hardening Pharaoh. In order to advance his argument that God’s purpose according to election stands (v. 11), Paul opens with a familiar rhetorical question, “What then shall we say” (v. 14a; cf. 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7)?116 This initial question sets up the primary
115Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1159.
116This rhetorical question resumes Paul’s diatribe style which he has employed at various points in the letter (cf. 2:1–3:8; 3:27–31; 6–7). For an exhaustive study of Paul’s use of diatribe, see Stanley Kent Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 57 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). In doing so, Paul not only moves his argument forward, but he is likely responding to common objections he’s heard during his preaching ministry. Moo states, “[These questions] undoubtedly reflect actual accusations brought against Paul . . . perhaps by Jews or Jewish Christians who held the popular Pharisaic conception of a cooperation between God and human beings in salvation.” Moo, Romans, 610n192. See also Stowers, Diatribe, 121; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 551; Barrett, Romans, 172; Jewett, Romans, 581; Schreiner, Romans, 494.
objection raised against Paul’s teaching: “Is there unrighteousness (ἀδικία) with God” (v.
14b)? This question harks back to 3:5 where Paul addresses a similar issue concerning God’s justice in exacting wrath upon unrighteous Israel.117 However, Wright contends that no devout Jew would find anything controversial about what Paul has said thus far.
No first-century Jew would have supposed that the ‘seed of Abraham’ was
continued equally by Ishmael as well as Isaac, or that Esau shared the same ‘elect’
status as Jacob. They would have agreed, further, that God had the right, faced with the bullying Pharaoh, to reveal his own name and power in all the world through the events of the Exodus. They would certainly have agreed that when Israel made and worshipped the golden calf God had the right to do what he pleased, and if he showed mercy to some, that was up to him.118
On the one hand, I agree with Wright that Paul is retelling Israel’s story and that in general no devout Jew would object to the winnowing of Israel as Paul has traced it. However, the objection does not concern the fact that there is an Israel within Israel or with how God dealt his judgment against Pharaoh; rather the objection is to Paul’s reading of Israel’s history and interpretive emphasis upon God’s predetermined choice of Jacob over Esau apart from any works of their own (vv. 11–13).119 It’s Paul’s insistence that there is an elect among Israel—based upon God’s calling and not by works—which raises questions about God’s justice.120 Yet, Paul refuses to entertain any notion of
117Murray, Romans, 2:25; Wright, “Letter to the Romans,” 638; Michael F. Bird, Romans, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 330; Schreiner, Romans, 494–95.
118Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1184–85.
119Barclay cogently states, “Paul has directly or indirectly ruled out numerous possible qualifying criteria for divine selection: birth (natural rights of decent), status (comparative ‘greatness’) and action (‘works’), all forms of superiority humanly ascribed or achieved . . . . Thus the only principle that Paul will identify as operative in Israel’s history is the principle of call/election, which operates by mercy alone.” John M. G. Barclay, “Unnerving Grace: Approaching Romans 9–11 from the Wisdom of
Solomon,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 106–7.
120Wright merely sees the question of God’s justice as pertaining to his covenant promises to Israel. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 238. Yet Moo is correct when he says, “Paul also uses
‘righteousness’ language to refer to God’s faithfulness to his own person and character. And the course of Paul’s argument suggests that, in Paul’s answer at least, it is ultimately this standard, revealed in Scripture and in Creation, against which God’s acts must be measured.” Moo, Romans, 611–12. See also Piper, The Justification of God, 92–96.
injustice with God.121 In no uncertain terms, Paul answers his own question: “By no means” (µὴ γένοιτο; v. 14c)!
