INTRODUCTION

Romans is a letter written by Paul to the Christians of Rome around AD 57 in Corinth. Although

some scholars argue that this is not a letter but a statement of faith to encourage these Christians

to stop their sinful nature. It must be mentioned that most of these Christians were the Jews

meaning that the possibility of having the back ground of Jewish tradition is not doubtable.

Therefore the selection of the Jews by God as the elected people is surely traced from the

Israelites roots. This is the case because Jesus whom Paul preached about traces his roots from

one of the tribe of Israel through his ancestors. Paul was not the founder of the Christian church

in Rome. So then Paul was mindful of the aspect of election and was definite even in the way he

addressed these Christian. Though he did not live among the Romans he was aware of the history

of election which was posed on the Hebrew people. Therefore I will take election as a

theological theme from the letter of Paul to the Romans 9:11-24. The paper will be discussed as

follows

1.1 THE EXEGESIS OF THE TEXT ROMANS 9:11-24

The text in question is a continuation of Paul’s argument from verse one concerning the election

of Israel and the promise of God. He wrestles with the questions, has the promise of God failed

concerning his selection of Israel? Can we justify the selection of God on the Israelites and not

the gentiles? How come today the gentiles are part of what they were not part of? according to

Edward (1992:228) “chapter 9-11 is a thematic focus of the righteousness of God specifically to

Israel’s enduring place in salvation.” The aspect of election involves the power and sovereignty

of God. This passage involves the history of choosing one person over the other (diatribe).

Meaning selection is being addressed through the sovereign and justice of God. These chapters
show also how righteous God is towards making a selection. In this text, Paul advances his

argument using diatribes and bases it on the Hebrew history to consolidate his ideology.

Verse 11-12: Paul indicates to us that God’s selection of Jacob and not Esau was not out of their

works but so that “God’s purpose of election might continue”. One may be tempted to ask What

God’s purpose in election means, is it that God’s choice of Isaac and not Ishmael and Jacob not

Esau it did not originate from them or in any works they may have done rather in the mind and

will of God (Stott 1994:267). It was for this reason that their election was before they were born:

before they did anything good or bad in other words Gods choice on either of them was within

his sovereignty and power. The phrase in verse 12 that it was revealed to Rebecca that “the elder

shall serve the young”, is an indicative phrase that not even the mother or the father of these

children mentioned in the text played a role in the selection process or giving reason to God why

one must be selected over the other. It is all about the grace of God and his sovereignty; out of

the power and grace of God one between the mentioned pair was chosen.

It must be noted that in these stories both the children who were not chosen openly by God

Ishmael and Esau underwent the culture of the true Hebrew or Israelite which is circumcision, it

is for this act that these unselected children were also under the purpose of God. This is an

indication that they were part of the covenant promise (Stott 1994:268). The covenant was

understood as an assurance of salvation and circumcision as a symbol of belonging to the Israel

community of the chosen ones. This is the reason why the Jews demanded for the circumcision

of everyone who claimed or wanted to be part of the Jewish salvation. What Paul was trying to

communicate was that much as Ishmael and Esau were not elected by God though, they were

still part and parcel of Gods’ salvific plan. Suggesting that election in this case does not mean

that those not selected are rejected but are purposed within the plans of God for a special task. So
then Ishmael and Esau were within the savidic works of God. In this regard Barclay (1975:128)

concluded that “Paul argues that there is more to Jewishness than descent from Abraham, that the

people were not simply the entire sum of all the physical descendants of Abraham, that within

that family there was a process of election all through history.” This probably arose from the

prevailing socio-religio setting were the Jews had rejected Jesus. He thus argued that not all Jews

rejected Jesus and thus the promise of God concerning the Jews had not failed. He draws from

the historical accounts his argument that not all physical descendants of Abraham were selected.

