Romans 9: 1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
The Context of Romans 9
Two things are clearly evident. Firstly, Paul is a Jew and it grieves him tremendously that his fellow Jews (as a whole) failed to recognize Messiah when He came.
Secondly, the theme of God’s righteousness is central to Paul (see Romans 1:16, 17; 3:21-27; 5:17-21; 8:4) and so he understands that God’s very integrity is on the line if in fact there are all the many promises given to Israel, yet in the end, none of them are fulfilled.
“What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel; that is penultimate. Ultimately God’s own trustworthiness is at stake. And if God’s word of promise cannot be trusted to stand forever, then all our faith is vain.” – Dr. John Piper
After the crescendo of revelation in Romans 8, Paul now attempts to deal with an objection that he knows would be mounted against all he has communicated so far, namely, “If it is impossible for the people of God to be separated from God’s love (the point being made in the preceeding verses), why is it that most of the Jews now stand in just such a condition?”
Most of Israel did not embrace Jesus as Messiah. As such, there is no salvation for them. Paul desires this with a fervent passion (Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.) But it still needs to be explained why a nation who are His special chosen ones, with so many unique privileges, failed to recognize the long awaited Messiah. How can this be possible? It seems outrageous that such a scenario could happen. Therefore, the Apostle Paul is doing what he knows must be done – defend the integrity of God and His promise.
That’s why all the opening verses of Romans 9 which show God’s special relationship with Israel and the unique privileges they enjoyed are merely a prelude to address this central issue in the sixth verse, namely how could it be possible that Israel failed to embrace Messiah. The logical question to be asked is “Did God’s promises to Israel fail in any way?”
Paul wants to answer that question with a resounding “no!” and he wants to explain WHY this is the case.
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
God’s word has not failed. Yet on what basis can Paul declare such a thing?
The answer is that when God made His promises to Israel, God defined Israel as not merely those of a certain physical descent, but a chosen group of people amongst that rank. This is the Israel to whom the promises were made. Therefore, understanding this, God’s word to “Israel” has not failed in any way at all – all the true Israel will inherit the promise.
Lets read verse 6 again to make sure we grasp this:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
It has always been this way!
Having made this declaration, Paul then seeks to show that this is not some new doctrine he has come up with out of nowhere. This is not new in any way at all. In fact, this concept lies at the very heart of Israel’s history and identity.
To prove this, he gives two Biblical examples. These are particularly striking in that Paul does not reference something obscure and unfamiliar in Israelite history but cites the very patriarchal fathers themselves. In other words, this concept can be traced all the way back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to deny it, would be to run roughshod over Israel’s very identity in the purposes of God.
Firstly, concerning Abraham’s children: though both Ishmael and Isaac were the physical children of Abraham, only Isaac was chosen to be the heir of the promise:
7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
The second example given is Isaac’s twin sons, Jacob and Esau. We could not be given a clearer illustration to demonstrate the fact that physical descent is not the basis for God’s choice. Here we have two brothers who shared the same womb, and yet one was chosen and the other was not.
10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
For the sake of time, let me focus on verse 13 and its context and ask seven questions:
(1) Some seek to find refuge from the obvious by saying that the two twins (Jacob and Esau) became nations, so the verse is talking about national rather than individual election. However, though it is certainly true that the two brothers did become nations, that fact is not mentioned in the passage whatsoever. The text simply talks of two twin brothers and of God’s electing purpose for each of them before they were born.
Furthermore, every nation is made up of individuals, and so the concept of Sovereign election is still in place and unavoidable (if God chose one nation and not another). Isn’t that right?
(2) Verse 11 says, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls…”
Election is unconditional – “not because of works” – yet isn’t it true to say that every non Reformed approach to the passage makes election entirely based on works – the future actions/decisions of man?
.. and if it is true, as some say, that God’s choice of one twin over the other was based on what He foresaw would be their future actions, why did God not say this (this passage would have been THE place to say it more than anywhere in the Bible) and how is it that this concept is never mentioned in the Bible – not even once?
(3) Following on from question 2, if election is based on what God foresaw of man’s actions, why on earth would verse 14 ask the question it does? It would make no sense to ask about God’s fairness IF in fact, God was totally “fair” in electing based on man’s choice. In other words, verse 14 is only a logical question to ask IF in fact, Paul was seeking to teach that God’s electing grace is Sovereign and unconditional, without a view to the actions of man (past, present or future).
If someone looks at the passage honestly, isn’t this conclusion unavoidable?
(4) If words mean anything at all, isn’t it also unavoidable to conclude that God had a different measure of love for one of the twins rather than the other?
(5) However we define the word “hated,” doesn’t this one verse alone compel us to forsake the idea that God has the exact same measure of love for all people?
