Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson XIV)

According to John Calvin, when predestination is discussed, some people cannot confine themselves to the restraints of time and within the boundaries of sound debate. Instead, they immediately, through rash thinking and wild suppositions, plunge themselves, as it were, into a hole they cannot crawl back out of. What remedy then is there for those who desire to be enlightened? Should they stay away from any talk or study of predestination all together? Absolutely not! Since the Holy Spirit was sent to teach us what we should know, then it is incumbent upon us to seek the knowledge and understanding He chooses to share with us. One thing for sure, whether a believer fully understands God’s way of establishing those things which are predestined to work the way they do, whatever clarity we may achieve it will no doubt be useful as long as it conforms to the Word of God. There is no Scripture that says people will be kept out of heaven because they do not fully understand predestination. We do not need to make it a sacred rule to guide us in our studies in order to grow in the Lord. We should never seek to know something about predestination that we cannot find in the Scriptures. If God’s Word doesn’t say anything about it, then we should leave it up to Him to reveal what He wants us to know, not try to achieve some eureka moment¹ on our own.²

Calvin has a few more things to say about the phobias and anxieties that occupy some people’s minds. Such thinking most often seeks to charge God with being unfair and unequal. They are ready to blame Him for not seeing what is going on rather than to fault themselves for their own blindness. Paul was not interested in going out of his way just to confound or confuse his readers. But he also did not shun bringing up things that he knew the opposition was itching to confront him with. It is common that when people hear that God determines everything that happens in this world to fit His purpose and will, they get frustrated because they should have the right to exercise their own freewill. But most of their objections are based on imagined wrongs rather than what really is the case. So they charge God with injustice. It’s only natural that when people don’t get what they want or are not treated as equally as others, they feel that they have been slighted and discriminated against. Calvin lets us know that there are two words used by Moses that express the true cause of salvation. The first is, ‘chenen‘, which means to “favor” or “to show kindness freely and bountifully.” The other is, ‘rechem‘, which is to be treated with “mercy.” This confirms what Paul intended to say: that the mercy of God, being complimentary, is under no restraint, but turns to whomsoever He pleases, whenever it pleases Him.³

John Bengel has a lot to say here about whether or not God was being unfair by loving Jacob but hating Esau. Paul is using these twins to represent saints and sinners; Jews and Gentiles; those who come to believe and those who refuse to believe. For Bengel, the Jews thought that they could by no means be rejected by God; that the Gentiles could by no means be received. Just as a generous man acts even with greater severity towards those who are harshly and spitefully persistent than he feels he should do. This is because he wants to protect his own rights, and those of his benefactor, and refuses at any time or under any circumstances to betray and throw away his true character just for the cause of being seen as liberal. This is why Paul defends the power and justice of God against the Israelites, who trusted in their name and their merits. Bengel feels that Paul may be shedding a little light here on what he was taught in the school of the Pharisees by the phrases he uses defining a person’s character.

Bengel also hears Paul saying that no one can dictate anything to the Lord God, nor demand and disrespectfully squeeze something out of Him they feel He owes them. Nor can they censure Him in anything He decides to do because He didn’t give them an opportunity to object. For instance, why does He show Himself kind to some and not to others? Therefore, Paul abruptly throws out a rather straightforward answer to his testy and vindictive objectors.⁴ For no person should try and deal with God the same way they deal with a creditor with whom they have a contract. And even if there were such a contract, they are no match for God’s astute wisdom. In fact, they should let the parable in Matthew 20:13-15 teach them a lesson. If you are going to agree with God on anything in your life then you must agree on Him with everything He does in your life. When we examine Paul’s language closer, we will find that he gives an answer to those who contend for good works, and another on behalf of believers. In the Sacred Scriptures too, especially when we move from an assumption about what God said to the actual promise He made, and we use that to try and understand how it affects us and others, then what Paul says here about those who seek to earn justification by works as opposed to those who receive it as a gift by faith, gives us a clear and easy to understand guideline.⁵

Adam Clarke believes that he hears God saying that He will make such a display of His perfection that it will convince everyone that He is a kind and giving Father. However, He also wants all His creatures to know that He owes them nothing. So they should not come to Him as though He was indebted to us. All of His benefits and blessings come from a loving, caring heart fill with His own good will. That’s why no group of people, let alone a rebellious nation should challenge Him to pay them what they are due in justice or equity. As a consequence, He offers to spare the Jewish people from the punishment they deserve. Not because Moses, and now Paul, are interceding for them, or that they themselves deserve special favor. No, but out of His own free and sovereign grace chooses those He wants and shows them mercy and compassion. That means He will offer salvation His own way and on His own terms. Anyone that believes in His Son Jesus will be saved. So it is only natural that those who refuse to believe will be damned. This is God‘s ultimate design and purpose. He will never change. This He has made clear in the everlasting Gospel. This is the “Grand Decree of Rejection and Election.”⁶

Robert Haldane believes that Paul expected someone to object to his statements about God loving Jacob and hating Esau. Think about it, wouldn’t loving Jacob and hating Esau before they were born and could do anything good or bad be a form of injustice? How could God love someone who hasn’t done any good, and hate someone who has not done any wrong? So what is the Apostle’s reply? First of all, he quietly dismisses the notion that the way God’s treated Jacob and Esau was unfair. Whenever someone poses a question about God being unjust and discriminatory they are ignoring the fact that God is pure and holy. Nothing He does can ever be labeled as an act of injustice. You see, there is no one qualified or intelligent enough to judge God. No matter what He does or does not do, within the scope of His perfection He determined it to be right for the occasion. No matter where or what you read in Scripture, God is always represented as being infinitely just, as well as divinely wise, holy, good, and faithful. And because God is of such perfect character, everything that He declares to be is part of His being sovereign, and all that He wills into being must conform with the perfection of His character. These Godly virtues and values keep Him from denying Himself, telling a lie, and being inconsistent with any of His Divine attributes.⁷

We hear these same objections today but in different terms. I’ve been asked: “If God so loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son to died for everyone, then how can God send people to hell?” Of course, the answer is that God sends no one to hell because by His grace and mercy He has provided a way of escape through His Son’s death. The only people who go to hell are the devil and his fallen angels, and all those who follow him instead of Christ. In the same way, the only people who will go to heaven are the faithful angels and all those who follow Christ and not the devil. But the one thing over which no man or angel has any control is what God said to Moses that Paul quoted in verse 15.

Albert Barnes feels that Paul is as curious as anyone else in determining if God is being unjust or being wrong? This is in reaction to learning of the doctrine of God’s selective application of grace. But Paul quickly dismisses this charge. He disarms it by showing that this doctrine was explicitly taught in the First Covenant, and is founded on the principle of equity. Furthermore, it is backed by the sovereignty of God’s will. Barnes also touches on God’s declaration that He will show mercy when and where He feels it is appropriate. We see this revealed when He told Moses to watch as all His goodness would pass before him.⁸ By doing so God offered proof of His benevolence and not some relentless injustice, seeking whom He may devour. That He leaves up to Satan.⁹ So when people who have not yet tasted of the Lord and found out that He is in fact so good,¹⁰ makes it easy for them to arbitrarily resist and pervert what God regards as the very essence of His kindness. Paul makes it crystal clear, God has the Divine right to choose the objects of His favor, and bestow His mercies on whom it pleases Him. No being has ever lived that can say they deserved being special in His eyes, not even to those who according to others or themselves are the most righteous and holy. He has a right to pardon whom He pleases, and to save on His own terms in accordance with His sovereign will and personal pleasure.¹¹

H. A. Ironside also examines Paul’s quote of God’s word to Moses about having selective mercy. He alerts us to the fact that God did not say, “I will condemn whom I will condemn,” or “I will sentence to eternal destruction whom I will make good-for-nothing.” No such thought crosses God’s mind. who “has no pleasure in the death of the wicked,”¹² “but that all should turn to Him and live.”¹³ When God spoke to Moses and told him that He would have His goodness pass in front of him,¹⁴ we must recall the conditions under which God chose to speak these words. Israel had decided to go back to their old form of worship in Egypt. They fashioned a calf out of gold, and then came and bowed down in front of it. This was done while Moses was up on the mountain receiving the stone tablets of the Law. Even without knowing it, they were already violating the first two commandments. Because of this, God was about to wipe them off the face of the earth. But Moses stepped in as a mediator. He pleaded their cause before God. He even offered to take their punishment for them. We see this same purpose in the mission of Christ. He is the world’s last and only hope. Believe in Him and receive everlasting life, or reject Him and face eternity without God and no hope of salvation. That’s what the devil and his demons are facing. Don’t follow them, or you will receive the same punishment.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson XIII)

Jewish scholar David Stern gives us his view on the roles Jacob and Esau play in our understanding of God’s foreknowledge and election. He points to Rebecca as an important factor in seeing how God’s absolute sovereignty determines such matters and does so independent of anything human beings can contribute. Jacob and Esau were her children. But unlike Ishmael and Isaac who had the same father, were from different mothers. Since Sarah was the one chosen to give birth to a miracle child of promise, it seems logical that she would give more worth to her child than to her housemaid Hagar’s son, even though he was conceived by Sarah’s insistence.

