Down an Unfamiliar Road

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

GEORGE WASHINGTON ON HIS KNEES

George Washington was a man of noble character. He is remembered by many as a warrior, patriot and the first president of the United States of America. His relationship with his God undoubtedly played a big part in making him the man he was. In 1891 a manuscript of some of his favorite prayers, written in his own hand, was sold at auction. It is not known if young George (who was twenty years old at the time) authored these prayers or copied them from another source. They were eventually published in a book, George Washington: The Christian, by William J. Johnson. As you read these prayers you discover how much George was influenced by the Bible. He was clearly humble before his God and aware of how dependent he was on Him for his every breath. Today historians are trying to rewrite the history of our nation to remove any references to God. As you read these prayers, you have an opportunity to view some original documents that tell the real story, at least in the case of George Washington. Here is one of his Sunday Morning prayers:

“Almighty God, and most merciful father, who commanded the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to You, that thereby they might glorify and praise You for Your protection both night and day, receive, O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to You; I yield to You my humble and hearty thanks that You have preserved me from the danger of the night past, and brought me to the light of the day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to Your own service and for Your own honor. Let my heart, therefore, Gracious God, be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works, but wait on You, and discharge those weighty duties You require of me.

And since You are a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw near unto You, who does not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Your courts, pardon, I beseech You, my sins, remove them from Your presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me on the merits of Your son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Your temple, and reach Your altar, my prayers may come before You as incense; and as You hear me calling upon You in my prayers, so give me grace to hear You calling on me in Your word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of the soul in the day of the Lord Jesus. Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me, Gracious God, the good work for which You sent it. Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and Guide this day and forever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

In today’s antichrist climate in America, it wouldn’t be surprising if a teacher of American History asked their students to read George Washington’s Prayer Journal, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be in an uproar. But the truth is, they can’t change history. Beside, God was here before they got here and He’ll still be here after they are long gone. So why not be on the side of the One who will stick around for a long, long time. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

GEORGE WASHINGTON ON HIS KNEES

George Washington was a man of noble character. He is remembered by many as a warrior, patriot and the first president of the United States of America. His relationship with his God undoubtedly played a big part in making him the man he was. In 1891 a manuscript of some of his favorite prayers, written in his own hand, was sold at auction. It is not known if young George (who was twenty years old at the time) authored these prayers or copied them from another source. They were eventually published in a book, George Washington: The Christian, by William J. Johnson.

As you read these prayers you discover how much George was influenced by the Bible. He was clearly humble before his God and aware of how dependent he was on Him for his every breath. Today historians are trying to rewrite the history of our nation to remove any references to God. As you read these prayers, you have an opportunity to view some original documents that tell the real story, at least in the case of George Washington. Here is one of his Sunday Morning prayers:

“Almighty God, and most merciful father, who commanded the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to You, that thereby they might glorify and praise You for Your protection both night and day, receive, O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to You; I yield to You my humble and hearty thanks that You have preserved me from the danger of the night past, and brought me to the light of the day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to Your own service and for Your own honor. Let my heart, therefore, Gracious God, be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works, but wait on You, and discharge those weighty duties You require of me.

And since You are a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw near unto You, who does not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Your courts, pardon, I beseech You, my sins, remove them from Your presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me on the merits of Your son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Your temple, and reach Your altar, my prayers may come before You as incense; and as You hear me calling upon You in my prayers, so give me grace to hear You calling on me in You word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of the soul in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me, Gracious God, the good work for which You sent it. Bless my family, kindred, friends, and country, be our God and Guide this day and forever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

In today’s antichrist climate in America, it wouldn’t be surprising if a teacher of American History asked their students to read George Washington’s Prayer Journal, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be in an uproar. But the truth is, they can’t change history. Beside, God was here before they got here and He’ll still be here after they are long gone. So why not be on the side of the One who will stick around for a long, long time. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson VIII)

Jewish commentator David Stern rightly asks why is it necessary for Paul to quote so many verses just to make a point? Because if Paul continues to hear the Jews say that God will still call all of them His children even if they don’t have the necessary faith, then he wants their answer to this verse: “I will hide My face from them. I will see what their end will be. For they are a sinful people, children who are not faithful.”¹ But if they continue and say that even though they are children who lack faith, and even if they serve idols they will still be called God’s children. Paul can then have them read this: “A people who are weighed down by iniquity, descendants of evildoers, immoral children, are a sinful nation!”² However, if they become adamant and say they should still be recognized as God’s children even when they do deal corruptly, they’re just not good sons. Paul may question why they keep repeating such things, they might then turn and ask him to read the following that he quotes in verse 26: “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”³ So Stern is trying to help us understand that Paul might be fighting a losing battle with some of the Jews. They just don’t want to admit to all the other Scriptures denouncing them as unworthy to be called the children of God.

