Pastor John, I know you're headed to the airport and for Dallas for a short trip to meet with some of our partners in Texas. But before you head off, we have a question for you on Romans 9. In fact, we have 150 emails now about Romans chapter 9, by far the most asked about chapter in the Bible in our inbox.

Here's one of them, a recent email from a listener named Aaron. "Hello, Pastor John. I was reading Romans 9 today and came across what is known to be a very hard to swallow passage and doctrine. While I believe God is sovereign, I can't help but take into account Paul's 'what if' statement at the beginning of verse 22.

Is the language here being used as we would use it today, almost implying that God can't, but doesn't necessarily mean He does it? Is that a feasible interpretation? How do you explain this conjunction and its implications on our interpretations of Romans 9.22?" Well, perhaps just to encourage those who struggle with the message of Romans 9, let me give a little biography, autobiography, I mean.

When I was teaching Bible and Greek at Bethel College, 1974 to 1980, virtually every class brought up the problems of the sovereignty of God vis-a-vis the will of man. If God is as sovereign piper as you say, how can man be accountable for his sin? And eventually in these discussions, I would go to Romans 9 as part of my answer.

And there would be great disputes over how to handle Romans 9, especially 1 to 23. So in spring of 1979, I asked for a sabbatical. I had been there about six years, it was time. And from May of '79 through January of '80, as I studied, all I did was think and pray over Romans 9, day and night, every day.

And I had to settle for myself. This is the point of what I'm saying. This was a great struggle for me. I feel like Romans 9 is a watershed of how you view God. I had to settle for myself whether this chapter meant what it seemed to mean, what I was saying it meant, or did it have some other explanation.

And out of that nine months or so came the book, The Justification of God, an exegetical and theological study of Romans 9, 1 to 23. So I have shared the struggle with those who read this chapter and scratch their heads and try to reorient their minds. I have shared that.

I don't think Romans 9 is up for grabs, though. I think Romans 9 really addresses the eternal destinies of people, not just historical roles. And it does deal with individuals, not just corporate peoples. Those are usually the two reasons people give for saying, "No, you shouldn't use Romans 9 to talk about individual election or predestination." This is not hard to see.

Let me show our listeners from Romans 9, 2, and 3 how I approach the chapter, and I think they'll see it. It says, Paul says, "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh." So what's he saying?

He's saying that individual Jews, kinsmen of Paul, are lost and perishing. And this creates for Paul not only a heart-wrenching personal agony, which he describes, but a massive theological problem. Have the promises of God failed Israel? I mean, if Jews—and he's not talking one or two, he's talking most of them—have a veil over their face, and they're not seeing Jesus as their Messiah.

So the question addressed in this chapter is, has God's promise to Israel fallen? And the presenting issue is precisely that some Jews—not the people as a whole—some Jews have fallen. They're perishing. And Paul's answer in verse 6 is, "It is not as though the word of God has failed." And then he gives his basic answer.

Why? Because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. That's his basic answer. In other words, Paul answers the problem precisely by pointing out that individual lost Israelites are not really part of the Israel who inherit the promises. It's the lostness of individuals that creates the problem.

It's not imposed on this chapter. It's the problem. Within Israel, there are Israelites who are perishing, and Paul solves the problem theologically by saying God's word to Israel has not fallen because not all Israel is Israel. And the rest of Romans 9, 1 to 23 is Paul's demonstration, vindication of the justice of God in the exercise of his sovereignty in having mercy on whom he will.

So verse 14, what should we say? Is there injustice on God's part? That's where I started in my writing my book. Is there injustice on God's part? And his answer is, "By no means." And the rest of it, verses 15 to 23, is a support for why there's no injustice on God's part.

He gives his argument for—verse 15—he says to Moses, "I'll have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. So God is free—free—mercy on whom he'll have mercy, free to show mercy and grace to whomever he wills.

Nobody deserves it, and God is not unjust to give it freely to whomever he will and not to another. Now why does God exercise his freedom in choosing one and not another? And that brings us to the question that Aaron in this—the question you asked me—posed in verses 22 and 23, because this is Paul's most ultimate answer in the Bible, I think.

Everybody should put their ears up when I say that. Whoa, that's a big claim. Check that out, Piper. I'm going to say it again. Verses 22 and 23 are Paul's most—I would say the Bible's most—ultimate answer for why God does what he does in choosing one and not another.

And here's what it says, and this is the very sentence that Aaron asked about. What if—now in the Greek it's just "if," but "what if" is okay because it should be answered, "What if," namely, well, no legitimate objection can be raised. I'll come back to that. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels prepared for destruction?

In order that, he might make known to the vessels of mercy the riches of his glory, the vessels which he prepared beforehand for glory. And Aaron is asking, do the words "what if" at the beginning of verse 22 suggest that God could act this way but doesn't act this way?

That's what he's asking. Does "what if" mean, oh, yeah, he could act that way, and that would fit with Piper's Reformed understanding of this text, but he doesn't really act that way. Is that a feasible interpretation? And the answer is no, that's not a feasible interpretation. It's not feasible to take the words that way.

And there's several reasons, but let me just zero in on one. The reason is that this "if" that introduces verse 22 and 23 has really already happened in Romans 9. It's not a question of whether it's going to happen. It did happen, and Paul is restating what he has already said, drawing out the implication, namely with regard to Pharaoh.

And Paul says, what if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, desiring that, that's what he desired, has endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? Well, he's restating the very thing that he just said he did in regard to Pharaoh in verses 17 and 18.

Here's what that says. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills." So when Paul refers four verses later in verse 22 to God's "desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," that's exactly what he has just done with Pharaoh in verse 17.

This "what if" is not hypothetical. It's actual. He did it. And the "what if" is, what if he did it? Can any legitimate objection be raised? And his answer is no. So Paul's overall point in this section is this. God is just in having mercy on whom he will, verse 14.

He does no one, no human being, ever, anywhere, he does no one any wrong. And he always upholds the infinite value of what is infinitely valuable. That's his righteousness. Namely, he upholds his glory. And in his absolute glorious freedom, "I'll have mercy on whom I have mercy. I'll be gracious to whom I'll be gracious." His absolute glorious freedom, he makes known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, that's verse 23.

That's the ultimate goal of the universe. And those vessels of mercy are prepared beforehand by God for glory. But in this moment, in this very moment, the vessels of mercy—I'm talking now to our listeners—in this very moment, the vessels of mercy are everyone and anyone who calls on the name of the Lord.

Amen. That's really good. The watershed chapter for how we understand God and his works. Thank you, Pastor John. Serious students of the New Testament who want to go deep into Romans 9 and who can navigate a little Greek and Hebrew along the way should check out that book, The Justification of God, an Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9, 1-23.

It was published by Baker Academic in 1993, and you can also find it in the 13-volume Collected Works of John Piper. See volume 1, pages 285-531. Pastor John is off to Dallas for a brief trip, and then we return on Monday. I'll ask John Piper, "Why did God alienate disabled persons in the Old Testament?

It seems harsh." That's a great question. I'm your host, Tony Reinke. We'll see you then. Have a great weekend. 1. What is the definition of a disabled person? A disabled person is a person who is disabled. you