In that case, it would be easy to credit Sarah with giving Isaac the advantage in being chosen as the son of promise. Another factor to be consider is that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when Isaac was born. By that time his personality was already formed and proved to be unacceptable that he be chosen to fill the role of producing the promised seed of Abraham. However, Paul makes it explicitly clear that when it came to Jacob and Esau, God was not influenced by any of these things in making His decision. The fact that He announced ahead of time that He would love Jacob and hate Esau, shows that it was already in the mind of God, something Isaac and Rebecca had no power or influence over. So when God decides, it is written in stone. The only question left is whether or not mankind will accept God’s decisions and work with Him.¹

Verses 14-15: So what does this mean? That God is unfair? Heaven forbid! God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I want to show mercy to. I will show pity to anyone I choose.”²

So Paul now asks the obvious question, what does all this mean to us? Is God being unfair? Is it right for Him to prefer one over another? Here Paul addresses the subject of predestination and freewill. This was Abraham’s question when God told him that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were so evil, even though Lot and his family lived there. So Abraham responds: “That wouldn’t be right! Surely You wouldn’t do such a thing, to kill the godly with the wicked! Why, You would be treating the godly and the wicked exactly the same! Surely You wouldn’t do that! Should not the Judge of all the earth be fair?”³ Certainly sounds like a sensible question when filtered through human understanding and reasoning. But when seen with God’s purpose in mind, here is what Moses wrote: “He’s called, The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are fair. A trustworthy God who makes no mistakes, He is legitimate and level-headed.”⁴

That’s why King Jehoshaphat of Judah instructed his judges: “Let your reverence for the LORD always influence your mind; be careful about your decisions; for the LORD our God does not allow dishonesty.”⁵ Perhaps Jehoshaphat was influenced by the fact that the righteous-minded Job said that God does not twist or distort justice.⁶ Even Job’s friend Elihu told the others: “Listen to me, those of you who have any sense. Surely everyone knows that God is not deceitful. Instead, He pays people back for what they do and sees that each one gets what their conduct deserves. There is no truer statement than this: God never provokes or is unfair. He alone has authority over the earth and dispenses justice for the world.”⁷ And the Psalmist adds this: “Adonai is righteous in all His ways, full of grace in all He does.”⁸

Paul now turns to the Scriptures to support his point of view and reminds his readers in Rome about what Moses wrote after years of experience in carrying out God’s mission for his life. After Moses asked God if he could see His glory, the LORD said to him: “I will make my goodness pass before you, and I will announce to you the meaning of my name ADONAI. Furthermore, I show favor to whomever I will, and I display mercy to whomever I will.”⁹ When this story is retold, we find that when God let His glory pass in front of Moses, He not only mentioned His name, but said that it defines Him to be full of mercy, compassion, slow to anger, rich in grace, and truth.¹⁰ No doubt this inspired the prophet Micah to exclaim: “Is there another God like You, who pardons the sins of the survivors among His people? Who cannot stay angry because He delights in grace.”¹¹

On the subject of God’s choice to show mercy to those He chooses, Early church scholar Apollinaris feels that it is not unfair for God to have mercy on those He wishes to bless, while not making it a universal blessing for everyone else. He does not dispense His mercy in line with the flawed standards of human thinking, but by His own guidelines and divine wisdom. Anyone who is shown mercy receives the benefit of being chosen, not because of their own works, but because of God’s grace and mercy. The wonderful thing about God’s gracious love and mercy, He does not need to ask for advice or permission from anyone before He acts.¹²

Also, early church scholar Ambrosiaster sees it the same way with a qualifier. He says that God will have mercy on those He knows who will turn and come to Him to be converted and remain faithful to Him. It is alright to ask, “How does He know who they are?” First and foremost, He knows everything there is to know about everyone. His omniscience is unlimited. To this we can add that He does not make mistakes in choosing. If what the Psalmist said concerning how much God knows about us is true,¹³ then He is quite aware not only of what we need but how we will respond. It is up to God to give or to not to give. One thing He will not do, and that is waste time on those who have no intention of listening or obeying.¹⁴

Then, Chrysostom sees God telling Moses that it was not up to him to decide who was deserving of His love. Rather, Moses was to leave that up to God. If that was true back then, how much more should we accept it for today.¹⁵ I have seen it in worship services and even on TV and streaming on the Internet. A minister will ask if there is anyone who wants to give their life to Jesus Christ and be saved. Once they give the signal for such people to raise their hand and then stand, there is usually a positive reaction among the congregants. But then the minister will say, “There should be more. Are you sure you don’t want to stand? Come on, I think there should be some more to give their hearts and lives to Jesus Christ.” On the surface, most people do not think there is anything wrong with encouraging people to act upon the call for salvation. But let’s examine this again.

There is no question that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to used the Word of God to convict. So how does the call or encouragement of a human being add anything to what the Spirit can do? Having faced that same situation multiple times myself, I felt satisfied to leave that work to the Holy Spirit. Did I often wish that more would have come forward? Yes! But not by my invitation, but by that of the Spirit. If they come because I may have convinced them, what could I do once they arrived at the altar? I’ve even had one minister tell me that he became a pastor because that’s what his family wanted him to do and he was never comfortable in that role. In other words, he had received no call to the ministry from God. He finally left the full-time ministry and continued to serve God as a layman while also carving out a career as a noted mathematician in accounting. Either we can trust God and His Spirit to get the job done, or we can’t. We must each decide which it will be.

Martin Luther points out that when God said to Moses that He would have mercy on whom He chooses to have mercy, that rather than this showing God as a partial and biased deity, it presents Him as a caring, compassionate, and considerate God. For those who are proud and think themselves worthy, this is a hard thing to hear, but to those who are humble and feel worthless, it is a sweet sound to their ears.¹⁶ In fact, Luther contends, that for this very reason the Lord will have mercy when it is appropriate since His justice is based upon His will. Not only that, but since our God is Supreme Goodness, and good all the time, He is incapable of doing anything that is evil. The only reason some people think that when God’s will is evil is when it goes counter to their own wishes. But the fact is if they would just yield their will to God’s will, even if it means the rejection of their request and even the realization that what they asked for is considered greedy, still they suffer no harm because in the end God’s will is done. People who do this will discover that those who wait patiently for what God wants for them, everything turns out better than it would have had they received what they first asked for.¹⁷

But Luther is not finished since this subject touches him deeply. He continues by saying that when God says He will have compassion on whom He is compassionate, this means He will give grace, in time and in life to those concerning whom He purposed from eternity to show mercy. In doing this, God is not unjust. This He willed and was pleased to do from eternity, and His will is not bound by any law or obligation. God’s freewill, which is subject to no one, cannot be unjust. Indeed, it is impossible that it should be unjust. God’s will would be unjust only if it would transgress some law, and that means that God would go counter to Himself.¹⁸

John Calvin also adds the fact that sinners cannot encounter God’s wisdom without becoming defensive and ask a lot of questions. Not only that, but one of their most asked question about anything God said or did is, “Why?” Because of that, we find that whenever the Apostle Paul opened a discussion on any of God’s great mysteries, he constantly had to deal with the many absurdities that always seem to occupy the minds of those listeners who looked for ways to blame God for their situation. This is especially true of those who, when they hear what the Scriptures have to say about predestination, end up being entangled by what they feel are many inconsistencies and stumble over numerous impediments that they themselves place in their own path. Predestination is something that the mind of man cannot resolve or extricate itself from without confusion. It is one thing to be curious, but there are those who are so suspicious that the more they dig into a subject the more they get lost in the fog of uncertainty and cannot find what they are looking for.

