An advert for some Bible app popped up on my feed today in which they argued that Romans 9 was the hardest chapter to understand in the whole of the New Testament.

As I had never thought it challenging, I asked Google’s Gemini if this were actually true; if some Christians thought it was a challenging chapter.

The chapter challenges traditional assumptions about fairness, salvation, and God’s covenant promises to Israel. Here are the primary reasons theologians, pastors, and believers find it so difficult:

Here’s its response:

“Christians often call Romans 9 one of the hardest chapters in the New Testament because it dives headfirst into the deeply complex intersection of divine sovereignty (God’s absolute control and freedom) and human free will/responsibility.

1. The Shocking Language of Election and Predestination

In verses 11–13, the Apostle Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau before they were even born—and before they had done anything good or bad—to state:

“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

• The Challenge: This passage is frequently cited in the fierce debate between Calvinism (Reformed theology) and Arminianism. Calvinists see it as a clear-cut defense of unconditional election and predestination, while Arminians argue Paul is talking about corporate service or historical roles rather than individual eternal salvation.

2. The Apparent Threat to God’s Justice

Paul anticipates the reader’s instinctive objection in verse 14: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part?” His blunt response—“By no means!”—is followed by quoting God’s words to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (v. 15).

• The Challenge: To human logic, choosing some people for mercy while passing over others feels inherently “unfair.” It forces readers to grapple with a view of God that transcends human standards of egalitarian justice.

3. The Problem of Pharaoh and Human Responsibility

To illustrate his point further, Paul brings up Pharaoh, stating that God raised him up specifically to show His power and hardened whomever He wanted to harden (verses 17–18). This immediately prompts another objection in verse 19: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

• The Challenge: If God hardens a person’s heart and then holds them accountable for being hardened, how can humans truly be held morally responsible for their choices? Paul doesn’t offer a neat philosophical reconciliation; instead, he rebukes the questioner: “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (v. 20).

4. The Metaphor of the Potter and the Clay

Paul uses the vivid imagery of a potter shaping lumps of clay out of the same batch—making some vessels for honorable use and some for dishonorable use (verses 20–23).

• The Challenge: This metaphor pushes readers to confront the absolute asymmetry of the Creator-creature relationship. It challenges the modern, highly individualistic worldview that places human autonomy at the center of existence.

5. The Heartbreak Over Israel’s Rejection

The immediate pastoral context of Romans 9 isn’t just an abstract theological debate; it’s a deep emotional crisis. Paul is heartbroken that the majority of his fellow Jewish people have rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

• The Challenge: Paul has to explain how God’s promises to ethnic Israel could seemingly fail if the Jewish nation as a whole missed out on salvation. His answer—that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6)—redefines covenant identity in a way that shocked first-century Jewish listeners and continues to spark debate about supersessionism, replacement theology, and the future of ethnic Israel today.

Ultimately, Romans 9 is considered so difficult because it forces readers to the absolute edge of human comprehension, demanding that they reconcile God’s supreme authority with human accountability—two concepts that the human mind naturally struggles to hold in total balance.”

While this response explained this perspective, in approaching the whole NT through a full Hebraic lens I had never seen these challenges in such a light.

My dear departed (Aug 2023) friend Uriel shared my perspective so I asked Gemini about his translation of this chapter. I was most impressed by it’s response as it summarised the Hebraic perspective and Uriel’s translation very well:

“In his translation and commentary Kosher Paul, Uriel Ben Mordechai approaches the letter to the Romans through the lens of First-Century Second Temple Jewish thought and Hebraic idioms, rather than through centuries of Western, Augustinian, and Reformation theology.

When readers encounter “contradictions” or heavy paradoxes in Romans 9—such as absolute predestination versus human responsibility, or God loving one brother and hating another before birth—those hurdles largely stem through traditional Western lenses (like Calvinism vs. Arminianism).

By shifting the linguistic and cultural framework, Kosher Paul reduces these apparent contradictions for several key reasons:

1. Removal of Hellenistic and Augustinian Frameworks

Traditional translations and interpretations have heavily relied on a theological framework shaped by Augustine, Aquinas, and later Reformation thinkers who read Paul as a proto-systematic theologian addressing abstract, metaphysical questions about individual eternal salvation, an inherited “sin nature”, and airtight legalistic categories.

• Ben Mordechai treats Paul (Rav Sha’ul) as a Pharisaic Jewish rabbi discussing communal covenant roles, historical callings, and behavioral choices (yetzer hara and yetzer hatov).
• Stripping away centuries of Latin and Greek philosophical baggage dissolves the rigid “fatalism vs. free will” dichotomy that Western readers project onto Romans 9.

