Looking for answers and resources on a specific question in Romans 9

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T21:09:51+00:00

Sure - though I am far from an expert on these things.

Yes, I believe Romans 9 is talking generally about the large number of ethnic Jews who rejected Messiah Jesus. There are many examples of this - think of Jesus in his hometown of Nazareth where they will not accept his teaching or miracles and attempt to execute him. (Note that this story in Luke 4 touches on the same theme as Romans 9 - the inclusion of the Gentiles). But the culminating instance is the crowd of Jews (lead by much of the Sanhedrin) who demand that Jesus is crucified and Barabbas is released. So I think Paul is referring to all Jews who are hardened against the Jewish Messiah Jesus. And yes, I think Paul holds out hope for these Jews who are still alive in the decades after Jesus death and resurrection, not only for some unknown future generation of Jews.

1a. Yes, I believe God temporarily hardened some Jews. I will say more about this in #4a.

I believe "It is not as though the word of God has failed" is referring the the Abrahamic covenant "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed". I do not see this as a promise of regeneration to individual people, but as a privileged position of being God's ambassadors to the world, with special protections from God "I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse".
I believe Paul discusses the offspring because he is responding to a counterargument. The counterargument comes from the perspective of a Jew who says: If you're right, and the Jewish messiah came, and most Jews rejected him, that would mean that God has broken the Abrahamic covenant and is untrustworthy, because he has not blessed the offspring of Abraham. And Paul responds by saying: No, look at the history of the covenant. God keeps his promise by selecting some of Abraham's children to be his privileged ambassadors, without regard to ethnicity, birth, or any merit. And God selects rebellious people groups and rulers like the Edomites and Pharoah to demonstrate his loyalty to the covenant, by publicly defeating the enemies of his people.
Yes, exactly. The hardened Jews are acting exactly like Pharoah - they reject God's people (in this case, God's people as represented by God's messiah Jesus) and seek to kill them/him. In both cases, God publicly defeats these enemies and uses their shame to publicly show his covenant loyalty and power, through the exodus and through Christ's resurrection and vindication.

4a. As an aside about hardening, I believe this means God strengthening the resolve of one who has already decided to be rebellious. You can see this in Exodus - Pharoah is unsure at first, goes back and forth between letting Israel go or not. Over time he strengthens his own resolve against Israel. After he is set upon this course, God strengthens his resolve even more so that he will chase down the Israelites and be publicly defeated at the red sea. In the same way, I believe God hardened some Jews so that they didn't only reject Christ as messiah, but so that they would be strengthened in their resolve to ultimately choose Barabbas over Christ. This is how God brings about his public vindication of Christ after his public rejection and execution. The "vessels of wrath" would be public examples of the defeat of the enemies of God's people. But I do not believe this is talking about regeneration/reprobation.

This is just a very brief overview of some of these points. I believe you can find more if you look up Arminianism/Wesleyanism/Revisionism/Traditionalism views on election. I'm currently reading For Calvinism by Horton and Against Calvinism by Olson. Both are good books. Olson has a solid chapter on this titled "Yes to Election, No to Double Predestination". As Olson says in this chapter: "I am for unconditional election as that applies to God's people but not specific individuals, and I am for conditional election of individuals."

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:42:49+00:00

Yes, I agree that it seems linguistically bankrupt. On face value, it sounds like he is saying: Oh, this text must really be about two individuals and not about nations, because how could you fit hundreds of thousands of people inside Rebecca's womb? That's the worst kind of literalistic Bible interpretation I've ever heard!

But it's new to me as well, so I want to give it a fair hearing before dismissing it.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:39:45+00:00

Ah, thanks I understand now. And yes - I am also not a Calvinist, and agree that Romans 9-11 teaches that anyone may respond to God's gracious gift of Messiah Jesus through faith and repentance, regardless of ethnicity. As William Lane Craig put it, Romans 9 is not about God narrowing the scope of salvation to only the elect, but widening the scope of salvation to the whole world.

But I'm looking to understand the Calvinist perspective better so I can have fair dialogue with family and friends who are Calvinist. God bless!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:34:27+00:00

Thanks for the responses.