Someone once pointed out that there are some questions that can be life-changing if they were asked, if they are contemplated on, and an answer is given. This, however, can be achieved only when those questions are answered with total honesty. If a person cannot be honest with themselves, they’ll have trouble being truthful with others.

So here are some of the questions to ponder:

• If you knew you were going to die tomorrow at 12 noon, what is the one thing you would make sure you did between now and then?
• If you had the opportunity to be different, what two things would you change about yourself?
• If you could have one thing you don’t have now, what would it be?
• If there was a crime you could commit and know you would get away with it, would you still go ahead and do it?
• If you found the lost wallet of a person you knew hated you, what would you do with it?
• If you could be famous, what would you like to be famous for?
• If you had one wish, what would you wish for?
• If you could have any position in any company or organization, what would you like it to be?
• If you were given a choice between receiving great wisdom or great wealth, which one would you choose?
• If you were given the opportunity to start life all over again, what three changes would you make?
• If you were told, you had a terminal illness and had one month to live. What four things would be most important for you to do?
• If you could bring back three people from the grave to ask them any question, which three would it be and what questions would you ask?

There are so many more inquiries like this to ponder. But the big question now is this: do you ever stop, take time to meditate, and ask yourself questions like this or do you wait for it to happen before you decide what to do?

Jesus told a compelling story about ten young ladies invited to be part of a wedding. It was back in the days when people went out at night they carried an oil lamp with them so they could walk safely in the dark. They went to where they were supposed to wait for the groom to arrive. Suddenly, at midnight they were told, “He’s here! Get up! Get to the wedding venue, and hurry!” So when they all lit their lamps to go, unfortunately, five of them forgot to bring along extra oil. So while they were out looking for oil to borrow or buy, the wedding took place. When they finally showed up, they were not allowed to go in.

That’s the same thing that happens to us when we don’t stop and contemplate what we would do in a particular situation. So the question now is, do you already know what you will do if your life and reputation depended on it? – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEVER SAY “NO” TO A BLESSING

I know that Christmas is over, but we can still see it in the rear-view mirror of our memory. When I read this story, I wanted to share it with you as the author asked. It was written by Dr. Laura Estes, a Music & Voice Teacher, and a proud supporter of our military. So here is something to keep your Christmas spirit alive.

She wrote that all she really wanted for Christmas was to do something to support our troops. She prayed about this goal daily until she thought she had received an answer, about how to help the troops. Her Christmas Wish started as a yearly donation drive in which her school gathers and donates items to the military. The trip took two months to complete, and the community was very willing to help in the effort. This year, they gathered enough for many troops and started wondering how much it would cost to send all of it overseas. It was very costly, as it turned out.

As she lugged all the heavy packages to the Postal Annex with her three-year-old son in tow, there was an older gentleman who held the door for her. He was a tall, slender man with wavy silver-grey hair, warm, brown eyes, and a deep, richly toned melodic voice. (She is a singer, music teacher and voice teacher, so she paid particular attention to how someone sounds when they speak, their diction, any accent, and even any inflection detected in their voice.)

He asked many questions about where the packages were going, did she have family in the military, why she had decided to do this project in the first place. She laid out the complete story to him and explained the compelling feeling that “The Lord was calling her to do something.” Although she did not currently have family in the military, many in her family on both sides had served proudly over the years. He then asked what could he do to help. She explained that it would be expensive and a couple of dollars to help pay for postage would be very much appreciated. She was caught off guard when he said he would help.

They talked about life, our soldiers, family, her work, and religion while each care package was carefully weighed and sealed with all the proper customs forms. He was an active listener and good conversationalist. It was a cold, crisp, December evening and the day turned quickly to evening, so she offered to get everyone coffee next door. When she returned, he was still there. By now, there was a small crowd of people entering the Postal Annex, and when they saw what she was doing many asked the same questions. She answered them as they came and went, busily running after the next errand on their list. With less than a week before Christmas, most people just walked right on by. Not this man, he waited patiently, drank his coffee, and just took the time to speak with her like he had all the time in the world. It turned out, he happened to be a veteran himself. He, Charles, had also served our country proudly some years ago. Charles said he never received any packages. All the many packages were finally ready to be mailed off. When the total came up, it was $170.00!! Her mind reeled! She didn’t have that kind of money and was trying to think of ways to leave or store the packages until she could get more money.

Without so much as a word, Charles quickly paid for the entire mailing!! She was too stunned to speak but stumbled to find the words as she realized what had just happened. Feeling embarrassed, she said, “No, I can’t accept this kind of gift.” She was concerned that he might also not have this kind of money and it would put his family in hardship. Then, one lady walked over and told her plainly that she was being foolish not to accept this man’s generosity. By refusing the money, she would ruin his blessing.

She finally relented but was so overcome with a grateful, thankful heart her eyes welled up with tears. Everyone in the Annex suddenly got quiet. This complete stranger had fulfilled her Christmas Wish! As she pondered this fact and how the day was shaping up, she remembers thanking him repeatedly, not finding just the right words to express her most profound gratitude. After chasing her three-year-old around to get ready to leave, she was offered yet another blessing from another complete stranger. This man removed a necklace with a gold cross and offered it to her son. She silently wondered, “Such amazing gifts, do I really deserve this?” So once again she whispered to him, “I just can’t take your necklace.” Those around her the same thing Charles did, that by refusing to accept his gift she was interfering with his blessing. She didn’t know what else to say. She put the necklace around her son’s neck. One lady told her this kind gesture by this man was a father’s way of treating a son.

The overwhelming evidence of love, compassion, and willingness to help and give left her speechless. Others in the Annex were overcome as well. Tears welled in their eyes, and the air was suddenly transformed and thick with emotions. None of them, it seemed, had experienced the good side of the human spirit in quite some time. Charles then handed me an envelope and said it was for her. She just shook her head in disbelief. “I don’t think I can accept this,” she blurted out. “Oh yes you can”, Charles began, “because you deserve it. Do something for yourself and spread some Christmas cheer.” “Are you sure? She asked?” Charles looked her straight into her eyes and calmly said,” Everything is going to be okay. Open it after I leave.” They spoke for a few minutes longer. “Thank you…for everything Charles,” she said. Walking out the door, he said, “Have a Merry Christmas” and then he quickly disappeared into the night.

By this time, most people had left, and it was near closing time. And just as she was about to go she remembered the envelope. She quickly opened it and nearly fainted!! Inside was 500.00 dollars! Based on the previous mailings, it was about the amount she needed to mail the remaining care packages. As she left for home, she was more than stunned and began to cry. She called the volunteers together and told the story. They were all in awe in light of the recent events. She explained to them if they saw Charles, to please report to him that she was spending the money on the postage to send the packages and some Christmas Cheer. They said they would.

The next day, she went back and happily mailed most of the remaining packages, 50 or more, so it is an enormous task. She also spread some Christmas cheer by buying cake slices for some children and others nearby. She thought to herself, “Charles, wherever you are, I think you would be pleased to know that because of you, hundreds of American troops will receive just what they wanted this holiday season. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.” She had just experienced the very unexpected, most amazing Christmas gifts she had ever received or ever would receive.

Charles and men like him are everyday heroes, angels on earth in a sense. The man who offered his necklace to her son. People who do extraordinary things for complete strangers to save a life, lend a hand, or extend a helpful gesture to them. So if this story touched your heart, pray for Laura and all those who are helping her with the beautiful expression of support. Having served in the military nine years, four of them overseas, I can tell you that letters, cards, and packages from home are treated as though they were brought by the three wise men. If you know of someone overseas right now, find a way to tell them you are praying for them. That in itself is a gift. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson XII)

Because of all this, Bible scholar H. A. Ironside is surprised that such a needless amount of controversy has raged over how these verses about God’s choice of Jacob over Esau are to be understood and interpreted. They are plain and simple and to the point. It is best to see them as part of God’s dispensational dealings over time. When you build a house, the foundation comes first, the walls second, then the roof, and finally the interior. Also, different materials are used in the construction of these parts of the house. But the principle is the same. That each one serves its purpose in completing the structure for occupation. So it was with God’s plan of salvation. What was done in Noah’s day, Abraham’s day, Moses’ day, David’s day, Jesus’ day, does not need to be repeated over and over again. Why should those who’ve moved into the house destroy and rebuild the foundation? So when it comes to the question of predestination, it is all tied into the principle God used to establish the plan of salvation. Ironside said it is quite simple: Saints go to heaven, sinners go to hell.