2. Contextualizing “Election” as Corporate and Historical Rather Than Individual and Eternal

In standard Western readings, Romans 9:11–13 (“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”) is read as God arbitrarily choosing certain individuals for heaven and others for hell before they are born.

• In a Hebraic context, such language frequently refers to corporate roles in redemptive history rather than eternal destinations. God chose the lineage of Jacob (Israel) to carry His covenants, oracles, and the lineage of the Messiah, while Esau (Edom) was designated for a different national and historical path.
• By restoring this corporate, covenantal perspective, the chapter shifts from a harsh puzzle about divine favoritism regarding salvation to a pastoral explanation of how God manages His historical promises to nations and peoples.

3. Viewing “Hardening” through a Biblical-Covenantal Lens

When Paul discusses God hardening Pharaoh’s heart in Romans 9:17–18, Western systems often interpret this as God overriding human agency to forcefully damn an individual.

• Within a Hebraic and Tanakh (Old Testament) framework, hardening a heart is often the consequence of a progressive trajectory of choices. God utilizes a leader’s existing posture and stubbornness to accomplish His larger historical deliverance (such as freeing Israel from Egypt).
• The text ceases to be a philosophical trap regarding human freedom and instead aligns with the Hebrew Bible’s view of sovereign orchestration operating alongside human accountability.

4. Emphasizing Choice and Covenant Over “Fatalism”

Throughout Kosher Paul, concepts like sin and obedience are translated to emphasize human agency, moral responsibility, and the ongoing struggle between human inclinations (yetzer) rather than an inescapable ontological curse or a static “sin nature”. Because the Hebrew mindset inherently prioritizes action, consequence, and covenantal loyalty (shema and halakha) over abstract decrees of eternal fate, passages that sound deterministic in English translations take on a much more practical, pastoral tone.

By realigning the vocabulary with its original Jewish matrix, Kosher Paul reframes Romans 9 not as an abstract courtroom trial over who God has arbitrarily predestined for heaven or hell, but as a passionate Jewish letter addressing the historic faithfulness of God to Israel.”

Footnotes:
Uriel passed away very suddenly when he was only in his mid-60’s. I wrote an eulogy about him at the time:

“Today (9th August 2023) on the Mount of Olives with a view of the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock in the background, Uriel ben Mordechai (Uri Marcus) was laid to rest.

This was a total devastating shock. He was, in my eyes, still a young man (around my age). He seemed so strong and full of vigour though I know caring for his wife Adi who has not been well for a number of years was time consuming and clearly stressful as were the many lawsuits he was involved in or supporting. Uriel was a zealous and faithful man of God who was a seeker after justice, not just for himself but for all the downtrodden.

I have been privileged to know Uriel for many years and have worked with him on a number of his translations especially Galatians as well as providing the Foreword and some parts of the Introduction to his translation of the Gospel of John (a translation that he finished but which he had not quite readied for publication).

Having spoken and communicated with Uriel many times over the years and also attending his weekly classes for a while, I gained a great deal of insight into this amazing man whose passion for HaShem and Torah was so strong that it was almost tangible. Part of this passion was to re-translate from the earliest extant Greek manuscripts the New Testament (which he knew was a Jewish text), employing a Jewish/Hebraic pre-suppositional position. This Torah-centric approach, while not unique (see the work of the late Prof. David Flusser and his students at the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research), was certainly extremely rare. But it proved to be incredibly enlightening. While very few to date may have read his translations of Galatians, Romans, Hebrews and the Gospel of John, I am convinced that the Day will arrive when they will be held in the highest of esteem by the great multitude and the Jewish People will recognize Uriel as one of their cherished and very valued sons.

Sadly, many Christians in particular, and it seems with agendas to protect, have sought to question his skill and even his integrity. But having conversed with him in depth and breadth over much time I am convinced in my heart that his simple, unpretentious but sincere, honest and zealous efforts at translating the words of the Jewish authors of the New Testament resulted in revelatory Truth.

His translations really are the best and most consistently aligned with their foundational text of the Hebrew Bible.

Uriel still had so much to offer this world from his tireless support of his wife to his passion for seeking justice for all, to his incredible work of translating and teaching the New Testament.

I learned so much from Uriel. His insights on many subtle and/or challenging portions of the New Testament were invaluable and often opened new vistas of understanding.

He is very sadly missed! To all who knew Uriel and mourn his passing: ‘May God console you among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”

Footnote 2: The response from Gemini regarding Uriel’s translation mentions the inclinations (yetzer). Here’s my article explaining this very Hebraic concept in a little depth:
https://globaltruthinternational.com/2017/06/10/the-yetzer-hara-and-yetzer-hatov/