Romans 9: 1 - 29
I didn’t ask to be born
1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, Who Is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. 6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.” 26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” 27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.” 29 And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.”
Have any of your kids ever said to you, ‘I Didn’t Ask to be Born!’
Here is an example of this statement being deployed.
‘Judy,” her harried mother called up the stairs, ‘I need you to take the dogs out to go potty.’
‘Mom!’ Judy wailed, ‘Why do I have to do it? My show is about to come one!’
‘Get down here right now! You are a member of this family and you will help with the chores of this family.’
Judy grumbled as she dragged herself down the hall, ‘Do this, do that. You’d think I was her maid.” ‘I didn’t ask to be born in this family!’ she shouted in retort.
What an interesting concept! Does any person choose his or her family? Do babies conduct interviews at the hospital with prospective parents? ‘All the good parents were taken so I guess I’m stuck with you.’
Do you think Judy is happy? Why? What is the cause of her unhappiness?
Let us take a moment to read Philippians 2:1-4, which says, “1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
Notice the words, such as encouragement, love, affection, compassion, and joy. Verses 1 and 2 tells us Paul’s goal for the Philippians. Verses 3 and 4 tell us the means to reach that goal.
Think about Judy again. Whose interest is number one in Judy’s life? Do you think Judy loves her mom? Perhaps she does overall, but it is not coming across very well right now. You see, a sign of true love is that you don’t think and act like the world revolves around you. True love “does not seek its own.” (I Corinthians 13:5)
Judy has made her life miserable. Not her mom. She thinks about the things she wants and expects the rest of the world to conform to her desires. Yet, the world doesn’t revolve around any single individual. Judy is bound to be disappointed. Her hurt will spread to others as she moans about her lot in life.
What if Judy responded God’s way? God said to be concerned about other people and to seek their best interest. True, Judy would still have chores to do, but if she put her mom’s needs first, then her mom is going to feel much better. Judy will get the satisfaction of helping another person and improving his day. Soon, people will want to do nice things for such a lovely young woman.
The chores never change, but you can change your attitude about them. The attitude you take directly affects your happiness in life.
We all like to complain. The Lord calls this grumbling and let me tell you that He does like us doing that. For in truth it is a complaint about the way He runs His creation.
The apostle Paul speaks up for our Holy God in pointing this sin out. He is very good in getting straight to the heart of the matter which we see in verse 20 when he comments, “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
Let us find out more things that we need to curb in our lives.
Paul now expands on chapters 1-8, in which he has demonstrated that all, both Jews and Gentiles, have sinned, and that all must therefore find salvation by faith through Jesus Christ, God’s Messiah. And he does it by 1). demonstrating the relationship of both Jews and Gentiles to the Messiah Who has come, and 2). showing that Salvation is for all through faith. This is because salvation comes about on God’s part through God’s election of both Jews and Gentiles (9.6-29), and on man’s part through the faith of both believing Jews and Gentiles in the Messiah Who is LORD of all (9.30-10.21), something which God has brought about by uniting both believing Jews and believing Gentiles in one olive tree (11.12-24). And the end in view is that the fullness of the Gentiles might come in, so that in this way all Israel might be saved.
The Messiah is immediately introduced in 9.1, 3, 5, and is revealed to be active throughout the three chapters. This looks back to the great emphasis that Paul has previously put on the saving activity of Jesus Messiah in men’s salvation.
Thus in 9.1-5 Paul brings out that one major purpose for the existence of Israel was in order that they might bring forth the Messiah, the One Who is over all (and therefore concerned about both Jew and Gentile), Who is God, blessed forever (9.5). In consequence of their attitude to Him the elect as represented by Paul are ‘in Messiah’ (9.1), while the unbelieving among the Israelites are ‘accursed from the Messiah’ (9.3). Thus, by His coming the Messiah has divided natural Israel into the true Israel who have responded to the Messiah on the one hand, and rejected, unbelieving Israel who are no longer a part of the true Israel on the other. And this based on whether they respond to God, or whether they choose their own way. This had in fact been Israel’s problem throughout history, which is why the prophets had emphasized that only a remnant would be saved.
A second theme of these chapters is that God is sovereign, and that it is He Who elects men to be saved. That is why His purposes are certain to come through to fruition.
In the words ‘Not all Israel is of Israel’ (9.6) Paul begins his teaching concerning the true remnant who in God’s eyes represent the true Israel. And within this elect Israel are Gentiles like Eliezer of Damascus (Genesis 15.2) and Hagar the Egyptian (Genesis 16.3). That Eliezer is of the elect comes out in chapter 24 where he reveals his allegiance to Yahweh when seeking for a bride for Isaac. That Hagar is revealed as one of the elect comes out by her experiencing theophanies (Genesis 16.7-13). There can be little doubt that among the dependents of the Patriarchs there were other foreigners (Gentiles) who also believed in Yahweh, as the fathers led them in worship (Genesis 12.8). Thus ‘Israel’ from the commencement was a mixed society. (The idea that all Jews are direct descendants of Abraham is therefore incorrect).
