The Children of Promise Are Counted as Offspring

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, Romans 9:6

Romans 9:1–13 – Romans: The Righteousness of God
Third Sunday after Pentecost – June 18, 2023 (am)

This morning we enter a passage that’s not just the most controversial section of Paul’s letter to Rome, but ranks high among the most controversial passages in all the Bible. Rom.9 presents the clearest teaching on the doctrine of election (11) that appears in Scripture. There are many other texts addressing many other issues that resonate fully with what Paul explains here, but this is the text that builds the clearest foundation for this challenging teaching that we here at GCD embrace with our whole heart as descriptive of the nature of our God and of His way of salvation.

Paul is launching off here into an extended explanation of God’s relationship with His older covenant people (Israel) given the grand assurances just offered to His new covenant people (the church). But, if His new covenant people are going to place their confidence in these assurances, they’re going to need to hear what has become of similar promises made to His older covenant people, which appear not to have been kept. So, it’s essential for Paul to offer this explanation. Now, as he does so we can see that this passage (cc.9-11) also makes essential contributions to other vastly important biblical/theological discussions, like the mysterious doctrine of election (11) already mentioned, the relationship between Israel and the church (which is so important for us to grasp in order to read our Bibles with good understanding), ethnic Israel’s present and future place in God’s salvation plan, and several others even up to so great a subject as God’s purpose in creating the world!

But we need to keep our eye on the ball here. Knowing the great number of subjects this passage could be used to address, we need to make sure we hear first what Paul intended the Romans (and his coming readers) to hear. We need to hear this passage in context with the rest of what Paul is writing to this church regarding the gospel. I believe Tom Schreiner has done a great job summarizing what we’ve heard thus far, and especially in c.8, toward helping us see why Paul needed to pick up this subject in c.9—Israel’s place in God’s salvation plan, the status of their His relationship with them, and of His promises to them. Schreiner lists many of the promises made to Israel in the OT, then shows how here in Rom. those very promises are now made to the church, Jews and Gentiles together who’ve trusted in Christ as Savior and Lord. He wrote: One of the striking themes in c.8 is that the blessings originally promised to Israel have become the province of the church (Dunn 1988a: 499-500). Israel was promised the Holy Spirit (Eze.36:26-27) so that they could keep the law, but this promise has come to fruition in the church through the gift of the Holy Spirit (Rom.8:4). Israel had the pledge of a future resurrection (Eze.37), and yet Paul speaks of the resurrection of believers (Rom.8:10-11). Israel was God’s son (Exo.4:22), but now believers in Christ are sons and daughters of God and adopted as his own (Rom.8:14-17). The future inheritance was promised to Israel (Isa.60), but now it is pledged to the church (Rom.8:17). Israel was God’s chosen people and the only one foreknown among the nations (Amo.3:2), and yet now the church is said to be foreknown and chosen by God (Rom.8:29-30). Yahweh had promised never to forsake Israel (Deu.31:6), yet now this promise is extended to the church (Rom.8:38-39; cf. also Heb.13:5). With the application of so many OT promises to the church in cc.5-8, the relationship of Israel to God’s saving plan cries out for resolution, and Paul turns to that question next (Schreiner 458).

Now, if we were dividing up Rom.9 according to the clearest transitions in the text, we’d handle vv.1-5 as the introduction, then the first half of v.6 as the thesis statement over the whole of cc.9-11, then the second half of v.6 through v.29 as Paul’s opening defense of his thesis statement (cf. Moo 2018 574). But given the time it will take to handle each of these sections well, we’re going to divide it differently. We’re handling the introduction (1-5) and thesis statement (6a), and then the first half of his defense of that thesis (6b-13) this morning. Then we’ll handle the second half of his defense (14-29) next Sunday, God willing.

That’s easy enough to understand. But the hardest part of this approach is that Paul affirms a particularly unpleasant aspect of his defense right in the middle of it (13). So, that will be our closing verse for today. But we’ll try to put some context around this statement so the negative aspects of it won’t be the takeaway that lingers in our minds through the week ahead. Let’s look at this passage in three parts.