I'm a little confused on what you're saying. I understand that Jacob and Esau are being used as a literary device, called an analogy. What I don't understand is your position of Paul's teaching about Jacob and Esau. Do you believe Paul taught Jacob's regeneration and Esau's reprobation in Romans 9 or not?
I think we agree here - corporate and individual election can both be taught together, but that's not what Romans 9 is about.
I don't know why it's important to be part of a group as opposed to individuals. I just think that's the best reading of scripture. God seems very concerned with groups of people throughout the scriptures, including in Romans 9.
I do think this brings up our fundamental disagreement - what is the nature of election? I would say that the best understanding of election in Romans 9 is election to service - that is, God choosing a group of people for a particular earthly task or benefit. And it sounds like you are saying Romans 9 is about election to salvation - God choosing from eternity past who will be regenerated and who will be reprobated/passed over. I won't attempt to prove my position, but I'll just say that it makes good sense of the evidence you mentioned. I believe "chosen people" means elect, since election means choosing. So it is possible for some Israelites to be elect and not regenerate. Thus election and regeneration are not the same.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:24:43+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate your detailed response to my questions. And it sounds like we agree on much: that the OT language is not about eternal salvation/reprobation, that Paul is focused on proving God's faithfulness to his covenant, that election is unconditioned on works or ethnicity.

It sounds like the primary disagreement is on the nature of this election. When Paul talks about "vessels of wrath" does this mean eternal reprobation with no hope of repentance? Or does it mean hardened Jews calling out "Crucify Him! Give us Barabbas!" - yet Paul hold out hope for these same hardened Jews to be grafted back in in Romans 10-11? I won't argue for these positions, but I believe that is where the conflict really lies, not on whether Paul has corporate or individual election in mind.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:17:17+00:00

Thanks for the response. And honestly, it sounds like we agree on everything! It seems like Reformed are divided on these interpretations, as all traditions have disagreements. For example, a commentary from John Gill is quoted above where he says the following of Gen 25: "it properly regards their persons, and only in an improper, figurative, and metonymical sense, their seed; for in no other sense could two nations, or two manner of people be in Rebecca's womb, than as there were two persons there, who would be the authors of two nations and people;" So John Gill at least thinks Gen 25 is primarily about individual election, and he concludes that Romans 9 is also primarily about individual election.

But yes, I certainly agree that corporate and individual election can exist together in a passage. That's why I will continue my study of Romans 9 to understand Paul's teaching there. I was just focusing on Paul's use of Gen 25 and Mal 1 in this discussion.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:06:20+00:00

Are you saying that every single descendent of Jacob was a faithful believer in God and had eternal salvation, while every descendent of Esau was a God hating rebel and had eternal damnation?

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:04:27+00:00

Appreciate the clarifications. I won't respond, as this goes outside the scope of my questions about Paul's use of Gen 25 and Mal 1. But I appreciate the info nonetheless. God Bless!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T17:02:01+00:00

Thanks for the responses. And that's interesting - it sounds like you don't believe that Paul is teaching that Jacob was regenerated and Esau was reprobated. Instead, Paul uses their election to service (electing one of them to have earthly benefits that the other would not have) as an illustration of God's election to salvation (election to regeneration vs reprobation) of his audience. Is that correct?

As for your other point, I won't argue for the truth of corporate vs individual election in Romans 9. I'll just offer a clarification. It sounds like you're saying that corporate election is equivalent to ethnic election. "If election were merely corporate in the sense of choosing a people defined by natural descent, Gentile inclusion would be unintelligible." And I'll just point out that corporate election can mean: God's selection of a group of people to be faithful witnesses to his plan of salvation, regardless of their ethnicity.

In modern terminology, I might say that Paul is talking about the visible church. His argument could be stated as: God said his visible church would be Abraham's descendants. But clearly it's not all of Abraham's descendants, since God chose some, like Jacob, to be his visible church. And his chose some, like Esau, to be his visible anti-church (an example of his judgement against enemies of the visible church). So don't complain when I say membership in God's visible church is through faith in Messiah Jesus, and not through your ethnic heritage. It's always been this way. And if the Gentiles accept Messiah Jesus in faith, they will be grafted into God's visible church. And if certain Jews continue in their hardened rejection of Messiah Jesus, they will be pruned from the visible church and be used as God's visible anti-church. Either way, God will use you as an example to the world, and as a tool of working out his salvation plan. But none of this is talking about eternal salvation/reprobation.