In verse 13; by quoting from Malachi 1:2-5, that “I have loved Jacob and I have hated Esau” here

the author raises the question concerning the justice of God. Is God just to love Jacob and hate

Esau? This question is dealt with in verse 14. I may suggest that Paul would in his mind put his

audience to have the same questions he himself raises in the previous verse. Paul used diatribe

as a rhetorical tool to deal with questions that may be asked from his argument. He engages into

an argument with an imaginary opponent. The aspect of Quoting from the Hebrew scripture

indicates that his audience undoubtedly comprised of Jewish Christians who were familiar with

Hebrew teachings and history. It is imperative that by the time he was writing his letter Jewish

Christianity and Judaism were already in Rome. In the Jewish tradition the patrons who were

usually wealthy people chose whoever he wanted and gave them favor, this was out of his own

choice. However for God to show himself as a patron he must have been sure of the persons to

choice as his elect, hence it shows an un condition love on such a one. Therefore, the phrase that

“I have loved Jacob and I have hated Esau” indicates that God in his sovereignty gave grace on

whoever he chose just like a patron does. This is all being traced from the history of the ancient

near east where all a rabbi chose who to be part of his disciple and who not to be part of his

discipleship. Paul might have come across this system of the kind of discipleship leadership.
Out of this ideal the justice and election of God be privileged to some people and seem to affect

negatively others.

Verse 14-16: from time to time Paul answered some of the questions pertaining to justice of God

or righteousness, through his citing example texts from the Hebrew scripture. I must commend

Paul for being authentic in the way he presented his letter by way of referring to what was

scriptural and was known to the audience his letter was addressing. In this vein, it must be noted

that Paul appeals to God’s mercy and compassion as He said to Moses in Exodus 33:19 that “I

will be gracious to whom I will be gracious; and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy”

(NRSV). In Moses’ context God had chosen to reveal His glory to him. The use of the word I

suggest that only He has the power to choose whoever he wills, the reason for selection, the

selection itself, as well as the criteria for selection is within His jurisdiction; he is sovereign in

selection. He uses this citation rhetorically to emphases his argument that God has mercy not

basing on human will, efforts or deeds but on His own will. He thus presents God as the

originator of salvation on whoever he wills, be it Gentile or Jew. This shows the sovereignty of

God in expression of mercy. However, those who were familiar with the story of Moses could

argue that God was pleased with him that is why he chose him as indicated in Exodus 33:17.To

not only end on citing Moses in the same vein he picks pharaoh as the selected of his own to

consolidate his argument. Pharaoh did not off course worship Yahweh but was chosen to

facilitate the glory power and sovereignty of God to be seen by hardening his heart. Meaning that

pharaoh though pagan he was selected by God himself. The purpose of God to be fulfilled he

chooses any person as long as such as a one is deemed fit for the task ahead.

Verse 17: To argue his point further the author brings out another story from Hebrew history.

According to Edward (1992:238) “the case of Pharaoh poses a knotty problem.” the question
which can be asked was then is why did God harden pharaohs heart in order that his glory is seen

or Was God just to harden Pharaoh’s heart? Did God false this on Pharaoh? However the passage

Paul seems to have quoted from which is Exodus 9:16 indicates the mercy which God had

towards Pharaoh. Verse 15 of Exodus 9 indicates that God would have cut off Pharaoh and his

people from the earth but he demonstrated his mercy and passion on him that His name may

resound. It is imperative that Pharaoh was a means by which God showed his power and His

name was to be proclaimed in all the earth. Not that Pharaoh chose to be selected or offered

himself, but God in His will chose, not out of Pharaoh’s will lest the Glory be given to him. In

his context the author was probably trying to communicate that God can by his will choose to

use anyone to spread his firm. Paul, thus argued as Barclay (175:130-31) put it “it is impossible

to think of the relationship between God and man in terms of justice… in God’s dealing with

men, the essential things are his will and mercy.” If God was to base his dealing with humanity

on justice no person would go unpunished. The just way of dealing with pharaoh was to get read

of him and his people but God dealt with him with mercy and used him to spread His glory. This

perfectly fits his earlier argument in chapter 3:9-19 that there is no one righteous for all have

sinned and that the penalty of sin is death. But God deals with people on mercy as the underlying

principle for salvation.