Paul Gets Us Ready to Hear His Point – 1-5

Paul opens with an unprecedentedly strong affirmation that he’s telling the truth in what he’s about to write. 1 I am speaking the truth in Christ, as one united with Christ (Moo 2018 576)—then turning it around, stating it in the negative, I am not lying; next comes the affirmation of inner integrity enabled by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit. So, what is all this assurance of truthfulness undergirding? Paul wants his readers to know one thing—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. He’d be willing to suffer in hell for all eternity if he thought that would mean salvation for his kinsmen according to the flesh, for the Jews. Three things are important to mention here.

(1) Many could’ve doubted Paul’s love for the Jews not just because he takes the gospel to the Gentiles, but because he’s continually explaining how all believers are free from the law, which is interwoven with Jewish identity. (2) The way Paul states himself in v.3 suggests that this is more of a hypothetical than something he’s actually doing. It’s like he’s saying: I would [make this my prayer] (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfillment of such a prayer could [actually] benefit [the Jews])” (Canfield in Moo 2018 578). So, this statement just reflects the desire of his heart. (3) More important here, this confirms that the Jews who reject the gospel are under God’s condemnation (cf.  3:9-18). And this even though they’ve been richly blessed by God: 4 They are Israelites (called out as a people through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob /Israel), and to them belong the adoption (into the sonship of the old covenant [Moo 2018 583]), the glory (God’s presence with them), the covenants (each of those made with Israel), the giving of the law, the worship (likely meaning the sacrificial system that facilitated their fellowship with God), and [all] the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all (a straight-up affirming the deity of Christ), blessed forever. Amen (the very reason Paul needn’t forfeit his own life; Jesus already did that). These are the blessings of Israel, finishing the list begun back in 3:1-2.

So, what becomes of all this once the gospel goes to the Gentiles? Is it all null and void? Have God’s eyes turned away from Israel to the multinational church? And if their promises were nullified because of their unbelief, how are we supposed to trust the ones we just heard here? (c.8)

Paul States and Explains His Point – 6-8

This is precisely the question Paul is addressing when he makes his thesis statement. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. … That would be our concern: either these promises are kept or the word of God has failed. And Paul is saying the word of God has not failed. So, the promises are being kept, just evidently in ways we can’t currently see. Where Paul begins, though, as he explains his point, is stunning. 6 [It’s] not as though the word of God has failed. Why? For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring…. Not all of the naturally born children of Abraham are included in the older covenant community! The promises haven’t been given indiscriminately to all ethnic Jews! And Paul goes on to prove his point. As God Himself said to Abraham (Gen.21:12): 7 … “Through Isaac, not Ishmael, 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. You don’t inherit salvation just by being a physical descendent of Abraham! So, most simply put, even ethnic Jews need to trust in God’s promises and obey Him as Lord in order to escape His judgment!

Paul Begins to Defend His Point – 9-13

Then Paul begins to defend this point, because it became even more clear in succeeding generations. There could be other reasons why Ishmael (the son of an Egyptian servant [Gen.16:1]), might not inherit God’s salvation. But when Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, was carrying twins (10), 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 (Gen.25:23), “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written (Mal.1:2-3), “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This is that hard statement I mentioned earlier, that finishes our passage today. But before we even try to hear the point these OT passages are making, let’s clear away the distraction that troubles us as we hear it. This word hatred isn’t exactly what we first think as we hear it. But that’s not because it changes definitions when it’s used in a context like this.

When we hate someone, it’s often because we believe they hate us. They’ve treated us in certain ways. They’ve flagrantly disrespected us, or elevated themselves above us as though they’re far more important than we are, like they’re more noble or even more valuable somehow. So, we hate them for all this. We wish they’d just disappear somehow, even if it means their death. We hate them! And we feel very justified in our hatred!

That’s pretty much exactly what the word means here, except that it’s a holy, morally perfect, entirely just God Who’s acting. He hates the sinful condition into which both Esau and Jacob will be born. Left to themselves, they’ll flagrantly disrespect God. They’ll elevate themselves above Him as though they’re more important than He is, like they’re more noble or even more valuable. So, He hates them for all this. And He makes them disappear in judgment, even though this means their death. But He’s entirely just in doing so.

