Introduction

Last time we considered how Paul abruptly introduced the Jewish problem in Romans 9:1-5, a problem that he treats in chapters 9-11. The introduction sets a particular tone for this section and we want to keep it in mind throughout. It is the tone of seriousness, concern, and intense love. Paul comes crashing down from the mountain tops of Romans 8 to descend in Romans 9:1-5 suddenly and fully into a valley of great sorrow and continuous anguish of heart. The more he cares and the larger the problem, the deeper the pain.

His sorrow is over his kinsmen, his brothers according to the flesh. They stand in unbelief; they stand at the brink of being accursed from Christ and separated from Him forever; they sin against privilege upon privilege and thus store up for themselves wrath and anger. The problem is serious, very serious. It concerns the unbelieving state of the Jews which is a fact that tugs at Paul's heart. This must be kept in mind as Paul unpacks things in these chapters (9-11).

But the problem has a theological core. That is, it concerns the faithfulness of God to His covenants and promises. God has made covenant with Abraham and his descendents according to the flesh (He had made promises to these flesh and blood people). He has chosen Israel (Rom. 11:28). He has promised to be their God forever (cf. the everlasting covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17:9-13). But here they stand under God's wrath and anger as they sin against the promises and hold the Son of the covenant, Christ, with disdain.

We can now sharpen the edges of the problem: if God's promises are effectual as taught in Romans 8, if they are certain, sure, and unbreakable (11:29), if God accomplishes what He purposes, and if He promises and purposes the salvation of the sons and daughters of Abraham, how can these very sons and daughters stand in unbelief and thus under God's curse and judgment? In a word, has God failed to keep His word?

The initial answer is given in 9:6-13. It will lead to other questions as such debates often do (cf. 14 and 19; each a distinct unit in a complex whole).

1A. The Answer Stated (6a, direct claim; 6b, general principle)

1B. The direct claim (6a)

Paul takes the bull by the horns and straightforwardly states that no matter how serious the problem of Israel may be, and no matter how gut wrenching, one thing stands sure and firm in all the inner commotion: none of this means that God's word has failed. Israel is the people to whom God has made covenant and God keeps His word even though they are perishing.

At stake here is the truthfulness of God's word and the faithfulness of God Himself. Thus Paul reaffirms the fact that God is faithful and His word, promises, and covenants are truthful. As Jesus put it, God's word is truth and it cannot be broken (Jn. 10:31).

2B. The general principle (6b)

The general principle is that there is an Israel within Israel. In light of 6a this must involve the claim that God keeps His word to Israel in terms of a narrower category within the category of Israel, the Israel within Israel. God keeps His promises to the Israel within (if Israel is pictured as a large circle, Israel within is a smaller circle inside of that circle, or if Israel is pictured as a pie, then Israel within is a particular slice of the pie). This implies that there is a principle of discrimination that is at work, a principle of election that is being sovereignly exercised. There is a narrowing down to a particular people within the chosen nation.

An initial definition of terms: We have to do some work untangling terms in our passage because Paul's first word of resolution in verse 6 uses the same term in two different ways. In effect we have: "Not all descendents of Israel are descendents of Israel." There is a difference between being Israel and being of Israel.

Let's try this provisional definition: "of Israel" refers to physical descent and "Israel" refers to spiritual descent. A clue is 9:8 where of the flesh is contrasted with being God's children. Intuitively we can simply say that of Israel refers to physical children of Jacob while being Israel refers to being children of God. Compare the point of being a Jew: inwardly versus outwardly (Rom. 2:28-29, outward vs. inward, written code vs. Spirit for both the true Jew and true circumcision). Thus we have: "Not all descendents of Israel are descendents in a spiritual sense.

But on closer inspection, it should be evident that the parallels under the heading of the spiritual Israel do not all contrast with the physical Israel. Consider some examples. a) Isaac is Abraham's seed, b) Isaac is a son of Sarah, c) Jacob is born of the same father and mother as Esau. Also in the left column we have hated with sons of flesh, but Jacob is a son of the flesh and he is loved.

What works better is not a physical/spiritual contrast but a contrast between physical without the spiritual and physical with the spiritual. Thus if one is merely related to Abraham in a flesh and blood way then one is not the true spiritual Israel. The true spiritual Israel is being looked at historically from Abraham to Isaac and in turn to Jacob. The true Israel is found within the physical descendents of Abraham.