(6) Some react to this by saying “I could never love a God like that. My God loves everyone the same way.” Yet if this IS the word of the only God that is, isn’t it true to say that such a person, will have to one day stand before the God who inspired Romans 9, and not some made up “god” of the imagination?
(7) Isn’t it better to accept and embrace God’s clear revelation of Himself, on His terms, rather than spend a lifetime fighting and railing against the God of Romans 9?
“19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Just asking…
These are interesting questions. Are you willing to publish the answers other people give, or will you delete any answers you disagree with?
Just asking…
Does God’s individual election of Israel mean that all Israelites are saved because they are born an Israelite? Does any Israelite that blasphemes God get a pass by rejecting his Son? If they are cut off because of this, do they have the right to talk back to God claiming their ancestry? Does he not have to right to save both Jew and Gentile by faith and not pedigree?
Dane
Hi Dane,
No, and that is the point of Romans 9:6.
Only those who are regenerated by the Spirit of God trusting in Christ (Messiah) are saved. (Romans 10:1-4)
I have a comment policy (see under the tab “About this blog”) and as long as people show respect and courtesy and have something of value to say, I certainly do allow for opposing views to be expressed.
Thanks John for that answer, and that is my point. The Master has the right to do with the clay (Israel) how he pleases. These references are not about individuals, but Israel, that is made up of individuals that need to understand the big picture of Salvation by faith. Those who Paul is addressing know the Torah and the Prophets, He is not teaching them OT history, he is using OT common knowledge to show them, the Israelite, that they have no right to tell the Potter how to save or who to save (God being inclusive). The Clay is Israel, Jeremiah 18:5-6
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?”
That sure sounds familiar does it not? The Israelite knew exactly what Paul meant, it was a national issue dealing with their belief system. If they reject their Messiah, they were “cut off” from Israel, and had no right to complain. Peter even drew on this thought in Act 3:23, that if they reject who Moses pointed to (Jesus) they would be “cut off”, not physically, but spiritually, regardless of their pedigree.
Dane
John said… “(5) However we define the word “hated,” doesn’t this one verse alone compel us to forsake the idea that God has the exact same measure of love for all people?”
I would be careful on how we use “hate” in regards to God’s motives, at least the way it is used here. Hate is a comparative word. Jesus told us to “hate” our father and Mother (Luke 14:26), comparatively to our love for him. This does not mean we should “hate” our Father and Mother, or God is a lair, and is telling us to break one of the 10 Commandments. Love and hate are comparative words, or extremes, that simply say, God chose Jacob to be Israel and Esau he did not (not a salvation issue). If you claim any more than this and get into a “salvation” argument, you get yourself into trouble, because you then have God “hating” Esau before he did anything bad. So God damns people for no reason, even before they do bad? This argument works both ways and does not imply a “passing over” of Esau as many Calvinist claim if this is individual salvation. That makes God the hater of people before they do bad, for no apparent reason.
I understand the nuances of the word “hate” but however we define it, surely you admit that there is a contrast between God’s love for Jacob and the love He has for Esau. Verse 13 tells us that there is a different measure of love involved and it would seem that you deny this.
“No apparant reason”??? No, Esau, he was a sinner, just as we all are, who have inherited sin from Adam. He was our representative in the garden and when he fell, all of mankind fell with him. That is the message of Romans chapter 5 (just four chapters earlier in the book). What should shock us is not God’s “hatred” of Esau, but His love for Jacob. Mercy by its very definition can never be demanded and God reserves the right to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, which again is something stressed in this Romans 9 passage.
It is understood that those who reject the Messiah are cut off. However, Romans 9 is telling us WHY this is the case and that is, because of Sovereign election. Who are those who believe? Answer: God’s elect.
John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.”
Acts 13:48 “… and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed”.
Again, that is my point, If God chose before Adam (our representative) did anything good or bad, before the foundations of the world (before Adam), God then chose to hate Esau before Adam was his representative. Does not, according to Calvinism, God choose before time and eternity? That would be before Adam was our representative. So God hated Esau for no apparent reason.
So what is it you are denying Gjes – do you deny that God chose Jacob and not Esau in election – or do you deny that God knows the future exhaustively and that from all eternity, He knew of man’s fall? It seems you deny the latter (at least).
The God of Scripture knows the end from the beginning and the Fall of man in Adam was no shock to him. God has every right to allow rebels to continue in their rebellion; while showing unspeakable grace to many of them, in opening their hearts to Himself and His gospel, by His mercy alone.
Perhaps you could watch this short video for clarification as to what I am saying: http://effectualgrace.com/2011/08/31/paul-washer-divine-election-explained/
We will end up chasing rabbits. You are using disputed texts to support your view, as if those texts say what you want them to say and somehow prove me wrong. Then if I go and list a bunch of texts that I think are stumpers for you we get nowhere. Let’s stick to the text that we are talking about.
