RECONDITE MERCY: AN EXPLORATION OF JUSTICE

AND MERCY IN ROMANS 9

Research Paper

Presented to

Dr. W. R. Osborne

By

Victoria B. Schlie

16 November 2018
 RECONDITE MERCY: AN EXPLORATION OF JUSTICE

AND MERCY IN ROMANS 9

Romans chapter 9 has historically been a key text for the Calvinist doctrines of

predestination and reprobation.1 Because of its apparent support of God’s total sovereignty at the

expense of human agency, the early Church Fathers were highly concerned with supporting an

interpretation of this passage preserving free will.2 This paper does not specifically address these

long-held interpretations and debates, but instead explores Paul’s focus on the steadfast mercy of

God as part of His character and how this mercy was a source of deep misunderstanding and

wrestling among an audience primarily concerned with justice.

“Cowardice asks the question: is it safe?”3

Paul seems to break from his exploration of the implications of a life of faith in Chapter

9. Here, he begins not a campaign against his fellow Jews with a series of questions meant to

condemn, but a list of hard questions posed by beloved family truly afraid for their own place in

God’s plan. Paul asks multiple questions weighing on the hearts and minds of his disobedient

brethren: “Has God’s plan failed?”, “Is there injustice on God’s part?”, “Why does He still find

fault?”, “Has God rejected His people?”, and “Did they stumble in order that they might fall?”4

The early Church Father Chrysostom understood these queries as Paul’s purposeful fostering of

confusion: “​For when you have power to throw your adversary into perplexity, do not at once

1
​ThomasR. Schreiner, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation?
Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections,” ​JETS 3​ 6/1 (1993): 25.
2
G. Bray and T. C. Oden, eds., ​Romans, ​Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
(Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998), 244.
3
Martin Luther King, Jr., “A Proper Sense of Priorities,” Address presented to Clergy
and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam (Washington, D.C., February 6, 1968).
4
Question implicit in 9:6, 9:14, 9:19, 11:1, and 11:11
1
bring forward the answer.”5 Paul certainly does maintain the combative edge of Greek diatribe,6

but his own sacrificial love for the Jews in 9:1-5 and 10:1 assures the reader he speaks out of

love. Chrysostom summarizes Paul’s fundamental question: “Now tell me, O thou Jew, that hast

so many perplexing questions, and art unable to answer any of them, how you come to annoy us

on account of the call of the Gentiles?”7 His very debate with their consuming questions is a

display not of condemnation, but of mercy. He is willing to engage with misled and arrogant

assumptions if it means making his “fellow Jews jealous”8 enough to lead them to repentance.

It is also important to keep in mind that while Paul is discussing the Jews’

misunderstanding of righteousness and God’s salvation plan, the letter, including chapter 9, is

not written primarily to Jews, but to educate both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Nevertheless,

Paul most likely has Jewish Christians more in mind in 9:1-11:10 as he deals with the questions

that would be far more weighty and concerning for those highly familiar with Torah and God’s

promises to Israel. He also explicitly switches to talking to Gentile Christians in 11:13,

suggesting he was not talking to them previously, but was dealing with a predominantly Jewish

issue in front of the Gentiles to educate them.

At the heart of these questions, which Paul foresees the Jews passionately asking, is a

deep concern with both their own safety in a promised justification and their beloved God’s

5
Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on Romans,”​ ​Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series​,
Vol. 11. ​ ​Translated by J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, and revised by George B.
Stevens. Edited by Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Para.
24. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
210216.htm
6
Douglas J. Moo, ​Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey​ (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 47.
7
Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on Romans,” para. 24
8
Romans 11:14 (ESV)
2
steadfast character. God’s rejection of His own people and acceptance of a people He had always

declared “‘not My people’”9 would drastically violate both of these secure beliefs, seemingly

destroying their basis for hope. Although many Jews may have asked such questions with

extremely self-righteous motives, valuing the promises more than Promiser (as Paul deals with in

3:1-810), they are more like genuine concerns colored by a pervasive tendency to deny anything

against human and cultural logic and understanding.