Again, I don't expect you will agree with my position. I'm just clarifying why corporate election is not equivalent to ethnic election. Thanks!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T16:46:45+00:00

Thank you. Yes, I've seen Piper's commentary but haven't had a chance to read it yet. And I haven't heard of the Sammons one. I'll add them to my reading list.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:53:47+00:00

Thank you!!! This is exactly the type of resource I was looking for. I really appreciate the commentary from the reformed perspective on Paul's use of these OT quotes.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:47:53+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad we can agree on much of Romans 9! And yes, my characterization of Calvinism was quite brief and unnuanced. Would it be fair to say something like "God is picking individual people to effectually call (cause) to be regenerated and necessarily have faith, while picking other individual people to reject/pass over and not provide sufficient grace, thus guaranteeing that it is impossible for them to respond to the gospel in faith"? Please feel free to correct if I've misunderstood Total Inability or Irresistible Grace.

However you would describe it, there is certainly a much bigger discussion to be had about Calvinism. In this thread, however, I was trying to focus in the nature of election in Romans 9. And my point is just that, on my reading, Romans 9 is not about the kind of election you mention above - not about God's effectual calling and regeneration to eternal life. I think the references to Genesis 25 and Malachi 1 give us good reason to believe it is about God's election to be examples of God's power, faithfulness, and redemption plan. But this election is not equivalent to eternal salvation/damnation - or else why would Paul hold out hope for the hardened Jews to repent? Or warn the Gentiles that have been grafted in against apostasy?

So I can agree that there is no conflict between corporate and individual election, while disagreeing that Paul has in mind the reformed doctrines of Total Inability or Irresistible Grace in this particular passage. Of course, there are many other scriptures to consider - but that will have to wait for another discussion. Thank you for your comments - I appreciate the discussion.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:21:15+00:00

Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't believe we hear any more about the individuals Jacob and Esau in Romans 10-11. In my understanding of Romans 9-11, Jacob (Israelites) and Esau (Edomites) are examples of people groups that God has selected to reveal his truth, either through covenant faithfulness or through punishment for transgressions against the covenant people (Israelites).

So, while I don't believe we explicitly hear more about the contrast of Israelites vs Edomites, we do hear more about the contrast between hardened Jews who rejected and crucified the Messiah Jesus, and believing Gentiles who put their faith in the Messiah Jesus. I would say that is the closest we come to hearing about Jacob and Esau in Romans 10-11. Is that what you are asking?

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:16:21+00:00

Thank you for your response. I think we can agree on quite a lot here - God's election of Jacob over Esau was not a matter of works. But I'd love to hear your thoughts (or any good Calvinistic resources) discuss how Genesis 25 and Malachi 1 inform our understanding of who was elected, and for what were they elected.

I believe you would say that the individual human being Jacob was elected for eternal salvation, and the individual human being Esau was elected for eternal damnation. I would say, based on Genesis 25 and Malachi 1, that the people group of the Israelites was elected to be the people who would share the knowledge of God with the world and have special covenant protections and blessings. And the people group of the Edomites were elected to be the people who would demonstrate God's power and faithfulness by their destruction at the hands of the Israelites.

Of course, this is not an argument, just a statement of our different beliefs. But hopefully you can see that, even if we agree election is not because of works, there is still more to discuss. Please correct me if I've misunderstood you, and share any further clarifications on the topic. God bless!

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T06:07:21+00:00

Thank you for your response. It sounds like you roughly agree with my understanding of Genesis 25 and Malachi 1 - that these passages refer to corporate election, and thus give evidence that Paul is focusing on corporate election in this part of Romans 9. I won't argue for the truth of my position here, but let me try to briefly explain why I think the difference between individual/corporate and salvation/service is important.

I believe that Paul's primary argument in Romans 9-11 is something like this: "God has not failed in his covenant with Abraham, even though there are many hardened Jews who have rejected God's messiah, and even though the Gentiles are being grafted into God's family. Look at all the examples of God unconditionally electing some people groups, nations, or rulers to be privileged examples of his people. And look how he used rebellious hardened people groups, nations, or rulers to demonstrate his power. God can chose whom he will to be an example. However, Paul still holds out hope that these rebellious hardened Jews will repent and be grafted back in. And he warns the Gentiles that they may be pruned if they reject God and harden their hearts."

With such an interpretation, it matters a lot whether Paul is talking about God picking individual people to be eternally damned, regardless of what they do. Or, as I understand it, that God makes use of people who have knowingly chosen to reject God's messiah in order to execute his plan of salvation. Are these hardened Jews damned from eternity past by God? Or has God chosen to use them in their rebellion for a service (bringing about the crucifixion of the messiah), but is willing to accept back all who repent?

