The Good News that God’s Word Will Not Fail (Rom. 9:6-13)

Jacob and Esau, by Matthias Stom

It is easy in passages like this to become wrapped up in the controversy between those who emphasis the free will of man and those who emphasize God’s sovereign grace in salvation.  We will have to deal with that of course, but let’s not overlook the primary point in all of this.  The primary point that the apostle Paul is driving home is this: God’s word will not fail.  As we pointed out in our last message, Paul’s thesis statement for chapters 9-11 is the first half of verse 6: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.”  The word that Paul uses there to describe what happens to God’s word is to fail or fall to the ground.  This is what Paul denies will happen.  God’s word will not fall to the ground, it will not fail, it will not become useless or ineffective. As the prophet Isaiah put it, “For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:10-11).  The bottom line is this: what God says will happen will in fact happen.  When God promises something, that something will come true, no matter how unlikely or impossible that thing might seem to us to be.  

For this is the God who “who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom. 4:17), who created all things of nothing and upholds all things by the word of his power.  This is the God who is not limited.  He calls water out of rocks, splits seas wide open and cause his people to go across on dry ground.  He raises his Son and one day all who are united to him from the dead.  The things that are impossible with men are possible with God.  “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3).  

We need to remind ourselves of this, and often.  God keeps his word.  And this is something that Paul is in some sense repeating here.  Back in chapter 3, Paul had said this: “For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged” (Rom. 3:3-4).  This really is the same problem that Paul is dealing with now here in chapter 9.  He didn’t deal with it at length in chapter 3; he notices the problem and denies that God is ever unfaithful to his word or that God is a liar.  But now in chapters 9-11, he is going to fully defend this statement.  We need to be fully convinced that God will keep his word to us.

This is not just true regarding his promises to Israel; it’s true with regard to all his promises.  It’s true regarding his promise to provide for us, to strengthen us, to guide and lead us, to give us wisdom, to give us grace in every trial.  It’s true of his promise in Christ to forgive all our sins and to receive us solely on the basis of his righteousness alone.  It’s true of his promise to raise us from the dead and to give us an eternal inheritance that fadeth not away.  It’s on the basis of God’s gracious and kind promises that we can live our lives full of hope and joy and peace.  It’s on the basis of God’s sure and true promises that we can be sustained in the hurricanes of sorrow and sickness and suffering and sadness.  He has given to us “exceeding great and precious promises” (2 Pet. 1:4), and we are meant to bank our lives on them.  Let them sustain you, encourage you, strengthen you, help you, give you hope.  We are hedged about with the promises of God; there is no direction you can turn but that there is already a promise of God to hold you up.  

But we won’t do that if we aren’t finally convinced that God is true.  We won’t do that if we think that God will go back on his word.  And of course the devil, Satan, that old serpent, is always ready to whisper in our ears: “Hath God said?”  And then our old nature wants to be in control.  To fully trust in the promises of God means that we are conscious of the fact that we are relinquishing the control of our lives to God.  The sin in us, the pride, doesn’t like that.  We want to hold the reins.  But God’s promises say to us, “God will guide you on the way.  Trust in him!”  And we can, because God keeps his word.

In this text, Paul is going to argue why and how God has kept his word.  God’s word here is his word to Israel, and in particular his promises which he gave in covenant to the patriarchs, and words which he continued to ratify to Israel throughout its history (cf. 9:3-5), words like Isaiah 45:25: “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” 

Why is the apostle having to defend this thesis?  As we saw last time, he is doing so because the central claim of his gospel is that justification and glory come to us in Jesus Christ, and that it is as we embrace him as Lord and Savior that we partake of his righteousness and glory and so are justified and eventually glorified.  On the other hand, those who reject him as Messiah will not be saved, but will remain in their sins and be condemned.  But Isaiah says that the “seed of Israel shall be justified and shall glory.”  How does this square with Paul’s gospel?  For according to that, those who have rejected the gospel among the Jews – and that was most of them – were lost.  It sure looks like the gospel makes God’s promise to the offspring of Israel null and void.  This is what Paul denies has happened and his is going to show us why.

