly selective observations of the so-called relational sense of the Hebrew word for know.  This is all covered in the paper The Order of Salvation and Divine Foreknowledge.  Unfortunately, when Moo interprets verse 29, he parrots the standard Calvinistic dogma regarding foreknowledge.  He even claims that this relational sense is "too well known and widely accepted to require argument" (Moo, op. cit. p. 532, f.n. 140).  In reality, this redefinition of foreknowledge is one of the weakest points of Calvinistic soteriology and should not be so hastily accepted.

We notice that the part played by an individual person is not spelled out in this sequence (verses 29-30).  But the individual does play a part according to all those other passages in Romans that we have been looking at.  And that part is, of course, faith.  There is no place for him to play a part in predestination, justification, or glorification. The one place where an individual can play a part is by responding to the call.  And this response to the call must be what God foreknew.

Thus, God initiates everything by

• Placing people here and there on the earth so they might seek him (Acts 17:26-27)
• Enlightening, drawing, convicting every person (John 1:9; 16:8; 12:32)
• Providing the basis for salvation, the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18)
• Sending "preachers" with the good news (Romans 10:14-15)

Then, because of all that God has done, a person can realize his lost condition and cry out in repentance and place his faith in Christ.  Then God responds by granting new spiritual life, sonship, forgiveness, hope of glory, and all the rest.  Of course, God foreknew all this about every individual that turns to him; it all goes according to his loving plan of salvation.  He gets all the praise!

H.  Guidance from chapters 10 and 11

In Romans chapter 10, right in the middle of the discussion of national Israel and God's faithfulness, Paul repeats the same teaching that we have highlighted from the first 8 chapters of Romans.

Romans 10:4

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.  (Romans 10:4)

This passage corresponds perfectly with all those passages from other books which speak of believing (having faith) in order to become saved, such as,

… to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God …  (John 1:12)

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31)

And just as Paul emphasized faith rather than works as the requirement for salvation, Jesus himself emphasized faith.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."  (John 6:28-29)

Romans 10:9-10

… if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.  (Romans 10:9-10)

Paul's repetition is obvious.  If you confess with your mouth, and if you believe in your heart, you will be saved.  Again, with your heart you believe, and with your mouth you confess, and are justified and saved.  What is it that triggers salvation?  It is a person's confession of the truth and belief in the risen Lord Jesus.

Romans 10:13-15

Paul traces several steps that lead to salvation.

1. Someone is sent with good news
2. He preaches that good news
3. The listener hears the message
4. The listener believes the message
5. The listener calls on the name of the Lord
6. The listener is saved

Paul starts by confirming steps 5 and 6 of the above sequence.  He then works his way backwards through each of the steps asking what is needed before that step can occur.  Thus he explains a series of requirements – a logical order that must happen in order to lead to salvation.

¹³ … "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." ¹⁴ How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? ¹⁵ And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"  (Romans 10:13-15)

Again, the hearer's response to the gospel message is the key.  If he has faith (believes and calls on the name of the Lord) he will be saved.  Notice what is missing from this sequence: the notion that the individual is unable to hear or believe or call upon the Lord, the notion that God will arbitrarily select (elect) the individual for salvation, and the notion that God must regenerate the individual before he can believe.  Keep in mind that Paul is dealing here with those things that lead to salvation.  Also keep in mind that Paul has, only a few paragraphs earlier in chapter 9, been discussing what some insist is a description of unconditional election.  If that really were what Paul was discussing in those earlier paragraphs, how could he leave unconditional election out of this sequence?  The truth is that the supposed description of unconditional election of individuals to salvation which some see in chapter 9 must be rejected.

Romans 10:16-17

Paul reiterates the same steps (3, 4, 5 as we have labeled them in the previous section) in different words.  But the point is the same – faith comes from hearing the message.

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.  (Romans 10:16-17)

Romans 10:21

Here is Paul's description of God's approach to Israel

… concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." (Romans 10:21)

This sad passage reminds us of Jesus' statement, which just like Paul's sequence, involves hearing and responding.

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

Romans 11:16-24, the olive tree

Paul uses an analogy in which the believing Gentiles (branches from a wild olive tree) join believing Jews (root and branches of a cultivated olive tree).  He makes the point that it is faith on the part of some Jews that has kept them attached to the tree, and it is faith on the part of some Gentiles that allowed them to be grafted into the tree.  Here again it is faith/belief that makes the difference.