In this passage Paul demonstrates that God chooses out an elect from the wider whole (an Israel from within Israel). And this is so that God’s purpose ‘according to election’ might stand. Not all the sons of Abraham are true believers, nor are all the sons of Isaac (while some of their Gentile descendants are). And that this idea of election carries on is demonstrated by the fact that ‘God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens’ (9.18). As a result of this election He ‘makes know the riches of His glory’ through the ‘vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory’ (9.23), which are made up of ‘the called, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles’ (9.24). So, the elect are made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, of the children of Israel ‘only a remnant will be saved’ (9.27), a ‘seed’ from among Israel (9.29). In consequence God elects to salvation some from among both Jews and Gentiles (9.24).
The theme of salvation is closely connected with the theme of election and runs throughout chapters 9-11. While salvation is not mentioned in 9.6-13 it is clear that those described therein are seen as saved, while in 9.14-18 Paul points out from Scripture that God has compassion on whom He will and hardens whom He will. Thus, He elects to salvation vessels of mercy which He has beforehand prepared for glory. This statement confirms that the salvation in mind is speaking of eternal salvation. And this includes both Jews and Gentiles who are believers in the Messiah (9.24). This idea of election is then carried through into Israel’s history so that in 9.27 we learn that ‘although the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved’. The election previously spoken of in verses 6-24, whereby only a proportion of Israel were chosen, was clearly election to salvation.
We find in Paul’s introductory comments some heart-rending words (9.1-3), as Paul demonstrates his love and concern for his fellow Israelites. He is not happy with their lot. He points out that the Israelites had many outward advantages, including the fact that they had produced the Messiah (9.1-5), but that he is heartbroken because they have not taken advantage of them. He is so concerned that he wishes that he could take their curse on himself, just as their Messiah had actually done (Galatians 3.10-13), so that they might be saved.
1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
He commences by making clear that what he has to say is as one who himself is ‘in Christ’ (‘in Messiah’), and as one who as regards the flesh is of Israelite descent (my brothers, kinsmen). They must not therefore see him as being ‘anti-Jewish’, for he is himself a Christian Jew. He brings out that it is his Holy Spirit enlightened conscience that testifies to the fact that he has a deep concern for his fellow-Israelites, a concern which causes him great anguish. He makes very clear that their parlous position does indeed cause him such pain and great anguish of heart, that if it were possible for him thereby to bring them to the truth and into a right relationship with the Messiah, he would be prepared himself to be ‘anathema from the Messiah (the Christ)’ for their sake. He thus does not want to be identified with those who treat the Jews lightly. As no other charge is brought against the Jews the inference must be that they in contrast are ‘accursed from the Christ’ (Galatians 3.10-11), something which if it were possible he would gladly take on himself for their sakes. If he had not seen their state as hopeless he would certainly not have wished himself accursed from Christ, even theoretically, and the only reason why he could have done so is because he saw himself as taking their place. He was willing in theory to do what his Master had done, if it would have persuaded them
We should note immediately the emphasis here on Jesus as the Messiah. Paul himself is ‘in Christ (in Messiah)’ (verse 1). He sees the Jews as ‘accursed from the Messiah (the Christ)’, something which he would gladly take on himself (verse 3). And he sees the final privilege of the Jews as being that it was from them that the Messiah came (verse 5). At the very commencement of his argument relationship to the Messiah, who is mentioned three times, is seen to be as of great importance, something which he will bring out in 9.30-10.17, where belief in the Messiah is confirmed to be the only basis of true righteousness-. This is the positive side of what he is saying.
The word ‘Anathema’ means accursed. Paul is here speaking of being excluded from the benefits brought by the Messiah because of being accursed. If you are familiar with church history then you will know that this term was thrown at people and groups extensively. The implication from the words ‘that I myself might be accursed from the Messiah’ is that there were others who were ‘accursed from the Messiah’, whose place he was prepared to take, in other words those of whom he speaks (he had already described the unbelieving Jews as accursed in Galatians 3.10-11). But we should note that in his own case what he has in mind is not a genuine desire for his ‘wish’ to be accursed from Christ to be fulfilled, but a theoretical position which he speaks of, knowing while it could not in fact occur. It is thus, in his case, bringing out the deep passion in his heart, rather than reflecting a genuine wish. Being anathema from the Messiah was, of course, the position that the unbelieving Jews were themselves in. They were accursed because they failed to fulfil the Law completely and they were to be seen as excluded from the benefits of the Messiah because of their unwillingness to have faith in Him. Therefore, they were under the wrath of God. Such was his love and concern for them that he was explaining that he would gladly have been prepared to swap places with them if only that might have made them willing to believe. By this he no doubt saw himself as following, albeit theoretically, in the steps of Jesus Who did Himself become accursed to deliver those who were accursed.
Paul often refers to his fellow-Christians as ‘brothers’. Here he differentiates his relationship with his fellow-Jews as brothers by describing it as ‘according to the flesh’. By this he is pointing out that he is not referring to spiritual brothers, but to those who are humanly speaking his kinsmen. In other words, as an Israelite himself he sees himself as related to the Israelites and wants them to know that he has not overlooked the fact.
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, Who Is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Paul now emphasizes the huge benefits that had been the privilege of the Jews. First that they were ‘Israelites’. They belonged to the nation chosen and redeemed by God (Exodus 20.2) to whom God had revealed Himself in history. God had given them many advantages of which Paul will now describe a few.
