Since posting small books is the thing these days (this one is 2,800+ words), here is my response (3,400 words). No, not a direct response to the "don't actually exegete Romans 9...try to distract from it by going to other texts and importing contexts Paul never brings in, and which would, in fact, destroy his argument, but hope nobody notices since the natural man detests what Romans 9 is saying anyway" argument. Instead, here is my exegesis from TPF. Just compare how the two sides approach the issue: one, straight to the text itself. The other...everywhere else first, then, make application to the text, not from exegesis, but from conclusions drawn from other contexts. It's pretty clear. This portion of Paul’s reasoned, organized argument regarding the nature of salvation comes after the announcement of the tremendous blessings of eternal salvation found in chapter 8. Immediately the Apostle must face a crucial issue: what of the Jews? Surely Paul had heard this many times in his public ministry: “If this gospel message you proclaim, Paul, is so wonderful, why is it that only a small number of Jews embrace it, while the majority of the covenant people reject it? Are not your main opponents the Jews, to whom the promises were made? Are you not just a renegade Jew who has left the faith?” Such accusations must have been common place in the public disputations with the Jews. And upon speaking of God’s work of predestining, calling, justifying, and glorifying, one can just hear these objections growing in volume. “Oh come now, Paul, if God is so sovereign and powerful, then why do His very people, the Jews, by and large reject Christ?” It is to this issue that Paul now turns. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul lays out his heart’s desire along with the true privileges granted to physical Israel: I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For 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, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Paul has not forgotten the Jews. Strong emotion fills his words as he swears that he has sorrow and unceasing grief in his heart over the hard-heartedness of the Jewish people. He even goes so far as to say that he would be willing to be cut off from Christ if this would only bring his brethren to salvation. It should be noted that this immediately raises an important point: Paul is speaking of individual salvation. It makes no sense to say “I could wish myself were accursed for the sake of the nation of Israel so that it might be returned to a position of receiving national privileges and favor.” The next verse is vitally important and provides the key to one of the great controversies in interpretation of the rest of the chapter: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. (Romans 9:6) We can surely understand Paul’s concern: his ministry had often been charged with teaching a doctrine that made it appear as if the word of God (found in the promises to Israel) had failed due to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. But Paul is quick to reject this errant assertion. His response must be understood. “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” Why has the word of God not failed? Because the accusation is based upon a false premise. Just because a person is a physical descendant of Israel does not mean this person is truly an Israelite. The rejection of those who are only physically Jews but not spiritually so is not a valid basis upon which to say the promises have been made void. Paul expands upon this point: Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “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 WILL HAVE A SON.” (Romans 9:7-9) The promises remain valid since they were only the possession of the “children of promise” from the beginning. Two truths immediately come to our attention: first, God determined who was, and who was not, a child of promise. This is all God’s work. Secondly, Paul is speaking of the salvation of individuals. When he says that not all who are descended from Israel are truly children of promise, who is he referring to? Is he not speaking of persons within the body of the nation of Israel? Who are these children of promise if not people? Remember the accusation to which he responds: “Look, Paul! Your gospel teaches that these Jewish opponents of yours who oppose Christ and His gospel will be accursed! You nullify the word of God!” But Paul’s response is, “No, I do not, for simply being a physical descendant of Israel does not make you a true Israelite. God has always had an elect people that He chooses and it is not an external matter, based upon race or nationality.” And it is this last point that Paul takes up beginning in verse 9. But the key is this: Paul is not talking about nations and he is talking about God’s sovereign election in salvation, for it was God’s right and freedom to limit His promises to the children of promise, and not to anyone else. God has always worked this way, Paul teaches. Salvation has always been under His control. God has never been forced to act upon the dictates of human choice or decision. He demonstrates this from Israel’s own history: And not only this, but 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.” (Romans 9:10-13) The declaration of “God’s purpose according to His choice” (or “election”) is the keystone of this section. Everything points to this one assertion. The pronouncement by God that the older would serve the younger was made on the basis of a choice by God (dare we say a “free choice”?) that was made before their birth and before