Ironside also points out that Paul does not deal with eternal issues in this chapter, although, we can see how they follow the narrative and are seen as a result of the use or misuse of God-given privileges. But nowhere does it say that before children are born some are already destined to heaven and some to hell. How can you say that some were saved by grace, in spite of all their sins, while the others were condemned to hell, even though they yearned for that same grace? This passage has to do with what happens here on earth between birth and death. It was God’s purpose and design that Jacob should be the father of the twelve tribes and that through one of them the promised Seed, our Lord Jesus Christ, should come into the world.¹

But that is not the end of the story. It all pointed to carrying out God’s plan of redemption to save and reconcile with those who suffered the fallout of Adam’s sin. Today they have a good word for it, they call it “collateral damage.” Someone else caused the calamity, but everyone around them was hurt by the blast. In other words, Paul was not speaking of any preordination in predestination, but of the principle of predestination. The principle is this: God has outlined the path to everlasting life and the road to destruction. Once you are made aware of this through the Holy Spirit, it is then your choice which to follow. These ways were set before the beginning of time and they will not be altered in any way for anyone, at any time.

Charles Ellicott comes to a conclusion, after studying what Paul is teaching here, that involves the doctrine of election and predestination. He believes what is said about them is done in a very unconditional and uncompromising way. However, they are not cut and dried. It isn’t just one general idea that is blanketed over everything with no consideration given to specifics. We need to look at man’s freewill as much as God’s sovereign will. After all, the exercise of the will is part of both human and divine characteristics. They serve as two important elements which go into determining action. Whatever the outward circumstances and inward disposition may be, neither one can act on its own to determine the outcome of a decision. So if we follow this train of thought, then it appears that God sets things in motion, which He then directs to both start and finish the work on the one chosen by Him to enter and remain steadfast in the Kingdom of God. Ellicott says we must look at it this way: A person is elected and predetermined by God to follow a certain type of living and conduct. But that’s only half the story. On the other side is the logic behind man’s freewill to obey or disobey as instructed. And rather than these canceling each other out, they are absolutely necessary in order for the plan to function and the outcome to be determined. God has already announced His plan of predestination. But a person must yet judge and decide to accept the plan as presented to them.²

F. F. Bruce gives us some other things to think about. In the writing of the Prophets, we discover in the context that things are no longer dependent upon Jacob and Esau as individuals, but now Israel and Edom are part of the equation.³ Sometimes it is confusing to the Bible reader when the intent of the Scripture goes from individual to community in the First Covenant. The same is true, however, in the Last Covenant when it talks about being an individual branch on the vine and an integral part of the whole body of Christ. We are told by the Prophet that Israel was the elect nation, and Edom incurred the wrath of God for its unbrotherly conduct towards Israel in the day of Israel’s calamity⁴.⁵ So we can see that although God knew of this beforehand, it was just as much influenced by the decision of the Edomites as God knowing about it.

Karl Barth gives us an expressive conclusion here. He points out, as others have already done, that we have the story of the unborn twins of Isaac and Rebecca who were part of Abraham’s promised seed. And before they were delivered the message came to the parents: “The older twin will serve the younger twin.”⁶ Who else but God could approve one twin over the other? Who at that point had any evidence that one would be good and the other bad? Who had the foresight to determine the one who would be the father of the nation of Israel from which the Messiah would come? All of this was still hidden and indistinguishable in the womb of their mother. That is, except to the omniscient God know what is unknown to mankind. And why not Esau instead of Jacob? After all, even in the womb, Esau was set to come out first.

But at that point in time, one twin had not yet established preeminence over the other. They were both legitimate sons of Isaac. Both were grandsons of Abraham. Neither had yet sinned. And yet, though conceived at the same time, there was, nevertheless, the fact that they were eternally separated by destiny. One for election, the other for rejection. One, a symbol of God’s church, the other, a symbol of man’s church. One set to be righteous the other unrighteous. For Barth this leaves a question to be answered: Why oh why should the same inquiry be repeated over and over again about predestination and election? The answer is: Because it is necessary for people to understand God’s purpose in using election to select those who will be saved. That’s the whole issue of who will be chosen and justified. Not by works presented as merit, but those who call out for salvation in faith.⁷

John Stott also gives his summation by stating that God’s selection process is also an indispensable foundation on which Christian worship is built, both now and in eternity. The very core and essence of Christian worship can be found in these words: “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your Name be the glory.”⁸ If we knew that we were responsible for our own salvation, either the whole thing or some part of it, we would have every right to sing our own praises and blow our own trumpet in heaven. But such a thing has no place among God’s redeemed people. They plan to spend eternity worshiping Him, as they humble themselves before Him in grateful adoration. That’s because it is only to Him that we ascribe our salvation. It is to acknowledge that our calling, redemption, election, and adoption into the family of God is dependent upon the Lamb of God, and declaring that He alone is worthy to receive all praise, honor, and glory.⁹ Why? Because our salvation is due entirely to His grace, His will, His initiative, His wisdom, and His authority.¹⁰

Douglas Moo tackles a sensitive subject here. He brings into the discussion the “Arminians.”¹¹ It is they who rejected predestination, and a corresponding affirmation of the freedom of the human will. This is in contrast to what Calvin taught on predestination. That’s why most Christian groups fall into two groups when interpreting these verses. First, some think that Paul teaches here about individual salvation based on their free-will. But at the same time, there is nothing in this passage that excludes the idea that God’s choice of people to be saved is based on His foreknowledge and predestination.

So we have both man’s will and God’s will at work here. God desires that all mankind be saved. But in his omniscience, He knows ahead of time who will respond to the call but He never announces it. That’s why Paul is quick to point out that works have no influence on God’s choice to send the Holy Spirit to call those out of darkness to whom He will offer salvation. Not only that, but it takes faith to believe in what one cannot see. Therefore, when we examine the vital role that Paul assigns to people who make the choice in the first four chapters of this letter, this certainly gives us enough reason to believe that while a person is not saved by works, they are also unable to be saved unless they make a decision to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

When Jesus said that we were to go into all the world to preach the Gospel, certainly He intended for everyone to hear about God’s plan of salvation. But here we are over 2,000 years later and the whole world is still not Christian. Does it mean the salvation message has failed? No, it means that God foreknew it would be this way. Think of how many times Jesus referred to the “last days,” as being full of terror and persecution. And why did Jesus say He’d be back to take all who believed and accepted Him out of this world so that the end times could be carried out? Also, what about the Day of Judgment? Certainly, there will be many who will not qualify to enter the eternal joy with the saints.

Secondly, those who accept the Arminian interpretation of freewill today must admit that the text here is not all about the individual deciding their salvation by choice. Paul has spent a great deal of time in writing about how God has acted in the past to create his own spiritual nation as a way to promote and further His plan of salvation. Therefore, while a personal relationship with Christ is certainly advocated, each individual is not saved apart from and exclusive of others. They must be part of the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul made it clear that the Church is the Bride of Christ of which He is the head. When He returns it will not be for individuals, but for the Bride. So to rise in the resurrection to join Him in the air, you must already be part of the group he is returning for. The same goes for the world. Although they are all individual sinners, they are, as a group, part of the devil’s domain.¹²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson XII)

In another of his writings, Augustine states that no one could say that Jacob appeased God by meritorious works before he was born so that God should say that Esau would be his servant even though he was the youngest. Neither had Isaac placated God by any previous meritable works so that Jacob’s birth was promised as a result. Says St. Augustine: “Good works do not produce grace, but are produced by grace.”¹ In the same document, Augustine goes on further to note that if God hated Esau because he was a vessel made for dishonor, how can we then say that God loved everything He made? One statement seems to contradict the other. Although this is a difficult problem to explain, in search of an answer we can start with the fact that God is the Creator of all creatures. Since He made them for good, then it’s obvious that he loves what He made.