There are two steps to Paul’s argument in these verses.  In the first step, Paul explains why God’s word has not fallen.  This comes to us in verses 6-10.  In the second step, Paul explains how God’s word does not fall, but rather remains, and this comes to us in verses 11-13.  The “why” is tied to the objects of God’s promise, and the “how” is tied to the nature of God’s promise.  The apostle explains that the objects of God’s promise are not coextensive with the physical seed of Abraham (and therefore does not fail because some of them reject the gospel).  On the other hand, the nature of God’s promise is that it is unconditioned on the good works of those who are its objects (and therefore cannot fail when they do).

Why God’s Word has not fallen (6b-10)

The key sentence in this part of the apostle’s argument is in verse 8: “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.”  In other words, the “seed” of Isaiah 45:25, those who will be justified and glorified, are not to be identified with the merely physical offspring of Abraham.  The promises of God were never intended to guarantee the salvation of every individual Israelite.  God’s promises to Israel were not based on physical descent.

That was certainly the way some Jews in Paul’s day took the promises to mean.  Otherwise I don’t understand the point of John the Baptist’s argument, when he warned the Pharisees who came to his baptism, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Mt. 3:9).  They clearly thought that because they were the physical descendants of Abraham, they were safe.  John the Baptist warned against that idea, as Paul does here: “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.” (6b-7).  There is Israel and there is Israel, an Israel within Israel, a remnant according to the election of grace (cf. 11:5).  The promises are not to every physical descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but to the remnant within Israel.  That is essentially Paul’s argument here. 

This really should not surprise us because Paul has already made a distinction in this letter between a true Israelite someone who is only an Israelite by physical descent.  In 2:28-29, he wrote, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”  Here what makes someone a Jew and as such an inheritor of the promises is a heart that has been changed by the Spirit of God.  And then in 4:12, the apostle writes that God made Abraham “the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”  Here what puts someone in the category of the “circumcised,” and as such, a child of Abraham and an inheritor of the promises, is that they have the same faith that Abraham had.  It is not enough simply to claim Abraham as an ancestor, but one must relate to God in the same way he did, by the Spirit and by faith.

But what proof does he have for this?  In verses 7-10, Paul gives two examples of the principle that God’s promise does not necessarily follow physical descent.  In the first example, given in verses 7-9, the apostle illustrates his argument with Isaac and Ishmael.  Both were sons of Abraham, and yet the promise did not go to Ishmael but to Isaac, for “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (7).  In the next example, he exhibits Jacob and Esau (10-13).  In this case, the argument is even stronger, because Isaac and Ishmael were born from different mothers, but that is not the case with Jacob and Esau.  It’s even stronger than that, however, because not only were they born of the same mother, but were conceived at the same time, being twins (10).  But God’s promise did not go to Esau (even though he was technically the firstborn), it went to Jacob.

It is important to remember at this point what Paul is arguing for.  Many people will argue that the figures of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, shows that the apostle is talking about the election of nations, or at the very least, of God selecting individuals to historical tasks.  But this does not make any sense of the context.  You see, it was the problem of God’s electing the nation of Israel which set up the objection that Paul is seeking to answer.  God chose the nation of Israel, which the Jews thought guaranteed the salvation of physical Israel, and which came into question given Paul’s claim that so many of his brethren were lost.  It was the lostness of Israel, in light of Israel’s election as a nation, that was the problem.  It will hardly do to reply to this problem by arguing that God elects nations.  

To say that the election of nations is Paul’s answer to the problem of verse 6 would be like trying to solve a problem by reintroducing the problem.  Suppose, for example, that a person has a stomach condition which causes them to get sick when they eat.  Telling them to eat is not a solution to the problem, since eating is the problem.  In the same way, it is the election of the nation of Israel that has created the problem that Paul is dealing with in these verses.  Saying that Paul’s solution to this problem is that God elects nations is nonsense.  And this is not Paul’s answer.  His answer is that the election of the nation does not guarantee the promise to every individual Israelite.  The eternal salvation of any descendent of Abraham depends upon their being a part of an Israel within Israel.  There is an election within this election.  You can be elect in the sense of being a part of the nation of Israel without being elect in the sense of being saved.  That’s Paul’s argument.