“He Who Is Merely Just Is Severe”11

Of this new paradox Paul was proclaiming, it seems mercy was the most difficult piece

for the Jews to understand. They knew of and took refuge in God’s justice; justice is logical and

satisfying with no grey area. To the Jews, God’s unwavering justice would be made false if what

Paul was saying was true: that God had denied His own promise and people. Justice would be

God building up Israel into the renowned priestly nation to which He promised all other nations

would look while destroying the pagans that have not observed His self-revelation. Israel also

knew of God’s love. They were attached to Psalms declaring the praises of a God with unending

love for His own people. He would be there to guide them and bless them as they remained in

Him. The fascinating thing is that they seemed to have forgotten the mercy on which they as a

people had been founded. They acted as if their sacred patriarch Abraham was righteous from the

beginning, justly earning God’s favor. Michael Bird provides a condensed overview of an

exalted Abraham in Jewish literary tradition, including statements such as, “God marvelling at

Abraham’s faith in him repaid him with faithfulness by confirming... the gifts which he had

9
Romans 9:25 citing Hosea 2:23
10
​John A. Witmer, ​Romans ​(The Bible Knowledge Commentary; ed. John F. Walvoord
and Roy B. Zuck; Accordance electronic ed. 2 vols.; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983), 2:449.
11
Quote attributed to Voltaire
3
promised,”12 thus making God just in giving Abraham what was due. Israel had forgotten that

they themselves were not the original source of righteousness and were offended when deemed

equal to the Gentiles.13 If this were true, God’s mercy toward the Gentiles would be inconsistent

and His justice arbitrary.

Paul’s quoting of Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9 in Romans 9:2014 and his subsequent allusion to

Jeremiah 1815 with the potter and the clay analogy can be viewed as highlighting God’s

sovereign authority to arbitrarily designate His creation’s future. However, ​Paul calls out this

irrational human argument that betrays the questioner’s lack of understanding of God’s

character. The questions “Is there injustice on God’s part?” and “Why does He still find fault?”

have in mind a God only of strict justice, not taking into account His love. With this in mind,

Paul responds with a “what if” statement.16 As seen in Romans 3:3, the “what if” does state a true

fact about reality (some Jews ​did p​ rove faithless), but Paul’s answer fits the specific question.

Since the questioner here is only concerned with God’s justice, Paul answers solely based on

God’s justice to counter their faulty thinking. He explains that even if God was only concerned

with justice and not love, they would still have no right to accuse their Designer. Paul’s quoting

12
Michael F. Bird, ​The Story of God Bible Commentary: Romans​ (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2016), 143.
13
This failure to remember humble beginnings is continually repeated throughout history.
A prime example is the reception history of Bible translations. The Roman Catholic Church
standardized the Latin Vulgate in the 16th century as the only true, and therefore acceptable,
translation of Scripture, seemingly forgetting that theirs was not the original language of the
sacred text. More recently, there has been a significant number of Christians who deem the New
King James Version the only true and acceptable form of Scripture, ignorant of the ​translation’s
origins as a contested political move and, again, not the original language.
14
Bird, ​The Story of God Bible Commentary: Romans,​ 332.
15
Mark Reasoner, “The Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah in Romans 9-11,” ​Biblica
95/3 (2014): 400. Retrieved from file:///home/chronos/u-22646a95d1e5f2489b28b638fdd465ba5
c08fd0b/Downloads/The_Redemptive_Inversions_of_Jeremiah_in%20(1).pdf
16
Romans 9:22
4
Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:15 leads into this retort by pointing out that “​if Moses had no right to

know [God’s ways], much less have we. And this is why he did not barely quote the passage, but

also called to our minds to whom it was said”; Paul points out that even Israel’s sacred patriarch

Moses could not question the ways of God in order that “he might make the objector modest.”17

The argument in Romans 9 also relates to the the experience of Job, reminding the

audience of a well known instance of the very same questions being asked of God and the

outcome of doubt. God’s own people should have known better than anyone that God remains

just and merciful because their history was laden with times God’s ways were confusing and

seemed unjust, yet each time He proved to be faithful and loving. Paul cites or alludes to many

Old Testament passages to remind them of their own personal experience of God. His use of

Exodus 33:19 supports the notion that God is just in His decisions to show mercy to some and

not to others. The flashback is not to a wrathful God who says this to justify withholding mercy,

but to a loving God who has every right to be wrathful (as seen in His response to the golden calf

incident in Exodus 32) and shows mercy because He can. This reminds the readers of Romans of

the positive character of God, even to the extent of revealing Himself to a people so against Him.

