Colin D Smith

⁶ But [it is] not such that the word of God has failed. For not all those from Israel are Israel. ⁷ And nor [is it] that all children are the seed of Abraham, but “in Isaac will your seed be called.” ⁸ That is, these children of God are not the children of the flesh but the children of the promise are considered unto seed. ⁹ For this is the word of the promise: “At this time I will come and a son will be to Sarah.” ¹⁰ And not only [that], but also Rebekah, when she conceived children from one man, Isaac our father. ¹¹ For while they were not yet born, nor done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God according to election may remain,  ¹² not from works but from the one calling, it was said to her, “the greater shall serve the lesser,” ¹³ just as it has been written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

We continued with Paul’s explanation of why it is that even though salvation is not based upon works or ethnicity, God didn’t make a mistake with Israel, nor was the Old Testament a detour from God’s plans. Indeed, through Israel God provided promises, blessings, and even the Messiah. And through selection of a particular people, God established a pattern of election that continues even into the New Testament era–not just of a nation, but of individuals.

Has God done away with Israel because the Jews did not all embrace Jesus as their Messiah? Or has God’s word that promised blessings upon Israel failed because they have not come to recognize the plan of salvation in Christ? Paul answers no, because salvation is not according to ethnicity, hence not all those who are within Israel are truly Israel–i.e., are truly of God’s chosen people. We made a similar distinction between those who are part of the “church”–i.e., those who regularly attend services, who may even be members, but may not be saved–and those who are part of the “Church”–i.e., the elect of God. The Church will always be a subset of the church, just as true Israel was a subset of Israel.

Not all of Abraham’s children are of the chosen line. Abraham had a son by Hagar, Ishmael, whom God blessed; but he wasn’t the chosen seed, the one through whom God’s chosen people would be established. Abraham also had children by Keturah, but these were not of the chosen line. The promise was to Isaac and his line. This establishes the fact that it was the promise that mattered, not parentage. God chose Isaac, even though Abraham had another son by Sarah’s maid. Isaac and Ishmael were half-brothers, but God chose Isaac.

While this is a compelling example of God choosing one son over another from the same father, Paul goes further to establish his case: Isaac and Rebekah, and their twin sons, Jacob and Esau. They were born of the same parents, and so one might think they have an equal share in the promise. But God chose Jacob over Esau. Why? So that His purposes in election might be fulfilled. Neither had done anything that would bring merit or demerit in God’s sight. The word “bad” is the Greek adjective phaulos, which is very broad–it can denote minor transgressions as much as acts of wickedness. The point is that neither the character of the children nor their bloodline are the deciding factors here: it is God’s choice that determines who receives the blessing of His promised salvation.

We took a little time to discuss election, in particular with regard to loved ones. Is it, perhaps, a blessing to us that we don’t know who the elect are? What would we do if God gave us a list of the elect, and our children’s, or parents’, or siblings’, or spouse’s names were not on it? It seems God shielded Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from the full extent of his plan. Ishmael and Esau were both blessed, but not in the same way. With Jacob and Esau, God revealed that “the greater will serve the lesser,” so they may have known that Esau would serve Jacob (“greater and lesser” here meaning “older and younger,” and Esau was born ahead of Jacob), but beyond that, how much might they have understood? It may have been for the better that the full extent of God’s plan of salvation was veiled to them.

Verse 13 is, perhaps, a troubling verse to some. What does God mean by “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”? There are two questions in particular we need to deal with: are we talking about individuals or nations, and did God really hate Esau–and what does that mean if He did?

The first question brings up a common objection to the Reformed understanding of Romans 9:13, and a popular understanding of the concept of election in this chapter. Malachi 1:2-3, which Paul is quoting here, is clearly speaking of Jacob and Esau as representatives of their respective nations. Jacob’s nickname, Israel, was given to the people he founded, and Esau was the father of the Edomites. So, the argument goes, Paul is not saying that God chose individuals, but that He chose nations. God favored Israel over Edom, and hence all those that belong to Israel are elect, while those that are not of Israel (e.g., Edom) are not elect. By extension, God has elected the church, but it is up to individuals to choose whether or not they will belong to the church. God does not choose individuals–each person makes their own choice, and whoever ends up part of the church are the ones God elects.

