I sometimes wonder if it would not have been better if this chapter had never been written. It has seriously puzzled me and given rise to endless controversy.

Almost every treatment of this chapter is in some respects unsatisfactory. There are four common approaches:

(1) Some, like dear old William Barclay, come to the reluctant conclusion that Paul is wrong. Barclay says of Paul's description of God as the potter: It is a bad analogy.

(2) Others adopt the hard line Calvinist position stated by Moo: God decides on the basis of nothing but his own sovereign pleasure, to bestow his grace and so save some individuals, so he also decides, on the basis of nothing but his own sovereign pleasure, to pass over others and so damn them.

(3) Perhaps a majority of commentators hold the view also expressed by Moo: Paul is content to hold the truths of God's absolute sovereignty - in both election and hardening - and of full human responsibility without reconciling them. We would do well to emulate this approach.

(4) Probably the majority of evangelical preachers try to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility and interpret the passage in this light. Such, on the whole, is the Arminian position.

These very different approaches to Roman's nine have resulted in arguments, divisions, broken friendships and hatred.

I think William Barclay's reaction to some of the things Paul wrote in chapter nine is understandable but a trifle lazy!

To claim that God saves some and damns others on the basis of no criteria known to man does the Almighty no favours. It makes God unjust. It is unjust to discriminate when there is no reasonable basis for doing so. This is why so many get incensed with Calvinism. How can we accept in God what is totally unacceptable in man?

It is not helpful to propose that God is absolutely sovereign in election and hardening while man is fully responsible for accepting or rejecting Jesus. This is like saying black is white and white is black. This approach results in a kind of Theological schizophrenia. You can detect a fatal uncertainty in comments deriving from this strange conclusion.

I will attempt to interpret the passage under consideration from the position that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility for belief are compatible. I believe it was God's sovereign choice to save by grace and through faith. I must confess to a measure of unease because I am not always sure of Paul's intent in this chapter.

There are certain things to bear in mind:

(1) Why Paul introduced this topic. Paul Barrett suggests it is consistent with what has gone before. Paul is dealing with objections to his teaching from significant numbers of Jewish sympathisers amongst the Christians in the church at Rome. This element may have argued that the Jews should be included in the family of God. They were the chosen people after all. God had made covenants with them. Paul's gospel with its emphasis on salvation by grace and through faith rather than the works of the law excluded most Jews from the family of God. How could this be true if they, the Jews, were the children of promise? This is a problem that Paul sets out to address.

(2) Paul was not writing for Theologians but for the ordinary Christians of Rome. Many of the theological arguments that, today, revolve around this chapter are way over the heads of ordinary Christians. The commentaries I refer to did not make it very easy for me to understand what Paul was getting at!

(3) A preacher will only edify his congregation if he draws some relevant, straightforward, clear, intelligible lessons from this famous but difficult chapter. My exposition is long and rather involved so I rather fear that my objective has not been attained.

(B) Paul's concern for the lost. See verses1to5.

Let us examine Paul's:

(1) Earnestness. I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit.

Paul is convinced that what he is going to write about the lost is the truth. There will be no pretence. There will be no exaggeration for the sake of effect. He will not be weeping crocodile tears. Paul's conscience is clear. He is utterly sincere. He expresses himself in the consciousness that Jesus reads every word.

(2) Concern.

It is for my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. v3.

Although Paul was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles he cared very much for his own people, the Jews. Whenever he went to a new town to preach the gospel he nearly always preached to the Jews first. He was so concerned about the poverty of the church in Jerusalem that he organised a collection from the Gentile churches. I think it is possible that the little apostle craved acceptance by the church members in Jerusalem too much! See exposition on Acts21v17to36.

(3) Intense sorrow. I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish of heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers. v3.

Paul's words are similar to those spoken by Moses after the Israelites worshipped the golden calf: "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now please forgive their sin - but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written. Ex32v31to32.

I get the impression that Moses was as much concerned for God's honour as he was the fate of the Israelites. Paul simply grieves for his people - perhaps, excessively so. It seems excessive even to contemplate being cut off from Christ.

(4) Bafflement.

Paul is baffled at the plight of unbelieving Jews who made up the majority of God's chosen people. They received so many blessings which collectively should have prepared them for the coming of their Messiah, Jesus. The Jewish nation was rich in blessing and yet in the time of Paul most Jews remained in unbelief and so they have remained since. Unbelief debarred them from the benefits of the New Covenant.

