Scripture quotations on this page are from the World English Bible (public domain), shown in quotation marks; all commentary is written by Scripture Trove. Source: Romans 9 · Commentary
Chapter 8 ends with a hymn to the love from which we can never be separated: "neither death, nor life … will be able to separate us from the love of God" (8:38-39). That verse makes the heart leap. God's love is utterly reliable. But a sharp question follows immediately. If God's love truly cannot be broken, then why has Israel been cut off? Israel held the most promises, the closest relationship, the most direct revelation, yet they rejected the Messiah. Has God's love for Israel failed? And if God has not been faithful to Israel, how can he be faithful to the Gentiles?
Romans 9 answers this question head-on. Paul's reply is not to argue that "Israel has not been rejected" (which would contradict the historical facts, since most Israelites really did reject the Messiah), nor to say that "God changed his mind" (which would contradict God's character, for he does not lie and does not go back on his word). Instead he redefines "Israel" from the ground up: "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel" (9:6). The true Israel was never defined by physical descent. It is defined by God's promise and his sovereign election.
The chapter has five sections:
This chapter tells the reader that God's word has not failed. The true Israel was never defined by physical descent. It is defined by God's promise and his sovereign election.
God chose Isaac and not Ishmael (even though Ishmael was the firstborn). God chose Jacob and not Esau (even though Esau was born first among the twins, and by custom the firstborn was entitled to a double share of the inheritance). Both choices came before any human action. The basis of God's election lies not in human merit, not in human effort, and not in bloodline: "it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy" (9:16). This is the deepest expression of the Christian doctrine of grace. Salvation, at its root, is God's gift, not a reward earned by people.
This chapter is not a "threat of predestination" meant to frighten believers, but a "promise of sovereignty" meant to comfort them. Precisely because salvation rests on God's mercy and not on human performance, believers can rest: if you have already been shown mercy today, nothing can change that fact. Yet this comfort carries a sober reminder as well. God's election is never something to be taken for granted. Everyone who is received in Christ is a vessel of mercy, and gratitude is the only fitting response.
9:3 "For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers’ sake, my relatives according to the flesh,"
Romans 9:3（World English Bible）
9:6 "But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel."
Romans 9:6（World English Bible）
9:15 "For he said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”"
Romans 9:15（World English Bible）
9:16 "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy."
Romans 9:16（World English Bible）
9:33 "even as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed.”"
Romans 9:33（World English Bible）
Brothers and sisters, Romans 9 may be the hardest chapter to read in all of Paul's letters. God's sovereign election, the image of the potter and the clay, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" — these words leave us uneasy. If salvation depends on God's sovereign election, what meaning is left for human free will? If God settled my destiny before I was even born, what value is there in my efforts now?
Notice how Paul enters this discussion. It is not a cold theological deduction but a grief soaked in tears: "I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart" (9:2); "I could wish that I myself were accursed, cut off from Christ … for my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh" (9:3). Before Paul ever discusses God's election, he first lets you see his own tears. He is not a detached theologian arguing about an abstract predestination. He is a Jew, heartbroken over the spiritual state of his own people. Without the tears of these verses, the later words about the potter and the clay would feel cold and heartless.
God's sovereignty is not a weapon to make us afraid but a pillow on which we can rest. Precisely because salvation does not depend on your "willing" or your "running," you need not live in the anxiety of "have I done well enough?" If salvation depended on your performance — is your prayer life enough, is your giving generous enough, is your service active enough, is your devotional time long enough — you would never be certain you "qualified." But if salvation depends on God's mercy, and he has already shown you mercy, then you can rest.
This is also why this chapter should not make you "anxious," as though wondering, "Am I one of the predestined ones?" Do not think that way. Paul's argument is not aimed at making you "doubt yourself" but at letting you "rest in God's sovereignty." If you are reading this passage today, if you are grateful today for God's grace, if you long today to know Christ more — these very things are evidence that you have "been shown mercy." Without God first at work in your heart, you could not yearn for him (this is the shared observation of Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards).
At the same time, this chapter reminds us that God's grace is never to be taken for granted. Everyone received in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, is a vessel of mercy. Gratitude is the only fitting response. If you believe today, do not be proud. It is not because you are "better" than others, but because God has shown mercy in you. This humility should keep you tender toward those who do not yet believe. You do not know whether God will one day show them mercy; today's "Gentile" may be tomorrow's "brother of Christ."
Finally, remember Paul's tears for Israel. They are the strongest objection to a cold predestinarianism. If Paul really believed that "God in eternity has already decided who is saved and who is lost, apart from any human prayer," then why would he still grieve for Israel? Why would he still be willing to be "accursed himself" to win their salvation? This tells us that "God's sovereignty" and "human responsibility" are not an either-or pair of options. They are two sides of one mystery. Paul could at the same time fully believe in God's sovereignty (Romans 9) and fully pour himself out for his people (Romans 9:3). We should do the same: believe in God's sovereignty, and still pray for those around us, share the gospel, and weep.
Paul was willing for his people's sake to be "accursed, cut off from Christ" (9:3). Do you carry that kind of burden for those around you who do not yet know Christ? In what form does that burden usually show up in your heart — tears, prayer, anxiety, or avoidance?
"It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy" (9:16). Does this sentence comfort you or unsettle you? Why do you react that way?
Israel stumbled by "seeking righteousness through works" (9:32). In your own life of faith, has there been a moment when you slid, without even realizing it, from "trusting in grace" to "earning by performance"? In what concrete situations of your life does this shift usually happen?
Christ is the "stumbling stone" (9:33): a cornerstone to those who believe, a stumbling stone to those who do not. Is there anyone around you who rejects Christ because of "some aspect of the gospel" (for example, the truth that offends human pride, that no one can be saved by his own efforts)? How would you explain to them the grace hidden in the "stumbling stone"?