Paul explains (γάρ, v. 15) that God’s freedom of choice is consistent with his revealed character. Paul then turns to the word of the Lord spoken to Moses in Exodus 33:19 (LXX) which says, “I will have mercy one whomever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion (ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω).” These words occur in the context of Moses’s intercession for Israel after they had committed idolatry (Exod 32–34). Moses not only asks God to forgive them on the basis of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (32:11–14) and to remain present among them (33:12–17), but also that God would show Moses his glory (33:18). YHWH answers Moses request stating that he will cause all “his goodness” to pass before Moses and he that will proclaim his name in the revelation of his glory. Therefore, in this revelation of God’s glory a fundamental characteristic is made known; namely his freedom to grant mercy and compassion to whomever he chooses. God’s choice of Isaac and Jacob was an expression of his mercy; and no one can lay claim that God owes them mercy. This was certainly the case for idolatrous Israel (Exod 32) and it remains the case for all sinful humanity (Rom 3:1–20). In other words, Paul argues that the shocking truth is that God has shown mercy to some when all deserve judgment.
By explaining how God upholds his righteousness by sovereignly choosing whom he will bestow mercy, Paul also reveals that this reality most fundamentally manifests God’s glory.122 As Piper cogently states, “It is the glory of God and his essential nature mainly to dispense mercy (but also wrath, Ex 34:7) on whomever he pleases apart from any constraint originating outside his own will. This is the essence of
121The µή anticipates a negative answer to the question.
122Piper, The Justification of God, 88–89.
what it means to be God. This is his name.”123
In 9:16 Paul draws a conclusion (ἄρα οὖν) from the preceding citation, “It does not depend on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but upon the God who shows mercy.” The subject of this sentence is not immediately clear. It could be God’s
“choice,”124 “mercy,”125 or “salvation.”126 Whatever decision is made, the overall meaning of the passage is not significantly affected; each of these ideas concerns the reception of God’s word of promise. However, with the close connection to 9:15, Moo may be correct in seeing the subject as “God’s bestowal of mercy.”127 Consequently, Paul reiterates the point made in 9:11–13, human will and effort have no bearing upon God’s elective purpose and this purpose accords with God’s character of freely bestowing mercy upon whomever he chooses.
In 9:17, Paul then turns to a second answer for why God is not unjust;128 only now he will examine the negative side of God’s elective purpose: rejection and judgment.
As with 9:15 Paul cites the OT by means of explanation (γάρ). This time the Scripture is addressed to Pharaoh (λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ τῷ Φαραὼ), and again the citation comes from Exodus. It reads, “For this reason I have raised you up (ἐξήγειρά σε) so that (ὅπως) I may demonstrate to you my power (τὴν δύναµίν µου) and so that (ὅπως) my name (τὸ ὄνοµά µου) should be declared in all the earth” (Rom 9:17; cf. Exod 9:16 LXX).129
123Piper, The Justification of God, 88–89. See also Cranfield, Romans, 2:283; Susan Eastman,
“Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-Reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 377.
124Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God,” 377–78.
125Cranfield, Romans, 2:484–85.
126Schreiner, Romans, 497.
127Moo, Romans, 613.
128Moo observes an A B structure in 9:14–18 whereby verses 15 and 17 provide a two-fold answer for why God is not unjust (ibid., 614). See also Munck, Christ and Israel, 45; Cranfield, Romans, 2:485; Käsemann, Romans, 287; Schreiner, Romans, 497–98. Contra William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950), 255; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 553.
129Paul makes several changes to the LXX: (1) he replaces καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου with εἰς αὐτὸ
There are several observations to be made from Paul’s citation. First, Paul particularly emphasized God’s active role in raising Pharaoh up. The verb carries the idea of elevating someone for a specific purpose in history (Num 24:19; 2 Sam 12:11; Job 5:11; Hab 1:6; Zech 11:16).130 In this case, it refers to God’s providential hand in
appointing Pharaoh to the role he played in the redemption of Israel in the Exodus. What role did Pharaoh play? This leads to the second observation, Pharaoh’s persistent
resistance to God had the two-fold purpose (ὅπως) of displaying God’s power (δύναµις) to Pharaoh and declaring God’s name (ὄνοµα) in all the earth (Rom 9:17). These words were spoken to Pharaoh through Moses after the sixth plague and reveal the purpose behind all God’s great acts in redeeming Israel.
Third, God’s power was on display not only in mercy toward Israel, but in judgment toward Egypt.131 This demonstration of power also had the purpose of
declaring God’s name—his saving and judging righteousness—throughout the earth (cf.