LESSONS

It is undoubtedly true that many Christians in England are concerned for their nation. The majority of English people have turned away from Jesus. It does give me great sorrow. In my student days only 2 out of the 50 Geography undergraduates in my year at U.C.L. were professing Christians. Not a single member of my cricket club is a believer. Only three from the village of my boyhood now attend Brockley chapel. Two of my three brothers have rejected the saving work of Jesus. It wrings my heart. So many lost - and I feel powerless to do anything about it! And I am also baffled. Since the 1970's of the several children who attended our Sunday School the majority rejected the gospel. There have been so few conversions. That is the reason for chronic church decline in Britain - so few conversions. I can't understand it. We ask God for answers, we blame ourselves, we pray for revival but in the mean time churches continue to decline and close. Why! Why! Why!

(C) There is nothing automatic about becoming a child of God. See verses6to13.

The apostle John deals with this truth in a way most of us can appreciate: He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husband's will, but born of God. Jn1v10to13.

This for me is a wonderful statement. (As an aside let me say that my commentaries on John's gospel vibrate with conviction, admiration and devotion in a way that my commentaries on Roman's fail to do.) This emphatic statement of John assures us that God of his sovereign will makes birth into his family conditional upon belief in Jesus.

Paul's response is more tortuous because he deals with why God's chosen people didn't receive Jesus and whether this indicates a change in status. Did God fail in his intention or did he change his mind? So Paul writes: It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are thy all Abraham's children. v6and7.

Many, many of the descendents of Jacob were hardly the children of promise. Ten tribes of Israel were irrevocably lost because of their persistent idolatry. In 2Kings17v22and23 we read: The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jereboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken into exile in Assyria, and they are still there. What ominous words: And they are still there. The ten tribes never returned from captivity. They lost their identity. It was not God's fault. They were warned over and over again but remained addicted to their idols. They brought God's judgment upon themselves.

We know that the Jews prided themselves on being the children of Abraham. This set them apart from the other nations of the world. It made them special to God. The Jews confronted Jesus with their special status when he told them he could set them free. They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus told them: If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did. See John8v31to41.

Paul did not go down this route - one that emphasises man's responsibility. He goes right back to the time of the patriarch to illustrate that a biological child of Abraham is not necessarily a child of promise. Abraham had several natural children including Ishmael and at least six more sons by Keturah but only Isaac was a child of promise. Isaac was the child of faith and was miraculously conceived. Paul concludes: It is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

I don't understand what implication this has for an individual's salvation today other than Isaac was the product of God's grace and Abraham's faith. Since the origin of the Christian church the children of promise consist of those who believe in Jesus, receive him and are adopted into God's family. A member of God's family is not there by natural descent but born of God.

Paul goes to even greater lengths to convince the Jewish sympathisers in Rome that natural descent from Isaac does not automatically make a person a child of God. Verses 10 to 13 are meat and drink to the Calvinist because Paul certainly gives the impression that God quite arbitrarily chose Jacob as a child of promise and not Esau. But I don't think this is the case!!

When Rebekah was pregnant God prophesied to her: One people will be stronger than the other and the older will serve the younger. Gen25v23. A prophecy does not remove freedom of will or negate human responsibility. Jeremiah prophesied that the Jews would return from exile to Judaea after 70 years. This does not detract from the highly enlightened policy of Cyrus king of Persia who let the Jewish exiles return to their own country and rebuild the temple. During my time as a teacher I had to forecast the grades my pupils would get in their G.C.S.E. Geography exam. My prophecy did not determine the outcome of my pupils.

God did not determine how Esau and Jacob turned out. He certainly did not determine how the nations of Israel and Edom evolved. Esau was by his own choice a carnal man. He despised his birthright. Gen25v34. Esau sold it for a bowl of stew. He also grieved his parents and went his own way by marrying Hittite girls. The older son was neither concerned with what his parent's wanted or with what God desired. He was for many years estranged from his brother. Even when they were reconciled they considered it politic to settle different areas. Esau founded the nation of Edom.

Jacob, for all his many weaknesses, was a man of faith. That is why he was chosen rather than Esau as the child of promise. God could be said to have chosen him before his birth because this was the criteria God had chosen to define a child of promise.

We must remember Paul's main aim is to convince his readers that salvation is not by the works of the law. This is why he writes: 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 - . v11. God's does not select his children on the basis of their good works but by their response in faith to his call.

The phrase: "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated," is taken from Malachi1v2to5. I can remember old Calvinists with whom I had much to do in my youth quoting this phrase with enormous relish and a knowing shake of the head. It left them in no doubt that God's sovereign choice was all that matters. These old men rarely bothered to look up the passage in Malachi from which Paul quotes. Malachi is really writing about Edom and Israel - the descendants of the two brothers, Esau and Jacob. He starts his oracle, The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. I have loved you," said the Lord. But this love is not unconditional! The prophecy of Malachi is full of judgments against the majority of Israelites for their sinful behaviour. A distinction is made between the righteous and the wicked.