they could “do” anything good or bad. Paul’s emphasis is upon the independence and freedom of God’s choice. There was nothing in the twins that determined the choice (which is the point of stating that the pronouncement was made before the twins had done “anything good or bad”). Just so that this would not be missed, Paul clarifies and emphasizes his concern: “not because of works but because of Him who calls.” Literally the text reads “from works…from the One calling,” again making the same point: the ground of choice, the source of election, is solely in God, not in man. John Piper gave excellent insight into this passage when he wrote, First, with the use of the preposition ἐξ Paul makes explicit that God’s decision to treat Esau and Jacob differently is not merely prior to their good or evil deeds but is also completely independent of them. God’s electing purpose (Rom 9:11c) and his concrete prediction (9:12c) are in no way based on the distinctives Esau and Jacob have by birth or by action. This rules out the notion of the early Greek and Latin commentators that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of men’s good works. Second, Rom 9:12b enlarges on 9:11b by going beyond the negation of human distinctives as the ground for God’s predestining of Esau and Jacob. It makes the positive affirmation that the true ground of this election is God himself, “the one who calls.” The intended force of the phrase “not from works but from the one who calls” is felt most strongly when one contrasts it with the similar Pauline phrase “not from works but from faith.” In Paul’s thinking the latter phrase describes the event of justification (Rom 9:32; Gal 2:16), never the event of election or predestination. Paul never grounds the “electing purpose of God” in man’s faith. The counterpart to works in conjunction with election (as opposed to justification) is always God’s own call (Rom 9:12b) or his own grace (Rom 11:6). The predestination and call of God precede justification (Rom 8:29f) and have no ground in any human act, not even faith. This is why Paul explicitly says in Rom 9:16 that God’s bestowal of mercy on whomever he wills is based neither on human willing (which would include faith) nor on human running (which would include all activity). This is likewise the implication of verse 13, where God speaks of His choice of Jacob over Esau. Much is made of the terms “loved” and “hated” here, and we will see how these terms are to be applied when responding to CBF’s commentary. The immediate response that is offered to the assertion of the Potter’s freedom to do with His creation as He sees fit is, “But, doesn’t that make God unjust?” Paul had “heard it all before” and was ready with a response: What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:14-16) Paul is ready with an Old Testament example to buttress his arguments: Exodus 33. This tremendous passage contains themes that find their full expression only in the New Testament’s full revelation of the doctrines of God’s free and sovereign grace. God showed mercy and compassion to Moses, choosing to reveal His glory as an act of grace. We must understand, in light of the prevailing attitude of the world around us, that God’s mercy, if it is to be mercy at all, must be free. Literally the text speaks of “mercying” and “compassioning,” again verbs of action that find their subject in God and their object in those chosen by His decision. It does not say, “I will have mercy on those who fulfill the conditions I have laid down as the prerequisite of my plan of salvation.” Both the “source” of compassion and mercy and the individual application find their ultimate ground only in the free choice of God, not of man. This divine truth, so offensive to the natural man, could not find a clearer proclamation than Romans 9:16. We truly must ask, if this passage does not deny to the will of man the all-powerful position of final say in whether the entire work of the Triune God in salvation will succeed or fail, what passage possibly could? What stronger terms could be employed? The verse begins, “so then,” drawing from the assertion of God that mercy and compassion are His to freely give. Next comes the negative particle, “not,” which negates everything that follows in the clause. Two human activities are listed: willing and literally “running,” or striving. Human choice and human action. Paul puts it bluntly: it is not “of the one willing” nor is it “of the one running.” Paul uses two singular present active participles. The fact that they are singular shows us again the personal nature of the passage. The interpretation that attempts to limit Romans 9 to “nations” cannot begin to explain how nations “will” or “run.” In contrast to these Paul uses a present active participle to describe God’s act of “mercying,” showing mercy. Man may strive through his will and his endeavors, but God must show mercy. Lest someone think, “Well, yes, God shows mercy and initiates salvation, and only then does the will of man freely embrace it,” as is argued constantly in CBF, Paul closes the door by giving as his own interpretation of his argument the example of Pharaoh: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:17-18) The example of Pharaoh was well known to any person familiar with the Old Testament. God destroyed the Egyptian nation by plagues so as to demonstrate His might and power in the earth, and key to this demonstration was the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Before Moses had met with Pharaoh the first time God told him: When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. (Exodus 