9:1-3 "I tell the truth in Christ. I am not lying, my conscience testifying with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers’ sake, my relatives according to the flesh,"
Romans 9:1-3（World English Bible）
The sudden plunge from the summit of chapter 8 into deep grief is staggering. Paul has just declared that "nothing can separate us from the love of Christ" (8:38-39), and his very next words say that he himself would be willing to be "accursed, cut off from Christ" to win his people's salvation. There is no transitional paragraph between these two statements, no "however" or "on the other hand." Paul leaps almost in an instant from a mountain peak into a deep valley. This emotional tension is itself part of the argument. Paul is telling the reader that what he is about to discuss is not an abstract problem but an existential wound that keeps causing "unceasing pain in his heart." This is no rhetorical exaggeration. Paul uses a threefold witness to confirm its truth:
9:4-5 "who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen."
Romans 9:4-5（World English Bible）
Paul lists Israel's eight privileges, the most complete inventory in the New Testament of the heritage of Old Testament revelation:
9:6-9 "But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. Neither, because they are Abraham’s offspring, are they all children. But, “your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as heirs. For this is a word of promise, “At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.”"
Romans 9:6-9（World English Bible）
Paul's answer begins in verse 6, and the first argument is strikingly bold: "they are not all Israel, that are of Israel" (ou gar pantes hoi ex Israēl houtoi Israēl). This is the thesis of the whole chapter. With a seemingly self-contradictory sentence Paul redefines "Israel." There is a fundamental distinction between "Israel by bloodline" (born according to the flesh) and "true Israel" (born according to the promise). This is not Paul's invention. He draws his evidence directly from the patriarchal narratives. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, but God's promise ran only through Isaac (Genesis 17:19-21: "Sarah will bear … As for Ishmael … But I will establish my covenant with Isaac"). "Through Isaac will your offspring be named" (citing Genesis 21:12). Abraham had already fathered Ishmael through Hagar (Genesis 16). He had even prayed to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" (Genesis 17:18) — Abraham himself leaned toward Ishmael. But God held to the line of the child of promise: "At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son" (citing Genesis 18:10, 14, the promise of the three angels under the oaks of Mamre). This proves that "offspring" is not determined purely by bloodline but by God's promise. God freely chose Isaac and not Ishmael, not because Isaac was better (he was not yet born), but because of God's sovereign election. On a deeper level, Ishmael is not only the "child of the flesh" (by bloodline a son of Abraham). He also represents the impatient human solution to the promise. Abraham and Sarah could not wait for God's promise to be fulfilled and produced Ishmael through Hagar (Genesis 16:1-4). Ishmael is the promise "made by human hands"; Isaac is the promise "given by God." This distinction runs through the whole Bible: human effort by the flesh, set against God's grace through the promise. In Galatians 4:21-31 Paul develops this distinction into the allegory of "Hagar and Sarah," matching the contrast of "the covenant of law and the covenant of promise."
9:10-13 "Not only so, but Rebekah also conceived by one, by our father Isaac. For being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger.” Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"
Romans 9:10-13（World English Bible）
Paul anticipates an objection: "Ishmael and Isaac had different mothers (Hagar and Sarah)." Perhaps God's election could be explained by the difference in mothers. So Paul advances his argument to a second case, Jacob and Esau. They were twins of the same parents. No external difference could serve as a basis for election. Before they were even born, before any conduct could appear, God had already declared his choice. This is undeniable evidence: election rests entirely on God's sovereignty. "The elder will serve the younger" (citing Genesis 25:23, God's prophecy to Rebekah during her difficult pregnancy) and "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (citing Malachi 1:2-3, the opening declaration in Malachi's context of end-time judgment) — two passages spanning more than a thousand years echo each other. Malachi was written around 430 BC, roughly 1,500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau. God's election not only precedes conduct; it is also upheld over the long course of history. In Malachi's original context, "Esau I hated" refers to the nation of Edom rather than Esau the individual, expressing God's judgment on Edom (Malachi 1:3-5 goes on: "They will be called ‘The Wicked Land’"). In the Hebrew of covenant contexts, "love" and "hate" often mean "to choose" and "not to choose" (compare Luke 14:26, where Jesus' "hate" toward one's own parents is not emotional loathing but a relative position "less than love for me"). It need not be understood as emotional aversion. This is a contrastive idiom of Hebrew thought. But here Paul applies it to the principle of election: God's election precedes human action and does not depend on human merit. The key phrase of verses 11-12 is "being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad … that the purpose of God according to election might stand." This contains two concepts: eklogē, "election," and πρόθεσις (prothesis), "purpose, prior arrangement." These two words already appeared in Romans 8:28-30 ("whom he foreknew … he also predestined"). Now Paul applies them to the patriarchal narratives of the Old Testament, proving that this principle has been God's way of working from the very beginning. "Not of works, but of him who calls" runs in one line with Paul's argument in chapter 4 that Abraham's "faith was credited as righteousness." God's election and justification have never been a reward for excellent human performance. The aim of this argument is not to drive people to despair ("God chooses arbitrarily, so nothing I do matters"). Paul will stress human responsibility later in Romans 10. The point is to show that God's promise to Israel has not failed, because God has always defined the true Israel by his sovereign election. The fact that most Jews today reject the Messiah is not evidence that God has failed but a continued expression of this principle of sovereign election.
9:14-16 "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be! For he said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy."