The emphasis is on God’s boundless mercy, not His wrath.

“Sweet Mercy Is Nobility’s True Badge”18

Mercy is the intersection between justice and love: the most vivid action which displays

both traits most clearly. C. S. Lewis aptly observed that “mercy, detached from justice, grows

17
Chrysostom, “Homily 16 on Romans,” para. 30.
18
​William Shakespeare, ‘Titus Andronicus​',​ ​The Oxford Shakespeare:​ ​The Complete
Works of William Shakespeare​ (London: Oxford University Press, 1914),​ ​ I. 1. 124.​ R
​ etrieved
from https://www.bartleby.com/70/3711.html
5
unmerciful,”19 while Paul’s quoting of Isaiah 1:9 in Romans 9:29 (if it were not for God’s

promise, Israel would have received the destruction it deserved) affirms that justice without love

is unmerciful. Mercy is the clearest way humans can see God. Alessandro Rovati quotes and

expounds on Pope Francis in saying, “mercy is first and foremost a description of God’s nature.

Mercy is not an abstract ideal because ‘mercy,’ explains the Pope, ‘has become living and visible

in Jesus of Nazareth’ (Misericordiae Vultus, no. 1). Mercy is a person.”20

Many biblical scholars and those in reformed traditions read the point of Paul’s argument

in Romans 9 as convincing the audience of God’s sovereign authority to arbitrarily choose the

“elect” and the “remnant”— the heading for the chapter in the ESV is “God’s Sovereign

Choice.” It seems natural to interpret Paul’s references to God choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau

while they “had done nothing either good nor bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might

continue”21 as distinctly making the point that God operates by choosing some and not others.22

However, the focal points of verses 6 through 12 are not election and rejection, but God’s ways

of mercy​ being contrary to human reason and culture. In verse 9, the promise of a son for Sarah

was against all hope and human logic because she was barren and too old. God did not elect

Isaac arbitrarily, but elected to show mercy through the situation of Isaac’s miraculous, logic

defying birth, the emphasis being more on the circumstances of birth than on the individual

Isaac. God did not fail His own promise because the election is through a faith lineage, not an

ethnic one.23 Further down, the Jacob versus Esau reference is not God’s electing Jacob

19
​C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (​ Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2014), 326.
20
Alessandro Rovati, “Mercy Is a Person: Pope Francis and the Christological Turn in
Moral Theology,” ​Journal of Moral Theology 6​ /2 (2017): 58.
21
Romans 9:11
22
Moo, ​Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey,​ 134.
23
Ibid., 133.
6
specifically, showing future readers that God elects individuals, but “The older will serve the

younger”24 which was contrary, and possibly offensive, to cultural norms at the time.25

This inversion of the accepted custom of birthright in Genesis 25:23 (which Romans 9:12

quotes) also appears in Genesis 48 when Jacob blesses Joseph’s sons at the end of his life. When

Jacob (Israel) reaches his right hand toward the younger, Joseph chides him, saying, “‘​Not this

way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.’”26 The focal

point of God’s election of certain individuals or nations (however one interprets election) is not

the election itself, but the dissonance of God’s ways with human logic. Because Jacob and Esau

were twins, they were technically equal in every way at birth. Esau was the standard “godless”

person described in Romans 3:9-18, yet God takes one like him—his very twin—and builds a

promise against hope.