4:21) It was God’s intention to bring His wrath upon the Egyptians. God’s actions were not “forced” by the stubborn will of the Egyptian leader. God said He would harden Pharaoh’s heart, and He did. Listen to the impudent response of this pagan idolater to the command of Moses: And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and besides, I will not let Israel go.” (Exodus 5:1-2) Is this not what God said He would do? Will someone suggest that Pharaoh’s heart is “soft” here? No indeed, and Moses well knew that God was behind this for when the Pharaoh then increased the work load of the Israelites, Moses complained to God in Exodus 5:22. Why complain to God if, in fact, God had nothing to do with it and it was all just a matter of the Pharaoh’s “free will choice”? This provides the background of Paul’s citation of Exodus 9:16. The portion of truth that here stings the pride of man is this: it is more important that God’s name be magnified and His power made known than it is any single man get to “do his own thing.” Pharaoh was surely never forced to do anything sinful (indeed, God probably kept him from committing many a sinful deed). He acted on the desires of his wicked heart at all times. But he is but a pot, a creature, not the Potter. He was formed and made and brought into existence to serve the Potter’s purposes, not his own. He is but a servant, one chosen, in fact, for destruction. His destruction, and the process that led up to it (including all the plagues upon Egypt), were part of God’s plan. There is simply no other way to understand these words. Paul then combines the fact that God showed undeserved compassion and mercy to Moses (Exodus 33) with God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 5) and concludes that whether one is “mercied” or “hardened” is completely, inalterably, and utterly up to God. The verbs here are active: God performs these actions. He “mercies” whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills. The parallel between “mercy” and “hardening” is inarguable. We may like the “mercying” part more than the hardening, but they are both equally a part of the same truth. Reject one and you reject them both. There is no such thing as preaching God’s mercy without preaching God’s judgment, at least according to Scripture. The passage reaches a crescendo in these final verses: You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (Romans 9:19-20) Paul well knew the objections man presents to the words he had just penned. If God has mercy solely based upon His good pleasure, and if God hardens Pharaoh on the same basis, all to His own glory and honor, how can God hold men accountable for their actions, for who resists His will? Paul’s response is swift and devastating: Yes indeed God holds man accountable, and He can do so because He is the Potter, the one who molds and creates, while man is but the “thing molded.” For a pot to question the Potter is absurd: for man to answer back to God is equally absurd. These words cannot be understood separately from the fundamental understanding of the freedom of the Sovereign Creator and the ontological creatureliness of man that removes from him any ground of complaint against God. Though already devastatingly clear, Paul makes sure there is no doubt left as to his point: Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24) The Potter’s freedom pulses through these words, flowing inexorably into the sea of sovereignty, rushing any would-be proponent of free will out of its path. God has the perfect right to do with His creation (including men) as He wishes, just as the Potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Just as God had demonstrated His wrath and power by wasting idolatrous Egypt, so too He demonstrates His wrath upon “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” Are these nations? Classes? No, these are sinners upon whom God’s wrath comes. They are said to have been specifically “prepared for destruction.” That is their purpose. Why are there vessels prepared for destruction? Because God is free. Think about it: there are only three logical possibilities here. Either 1) all “vessels” are prepared for glory (universalism); 2) all “vessels” are prepared for destruction; or 3) some vessels are prepared for glory and some are prepared for destruction and it is the Potter who decides which are which. Why is there no fourth option, one in which the pots prepare themselves based upon their own choice? Because pots don’t have such a capacity! Pots are pots! Since God wishes to make known the “riches of His grace” to His elect people (the vessels prepared of mercy), there must be vessels prepared for destruction. There is no demonstration of mercy and grace where there is no justice. The vessels of wrath, remember, like being vessels of wrath, would never choose to be anything else, and they detest the vessels that receive mercy. Indeed, during the writing of this book I encountered an unbeliever who, upon hearing me mention the wrath of God, mocked and said, “Ah, yes, the wrath of God! I LIKE IT!” This is the attitude of the vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. God’s wonderful grace will be praised throughout eternity because of the great contrast between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. Why? Because the only difference between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy is the sovereign grace of God that changes the heart of the rebel sinner and turns him from being a God-hater into a God-lover. This is why there is no basis for man’s boasting, ever.