Romans 9:14-16（World English Bible）
Another "May it never be!" (μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito), the 8th occurrence in Romans of this strongest possible negative, the previous 7 in 3:4, 3:6, 3:31, 6:2, 6:15, 7:7, 7:13). Paul anticipates the most natural reaction: if election precedes conduct, isn't God being unjust? This is the question anyone who reads Romans 9 seriously will ask, and Paul himself puts it on the table. Paul's answer does not start from a human notion of fairness. He does not define "fairness" and then prove that God fits the definition. He returns to God's own word. He quotes Exodus 33:19, a pivotal moment in Exodus. After Israel worshiped the golden calf, Moses asked to see God's glory, and God's reply was a declaration of his freedom to show mercy: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." Note the context. This word appears not in a setting of judgment but in a setting of forgiveness. Israel deserved to be wholly destroyed, yet God declared mercy. This shows precisely that mercy is not something humans can demand by right. Paul's point is that mercy is, by its very nature, "free grace." If it could be "earned" or "demanded," it would no longer be mercy but wages. If everyone received what he deserved, the result would be the condemnation of the whole human race (compare 3:23: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"). The sinner has no claim to "fair treatment," because for a sinner "fairness" means judgment. For God to show mercy to anyone at all is grace; God is under no obligation to show mercy to everyone. This is the foundation of the Christian doctrine of grace. The wording of verse 16 is extremely concise and forceful: "it is not of him who wills (θέλοντος, thelontos), nor of him who runs (τρέχοντος, trechontos), but of God who has mercy." The word for "wills" (cognate with θέλημα, "free will") and the word for "runs" (an athletic-field term, compare 1 Corinthians 9:24: "in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize") together express "human effort" along two dimensions, will and action, and neither is the source of salvation. This is Christianity's sharpest relativizing of "human effort." No matter how hard you "run," no matter how firmly you "set your will" to sprint, if you did not draw the finish line, you cannot decide whether you reach it. This does not deny the value of human will and action (people still must choose to respond to the gospel and to pursue holiness). It points out that they are not the source of salvation; mercy is. This matches Paul's own experience exactly. Before Christ stopped him on the Damascus road, he was "running" with the utmost zeal, only in entirely the wrong direction (compare Philippians 3:6: "as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless." Paul judged himself "perfect in the righteousness of the law," and yet he was persecuting the Messiah). Before Paul was shown mercy at Damascus, his "running" and his "willing" could not help him. This is his personal commentary on 9:16.
9:17-18 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires."
Romans 9:17-18（World English Bible）
Paul turns from the side of mercy to the side of "hardening" (σκληρύνω (sklērynō)), quoting God's words to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:16. This is the hardest verse in the argument. We can understand God showing us "mercy," but God "hardening" someone? Does this mean God is actively producing rebellion? Pharaoh's hardening is a complex narrative in Exodus, where "hardening" is mentioned 20 times in total:
9:19-21 "You will say then to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?” Or hasn’t the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?"
Romans 9:19-21（World English Bible）
Paul anticipates the strongest pushback: "If everything is in God's hands, on what grounds can people be blamed?" This objection inevitably arises in any discussion of predestination: if God's sovereignty decides everything, why is there still human responsibility? Paul's answer does not directly solve this philosophical puzzle. Instead it challenges the questioner's standing: "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?" (menounge sy tis ei ho antapokrinomenos tō Theō, "Who exactly are you to talk back to God?"). What standing does a creature have to interrogate the Creator? The image of the potter (κεραμεύς (kerameus)) comes from the prophetic tradition:
9:22-24 "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"
Romans 9:22-24（World English Bible）
Notice the subtle distinction in Paul's wording. The grammatical choices of this verse in the Greek are a very important clue for interpretation. "Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction": here "prepared" (κατηρτισμένα (katērtismena), a perfect participle in the passive/middle voice) can be understood as "already made ready for destruction." The middle voice implies "self-preparation," suggesting that the vessels' own choice led to this state. Paul does not say "God prepared them for destruction." But "vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory": here "prepared beforehand" (προητοίμασεν (proētoimasen), aorist active voice) has God plainly as the subject. Paul seems to draw a deliberate grammatical distinction: the responsibility for destruction lies with people themselves ("self-prepared"), while the preparation for glory lies with God ("God prepared"). This distinction is crucial for avoiding the extreme form of double predestination. God actively prepares the saved for glory; but concerning the lost, Scripture never says "God predestined them to destruction." It says they go to destruction because of their own rebellion, and God merely "gives them over" (compare 1:24, 26, 28). Another key point: toward the "vessels of wrath," God shows "much patience" (ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ (en pollē makrothumia)). This is the language of mercy. God long delays judgment on those who deserve it, giving them room to repent (compare 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow concerning his promise … but is patient with us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"). This tells us that the "sovereign election" narrative of Romans 9 is filled throughout with a yearning for mercy. Paul is not portraying a coldly calculating God. Verse 24 is the landing point of the whole argument: "us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles." God calls not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. Israel's rejection is not the failure of God's plan; it is precisely the unfolding of God's plan, as the scope of salvation expands from one nation to all peoples. This conclusion bears directly on the situation of the Roman church, where Jewish believers and Gentile believers lived together (the Roman church likely arose from Jewish pilgrims converted at Pentecost, Acts 2:10, "visitors from Rome"; but after the edict of Claudius in AD 49 expelled the Jews, Gentile believers became the majority). Paul needed to establish theologically the "rightful standing" of the Gentiles. God's calling of a people from among the Gentiles is not a stopgap remedy but part of his sovereign plan from the beginning. This is what verses 25-29, citing Hosea and Isaiah, go on to prove.
9:25-29 "As he says also in Hosea, “I will call them ‘my people,’ which were not my people; and her ‘beloved,’ who was not beloved.” “It will be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ There they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” Isaiah cries concerning Israel, “If the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant who will be saved; for He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.” As Isaiah has said before, “Unless the Lord of Armies had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and would have been made like Gomorrah.”"