What follows his statement that they are Israelites now divides up into three sections using ‘whose’ referring to ‘who are Israelites’. Thus:
1). Whose is the adoption as a son, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises.
2). Those are the fathers (the Patriarchs).
3). Of whom is the Messiah concerning the flesh.
The first lists all the privileges of being Israelites which were given at the beginning when Israel were first redeemed from Egypt, although later also supplemented; the second looks back to the source from whom the Israelites came, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, descent from whom was seen by Israelites as of great importance; the third concentrates on their having among them the Messiah Who is over all, the great Hope of Israel, Whose coming from among them was seen as of equal, if not more, importance, than all the others (the order would appear to be from the least to the greatest). Paul has already made clear that the Messiah has come, in Christ (verse 1). Now he declares that He had come from among the Jews. It is significant that Paul does not say, ‘whose is the Messiah’, paralleling the other two phrases, for because of their having mainly rejected Him Paul could not see Him as belonging to them. His coming from among them is seen as of great significance, as indeed is the fact that He has come. And it leaves them without excuse, because the reason that they rejected Him was because He did not offer them what they wanted.
This list is especially significant because in what follows Paul will look in depth at the second and third statements. Does their leaning on the fathers necessarily mean that all Israel will be saved? This is answered as a ‘no’ in verses 6-29. What would be required for them to be reconciled to their Messiah? This is answered in chapters 9.30-10.21 in terms of responding in faith to Him as the Messiah.
The statement ‘Who are Israelites’ links the Jews squarely with the Israelites whose history is made plain in the Old Testament. It was because they were ‘Israelites’ that the other privileges applied to them. It was a term which gave the Jews great pride. It indicated that they belonged to the people whom God had redeemed from Egypt and to whom He had given His covenant. And they (falsely) saw it as indicating that they were descended from Abraham and Jacob. But that was a myth perpetuated by their history. Even from the beginning large numbers of Israelites had had no direct connection with Abraham (and Jacob) by descent. They had been descended from servants in the ‘households’ of the Patriarchs (Abraham could call on 318 fighting men ‘born in his house’ - Genesis 14.14, and the Patriarchs went down to Egypt with their ‘households’ - Exodus 1.1. Many of the earliest Israelites were born from these household servants.). And after the Exodus the ‘mixed multitude’ (Exodus 12.38), which consisted of other races, probably including Egyptians, had been incorporated into Israel at Sinai, as had other groups like the Kenites (Judges 1.16), while even later there were those who voluntarily entered the covenant by submission to God. All became absorbed as ‘sons of Abraham’. Thus Israel was a conglomerate nation.
Their ‘descent’ from the Patriarchs was therefore by adoption. In fact in the days of Jesus those who could prove direct descent from Abraham were relatively few (Jesus’ father was one because he was a son of David), and those who could so prove their descent, often tended to see themselves as unique and to despise other Jews, intermarrying among themselves in order to preserve their purity. Even the Jews acknowledged that few Jews could be shown to be genuinely descended from Abraham. The Jews happily accepted their position as those who had been adopted by Abraham so that they could call God their Father, a privilege which was not permitted to late proselytes (which was a little hypocritical because large numbers of Jews could have traced their descent to Gentiles incorporated among the Jews). What they also tended to overlook when they claimed to be Israelites was that the majority of Israelites in the past had been unfaithful to the covenant and had regularly been brought under the judgment of God, and had therefore been cast off in God’s eyes, even though they themselves had not seen it in that way. To be an Israelite was thus not a guarantee of acceptance by God.
Part of the reason for Paul’s distress would also appear to have been that it must have appeared to onlookers, from their rejection of their Messiah by the majority of the Jews, that the promises of God were not being fulfilled in their case, (they were being fulfilled with regard to the elect), for he lists all the privileges that the Jews should have been enjoying but were now missing out on as a result of their rejection of the Messiah:
. They were Israelites, the people with whom God had established His covenant.
. They had been adopted by God as ‘His son’ (Exodus 4.22) and could thus be seen as His children and as His sons and daughters.
. They had experienced ‘the glory’, the manifestation of the glory of God, when God had descended on the Tabernacle and the Temple, a glory which they still believed was among them, concealed in the Holiest Place of All in the Temple. Thus they considered that they had to a certain degree had God dwelling among them.
. They had been invited to partake in the covenants that God had made through the ages from the beginning, including those given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and at Sinai, all of which were recorded in the Scriptures.
. They had received the Law at Sinai, a revelation of the mind of God, and an indicator of their special position as God’s people.
. ‘On their behalf God had established a priesthood to serve Him, and a sacrificial system, through which all Israel benefited.
. They had through their forefathers received ‘the promises’ given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the promises concerning the Messiah.
. They looked back to the Patriarchs as their fathers.
. And above all, as far as His humanity was concerned, they had produced the Messiah, the One Who Is overall, God, blessed for ever.
Their privileges were great. But despite them they were still in unbelief, as Paul had made clear in 2.1-3.10, and were therefore still under the judgment of God.