So, since God did not change His mind about loving His creation, did creation do something that changed their status from being good to being bad? Remember, mankind was not created as a sinner. Mankind became a sinner because of disobedience. Therefore, God must be true to Himself and love good and hate evil. Augustine takes this another step further by noting that God is the Creator of both the body and the soul of mankind. At creation, neither of these were determined to be evil. God had no reason to hate either one. But when the soul turns and rebels against God and uses the body to engage in things that are abhorrent to God, thereby making both the soul and body evil. God has no choice but to love what is good and hate what is evil. Since sin brought death to the body, God has no plans to save the body for eternity. But since disobedience resulted in God and the soul being alienated, God already had a plan to offer forgiveness so that the soul can be saved. And on the day of resurrection, the saved soul will be joined with a new body that never knew sin to live forever with God.²

Origen offers his input by noting that Paul is saying all this in order to make it clear that if either Isaac or Jacob were chosen by God based on their merits, and thereby earned justification by the works of the flesh, then the grace of God would have to be extended to all their children by natural reproduction. Faith and grace would then have no influence on their being chosen. However, since their election had nothing to do with merit or good works, but according to God’s purpose and their free will to obey the One who called them, then their selection had nothing to do with their wishes but God’s wishes. And those who yielded to His calling and purpose then became the children of God through adoption, not because of their human genealogy.³

Martin Luther calls Rebecca a virtuous woman, the only wife of saintly Isaac, the father of all the children of Israel. But although she had twins, it was just for one of her sons that the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham was intended. So it was through him alone, and not the other, that the Lord said the heir of the promise should come. The fact that Esau was also a descendant from so good a father and mother did not help him at all. Even though he was conceived and born according to the flesh in wedlock it did not benefit him, neither that he was the firstborn. So Paul wanted the unbelieving Jews to know how much less of a chance they had in joining the true Israel as children of God just by the fact of their birth. Notwithstanding the fact that they claimed to be sons of Abraham through the patriarchs according to their genealogy, as long as they continue in their unbelief they could not claim to be part of God’s elect.⁴ As we would say today: You may be born in a Christian family, raised as a Christian, baptized in a church, but you must make a personal decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior in order to become part of the family of God.

In Reformer John Calvin’s mind, Paul begins to build this specific argument on the basic premise that Rebecca, Isaac’s only wife by marriage, had legitimate twins. As such, they were equal in all ways. And with Esau being the initial one out of the womb, he was the only one eligible for the blessing of Abraham as the firstborn son. Then Paul builds the next tier of his argument by pointing out that a difference was made, however, by God’s selection process. Therefore, one of them would be eligible for a special grace not available to the other, in which he would enjoy the favor of God and become the lineage through which the children of promise would come. Because of that, the special relationship that the children of Israel had with God was not based upon their own virtues, characteristics, or intellect, but because of God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau. So they should never glory in their own righteousness but rejoice as children of God’s favor.

Calvin then goes on to say that he sees three propositions in Paul’s argument over who is part of the true Israel, the chosen of God. The first proposition concerns how the covenant between God and Israel separates them from all other nations. This then allows God to further distinguish between the people of Israel into those He predestines to salvation and others to eternal condemnation.⁵ The second proposition involves the foundation for God’s selection process. It is built on the goodness of God alone. Since the fall of Adam, His mercy has embraced whom He pleases without regard to their works or merit.⁶ The third proposition is shown how God, despite His election being free, still exempted Him from imparting the same grace to all equally. The fact is, He passes by some in order to choose others according to His will: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.⁷“⁸ From this you can see why Calvin was thought of as the champion of predestination. However, Calvin never takes man’s free will out of the equation.

Adam Clarke points out what he feels are some important factors involved here. While no one can argue against the fact that these passages do not speak personally of Jacob or of Esau,⁹ what Paul says here involves their descendants. Esau never claimed that he and his descendants were poor, nor was his estate destroyed like that of Job, nor was the land given to him ever taken away. If a passage of Scripture neither speaks of one person or the other, but only of their offspring, then it is clear that Paul is speaking of them in the same way. Consequently, we can then neither speak of God’s love for Jacob, or God’s hatred for Esau. This makes it hard to decide the eternal destiny of either man, whether one was bound for happiness and the other for misery. That was yet to be determined. Therefore, there is no Scriptural or rational basis here for the doctrine of unconditional personal election or rejection. Obviously, Clarke was not a fan of the idea of predestination as he saw it in Calvin’s thinking.¹⁰ However, neither would Clarke have proclaimed that salvation can come to anyone even if they merely bump into it by accident. Nothing God does is tied to chance or good luck.

Robert Haldane sees the influence of God’s sovereign will in the election and purpose of those He chooses to serve Him in specific ways. He says that not only in Isaac’s case was the election limited to him, and not Ishmael, as the son of promise, in an even more remarkable way it was applied to Isaac’s two sons Jacob and Esau. Some might allege there are reasons for this, but they cannot point to Isaac and Ishmael because although they had the same father, they were from different mothers. Even more was the fact that Sarah was Abraham’s lawful wife and Hagar his concubine. Even though they were both conceived by Rebecca with Isaac, yet God chose the one and rejected the other. But in the case of Jacob and Esau, there is no such distinction. And being twins, they were born at the same time. Thus, the fact that Jacob was chosen over Esau can only be traced to the sovereign will of God. And who among humans can know the mind of God? That said, Paul’s main purpose was to show that this was a foreshadowing of God’s election and calling that would come through Christ Jesus. This was to serve God’s divine purpose in calling and selecting those who would be adopted into the family of God, be they Jews or Gentiles.¹¹

Paul clearly explains this in verse 11 and confirms it in verse 12. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, it might still be said of Ishmael that as soon as he was old enough to know right from wrong, it is clear that he developed a nasty disposition. He began to make fun of Isaac, taunting him to make his life miserable.¹² This was all Sarah needed to turn against the very child she told Abraham to produce through their slave Hagar. However, when it came to Jacob, Paul cites no preference given to Jacob independently based on merit or advantage. That decision was made well before both Jacob and Esau were born. So neither one was given the opportunity to impress God with their attitude and goodness.

The reason this was done was to eliminate any prejudice that might come from someone feeling as though they had been cheated. Had God decided to wait and reward them based on their performance, there is no reason to believe that Jacob would have won out because he was known from birth as a deceiver. Esau would have had plenty of reason to think that God was being unfair in His choice of Jacob. That’s why God made His preference known before the children were born.¹³ Paul is doing more here than just telling a story. He’s using Jacob and Esau to illustrate that those whom God chooses are based on His goodness and grace alone. You cannot become a child of God by qualifying on your own merit.

Albert Barnes also sees a picture evolving from Paul’s explanation. Not only is he drawing a distinction between the natural descendants of Abraham, but goes a step further in illustrating the same principle of God’s selection process in the birth of Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob. This distinction of whom God would choose and bless was part of an original promise, not something made up at the last minute or caused by unforeseen circumstances. Paul did this to prove to the Jews themselves that salvation had nothing to do with pedigree. This then leaves the door open for Paul to explain how this same principle is carried on in the offspring of Isaac, Jacob, Benjamin, David, and on to the Messiah. This leaves out any influence of natural selection because of family, ability, or status. This allowed Paul to show that those chosen had been so before they formed any character that later served them well in that God’s foreknowledge already recorded such attributes. So the Jews could not now pretend that they were chosen as a consequence of any works they had performed.¹⁴ No wonder Paul was so adamant with the Ephesians, telling them: “God saved you by His grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.”¹⁵

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson XI)

Verses 10-13:  And that is not all. Rebecca also had sons, and they had the same father. He is our father Isaac. But before the two sons were born, God told Rebecca, “The older son will serve the younger.”¹ This was before the boys had done anything good or bad. God said this before they were born so that the boy he wanted would be chosen because of God’s own plan. He was chosen because he was the one God was going to call, not because of anything the boys did. As the Scriptures say, “I loved Jacob, but I despised Esau.”²

And now, the underlying purpose of Paul’s narrative on generations past comes to the surface. He wanted to show who was promised to become the true children of God and how they would be chosen. It was his desire that the Jewish leaders of the church in Rome would know that this was not by chance or good fortune. God had it all planned from the beginning. As part of his argument, Paul tells how God chose Jacob, the younger twin, over Esau, the older twin, to carry out His plan. Even though there were no ultrasounds in those days, according to the prophet Hosea: “In the womb he [Jacob] took his brother [Esau] by the heel.”³