Romans 9:25-29（World English Bible）
Paul quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 to support the calling of the Gentiles, the boldest Old Testament appropriation in the New Testament. Hosea's prophecy originally referred to the Israelites being restored after God's discipline. Hosea married the prostitute Gomer (Hosea 1:2) and had three children whose names were all prophecies of judgment: "Jezreel" (God sows, scatters), "Lo-Ruhamah" (not shown mercy), and "Lo-Ammi" (not my people). The names of these three children symbolized God's rejection of the northern kingdom of Israel, which because of idolatry was declared "not my people." But Hosea immediately announces restoration: "It will be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God’" (Hosea 1:10); "I will have mercy on her … and I will say to those who were not my people, ‘You are my people’" (Hosea 2:23). Paul boldly extends the scope of this prophecy of "Israel's restoration" to the reception of the Gentiles. This way of reading reflects Paul's christological principle of interpretation: the coming of Christ opens a new dimension in the Old Testament texts. Hosea's logic runs: if God can show mercy to Israelites who "were rejected because of rebellion," then all the more can he show mercy to Gentiles who "were never a people." The former is "death and resurrection," the latter is "something from nothing." This application is no arbitrary appropriation; it rests on "an extension of the logic of mercy." 1 Peter 2:9-10 independently applies the same Hosea text to Gentile believers: "You who in time past were not a people, but now are God's people; who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." Paul and Peter coincide, which suggests that this reading had already become a consensus in the early church. Then Paul quotes Isaiah 10:22-23 and 1:9 to explain Israel's present condition. The rejection of most of Israel is no accident; the prophet long ago foretold that only a "remnant" (λεῖμμα (leimma); Hebrew שְׁאָר (she'ar)) would be saved. This concept of the "remnant" is very important in Isaiah. Isaiah even named one of his sons "Shear-Jashub" (שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב (shear-yashub)), meaning "a remnant shall return" (Isaiah 7:3). This name is itself a miniature gospel: judgment will come, but God will surely leave a seed to return. Verse 29's citation of Isaiah 1:9 is even sterner in its wording: "Unless the Lord of Armies had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom and Gomorrah." Were it not for the seed God left, Israel would have been wholly destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a chilling comparison: God's chosen people are likened to the heinously wicked Sodom and Gomorrah. This tells us precisely that Israel's survival is entirely "by mercy," not because they were "better than the people of Sodom." Paul uses these Old Testament texts to prove that only a portion of Israel is saved, and this is nothing new; the prophets always said so. The "remnant theology" runs from Isaiah 10:22 → Romans 9:27 → Romans 11:5 ("at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace"), forming a theological line that runs through the whole Bible. God has never won history by numbers but by election.
9:30-33 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who didn’t follow after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, didn’t arrive at the law of righteousness. Why? Because they didn’t seek it by faith, but as it were by works of the law. They stumbled over the stumbling stone; even as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; and no one who believes in him will be disappointed.”"
Romans 9:30-33（World English Bible）
The summary of the whole chapter. Paul reveals an ironic ending: the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained it, while the Israelites, who pursued righteousness desperately, did not. This is one of the sharpest ironies in all the New Testament. The Gentiles originally "did not pursue righteousness." They had no Abrahamic covenant, no Sinai law, no temple service, no prophetic tradition. They seemed to be outside the racecourse, yet they attained righteousness. The Israelites, on the other hand, "pursued a law of righteousness," yet failed to attain it. "Pursue" is an active athletic-field term, the same image as "run" in 9:16.
The reason is not that the Israelites tried too little. On the contrary, they tried too hard, but with the wrong method. They pursued righteousness by "works" (compare Romans 3:20, 3:28, 4:2, "the works of the law"), and so they missed the way of "faith" that God provided. At the heart of this tragedy is a wrong direction. The Israelites wanted to "establish their own righteousness" by keeping the law (compare 10:3: "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they didn't subject themselves to the righteousness of God"), instead of receiving the righteousness God freely gives in Christ.
This is the fundamental divergence between Christianity and Judaism. The problem is not "the law itself" (the law is "holy, righteous, and good," Romans 7:12) but the approach of "being justified by the law," because the law can only condemn, not redeem. The law exposes sin but cannot remove it (compare Romans 3:20, "through the law comes the knowledge of sin"; Hebrews 7:19, "the law made nothing perfect"). While "running," the Israelites fixed their eyes on their own feet rather than on Christ at the finish line, and so they collided with the very Messiah who should have been the "finish line of the race." He became their "stumbling stone."
Christ became the "stumbling stone / rock of offense." Paul merges his citation of Isaiah 28:16 (the cornerstone in Zion) and Isaiah 8:14 (the stumbling stone) to form a two-sided image:
Paul weaves these two passages together to form a central message: the same stone is a foundation on which those who believe build their lives, and a stone over which those who do not believe stumble. This technique of "merged citation" (gezerah shavah, Hebrew for "equivalence comparison") is common in the Jewish interpretive tradition. Two passages sharing a common keyword ("stone") are woven together to reveal a deeper meaning. 1 Peter 2:6-8 independently uses the same combination (Isaiah 28:16 + 8:14 + Psalm 118:22), which suggests this was a messianic proof-text (a testimonia collection) widely used in the early church.
The pastoral power of this image: the "offensiveness" of the gospel is unavoidable. The message that a person cannot save himself offends human pride, and so Christ must become a "stumbling stone" to those who insist on saving themselves. But the same stone is, for those who surrender to him, a foundation on which they "will not be put to shame." "No one who believes in him will be disappointed" is the last word of Romans 9. After the whole chapter's weighty argument about election, sovereignty, mercy, hardening, the potter, and the remnant, Paul closes with a tender promise: only trust in him, and you will not be put to shame. This call to faith connects directly to chapter 10, where Paul will unfold the concrete content of the formula of "justification by faith": "with the heart one believes resulting in righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made resulting in salvation" (10:10).