This argument sounds good, but it runs into serious problems when we try to fit it with the rest of the discussion in Romans 9. For a start, just because Paul is quoting (or summing up) Malachi 1:2-3, that doesn’t mean he is importing the same context. Sometimes when he quotes the Old Testament, Paul does intend us to understand the original context, but I think it’s clear from the rest of his argument (as we shall see) that Paul is using the words of Malachi 1:2-3 to make a point that was possibly not front and center in Malachi’s mind. We have already seen in verse 6 that not all Israel are Israel, but if God elected Israel to salvation over Edom, then all Israel would be Israel. In other words, Romans 9:6 is clearly talking about individuals from the nation of Israel being a part of true Israel, whereas other individuals are not. Further, Paul is talking about how it is not whether or not you are part of Israel that saves you, but whether or not God has chosen you to be a recipient of the promise. That’s why God has not forgotten Israel–He is still saving people from that nation. If this passage is to make sense in the context of Romans 8, and Romans 9:1-12, Romans 9:13 must be referring to individuals, not nations.

We didn’t really get into what it means for God to “love” Jacob and “hate” Esau. I will offer a couple of thoughts here, and perhaps we will take it up next week, or if you want to discuss it in the comments, feel free! First, there is a sense in which the terms are hyperbole, or overstatement to make a point. God clearly favored Jacob over Esau, and set His special love upon certain people He intended to save. Just as we don’t love all people equally (my love for my friends is different from my love for my kids, which is different from my love for my wife, for example), neither does God. He has a special love for those He has chosen to save which is different from His love for the rest of the world. John’s Gospel often refers to a particular disciple as “the disciple Jesus loved” or “the Beloved Disciple”–this doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t love the others, but this one disciple was singled out for special attention. Hence “loved and hated” here may simply be a dramatic way of saying God made a preference of one over the other.

Second, we must bear in mind that when God loves and hates, it is not the same as when we love and hate. Our ability to love and hate is tainted by sin. We are often motivated by prejudice, or injustice, or other factors that spring from our human frailty. God has no such limitations: He can love and hate with purity, justice, and without malice or any kind of evil intent. No-one can accuse God of being unfair.

Or can they? That certainly seems to be the accusation of verse 14–and that’s where we’ll pick up next week!

¹ I speak the truth in Christ, I am not lying–my conscience bears witness with me in the Holy Spirit–² that there is great sorrow in me, and unceasing distress in my heart. ³ For I pray I myself may be accursed from Christ on behalf of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, ⁴ who are Israelites, whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the worship, and the promises, ⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, the one who is over all things God blessed forever. Amen.

We began this week’s discussion with a reminder on the importance of letting Scripture speak, especially given some of the statements in this chapter which some find difficult. When dealing with hard passages of Scripture, we have three choices: we can accept them as true and deal with them, we can reject them (which then brings into question our view of the inspiration of Scripture), or we can try to make them say what we would prefer them to say, not what they actually say. To be fair to the Word of God, we really ought to pursue the first option, and that is our intention here.

Chapters 9-11 seem to break from the flow of the letter. Romans 8 concluded Paul’s teaching on justification by faith alone, sanctification with the abiding help of the Spirit, and the believers’ position as God’s adopted, beloved children and a beautiful statement of God’s love for us. From that, we might expect Paul to move on to some practical application–a discussion on how we should live given these truths. Rather he waits until chapter 12 for that, moving instead to a discussion of Israel and election.

We need to remember the overall context: Paul is writing to a divided church where there is squabbling between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. It seems Paul is saying that, since we are all on the same level, and we are all saved by grace whether Jew or Gentile, all God’s work in the Old Testament among the descendants of Abraham is irrelevant, and there is no value at all in being Jewish. Paul started to respond to this back at the beginning of chapter 3, but now he appears to be making a much fuller response, perhaps because his statements in chapter 8 warrant dealing with the topic more thoroughly.