The adoption by God of Israel as ‘His son’ (Exodus 4.22) must not be comparable with the adoption through the Spirit of true believers as sons of God (8.15-17). First because Israel’s sonship was primarily a ‘corporate sonship’ (‘Israel is My son, My firstborn’). Second because the Old Testament makes quite clear that large numbers of the Israelites had not lived up to this sonship. It is true that they had been put in a position of special privilege, but it was equally true that overall they had forfeited that privilege by their behavior. That was what the teaching of the prophets was all about. It was only the comparatively few who had truly become children of God (as Paul will soon make plain). We may certainly see the term ‘son’ as indicating that God had not finished with Israel, He would still show them favors as a nation (11.28), but as Paul will shortly indicate, it would only be a remnant who would be saved, a remnant who responded to the Messiah. God’s adoption of Israel was no indicator that Israelites would automatically be saved. It was rather a privilege which had given them a greater opportunity than most to find the truth, a privilege that most of them had failed to take advantage of. They were like the son who said to his father ‘I will go, sir’, but who did not do so (Matthew 21.30).
Their greatest privilege was that coming from Israel as far as the flesh was concerned was ‘the Christ (Messiah)’. ‘ ‘concerning the flesh’ indicates that, while humanly speaking He came from Israel, He Himself in His essential being came from another source, a spiritual source, that is, from Heaven. This can be seen as confirmed by the statement that He is ‘over all’. So a contrasting description is found by recognizing that what Paul is saying is that while in the flesh the Christ is a Jew, in His true being He is ‘God over all, blessed for ever’. This can again be paralleled with what was said in 1.3-4, of the One Who was ‘of the seed of David according to the flesh’ but was then declared to be in Himself the Son of God with power. If this be so then we have here a clear statement of Christ’s Godhood, parallel to that in Titus 2.13. and therefore, refers to Jesus as ‘our God and Savior’. But it should be noticed that Paul’s constant reference to Jesus as ‘the LORD’ in parallel with speaking of God, equally demonstrates His Godhood. Thus Paul had no doubt about his own position. Not that our belief that Jesus is God requires these statements. He Himself made it quite clear in John 5.17-29 and John 14.7-9.
Paul now begins to establish from the Scriptures what God’s method of working is, and what the true situation of the Jews (who considered themselves to be ‘the elect’) was. The basic purpose of these verses is to emphasize that the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that not all of Israel are to be saved and inherit eternal life, but only a proportion, (not all are ‘the elect’), while at the same time some Gentiles are among the elect (verses 23-24). This was basic to his whole argument about ‘justification by faith’ in 1.16-4.25. If many Jews were right who believed that Israel were God’s elect and therefore that to belong to the Jewish nation under the Law, and to be circumcised, was a guarantee of God’s final mercy for all Israelites, then Paul’s teaching concerning justification by faith would be seen to be false. He has already partially dealt with this problem in 2.1-3.18 from the angle that all Jews were sinners. Now he will deal with the question of the election of Israel, and how it relates to salvation, and to Gentile believers
What Paul will now cover is; Not all supposed Israel are truly Israel, and are the children of God, but only those who are chosen in line with the elective purposes of God (9.6-13).
. The Scripture demonstrates that God is sovereign over all things and has mercy on whom He wills (9.14-18).
. God has the sovereign right to do what He chooses and has opted to save only a proportion of Israelites, while also including many Gentiles (9.19-26).
. It is in accordance with Scripture that Gentiles would become children of God while only a remnant of Israel would be saved (9.27-29).
Paul now deals with the charge that his teaching, in which he has rejected the idea that the Jews who cling to the Law are in process of salvation (in which he has opened to Gentiles a way back to God through a means other than submission to the Law, would mean that the word of God had come to naught in that Israel had not fulfilled its purpose. One such purpose, for example, was that the word of God was given to Israel so that it might be a teacher of the nations concerning Him. They would have claimed that that assurance was not given in order that it might be sidelined. some Jews would have gone further for many believed that all who were circumcised Israelites were the elect of God and would thereby, unless they apostasies, obtain eternal life.
Paul’s answer regarding election is simple. A look back at Israel’s history will reveal that God has always been selective as to whom He allocates His blessing, and that He has always chosen those who would come within His blessing from among the many. It has never been the case that all have been blessed. God has always worked through an elect. That is why even at this very time it is only some Jews who have been called out along with some Gentiles (verse 24). In other words he is saying that within the physical nation of Israel there was a spiritual Israel who are in God’s eyes the true Israel, the Israel from among Israel.
His analysis is pungent and powerful. The fact that of all the sons of Abraham Isaac alone was the one through whom his seed would be called (verse 7) demonstrated that not all sons of Abraham were of the ‘called’. Furthermore the fact that not all the seed of Isaac (who was the chosen one) benefited by that call, but only Jacob, demonstrated that God’s call was of a proportion of the promised seed and not of the whole. Enough is thus said to demonstrate that even the seed of the elect of God were not necessarily elect.