| Theme | This Chapter Teaches | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| God's word has not failed | The true Israel is defined by promise and by election | Answers the charge "God's promise has failed" |
| The freedom of election | God's election precedes human action and does not depend on merit | Salvation is grace at its root, not a reward |
| God's sovereignty | God has the right to show mercy to whomever he chooses; this is not unfairness | Humans have no "right" to demand mercy |
| The concept of the remnant | Those saved within Israel have always been a remnant, as the prophets foretold | Israel's present unbelief is not a deviation from God's plan |
| Faith vs. works | Gentiles are justified by faith; Israel stumbles by relying on works | The only path to righteousness is faith, not works |
Romans 9 is the chapter in all the New Testament that most directly discusses "God's sovereignty in election." In more than 1,500 years of church theological debate, no chapter has been so repeatedly cited, debated, and reinterpreted by Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and New Perspective scholars as Romans 9. Augustine and Pelagius (5th century), Calvin and Arminius (17th century), Edwards and Wesley (18th century), N.T. Wright and John Piper (21st century) — every debate over "free will and God's sovereignty" eventually returns to Romans 9.
Within the structure of Romans, chapter 9 stands at the starting point of the three chapters on "the mystery of Israel and the nations" (chapters 9-11). In the first 8 chapters Paul argued for "justification by faith," "the freedom of the Spirit," and "the love from which we cannot be separated," constructing a complete gospel system. But this system raises an unavoidable question: if salvation is open to all, what becomes of God's election of and promise to Israel? Most of Israel rejected the Messiah. Has God's word come to nothing? This question is not merely "theoretical." It concerns the fundamental question of God's faithfulness. If God's promise to Israel has failed, might his promise to Gentile believers also fail?
The overall response of Romans 9-11:
Romans 9 is one of the chapters with the highest density of Old Testament citations in the New Testament. In just 33 verses, Paul directly quotes the Old Testament more than 13 times:
These 13 Old Testament citations span the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Wisdom literature. Paul uses the Old Testament's own words to prove that God has never chosen by "bloodline." He has always chosen by "sovereignty and promise." Israel's present condition is not a deviation from God's plan but the unfolding of God's plan.
This chapter has 6 pivotal theological peaks:
This chapter's standing in the Reformation and the church's theological tradition:
| Romans Text | New Testament Echo | Connection |
|---|---|---|
| 9:3 Willing to be accursed himself | Exodus 32:32 — Moses says "please blot me out of your book" | Paul follows Moses' pattern of interceding for his people, willing to sacrifice himself |
| 9:7 Only those of Isaac are counted as offspring | Galatians 4:28 "we, like Isaac, are children of promise" | Galatians uses the same patriarchal narrative to argue that believers are children of promise |
| 9:13 Jacob I loved | Malachi 1:2-3, the LORD concerning Israel and Edom | Paul quotes the election declaration in Malachi's context of end-time judgment |
| 9:17 Pharaoh's hardening | Exodus 9:16 "I caused you to stand, to show in you my great power" | Paul quotes the Exodus narrative of God's sovereignty |
| 9:25-26 Hosea quotation | 1 Peter 2:10 "who in time past were not a people, but now are God's people" | Peter uses the same Hosea text to argue for the identity of Gentile believers |
| 9:33 The stumbling stone | 1 Peter 2:6-8 also merges Isaiah 28:16 + 8:14 | Peter and Paul independently read Christ as Zion's stumbling stone / cornerstone |
Romans 9:25-26 cites Hosea, Paul's boldest Old Testament appropriation, applying a prophecy originally about Israel's restoration to the reception of the Gentiles. The biblical-theological basis for this application is worth unfolding in depth.
Hosea was an 8th-century-BC prophet of the northern kingdom. He was commanded to marry the prostitute Gomer (Hosea 1:2) and had three children:
The names of the three children are themselves prophetic declarations, announcing through the names that the northern kingdom of Israel is rejected because of idolatry (Baal, the golden calves). The northern kingdom was indeed destroyed by Assyria in 722 BC, and the children's names became fulfilled prophecy.
But Hosea immediately announces restoration:
Hosea's logic: toward rebellious Israel, God first brings judgment and then mercy; a son-relationship lost and regained is more precious than one never lost.
Paul applies this prophecy of "Israel's restoration" to the Gentiles. This is no arbitrary appropriation but an extension of the logic of mercy:
Hosea's original: God shows mercy to Israel, who had fallen from the status of God's people to "not my people." Paul's application: God shows mercy to Gentiles, who were never a people.
The logical chain: if God can show mercy to Israel, who "was a people but then was rejected," then all the more can he show mercy to the Gentiles, who "were never a people." The former is "death and resurrection," the latter "something from nothing." Both are displays of God's sovereign mercy.
The Echo in 1 Peter 2:9–10 Peter independently uses the same Hosea text: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession … who in time past were not a people, but now are God's people, who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy" (1 Peter 2:9-10).
The independent echo between Paul and Peter shows that this "Hosea application to the Gentiles" had already become an interpretive consensus in the early church. It is not Paul's "personal innovation" but a "mystery of the gospel" received in common by the apostles.
The pastoral significance of this theological line for the church today:
This chapter continues the question-and-answer debate style common to Romans: Paul anticipates that the reader will press whether God is unjust and whether human responsibility still holds, then answers with Israel's history and the prophetic texts. The Old Testament citations are not decoration; they are the backbone of the entire chapter's argument.