¹⁶ … if the root is holy, so are the branches. ¹⁷ If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, ¹⁸ do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. ¹⁹ You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." ²⁰ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. ²¹ For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. ²² Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. ²³ And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. ²⁴ After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!  (Romans 11:16b-24)

Here Paul is not talking about the Jews as Jews, nor about Gentiles as Gentiles, but about some Jews and some Gentiles as individual believers.  They are part of the same tree.  This is a holy tree, for both its root and its branches are holy (v. 16).

By the way, this emphasis on belief means that, regarding the two views – the Reformed view that the church is the continuation of Israel, and the Dispensational view that the church is entirely separate from Israel – both views are incorrect.  In reality, the church is the continuation of spiritual Israel.

I.  Identifying verses about national election

As Moo suggests, there are two types of election being discussed in Romns 9-11.

Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined in Paul  (Moo, op. cit. p. 552)

The task is to sort out which verses are discussing which type of election. 

A careful reading of these three chapters in order to discover the flow of thought reveals the fact that 9:7-21 refers to national election, not to individual election as Calvinists claim.  These verses serve as an illustration of the fact that God has already limited his choice of the nation of promise.  Not all of Abraham's children are part of God's chosen nation.  God arbitrarily limited the chosen nation by selecting Isaac and rejecting Ishmael, and later by selecting Jacob and rejecting Esau.  This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau and all their descendants were individually lost, only that they were not included in God's chosen nation.

In verses 14-21 Paul argues that God has the perfect right to limit his selection in this arbitrary manner, but remember that he is discussing national election.  Also, remember that “Pharaoh” is a title for the ruler of Egypt, not an individual's name.  (Even if the reference to Pharaoh is thought to focus on the individual rather than the Egyptian nation, keep in mind that Pharaoh as an individual hardened his heart first, then God in response hardened Pharaoh's heart.  See the paper Pharaoh's Hard Heart.)

As already mentioned at the beginning of this paper, Calvinists use Romans 9:11-21 to bolster the false notion of unconditional election of individuals to salvation.  Thus, it is helpful to compare this passage with the other passages in Romans 9 - 11 which discuss adoption, election, calling, foreknowledge, and choosing.  These other passages are listed in the following chart, and their subject, either national Israel or true Israel, is noted in the second column.

Passage	Which Israel	Context and explanation
Romans chapter 9
"adoption" 9:4	National Israel	Context see 9:3-5 — Paul's concern for his "brothers," the "people of Israel," and the advantages of being of the Jewish race.
"election" 9:11	National Israel	Context see 9:6-21 — The principle: Not all who are born Jews are saved; salvation is limited to those who believe (verse 6, and 3:21 - ch 5).  Verses 7-13 provide an illustration of this principle by showing that God had already limited the chosen nation to a small part of Abraham's descendants, namely children of Isaac, and children of Jacob.
"called" 9:24	True Israel	Context see 9:22-29 — Paul is referring to "us" (verse 24), the saved from both the Jews and from the Gentiles (verse 24), the "remnant" (verse 27).
Romans chapter 11
"foreknown" 11:2 "chosen by grace" 11:5 "elect" 11:7	True Israel	Context see 11:1-6 — Paul asks, "Did God reject his people?", then immediately answers "No"  and gives two supporting facts.  First, he is an Israelite.  (He has already indicated, in 9:3, that he is saved and many of his Israelite brothers are lost, so his point here must be that God's acceptance is of those who are saved.)  Second, there is a remnant chosen by grace, not by works.  This is the same group as the "elect" in verse 7.
"election" 11:28	National Israel	Context see 11:25-32 — The elect here are connected with the patriarchs, and contrasted with those who have accepted the gospel.

Important:  It is only in 9:6-21 (second row in the above chart), which discusses the nation of Israel and the nation of Egypt, that Paul describes God's choice as arbitrary by using such language as:

• He [God] says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" (verse 15, compare 18)
• It does not depend on man's desire or effort (verse 16)
• Does not the potter have the right to make ... (verse 21)

Such arbitrary language never appears in Paul's discussion of individual salvation – either in the passages about true Israel in the above chart, or in the extended salvation passages elsewhere in Romans (such as 3:21 - 5:20;  11:16-24).  In these passages the emphasis is exclusively on faith in Christ.  Indeed, those who have faith in Christ are elect because of God's foreknowledge of their belief, but it is their belief that makes the difference.

Thus, the above passages about God's arbitrary choice of a nation do not support the Calvinistic view that God arbitrarily chose individuals to be saved.

J.  Is the potter active and the clay passive?

The imagery of the potter and the clay is found several places in the Old Testament prophets.  It is often used to emphasize God's sovereign role as the potter.  One of those passages, often listed as a parallel to Romans 9:20-21, is Jeremiah 18:1-10, which explains that after the potter forms the clay, he responds to it!