Again, some try to argue that Paul is not talking about salvation at all in Romans 9, but rather of the election of individuals and nations to historical roles and tasks.  The able Arminian scholar Ben Witherington does this, for example, in his commentary on Romans, as well as virtually every other non-Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 (as far as I am aware).  But then he has to argue that Paul is not anguishing over the issue of salvation in verses 1-3, that the “anathema” of verse 3 does not have to do with eternal separation from Christ, and that “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” is not a reference to people who will endure God’s wrath forever (22-23). 

But that’s nonsense.  As we argued last time, every other time that Paul uses the language of anathema, he is referring to God’s curse which brings his wrath.  And applied to people that means they are not saved.  So when he says to the Galatians, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema)” (Gal. 1:8; he repeats himself in the next verse), he is saying that these false teachers, if they continue in their heresy, will be lost.  In 1 Cor. 16:22, he writes, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed (anathema).”  To not love Christ means that you are not saved.  The anathema is not a reference to being cursed in the merely here and now, but to be in danger of being accursed forever.  This is why it is so awful to say that Jesus is anathema (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3).  Thus, when Paul says that he has “great sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart” on account of his brethren and “could wish that I myself were accursed (anathema) and cut off from Christ” (9:3), he is clearly saying that his grief flowed from the lostness of those with whom he shared this common ethnic background.  Since Romans 9-11 are a unit, we should read 9:1-3 in light of 10:1, when he says that “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is that they may be saved.”  The issue here is not merely the historical roles of either nations or individuals, but specifically the fact that so many of Paul’s kinsmen were not saved.  Paul is trying to argue why that fact is consistent with God’s promises to Israel.  The problem is salvation or lack thereof, not historical roles or earthly tasks.

So when Paul brings up the examples of Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, he is arguing that God’s saving promise was extended to Isaac but not to Ishmael, to Jacob but not Esau, and that proves that God’s promise of salvation is not coextensive with physical descent from the patriarchs.  God’s promise has not failed when it doesn’t encompass all of physical Israel, because it in fact never did nor was ever intended to do so.

Now an objection to this is that there is no evidence in the OT that either Ishmael or Esau were lost.  But this is not how the NT authors, including Paul, argue.  Esau, as an individual, is mentioned in Hebrews as an example of an unsaved, unholy person (cf. Heb. 12:14-17).  In fact, Esau in that context is given as an example of someone who has failed to obtain the grace of God.  Paul himself uses Ismael and Isaac in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 4:21-31) as a way to illustrate those who have the Spirit (and are saved) versus those who have not the Spirit (and are not saved).  Isaac is representative of the saved, and Ishmael of the unsaved.

Another objection is that the OT passages that Paul refers to in this text are about nations and historical roles, not individuals and eternal salvation.  Thus, the Malachi reference in 9:13, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated” (cf. Mal. 1:2,3) is a reference to the nations of Israel and Edom, respectively.  But this is not really a strong objection.  The later distinction between the nations of Israel and Edom began in the very personal distinctions between Jacob and Esau, distinctions that marked out Jacob as saved and Esau as unsaved.  

But again, we must keep coming back to the fact that the issue at hand that Paul is answering has to do with the lostness of individuals in Israel and their need for eternal salvation.  Romans 9:1-5 sets up the problem as it is stated in verse 6a, and as it is answered in verses 6b-13.  It is no answer to that problem to argue that God elects nations.  It is no answer to that problem to say that God chooses individuals for historical tasks.  Those are non sequiturs, not answers.  It makes no sense of the text to say that Paul is arguing this way.  It does make sense to take this as meaning that Isaac was saved but not Ishmael, even though they were both sons of Abraham, and that Jacob was saved but not Esau, even though they were both sons of Isaac from the same mother.