| Original | Transliteration | Rendering | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| ἀνάθεμα | anathema | accursed | The translation of the Old Testament חֵרֶם (cherem), referring to what is wholly handed over to God for destruction: the most extreme separation |
| υἱοθεσία | huiothesia | adoption | A Roman legal term: formal adoption, in which the adopted son receives inheritance rights identical to a natural-born son |
| ἐκλογή | eklogē | election | 9:11 "the purpose of God according to election" + 11:5, 11:7, 11:28: Paul's core term for "God's sovereign choice" |
| πρόθεσις | prothesis | purpose / prior arrangement | 9:11 "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" + 8:28 "called according to his purpose"; originally "the plan set out in advance" |
| προορίζω | proorizō | predestine | Appears twice in Romans 8:29-30 ("predestined"); cognate with prothesis, referring to God's arrangement in eternity |
| σκληρύνω | sklērynō | to harden | 9:18 "he hardens whom he desires"; the Septuagint term for Pharaoh's hardened heart in Exodus 4:21 and elsewhere |
| κεραμεύς | kerameus | potter | 9:21; citing Isaiah 29:16 + Jeremiah 18:6: the prophetic tradition's core image of God's sovereign shaping of his people |
| σκεῦος | skeuos | vessel | 9:21-23; the central term in the potter analogy: God has the right to make different vessels from the same lump of clay |
| λεῖμμα | leimma | remnant | 9:27; a core concept of the prophetic tradition: the faithful minority within Israel (cf. Isaiah 10:22 + Romans 11:5) |
| ὑπόλειμμα | hypoleimma | surviving seed | 9:29 citing Isaiah 1:9; cognate with leimma, emphasizing "the seed that is left behind" |
| λίθος προσκόμματος | lithos proskommatos | stumbling stone | 9:33, merging Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14: Christ is a cornerstone to those who believe, a stumbling stone to those who do not |
| πέτρα σκανδάλου | petra skandalou | rock of offense | 9:33; the biblical root of the word "scandal": Christ's "offensiveness" is an essential feature of the gospel |
| μὴ γένοιτο | mē genoito | may it never be | 9:14; the 8th occurrence in Romans of this strongest possible negative, used to refute theological errors |
A 9:1-5 Paul's anguish; the list of Israel's privileges
B 9:6-9 First example: Isaac and Ishmael (promise vs. flesh)
B' 9:10-13 Second example: Jacob and Esau (election before birth)
C 9:14-16 God's mercy is free (Exodus 33:19)
C' 9:17-18 God's hardening is also within his sovereignty (Exodus 9:16 · Pharaoh)
D 9:19-21 The potter analogy: the creature has no right to interrogate the Creator
D' 9:22-24 Application: God calls from both Jews and Gentiles
E 9:25-29 Old Testament support: Hosea (the calling of Gentiles), Isaiah (the remnant saved)
A' 9:30-33 Conclusion: Gentiles justified by faith, Israel stumbling over works
The whole chapter moves from Paul's personal anguish, through two patriarchal examples, two facets of sovereignty (mercy and hardening), the potter analogy, and Old Testament citations, and closes with the contrast of faith and works. Structurally there is an inclusio: A's "Israel's privileges" and A''s "Israel's stumbling" form a tragic contrast.
Romans 9 should not be read in isolation. It is the starting point of the three chapters on "the mystery of Israel and the nations" (Romans 9-11). Only by grasping the structure of all three chapters can we avoid extreme readings of Romans 9 on its own.
| Chapter | Argumentative Focus | Key Verse | Direction of Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Romans 9 | God's sovereignty | 9:16 "of God who has mercy" | Most of Israel rejected the Messiah: not God's failure but a display of God's sovereignty |
| Romans 10 | Human responsibility | 10:13 "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" | Israel's rejection: because they themselves would not believe |
| Romans 11 | God's mystery | 11:26 "and so all Israel will be saved" | The present rejection is temporary hardening; in the future there will be national turning to the Lord |
Paul's argumentative strategy:
The tension among the three chapters: read Romans 9 alone, and you arrive at "complete double predestination" (God's sovereignty decides everything); read Romans 10 alone, and you arrive at "complete free will" (man decides everything for himself); only after reading Romans 11 can you see the balance of the two in the "olive tree" mystery — God sovereignly calls Gentiles to be grafted in; mercifully preserves a remnant of Jewish believers; and as a mystery guarantees that "all Israel" will finally be saved.
This three-chapter structure offers a reminder for the contemporary "predestination vs. free will" debate: citing only Romans 9 to support an extreme predestinarianism is taking it out of context; citing only Romans 10 to support an extreme free-will position is also taking it out of context. The whole testimony of Scripture is a "two-track holding": God's sovereignty and human responsibility are both true, and there is no need to force them into a logical synthesis.
Paul himself ends these three chapters with praise (11:33-36): "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" When a person feels perplexed before the mystery of election, the right response is not to "find the perfect theological system" but to "fall down and worship."
The "remnant" (leimma / hypoleimma; Hebrew she'ar / she'erit) is a core theological concept running through the whole Bible. Romans 9:27, "only the remnant will be saved," and Romans 11:5, "at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace," are not isolated citations. They sit on a theological line a thousand years long.
| Period | Text | The Meaning of "Remnant" |
|---|---|---|
| Noah's era | Genesis 6-9 | Noah's family of eight is the "human remnant" left after the flood judgment |
| The patriarchal era | Genesis 45:7 | Joseph tells his brothers, "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth" |
| The Exodus | Exodus 14 | Those who remained after Israel left Egypt and crossed the Red Sea are "Moses' remnant" |
| Elijah's era | 1 Kings 19:18 | God tells Elijah, "I have left for myself seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal": directly cited in Romans 11:4 |
| Isaiah | Isaiah 7:3 + 10:21-22 + 11:11-16 | Isaiah's son "Shear-Jashub" (she'ar-yashub) = "a remnant shall return"; the prophecy that "the remnant will return" after judgment |
| Jeremiah | Jeremiah 23:3 + 31:7 | God will gather the remnant of his flock out of "all the countries where he has driven them": the returning remnant |
| Ezekiel | Ezekiel 6:8 + 11:13 | "The remnant" in exile: God's kingdom is not entirely wiped out |
| Zechariah | Zechariah 8:6, 12 | "In those days it will seem marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people": a promise for the post-exilic period |
The core pattern: God's judgment is never "total destruction." He always "leaves a seed," and this "remnant" carries the future promise. The "remnant" is both a mark of judgment (the majority have been judged) and a mark of grace (a minority are preserved in mercy).
