ROMANS 9:6-13 (VS. 11)
SUBJECT: ROMANS/ ISRAEL’S PAST
THEME: God’s entire redemptive economy rests on the foundation of his unchanging nature and character. As a result, we are assured without any disappointment by his mercy, power, and faithfulness.
INTRODUCTION:
Grace has been defined in several ways to convey its undeserved nature and to express its freedom of choice. Divine grace has historically and consistently conveyed God’s willingness to deal with mankind in the most undeserved fashions. In each case the choice is God’s as to whom he will show such unmerited favor to. When everyone of us deserved to be condemned because of our sin, God intervenes to show mercy on some…those who believe his promises…those who engaged him by faith.
It is also true that we humans get our inclinations for justice from God our Creator. He shared this trait with humanity. But that does not automatically mean we are ‘just’ in our behavior or that we hold fair views in all things. We all know there are times we actually reject what’s pure, consistent, warranted, fair, right, and just. Obviously, at times our system of justice needs to be updated and corrected to match our Creator’s. Certainly, we correctly expect God to do right and be fair.
Now there are a few questions I hope
to answer through this study:
1) What does it mean when the
God of love says He loved Jacob but hated Esau?
2) Was God fair in putting
Israel aside temporarily? What about all of God’s national promises?
3) Have the promises of God failed
Israel? Can they fail in our case also?
4) After looking at His record, can God still be trusted today?
LESSON:
GOD’S
REDEMPTIVE PLAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
IN ISRAEL’S PAST SELECTION IS ACCORDING TO GRACE. (Rom. 9:6-13)
Rom. 9:11, (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 “purpose of God according to election might stand” is key to grasping the importance of this passage.
“The purpose of God according to election means His determination to distribute His favors according to His sovereign will and good pleasure. This verse, incidentally, disproves the idea that God’s choice of Jacob was based on His foreknowledge of what Jacob would do. It specifically says that it was not made on the basis of works!”[a]
Another point that needs to be understood from the outset is this term, “him that calleth”.
“God’s plan (8:28; 9:11), and not man’s works (4:2–6), is the basis of His election.”[b]
GOD’S CALLINGS IN QUESTION: WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR ALL OF GOD’S CALLINGS CONCERNING ISRAEL? GOD’S CALLINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH HIS PLAN. Rom 9:6-7, Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: [7] Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
The significance of “seed” contrasted with “children” is vital to our understanding.
1. Historically Who Did God Call?
a. God Called the Second-born Isaac Instead of Ishmael. The example of Ishmael and Isaac. Rom. 9:6, Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
God’s
Callings is always effective, and God’s Word and Promises are never barren nor
voided.
This verse is the heart of this discussion, and it supports the credibility of all of God’s claims, purposes and promises concerning Israel. And reassures the Believer that there will be no breach of promise concerning our salvation.
1) They Are Not All Israel, Which Are of Israel. There is a difference
between the Physical Descendants and the Spiritual Children of Abraham. God’s
blessings did not belong to someone merely because they had the birthright or ethnically
traced their heritage back to Abraham. He had offsprings by Hagar, Sarah, and
Katurah, but the “Seed” was called in Isaac!
Rom. 9:7, Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6-7).
God chose Isaac (Abraham's son through Sarah) over Ishmael (his son through Hagar). Isaac in this usage is the “Promised Seed” of Abraham and as such, he is a picture and type of the Lord Jesus Christ the Promised Seed. Just as in Isaac shall the seed be called also in Christ shall we be counted for the seed—heirs of God and children of promise!
Gal 4:28,
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 3:26-29, For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
2) The Children of the
Promise Are Counted for the Seed.
Rom. 9:8, 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. [9] For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
a) Nationally: Nationality and Being Born a Jew or a Descendant of Abraham has never been the basis for a person becoming an heir to the promises of God. God’s sovereign election was never based on physical lineal descent. Just because a person was born a Jew, does not automatically mean that they are saved. It has always been salvation through faith and therefore we see how God can now justify Gentiles who believe on Christ.
b) Spiritually: The principles of salvation are set forth in the calling and sovereign election of God because of His grace and through faith. That means that salvation is not according to the products of the flesh or human desires, works, and efforts. Those who believe the “promise” concerning the Seed Christ, are the Spiritual Children of Abraham. These are the saved according to the grace of God and not according to their works!
b.
God Called the Second-born Jacob Instead of Esau. The example of
Esau and Jacob
Rom. 9:10-13, And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; [11] (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;) [12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
God chose Jacob (second-born twin of Isaac) over Esau (firstborn twin). Some have been troubled over Paul's statement here in verse 13: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” It should be noted that the statement obviously does not refer to the two boys, but to the nations they founded, namely, Israel and Edom. This Old Testament prophet Obadiah clearly tells us why God hated Edom.
“God’s “love” for Jacob was revealed in His choice of Jacob and God’s “hatred” for Esau was seen in His rejecting Esau for the line of promise. Hatred in this sense is not absolute but relative to a higher choice (cf. Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).”[c]
“The words
Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated must be understood in the light of
the sovereign decree of God that stated, The older shall serve the younger. The
preference for Jacob is interpreted as an act of love, whereas bypassing Esau
is seen as hatred by comparison. It
is not that God hated Esau with a harsh, vindictive animosity, but only that He
loved Esau less than Jacob, as seen by His sovereign selection of Jacob.
This passage refers to earthly blessings, and not to eternal life. God’s hatred of Edom doesn’t mean that individual Edomites can’t be saved, any more than His love of Israel means that individual Jews don’t need to be saved. (Note also that Esau did receive some earthly blessings, as he himself testified in Gen. 33:9.)”[d]
2. God’s Callings Demonstrate His Absolute
Sovereignty!
In each case here (9:6-13), God rejected men who had been firstborn into patriarchal families. In each case the parent wished to see the rejected one inherit the promise. Abraham pleaded for Ishmael (Gen. 17:18) and Isaac attempted to pass the blessing on to Esau (Gen 27:1,4, 30, 33).
In both cases God rejected the ideas, desires, works, efforts, physical origin, and plans of men to accomplish His sovereign will! Why is it then, difficult to accept the fact that UNBELIEVING Israel has been set aside? The point here is simple, God’s callings in the past are consistent with his present work in the world. His plan of redemption still stands on the same principles. Salvation by Grace through Faith!
CONCLUSION:
The entire redemptive economy of God rests upon the foundation of his unchanging nature and character, therefore we can rest without any prospect of disappointment! God is merciful, all-powerful, and faithful. He can be trusted!
God’s fairness with Israel can be observed in the believing minority and with the blinded majority. It was God’s fathomless wisdom (Rom. 11:2-4) and finished work (Rom. 11:5-6) which served as the main factors among the believing minority. In contrast, the blinded majority rejected Christ and fell under God’s judgment in the form of a national stupor, snares, and servitude in accordance with verses seven through nine of chapter eleven. All of this demonstrates the fairness and consistency of the Lord in dealing with Israel. God governs Himself by fixed principles and pure righteousness always.
After looking at his record, can God still be trusted
today?
The answer is absolutely…yes
of course! God has been faithful
to His redemptive plan as demonstrated throughout the history of Israel. Therefore,
we have every reason to believe He will be faithful to His promises to us.
[a]
William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible
Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 1717.
[b] John
A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F.
Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 477.
[c] John
A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F.
Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 477.
[d]
William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible
Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 1717.
No comments:
Post a Comment