“Severe Mercy”27

This interpretation, though, does not alter the fact that God’s inversion of the human

concept of justice with His mercy and promises raises questions regarding God’s concept of

justice. Mercy does not fit into human understanding of justice— in fact, it seems to compromise

it; they seem mutually exclusive. Even if the promises of God are tied to forgiveness and mercy,

24
Romans 9:12
25
Eryl W. Davies, “The Inheritance of the Firstborn in Israel and the Ancient Near East,”
Journal of Semitic Studies 3​ 8/2 (1993): 179.
26
Genesis 48:18
27
Title of an ​autobiographical book by Sheldon Vanauken, a friend of C. S. Lewis who
converted to Christianity. In it, he recounts his experience of wrestling with God and faith, the
death of idealized love, and how the anger and pain of his beloved wife dying pushed him to see
the mercy of God.
Russ Ramsey, “Revisiting ‘A Severe Mercy’—40 Years Later: Rediscovering the
Forgotten Classics,” ​The Gospel Coalition (​ 2017). Retrieved from https://www.thegospel
coalition.org/reviews/severe-mercy-40th-anniversary/
7
which suspend justice, God rejecting His own people and accepting those “who did not pursue

righteousness”28 seems both drastically unloving and unjust. Paul uses God actively hardening

Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 9:16 to prove by experience that God “has mercy on whomever he

wills, and he hardens whoever he wills.”29 This places God in the seat of arbitrary choice, which

seems blatantly unjust to human reasoning. It would seem reasonable to respond “Why does He

still find fault?” if God Himself is the one to actively harden someone’s heart against Him. It

must be kept in mind that Paul is continually drawing the reader back to the God with merciful

character. Pharaoh was hardened by God’s mercy in giving him multiple chances to release

Israel. Thistleton observes, “​The reference to ​being hardened​ looks back to 9.14-24. It is part of

Jewish theology, Wright adds, that if the time for repentance is delayed or extended, those who

remain stubborn become hardened.”30 Those exposed to God’s mercy, the most potent

convergence of his loving and just character, are necessarily either hardened or softened.

Therefore, God could be said to actively soften or harden individuals by being merciful and

revealing Himself to them, yet it is still their previous state that determines which direction

God’s mercy pushes them.

Paul follows this with a reference back to the potter and the clay analogy from Isaiah,

chastising his defensive interlocutor for trying to usurp God’s authority over Israel. But simply

“do as you are told” is not a sufficient reason to accept a grand plan supposedly from God that

appears unjust. Paul first affirms that God’s promises have not failed—that He has remained

faithful—and follows the claim by quoting the Scriptures that prophesied God’s paradoxical plan

28
Romans 9:30
29
Romans 9:18
30
Anthony C. Thiselton, ​Discovering Romans: Content, Interpretation, Reception,
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 210.
8
of Gentile inclusion.31 Second, his quotes of the Old Testament call the readers’ minds back not

just to the isolated quote, but the whole scene of God’s mercy in the past. God’s words to Moses

remind the audience that even after the just wrath of God on His own people because of the

Golden Calf rebellion, He still ​revealed ​Himself to Moses, a baffling display of mercy. Pharaoh's

harding was only after God had “endured [him] with much patience,”32 a mercy in itself, to then

reveal His glorious faithfulness to Israel. And the potter and the clay analogy brings the reader

back to Jeremiah 18, where God admits His authority over Israel, but urges that “​if that nation I

warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.”33 If

God were only concerned with justice, the inclusion of the Gentiles at the expense of the Jews

would be despicable, but because God is merciful—endlessly concerned with both justice and

love—temporary suspensions of justice for the sake of forgiveness, mercy, or hardening are

viable to lead His people back to Him.34

Conclusion

Although the topics of predestination and election are unavoidable when discussing

Romans chapter 9, this paper did not aim to put forth any specific stance on the issue or to

propose an alternative interpretation of election. Even in discussing election with regards to

​ od elects individuals or condemns others was made, but

Jacob and Esau, no stance on ​whether G

only the examination of how mercy is the focal point of God’s mysterious plan of election. The

