Sermons on Romans 9:10-16
The various sermons below converge on a clear cluster of convictions: Paul’s citation of Jacob and Esau is read as a corrective to any merit-based view of salvation, insisting that election flows from God’s sovereign freedom to show mercy rather than human worthiness. Each speaker leans on Paul’s use of Genesis–Exodus language and traditional metaphors (potter and clay, vineyard workers, courtroom/mother-pleading) to defend the claim that mercy is God’s prerogative, while also taking care not to erase human responsibility. Nuances emerge in how “I loved, but Esau I hated” is handled (some insist it’s covenantal/functionally relational rather than personal malice), how the “not of him who wills nor of him who runs” line is parsed (will as desire vs run as exertion), and whether the passage is pressed chiefly toward doxology, pastoral assurance, or a doctrine of antecedent regenerating grace.
What differs is emphasis and pastoral trajectory: one strand frames the passage primarily as a pastoral corrective to human boasting and so leans on images and pastoral analogies to reassure believers of God’s wise, non‑capricious ordering; another treats Paul as teaching an unconditional decree and therefore focuses on forensic language and the priority of sovereign choice, with a sharper move toward assurance of election; a third accentuates regeneration as the causative work that enables willing, making human volition an effect rather than a ground of election. Practically, that means you can preach this text to highlight God’s freedom and the comfort of being chosen, to call sinners to the seriousness of divine justice balanced by mercy, or to emphasize the necessity of efficacious grace—which hinges on how you read “hate,” how you interpret willing/running, and whether you cast election primarily as doxology, forensic decree, or prior regenerating action—choose which emphasis best shapes your congregation’s needs and the pastoral aim you intend to leave them with, but be prepared to address the common objections about arbitrariness, the status of non‑elect blessings, and the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility; if you press the legal motif, expect questions about justice and mercy; if you press antecedent regeneration, expect questions about human assurance and the nature of faith; if you press doxology, expect a sermon that centers thanksgiving and—
Romans 9:10-16 Interpretation:
Trusting God's Sovereign Plan: Jacob and Esau(David Guzik) reads Romans 9:10–16 as a pastoral corrective to thinking election is merit-based and insists Paul’s point is that God chose Jacob as part of a deliberate, coherent plan rather than by whim or by Jacob’s superior morality; Guzik stresses that “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” must be read covenantally (Esau was “hated” only in the sense of not being chosen to inherit the covenant) and unpacks Paul’s use of Genesis/Exodus to insist election is prior to works, illustrating the point with a courtroom/mother-pleading image of mercy, the laborers-in-the-vineyard story to show God’s freedom to be more generous than justice requires, and the potter-and-clay motif to maintain that God’s sovereignty does not nullify human responsibility — all used to interpret Paul’s claim that mercy is God’s prerogative and that election supports God’s overarching plan rather than punishes individuals capriciously.
God's Sovereignty in Election: Trusting His Divine Will(Desiring God) construes Romans 9:10–16 as an argument that God’s freedom — the “name” or “glory” of God revealed in Exodus 33:19 — is the standard by which God’s choices are righteous, arguing that Paul links election to God’s essential freedom to show mercy; this sermon highlights Paul’s pairings (“not of him who wills nor of him who runs”) as contrasting willing (desire) and running (exertion) to show that human volition and effort are genuine but not ultimate grounds of election, and it uses the Titus example to insist that human “willing” can itself be the effect of God’s prior merciful action rather than proof that election rests on autonomous human choice.
Understanding God's Sovereignty and the Blessing of Predestination(Ligonier Ministries) reads Romans 9:10–16 within a theological grammar of decrees and blessing: Paul’s Jacob/Esau example demonstrates that election is an eternal divine decree and a cause for doxology (predestination is presented as a blessing to praise God), and Sproul (speaker) uses the verse to reject prescience-based accounts of election, arguing Paul teaches that the basis of election is the good pleasure of God’s will (not foreseen human response), and frames the Exodus quotation as proof that God’s right to dispense mercy freely sustains His righteousness rather than undermines it.
Understanding Predestination: God's Sovereignty and Grace(Ligonier Ministries) treats Romans 9:10–16 as decisive biblical evidence that regeneration and God’s elective grace are prior to any genuine human response; this sermon places Paul’s statement alongside Jesus’ teaching (“No one can come to me unless the Father draws him”) and historical theological debates (Pelagius vs. Augustine), using Romans 9 to argue that election is not prescience of human choices but sovereign mercy that effects new life, so Paul’s “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” is read as vindicating God’s justice and the necessity and efficacy of God’s regenerating grace.