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
Paul is here concerned to demonstrate that the word of God has not come to naught in the failure of Israel to be what they should be, and it is on the basis that God never intended His word to apply to the whole of physical Israel. It was rather addressed to a spiritual remnant within Israel. To put it in simple terms, ‘they are not all Israel who are of Israel’. Here we have clearly expressed two meanings of the word Israel, one referring to the outward nation (including both believers in the Messiah and unbelievers) and one referring to the true spiritual Israel, the Israel within Israel (consisting at this time of believers in the Messiah, that is, of Christ). We should note in this regard that even the concept of the physical nation of Israel was fluid, for the Jews were scattered around the world, and large numbers had made themselves at home among other nations, of whom some would be careless of their ‘privilege’. But the point of Paul’s statement is that within what anyone might claim as representing Israel, were a spiritual inner core who were in God’s eyes the true Israel. The fact that some of Israel had proved unworthy would not mean that God’s word concerning Israel had failed, and this was because God had always intended that what He had said only applied to the ones whom He chose, the true Israel, as he will shortly further demonstrate.
‘The word of God’ was given through the prophets (including Moses) and therefore through the Scriptures. It is ‘the word’ in which the promises were made, and Paul will justify his position precisely in terms of the Scriptures.
‘Israel.’ We should note that this is the first statement concerning Israel in the three chapters, and as such might be defining ‘Israel’. We might say that Paul is going out of his way to define it. And his definition of ‘Israel’ is that it consists of the elect of God.
Paul uses the term Israel in three ways,
1). as referring to the whole of Israel, including both believers in Jesus the Messiah and unbelievers;
2). as referring to unbelieving Israel only; and
3). as referring to the elect of Israel, it is only once specifically defined, and that is here. When it comes to definition Paul defines ‘Israel’ as primarily meaning ‘those in the nation who are elect’.
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”
Furthermore, Paul declares that not all of Abraham’s seed were to be his children as far as the promises were concerned, but only those who were children of the promise. ‘In Isaac will your seed be called’ (Genesis 21.12). The called would come from among the seed of Isaac (and not of Ishmael or the sons of Keturah). But even then it would only be some of the seed of Isaac, as is demonstrated by the fact that Esau was not called. We will learn in chapter 11.1-5 where only a remnant of Israel remained true. Thus, again God was to be seen as selective in whom He chooses.
In fact, of course, Israel were not composed solely of Abraham’s seed. Many came from the seed of his Aramean servants, and sometimes foreign servants, and many Gentiles had been absorbed into Israel and has been seed-bearing. The background of Israel was multi-national.
8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.
For the conclusion to be reached from the facts of Scripture is that it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of promise, in other words those foreknown of God (11.1-5), and chosen by Him. And he gives, as an example of God’s promises, the promise that Sarah would have a son ‘when He (God) came’ (Genesis 18.10). ‘When He came’ indicated that the son of promise would be miraculously born to aged parents. So it should be noted that the promise related to a child especially elected by God, produced as a result of the activity of God, and being but a portion of the whole, an indication of what would follow.
In Galatians 4.28 ‘the children of promise’ are those who are ‘born after the Spirit’ rather than the flesh (Galatians 4.29), that is by the miraculous working of God, and this because they are the result of God acting in accordance with His own promise and determination (Galatians 4.23). In the same way in Romans the usual parallel with flesh is the life producing Spirit (Romans 8.4-13), and this ties in with the idea here that ‘God will come’ to Sarah at the right time, that is, will visit her in order to bring about a miraculous birth, and will do it according to the word of promise. It was God Who, outside the normal scheme of things, determined that Isaac would be born. Thus the idea behind ‘the children of the promise’ is of those born supernaturally in accordance with God’s promise and determination. In other words they are exceptionally born through God’s foreknowing (8.29) and through the Spirit (John 3.1-7). When God says, ‘I will come’ it always indicates divine activity as in John 14.23.
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
But it did not stop with the birth of Isaac, because although the promised seed was to be ‘called in Isaac’ (verse 7) Scripture immediately makes clear that not all Isaac’s seed would be children of promise. For the same situation also arose when Rebecca, Isaac’s wife had twins. Indeed in this case they came from the same mother at the same time, and were both sons of Isaac, the child of promise. Yet even before they were born God had chosen one above the other, and the younger one at that. At that stage neither had done good, and neither had done bad. So the election could not have been on the basis of merit. It was thus clearly revealed as depending solely on the call of God. For God had declared, even before they were born, that ‘the elder will serve the younger’ (Genesis 25.23). This was something to be seen as confirmed by the later Scripture, ‘Jacob I loved and Esau I hated (did not love)’ (Malachi 1.2). God elected Jacob and not Esau, and the effect of it passed on to their descendants. Once again, therefore, to be a child of promise involved not just physical birth, but the electing activity of God whereby one was chosen and the other not.
Paul now is speaking as a Jew to Jews. He is looking at it from their biased viewpoint because if taken literally ‘our father’ is not strictly true. Large numbers of the Jews were not physically descended from Isaac. Isaac was rather ‘their father’ by adoption, as ‘the father’ of the original family tribe which had formed the basis of Israel. The reason for the introduction of the phrase ‘our father Isaac’ is in order to underline the fact that both Esau and Jacob were descendants of Isaac, the one in whom Abraham’s seed would be called. But he then points out that even Isaac’s fatherhood was not a guarantee of election, for he was the father of Esau, who was not called.
