Corporate or individual election in Romans 9-11?

Perhaps the central flaw in the Reformed reading of Romans – and why it generates such distorted definitions of key theological terms such as ‘wrath’, ‘salvation’, ‘righteousness’, ‘faith’ and ‘gospel’ – is that it sets out from the assumption that Paul is writing about the universal condition of individuals rather than the historical and contingent condition of Israel as a people. So Michael Patton’s post ‘Twelve reasons why Romans 9 is about individual election, not corporate election’ naturally caught my eye when it appeared on my blogroll.

It seems to me that the basic problem with his argument is that it fails to question the polemical polarization of the individual and the group. These are not mutually exclusive categories – indeed, they are both formally and exegetically interdependent. Corporate behaviour is always the product of individual behaviours; individuals always derive identity and behavioural norms from the group. But there are also a number of detailed questions to raise about the specific arguments that are put forward. This has been done in a bit of hurry, and you will need to read Michael’s post to get the point; but perhaps I might also refer people to The Future of the People of God for a more thorough exposition of a properly contextualized narrative-historical reading of Paul’s Letter.

1. The fundamental question that is addressed in Romans 9-11 is: How is God to remain true to his promise to Abraham (9:6-8) when the Jews have become ‘vessels of wrath prepared for destruction’ (9:22)? Wrath in the Old Testament is generally – if not always – directed against nations. The symbols of Jewish identity listed in 9:4-5 are corporate symbols. It may well be the case the Paul is concerned about the ‘security’ of individual believers – not least because they will be required to suffer as individuals. But their security rests on the fact that God has called and will remain faithful to a people. Paul does not talk about the election of ‘nations’: a people has been chosen in Abraham or in Isaac or in Jacob or in Christ and now individuals from the nations are called to be part of that ongoing and redeemed people, but the primary thought of election is corporate.

2. The fact that election begins with individuals is irrelevant. The salient individuals in the story of election are always understood as progenitors of community – the children of Abraham, the offspring of Isaac (9:7), or even the brothers of Jesus, who is the firstborn martyr from the dead (cf. 8:29).

3. The purpose of the reference to the choice of Jacob over Esau before they had done either good or evil (9:10-13) is to reinforce the sovereign calling of God. Michael again confuses the secondary calling of Gentiles (that is, of people from the nations) with the primary election of a people.

4. The singular occurs in the quotation from Ex. 33:19 in 9:15 because in the Exodus passage God is addressing the singular Moses. The quotation serves the purpose of underlining the inalienable sovereignty of God; it has no bearing on whether election is to be understood in individual or corporate terms.

5. The same argument applies for the singular forms in 9:16. The thought is determined by the individual encounter between God and Moses. Michael is quite right to say that it is ‘hard to see national implications at all here’, but Paul is not at this juncture expounding a doctrine of election as such; he is answering the question, ‘Is there injustice on God’s part?’ (9:14).

6. The argument that Paul thinks of election in Romans 9-11 primarily in corporate terms does not preclude the thought that God deals in different ways and for different ends with prominent individuals such as Moses or Pharoah. But these individuals matter because their actions and attitudes determine the destinies of nations.

7. This argument again misses the point. Paul is not speaking about ‘national or corporate election’ in 9:14.

8. Michael’s argument concerning the third person singular (anthestēken) in 9:19 overlooks both the generalizing form of the singular and its relation to the image of the potter in 9:20-21. In the Old Testament the imagery is used to describe the rebellion of Israel as a nation not of individual Jews in isolation from the overarching and determinative behaviour of the people as a whole. The national dimension is reinforced further by the quotations from Hosea and Isaiah in 9:25-29.

9. This argument presupposes the same misunderstanding that was pointed out above. But it is also worth drawing attention to what seems an ironic oversight on Michael’s part. He speaks of an ‘imaginary objector’ who is brought in to ‘challenge the thesis on behalf of an audience’. Precisely. The Jew who puts these questions to Paul does so on behalf of the nation that has rejected the warning of wrath.

10. The fact that the community in Christ has been called from Jews and Gentiles is still compatible with the view that the embracing story of election-judgment-salvation is corporate.

11. The same argument applies here. It is not a case of corporate or individual. If a community is faithful, it is because the individuals who make up that community are faithful.

12. Paul makes reference to Elijah in order to answer the question, ‘Has God rejected his people?’ The seven thousand are a remnant, chosen by grace, through which the continuity of the people is assured. Paul then goes on to say that ‘Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened…’ (11:7). This is a corporate argument. The quotation from Isaiah 29 that follows (‘God gave them a sprit of stupor…’) comes from a prophecy addressed not to individuals but to Jerusalem (Is. 29:1).


Excellent points.  Agree 100% Paul is arguing from a corporate perspective.  But, why end with chapter 9-11?  Is not it just as clear Paul starts on a corporate level from chapter 1?  It is to me.

In fact, Paul is still arguing on a corporate level in chapter 5 when he states:

12 "because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men [both Jew and Gentile - corporate entities] the death did pass through, for that all [Jew and Gentile] did sin; 13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; 14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

15 But, not as the offence so also is the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many [Jew and Gentile] did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many; [Jew and Gentile] 16 and not as through one who did sin is the free gift, for the judgment indeed is of one to condemnation, but the gift is of many offences to a declaration of 'Righteous,' 17 for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one -- Jesus Christ.

18 So, then, as through one offence to all men [Jew and Gentile] it is to condemnation, so also through one declaration of 'Righteous' it is to all men [Jew and Gentile] to justification of life; 19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many [Jew and Gentile] were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many [Jew and Gentile] be constituted righteous. 20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound, 21 that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If one does not read Paul's "all" or "many" as corporate bodies, then you end up in universalism.  For example in verse 19 "for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous."

Notice the balance.  all were made sinners, and all were made righteous.  If you read Paul on the individual level, universalism has to be true.  Same goes for Paul parallel passage in 1 Cor. 15.


Marc Taylor | Sun, 09/29/2019 - 06:03 | Permalink

It refers to individual salvation in that Romans 10:13 the whosoever applies to anyone — Jew or Greek for Christ is the same Lord of all (Romans 10:12). Anyone in the world that calls upon Him as Lord (YHWH) will be saved.

The question arises, “salvation from what”?

The traditional reading, of course, understands “salvation” to be “rescue from post-mortem punishments, specifically ECT.”

That is surely an imposed meaning for Romans; in Paul’s argument in that letter, “wrath” is consistently “under the sun.”

But in chapters 9-11, surely Israel is what is in view. The section begins with Paul’s grief over the hardness of heart of unrepentant Israel, then attributes that hardness to the Divine purposes (with a side comment to Gentile believers to not be proud of the fact that they are “in” while many Jews are “out”), and then concludes with a theory of how this will in the end work out for the salvation of “all Israel”.

Romans 10 is plainly about Israel, and in that context, vv 9-13 is about how Jews can escape the coming “under the sun” wrath; Gentiles are not view.

It’s difficult to see how the Gentiles are not in view in light of Romans 10:12 — which also corresponds to what Peter said in Act 10:36 in his gospel proclamation to a Gentile audience.