An Arminian Interpretation of Romans 9:10–33

As to be expected (which is wonderful), I received a question about Romans 9:10–33 in response to this post. Here’s my response.

While Calvinists interpret Romans 9:10–33 as a definitive affirmation of unconditional election—God choosing individuals for salvation apart from their will or actions—Arminians argue that Paul’s argument should be understood within the broader biblical narrative of God’s sovereign choice in accomplishing His redemptive purposes, rather than as a deterministic decree regarding individual salvation.

In this essay, we will explore the Arminian interpretation of Romans 9:10–33, focusing on its theological and exegetical foundations. Arminians contend that this passage does not teach unconditional individual election to salvation or damnation, but rather speaks of God’s sovereign choice in redemptive history, particularly concerning Israel’s role and the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan.

1. Contextual Considerations: Romans 9 in the Larger Argument

Before diving into the passage itself, Arminians emphasize the larger context of Romans 9–11.

• In Romans 8, Paul affirms the security of believers who are in Christ and God’s ultimate plan to glorify those who love Him (Romans 8:28-39).
• In Romans 9, Paul addresses the apparent paradox of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah—how could God’s promises to Israel remain true if many Israelites did not accept Christ?
• Romans 9–11 functions as an explanation of God’s faithfulness in His redemptive plan, showing that His promises are not void and that salvation is ultimately through faith, not ethnicity or works.

Thus, Arminians argue that Romans 9 is not primarily about individual election to eternal salvation but about God’s sovereign plan to bring about redemption through Israel and extend it to the Gentiles.

2. Jacob and Esau: Election for a Purpose (Romans 9:10–13)

The Passage: “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” (Romans 9:10–13, NIV)

Arminian Interpretation

1. Election is corporate and historical, not individual salvation: Arminians point out that Jacob and Esau represent nations (Israel and Edom), not specific individuals chosen for eternal destiny (Genesis 25:23).
2. Election is about God’s redemptive plan, not salvation: The phrase “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” is a Hebrew idiom found in Malachi 1:2-3, where God’s “hatred” of Edom refers to their historical role in contrast to Israel, not an arbitrary decree of eternal damnation for Esau personally.
3. God’s election does not negate human responsibility: This choice of Jacob over Esau was not about their personal salvation, but about God’s sovereign choice in using Israel as the people through whom the Messiah would come.

Thus, Arminians see this passage as referring to God’s sovereign choice of Israel for His purposes, not the unconditional election of individuals for heaven or hell.

3. God’s Sovereignty and Hardening (Romans 9:14–18)

The Passage. “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For 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.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” (Romans 9:14–18, NIV)

Arminian Interpretation

1. God’s mercy and hardening are not arbitrary: Arminians affirm that God sovereignly chooses to extend mercy but argue that His mercy is conditioned on faith, not an arbitrary decree.
2. Hardening is judicial, not deterministic: Pharaoh was not arbitrarily predestined for condemnation; rather, his hardening was a response to his own persistent rebellion (Exodus 7:13, 8:15, 9:12).
3. Hardening is a consequence, not an eternal decree: Arminians argue that God hardens those who first reject Him, in line with passages like Romans 1:24 (“God gave them over to their sinful desires”).

Thus, God’s mercy is extended to those who trust in Him, while hardening is a judicial response to persistent unbelief.

4. The Potter and the Clay (Romans 9:19–24)

The Passage: “But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” (Romans 9:20–21, NIV)

Arminian Interpretation

1. This metaphor does not teach unconditional election: Arminians argue that Jeremiah 18:1-10 (the source of the “potter and clay” imagery) presents a conditional model of election—God reshapes the clay based on human response.
2. God is shaping a people, not arbitrarily predestining individuals: The context suggests God is shaping Israel and the Gentiles, showing His sovereign right to redirect His redemptive plan.
3. Even vessels of wrath have the opportunity for repentance: Romans 11:23 later clarifies that those hardened can still be grafted back in through faith.

Thus, Arminians maintain that God’s sovereignty does not override human responsibility/free agency but rather works through human choices.

5. The Inclusion of the Gentiles (Romans 9:25–33)

The Passage: Paul concludes with quotations from Hosea and Isaiah, showing that God’s purpose was always to include the Gentiles in His redemptive plan:

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.” (Romans 9:30–31, NIV)

Arminian Interpretation

1. Salvation is attained by faith, not an arbitrary decree: The contrast is not between those predestined and those not, but between those who seek righteousness through faith (Gentiles) and those who seek it through works (Israel).
2. The stumbling stone is Israel’s unbelief, not lack of election: Paul’s argument reaffirms human responsibility—salvation comes through faith in Christ, not ethnic heritage or deterministic predestination.
3. This passage reinforces Paul’s argument from Romans 1–8: Righteousness has always been by faith, not law or predestination.

Thus, Romans 9:25–33 affirms that God’s sovereign plan includes all who trust in Christ, Jew or Gentile.

Conclusion

The Arminian interpretation of Romans 9:10–33 emphasizes:

• God’s sovereignty in shaping history (not arbitrary individual election).
• Election as corporate and purpose-driven (not a deterministic decree of salvation or damnation).
• Faith as the condition of receiving God’s mercy (not an unconditional choice apart from human response).

Rather than teaching unconditional election of individuals, Romans 9 reveals how God’s redemptive plan unfolds—first through Israel, then extending to the Gentiles—offering salvation to all who believe (Romans 10:9-13).