If we use the phrase, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated," to divorce human responsibility from human destiny violence is done to much of the Old Testament. Over and over again God punished the Israelites for their sins notwithstanding the fact that they were the chosen people. Ten of the 12 tribes were lost altogether because of their idolatry. They fared no better than the Edomites. God didn't choose to lose the ten tribes - they lost their identity in exile by their own choice. They were happy to be assimilated into the local population.

Sadly, as the John made clear in his gospel, the vast majority of the Jews rejected Jesus. God didn't harden them! How can anyone believe that God was responsible for the appalling treatment dished out to his dear Son. Was the Father in conflict with the Son. Jesus wept over Jerusalem. He would have gathered the inhabitants of Jerusalem together as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wing but said Jesus, "YOU WOULD NOT".

So let us return, briefly, to Paul's statement: In order that God's purpose in election might stand; not by works but by him who calls. God throughout Old Testament history chose to bless those who had faith in him and were obedient to him. It was and is his selective purpose to chose as his children those who have faith in him and demonstrate this faith by their works.

So, if eventually the Gentiles exercise faith, it is God's choice - his sovereign choice - to adopt them into his family. That is his purpose. He is not duty bound to treat Israelites who reject his Son as members of his family.

Today, God is not obliged to save the English, church congregations, members of our family, the highly principled or the religious. God chooses to redeem those who believe in his Son. This is precisely what Paul writes in Romans10v8to13: If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

(D) God achieves his purpose by strange means. See v14to21

(1) Is God unjust. 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."

Paul anticipates someone accusing him of making God seem unjust in designating Isaac and Jacob as the descendants through whom God would keep his promise to Abraham.

God would be unjust if his choice was arbitrary. The enigmatic, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy," if taken alone would suggest this. However God was talking to Moses when he spoke these words. Moses asked God for a favour. He wanted God's Presence to continue with the Israelites to show that God was pleased with him. God replied: "I will do everything you have asked, because I am pleased with you and know you be name." Ex33v17. It is in this context that God said: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." God has mercy on those like Moses who have faith in him and please him.

There is much in both the Old and New Testaments that suggests God's mercy is conditional upon repentance and obedience. God does not despise the broken and contrite heart. See Malachi3v6to10, Micah6v8 and Hosea14. There is also plenty of evidence that God's wrath is the result of faithlessness, disobedience and wickedness. The Children of Israel suffered in the wilderness for their frequent rebellions, the Israelites were oppressed in the days of the Judges for their idolatry and the ten tribes were lost because they had become indistinguishable from the pagan people in the surrounding states.

The fact is Isaac was miraculously conceived by faith. He was the child of promise - given to Abraham and Sarah in a way that Ishmael and Abraham's other children were not. God's choice of Jacob was born out by events. Esau was a carnal man - not of God's making but by his own free choice. He sold his birthright for a bowl of stew!

God does not have to show mercy or favour on any one. We cannot put him under an obligation by how we live. Even Moses couldn't do that! God chooses to show mercy to those who exercise faith in him and live in a way of which he approves. This is his sovereign choice. We don't compel God to make this choice - he does so freely! Isaac and Jacob were chosen because they were men of faith. See Heb11v20and21.

(2) God can achieve his purpose through those who oppose his will. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raise 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. v17and18.

God is not the author of sin! Pharaoh oppressed the Israelites when Moses began his campaign to secure their release. During each of the plagues Pharaoh promised Moses he would let God's people go if only the current plague ended. When the plague stopped, Pharaoh changed his mind. God does not make men brutal or lie!

God did, however, use Pharaoh's obstinacy and intransigence to perform wonder upon wonder culminating in the Passover. Pharaoh was an instrument in God's hand. In the end the Israelites could be in no doubt that they received their freedom solely through the God's intervention.

The best known example God making use of wicked men is given by Peter in his sermon to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost. He said of Jesus: This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. God did not put malice, envy and spite into the hearts of the Jewish leaders to engineer Christ's crucifixion. The members of the Sanhedrin were responsible for the hatred in their hearts. Nevertheless the outcome of their malign antagonism served God's will and purpose.

This has happened over and over again throughout history. The persecution of the early church led the spread of the gospel far and wide. The Nazi's abominable treatment of the Jews resulted in their return to the land of promise. The rise of Communism in China and expulsion of Western missionaries led to the house church movement and millions of conversions.

God is merciful to those who trust and serve him. Those who rebel against him become hardened by their disobedience and are abandoned to their intransigence - but even such God can use to achieve his purpose.