¹ This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: ² "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." ³ So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. ⁴ But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. ⁵ Then the word of the LORD came to me: ⁶ "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. ⁷ If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, ⁸ and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. ⁹ And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, ¹⁰ and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.  (Jeremiah 18:1-10)

Notice the repeated use of "house of Israel" and "nation," which has definite implications for the continuation of national Israel, discussed in the next section.

Also notice the four if-statements at the beginning of verses 7, 8, 9, and 10.  God, in his sovereignty, responds to nations and to people.

So the potter-clay analogy should be taken as a limited picture.  It is true that the non-personal nature of clay certainly highlights the vast superiority of God and his right to do whatever he wants with what he has created.  However, the other picture that must be held in view is that of man created in the image of God, capable of responding (given God's gracious acts of enlightening, drawing, and convicting) to such commands as "you must not eat" (Genesis 2:17), "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3), and "repent" (Acts 17:30). 

K.  Will all Israel be saved?

The answer is Yes if we are referring to true Israel (saved individuals).  But the answer is No if we are referring to national Israel.

There are many commentators and theologians who speak of God's promises to Israel and stress the point that "God keeps his promises."  They cite this obvious truth to bolster the idea that, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then the nation of Israel will be saved, based on Romans 11:25-26.  But these commentators do not assign enough weight to two important facts.

1.  Romans 11:25-26 does not say "then"

The passage does not say "then" all national Israel will be saved.  Look closely at the passage:

²⁵ … Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. ²⁶ And in this way all Israel will be saved …  (Romans 11:25b-26a)

The word translated "in this way" at the beginning of verse 26 is the Greek adverb ουτως (houtōs) which means thus, so, in this manner, in this way.  Indeed, all standard translations use either "so" or "in this way" at this point; none of them use "then."

An adverb modifies a verb.  At the beginning of verse 26 the subject is "all Israel" and the verb is "will be (saved)."  As an adverb houtōs points to how something will be done, that is, it shows how all Israel will be saved.  The answer is:  by the coming in of the full number of Gentiles.

Paul is not saying that national Israel will be saved after the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  Rather, he is saying that the full number of the Gentiles coming in is all Israel being saved.  Paul is using the word "Israel" here to refer to true Israel.

But for a long time many well known theologians and commentators have misinterpreted these verses.  For example, Hodge comments on verses 25 and 26 claiming:

… the partial blindness of the Jews is to continue until the conversion of the fulness of the Gentiles, and then, as stated in the next verse, they are to be brought again into the kingdom of God.  (Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, London, Religious Tract Society, 1837)

But that is exactly what is not stated in the next verse!

Among more modern commentators, both Moo and Stott also think that this passage is talking about what happens to the nation of Israel after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

Even though Moo translates houtōs at the beginning of verse 26 "in this way" (Moo, op. cit. p. 711), he goes on to claim that how all Israel will be saved involves

a final act after the hardening of Israel is removed and the destined number of Gentiles enter the kingdom.  (Moo, op. cit. p. 712, italics in original)

Moo then goes on to make a most regrettable claim, that this supposed salvation of all national Israel is needed in order for God to be faithful to his promises.

It is by means of this salvation-historical process that God's faithfulness to his promises to Israel is manifested. … in the future God's unwavering commitment to Israel will be spectacularly revealed in the salvation of the nation as a whole (v. 26a).  (Moo, op. cit. p. 713)

Moo admits that houtōs does not have a temporal meaning, but claims there is still a temporal element.

… houtōs, while not having a temporal meaning, has a temporal reference: for the manner in which all Israel is saved involves a process that unfolds in definite stages.  (Moo, op. cit. p. 720, italics in original)

But those stages come, not from the passage, but from Moo's misunderstanding of what he calls "God's unwavering commitment to Israel" (referring to the nation).  Of course, God is unwavering, but his promises and covenants were conditional, as we explain in the next section.  (At least Moo should be given credit for the fact that he is not dogmatic and admits on page 720, "I incline slightly" to the view that verse 26a refers to national Israel.)

Similarly, Stott sees a sequence here involving three stages.  He refers to the hardening of Israel as the first stage, then the coming in of the full number of Gentiles as the second stage, then the salvation of national Israel as the third stage.  The first stage

will last only until the second stage of God's unfolding plan. This Paul now states: until the full number of the Gentiles has come in (25c). While Israel remains hardened, and continues to reject Christ, the gospel will be preached throughout the world, and more and more Gentiles will hear and respond to it. And this process will continue until the full number … of the Gentiles has been made up.
    This will bring about the third stage: And so all Israel will be saved (26a). … throughout Romans 'Israel' means ethnic or national Israel, in contrast to the Gentile nations. This is plainly so in verse 25 of this context; so the word could hardly take on a different meaning in the very next verse (26).  (John Stott, Romans: God's Good News for the World, InterVarsity, 1994, p. 303, italics in original)

Unfortunately, Stott blunders three times in short scope.

