Exegetical Thoughts on Romans 9:6-13

Romans 9:6-13

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Now Paul answers the objection that God's word failed or was ineffectual.  His solution is simple: he distinguishes between physical Israel and spiritual Israel.  Physical Israel would be his brethren according to the flesh.  Spiritual Israel, however, are the "children of the promise." 

The promise is a theme that Paul developed back in Romans 4:13-22:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

The children of the promise, therefore, is a reference to the children promised to Abraham. Moreover, keep in mind the point that what God promises, God performs.  Abraham may have brought Ishmael, but God brought Isaac.  Thus, the children of promise have a specific connection to God's work, as distinct from human work.

Paul proves that the promised children are not simply the children according to the flesh in two ways:

• Isaac, not Ishmael, was the child of promise
• Jacob, not Esau, was the child of promise

Ishmael was the child that Abraham conceived with Hagar.  Isaac, however, was promised by God to Sarah.  It is not exactly the same promise of being "heir of the world," but it was a part of that.  

Likewise, even while they were in the womb, God made a promise to Rebecca that Esau (the elder) would serve the younger (Jacob).

Moreover, this distinction between Esau and Jacob was based on God's love, returning to the theme we were given in Romans 8.  Paul quotes a couplet from Malachi 1.  The point Paul is making is clear, namely that God loved one brother rather than the other brother from before their birth and not based on what they were going to do.

Some have suggested that the portion of Malachi 1 quoted by Paul relates to the nations of Israel and Edom, as those nations are addressed in the the context there.  

Malachi 1:1-5

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

In this passage God is speaking directly to Israel.  Israel complains that God doesn't love them, and God contradicts that.  God uses Edom as a counter-illustration.  God says that although Edom is optimistic about their future, God will make a negative example of them. In the process, God points back to the original brothers: Jacob and Esau.  God says he loved Jacob and hated Esau.  

Paul quotes the same words as are found in the Septuagint, but the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text have the same meaning here. The Hebrew verb for hated has a perfect aspect, while the verb for loved apparently has an imperfect aspect, while the Greek uses the aorist in both cases.  Our English translation of Romans 9 uses perfect for both and our English translation of Malachi 1 uses past for both of them.  The main takeaway here is that the precise form of the verb is not the key.

Instead, the key is - of course - Paul's usage of God's own statement in Malachi.  Paul is connecting God's love to God's choice about who will serve whom.  Furthermore, Paul is disconnecting that love and choice from the personal history of the brothers. One might argue that Edom got its desolation through its malfeasance.  On the other hand, Paul specifically says "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil." The point of raising this is not to illustrate God's prescience.

We know that it is not about prescience, because Paul explains: "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." 

The critical distinction here between "works" and "him who calls" introduces election into the chain that we already say established and specifically prohibits the interpretation that it is about the one who responds.  

You may recall the golden chain:

(Preamble) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 

(1) For whom he did foreknow, (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω )

(2) he also did predestinate (καὶ προώρισεν)

(3a) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·)

(2) Moreover whom he did predestinate, (οὓς δὲ προώρισεν)

(3b) them he also called: and whom he called, (τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν)

(4) them he also justified: and whom he justified, (τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν)

(5) them he also glorified. (τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν)

You will notice that God's election, as such, as is not mentioned explicitly in the golden chain.

Now, however, we see the purpose of God mentioned again.  Before, it was explained that the calling was according to God's purpose.  Now, God's purpose is described as being "according to election."

The election in mind here is the selection of one or the other brother as the child of promise.  The children according to the promise are ultimately the children promised to Abraham, namely the children who are to be heirs of the world.  

The key aspect to notice is that the election is not of works, but of him who called.  It is also not "of him who responded to the call."  The point is that the election was conditional on God and God's love, not on the person being elected.

This will lead us to the objection that we are going to discuss next, about whether there is unrighteousness/injustice with God.  It is literally the most common objection to the idea of unconditional election, that it makes God unjust or unrighteous, since it is not conditioned on the person but instead on God.

As we mentioned when discussing Romans 9:1-5, the objection being framed here is ultimately also answered in Romans 11.  There Paul returns to the discussion of God's election.  In Romans 11:5, Paul calls it "the election of grace," meaning that the election is not based on human merit.  Likewise, in Romans 11:7, Paul demonstrates that the election is only about God, by contrasting, "Israel has not obtained ..." with "the election has obtained it" and further with "the rest were blinded."

In Romans 11:8 Paul gives God full credit for those who do not obtain it not obtaining it. 

While Paul then does discuss faith and unbelief, and provides proximate credit to their unbelief, in Romans 11:32, Paul makes it clear that God is behind it all: "God has concluded them all in unbelief...." It leads to Paul's glorious conclusion in Romans 11:36: "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

These are the same "all things" that work together for good to the called, which we can now also describe as the election, those who were predestined, those who were loved beforehand by God, not because of something in them, and not because of foreseen good deeds, but because of something in God.

Here we must reiterate that in the phrase, "the election has obtained it," the "election" is reference to people.  People obtain something.  The "election," therefore, is not simply the plan of salvation Sola Fide, though God certainly did choose that.  The election are the people God chose.

We saw a first reference to them back in Romans 8:33: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"  Thus, in the context of Romans 9, we see election of people (not plans) in mind.

As we discussed in the context of Romans 8, when addressing the issue of foreknowledge in the plan of salvation, foreknowledge is the basis of election. 1 Peter 1:2 says, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ..." as we discussed before.

The harmonization of these various strands is unconditional election.  God, out of love of us before our creation - and without consideration of our individual merit - chose some people to be the children of promise, and others he "hated."  Election of people leads to their active, powerful calling, which leads to their justification, and ultimately their glorification.

Some may say that calling is never irresistable.  I cannot agree with this claim.  Recall what is written in the Prophet:

Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

This discussion is part of Isaiah's announcement of Cyrus as well as one of the central claims of God's divinity.  Indeed, only a few verses later we find part of the inspiration for Paul's use of the potter analogy:

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

For the purposes of the passage we are considering now, however, the point is that calling is not necessarily at all about the response.  Calling someone a name is what God does or our parents do.  We can call ourselves a name (I'm an example of that), but God's calling is not something I have any control over.  Calling myself "TurretinFan" doesn't change the name my parents gave me, nor does it change the name God gives me - the surname of the family of God.

This is not a stretch, because we see it in the direct context:

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Notice that the calling here has nothing to do with Isaac's response.  It's all about God and God's claim.  

Later in the chapter, we will see the same thing:

Rom 9:24-25

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

We need to discard the inserted idea that the "calling" mentioned is simply the gospel call. To "call them my people," is not simply to preach the gospel.  To call Isaac (as distinct form his half-brothers) the child of promise is more than just inviting him to take some further action.

No, God's calling in this context is a calling of power.  It is God taking what God wants.  It is God saying, "these are mine."