Understanding God's Sovereign Choice in Salvation(Ligonier Ministries) explicates Romans 9:10–16 as a defense of what Reformed theology calls “unconditional election,” insisting Paul’s Jacob/Esau example shows God chose apart from any foreseen works or merits and that the verse’s force is to demolish human-centered bases for salvation; the sermon emphasizes the legal/forensic clarity of Paul’s language (“not of him who wills nor of him who runs”) and uses common analogies (governor’s pardon, vessels for honor/dishonor) to interpret Paul’s claim that divine mercy is the ultimate determinant of who is saved.
Romans 9:10-16 Theological Themes:
Trusting God's Sovereign Plan: Jacob and Esau(David Guzik) emphasizes a nuanced theological theme that “hate” in Paul’s citation is covenantal/functional rather than personal animus, proposing a distinction between earthly blessing and covenantal election (Esau is materially blessed but not chosen for the Abrahamic covenant), and thus reframes the moral problem: the apparent sting of “I hated” is solved by seeing election as covenant-distribution rather than value-sentencing.
God's Sovereignty in Election: Trusting His Divine Will(Desiring God) advances the distinct theological claim that God’s freedom — his glory expressed as the authority to show mercy — is the very standard of divine righteousness, so election is not morally arbitrary but intrinsically tied to the holiness and freedom of God’s name; further, it offers a subtle pastoral-theological synthesis that human volition is real and morally significant yet always derivative from God’s prior enabling mercy.
Understanding God's Sovereignty and the Blessing of Predestination(Ligonier Ministries) articulates the recurrent Reformed theme reframed positively: predestination should be approached first as a cause for worship (a “blessing” that provokes gratitude), not merely as a philosophical puzzle, and thus Romans 9 functions to direct doxology rather than anxiety — election is described as rooted in God’s good pleasure for his glory.
Understanding Predestination: God's Sovereignty and Grace(Ligonier Ministries) brings out a theological emphasis often glossed over in popular debates: regeneration is antecedent and operative (not merely invitational) — the sermon stresses an “operative grace” that changes disposition and thereby renders faith possible and genuine, so Romans 9’s language of God’s choosing is tied to God’s efficacious work in the heart.
Understanding God's Sovereign Choice in Salvation(Ligonier Ministries) highlights the juridical-theological theme that divine election does not violate justice because those not elected receive justice (what they deserve), while the elect receive mercy; this sermon’s distinctive facet is its insistence that “unconditional” refers narrowly to the causes of election (not to the absence of conditions for justification itself) and thus reframes fairness objections by distinguishing mercy from justice.
Romans 9:10-16 Historical and Contextual Insights:
Trusting God's Sovereign Plan: Jacob and Esau(David Guzik) grounds Romans 9:10–16 in ancient Near Eastern cultural practice by noting the customary primacy of the firstborn (the “logical choice” in that culture would have been Esau), using that cultural expectation to show the countercultural force of God’s choosing the younger son and to explain why Paul’s example was rhetorically powerful for his original readers.
Understanding God's Sovereignty and the Blessing of Predestination(Ligonier Ministries) situates Romans 9 within broader historical-theological developments by tracing predestination’s place in Scripture and church tradition, citing the historical reality of imperial decrees (Caesar Augustus’s census) as an analogue for divine decrees and surveying patristic and Reformational continuity (Augustine ? Luther ? Calvin ? later confessions) to show that Romans 9’s teaching is embedded in the historical confession of the church.
Understanding Predestination: God's Sovereignty and Grace(Ligonier Ministries) supplies historical background on theological controversies that shaped interpretations of Romans 9 by recounting the Pelagian controversy, the emergence of Semi?Pelagianism, and Augustine’s formulation (e.g., “Command what thou will; grant what thou commandest”), using these historical controversies to explain why Jesus’ and Paul’s statements about inability and divine initiative were so contentious and historically determinative for doctrine.
Romans 9:10-16 Cross-References in the Bible:
Trusting God's Sovereign Plan: Jacob and Esau(David Guzik) connects Romans 9:10–16 to a string of Old and New Testament texts: Genesis (the Jacob/Esau birth narrative and covenantal promises) to show the historical locus of the example; Exodus (the “I will have mercy…” quotation and God hardening Pharaoh) to demonstrate the pattern of divine mercy and hardening; Matthew 20 (the laborers in the vineyard) and a courtroom/merciful-judge illustration to defend God’s generosity beyond strict justice; and Hosea/Isaiah passages (Paul’s later quotations) to argue for a faithful remnant and God’s saving plan — each passage is used to establish that God’s sovereign choices serve a redemptive plan rather than caprice.
