Romans 9:3-13

OK. Last week we got through 2 and a half verses. We’ll pick back up at verse 3 and see how far we get.

Romans 9:3–5 ESV

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Last week we did get started talking about why it was bad to take an oath, and remember we ended with wondering why Paul would do this, if Jesus told us to not do it.

So why?

Paul wants to make a point. You see, Paul makes this oath that he wishes he were accursed and cut off from Christ.

That is a big deal.

Paul is saying that he would give up his own eternity if he could so that his fellow Jews would come to know Christ.

Think about that…what does Jesus say about love?

John 15:13 ESV

13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

What does Paul say, just a few chapters earlier?

Romans 5:7–8 ESV

7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Paul has just told them a few chapters back that the likelihood of someone dying for anyone, no matter how good they are, is very slim.

Yet Paul is now saying that he wishes that he could trade his eternal reward for his Jewish brothers and sisters to be saved.

Think about that. Jesus tells us (and demonstrates for us) what love is. Paul loves his brethren so much, he is willing to die for them.

The difference is what?

Paul isn’t Jesus.

Look, if we ever needed scripture evidence that Paul is not Jesus, this is it, ok? Some folks want to argue about Christianity and say that it isn’t even what Christ taught. They would argue that it shouldn’t be called Christianity but Paulanity. They say that Paul is responsible for it.

Paul simple was the one who best articulated the teachings of Christ in a way that could be synthesized by the most people.

Is our Christian doctrine largely based on Pauline theology?

Yes.

But that is exactly why God directed Paul to write the bulk of the New Testament. Because he was the vessel that God had prepared to spread the Good News of Christ throughout the whole world.

So, Paul would make that sacrifice if he could. Why?

Romans 9:4–5 ESV

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Because his kindred are the children of God. God’s chosen people. Descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. They are the children of promise.

They are the ones that God gave the commandments, the law, the prophets to. They are the ones who experienced the exodus and the true owners and inheritors of the promised land.

God’s people.

And they rejected Him.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

They chose to kill the Lamb of God rather than worship Him.

Yet Paul - who was, more than anyone else besides Christ, beaten and arrested and accosted by the Jews - didn’t hold a grudge against them.

Sproul says this about Paul’s desire to trade places with his Jewish brothers and sisters, which is actually really helpful in light of the anti-Israel rhetoric currently going around the media and the elite college campuses:

The Gospel of God: Romans The Blessings of Israel (9:1–5)

This verse destroys any possibility of the dreadful calumny that some have committed against Christ and against the Spirit of God by trying to ground a spirit of anti-Semitism in Scripture. There is no anti-Semitism with Jesus—he himself was a Jew. Paul also was a Jew and he harboured no ill will or resentment against his own nation. If there was ever a man who would have been justified in being angry with his kinsmen it was Paul. When you consider their bitterness against him, you would think that in normal circumstances a human being might retaliate with an equal sense of bitterness. But that’s not Paul’s attitude; Paul’s attitude is one of compassion.

The Gospel of God: Romans The Blessings of Israel (9:1–5)

How can anyone have an anti-Semitic attitude when we stop and consider the contribution that has come to the world through the nation of Israel. Israel, as a nation, was God’s adopted son. When he called Israel out of Egypt, he adopted the nation in a certain sense, because it was through Israel that his work of redemption was to be carried out.

And, lest we think that, “Oh, Paul says that the Jews got the law and the covenants, and the promises, so I don’t need that stuff...”

That is simply not what Paul is saying at all. In fact, precisely why Paul is anguished is that the Jews rightfully had all of those things, and yet missed the Messiah in Jesus. The Gentiles didn’t have the advantage of the law or the promises, yet they believed and it was counted to them as righteousness.

Again I will lean on Sproul:

The Gospel of God: Romans The Blessings of Israel (9:1–5)

Israel was the fountainhead of world salvation. Salvation is of God, but it comes through Israel.

A Christian cannot think of himself as being cut off from the Old Testament. It records the history of redemption culminating in the appearance of Jesus Christ. Abraham is the father of the faithful; Isaac is a patriarch of the covenant; Jacob is the father of the twelve tribes; Moses is the mediator of the law; David gives us the psalms; Jeremiah speaks of the new covenant; Isaiah prophesies of the coming Messiah. All of these great heroes and heroines of faith (Heb. 11) that are such a rich part of Christian heritage, are Jewish.

The ultimate point Paul is making is that our Lord was a Jew. Touching his human ancestry he came to us from Israel. Paul refers to the glorious dual nature of Jesus. He specifies the fact that Christ came from Israel according to his human ancestry. But he is the same Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. When Paul says ‘over all’ he doesn’t mean over all Jews, he means over everything. The word is in the neuter form and indicates the sum total of the universe. Jesus Christ is over the entire universe.

Now, that gets us through the first five verses.

Let’s continue:

Romans 9:6–8 ESV

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

This is where Paul starts really digging in, OK?

First of all, he gives a declarative statement: God’s word has not failed.

So, who failed? If it wasn’t God, who?

The Jews failed. Some failed to believe.

One commentary says this, and I think it is very helpful:

The ESV Study Bible Chapter 9

Even though many Jews have failed to believe, God’s promise to them has not failed, for there was never a promise that every Jewish person would be saved. It was never the case that all the physical children of Abraham were truly part of the people of God, for Gen. 21:12 teaches that the line of promise is traced through Isaac, not Ishmael.

Just because you are Jewish does not mean you are going to heaven.

I should say that again: Just because you are Baptist…er, I mean Catholic…er, Jewish, does not mean you are going to heaven.

Look at the words Paul uses in verse 8: the children of God are children of the promise, not children of the flesh.