Even though these infants were born in innocence, yet they developed the attitudes and character that God planned to use for His purpose. We can see this clearly in the words of Isaiah: “Adonai-Tzva’ot [LORD of heaven’s armies] has sworn, ‘Just as I thought it, it will occur; just as I planned it, so it will be.’”⁴ Later we read: “This is my plan for the whole earth—I will do it by my mighty power that reaches everywhere around the world… who can change His plans? When His hand moves, who can stop Him?”⁵

No wonder then that Paul could tell the Ephesians: “God has told us His secret reason for sending Christ, a plan of mercy He decided on long ago; and this was His purpose: that when the time is ripe He will gather us all together from wherever we are – in heaven or on earth – to be with Him in Christ forever.”⁶ So, God not only had a plan, but He had a purpose for that plan. And this is what Paul is repeating here: “To show to all the rulers in heaven how perfectly wise He is when all of His family – Jews and Gentiles alike – are seen joined together in His Church just the way He always planned it to be through Jesus Christ our Lord.”⁷

And the plan God drew up and the purpose for which it was designed was outlined in detail. Paul also told the Ephesians: “Long ago, even before He made the world, God chose us to be His very own through what Christ would do for us; He decided then to make us holy in His eyes… His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by sending Jesus Christ to die for us. And He did this because He wanted to!”⁸ So none of this was a last-minute decision by God, nor was it something He threw together when things didn’t go the way He planned. Just as the universe was aligned the way it was so that the earth was the only wet planet orbiting the sun sustaining life, so God planned for those who would be part of His spiritual creation to have Jesus Christ the Son of God as the center of their universe.

So when it comes to the plan of salvation and believers acquiring their positions as sons and daughters of God by adoption, they can make no claims of having contributed anything in putting it together or making it work the way it does. As Paul told the Ephesians: “Salvation is not a reward for the good we have done, so none of us can take any credit for it. It is God Himself who has made us what we are and given us new lives through Christ Jesus, and long ages ago He planned that we should spend our lives helping others.”⁹ That’s why Paul told Titus: “When the time came for the kindness and love of God our Savior to appear, He saved us – not because we were good enough to be saved but because His kindness and mercy was good enough to save us.”¹⁰

Instead of bragging or feeling proud of being called children of God, Paul states that it should make each believer feel humble and grateful that they were even noticed, let alone chosen for such an honor. Paul tells the Thessalonians: “Your daily lives should not embarrass God but bring joy to Him who invited you into His Kingdom to share His glory.”¹¹ That is why Paul writes them again and says: “We have to keep thanking God for you always, brothers and sisters whom the Lord loves, because God chose you as firstfruits for deliverance by giving you the holiness that has its origin in the Spirit and the faithfulness that has its origin in the truth.”¹² So everything we read and have experienced in God’s kingdom is part of His sovereign plan formulated before the world began.

So how can we mere mortals question the will and purpose of our divine God’s creation? No more than we should question the parts that hold it together and make it function. There is purpose in all of God’s decisions, even though they may seem without reason for us. Just as God said to Rebecca that the older twin she would bear would serve the younger one.¹³ It is important to notice that in the Hebrew where this is promised, instead of the older serving the younger, the words can mean the greater will serve the lesser. It is best to understand that greater means “stronger in number,” and lesser to indicate “fewer in number.” When viewed from history, we can see that when Jacob met Esau, after he had wrestled with God, it appears that the clan of Esau had grown very large while Jacob’s tribe was very small. Yet, Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him as they wept together.¹⁴

This would come as no surprise to Paul, because God made it clear as to who He preferred. In His message to Israel through Malachi, God said: “I have loved you very deeply,” says the Lord. But you retort, ‘Really? When was this?’ And the Lord replies, ‘I showed my love for you by loving your father, Jacob.’”¹⁵ But then God goes on to say that He hated Esau enough to turn his territory into a desert fit only for jackals. So in Paul’s mind, Esau’s willingness to sell his birthright for a bowl of oatmeal in order to satisfy his hunger, turned God off. But Jacob’s desire to have that birthright impressed God enough that He gave him the privilege to be the son through whom the Messiah would come. Likewise, the Jews, like Esau, had the birthright to receive the Messiah’s blessing as their king. But they gave it away to please the Roman emperor. And so, God has placed His favor on the Gentiles, and allowed them to become His children.

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster gives us an interesting exegesis here. He points out that Paul says Sarah was not the only one to give birth in a typological manner. Rebecca, Isaac’s wife, did the same. However, in a different way. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior, while Jacob and Esau would be born as types of two peoples, believers and unbelievers. Although they came from the same source they were nevertheless different in character. Esau can be taken as representing the world’s population. Not because they all bear a physical resemblance to him, but because he shares their estranged relationship with God. Likewise, Jacob is seen as the the sole heir of Isaac who fathered the children who became known as Israel, the children of God. Furthermore, just because Esau sold his birthright and was rejected as the rightful heir, not all who descended from him were condemned. This is proven by the example of Job, who was a descendant of Esau,¹⁶ five generations away from Abraham and, therefore, Esau’s grandson. In the same way, Jacob got the birthright by deception and had unbelieving children. There is also no doubt that there are many children of Jacob who became unbelievers. This remains true even though the believers and unbelievers still trace their origin to him.¹⁷

Then Pelagius adds his thinking by noting that not only were Ishmael and Isaac brothers, although they were born of different mothers they still had the same father. Yet in God’s eyes they were not equal. Jacob and Esau were not only brothers, they were twins. They had the same mother and father. Yet before they were born they were not equal in God’s sight. But because of God’s foreknowledge, eternal plan, and selective choice, He knew ahead of time who would choose good and who would choose evil.¹⁸ Using the same principle and procedure, God is now choosing from among the Gentiles those whom He foreknew would believe to replace those in Israel who would not believe. To debate or deny God’s foreknowledge is to question His omniscience. But at the same time, to suggest that He thereby took away all of man’s free will so that some are going to be saved whether they want to or not, is to doubt the necessity of preaching the Gospel and the forgiving power of grace.¹⁹

Paul illustrates how Rebecca was informed before her twins were born that the older one would be subservient to the younger one. It was not because of their own talent or abilities, but because it was part of God’s plan, So Augustine says that this causes some scholars to surmise that the Apostle Paul dismissed the freedom of man’s will. It is because of mankind’s will that they can either please God by faith and faithfulness, or offend Him by the unfaithfulness and rebellion. Some people question how God could have loved one and hated the other before either one was born or committed any good or evil deeds? Augustine says that God did this by foreknowledge, by which He knows what even the unborn will be like in the future. But no one can say with any authority that God chooses the methods by which they will love Him or hate Him. If God elected good works, why does the Apostle say that election is not according to works? In Augustine’s mind we should understand that what good works we do are done in love. Besides, we have love as a gift by the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle says himself: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.²⁰”²¹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson X)

Verse 9: Here is what God said in that promise: “About this time next year I will come back, and Sarah will have a son.”¹

What Paul is pointing out to his fellow Jews is this: God’s promise was to Abraham and Abraham’s descendants, but only through Isaac, not through Ismael, or through Katurah’s children. This was made clear by God who said: “My covenant is with Isaac, who will be born to you and Sarah next year at about this time.”² This was repeated several times to Abraham. By the same token, God has promised salvation to every one of Adam’s race, but only through Jesus Christ. It is not a must that God redeems everyone; it is rather His will that everyone be offered redemption who are willing and want to be set free from the bondage of sin. This He demonstrated by sending His own Son as the only way to Him, the teller of absolute truth, and the giver of eternal life. Therefore, if you want to get to the Father, it’s through His Son. Beware of those who offer another way to God. As early church scholar Ambrosiaster points out because Christ was promised to Abraham as a future son, in whom the word of the promise would be fulfilled, then Isaac prefigures Christ in that both would be born to women in a miraculous fashion at His command.