God’s election was not based on deserts, nor on the basis of being sons of Isaac, but simply on the basis of His call. Here salvation is made dependent on nothing but the call of God. If we try to talk about God ‘foreseeing faith’ or ‘foreseeing works’ we destroy Paul’s whole argument which is because the decision is God’s alone without any merit or activity on our part.
It will be noted that Paul has not actually said anything with which the Jews would have substantially disagreed. They too would have agreed that Ishmael and Esau were not ‘elected’. But what Paul is saying is that they should therefore recognise a principle here, that God’s election is not a blanket one, but is confined at each stage to those who are chosen, and that being born of an ‘elect one’ does not guarantee ‘election’. And as verse 6 has made clear, the conclusion he wants them to come to is that the same applies to Israel. They are ‘not all Israel who are of Israel’, and ‘not all the sons of Abraham are of the chosen’. By implication to claim to be a ‘son of Abraham’ did not necessarily signify being of the elect of God. Ishmael and Esau were ‘sons’ of Abraham, as were the sons of Keturah, and yet were not of the elect. Esau was a son of Isaac in whom Abraham’s seed would be called, and yet Esau was not called. He was not of ‘the elect’.
To take what Paul has said and make it mean based on Malachi 1.2-3 that he was teaching that the whole nation of Israel is therefore elected to salvation is to reverse what Paul is saying. He was at this point arguing a principle, that at each step only a part were called, not directly discussing whether Israel as a whole were elect or not. It was, however, a principle which, once strictly applied, did cast doubt on the doctrine of the election of Israel as a whole to salvation. For that doctrine assumed that God had ceased making individual choices, whereas Paul makes clear that that was God’s method.
Having said that it would seem probable that Paul does have in the back of his mind the descendants of Jacob as being in special favour with God. The citation from Malachi, ‘Jacob have I loved’ indicated the nation of Israel as an entity (even though not necessarily as a whole), and even ‘the elder will serve the younger’ indicated that one nation would serve another (Genesis 25.23). So, God’s election went on through history, but as Paul makes clear it was an election of those within Israel who responded from the heart, not an election of the whole (verse 6), and indeed it also included those who had not been Israelites, who would unite themselves with Israel in the true worship of God
Paul recognizes that what he has just demonstrated about God’s elective mercy might raise the protest, ‘but surely that means that God is being unfair’. So, he immediately deals with that charge on the basis of the Scriptures, demonstrating what God had proclaimed to Moses, and what was revealed in God’s treatment of Pharaoh at the Exodus. The point behind these examples is that what he has already said about Israel is justified, and that God does what He wills because no man has any claim on Him based on their goodness. He thus can have compassion on whom He chooses, and He can harden whom He chooses, because they have already all demonstrated their hardness of heart. By this he is bolstering his argument in the previous verses that God acts unilaterally on individuals and nations in order to further the fulfilling of His purposes.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
Paul first raises the question that might be asked, ‘does this not mean that God is behaving unfairly?’ Paul’s reply is strong, ‘Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not.’ God cannot in these cases be accused of unrighteousness, that is of acting contrary to His nature, because we are dealing, not with pure justice, but with questions of mercy and compassion. It is not as though anyone deserved God’s favors. The point is that no one does. Thus God is free to give His favour wherever He wills.
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”
Paul illustrates his point from Scripture. God had said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Exodus 33.19). Thus God had by this indicated that He would have mercy and compassion on those whom He Himself chose. And Paul emphasizes this by adding ‘and whom He will He hardens’. The decision therefore as to who will receive mercy and who will not is to be seen as due to the elective purpose of God, for mercy and judgment are both in His hands, to be exercised as He wills. Furthermore it should be noted that the statement in Exodus is made immediately following an incident where He had said, ‘he who has sinned, him will I blot out of my book’ (32.33), where Israelites are clearly in mind, some of whom were consequently so punished (32.35), while others received mercy, at least temporarily.
Someone may then question the morality of this, but the idea here is that as God is speaking of situations requiring mercy and compassion He is not bound by any moral requirement. The case no one can be seen as deserving of mercy and compassion. The whole point of mercy and compassion is that they override the demands of justice. The persons in question, who are to receive mercy and compassion, are all clearly deserving of judgment, otherwise they would not require mercy and compassion. They would instead get what was due to them. In consequence, when He chooses to show mercy and compassion in one case and not in another, no question can be raised as to the morality of it. Whether to show mercy or not is solely at the discretion of the judge, and if mercy were shown to all then justice would cease to exist. Strict justice in fact would require that no mercy was shown at all. That was why God had to find a way of maintaining the demands of justice while showing mercy. And He accomplished it through the cross. Thus mercy is not bound by morality. We note the dogmatism of God’s statement. The decision is made solely based on His will, as in the case of the election of Jacob.
It should also be noted that this statement was made concerning those who were ‘under the Law’, indicating that there were at least some who were under the Law who would not find mercy. On the basis of 9.22 some are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. This last demonstrates again the fallacy of the extreme Jewish position that no Jew would enter Gehenna. Certainly, Paul did not believe that.