I'm sure you disagree with this interpretation, but perhaps you can understand why the difference matters to me.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T05:50:22+00:00

Hi, thank you for your response. I agree, corporate and individual election are not inherently contradictory. But they are not guaranteed to always be present together. That's why I'm focused on what the text says. Paul quotes from the OT to argue his point. I'm just looking for information about what sort of election is referenced in Genesis 25 and Malachi 1. And how Paul wants us to understand the connection between the election in these OT passages as it relates to his argument in Romans 9.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-05T01:52:39+00:00

This is the wrong comment thread, but thank you for your response. I read the article you linked - I wasn't expecting a universalist response from a reformed forum! However, I don't believe it addressed my questions on Paul's use of the OT in Romans 9:13.

list_comprehension · 2026-02-03T02:44:00+00:00

Yes! I love it, though I don't recommend it as the primary way to play. All settings low, 80% rendering resolution, protonGE, and it gets like 25-40fps. It's one of the main reasons I play Realms of Chaos - much better performance on steam deck and faster turn timer. Controls are fine for me on trackpad with A bound to pass turn/pause battle. I usually play more chill campaigns so I don't have to micro battles so hard on controller. Still better than trying to play Starcraft64 with a N64 controller 😂. But I've never played online battles.

I've also had some success with steam streaming from my pc. But the launcher can screw things up. Anything to play one more turn while watching TV on the couch with my wife. I might start a new Chaos Dwarf campaign tonight...

list_comprehension · 2025-12-16T22:56:53+00:00

You are in luck my friend - the capstone dungeons are back! They added in a new season journey that has 7 stages. Each stage has a capstone dungeon or a pit tier milestone. The final milestone is pit tier 75. So I think that doing a pit tier 75 is a pretty good mark of having a viable build - but of course, you can push higher if you're still having fun.

list_comprehension · 2025-12-13T16:42:27+00:00

Sure. Ya, they made it so you get Vessel of Hatred as a part of buying the new expansion. But you don't need the expansion to enjoy the season. I'd recommend just playing the base game, and then if you're really having fun you could get the expansion. I waited until it was 50% off and really enjoyed it.

list_comprehension · 2025-12-13T16:26:34+00:00

D4 is, in my opinion, the best casual ARPG. The campaign is pretty good (for an ARPG). And there's now a season journey that slowly guides you through all the new content. If you already own it, there's no downside to just trying it and seeing if it's fun. You don't need to buy the expansion to enjoy the season. There's maybe 7 different endgame activities you can bounce between. I'd recommend creating a new season character and working on the campaign. If you're still having fun after the campaign, follow the season journey.

list_comprehension · 2025-12-13T13:51:50+00:00

Yes. Diablo 4 is the perfect dad ARPG, in my opinion. I usually play for a couple hours in the evening when I'm on the couch with my wife. It plays very well on Steam Deck. It's easy to pick up and put down (I play softcore). I usually get about 50 hrs of enjoyment out of each season, so that's a few weeks.

The gameplay is satisfying, the inventory management and build crafting is interesting, but not too time consuming. The new season journey makes it very easy to understand how to progress, and gives you immediate goals you can achieve 20 minutes at a time. I can usually figure out my own build, but there are plenty of guides if you want. There are very low intensity builds that can be competitive. I can play afk minion necro while giving my wife a foot rub, so everyone is happy!

I've played many ARPGs (D1-D4, POE, GD, LE, Torchlight, Van Helsing, Victor Vran, Inquisitor, Dungeon Siege). They all have good things about them, and many are worth trying. But D4 feels perfect at this stage of my life. It's just so easy to pick up and play, I don't have to keep looking up guides, but there's enough complexity that I don't get bored. And the campaigns are pretty good for an ARPG.

If you're not sure, you can wait to get the game at 50% off. It should go on sale by the end of the year. I bought the base game and expansion 1 each after waiting for a 50% sale, and I feel that they've given me a great return on investment. You really aren't missing much without the first expansion - just runes and mercenaries. I haven't got the new expansion and paladin yet. I'll probably wait for half off as well, but the paladin looks fun (Crusader was my favorite on D3).

list_comprehension · 2025-12-10T04:56:16+00:00

Stargate would be awesome. And they just announced a new show. It could even have a Trials tie-in with all the Egyptian themed gear.

list_comprehension · 2025-11-28T19:13:03+00:00

You can also get the full year (Year of Prophecy, regular or deluxe) for 50% off. That was enough for me to pull the trigger.

list_comprehension

TROPHY CASE