In addition it is probable that Paul was also defending his election by God. Even though he had

rejected Christians and after his conversion some of the Christians had rejected him earlier. God

had dealt with him basing on mercy rather than justice and He elected him to spread God’s glory.

Verse 18: Does it mean then that God forces his will on people? Does he treat people like objects

which have no free will and choice? This is the question Paul deals with in this verse. Verse 18

seems to be drawn from Exodus 4:21 and 14:4. In the book of Exodus, the hardening of the heart
is at some point attributed to Pharaoh himself i.e. Exodus 7:14; 8:15 and at other times to God

i.e. Exodus 4:21; 10:20. This suggests that there was probably a role which Pharaoh also played.

Going by Paul’s earlier proposal that God gave up people to their degrading passions in Romans

chapter 1:21-32, it is appropriate to argue that Pharaoh had refused to obey God and God gave

him to his will of hardening the heart. However, this defeats Paul’s argument that God Has

mercy on whomever he chooses and hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. In this regard

the selection is not imposed on the people but is on what God has prepared for the people. Thus

God is not a tyranny who dictates people.

The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was the means by which Gods power was shown or seen to the

Israelites and the entire world at large. In his context, Paul was probably trying to communicate

that the rejection of the gospel by some of the Jews was the means by which God demonstrated

his saving grace to the Gentiles.

Verse 19: Again Paul uses the same Rhetorical approach; he raises the questions which he thinks

his readers may raise also from his argument. Why then does he still find fault? For who can

resist his will? Paul now deliberately raises his second question which supposes that by this point

the reader will understand that God is sovereign in his decisions and no one can resist his will. It

can thus be argued that Paul concludes that all the stories he alludes to in history show God’s

sovereignty in election. Therefore even in his context the salvation of both the Jews and gentiles

is out of God’s sovereign power and will and no one can resist it. In as much as some of the

Jewish Christians did not want the inclusion of the gentiles, God in his will had made it so. Even

the gentiles were not to look down on the Jews because even them their salvation was not

something they earned out of their works but it was out of God’s mercy. Therefore both the Jews

and gentiles were not to boast but to give merit to God.

it, “why have you made me like this? The metaphor of a potter was common in the Jewish

tradition. For example in Isaiah 29:16; 45:9 the prophet used this metaphor. In the same way the

clay does not question the potter why he or she is making it in a certain way and for a certain

purpose, so it is of no use for human beings to question God’s ways. In fact in 45:9, Isaiah

pronounced a curse against anyone who strives with their maker. Therefore, the author was

probably reminding the readers of the letter that God is sovereign in His ways and above humans

and cannot be “questioned” by humans or answerable to humans.

Verse 21: to explain further the relationship between God and human beings he uses the

relationship between the potter end the clay. He does so by asking the question “has the potter no

right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for

ordinary use?” (NRSV). The relationship between the potter and the clay is that the potter has

authority and power over the clay. He or she can do as she or he pleases, she or he can make

objects of his own choice and for the purpose he or she wants. In this regard the relationship

between God and human beings is that God can use human being for the purpose that he

chooses. Just as the potter is not answerable to the clay, God is not answerable to humanity. The

different purposes for which God uses different people can be seen from the examples which the

author gave earlier.

In relation to verse 4 the author was therefore, telling his audience that Israel was chosen by God

to be the linage in which the Messiah was to come from and to them belonged the covenants and

the promise. However, other nations and peoples whom God has created can and were as well

used to the glory of God, for example, Pharaoh, as alluded to earlier.

destruction. The phrase “objects of wrath” according to Bowen (1975:136) “comes from the

Hebrew idea of wrath as something that is poured out… it means those on whom God’s wrath

rests upon.” However emphasis is on the reason for such a proposal which is to make his power

known it not on the destruction of these people but on his patience towards them. It must also be

noted that according to the NRSV Bible Paul does not explicitly say that God has destined some

for wrath because he opens his statement with the phrase “what if”. However in the Good News

Bible it says “And the same is true of what God has done.” In the Good news it connect with

verse 21 were the potter has the right to make objects for special use and another for ordinary

use. Therefore the opening phrase in verse 22 in the Good News Bible indicates that Paul was

now relating the potter to God. God wanted to show his anger in history and to make his power

known. The closing phrase of this verse states that “But he was very patient in enduring those

who were the objects of his anger, who were doomed for distraction” (Good News). This

suggests that even though God destroyed some people, he was patient with them. According to

Youngblood (1995) “grace is almost always associated with mercy, love, compassion, and

patience.” Therefore, Paul was still stressing the grace God extends toward people.