I have seen it before, heard it before, and I am sure some of you have as well, but the phrase “We are all children of God” is wrong. That’s a fallacy. We are children of wrath. We are not all children of God.

Only those who are children of the promise are God’s children.

Now, that will get you cancelled pretty quick these days, but the fact remains that not everyone is going to inherit the promise of eternal life with Christ. The promise is for those who believe.

And we have to look at these words here, because Paul is concerned with salvation as he talks here. Not physical blessings bestowed upon Israel.

And make no mistake, God has and does and will bless the nation of Israel because that is His nation. But just because they are blessed physically, does not equate salvation for all of them.

What I mean is that Israel holds a special place in God’s heart, but they still must repent and be saved.

When Paul uses that phrase “children of God,” that refers to salvific events, not cultural identity.

Why do I bring this up?

Because Paul is addressing this very problem with this text.

The Jews didn’t think they needed to be saved, because they thought by their very existence as Jews they were already saved.

Sproul says it this way:

The Gospel of God: Romans The Just Character of God (9:6–16)

The problem Paul has in view is that the Jews were very certain of their future because of the covenant promises God had made. They had come to the conclusion that by the very fact of their birth into the nation of Israel, they were guaranteed all of the promises of salvation. But Paul shows that it is not as though God’s word had failed. God had promised to bless Israel but the point Paul makes is that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children (verses 6, 7). Those who are the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed: On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (verses 7, 8). Abraham had more than one child: he had Ishmael as well as Isaac, but Ishmael did not receive the promise as Isaac did (Gen. 21:12–13). God’s promise is given sovereignly, not biologically.

But that begs the further question, right:

If all of Abraham’s children are not blessed, then which ones?

Isaac’s kids, right?

Paul is dispelling the thought that it is because of the difference between Sarah and Hagar. Because if we look further, we see Paul talk about Isaac, too.

Romans 9:9–13 ESV

9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

So, Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael is not a son of promise. Must be something to do with Sarah, right? WRONG.

Because Isaac had two sons as well, both by Rebekah. But the “older will serve the younger” even though neither had any say in the matter.

Again, I’ll quote Sproul: God’s promise is given sovereignly, not biologically.

The Gospel of God: Romans The Just Character of God (9:6–16)

The choice has nothing to do with the actual good or potential good, the actual evil or potential evil, of Jacob and Esau. It has to do with the purpose of God. It is of his sovereign good pleasure.

Now, we must deal with how this is stated here: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This gets to the heart of the matter that we will look at more fully next week, but want to start unpacking tonight.

I want us to be very careful in how we think about this verse (v13).

Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3:

Malachi 1:2–3 ESV

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”

Now, we know that God renames Jacob to Israel, and the children of Israel are God’s chosen people. But, what does it mean when it says God “hated” Esau?

In Malachi, Malachi is contrasting God’s love (as election) with God’s hate (as rejection).

The ESV Study Bible Chapter 1

Malachi appeals to God’s elective and unconditional love of Jacob and corresponding hatred of Esau. In this context loved refers to choice rather than affection, and hated refers to rejection rather than animosity (which was explicitly prohibited against Edomites, Esau’s descendants, in Deut. 23:7). For a similar use of these terms, see Prov. 29:24; Luke 14:26; 16:13. Although Jacob and Esau were brothers, Jacob experienced God’s sovereign favor by which he was granted a privileged role in redemptive history as a bearer of the messianic promise, while Esau experienced God’s rejection in terms of this same role.

Now, Malachi is chiefly concerned with the nations of Israel and Edom, but Paul is thinking specifically about individuals.

When we look back at verse 11, we see that merit has nothing to do with it, either:

The ESV Study Bible Chapter 9

God did not choose Jacob on the basis of anything in Jacob or Esau’s life but to achieve the fulfillment of God’s purpose of election. Christians can be assured, therefore, that God’s promise will be fulfilled because it depends solely upon his will. The contrast between works and calling shows that salvation is in view, not merely the historical destiny of Israel as a nation. For the OT background on “election,” see Gen. 18:10; Ex. 33:19; Mal. 1:2. See also Eph. 1:3–6.

9:12 The promise given to Rebekah (Gen. 25:23) was that God had chosen the younger Jacob over the older Esau. One of the themes in Romans 9–11 is that God works in surprising ways, so that no one can ever presume upon his grace.

9:13 The citation of Mal. 1:2–3 also shows that God set his saving love on Jacob and rejected (hated) Esau. “Hated” is startling, but as a sinner Esau did not deserve to be chosen by God, who remains just in not choosing everyone. The salvation of anyone at all comes only from God’s mercy.

This last thought, that God is “just” in His election, is what we will end with tonight, and how we will think towards next week.

Sproul sums it up beautifully:

The Gospel of God: Romans The Just Character of God (9:6–16)

When the Scripture speaks of God’s hating, it means that he did not bestow favour upon Esau. God did not give to him grace and the benefits of salvific love. It doesn’t mean that God hates in the sense that human beings hate.

Of course, this raises the question: Is there arbitrariness in God? Is he capricious? Do his choices border on the irrational with no legitimate reason whatsoever? Absolutely not! God never does anything without a reason. It is beyond the character of God to act in a whimsical, capricious manner. God’s decisions are always taken in accordance with his character. But the spectre of arbitrariness is here because the Scripture makes it very clear that there is no reason in the elect why God has chosen them. But the fact that there is no reason in them, does not mean that there is no reason at all. God has a reason for doing what he does. But the point is that the reason does not lie within us.

The point is that God is sovereign. Nothing we have done or will do can earn our redemption. He isn’t swayed by our feelings of justice or injustice.

God alone decides. God alone judges. And God alone elects.

Let’s pray.