Bible Study Romans 9 (2)
Paul’s Anguish Over Israel
Chapters 9–11 discuss the subject of God’s righteousness in view of his apparent rejection of the Jewish nation.1
In fact, he could almost wish himself cursed by God and cut off from Christ if that would in some way benefit his kinsmen by race.3 Paul was not speaking of excommunication from the church but of final and fatal separation from Christ in the age to come.4 That, of course, would not be possible, but as Kuss comments, “One cannot measure the speech of the heart with the rules of logic.”5
As Israelites, Paul’s ethnic forbearers had a heritage rich with spiritual blessings (v. 4). Paul listed seven historic prerogatives that God had given to Israel.6 The privileges of sonship belonged to them. God commanded Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel was his “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22; cf. Hos 11:1). The splendor of the divine presence (the “shekinah of God”) accompanied them throughout their desert journeys (Exod 13:21; 16:7, 10). God had established covenants with them (Gen 15:18; Exod 19:5) and given them the law (Ps 147:19).7 The regulations for worship in the temple had been entrusted to them (Heb 9:1). Their sacred literature was rich with the promises of God (e.g., Gen 12:7; Isa 9:6–7).8 They were descendants of the great patriarchs whose moral authority and influence provided leadership for the Jewish tribes before they became a nation (Rom 9:5). And what’s more, it is from them that the human ancestry of Christ is traced (1:3).
As God chose Isaac rather than Ishmael, so also does he now choose to bless those who by placing their faith in Christ become the true children of Abraham.
Spiritual kinship, not ethnic origin, determined who was a true Israelite.
This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms.17
Paul was not building a case for salvation that in no way involves the consent of the individual. Nor was he teaching double predestination. Rather he was arguing that the exclusion of so many Jews from the family of God did not constitute a failure on God’s part to maintain his covenant relationship with Israel. He had not broken his promise to the descendants of Abraham.
The sovereignty of God does not set aside human responsibility
Verse 18 summarizes the argument. It provides the principle of divine action on which the preceding events were based. God shows mercy as he chooses, and he hardens people’s hearts as he chooses. He is sovereign in all that he does. Although the text says repeatedly, however, that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it also stresses that Pharaoh hardened himself (cf. Exod 7:13–14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34–35). Morris notes that “neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself.”24
For the Christian, however, it is important to build one’s theology not on personal perceptions of what ought to be but upon the biblical revelation of the character and purpose of God.
To fault God for showing mercy to some while hardening others is to require that he conform to our fallible and arbitrary concept of justice.
God has not turned his back on the nation Israel; he has simply clarified what it means to be a true child of Abraham.
Human logic cannot harmonize divine sovereignty and human freedom, but both are clearly taught in Scripture. Neither should be adjusted to fit the parameters of the other. They form an antinomy that by definition eludes our best attempts at explanation.
Israel’s Rejection Culpable
This accords with the testimony of Scripture, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms.17
Paul was not building a case for salvation that in no way involves the consent of the individual. Nor was he teaching double predestination. Rather he was arguing that the exclusion of so many Jews from the family of God did not constitute a failure on God’s part to maintain his covenant relationship with Israel. He had not broken his promise to the descendants of Abraham.