So back to the first point of the resolution in 6b, Paul appeals to a general principle of God's dealings with the physical seed (offspring, descendents) of Abraham. He points out that God's promises and purposes for Abraham and his descendents have always been faithfully realized within Israel, within the actual and literal children, grandchildren, and their children's children, etc.

The answer to the charge of unfaithfulness has to be found in the reality of a true spiritual Israel within physical Israel. Thus, the promises to Israel are faithfully kept by God in terms of the spiritual Israel. Within the massive and whole-scale unbelief of the nation there exists a true spiritual Israel to whom God's promises apply faithfully and truthfully.

It is God's faithfulness to His promises that explains how Israel has survived through the judgments of God that came upon her for her radical disobedience again and again throughout the OT. Isaiah chapter 1 gives a striking example (1:2-4; 7-9). It is covenant grace that preserves Israel from total annihilation ( a seed only by God's grace). The objector should know that God has always kept His word of covenant despite the unbelief of Israel. His promise is realized in the true spiritual Israel within Israel.

2A. The Explanation Given

Thus in general terms the answer is that God's word has not failed despite the fact that He has made many promises to Israel because His covenantal purposes are realized by a principle of narrowing and particularizing. Paul then explains his answer taking up the specifics of this discrimination and particularization. This is simply the principle of election, which Paul explains in 9:7-13.

His explanation involves two contrasts: Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau.

1B. Ishmael/Isaac

God made promises to Abraham and his descendents and God chose to narrow the recipients of His promises right from the very beginning. Let's go back to Genesis to follow the account to which Paul appeals. Recall that Abraham was promised a son through whom many blessings would come (Gen.12:2-7). Sarai is his wife; they are promised a seed or offspring. But much time passed and Sarah was barren. So Abraham sought the heir to these promises in his servant (Gen. 15:2). Then Sarah suggested that she build a family through her maidservant, Hagar who became a second wife and to whom was born Ishmael (Gen. 16:1-2; 11, 16). But God decided that His promise to Abraham and his descendents was not to be realized through Eliezer or through Ishmael but through Sarah, his wife, even though she remained barren and passed the age of childbearing (Gen. 17:15-22; 18:11). This making promise and apparent delay in keeping promise is part of the process of testing and proving Abraham's faith. Making promise, reiterating promise, and apparent delay in keeping promise are fundamental features of the covenantal relation between God and Abraham.

The point is that God decided who would be the heir. Of all the descendents of Abraham God chooses which particular descendents will receive the blessing of the covenant. When Paul picks up on this in Romans 9:7-9 he indicates that being a descendent of Abraham has a spiritual dimension for when God chooses which descendents will be heirs of the promises He at the same time chooses which will become His spiritual children. "God's children" (9:8) must refer to those who inherit the blessing of the covenant, which include restoration from the effects of the fall and thus forgiveness of sin and eternal life. The Jewish problem is the larger context and it is concerned with unbelief and the loss of salvation.

Right from the start God discriminated between descendents of Abraham as shown in the struggle concerning Ishmael. This discrimination included deciding the salvation of particular descendents within a particular line of descent. In other words, which particular Israelites become the true spiritual Israelites is decided by God (not Ishmael but Isaac is a definitive example from the "git go.").

2B. The discrimination between Esau and Jacob (10-13)

At this point we unmistakably enter the domain of sovereign election that determines which Israelites will make up the "Israel within Israel." The fact of the choice is given in verse 11 (God's purpose of election). The time of God's choice is stated in plain and unmistakable terms (v. 11a, "before they were born"; v. 11b, the mother was told).

Why was this told to Rebecca before her twins were born? It was to clarify God's purpose of election so it would stand in a certain light: that it is not by works but totally and completely by His decision, the decision of the one who calls. His choice is not governed in any way by anything that man does. God chooses which sinful descendents of Abraham will be saved and which will not be saved.

To evade this clear language of election to salvation some people try to stress the denial of works and then say that man's acceptance by faith determines who will be saved and faith is not a work. In other words, they fix the point here as teaching justification by faith not by works. There is some plausibility to this idea but the text reaches deeper and denies that anything man does, good or bad, contributes to his call (v 11). Mentioning that God's decision is not determined by anything excludes even the good act of faith. It is not just works and merit justification that is denied but a faith contribution as well. There is no cooperation between God and man in determining who will be called to eternal life because the call is to faith (not from it or because of it; not from anything good man might do). God decides who will be called and God calls those people to faith by which they are justified and by which they receive eternal life (cf. effectual calling, Rom. 8:30).

