Few biblical texts promote more disagreement than Romans 9. Historically, Protestants have divided into two different camps when it comes to this passage. On the one hand, Calvinists argue that God unconditionally elects certain people unto salvation while not electing others. On the other hand, Arminians argue that God’s election of individuals is based on their foreseen faith.

More recently, however, a third camp has emerged which argues that Romans 9 teaches God’s corporate election of a group. While different than traditional Arminianism, this camp is largely consistent with Arminian theology as it rejects determinism and seeks to maintain libertarian free will.

While the purpose of this post is to examine whether Romans 9 teaches Corporate Election (CE from this point forward), I must first address a couple preliminary issues.

Choosing to be Chosen

CE maintains that God does not elect individuals unto salvation. Rather, he elects a corporate entity—“the Church.” Or as some argue, God elects Christ. Those who then make the free will choice to unite with Christ by faith are then considered part of God’s corporate elect.

An analogy might prove helpful. Given CE, God, before the foundation of the world, chose an airplane that would fly to heaven. God’s choice was of the airplane. People, then, can freely choose if they want to ride on God’s chosen airplane or not. Those who choose to get on the plane are then considered God’s elect.

Now I must confess that this understanding of the word “elect” confuses me. In essence, CE teaches that people are “the elect” because they elected to get on the plane. They are “chosen” because they made the choice. This is tantamount to a pilot thanking the passengers for being chosen by the airline. But that wouldn’t make any sense, as it’s the passengers who choose to ride the plane. However, this is what “God’s elect” means given CE.

But in what real way can someone be considered God’s chosen if God didn’t choose them? According to CE, God merely chose that people would be saved when they put their faith in Christ.

Now let me be clear, I do not deny that God’s election has corporate dimensions. It most certainly does! But where I differ from CE is that I believe God elects individuals to make up his corporate body.

Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13:

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved.

Notice that God chose people, not merely a corporate entity.

Or consider Ephesians 1:3-5:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. 

In this text, CE emphasizes that God chose us in Him. Now God forbid that we should ever downplay the role of Christ in our election. But the text does not say that God chose Him. No, the direct object of chose is “us.” God chose “us.” Furthermore, he goes on to say in verse 5 that God predestined “us” for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ. So yes, Jesus Christ is instrumental in our election. It’s through him that God’s electing work is accomplished. But this text does not teach that God elected Christ. He elected “us” and predestined “us.”

We could look at any number of passages where the concept of election is applied to people and not merely corporate entities (Rom 8:29-30; John 6:37, 65; Acts 13:48; 16:14; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10, etc.). In the end, the way CE uses the word “elect” or “election” strips the word of its meaning. According to their view, people are not “chosen” or “elect” in any sense of the word, despite the fact that Scripture repeatedly says they are.

Determinism and Free Will

A second matter to consider before jumping into Romans 9 is CE’s view of Libertarian Free Will. CE maintains that people are free, if and only if, they have the ability to do otherwise. But I suggest to you that this view of freedom contradicts Scripture. Rather, I believe Scripture teaches we are free, if and only if, we do what we most want to do—a view known as the Freedom of Desire.

Consider the early church’s prayer in Acts 4:27-28:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Consider: Could Pilate, Herod, and the Jewish leaders have done otherwise? Could they have chosen not to crucify Jesus even though they were doing “whatever [God’s] hand and will had predestined to take place?” I don’t see how it’s possible. For God had determined that they carry out Christ’s crucifixion. Therefore, they could not do otherwise. Now, did they do what they wanted to do? Absolutely. Texts like this one convince me that Freedom of Desire is a more biblical position than Libertarian Free Will.

Two Issues in Romans 9

As I’ve studied CE, it seems to me that proponents argue that God’s election in Romans 9 is not referring primarily to the salvation of individuals, but to the historical purposes of Israel—sometimes called “election to service.” As Forster and Marston remark, “The question at issue is not the eternal destiny of anyone, but the history of Israel and their significance as the chosen nation.”¹

Therefore, two issues are at play here:

1. CE argues that Romans 9 is primarily about the historical purposes of Israel, not salvation.
2. CE argues that Romans 9 does not pertain to individuals, but to corporate entities.

I will address both of these issues in turn.

Romans 9 and Salvation

First, CE maintains that Romans 9:6-23 isn’t primarily about salvation. Frankly, I find this view difficult to accept. Consider Paul’s opening remarks in Romans 9:1-5. He is deeply troubled to the point where he remarks:

“I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers.”

Now why is Paul heartbroken?