The problem was that Paul’s kinsmen misunderstood the extent of God’s promise.  They applied the saving promises to God to those to whom it was never intended.  We ought to be careful that we don’t do the same.

How God’s word does not fall (11-13)

The key verse here is verse 11, with reference to Jacob and Esau: “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.”  The apostle is explaining the choice of Jacob over Esau.  Why did he choose Jacob and not Esau?  It was not because Jacob was better than Esau.  In fact, it had nothing to do with their works at all.  Rather, the basis of God’s election of Jacob over Esau rested not on anything in them, but rather simply upon God’s sovereign purpose and choice.

When Paul says, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand” (rather than fall), he is saying positively what in verse 6 he says negatively.  God’s word of promise will not fall; rather, it will stand.  And why will it stand?  Because ultimately it does not depend upon us but upon him.  That’s the argument.   There are two things we should notice about this election.

God’s purpose of election is unconditional.

This choice was determined “the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,” and is simply a way of saying that this election was a decision made prior to their behavior nor based on their behavior.  Their actions, good or bad, had nothing to do with God’s gracious choice. 

Now some will come right back and point out that though God does not base his election upon works, he does base it upon foreseen faith.  And this is plausible, it is argued, because faith is not a work.  This latter point is true – faith is universally in the NT contrasted with works.  But there are two problems with this objection.  One problem is that Paul does not contrast works with faith but with God’s call.  God’s purpose of election is not said to be based on faith but on “him who calls.”  We’ve already argued that in the NT, and in the epistles in particular (see my sermon on Rom. 8:29-30) that this call is a reference to God’s effectual call.  And this call precedes faith and makes it possible.  In this connection, Paul’s words to the Thessalonians is very instructive: “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 2:13-14).  This is a calling which secures our justification and glorification. 

And that brings us to the second objection.  The fact of the matter is that faith is represented in the NT as being a gift from God (cf. Eph. 2:8).  We have faith because God opens our blind eyes and softens our hard hearts so that we see the gospel and believe it.  God effectually calls us and we come.  If God is foreseeing our faith, he is simply foreseeing something he has given, and something which he gives to us on purpose.  In other words, there is really nothing for God to foresee that is not already included in his eternal purpose.  God gives faith, and gives it unconditionally, so that in the end, God’s purpose of election is an unconditional election.

God’s purpose of election is personal and unto eternal life.

We’ve already argued this in answer to some objections, but now I want to state the matter more positively.  When Paul talks about election, he is talking about an election to salvation.  This is the case in Paul’s writings over and over again.  Again, since Rom. 9-11 are a unit, the passage in Rom. 11:5 is instructive: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”  This remnant is the same group of people (I say group, but we must remember that groups are made up of individuals!) Paul is talking about in Romans 9.  God’s word of promise is not to every individual Israelite, but to Israel within Israel, to the remnant in Israel.  In 11:5, we have this parallel to Romans 9, but clearly this election is an election to salvation, and there is no reason (unless you are theologically prejudiced) to suppose the Rom. 9:11 election is any different.  You also see election in Eph. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:4; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 1:1.  But 2 Tim. 1:9 is especially relevant here, given the numerous parallels to the Romans 9 passage.  There Paul writes that God “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”  This salvation was given us before the world began – this is what it means to be elected.  We are chosen in Christ, and we are called to salvation, a calling which springs from God’s gracious choice.  Again, in Romans 9:11, it is not our works but God’s call that is determinative in our salvation.  As 2 Tim. 1:9 is an election and call to salvation, we shouldn’t think Rom. 9:11 is anything less.  In particular, the fact that calling is linked to election is significant.  In Paul, God’s call is unto salvation.  We are called to eternal life (cf. also Rom. 8:30; 1 Thess. 2:12; 1 Cor. 1:18-31).