Exod 15:13–16; Josh 2:9, 10; 9:9; Ps 78:12, 13; 1-3:26–38; 106:9–11; 136:10–15).132 Therefore, God’s negative actions toward Pharaoh ultimately had a positive purpose (cf.
9:22–23). In this way, God’s righteousness is vindicated by virtue of his freedom to bring about judgment and salvation to whomever he wills.
Paul concludes (ἄρα οὖν) his second answer with a principle drawn from Exodus 9:16: “He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes”
(Rom 9:18). While Paul’s citation from Exodus 9:16 does not explicitly mention the
τοῦτο to make the purpose clause more emphatic; (2) he replaces διετηρήθης with ἐξήγειρά. This change reflects Paul’s emphasis upon God’s sovereignty in appointing Pharaoh for his own purposes. (3) Paul uses ὅπως instead of ἵνα; (4) δύναµις instead of ἰσχύς. This last deviation from the LXX most likely reflects Paul’s desire associate God’s power (δύναµις) over Pharaoh with the power (δύναµις) of God in the gospel (cf. 1:16–17). Both are expressions of his mercy and judgment. Rightly, Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God, 221; Schreiner, Romans, 498.
130Murray, Romans, 2:27.
131Contra Cranfield, Romans, 2:487; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 554.
132See Murray, Romans, 2:28.
hardening of Pharaoh, he has tapped into the larger Exodus narrative which does speak of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened (Exod 4–14 [LXX]). The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart coincides with God’s “raising up” of Pharaoh for judgment, in order to bring salvation to Israel.133 This is consistent with a careful reading of the OT narrative which presents God’s act of hardening as the basis for Pharaoh’s self-hardening.134 Furthermore, this reading fits in the context of Romans as Paul will connect the demonstration of God’s power (δύναµις) among “vessels of wrath” in order to make known his glory upon
“vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:22–23). This principle is extremely important because Paul has demonstrated in Israel’s history God’s ways of accomplishing his redemptive purposes through a paradigm of acceptance and rejection. The same spoken word accomplishes God’s purpose according to election, whether for mercy or for judgment.
Later Paul will build upon this foundational principle to show how it is currently playing out through God’s hardening of Israel (9:33; 11:7, 25), in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles.
By retelling Israel’s story in the exodus, Paul defends any charge against God’s righteousness in choosing some for salvation and rejecting others. Even God’s rejection or hardening of individuals serves the purpose of extending his mercy to others, which is fundamental to his name.135 Furthermore, Paul has laid much of the ground work for explaining how the present hardening of Israel does not thwart God’s faithfulness to keep
133Rightly Moo, Romans, 616; Schreiner, Romans, 499. Contra those scholars who insist that Pharaoh’s hardening only concerns his role in a salvation-historical sense and has no direct bearing to his own spiritual condition. See Munck, Christ and Israel, 44–45; Cranfield, Romans, 2:488–89; Wright,
“Letter to the Romans,” 639.
134See G. K. Beale, “An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Exodus 4–14 and Romans 9,” Trinity Journal 5, no. 2 (1984): 129–54; Piper, The Justification of God, 159–71; Moo, Romans, 616–19. Contra Robert B. Chisholm, “Divine Hardening in the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153, no. 612 (1996): 410–34.
135As Oropeza states, “The reason for hardening Pharaoh was not just that God could magnify his power but that his fame might spread to other people apart from the Israelites. For Paul, these other people are Gentiles who come to know God, and God would be glorified because of this (Rom 9.23–26, 30). God’s election and hardening of ‘whom he wills’ is for the purpose of bringing about a greater good:
to be merciful to more people.” Oropeza, “Paul and Theodicy,” 65.
his promises. In fact, he will contend that just as Pharaoh was hardened in order to bring salvation to Israel, so at the present time Israel has been hardened in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles. Therefore, Paul draws from Israel’s history a paradigm of rejection and acceptance to demonstrate how this pattern continues at the present time.136
Romans 9:19–23. The subsequent verses reveal that Paul intends to present