God's Sovereignty in Election: Trusting His Divine Will(Desiring God) highlights Exodus 33:19 as the primary intertext (Paul’s citation) and explains it as an affirmation of God’s freedom/glory, and then draws on 2 Corinthians 8:16–17 (Titus example) to show how human willing and running are genuine effects of God’s prior work; the sermon treats Romans 9’s clauses (“not of him who wills nor of him who runs”) as echoing biblical patterns where divine initiative undergirds human response.
Understanding God's Sovereignty and the Blessing of Predestination(Ligonier Ministries) groups Romans 9 with Ephesians 1 (chosen before foundation of the world) and Exodus 33:19 (Moses quote) to argue the Bible’s unified teaching that election is an eternal decree for God’s glory; the sermon uses these cross?references to contrast prescience theories and to place Romans 9 within the sweep of Pauline soteriology.
Understanding Predestination: God's Sovereignty and Grace(Ligonier Ministries) marshals John’s Gospel (Jesus’ “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him,” and Nicodemus scenes), Ephesians 2 (dead in trespasses made alive by God), Acts (Paul’s conversion narrative as example of sovereign grace given to some and not others), and Romans 9 to show theological consistency: human inability requires prior divine regeneration and Romans 9’s language of election is consonant with Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings about God’s effectual work.
Understanding God's Sovereign Choice in Salvation(Ligonier Ministries) uses Romans 9 in direct conversation with Exodus (Moses/Exodus quotation), Paul’s statement about Pharaoh (God raising him up), and Ephesians/Romans material on predestination to argue theologically that election rests on God’s will not on human works, and that Paul’s rhetorical “is God unjust?” anticipates objections rooted in common-sense readings of justice.
Romans 9:10-16 Christian References outside the Bible:
Trusting God's Sovereign Plan: Jacob and Esau(David Guzik) explicitly invokes Charles Spurgeon in a pastoral anecdote about a woman objecting to “God hated Esau,” recounting Spurgeon’s ironic reply to reframe the complaint and to model humble perplexity before difficult texts, using Spurgeon to show historical pastoral responses to Romans 9’s language.
Understanding God's Sovereignty and the Blessing of Predestination(Ligonier Ministries) references major historical theologians (Calvin, Luther, Augustine) and creedal/tradition history to situate Romans 9 in the stream of church teaching, arguing that the Reformers’ formulations did not invent predestination but refined what Paul taught; the sermon explicitly relates its speaker’s own book ("Chosen By God") and his reading of Augustine/Calvin as part of the interpretive tradition used in explicating Romans 9.
Understanding Predestination: God's Sovereignty and Grace(Ligonier Ministries) explicitly names and engages Augustine, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, and Jonathan Edwards, using Pelagius/Augustine as the formative fourth-century debate that frames how Romans 9 has been received, and appeals to that tradition (Augustine et al.) to justify reading Romans 9 as teaching prior, operative grace and the necessity of regeneration.
Romans 9:10-16 Illustrations from Secular Sources:
Trusting God's Sovereign Plan: Jacob and Esau(David Guzik) uses everyday secular workplace and courtroom analogies in detail: a criminal trial where a mother pleads for mercy before a judge (illustrating mercy as withholding deserved punishment), and a modern paycheck scenario where someone discovers a surprise bonus in a coworker’s envelope to drive home human resentment when employers (like God) show extra generosity; Guzik uses these secular, concrete scenarios to make Paul’s abstract claims about mercy and divine freedom relatable.
Understanding God's Sovereignty and the Blessing of Predestination(Ligonier Ministries) opens with a specific historical-secular illustration — Caesar Augustus’s imperial census/decree in Luke’s Nativity story — to analogize human imperial decrees with God’s eternal decree, using the well?known political-historical fact of Caesar’s authority to make the theological idea of divine decree more tangible.
Understanding Predestination: God's Sovereignty and Grace(Ligonier Ministries) deploys extended secular analogies in vivid detail: a dying patient in intensive care needing a miracle drug (the drug is present but the patient cannot take it without intervention), and a drowning swimmer with only fingertips above water needing a precisely thrown life preserver; these secular-rescue metaphors are used to argue that fallen humans are incapable of effecting their own salvation and require God’s direct, operative intervention — illustrations meant to make theological impotence and divine rescue intelligible.
Understanding God's Sovereign Choice in Salvation(Ligonier Ministries) uses the historical nickname “Unconditional Surrender Grant” (U.S. Grant) as a secular-historical acrostic entry into the doctrinal label “unconditional election,” and also uses a governor/pardon analogy and stick-figure pictorial mental image (dividing humanity into circles of elect and non-elect) to illustrate how mercy and justice are respectively applied; these secular/historical and visual analogies are pressed into service to defuse fairness objections and to clarify what “unconditional” does and does not mean in election.