Reformer John Calvin compliments the Apostle Paul on how he skillfully explains Scripture. Paul notes that when the Lord said that a son would be born to Abraham and Sarah, God was confiding that His blessing had not yet been conferred. In other words, it was on its way. But Ishmael had already been born when it was said that God’s blessing did not include him. Calvin also observes that Paul proceeded in his argument with great caution. He did not want to exasperate the very people he was trying to win to Christ. However, now that Paul has uncovered the source of his conjecture, it won’t be long before it will be a fountain flowing with interpretation.⁴ In other words, Paul is showing God’s selection process in choosing the lineage of the Messiah, but there is more to come that will shed light on what God had in store for those He would call His children in the future.

Adam Clarke focuses here on the distinct aspect of God’s promise of a son for Abraham and Sarah. He writes that such a promise had already been recorded in Genesis where God’s Angel promised to return one year later and by that time Sarah will have given birth to a son.⁵ This indicated that God was going to exert His Divine power. It also meant that Sarah, although ninety years old, would get pregnant in about three months from the giving of this message and have already delivered a son by the time the angel returned. Not just a child, but a son. This showed that the boy would be born by the sovereign will of God alone. That was to make sure that Abraham understood that this particular son was the line to the seed of promise. To put it more succinctly, Clarke sees Paul’s effort here as an attempt to make sure that the Jews understand that God had a hand in all of this so that it turned out exactly the way He wanted it to be, not the way they might have wanted it to be.⁶

Robert Haldane emphasizes the Promise factor in the determination of the natural and spiritual sons of Abraham. First, he points out that the birth of Isaac was by promise, and without a miracle, it would never have taken place. However, the birth of Ishmael was not by promise, but in the ordinary course of nature. Neither was it directed by God’s will, but that of Sarah. That’s why those who would be called the children of God had been promised to Abraham only through Sarah. They were those who, by God’s own selection and choice, were to enjoy a spiritual relationship with Him through Christ. For it is Christ who is the heir to that promise of being the seed through which the Kingdom of God would be established. And that special seed was to come only through the line of Isaac.⁷ It would be to this chosen group that the eternal spiritual blessings of God would be restricted, even though the temporal blessings of being among the called would belong to all Israelites.⁸

Frédéric Godet offers for consideration that this verse is intended by Paul to justify designating a certain number of Abraham’s offspring, “the children of the promise.” When the Apostle used the phrase: “word of promise,” he meant: a message which embodied the intended traits of a promise. As such, it did not grant inherited rights as that promise. This was in line with emphasizing that it was through the intervention of a divine factor without giving credit for other conditions, thus proving who the real children of God are.⁹ To put this another way, by holding on to one hand of Abraham and claiming him as their father, but failing to hold on to the promise of God with the other hand, the Jews did not have the credentials to be called true children of God. The reason is that the promise included the Messiah. But when Messiah came, they rejected Him. In like manner today, anyone can hold their Bible, their Hymnal, or Missal, or Rosary, or Statue, or Baptismal Certificate, but not be holding on to God’s hand with the other hand and yet not be the children of promise. They are, as I mentioned earlier, a Sino, (Saint In Name Only). They are not a true child of God.

Karl Barth gives us a very astute and interesting commentary on verses 8 & 9. As he puts it, “The eruption of the triumphant Truth of God Himself into the reality of this world is the fulfillment of the promise of God to men.” In other words, we can only comprehend the promises of God when everything said to us points to the Truth. That is when to expect the miracle of the new birth when to receive the Spirit of God, when to believe the impossible, and accept that we have been redeemed. The only way a person can imagine the possibility of being part of God’s elect is in the form of a promise by the one making the choice. Such belief requires a leap of faith. There is no other guarantee or assurance, except that which is given by the Spirit and held onto by faith. We know that the name Isaac means “Laughter,” whether in honor or dishonor, of Sarah’s laughing at the possibility a ninety-year-old woman having a baby. But when it comes to accepting the new birth, at what do people laugh? And why? Sometimes laughter can be a form of skepticism or disbelief with regard to the impossible being possible. It is also hard to get enthused about something we believe is impossible. That’s the dilemma Sarah faced. But one thing she learned, and it is a lesson for us, never laugh at what God has said no matter how impossible it may seem to be.¹⁰

Barth goes on to admonish us that the church should never conceal from people the fact that the Gospel it preaches thrusts people out onto a narrow, rocky edge. The Word of God is not meant to make them comfortable, its aim and purpose is to confront them with the truth. Any church that tries to fulfill the promise of God on its own, especially that of salvation, is denying the vital truth of God’s needed involvement because of His unquestionable promise that whoever believed in Christ would be saved. Paul framed that truth in Romans 8:24 – Hope that is seen is not hope. This indicates that Truth can only be present when there is hope. In that case, faith then becomes the substance of what we are hoping for.

When the church interprets the Word of God in a manner meant for human ears as uttered by human lips, whatever is said can only come to pass by way of promise. And one promise is that all people must put their old, sinful nature to death if they have any hope of becoming alive to God in Christ. We can clearly see that the church should never hide the truth of this crucifixion of a person’s sinful-self. Death becomes an omen that everlasting life is just ahead, a life that lies beyond this earthly existence. This is so important because if the Church wants to be known as alive and triumphant, don’t let it be only a wish. The fact is, like the church in Sardis,¹¹ they think they are alive but they are in fact dead.¹²

Douglas Moo tells us that Paul’s use of the Greek word kaleo, which means “called,” or “reckoned,” is the grounds for the assertion that God determined which of Abraham’s offspring would be called the children of God. God uttered these words to Abraham when he was reluctant to banish his other son, Ishmael. So it is clear, only the “children of the promise” are the ones regarded as Abraham’s true spiritual offspring. As a result, only those descendants who trace their genealogy back to Isaac can be called the true “Israel” in a narrow sense. Paul wraps up this argument with a scriptural quotation which is a loose rendering of Genesis 18:10 or 18:14 (or perhaps both). This quote reminds us of God’s gracious and miraculous assistance to enable Sarah, who was infertile, to bear the child of the promise.¹³ It all started with God. That’s why inheriting the promise is not based on natural birth. Rather, depends on God’s gracious intervention that makes possible the new birth.¹⁴

I like the way Bishop Moule phrases this reality when he says that there are limits that run along with the Promise. Ishmael is Abraham’s son, yet not God’s son. Esau is Isaac’s son, yet not God’s son. And though we trace in Ishmael and in Esau, as they grow, we see characteristics which may explain why the limitations were placed on them, but that is not the complete answer. For the chosen one in each case has his conspicuous unfavorable characteristics too. And the whole tone of the record looks towards a mystery without immediate explanation. Esau’s profanity in giving up his birthright may have happened at this same time, but it was not the cause for Jacob being chosen. The reason of the choice lay in the depths of God’s foreknowledge. All is well there, even though for us it is unknown. So we are led up to the closed door of the sanctuary of God’s Choice. Touch it; it is unbreakable, and it is locked tight. No blind Destiny has been able to turn the key. No inaccessible Tyrant has gained entry and sits within, playing the game of fate. No! The Key-Bearer, whose Name is engraved on the portal, reads “He that lives, and was dead, and is alive for evermore.”¹⁵ And if you listen closely you will hear words coming from within, like the soft deep voice of many waters, yet of an eternal Heart; “I am that I am; I will that I will; trust Me.” But the door is locked; and the Voice is mystery until the Holy Spirit reveals the speaker’s name, “Jesus.” Only then will the invitation be given to enter and become part of His eternal domain.¹⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson IX)

American Bible scholar Charles Hodge gives us a somewhat broader explanation as to why not all descendants of Abraham were made heirs of his blessings and promises from God. It starts with Isaac who was the only one selected by God’s sovereign will to be the recipient of the promise. The reason? All of Abraham’s other sons were born of natural reproductive means, but Isaac was a miracle child, and the only one promised to Abraham. It must also be determined whether this selection is to be understood as Isaac being an individual choice, or Isaac and his descendants. Was it: “Isaac will be called your seed” or “Through Isaac your seed will be called.” This is important because if we accept the first option then that would leave no door open for the Messiah and those who come to God through Him. So it is clear that the second option is the one to accept.¹

Paul may have been trying to make both points. First, his immediate object was to show that all the male descendants of Abraham did not qualify to be the line to that one true seed. Ishmael was the son of Abraham just as Isaac was. But Isaac was the only one designated as the son through whom God’s children would come and through them the Messiah. That makes Paul’s second point. Since God is sovereign, He is in charge of how He distributes His favors and blessings. By rejecting Ishmael, notwithstanding his being a natural descent of Abraham’s, He may do likewise to those Jews who do not meet His requirements even if they do count Abraham as their father.²

To this same point, Charles Spurgeon believes that by passing over Ishmael, God showed that there was nothing to consider in either his bloodline or birthline. Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham, but he was passed over. God said it clearly, “In Isaac shall your seed be called.” This made the point for Paul. The Jews were claiming to have the mercy of God because they were of the seed of Abraham. But that is not what really counts. God made a distinct choice of Isaac to the rejection of Ishmael, as he did afterward of Jacob, as Esau was then left out.³

This same point can be made by pointing out that although there are many religions in this world that accept the fact that there is a higher power who controls the earth and everything in it, and whom they may call God or use some other name, it is still not sufficient evidence to declare sonship with the One True Living God. Some of them may even trace their origins back to Abraham. But the Last Covenant tells us that only those who can trace that lineage to Abraham through Jesus the Christ are truly the children of God.