The call is an act of God that brings slaves to sin out of the darkness and bondage of being unable to believe the gospel. God's call depends on Him alone; it could not depend on man and to make that point patently clear, that it may stand out, God indicated His choice of Jacob and His passing by of Esau before they had done anything, good or bad. The difference cannot be traced to anything other than God's choice!

The reality of this choice is confirmed in verse 13 with a quotation from Malachi (1:2f.). Confirmation is cited in what in fact transpired over the course of time in the families of Esau and Jacob. This is the angle we need in order to work with the language of hate and love. It is probably easiest to think of these as matters of action. They are not so much the gushy feelings called "love" nor the feelings of malice and disdain that we commonly associate with hatred. We can make do here if we think of loving actions as blessing and hating actions as judging. The facts reveal that God judged the descendents of Esau for their sins (He turned their mountains into a wasteland and their inheritance was left to jackals, Mal. 1:3). On the other hand, He blessed the descendents of Jacob despite their sins.

As it was with Jacob and Esau so it was with their descendents: God chose which undeserving sinners He would bless and which He would curse. A way of contrasting God's love and hatred here is to say His love acts in His choice to bless particular sinners and His hatred acts in His choice to pass over others leaving them to the just deserts of their sins. A very simple way of stating this is to say that loved means chosen and hated means not chosen. Filled out this means chosen to be saved and not chosen to be saved (loved, hated) though neither deserve to be blessed (loved) and both deserve to be judged (hated).

The initial answer in summary

In sum, the initial answer is that though God has made covenant with the descendents of Abraham according to the flesh, He has not broken His word to Abraham because God from the beginning indicated that His purposes would be realized within Israel by a principle of divine election. Even the good performed by a descendent of Israel does not factor into God's choice. The good, like the good act of faith, flows from God's choice between sinners. So though the nation is in full scale unbelief, God's purpose has never been to save all of Israel. His purpose is a purpose of election within Israel forming the true spiritual lineage, heirs, and descendents of Abraham.

If we attend carefully to what God says we will see that He is not unfaithful to His word. He tells us that His covenant to Abraham will be fulfilled in a particular people within Israel, the particular people of His own choosing.

Conclusion: some implications regarding election and covenant

1) There is a profound way in which this section relates to us in the new covenant. We have promises regarding our children like those given to Abraham and his descendents: "I will be their God and they shall be my people." We have the promise that God works in the family generation by generation in the unfolding of history for He punishes children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation but shows love to thousands of generations of those who love Him and keep His commandments (Ex. 20:5-6). But this is not a promise that He will save every one of our children and their children's children. Election cuts across the covenant. It cuts across the covenant family.

2) Does this discourage?

What do we glean from this? Are we discouraged by the thought that election cuts across the family? Not at all and here is why.

a) First, we are taught that election concerns undeserving sinners. Jacob is no better than Esau. We know our children are sinners and that they do not deserve the mercies of God. We know that we are sinners and do not deserve the mercies of God ourselves.

b) Second, we are taught that our hope can only be in the Lord Himself. If our children are saved, we do not thank them for their faith or ourselves for training them in the way of faith. We thank God alone.

If some of our children at present, stand in rebellion, indifference, or self-deception regarding the gospel, we like Paul are grieved. We go to them as to the blind with a balm for their unseeing eyes but they block their ears, harden their hearts, and cover their blind eyes! So our hearts will at times be overcome with grief, even anguish concerning Paul's kin and ours.

But we rest assured that God has a purpose and nothing, not even radical unbelief, will prevent Him from fulfilling His purpose. If they are His elect, then they will come: all those given to me will come to me, Jesus said. Perhaps the seed we sow in the soil of their lives will germinate and sprout long after we ourselves are buried within the earth. That is in the hands of our Father in heaven. It is to Him that we commit ourselves and our children, to Him we commit Paul's kinsmen of Jews and our kinsmen of Gentiles.

3) This context teaches us what it means to be a covenant child of God. It is to have promises now in partial fulfillment with full realization not yet. It tests and proves our faith; it is a dynamic of our relationship with God. Sometimes the waiting seems endlessly long with deep valleys, steep inclines, and thick darkness but this is the place of sweet fellowship, communion fellowship with God; there we reach out in the dark and cling to the Father only to realize that we cling to Him from within His sovereign, sure, and loving embrace.