Romans 9 and Election

To me the absolutely clearest passage of Scripture on the topic of Election is found in chapter 9 of Romans. To me it is unavoidably manifest: God chooses whom He will choose on the basis that He desires (not on the basis of either human effort or human choices) for the purposes that He desires. I cannot fathom how anything else could be concluded from this passage other than that.

Of course, I know that not everyone is so convinced as I am. What other options are offered? Well, there is one primary alternative. This view says, "Paul is not talking about individual election; he's talking about groups." What groups? "Well, there are the Jews and the Gentiles. God is going to save people out of both Jew and Gentile. He's talking about Israel and the Church. He's talking about groups of people ... not individuals."

I have a hard time with that concept. I have a hard time because there seems to be a distinction without a difference. What is it that makes up a group? Individuals! So the argument is that God intends a group ... without actually intending individuals?

I have a hard time with it because the primary mode of explanation in this passage is in terms of individuals. Paul's premise is that, despite the fact that so few Jews are among the saved, God has not failed (9:6). Why? Because the "descendants of Abraham" are the children of promise, not the flesh (9:8). How does Paul demonstrate that? "Through Isaac your descendants will be named" (not Ishmael) (9:7). And we're talking about individuals. He goes on to talk about Sarah and Rebekah, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh -- individuals. Jacob and Esau were specifically predestined apart from any works "so that God's purpose according to His election would stand" (9:11). The "proofs" that Paul offers for his arguments in this passage are not in terms of groups, but in terms of individuals.

I have a hard time with it because the language doesn't fit. God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (9:15). Is that a group? Seems like individuals. Paul says, "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (9:16). Is that groups or individuals? Paul concludes, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (9:18). (Paul's "proof text" is God's treatment of Pharaoh, an individual.) As a group? And when he does talk about a group -- "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:22) -- it is only meaningful if those vessels are individuals to whom God shows mercy. Being merciful to a group does me little good, but being merciful to me, a sinner, is a magnificent event!

I have a hard time with it because of the objections. This is one of the key interpreting components to me. Paul's approach is very clear, very methodical. He lays down Scripture and then argues it logically and biblically (you know, like we're supposed to do). He starts back with the promise and tells how Jacob was selected over Esau apart from works. What is the very first objection I would expect if I thought Paul was talking about individuals elected apart from their works? "That's not fair!" And that's the first objection Paul faces (9:14ff). He explains that God chooses whom He will choose, that He has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens whom He hardens. What would the obvious next objection be if Paul were talking about individuals? "Well, if God does all that, then how can we be held accountable? If it's all God's will, what have we to say about it?" And that's exactly the next objection Paul faces (9:19ff). Now, rewind. Let's assume that Paul is talking about groups, not individuals. Paul says that God chooses groups not because the group is special, but because God chooses them. Since this isn't personal, on what possible grounds would we object, "That's not fair!"? And when Paul says that God chooses groups of people apart from the choices of the group, why would there be an objection, "Why does He still find fault?"? He still finds fault on the basis of individuals, right? Not groups. In other words, the objections Paul answers make no sense at all if he was talking about groups, not individuals. There is no reason to object if it isn't about individuals.

What are groups without individuals? Why would Paul use examples of individuals if his concept is of groups? Why is so much of the language itself in terms of individuals if groups were in mind? How do the objections make any sense if Paul was simply saying that God has chosen a group of people? None of this makes any sense to me. In fact, it seems like a whole lot of effort to make this speak of groups when the most obvious explanation is that it is about individuals. Could it be that this "group defense" approach is a product of a preconceived objection rather than a good examination of the text?