| Text | The Specific Reference of the Remnant |
|---|---|
| Romans 9:27, citing Isaiah 10:22-23 | The majority of Israel will be judged; only the remnant will be saved |
| Romans 9:29, citing Isaiah 1:9 | Were it not for the seed God left, Israel would be like Sodom and Gomorrah |
| Romans 11:5 | "At this present time also" (Paul's day, AD 57): Jewish Christians who believe in the Messiah = the remnant of contemporary Israel |
| Romans 11:7 | "The elect obtained it, and the rest were hardened" |
| Revelation 7:4-8 | The 144,000: the sealed remnant from the twelve tribes of Israel |
| Revelation 11:13 | In the great tribulation, "the rest were terrified … and gave glory to the God of heaven" |
Remnant theology ultimately points to Christ. Christ himself is the "final remnant." He is the one among "Abraham's offspring" (Galatians 3:16) who carries the whole promise; he rose from the dead as the "firstfruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20), the remnant of the new creation. All who are "in Christ" are taken up into this "eschatological remnant." This is the deepest application of the remnant theology of Romans 9.
| Character | Role in This Chapter | Key Actions / Attributes |
|---|---|---|
| Paul | A Jew heartbroken for his people | Willing to be accursed himself in exchange for Israel's salvation; both pastor and theologian |
| God | The sovereign Elector | Freely shows mercy or gives over to hardening; like a potter, has the right to make vessels according to his will |
| Isaac / Ishmael | The first example of the election principle | Child of promise vs. child of flesh: election is not by bloodline |
| Jacob / Esau | The second example of the election principle | Chosen before birth: election is not by works |
| Pharaoh | The archetype of hardening | God displayed his power through him, giving over his already-existing hardness |
| The Israelites | Pursuers who stumbled on the stone | Possessed every privilege yet missed the Messiah by relying on works |
"Who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen." The punctuation and referent of this clause are fiercely debated in scholarship:
| Reading | Translation Effect | Representative Scholars | Argument |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refers to Christ | "Christ … who is over all, God, blessed forever" | Metzger, Cranfield, Murray | The most natural punctuation grammatically; forms a contrast with the preceding "as concerning the flesh, Christ came from them" |
| Independent doxology | "Christ came from them. May God who is over all be blessed forever" | Käsemann, Dunn | Paul rarely calls Christ "God" directly; holds this to be a separate doxology |
Most textual critics and translations favor the first reading, treating it as Paul's direct affirmation of Christ's deity.
Romans 9 is the most controversial chapter in church history. From the controversy of Augustine and Pelagius, to the debate of Calvin and Arminius, to the modern "New Perspective on Paul," every era has had its reinterpreters of this chapter. There are four main interpretive traditions:
Representative scholars: Augustine (4th-5th century), Calvin (Institutes 3.21-24), the Canons of Dort (1618-1619), Edwards (Freedom of the Will), J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, John Piper.
Core position: Before the creation of the world, God unconditionally chose particular people for salvation (unilateral election); at the same time, those not chosen are given over to eternal destruction (the "softer version" of double predestination), or, on a stricter view, God actively predestines some to destruction (the "harder version" of double predestination, where Calvin himself often stood). Romans 9:11 ("being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad … that the purpose of God according to election might stand") + 9:13 ("Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated") + 9:18 ("he hardens whom he desires") directly support double predestination: election rests entirely on God's sovereignty and does not depend on a person's "foreseen conduct."
Strengths: it respects the literal sense of the text; it avoids anthropocentrism (salvation is grace at its root); it upholds God's absolute sovereignty. Challenges: how to reconcile 9:13 "Esau I hated" with God's "desire that all be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4 + 2 Peter 3:9)? How to keep God from appearing "arbitrary and capricious"?
Representative scholars: Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), Wesley, the majority of modern evangelicals (such as Roger Olson), some Baptists (Free Will Baptists).
Core position: Predestination depends on God's foreknowledge. God foresees who will freely choose to respond to the gospel, and predestines them according to this foreknowledge. In Romans 8:29 ("for whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"), "foreknew" (προέγνω (proegnō)) precedes "predestined," so the basis of predestination is foreknowledge. Romans 9 discusses not the predestination of individual eternal destinies but God's election of nations and historical roles (Israel and Edom; Isaac and Ishmael — what is discussed is the role they play in redemptive history, not their individual eternal destiny).
Strengths: it preserves human free will; it reconciles God's love with his "desire that all be saved"; it avoids the ethical dilemma of double predestination. Challenges: can "foreknowledge" really escape the sovereignty problem (if God foreknows everything, his choice to create particular people is itself a kind of predestination)? Romans 9:11 "neither having done anything good or bad" seems to rule out the logic of "first seeing a person's conduct, then predestining."
Representative scholars: Luis de Molina (1535-1600, a Spanish Jesuit theologian), Suárez, and modern representatives William Lane Craig and, in part, Alvin Plantinga.
Core position: God possesses three kinds of knowledge:
Applied to Romans 9: by his middle knowledge God knows every choice that every possible person would freely make in every possible world, and he chooses to actualize the best possible world. In this world he "shows mercy" to those who will freely respond to the gospel and "gives over" those who will freely refuse, so that sovereignty and free will coexist.
Strengths: it upholds both God's sovereignty and human freedom; it resolves the problem of "why God allows sin"; it leaves room for evangelism. Challenges: the metaphysics of "middle knowledge" is complex; Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches God's "three kinds of knowledge."
Representative scholars: N.T. Wright (Romans, Justification, Paul and the Faithfulness of God) + James Dunn (Romans 1-8 / 9-16, WBC) + Richard Hays + some "New Perspective on Paul" scholars.