31
Paul quotes Hosea and Isaiah’s prophecies in Romans 9:25-33
32
Romans 9:23
33
Jeremiah 18:8
34
Paul says as much in chapter 11 when he explains Israel’s ​partial h​ ardening (v. 25),
and the fact that though some Jews may be rejected now, they are welcome back into the
promises if they soften and return to God. Their rejection is temporary with the purpose of later
showing them mercy.
9
questions posed by Paul’s imaginary interlocutor both validate the confusing tension God’s

unusual mercy evoked in the Jews and highlighted the bottom line error in their questioning:

human understanding cannot comprehend the logic of God. Paul uses Old Testament Scripture in

his argument to make clear to his readers the fact that God can be both completely just and yet

merciful, reminding them that the Jews of all people should have understood God’s mercy to the

Gentiles based on everything they had experienced with Him.

While many Christians, particularly those from Calvinist traditions, view Romans 9 as

dealing predominantly with God’s sovereignty to arbitrarily elect and direct humans, the chapter

(as well as chapters 10 and 11) speak of God’s sovereignty for the purpose of explaining His

mercy to the Gentiles; therefore, Paul seems to be far more concerned in this chapter with

explaining how God’s mercy is just than with how God’s rule over humans is just. Again, this

proposition does not exclude the extrapolation that God’s will ​is s​ overeign over human will, but

states that Paul’s mind in writing this section of the letter was on ​mercy.

Finally, Paul’s very diatribic argument is out of love and compassion for both the Jews he

longs to be saved and the Jewish and Gentile Christians reading the letter. Paul desires Christians

to understand the real tensions in God’s mercy and how those tensions do not disqualify God’s

saving mercy because Christian faith is founded on the reality of God’s character and promises.

Serious doubt justice, love, and mercy all being an integral part of God’s unwavering character

undermines the faith. Paul uses argument not to condemn and chastise, but to enlighten and

encourage.

10
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

​ rand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

Bird, Michael F. ​The Story of God Bible Commentary: Romans. G

2016.

​ ncient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Chicago,

Bray, G. and T. C. Oden, eds. ​Romans. A

IL: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998.

Chrysostom. “Homily 16 on Romans.”​ ​Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series,​ Vol. 11.

Translated by J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, and revised by George B. Stevens.

Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889. Revised

and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org

/fathers/210216.htm

Davies, Eryl W. “The Inheritance of the Firstborn in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” ​Journal

of Semitic Studies ​38/2 (1993): 175-191.

King, Jr., Martin Luther. “A Proper Sense of Priorities.” Address presented to Clergy and

Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, Washington, D.C., February 6, 1968.

​ m. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2014.

Lewis, C. S. ​God in the Dock. W

Moo, Douglas J. ​Encountering the Book of Romans.​ Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.

Ramsey, Russ. “Revisiting ‘A Severe Mercy’—40 Years Later: Rediscovering the Forgotten

Classics.” ​The Gospel Coalition ​(2017). Retrieved from https://www.thegospel

coalition.org/reviews/severe-mercy-40th-anniversary/

Reasoner, Mark. “The Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah in Romans 9-11.” ​Biblica 9​ 5/3

(2014):

400. Retrieved from file:///home/chronos/u-22646a95d1e5f2489b28b638fdd46

11
 5ba5c08fd0b/Downloads/The_Redemptive_Inversions_of_Jeremiah_in%20(1).pdf

Rovati, Alessandro. “Mercy Is a Person: Pope Francis and the Christological Turn in Moral

Theology.” ​Journal of Moral Theology 6​ /2 (2017): 48-69.

Schreiner, Thomas R. “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some

Exegetical and Theological Reflections.” ​JETS ​36/1 (1993): 25-40.

Shakespeare, William. “Titus Andronicus.​”​ ​The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works of

William Shakespeare​. London: Oxford University Press, 1914.​ R

​ etrieved from

https://www.bartleby.com/70/3711.html

​ rand Rapids,
Thiselton, Anthony C. ​Discovering Romans: Content, Interpretation, Reception. G

MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.

12