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
‘It’ clearly refers to the previous verse, speaking of God’s showing of mercy, while the present tense of the verbs suggests that here Paul is enunciating a general principle. He is thus saying that in consequence of what God had said we can discern the general pattern that a man does not receive mercy in view of what he himself purposes (wills) or in view of what he has done, or indeed in view of what he promises to do. Neither his will nor his actions alter God’s decision. Rather, because by his will and actions he is subject to judgment, his hope can only lie in the mercy of God. And God dispenses that mercy as He wills. This again stresses that to receive mercy there is no requirement on man’s part. It is not a question of foreseen faith or works, it purely results from God’s sovereign decision. Faith and works must certainly follow that decision, but ultimately salvation is of God.
17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
This overall sovereignty of God can be seen as illustrated from the life of Pharaoh, where God says to Pharaoh that He had ‘raised him up’ in order that He might show His power in the way He dealt with him, and might thereby reveal to all the earth His mighty power over a king who claimed to be a powerful god (Exodus 9.16; 15.14). Pharaoh could have no justifiable complaint. He had resisted God from the start. Thus he was only receiving his due reward. In this case God, instead of exercising His prerogative of mercy, chose to harden an already hardened Pharaoh, and this was in order that the world might learn the truth about Him. So even this had a positive moral purpose. For Paul’s alteration of the OT text to ‘raise you up’ underlines the fact that even here God’s purpose was one of mercy, not on Pharaoh, but on all those who would hear and fear. God had raised up Pharaoh (and hardened his heart - verse 18) as a witness to the nations. In other words, God’s judgment on Pharaoh would result in His word going out to the nations, just as in Paul’s day the hardening of Israel was to result similarly in the word of God’s power going out as a witness to the nations.
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
Paul assumes that his readers will connect Pharaoh’s being raised up to glorify God with his hardening of heart, a condition expressed a few times in Exodus (Exodus 7.3; 9.12; 14.4, 17). He thus concludes by saying ‘He (God) has mercy on whom He will and whom He will He hardens’, particularly having Pharaoh’s behavior in mind, although later applying the term ‘harden’ to Israel in 11.7, 25 demonstrating that God treats them like He treated Pharaoh. God is thus depicted as sovereign in all His dealings with men, and as One Who cannot be called to account for how He behaves towards men, although one reason why this is so is that none of them are deserving. All men are seen as undeserving, and as therefore having no rights apart from that of judgment.
Here we cannot avoid the fact that Paul unquestionably puts the onus on God both for showing mercy and for hardening men’s hearts, and that eternal salvation and eternal destruction are in mind is made evident by his later illustration in verses 22-23. He thus does not shy away from indicating God’s responsibility for the fate of all men both positively and negatively. And as his aim in the passage is to demonstrate that God acts unilaterally we cannot avoid recognizing that God is primarily sovereign over all, even over men’s decisions.
Paul does not hide from the consequences of what he has been saying. He rather defends it by appealing to God’s absolute right over human beings, and then to Scripture. He sees the doctrine of God’s sovereignty as closely aligned with his argument that God has for the time being rejected the majority in physical Israel, while saving those within Israel who are believers in Jesus as the Messiah
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
He opens with a theoretical argument, although no doubt one he had heard many times, that of someone who says, “(If God hardens whom He will) why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?” The idea behind the argument is that if God is sovereignly responsible for men’s decisions, no blame can be laid on men for how they respond to Him. All they are doing is fulfilling His will. It would be unfair of God to find fault with them.
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
Paul’s response to the questions is illuminating, both in what he does not say and what he does say. He does not attempt to marshal arguments which he could have used had he believed them, such as 1). that God acts on the basis of what He foresees in men (whether belief or unbelief), or 2). that God has some other way of saving Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah. These are arguments which some among modern man would put forward. But Paul seemingly does not accept them. Rather he simply declares by his questions put to the ‘man’, that he knows of no explanation, indicating thereby that he has no valid argument apart from what the Scriptures have stated. He then simply challenges whether they as human beings are in any position to reply against God, or disagree with Him. And he does it on the basis that the creature cannot say to his Creator, ‘why did you make me thus?’, which is a loose rendering of Isaiah 45.9. The Creator, in other words, has sovereign rights to do what He will with His creation which no one can deny, and He can choose to do with His creatures what He will.
‘O man’ signifies, in context, puny man as compared with the mighty God, as puny man seeks to contest what God chooses to do.
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
He now illustrates his position in terms of a potter who has a lump of clay and can use it both to make an ‘honorable’ vessel and to make a ‘dishonorable’ one. Which he makes is solely up to the potter’s discretion. So, a potter may take his piece of clay, and set aside one part to produce an ornamental vase, and another part to produce a crude chamber pot. No one will question his right to do so. The idea therefore is that God has the same right to do what He will with what He has created. Applying this to his earlier argument Isaac and Jacob were honorable vessels. Their brothers were dishonorable vessels.
It is a quite false position to argue that Paul is likening ‘feeling people’ to mere lumps of clay, any more than to argue that he is likening a humble potter to God. That is not his point. He is using an illustration, and his emphasis is on the fact that like the potter God can determine to do what He will.