Core position: Romans 9 discusses not "individual eternal salvation" but "who is God's covenant people." Paul's concern is Israel's role in God's plan of redemption, not the eternal destiny of separate individuals. God has the right to redefine the boundaries of "Israel," bringing Gentile believers into the covenant people and temporarily excluding unbelieving Jews. This is a reshaping of covenant-community identity, not the predestination of individual souls.
Key textual support: Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel, that are of Israel," is clearly a question of group definition, not "who is individually saved." The Hosea citation in 9:25-26 concerns the transfer of "people-identity." 9:30-33 focuses on the contrast between the Gentile group and the Israel group.
Strengths: it respects Paul's first-century Jewish context; it avoids tearing Romans 9 out of the larger narrative and imposing it on a doctrine of individual salvation; it fits the corporate promise of Romans 11, "all Israel will be saved." Challenges: 9:11, "being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad," seems to point to individuals; removing "eternal salvation" entirely from the text may go too far.
Each of the four schools holds some truth and has its blind spots. Pastor Yunfei Lu's position is a Christ-centered evangelicalism, unwilling to move toward "the coldness of double predestination" (which makes evangelism optional) and equally unwilling to move toward "complete free will" (which turns grace into human merit). Scripture holds together both God's sovereignty and human responsibility. The two are not an either-or but two sides of a mystery. Paul could fully believe in God's sovereignty (Romans 9), fully weep for his people (9:3), and fully call people to repent (Romans 10:14-15). We should do the same. The pastoral point of this chapter is not "to take a side" but to make you humble and grateful before grace (you were not chosen because you are "better"), to fill you with urgency in evangelism (you do not know who will be shown mercy), and to let you rest in self-examination (salvation depends on God, not on your performance).
"Who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen." (ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. (ho ōn epi pantōn theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas. amēn.)). The Greek original has no punctuation (ancient Greek texts had none), and the sentence division and referent are fiercely debated in scholarship:
| Reading | Translation Effect | Representative Scholars | Argument |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Refers to Christ (majority position) | "Christ … who is over all, God, blessed forever" | Metzger (A Textual Commentary) + Cranfield (ICC) + Murray (NICNT) + Moo (NICNT) + Schreiner (BECNT) + Stephen Tong | 1. The most natural punctuation grammatically (the participle ὁ ὤν (ho ōn) directly follows Christos as a modifier); 2. forms a "humanity / deity" contrast with the preceding "according to the flesh, Christ came from them"; 3. Paul's other texts (Colossians 1:15-17 + Philippians 2:6) support Christ's deity |
| B. Independent doxology | "Christ came from them. May God who is over all be blessed forever" | Käsemann (Romans) + Dunn (WBC) + Bultmann | 1. Paul rarely calls Christ "θεός" directly; 2. holds this to be a separate Hebrew-style "benediction-doxology"; 3. the preceding "according to the flesh" already suffices to stress Israel's privilege |
| C. Middle position (refers to God the Father but linked to Christ) | "Christ … (may) God who is over all be blessed forever" | Some NRSV-style translations | A compromise: the Father is praised, but syntactically the clause is tightly linked to the preceding text |
Most textual critics and translations favor the first reading, treating it as one of Paul's most direct affirmations of Christ's deity. A key argument for position A: Paul uses the same doxological formula in Romans 1:25 ("the Creator, who is blessed forever," εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (eulogētos eis tous aiōnas)), where the usage is not an independent doxology but a modifier of the preceding subject, so 9:5 should likewise modify the preceding Christos. This verse thus becomes one of the central proofs of Christ's deity in the New Testament, forming, together with John 1:1 ("the Word was God"), Titus 2:13 ("our great God and Savior Jesus Christ"), and Hebrews 1:8 ("your throne, O God, is forever and ever"), the threefold witness of Paul, John, and Hebrews.
Romans 9 is not only a key chapter for history and interpretation; it is also a central text for the relationship between the modern church and the Jewish people. Paul's tears for Israel (9:1-3) have given rise in modern times to three main theological assessments:
Representative position: the majority of American evangelicals (such as John Hagee and Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind series), dispensationalism.
Core claims: God's promises to Israel (Genesis 12:1-3 + 2 Samuel 7 + Romans 11:26) are forever valid, and the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 is the fulfillment of end-time prophecy. The possession of the land of Israel by the Jews is a physical expression of the "Abrahamic covenant." Christians should politically support the State of Israel.
Reading of Romans 9: Israel's "privileges" (9:4-5) remain valid; Israel's unbelief is a "partial hardening" (Romans 11:25), and at the end the whole nation will turn to the Lord.
Representative position: the Catholic tradition, the majority of the Reformed, mainstream Anglicanism, Lutheranism, the early church fathers (Origen, Cyprian).
Core claims: The church has replaced Israel as God's people, and all Old Testament promises are fulfilled in Christ and the church (not "canceled" but "realized"). The nation of Israel no longer holds a special theological status; for Jews to be saved, they must believe in Christ.
Reading of Romans 9: 9:6, "they are not all Israel, that are of Israel," proves that the true Israel is the church (the community of believers), not the physical Jewish people.
Representative position: some late-20th-century Jewish-Christian dialogue scholars (such as John Pawlikowski), some liberal Protestant theologians.
Core claims: Jews continue to have a saving relationship with God through the Mosaic covenant and need not believe in Christ; Gentiles enter a saving relationship with God through Christ. There are two parallel paths of salvation.
Reading of Romans 9-11: Paul is only defending the Gentiles and never denies an independent path of salvation for Jews; Romans 11:26, "all Israel will be saved," does not require believing in Christ.
Pastor Yunfei Lu's position avoids the extremes:
The pastoral message of Romans 9-11: pray for Israel (not only political support, but prayer for the Jews to turn to the Lord), be humble and grateful (your being "grafted in" is grace; do not be proud over the natural branches), and hope in the end (God's promise will surely be fulfilled).