Romans 9:10-13

‘And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac. For the children being not yet born, nor having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger”. Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (did not love)”.'

But it did not stop with the birth of Isaac, because although the promised seed was to be ‘called in Isaac' (Romans 9:7) Scripture immediately makes clear that not all Isaac's seed would be children of promise. For the same situation also arose when Rebecca, Isaac's wife had twins. Indeed in this case they came from the same mother at the same time, and were both sons of Isaac, the child of promise. Yet even before they were born God had chosen one above the other, and the younger one at that. At that stage neither had done good, and neither had done bad. So the election could not have been on the basis of merit. It was thus clearly revealed as depending solely on the call of God. For God had declared, even before they were born, that ‘the elder will serve the younger' (Genesis 25:23). This was something to be seen as confirmed by the later Scripture, ‘Jacob I loved and Esau I hated (did not love)' (Malachi 1:2). God elected Jacob and not Esau, and the effect of it passed on to their descendants. Once again, therefore, to be a child of promise involved not just physical birth, but the electing activity of God whereby one was chosen and the other not.

‘By our father Isaac.' Here Paul is speaking as a Jew to Jews (compare Romans 9:3). He is looking at it from their biased viewpoint because if taken literally ‘our father' is not strictly true. Large numbers of the Jews were not physically descended from Isaac (see excursus at the end of chapter 11). Isaac was rather ‘their father' by adoption, as ‘the father' of the original family tribe which had formed the basis of Israel. The reason for the introduction of the phrase ‘our father Isaac' is in order to underline the fact that both Esau and Jacob were descendants of Isaac, the one in whom Abraham's seed would be called. But he then points out that even Isaac's fatherhood was not a guarantee of election, for he was the father of Esau, who was not called.

‘That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls.' For God's election was not on the basis of deserts, nor on the basis of being sons of Isaac, but simply on the basis of His call. The terminology here is salvation terminology related to what he has previously written. For ‘the purpose of God according to election' see Romans 8:28; Romans 8:33. For ‘not of works' see Romans 3:28; Romans 4:2. Here salvation is made dependent on nothing but the call of God. If we try to talk about God ‘foreseeing faith' or ‘foreseeing works' we destroy Paul's whole argument which is based on the fact that the decision is God's alone without any merit or activity on our part.

It will be noted that Paul has not actually said anything with which the Jews would have substantially disagreed. They too would have agreed that Ishmael and Esau were not ‘elected'. But what Paul is saying is that they should therefore recognise a principle here, that God's election is not a blanket one, but is confined at each stage to those who are chosen, and that being born of an ‘elect one' does not guarantee ‘election'. And as Romans 9:6 has made clear, the conclusion he wants them to come to is that the same applies to Israel. They are ‘not all Israel who are of Israel', and ‘not all the sons of Abraham are of the chosen'. Thus by implication to claim to be a ‘son of Abraham' did not necessarily signify being of the elect of God. Ishmael and Esau were ‘sons' of Abraham, as were the sons of Keturah, and yet were not of the elect. Furthermore Esau was a son of Isaac in whom Abraham's seed would be called, and yet Esau was not called. He was not of ‘the elect'.

‘The elder will serve the younger.' It is often argued that this could only refer to the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom, because in fact Esau did not ‘serve' Jacob. But the latter statement is not strictly true. Jacob did become the head of the family tribe, and in terms of the thought of those days Esau was therefore subject to him. This may well have been one reason why Esau came out to welcome Jacob home (Genesis 32:3 ff.) and was with Jacob in the burial of their father (Genesis 35:29).

To take what Paul has said and make it mean on the basis of Malachi 1:2 that he was teaching that the whole nation of Israel is therefore elected to salvation is to reverse what Paul is saying. He was at this point arguing a principle, that at each step only a part were called, not directly discussing whether Israel as a whole were elect or not. It was, however, a principle which, once strictly applied, did cast doubt on the doctrine of the election of Israel as a whole to salvation. For that doctrine assumed that God had ceased making individual choices, whereas Paul makes clear that that was God's method.