CE maintains he’s heartbroken because many from within corporate Israel failed to carry out their purpose of being an earthly blessing to the nations. As Leighton Flowers remarks, it’s “because not everyone from Israel has been given the noble purpose (i.e., “election of service”) of bringing that Word (vv. 5, 21). . . . Moreover, not every descendant of Israel is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected Israel.”²

Is that really why Paul is so upset? If so, Paul’s anguish seems a bit extreme. I think it’s more probable that Paul’s anguish and offer to be “accursed and cut off from Christ” suggest that he’s lamenting the fact that most of his fellow Jews have rejected God’s offer of salvation through Christ, not that some of them didn’t have the privilege of carrying out an appointed task.

CE, then, must maintain that Paul shifts gears from talking about salvation in Romans 9:1-5 to then speaking about Israel’s earthly purposes in verses 6-29 to only shift back to salvific matters in verses 30-33. There he notes that the Gentiles obtained “a righteousness by faith,” while Israel “did not pursue it by faith.” Matters of salvation clearly bookend Chapter 9. But CE maintains that the middle portion speaks of Israel’s earthly purpose.

Paul then continues in 10:1, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.” You see, Paul is concerned about his fellow Jews’ salvation, not their failure to carry out their appointed task. The chapter goes on to speak of more salvific issues. He remarks, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (10:9).

When we come to Chapter 11, Paul then asks, “Has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham. . . God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:1-2). Paul goes on to state that he belongs to the believing remnant of Israel. In other words, God’s promises to Israel did not fail because God saved a remnant from among them, Paul included. He then remarks that the Gentiles are being “grafted in” to the people of God which, again, suggests Paul’s concern here is salvation.

One must ask then: If Romans 9:1-5 and 9:30-11:36 pertain to salvific matters, doesn’t it make sense to conclude that 9:6-29 pertains to salvific matters as well? It certainly does. In fact, when we read Romans 9:6-29, we find all sorts of salvation language.³

For example, Paul calls the children of the promise “the children of God” (Rom 9:8). Elsewhere Paul uses this phrase to refer to those who are saved (Rom 8:16, 21; Phil 2:15; Gal 4:28).

He goes on to say that God’s electing purpose was not based on “works” (Rom 9:11). Paul frequently remarks that people cannot be saved or justified by “works” (Rom 3:20, 28; 4:5; 11:6; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 10).

He continues by saying that God’s electing purpose is based on “him who calls” (Rom 9:11). As was true with the previous terms, Paul frequently speaks of “calling” in salvific ways (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 1:9; Gal 1:6; 2 Thess 2:14).

And when Paul speaks of the different vessels, he notes that some are prepared for “destruction” while others are prepared beforehand for “glory.” Again, Paul elsewhere uses the term “destruction” to refer to eternal damnation (Phil 1:28; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 6:9) and “glory” to refer to eternal life (Rom 2:10; 8:18; 1 Thess 2:12; Col 3:4).

If CE is correct, then Paul is using these terms in ways totally foreign to how he normally uses them. And when you combine these terms with the surrounding context of Romans 9-11, it becomes clear that Romans 9:6-29 refers to matters of salvation, not merely the historical purposes of the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 and Corporate Entities

Next, CE maintains that Romans 9 does not primarily pertain to individuals. As William Klein remarks, “Paul’s concern is the elect people of God, a corporate entity.”⁴

Now as I already noted, I can affirm that God elects a corporate body of believers. But unlike CE, I believe God elects individuals to make up that corporate body. Conversely, Abasciano claims, “Individuals are elect only in connection with the group.”⁵ But as I pointed out earlier, this view of election strips the word of its meaning. It means to say someone is elect only if they elect to be part of the elect.

CE argues that since the concept of election in the OT is normally corporate, Paul, who is steeped in the OT as he writes Romans 9-11, must be referring to corporate election as well. In short, God chose Jacob (the corporate body of Israel) to be a blessing to the nations, but he did not choose Esau (the corporate body of Edom). God did not choose individuals to make up those corporate entities. He chose the entities themselves. And again, God’s election did not pertain to matters of salvation. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that Pharoah or Esau were necessarily damned.

CE also maintains that when Romans 9:15 says that God “will have mercy on whom [he] has mercy,” it means to say that God has chosen to show mercy to those who humbly trust in Jesus. In other words, God has the right to decide how people get saved. So again, God elects the means by which people will be saved, not individuals. Or to put it another way, God chose Christ as a corporate head just as he chose Jacob as a corporate head in the OT. Those who unite to Christ by faith are part of the corporate elect.

Let me give four points in response:

1. Why the Objections?

If Paul is, in fact, teaching CE, why does he raise his opponent’s objections in verses 14 and 19? Why would anyone think to ask, “Is there injustice on God’s part?” or “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” if he’s merely talking about CE? If God has merely decided that anyone who trusts in Christ will be saved, why would Paul’s readers object to that? And why would the Jewish reader, who rightly understands that God will not save every Jew willy-nilly just because they’re Jewish, find fault in God? God, after all, made his will obvious that only those who receive the promise by faith will be saved. In other words, he’s given everyone the chance to freely choose.