Romans 9:30-32
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.
Paul is talking about “faith” and how they are saved, not by works. Individual Israelites that pursued God by works were of the “elect People”, but did not obtain salvation. That is the point Paul is making. This can’t be ignored. Those of the Gentiles who pursued God by faith became righteous.
Show me where it says in Roman’s 9 that God elected individuals to salvation as the Calvinist claim? You will find the Calvinist tries to make an individual argument where Paul has the Nation of Israel in view to show that not all “Israel” is being saved because they are pursuing a righteousness by works, or by claiming their pedigree/heritage. This can’t be any clearer in reference given above.
Dane
Again, the text, you claim God hated “BEFORE” he “KNEW” Esau did bad. That rules out God’s foreknowledge, correct? Or you have God knowing and choosing based on what he knew Esau did. Kind of blows Paul’s point, right? Again, you have God hating Esau before he did bad from eternity past, before Adam, before God knew.
I see the text for what is says. God chose Jacob to be Israel and Esau he did not. God made his choice not based on works, but by his sovereign choice. The problem you have is making this text about individual election to salvation when Paul is talking about God’s choice to work his plan of salvation by faith and not by Pedigree or Heritage.
It is understood that salvation is by faith, and only by faith, and Paul gets to that at the end of chapter 9 and in chapter 10, but the whole point of Romans 8:28 and on through chapter 9 is to speak of God’s plan from all eternity in saving a people for Himself – God foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorified them .. and Christ gave Himself for them and nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Then in chapter 9 the same thought continues.. Paul is showing us, verse 8 – “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” This is his whole point.
Now, who WILL come to inherit the promise? Answer: The children of the promise – those to whom the promise was made, namely the true Israel, God’s elect. No one can lay a charge against these elect ones for God is the one who justifies them (as Romans 8 spells out).. Its all one theme from chapter 8 right on through to chapter 9
Its NOT man’s decision that is the CAUSE of election, but God’s mercy.
Romans 9:16 “So then (Paul is telling us the conclusion of his argument) it (what is the it? – the “it” is election) depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
All the elect will come to faith. (as John 6:37; Actys 13:48) shows. Jesus true sheep will hear His voice and follow Him (John 10).
Many believe that man’s will/act/faith is the root cause of election – Romans 9:16 denies that emphatically. It is God’s Sovereign mercy – His right to dispense mercy as He sees fit – to have mercy on whom he will have mercy (v. 18).
Gjes,
You write, “Again, the text, you claim God hated “BEFORE” he “KNEW” Esau did bad. That rules out God’s foreknowledge, correct? Or you have God knowing and choosing based on what he knew Esau did.”
I dont follow you at all. I am sorry. God was always aware of every event of history before the world was ever created.. He knew of Adam’s sin and of both Jacob and Esau being born into this world as hostile, rebel sinners… and He decided to show mercy to Jacob in a way He did not for Esau.
Do you deny this? yes or No?
I agree that God’s plan was to save a people for himself. Understand “promise” in the context it is given to Abraham – this is Paul’s point. The Promise was given to Abraham, and the promise was that, “through Abraham (Jesus) God would bless all ethnos”. The children of the promise are those who respond to the grace of God by faith and are saved. There is no individual election to salvation given in Romans 9.
Again I must bring us back to context. Remember the context is the Israelite who thinks their pedigree gave them the right to be God’s children. They earned the right, they are the children of Israel, and they are the children of the promise. This is the mentality that is the problem that Paul is addressing. Man’s will. But God from the beginning did not do it man’s way. Look at the context, Abraham’s will and desire was to will the blessing to Ishmael, and Isaac to will the blessing to Esau. God and God alone is in control and will determine who “Israel” will be. This is all to show that if God wants to have mercy on the Gentiles, then he can, just as he did to Jacob. God is not limited to a family first born structure. Do you see this? This has nothing to do with individual election, but to show that God can show mercy to any “Ethnos” he chooses. We can’t invent context as if Paul is battling the Jews as a Calvinist. Simply put, the Israelite thinks they are the children of the promise, when God is opened to door for the “Jacob’s” (not man’s will) to be of the promise (the ethnos). This has nothing to do with individual election. All it says is that those who are the children of the promise come to Christ by faith.
“It” is referring to God’s mercy. God’s mercy does not fallow man’s will, as the Israelites desired that the blessing would be theirs by their heritage. Again this is not referring to individual election to salvation, but on “WHO” (People groups – the ethnos) God wants to show mercy too; the Gentile.
Gjes,
Obviously I disagree. “Faith” is not mentioned in the entirety of the Romans 8:28-9:29 section because that is not the theme under discussion but rather God’s dealings with His elect and the basis and foundation of it. Faith is the fruit and not the root of election. In reading your comments, I am not convinced that further discussion would be a fruitful use of time. God bless.