He starts with a very bold statement that challenges us. He expresses his deep sorrow and never-ending pain over his kinsmen. Paul is concerned that this expression is not perceived as false empathy, so he insists he is telling the truth, and further the indwelling Spirit of God–who knows his heart perhaps better than he does–testifies that what he’s saying is true. And what he says is quite remarkable: he would pray to be “accursed” (the Greek is anathema), cut off from Christ, for the sake of his kinsmen. If it would mean they would all be saved, he would spend eternity separated from God. We know, and I daresay he knew. this wouldn’t be possible–especially given what he’s just said at the end of chapter 8, but that gives us a sense of how strongly he feels about this. This is reminiscent of Moses’s reaction to the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32, when Moses pleaded with God to forgive the people, even if it meant blotting his own name out of the book of life (verse 32). Can we say we feel that strongly about our unsaved kin–parents, brothers, sisters, or other family members who aren’t saved? How deeply do we long for them to come to Christ?

Paul talks more about who these people are. First he calls them “Israelites.” Up to now Paul has referred to them as Jews. This is a reminder of their spiritual heritage–they are descendants of Israel, the name God gave to Jacob. He then lists a series of blessings they have received from God as a people: the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law-giving, the worship, and the promises.

Just as there is a difference between church (i.e., the people who attend the worship service, who may even be members, and who might even have professed faith in Christ), and Church (i.e., those who are truly saved), there is a difference between the nation of Israel (i.e., those who were a part of the nation God chose to bless), and the real Israel (i.e., the people within that nation who were truly God’s and, by their faith in God’s promises–particularly in the Savior to come–were saved). The blessing Paul describes are blessings that were poured out upon the entire nation, but that doesn’t mean they all appreciated and embraced them for themselves.

They were all “adopted” not in the sense that Paul has just been speaking of in the previous chapter, where we are God’s precious children and given the same benefits as Christ, but in the sense that God calls Israel His son, and guides, disciplines, and cares for the nation as a parent. He treats them in a way He does not treat any other nation. He gave them victory in battle and made their name of great repute; He made covenant promises with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David–not least of which was the promise of the Messiah; He gave them the Law so they would know how to please Him and be holy in His sight; He gave them the Temple and taught them how to worship Him; and He gave them promises which He was faithful to keep. Paul’s point, I think, is that God would not do all these things for these people without reason.

Furthermore, God gave the Israelites the fathers of their faith, one of whom, Abraham, Paul has already set forth as an example of justification by faith (see chapter 4). Finally, and perhaps the greatest indication that God had blessed Israel and had a purpose for them: the Messiah, Jesus was a Jew by the flesh. He was born into this nation as one of them. If that doesn’t make them special, and show that God hasn’t abandoned them, what else would?

Paul says that Christ is “over all things God blessed forever.” This is quite a strong Christological statement. It seems that Paul is asserting the deity of Christ unequivocally. Some scholars take issue with this and prefer to translate this “… who is Christ according to the flesh. May God be praised forever. Amen” or something like that. However, there is no reason to do this from the text, and this is by no means a more natural translation of the Greek. Such scholars justify their translation by insisting that Paul wouldn’t have believed in Christ’s deity so he can’t have made such a statement. They say that Paul doesn’t make such blatant statements elsewhere. However, we know he does (Titus 2:13, for example), but even if they don’t accept that, they just need to look at the work Paul ascribes to Christ. Would a mere Jewish prophet be capable of atoning for the sins of God’s people by his death and resurrection? Would Paul claim that a mere mortal was the source of creation, by whom all things were made (Colossians 1:16)? In light of this, it seems only natural that Paul would have regarded Christ to be God.

So God has richly blessed this nation, but they have turned their back on Him–hence Paul’s anguish and sorrow. Does this mean that God’s word has failed? Have all the promises God made to Abraham about his seed being a mighty nation come to nothing? If all that Paul has said in chapters 1-8 is true, why aren’t the Israelites repenting and turning to Christ in droves? That’s where we’ll start our discussion next week.