• First, consider that last quoted comment claiming that the word "Israel" must have the same meaning in verse 26 that it has in verse 25.  There is no hermeneutical rule that a word must have the same meaning it had in the previous verse.  In addition, Stott appears to forget that the word "Israel" has two different meanings in the very same verse (9:6) where the two appearances of the word "Israel" are separated by only one word.  Stott's attempt to force meaning from a previous verse is entirely out of place. 
• Second, consider Stott's comment that "throughout Romans 'Israel' means ethnic or national Israel."  From such a comment you might incorrectly assume that the word "Israel" (Greek: Ισραηλ) is used frequently enough throughout Romans to make such an observation possible.  However, "Israel" appears only in eleven locations (9:6 twice, 9:27 twice, 9:31, 10:19, 10:21, 11:2, 11:7, 11:25, and 11:26) all of which are in chapters 9 - 11.  The word "Israel" does not appear in Romans outside of these three chapters.  And, as just pointed out, the first two times it appears (in 9:6) it obviously is used with two different meanings.  This opens up the definite possibility that here in verses 25 and 26 it is again used with two different meanings.
• Third, by speaking of three stages Stott introduces a time element between verses 25 and verse 26 which is not really there.  He completely misses the real meaning of houtōs at the beginning of verse 26.

It should be pointed out that Calvin himself understood "Israel" in verse 26 to refer to all the saved, not the nation Israel.  Here is his comment on "all Israel":

Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — "When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both …  (Calvin, commentary on Romans 11:26, available online at ccel.org)

2.  God's promises to national Israel were conditional

Unfortunately, Moo repeatedly refers to God's promises to national Israel as "irrevocable" and "unwavering" (op. cit. p. 712, 713, 730).  And he has a lot of company in this faulty characterization of the promises.  Of course, he is taking his clue from Romans 11:29, where God's gift and call are described as "irrevocable."  However, Moo misapplies this to national Israel.

Of course, God never goes back on his promises when everything depends on him.  However, the covenants which God made with the patriarchs of Israel and with the nation as a whole were two part covenants: (1) what God would faithfully do if Israel obeyed, and (2) what God would faithfully do if Israel did not obey.  One of the easiest places to see this is in Deuteronomy chapter 28, starting at verse 1 and again starting at verse 13.  See also Deuteronomy 8:18-20 where God says that, if Israel turns away from him, Israel will be destroyed.

God promised both blessing and destruction: blessing if Israel obeyed, destruction of Israel disobeyed.  Israel disobeyed repeatedly and God was very patient, but they finally rejected God directly and personally when they rejected Jesus Christ.  Clearly, based both on the nature of these two-part covenants (and on the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 21:33-46 and the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:7-9, 13), ancient Israel, as a nation, has been rejected by God.

For a more complete discussion of such topics as the end of national Israel, the meaning of "forever" in connection with the covenants, and the fact that the covenants were conditional whether or not the condition is explicitly stated, see the papers Ancient Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant and Two Israels - Two Threads of Prophecy.

L.  Conclusion

Paul is consistent.  What he states in Romans chapters 9-11 agrees with the rest of the book (as well as the rest of the Bible).

Romans 9:6 is a key verse which requires two meanings for the word "Israel."  In other words, there are two elections being discussed in these three chapters, national election of Israel and individual election of believers, that is, true Israel.

Romans 9:7-21 is discussing national election, and when God makes choices about Israel or any other nation, he can be arbitrary.

As far as individual salvation is concerned, the basis for a person being saved depends

1. Entirely on the grace of God (including the substitutionary death of Christ and the divine enlightening, drawing, and convicting of the sinner), and
2. Entirely on the individual's response of repentance and faith in Christ

Romans 11:25-26 indicates that by the end of the time of Gentile salvation, all Israel (true Israel) will be saved.  This passage does not teach that Israel will experience a total (or even a majority) conversion at some separate stage in the future.