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Paul then directly applies his illustration of the Potter to God Himself. The idea of likening God to a Potter comes directly from the Old Testament Scriptures (Isaiah 45.9; 29.16; Jeremiah 18.6). And the idea behind it is that just as a Potter chooses what he will do with what he makes, so in the same way no man has the right to challenge God’s decisions as to what to do with His creatures, of course, that we know that He will do what is morally right.
Here he applies that concept to God as One Who, willing to demonstrate His wrath (antipathy to sin) and make His powers known (as He had done with Pharaoh), delays applying that wrath to the guilty immediately, but rather puts up with them with much longsuffering, even though they are vessels ‘fitted for destruction’. In context this latter does not just mean that they are of a kind that deserves destruction (fit for destruction), but rather that they have been made that way by ‘the Potter’, they have been ‘fitted for destruction’. He has made them with destruction in mind. They are dishonorable vessels, vessels which are made to fulfil dishonorable purposes, and then to be broken. These vessels basically represent all unbelievers, but especially in the context Jews who have refused to believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
Please take note that there is a purpose in what God does here. It is to make known His sovereign power. If man is not aware of God’s sovereign power the way, he behaves is quickly affected. It was necessary that through some examples man is made to recognize that he stands under the judgment of God, and in order to do this God gives men a certain license, as He did with Pharaoh. (That delay also gives man the opportunity to repent (2.4-5), and he can be sure that if he does so, God will show him compassion).
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Having purposed that certain vessels would be made in such a way that they were fitted for destruction, God also purposed to make known the riches of His glory on vessels which were prepared with mercy in mind, vessels which He prepared beforehand for glory (like ‘honorable vessels’ such as ornamental vases). That these vessels are Christians is indicated by the word ‘us’ and confirmed by the references to the glory awaiting Christians in 8.17, 18, 21, 30. These Christians are then defined as those who are called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. They are the called ones of God and come out from both Jews and Gentiles. Behind his whole argument is not simply that only the elect of Israel will be saved, but that the elect also includes believing Gentiles
All this, of course, indicates that the vessels fitted for ‘destruction’, (a word which in Paul always refers to ‘eternal destruction’), are the remainder of the Jews and the Gentiles, the unbelieving ones who have not been ‘called’ (in Romans ‘called’, when God is in mind, is a salvation word. That salvation and judgment are concerned can hardly be doubted, confirming that both some Jews (the spiritual Israel of verse 6) and Gentiles will be saved (those called out), and that the remainder of both Jews (the physical Israel excluding the spiritual Israel) and Gentiles will be lost. Paul’s arguments all the way through have had this in mind.
This is the first reference to Gentiles in the chapter, for the chapter up to this point has been in order to bring out that only a proportion of Israel were God’s elect, and thus chosen to be saved, the Israel within Israel’ of verse 6. But all along he has had the intention of introducing Gentiles to demonstrate that God’s elect include Gentiles. Paul thus now emphasizes that God’s call reaches out, not only to the Jews but to Gentiles.
25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.”
Paul then cites Hosea to demonstrate that it has always been God’s intention that some who were ‘not My people’ should become ‘My people’. That some who were not beloved and elect, would become beloved and elect.
He declares that in Hosea we read, ‘I will call that My people who were not My people, and (I will call) her beloved who was not beloved’. It would certainly appear, at least at first sight, that this quotation from Hosea is backing up verses 23-24, for in it he is seeking to demonstrate from Scripture that some of those who were ‘not God’s people’ would become so.
strictly speaking, in Hosea ‘not My people’ referred to a rejected Israel. It may thus be that this is simply a continuation of the argument that ‘not all Israel is Israel’. His point would then be that for a while Israel had been ‘not My people’, and were thus not of the elect, but that as a result of God’s activity some of them would become ‘My people’ (‘some’ because many would die in their ‘not my people’ state), indicating again that not all Israel is Israel.
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
He then further cites Hosea 1.10 which asserts that those who were ‘not My people’ would at some stage become ‘sons of the living God’. If we see Paul as referring this to Gentiles, as he probably is, then he is declaring that Scripture teaches that some from among the Gentiles, will be called ‘sons of the living God’ (2 Corinthians 6.16 with 18). If that is so then what he sees as inherent within the words is that God will call many from among the Gentiles to Himself, and make them children of God
27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.”
He then cites from Isaiah 10.22 (supplemented by Hosea 1.10) a verse concerning Israel which asserts that even though Israel should become very numerous, only a remnant of them would be saved, and this, as Isaiah 10.23 reveals, is because of the judgment of God on the remainder. This would support the case that the ‘all Israel’ in 11.26 who are saved means ‘the remnant’.
29 And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.”
This picture is then seen as confirmed by Isaiah 1.9, where, apart from ‘a seed’ left to them by God (the seed of Abraham mentioned in verse 7? The holy seed of Isaiah 6.12), all Israel were to be destroyed by God’s judgment in the same way as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Once again those who were acceptable to God, and therefore saved, were only a remnant out of Israel. These three verses confirm that what the whole passage from verse 6 has been about was the election of a minority of Israel who would alone remain as God’s people, being supplemented by large numbers of Gentiles, who would also become God’s people. This incorporating of Gentiles into Israel to form the true Israel is confirmed in chapter 11.17-25.
