This post builds upon a much older post which set forth the doctrine of divine, unconditional election (TULIP) and addressed an initial objection leading into Paul’s discussion in Romans 9. In that post, Romans 9 objections were introduced which include being limited to a National Israel scope, Israel vs. Edom (Romans 9:13), or a two-way plan of salvation in which Israel is distinct from Gentiles in God’s plan of redemption. These historic objections to the doctrine of election are not necessarily what is dealt with in Romans 9, rather it is a byproduct of trying to find away around any notion of God electing an individual unto salvation. Why we won’t address every detail of these objections, we will see the passage in context and how Paul answers his own objectors. With that, we pick up in Romans 9:6
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
In the opening of Romans 9, Paul, under divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, begins a defense of God’s divine election, a topic that he laid out in Romans 8:28-30. Contextually, the letter of Romans revolves around central issues of addressing the relationship between Jew and Gentile, universal condemnation regardless of Abraham, but rather in Adam, and universal justification for those in Christ. So, union with Adam and union with Christ unites all men, regardless of being Jew or Gentile. This brings up the natural question of “What advantage is the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision” which Paul initially brought up in Romans 2:25 to 3:1. There his response was, “to begin with…” as he started with the Jews reception of the oracles of God. Here, in Romans 9 Paul resumes that discussion as we saw in the previous post. This brings us to the subject passage above and a defense of divine election.
Understanding that chapter breaks in Scripture were not original, we need to note that in Romans 8:39 Paul asserts the immutable love of God. The unspoken question then is, “Given the immutable love of God, what about Israel? Did God take away His love from them and give it to the Gentiles? Has there been a replacement in the recipients of God’s love?” The answer to this as well as the introductory argument in support of divine election begins with the controversial statement, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” This phrase has led to widespread disagreement over the nature of God’s plan for Israel in the future, a subject developed throughout this section of Romans in chapters 9-11. While not ignoring that, our purpose here will be to see how this phrase answers the objection that God’s Word has failed if divine election is not based on Jewish genealogy.
Hypothetical Objection #1: Has God’s Word (i.e. the Covenantal Promises of God) failed?
In Paul’s address of the first hypothetical objection, he jumps right to the heart of the issue with the genealogical superiority, or we might say exclusivity, that Jews had held to since at least the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. This particular attitude was confronted by John the Baptist (Luke 3:8-9), Jesus (John 8:31-59), and in Paul’s confrontation of Peter and the Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14), including the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35), which addressed the Judaizing belief that Gentiles needed to become Jews (via circumcision) in order to be saved. The twin statements in Romans 9:6 state emphatically that there is a dichotomy within Israel and indeed within Abraham himself. First, not all Israel is Israel. This isn’t the fist time Paul has made such a claim as we remember the earlier cited Romans 2:28-29 in which Paul explained the two-levels of circumcision, that of the flesh and that of the heart with the latter providing the identification for the “true Jew”. Here, rather than using the example of the law of circumcision, Paul is making an identical argument though now comparing natural birth vs. spiritual birth.
Taken within the flow of the argument, not all Israel is Israel asserts that not all those who are physical Israel, that is corporate or national Israel according to the flesh, i.e., those who are able to trace their bloodline to one of the Twelve tribes, is rightfully distinguished as Israel. As we will see in the verse that follows, this second use of Israel refers to those who are children of the promise, aka children of God, and keeping with Paul’s earlier statement are those who have been circumcised in heart.
Next, Paul reemphasizes this point by going to Abraham and stating that just because someone is an offspring of Abraham, doesn’t mean they are a child of Abraham, again a dichotomy is presented now with the father of Israel himself. In supporting this answer, Paul cites the original promise made to Abraham concerning offspring as found in Genesis 21:12, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” From this perspective, given that Ishmael was already born at this point and well over 14 years old at that, we would be able to ascertain the dichotomy within the Abrahamic Covenant from the Old Testament.
Romans 9:8 summarizes the answer to the objection, has God’s word (promises) failed, Paul’s answer is a resounding no on the basis that the promises of God never extended to every individual descendent of Abraham, or corporate Israel, without exception. Rather, there was always a distinction or dichotomy, as we’ve seen, between children of the flesh and children of the promise.
The next support that Paul supplies is again a restatement of the original promise, this time from Genesis 18:10, 14. The passage referenced is the narrative account of our pre-incarnate Lord visiting Abraham and promising him that an offspring, a son, of his own would come the following year. This promise was a reiteration of the earlier promise made to Abraham in Genesis 15:1-6; 17:15-16. If we recall the unfolding promises made to Abraham, summarized rightly as the Abrahamic Covenant, we will remember that God promises offspring, land, and blessing. Here, and perhaps most frequently, the aspect of the promise reiterated is offspring.
The third support, in the flow of the passage, comes in Romans 9:9 and this time the emphasis is on Isaac and Rebekah’s children, Jacob and Esau. Here the language may be somewhat surprising as prior to the birth of the twins, which entails a time before any moral decisions either good or bad had been made, Rebekah was told, “The older will serve the younger,” a citation from Genesis 25:23, in order that God’s purpose of election would stand. Turning to Genesis 25, we see that Esau, as the older son, should have been the heir to Isaac, indeed we see this in Esau’s expectation of both birthright and blessing. However, the promises that had been given to Abraham and then to Isaac are not given to Esau, rather they are given to the younger twin, Jacob.
A fourth and final Old Testament support comes by way of Malachi 1:2, 3 referenced in Romans 9:13, which states, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” This reference, as one might imagine, has been somewhat controversial and many attempts have been made to neuter its impact by trying to diffuse the meaning of hatred here. In context, the passage from Malachi asserts God’s electing love had been placed on Jacob, i.e. Israel, and not Esau, i.e. Edom. This passage from the prophet is simply a fulfillment of the original promise made to Rebekah that in her womb were two nations (Genesis 25:23), which is naturally downstream of the promise of nations descending from Abraham (Genesis 17:5-6) and Sarah (Genesis 17:16). That God chose one nation over the other, per Malachi, is likewise a continuing fulfillment of the aforementioned, “the older shall serve the younger” in which a selection on an individual bases was made. The use of hatred here, as per Murray, carries a two-fold application that of both the absence of covenant love and the presence of covenant judgment.
Summarizing our entire passage which answers the question, “has the word of God failed?”, we have found that it did not fail because God’s original plan to have a people for Himself did not, in fact never did, include every single person (individually) in corporate Israel. It was a mixed covenant community having both children of the flesh and children of the promise, the latter being chosen out of the former. The distinction between the two was based on God’s purposes in election, election properly defined as a choosing out of. and not on genealogy, or birthright, or moral goodness (see also John 1:12-13).
Answer: God’s Word has not failed because the promises of God are not based on genealogy, nor on birth order, nor on moral actions. Instead, they are applied based on God’s purposes in election.
Referring back to our introductory post from some time ago, the questions that had been brought up concerning how election was used in this passage and to whom it was directed, individual or corporate, has been partially answered (more to come as chapter 9 unfolds). Paul answers the original objection over whether God’s Word or promises to Israel had failed by breaking down corporate/national Israel into two parts: children of the flesh and children of the promise. The former group were included on the basis of their birth or conversion. The latter group were included on the basis of God’s election.