---

Appendix 1 — Outline of Romans, especially ch 9 - 11

1. Salutation and sentiment (1:1-17)
   1. From Paul, God's apostle for the gospel of Jesus Christ, to the saints at Rome (1:1-7)
   2. Paul, thankful and prayerful, desires to minister the gospel at Rome (1:8-17)
2. The depravity of all – wicked Gentiles and the self-righteous Jews (1:18 - 3:20)
   1. The wicked turned from God and became depraved and guilty of all kinds of evil (1:18-32)
   2. You Jews are also guilty sinners, even though you have the law (2:1 - 3:20)
3. Righteousness, not through the law but through faith in Christ (3:21 - ch 5)
   1. God's righteousness, through faith, for Gentiles as well as for Jews (3:21-31)
   2. Abraham's justification, through faith, not through the law (4:1-22)
   3. Our salvation through faith in Christ (4:23 -5:11)
   4. Contrast of Adam and Christ (5:12-21)
4. Individual righteousness, living in Christ through the Spirit (ch 6 - ch 8)
   1. Live according to your new relationships (dead to sin, slave to God) (6:1 - 7:6)
   2. The Law was good (it brought sin to light, my sin nature was the problem) (7:7-25)
   3. The key: being in Christ and living by the Spirit rather than the sinful nature (8:1-16)
   4. The glorious end (better than our present suffering, and guaranteed) (8:17-39)
5. National Israel versus true Israel, and God's faithfulness to true Israel (ch 9 - ch 11)
   1. Paul's sorrow for national Israel in spite of their advantages (9:1-5)
   2. National Israel is not true Israel (9:6-29)
      1. The principle stated: Some national Israelites are not true Israel (9:6)
      2. The principle illustrated from the natural realm: Not all of Abraham's children are children of the promise (9:7-13)
      3. God's sovereignty in choosing the nation of Israel (9:14-21)
      4. God's mercy in calling true Israel – the remnant from both Jews and Gentiles (9:22-29)
   3. Faith (hearing the message and trusting Christ), not works, is the key to salvation (9:30 - 10:21)
      1. Gentiles gained righteousness through faith; Israel sought righteousness through works and stumbled (9:30 - 10:3)
      2. The law rewards living by the law with a good national life, but the gospel simply asks you to call upon God in faith (10:4-13)
      3. Faith requires a gospel message, which was given to Israel, but they did not call on God (10:14-21)
   4. Has God rejected Israel in favor of the Gentiles? (11:1-36)
      1. No, Paul is an Israelite, and there has always been a remnant (11:1-6)
      2. Some in Israel are hardened, and Gentiles have been included (11:7-15)
      3. The olive tree analogy: Original branches removed because of unbelief; wild branches grafted in because of faith (11:16-32)
   5. Glory to God for his wisdom (11:33-36)
6. Righteous living in church and community (ch 12 - 15:13)
   1. Spiritual gifts, humility, and love (12:1-16)
   2. Your response to bad treatment (12:17-21)
   3. Submitting to and respecting governing authorities (13:1-7)
   4. Various exhortations: debt, love, purity (13:8-14)
   5. Loving those whose faith is weak (14:1 - 15:4)
   6. The need for unity (15:5-13)
7. Closing plans and greetings (15:14 - ch 16)

---

Appendix 2 — Annotated Bibliography

—— Commentaries ——

Philip Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom, Gospel Truth Ministries, 1928

Chapters 14 and 15 are full of relevant insights.  Available online here.

Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans, part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1996

Very thorough.  Gives space to various competing views.  Leans Calvinistic.

Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries, 22 volumes, Baker Books, 1974

Available online at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Stott, John, Romans: God's Good News for the World, InterVarsity, 1994

Many good insights in a somewhat sermonic style.  Calvinistic, and accepts antinomy.  Also accepts pre-Adamic humans.

Steele, David N. and Curtis C. Thomas, Romans, An Interpretive Outline, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963

Routinely defensive of the standard "five points" of Calvinism.  Frequent misrepresentation of Arminianism.

—— Theologies ——

Thiessen, Henry Clarence, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1949

This theology presents a balanced biblical view of the election dispute.  (Beware of later editions disrespectfully altered by those who disagree with Thiessen.)

—— Election ——

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536, Eerdmans 1957 edition, translated by Henry Beveridge

Available online at Bible Study Tools and at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Arminius, James, The Writings of James Arminius (Baker 1956 reprint, translated by Nichols and Bagnall)

Available online at Wesley Center Online and at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Craig, William Lane, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, Wipf and Stock, 1999 (previously published by Baker, 1987)

Annotations on Craig's book are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius

Hunt, Dave, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, 3rd ed., The Berean Call, 2006, 590 pages

Annotations on Hunt's book are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius

Olson, C. Gordon, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: A Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation, Global Gospel Publishers, 2002, 538 pages

Annotations on Olson's book (as well as his less technical version of this book called Getting the Gospel Right) are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius

Geisler, Norman L., Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd ed., Bethany House Publishers, 2010, 347 pages

Annotations on Geisler's book are found in the bibliography at the end of the paper Calvin and Arminius