(3) Why should the wicked be condemned if God uses them to achieve his purpose? Then why does God still blame us. For who resists his will. v19.

Why should anyone be condemned if God gets is way whatever we do? If God actually uses wicked men as his instruments isn't he in some respects condoning evil?

At this juncture Paul likens God to a potter. He is the potter we are the clay. We should use this analogy carefully! Clay is inert - men have minds and wills of their own. William Barclay wrote: It is the basic fact of the gospel that God does NOT treat us as a potter treats a lump of clay; he treats us as a loving father treats his children.

Nevertheless, I am sure God prepares some men and women for a higher purpose. This is not easy for God because he respects men's freedom of will. God works under a voluntary imposed restraint: never to over-ride a man's will. God does not manipulate our minds. He does not go in for brainwashing or conditioning. However, there are numerous examples of men and women who God has prepared for special tasks: Joseph, Moses, David, Esther, Daniel and Paul. Moses is a classic example. He gained experience during his 40 years as a prince in Egypt followed by another 40 years learning how to cope in the desert. But for all his preparation God found Moses a difficult man to persuade. He had just enough faith to set off to meet his brother Aaron who was coming to see him.

There are other individuals whom God does not prepare for a higher purpose but one way or another God can still use these people for less honourable service.

I believe, unlike many Arminians, that God to a greater or lesser extent prepares men and women for salvation. This requires great skill on God's part because he also, by his own choice, leaves men and women free. All sorts of influences in the life of C.S.Lewis brought him to the point where he famously submitted to God on the top of a double-decker bus. He said that on the point of making his decision he was freer than at any other time in his life. I was impressed by a man who in his youth got so drunk and high on drugs he beat his brother close to death and assaulted his mother. When he came to in the police cell next day he was deeply, deeply ashamed of what he had done. It was when he was down as low as he could get that a group of Gideons visited the jail where he was held and gave him a Bible. He was not too proud or self-satisfied to read it! He received that Bible in God's time; he read it and was saved!

Perhaps, Paul realised that the Gentiles had been prepared for the gospel. Many were open to the word and gladly received it. This is in line with Jesus' amazing words after dealing with the woman of Samaria. He told his disciples that the fields were white to harvest - they would reap but others had done all the preparatory work. See exposition on John4v27to42.

Christians pray for revival as though this is a sovereign act of God's Spirit. They overlook the fact that people need preparing for it. On the Day of Pentecost 3000 were saved. I believe these were the fruit of Jesus' three-year-long ministry. He had done the preparatory work. Peter reaped a mighty harvest as the Spirit made him mightily effective.

In conclusion: I believe Paul was justified in likening God to a potter.

(E) God's intention is to save as many as he can. See v22to29.

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory know to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. v22to24.

This passage needs to be treated with caution. It is foolish to take the analogy of the potter too far.

A potter could make pots to deliberately smash up! What sort of potter would do this? Only a mad potter and God is not a mad potter. Calvinists are in danger of casting God in this role!

We need to interpret Paul in the light of what Peter wrote in his second epistle: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2Pet3v9.

I think verses 22 to 25 indicate that God is like a potter in that in the process of making, good, sound and splendid pots some will turn out flawed and useless. It is inevitable - it is in the nature of the clay that this should be so. A potter is prepared to put up with damaged goods, fit only for the scrap heap, in order to make useful, worthy pots.

God, the heavenly potter, works with living clay. His job is infinitely harder than the earthly potter's. God respects the clay he works with. He does not dispense with human freedom of choice or action. There is a terrible price to pay for God's decision to proceed in this fashion. Some men's wickedness goes unchecked leading to abominable crimes against humanity. God could have stopped Hitler and nipped the Nazi movement in the bud but to do so would have set limits on human freedom.

God has left men free. He patiently bears with the unrepentant wicked because in spite of everything he has been able to redeem a people for himself. God knew before he created the universe that many would choose freely to believe in him and his Son, Jesus. These he chose to be the objects of his mercy whom he prepared in advance for glory. v23.

Paul acknowledges that God has been strikingly successful. Many Gentiles were becoming God's children as Hosea prophesied. A Jewish remnant would also be saved as forecast by the prophet Isaiah.

No potter is happy with flawed, cracked, chipped, holed, ugly and useless pots. God is not happy with men and women who reject his Son and continue in their sin. They are deeply unsatisfactory to God. In spite of his best efforts they have turned out wrong. A day will come when all these damaged products will end up on the tip.

For all the difficulties of working with living clay, God is working his purposes out. Many, many will be saved. Eventually, when God has put his finishing touches to them, the redeemed of the Lord will be glorious vessels - fitting tribute to the Master Potter's consummate skill.