Verse 8: This means that not all of Abraham’s descendants are God’s true children. Abraham’s true children are those who become God’s children because of the promise He made to Abraham.

Now Paul removes any mystery in who he is talking about. Just because someone claims to be a true child of God on the basis of their relationship with Abraham, this does not automatically qualify them as heirs of the promise. It is God’s promise, not Abraham’s promise that is the deciding factor. So what promise was Paul talking about? First, it was the promise of a son to Sarah who physically was beyond the age of bearing a child.⁴ The same would be the case with Mary, she was told by an angel, perhaps the same one who promised Isaac to Sarah, that she would also have a child without being intimate with a man. So true Christians must be able to trace their relationship to Jesus, just as the Jews traced their relationship to Abraham as part of a promise.

Here’s how Paul explained it to the Galatians: “Let me put this another way. The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us right standing with God through our faith. But now that Christ has come, we don’t need those laws any longer to guard us and lead us to Him. For now we are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and we who have been baptized into union with Christ are enveloped by him. We are no longer Jews or Greeks or slaves or free men or even merely men or women, but we are all the same – we are Christians; we are one in Christ Jesus. And now that we are Christ’s we are the true descendants of Abraham, and all of God’s promises to him belong to us.”⁵

The great preacher, Chrysostom, makes note that Paul does not call them the children of Abraham, but rather “the children of God,” thus combining the past with the present and showing that Isaac was no ordinary son, he was Abraham’s promised son. What Paul means is something like this: Whoever has been born in the way that Isaac was born is a son of God and of the seed of Abraham. You see, Isaac was born not according to the laws of nature nor according to the power of the flesh but according to the power of God’s promise.⁶

Wesleyan theologian Adam Clarke says it appears that neither the children who descended from Abraham‘s loins, nor those circumcised as he was, nor those whom he might have chosen on his own are part of the children of promise. They are those who were made God’s children by His choice, good pleasure, and promise. Just as Isaac was accounted for being the seed with whom the first covenant was established, so Christ is the only one through whom the last covenant was made.⁷ More or less, Paul is not only tracing the lineage of the Messiah but also the Church, which is the body of Christ in this world; here to represent Him and do His work so the whole world can hear the Gospel of salvation.

Robert Haldane notes the quote, “In Isaac shall your seed be called.”⁸ These promises were made for the spiritual descendants, not the natural descendants of Abraham. For Haldane, this clearly establishes the difference between the sonship of Israel and kinship of Israel. Kinship is of the flesh, sonship is of the Spirit. True, Israel had a special relationship with God that no other nation enjoyed. However, a portion of the children of Israel enjoyed a spiritual relationship with God and the others were Israelites in name only. That was the difference between an outward Jew and an inward Jew. And it all had to do with the promised seed. The same is true in the Christian community. There are those who are Christians outwardly, and those who are Christians inwardly. And their distinction also depends on the promised seed. Not Isaac, but through Isaac. The Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God.⁹

Albert Barnes points to another aspect of God’s election process and asks if those who were chosen to be God’s children were adopted by some criteria other than simply who they descended from? The reason for asking is because this was something that had been decided and a deeply cherished opinion of the Jews for centuries. To them, the mere fact that they were Jewish entitled them to receive the blessings of the covenant without controversy. After all, they were recognized as the children of God. But Paul shows them that it was not merely claiming to be the descendants of Abraham that brought these spiritual privileges into their hands.

These blessings were not conferred on them simply because they were Jews. There was more care taken with these blessing than that because there might be some people who were not Jews that had an interest in those spiritual blessings. The sense is, that God made a distinction in whom he chose out of Abraham’s children to be the first to receive these blessings and those were the children of Isaac. Then out of Isaac, God chose Jacob to be the family that inherited these blessings. Barnes notes that Paul’s intent was to establish a principle, and that principle was that since God chose those to be heirs to the promises of Abraham by selection then why should He not make the same choice and distinction of who those would be to receive the promise through the Messiah?¹⁰

Charles Hodge uses a correlation between what Paul says here to the Romans and what he said to the Galatians to make the same point as Barnes does.¹¹ To him, the simplest view of this verse would be, to regard it as an explanation of the historical argument contained in the preceding verse. The Scriptures made it clear that Isaac was preferred over Ishmael as the one whose seed would be the true descendants and heirs of God’s promises to Abraham. As such, it proves Paul’s point that God, according to what pleases Him chooses one and rejects another. So when it comes to the promises and blessings of the Messiah, God is not bound to choose only the Jews as heirs of His promise.

In other words, Hodge saw Paul simply unfolding the analogy between the history of Isaac and Ishmael to point out the difference between the natural children of Abraham and the spiritual children of Abraham. Isaac symbolized the spiritual descendants and Ishmael being the symbol natural descendants. That’s because Ishmael, “was born as a result of natural procreation.”¹² Thus, he was rejected and his children are likened to the “children of the flesh.” On the other hand, Isaac “was born as a result of supernatural procreation.” That is why his descendants are likened to the “children of the promise.” So it is an easy transfer of this analogy to point out that the unconverted are seen as children in the flesh, while those converted by their faith in Christ are the children in the spirit.¹³

Charles Spurgeon touches on something we said before about how God’s selection process between the children of Isaac and those of Ishmael could be applied to believers today. Isaac was not the child of Abraham’s flesh alone, he was born according to a promise from God. What made it so remarkable was that Sarah was well past child-bearing age, and Abraham was stricken with old age. To this, we could add that Mary, the mother of Jesus was still unmarried and had never been intimate with a man, while Joseph was an older gentleman who wanted to take Mary as his wife but had not yet consummated their marriage. So Jesus was not just born of a woman, the woman was a virgin and, therefore, His birth was the result of God’s promise. Both Isaac and Jesus were miracle babies. So, just as being children of the promise ran through Isaac, likewise being a child of God must run through Jesus. So if all our hopes for heaven depends on our being children of godly parents, it is akin to the hope of the Israelites, and not worth anything. But if our hope for heaven lies upon our having been born according to the promise of God – born of His grace and of His power — then it is in line with John 3:16. This is what God promised and what He determined must be, and so shall it be.¹⁴

The controversial English poet, painter, and visual artistry pioneer, William Blake, said in one of his compositions: “As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible.”¹ In other words, to some, it comes naturally. It’s almost as though they were born with it, fly through it, and swim in it.

To have contempt for something means to feel that a person or thing is worthless and undeserving of consideration. Since contempt is an abstract concept, it is sometimes hard to describe but easy to detect. You can hear it in a person’s negative tone of voice, eye rolling as if what is said is of too little value to even talk about, and sarcastic remarks that are meant to invoke embarrassment and shame.

The Apostle Paul gives an excellent description of contempt in his Letter to the Romans.² And King Solomon tells how contempt can be shown what a fool refuses to accept discipline.³ When you meet people like this, any advice or counsel seems to roll like water off a duck’s feathers. Jesus found this so prevalent among the Pharisees in His day.⁴

One of the worst characteristics we can have is to act contemptibly. Whenever you feel yourself taking on such an attitude, just remember this. There were two thieves on crosses next to Jesus on Calvary. One of them was contemptible, the other was submissive. The one went to Paradise with Jesus, and you can guess where the other one went. It’s up to you to make that decision. – Dr. Robert R Seyda