There are two more key pieces of information that help put this in perspective. God’s hatred is as pure and holy and morally perfect as His love. And we rely on the fact that His love will show itself in this judgment of the wicked. We long for His justice! That’s one of the primary things for which we groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for [the day of our] redemption (8:22-23). Our greater struggle is not with the judgment of God, the pouring out of His righteous wrath on the rebellious wickedness in this world. Our greater struggle, even now, is with His delay! Why is He waiting so long to pour out His righteous hatred, His just judgment, on that wickedness? Why does it seem like people just get away with things even we hate as we see them? That’s hard for us! If there is no hatred of evil in God’s heart, no judgment of those who willingly perpetrate evil, then there’s no justice at all in this world, and not even any hope of it! That’s key.

The final piece, then, is that, even with all we’ve said so far, there’s yet more context for grasping how this hatred works. It’s not just that the hatred of God was upon Esau before he was born and had done [anything] either good or bad (11), His love was also upon Jacob before he was born and had done anything either good or bad. He made a choice based on the fulfillment of His own purpose. And He chose the younger ahead of the older (knowing which would be which even before they were born). So, God wasn’t playing favorites any more than we are when someone puts their hands behind their back and tells us to choose, left or right. God chose according to His own purpose the one through whom He would provide salvation. Into which one’s line would the Christ be born to provide salvation for all those He chooses to be recipients of it? That choosing, that election, is here called love, summarizing the blessing of His salvation. And the judgment that remains on those not chosen is called hatred. But this is the core point that ensures that God’s salvation is in no sense based on our works. As he put it here, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works bet because of him who calls (11). Salvation is wholly from the Lord!

Conclusion

Our question is: can we trust Him with that? Would we really want our salvation to be in our own hands, in any sense, more than in God’s? Do we really believe that, in any sense, we’d be better off if it were? Surely this is a hard doctrine for prideful human beings to grasp but, even so, I think we’d agree we’re far better off if God’s salvation is wholly provided by Him such that it doesn’t depend, in any way at all, on us!

 _____________

Resources

Arnold, Clinton E., gen. ed. 2002. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. Vol. 3, Romans-Philemon. Romans, by Douglas J. Moo, 2-95. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Barnhouse, Donald Gray. 1952. Romans, four volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Beale, G. K., & D. A. Carson, eds. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Romans, by Mark A. Seifrid, 607-694. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Carson, D. A., R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham, eds. 1994. New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition. Romans, by Douglas J. Moo, 1115-1160. Leicester, Eng.: InterVarsity.

Chadwick, Henry, gen. ed. 1957. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, by C. K. Barrett. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Comfort, Philip W., gen. ed.  2007. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Romans, by Roger Mohrlang. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1990. Romans: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Dever, Mark. 2005. The Message of the New Testament. Ch. 6, The Message of Romans: Justification, 146-166. Wheaton: Crossway.

Dockery, David S, ed. 1995. New American Commentary. Vol. 27, Romans, by Robert H. Mounce. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

Green, Joel B., ed. 2018. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Letter to the Romans, by Douglas J. Moo. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hodge, Charles. 1989. The Geneva Series of Commentaries. Romans. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.

Hubbard, David A., and Glenn W. Barker. 1988. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 38ab, Romans, by James D. G. Dunn. Dallas: Word.

Longman III, Tremper, & David E. Garland, eds. 2008. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 11, Romans-Galatians. Romans, by Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner, 19-237. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Luther, Martin. 1976. Commentary on Romans. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Moo. Douglas J. 2000. The NIV Application Commentary. Romans. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Morris, Leon, ed. 1985. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Vol. 6, Romans, by F. F. Bruce. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Moule, H. C. G. 1977. Studies in Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Murray, John. 1968. The Epistle to the Romans, 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Nygren, Anders. 1949. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Owen, John, ed. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, by John Calvin. Translated by John Owen.

Sproul, R. C. 2005. The Gospel of God: An Exposition of Romans. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus.

Stott, John, NT ed. 1994. The Bible Speaks Today. The Message of Romans, by John Stott. Leicester, Eng.: InterVarsity.

Yarbrough, Robert W., and Joshua W. Jipp, eds. 2018. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Romans, by Thomas R. Schreiner. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

NEXT SUNDAY: Is There Injustice on God’s Part?, Romans 9:14–29