This election is what distinguishes between Israel and spiritual Israel (or, the remnant, if you like that language better), between children of God and the promise (Rom. 9:8) and the children of the flesh.  “Children of God” is always, uniformly, in Paul a reference to those who are saved (cf. Rom. 8:16-17, 21; Eph. 5:1; Phil. 2:15).  In Gal. 3:26-29, in fact, the children of God are identified with the seed of Abraham, and heirs of eternal life.  And the only other place “children of promise” is used is definitely in reference to those who are saved (Gal. 4:28).

And so we see why God’s promise of salvation to Israel does not fall to the ground.  It does not fall because it is not directed to every Israelite, or merely on the basis of physical descent.  And it does not fall because God’s promise depends ultimately upon himself, not us.  His promise of salvation depends upon his unconditional election of individuals within Israel to everlasting life.  And this election moreover is not dependent upon foreseen works, or even faith, but upon God’s effective call unto salvation.

How should I respond to the doctrine of election?

First of all, we should believe it.  God has revealed himself most clearly in the Book we call the Bible, and if we reject the Biblical portrayal of God in the Bible, we are worshipping a figment of our imagination.  I know that this is often very difficult to believe, and it’s clear that the difficulties attendant with this doctrine are the reasons why so many good Christians refuse to believe it.  Some think it makes God look arbitrary; others say it makes him look unjust (see the objection of the following verses!); others say it is incompatible with human freedom and responsibility.  Whatever we may think and however we may try to work through these objections, if the Bible teaches it, it must be true, and let God be true and every man a liar.  You believe it first, and then you try to work through the objections.

But in connection with this point, I think it is important to say that we should never take any doctrine and hold it separately and apart from the rest of Scripture.  We need to hold the doctrine of election with the clear teaching of the Bible on human responsibility.  I am a compatibilist, which just means that I believe that the doctrine of election (and God’s absolute sovereignty over all things) is compatible with the fact that our choices are real and significant and meaningful, and our responsibility is real and not an illusion.  I know that some philosophers and theologians would say that what I’ve said here about election is not possible with real human freedom and responsibility.  I can’t say that I fully understand how the two things go together, but what I do know is that they Bible teaches both, and so they must both be true.

But we are stopping short of our duty if we only believe it.  Let us also delight in it.  This is hard for man-centered minds, especially in light of verses like 13.  But God has revealed himself, not merely to be analyzed, but to be worshipped.  To see how this doctrine should lead you to worship, consider the following things.

First, if this doctrine is true, it provides a sure foundation under the feet of all who are in Christ.  Because election is unconditional and of grace, our status before God and hope of eternal life is not dependent upon our works and worthiness, for we didn’t get there on the basis of works to begin with.  And because underneath election is God’s massive purpose which works all things for the good of those who are called according to his purpose, and because this purpose is the purpose of one “who works all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11), we have nothing to fear.  Even our faith is supported and birthed by God’s good purpose.

And then, this doctrine is delightful to the believer because it has as its end the glory of God, which is Paul’s point in Eph. 1:4-6.  It is because God’s electing purpose is unconditional that God is most glorified.  For if his purpose were conditioned on something we did or were, then God would not be free and sovereign.  Instead, he would be dependent upon man and would be bound to conform his will to their own self-determination.   This is not the picture that the Bible paints of God.  Moreover, because God’s electing purpose depends ultimately upon God, it means that he is a successful Savior.  It means that he is not wringing his hands in heaven waiting and hoping that his plans will somehow work out, but rather is seated in heaven ruling without absolute certainly that his purposes will be fulfilled.  He is sovereign and successful in his purposes and designs, and as such, is most worthy of our worship.

God’s word will not fall.  It cannot fall.  It will never fall.  You can take every promise in the Bible to the bank.  So, fearful believer, why not do it?  Believe the promises that he will never leave you or forsake you.  And sinner apart from Christ, why not do it?  Believe the promise that if you call upon the name of his Son, God will freely receive you.  We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we plead with you in Christ’s name, be reconciled to God!