Verse 23: Paul raises another proposal “what if he (God) did this to make the riches of his glory

known to the objects of mercy-whom he prepared in advances for glory” (NRSV). This suggests

predestination. Edward (1992:241) proposes that “the intent of 22-23 is functional as opposed to

eschatological. It is predestination directed to soteriology.” In this regard it can be deduced,

therefore, that the election of some people, that is the Jews, was directed to the salvation of the

universe. Although election may seem negative as in the case of Pharaoh, it was meant for the

purpose of salvation.
Verse 24: In this verse Paul finally sums the question of who are those prepared for glory in his

context i.e those whom he has called from the Jews, but also from the gentiles. It is imperative

that he was arguing that both the Jews and the Gentiles had a share in the salvation of humanity.

1.2 THE RELATIONSHIP OF PAULS’ THOUGHT TO MODERN THEOLOGY

The question of election has complexes in the sense that it relates to the modern theology as

predestination. This is to mean that in the societies a mass mushrooming of churches is rampant.

Claims that this one church is the chosen one is also at high. For Paul being elected meant that

someone is purposed for a specific task to the glory of God. They call themselves the saints of

God. The only chosen churches. They are able to perform miracles which are attracting many to

come to the serving knowledge of God. But still most of them their claims are not genuine

enough, in the end they just claim that we are all served by grace. For Paul to justify the

combination of the gentile and the Jews is not based on the deeds of an individual but on the

grace and mercy of God. The aspect of election which is Paul’s thought can surely find its way in

the theology of the modern society. It is for this reason that we are able to find people from the

Pentecostal churches claiming to have been the only saints who are the elects of God. They

claim this with the view that those who are elected are able to prophesy and heal even speaking

in tongues. Thus they are the elects of God for the reason being that his grace is sufficient on

them than some of the men and women of God. Just as the Jews thought they were the only ones

who were chosen by God because the law was given to them and the covenant of circumcision

through Abraham and Moses. And for this they thought they were only ones chosen by God.

With Paul the aspect of election for the Jews was broken by the coming of Jesus Christ who

broke the boundaries of neither Jew nor gentile. We are now seen as one as long as grace and
mercy are upon each one of us. Hence in the modern theology election is done within the

sovereign power of God

1.4 CONCLUSION

God is sovereign in his selection process and the reason for selection. He is not influenced by the

human actions and deeds. He chooses whoever he wills and for a purpose he wishes. Paul draws

a picture from history where people were selected and destined for different purposes in the

sovereign power of God. God in his acts is righteous; he does not deal with people with justice in

its strict sense but deals with people on the principle of mercy. If God was to relate with people

on the principle of justice many if not all would be killed as the case was going to be for Pharaoh

but he relates with us on the principle of mercy, thus we are able to live even when we are

sinners and the penalty is death. A lesson is leaned from history were God showed his anger but

even then he was patient.

Barclay W. 1975, The Daily Study Bible: The Letter To The Romans, Revised Edition, The St

Andrew Press, Edinburgh.

Bowen R. 1975, A Guide To Romans, SPCK, London.

Dunn J.D.G. 2001, Romans The People’s Bible Commentary For Every Day, BRF, Britain.

Edward J.R. 1992, New International Biblical Commentary: Romans, Hendrickson Publishers,

USA.

Stott J. (Ed) 1994, The Message If Romans, Inter-Varsity Press, England.

Youngblood, R. F. 1995. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Rev. ed. T. Nelson,

Nashville.