CE also maintains that God “hardens” as a judicial hardening in response to years of rejection and disbelief. But if that’s the case, how could someone cry foul? Doesn’t it make more sense to see Pharaoh’s hardening in ways similar to Hophni and Phinehas? For Scripture says, “They would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.“

The interlocutor’s objections make much more sense if Paul is teaching God’s unconditional election of individuals. After all, these are the exact objections CE raises towards Calvinism.

2. Singular Language

If Paul is speaking of corporate election in these verses, one wonders why he uses so much singular language. For example, Paul quotes God as saying, “I will have mercy on whom (singular) I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom (singular) I have compassion” (9:15). He goes on to say, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion (literally from the Greek: “the one willing or the one running“—both are singular participles), but on God who has mercy” (9:16). And then a little further down: “So then he has mercy on whomever (singular) he wills, and he hardens whomever (singular) he wills” (9:18).

Moreover, Paul’s interlocutor asks, “Who (singular) can resist God’s will?” (9:19) Paul then replies with the famous potter and clay analogy and says that the potter has the right to make one vessel (singular) for honorable use and another (singular) for dishonorable use” (9:21).

Additionally, Paul uses the individual names of the patriarchs instead of the corporate entities they represent. If Paul wanted to teach CE, he could have bolstered his point by using the names of the corporate entities (Israel, Edom, or Egypt). In short, if Paul thinks God’s election is primarily corporate in nature, his frequent use of the singular in this text is surprising.

3. Election for Service Only?

I have no problem affirming the corporate nature of Jacob and Esau. Certainly, those two represented two separate nations. Furthermore, I affirm that God chose Israel to carry his promises to be a blessing to the nations (Gen 12:1-3). At the same time, I don’t think we can separate God’s election for service and salvation as cleanly as CE suggests.

It seems to me that Paul is looking back to God’s pattern of choosing some people over others (Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau) in response to the Jewish concern that God’s word has failed (Rom 9:6). God’s word has not failed despite the fact that most of the Jews disbelieved the gospel, because God never promised to save all the descendants of Abraham. God’s choice of Isaac and then Jacob demonstrates this very point. As Paul says, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:6). In other words, Paul distinguishes between corporate Israel and a “spiritual” or “believing” Israel. And this “spiritual” Israel is the “remnant, chosen by grace” (Rom 11:5).

Therefore, Paul points to the pattern of God’s sovereign choice in the OT to explain why many of the Jews weren’t saved. Paul’s application of corporate Israel to individual believers isn’t without precedent either. For example, Paul applies Israel’s corporate apostasy in the wilderness to individual believers, as does the author of Hebrews (1 Cor 10; Heb 3-4). Why couldn’t he do the same thing in Romans 9?

4. The Remnant

If God’s election is corporate, why does Paul indicate that only a remnant from within the corporate entity is saved? That is to say, why have certain individuals from within the larger corporate group received salvation but not the whole entity?

Again, if Paul is merely speaking of corporate entities, then he seems to indicate that all of corporate Israel “stumbled over the stumbling stone” (9:32). But if that were true, then he would be contradicting himself since he just said that a remnant of individuals from within the corporate body was saved! It makes more sense to think that Paul is thinking in individualistic terms here. Most of the Israelites stumbled, while a small remnant did not.

In fact, the whole logic of Romans 9 seems to emphasize the individual over and against their corporate group. Paul argues that just because someone belongs to the corporate group does not guarantee they are part of the elect. It’s not the children of Abraham or Isaac or Jacob for that matter who are elect. It’s a remnant of individual believers who pursued righteousness by faith (9:30). Or as he says in 11:5, it’s “a remnant, chosen by grace.“

Conclusion

Let me state unequivocally that those who hold to CE are faithful brothers and sisters who love the Lord and his word. Let me also state that election and Romans 9 are incredibly complex. For this reason, I wish to reaffirm what I said in a previous post that one’s understanding of God’s election is a third-order issue. That is to say, we can agree to disagree and still serve side-by-side for the sake of the gospel.

That said, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, I don’t find CE convincing. Perhaps most difficult is how CE strips the word “elect” or “chosen” of its meaning. One is only “chosen” if they make the choice to be a part of God’s chosen. Yet Scripture teaches that God elects people for salvation, not merely an entity (Eph 1:3-5; 2 Thess 2:13).

Moreover, it seems to me that Romans 9 does speak to matters of salvation for individuals, not just corporate entities.

1. Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 67.
2. Leighton Flowers, The Potter’s Promise, 107-108.
3. Thomas Schreiner, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections.” JETS 36/1 (March 1993), 28.
4. William Klein, The New Chosen People, 166.
5. Brian Abasciano, “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Shreiner.” JETS 49/2 (June 2006), 352.