Having said that it would seem probable that Paul does have in the back of his mind the descendants of Jacob as being in special favour with God. The citation from Malachi, ‘Jacob have I loved' indicated the nation of Israel as an entity (even though not necessarily as a whole), and even ‘the elder will serve the younger' indicated that one nation would serve another (Genesis 25:23). So God's election went on through history, but as Paul makes clear it was an election of those within Israel who responded from the heart, not an election of the whole (Romans 9:6), and indeed it also included those who had not been Israelites, who would unite themselves with Israel in the true worship of God (just as Edom included far more than just the descendants of Esau. Esau had four hundred men to serve him right from the beginning). We can no more say that all Israelites were included than we can say that all Edomites were excluded. For while Esau was ‘not loved', Edomites could enter into the congregation of the Lord from the beginning (Deuteronomy 23:7), and by the time of Jesus large numbers of Edomites had been co-opted into Israel by force in the time of John Hyrcanus (the Jewish High Priest and Governor), and were thus seen as included among ‘the elect' in Jewish eyes. In that sense therefore it could be said that Esau had become loved. The truth is that the whole idea of nationhood and election, in terms of Israel's election, was fluid. However, with regard to Paul's intention in Romans we should note that any benefit received by Israel was seen as received because of the election of Jacob, which is what Paul is stressing here. The whole emphasis is on the choice between two people, as is made clear by the reference to the fact that neither of them had done good or evil before they were born.

Note On The Election of Israel.

Paul would undoubtedly have agreed that that there was a sense in which Israel s an entity were elected by God. Indeed it was something specifically stated in Scripture (Deuteronomy 7:6; Psalms 135:4: Isaiah 41:8). But that was seen as because God intended to act in the world through that nation (e.g. Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6), rather than because each Israelite was to be seen as elected. Indeed Isaiah makes clear that ‘His servant Israel' are to be seen as the spiritual element within Israel (Isaiah 49:3) There the task of ‘Israel' is to include bringing Jacob to Him again, and restoring the preserved of Israel (Isaiah 49:6). As Israel as a whole could not restore itself, Isaiah 49:3 can only be seen as referring to a spiritual remnant within Israel.

That Israel as a whole was not seen as elected is clearly evident from their history. Those who rebelled against Him were cast off from Him to such an extent that He declared them ‘not my people' (Hosea 1:9), and this was the majority of the people. Indeed the constant refrain of the prophets is that God will deal with a remnant (e.g. Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 8:2; Isaiah 8:18; Isaiah 9:12; Isaiah 10:21; Isaiah 10:24; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:22; Amos 9:8; Micah 2:12; Micah 5:3; Zephaniah 3:12; Zechariah 13:8). In Elijah's time God had left Himself only ‘seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal' (Romans 11:4; 1 Kings 19:18). And in Jeremiah's time there was not a righteous man in Jerusalem apart from Jeremiah and his adherents (Jeremiah 5:1). There is no suggestion that the nation as a whole retained God's favour, either as individuals or as a nation. God's favour was on those who looked to Him. It is man who lumps everyone together from a saving point of view, not God. But God does not save in batches, rather He saves depending on individual response, something, of course, that Paul has already made clear (Romans 2:29). (And something which is equally true of ‘the church').

It is true that many of the Jews saw things differently, which is why Paul is arguing as he is. It is man's way to favour his own group and see them as especially chosen. Rabbis would later claim that no Israelite would go into Gehenna, and that all Israelites had their portion in the world to come (interestingly Israelites there also included Edomites, for the remnant of the Edomites who fled to Israel were made Israelites by force by John Hyrcanus, and it included Gentiles, for Gentiles living in Galilee when it was recaptured by the Jews had been forced to be circumcised and become Jews by Aristobulus, son of John Hyrcanus). But that not all in the time of Jesus saw it in the same way is indicated by those who came to Jesus asking how they could inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25; Luke 18:18 and parallels). So many Jews did still recognise that they were individually accountable, and that not all would receive eternal life. Nevertheless the Jews did develop a strong doctrine of election for the people as a whole, something which Paul has dismissed in Romans 2:1 to Romans 3:10 and also by inference dismisses here. It was in fact a doctrine based on false premises (see excursus at the end of chapter 11.).

End of note.