Verse 7: Indeed, not all descendants are true children of Abraham.⁴ This is what God said to Abraham: “Your true descendants will be those who come through Isaac.”⁵

Paul continues to build his case against those who claim to be true God’s children just because they trace their ancestry back to Abraham. Paul no doubt got his message of salvation from the same source as John the Baptizer who preached the identical content to his Jewish critics: “Don’t think you are safe because you are descendants of Abraham. That isn’t enough. God can produce children of Abraham from these desert stones!”⁶ And Jesus had this to say about those who rejected Him: “I realize that you are descendants of Abraham. And yet some of you are trying to kill me because my message does not find a home within your hearts.”⁷ This is what inspired Paul to tell the believers in Philippi: “For it isn’t being circumcised that makes us children of God; it is worshiping Him with our spirits.”⁸

To this day the Jews celebrate their relationship with God as a result of being descendants of Abraham. For instance, in the evening service for the Sabbath, the cantor will chant: “As You have redeemed Israel and saved him from arms stronger than his, so may You redeem all who are oppressed and persecuted. Blessed are You, O God, Redeemer of Israel.” Then the choir will respond: “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, and observe it throughout all generations: It is a sign of an everlasting covenant between me and the children of Israel forever, says the Lord.”⁹

This is why Paul felt so strongly about telling them that not all those who claim to be children of Abraham are children of the Promise. This is because Abraham had children by three women: His concubine Hagar, his wife Sarah, and his concubine Keturah.¹⁰ These children all produced numbers of tribes who continue to live in the middle east area, some of which became enemies of the children of Isaac, Abraham’s son through Sarah. So only those descendants of Isaac were rightfully the legal heirs of Abraham because, among all the children these women produced, Isaac was the only one promised to Abraham as his rightful heir. Likewise, since Christ was the one promised, then only those who become God’s children through Him are rightful heirs.

This is also the gist of what early church scholar Diodore says about Paul’s main point. The Apostle wanted the Jews to know that just because they called Abraham the father of them all, it didn’t mean they were also the inheritors of the promises given to him by God. God promised those things according to His foreknowledge of who would be the spiritual children of Abraham. Just as Ishmael could not take Isaac’s place as the son of promise, neither could the wayward and unfaithful Jews be heirs to the promise given to Abraham of another Son of Promise, the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah whom they rejected. How can you expect to get something you’ve already said “No” to?¹¹

Then, early church Bishop of Cyr expands his interpretation by saying that although it was not possible by way of nature, Abraham became a father by way of divine generosity. Remember, Ishmael was Abraham’s first son, his firstborn son.¹² Therefore, why do the Jews boast that you are the only true descendants of Abraham when they are children of only one of Abraham’s sons? If anyone thinks that Ishmael does not count, they are wrong. Holy Scripture records official descent through the father, not through the mother. And just because Hagar was a concubine, and later other children were born to Abraham through another concubine, yet they were all children of Abraham. Hagar was a slave but Keturah was a free woman just like Sarah. Still, just because Abraham’s children with Keturah were free as well, they were never considered to be the children of promise. That might seem odd to some since Jacob had twelves sons by different mothers, and four of which were concubines. Yet, all of them were considered legal sons of Israel. However, it was only through Judah that the Messiah came. Paul was intent on showing his fellow Jews that just because they were children of one of Abraham’s sons, that was not enough. There were plenty of others who could claim the same thing. There was only one son, Isaac, who qualified as the son of promise. By the same token, there is only one Son of God through whom sinners can become children of God.¹³

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster has an interesting commentary on what Paul says here. To him, it is clear that God foreknew who would be heirs to His promise. Abraham believed and Isaac was born on account of his faith. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior by the promise. Therefore, whoever believes that Christ Jesus was the seed promised to Abraham, may not be a physical child of Abraham, but they are spiritual children of Abraham. When Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring,¹⁴ this did not happen through Isaac, but through Him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac. As Ambrosiaster sees it, the other Jews are children of the flesh, and cannot claim God’s promises to Abraham based on that alone. If they do not follow the faith by which Abraham is counted worthy, then they have no part in the promises. The same goes for anyone today, who claims to be a Christian. Only those who have been born again through Christ have that privilege.¹⁵

Reformer Martin Luther has strong words to explain what Paul is saying here. He sees Paul speaking against arrogant Jews while at the same time praising God’s grace. It was his attempt at neutralizing the proud trust they had in their own righteousness and good works. The Jews insisted on being regarded as heirs of the kingdom of God because they were children of Abraham. But Paul turns the tables on them by pointing out that if such an incontestable argument proved true, then Ishmael and the children of Keturah must be included in such a claim. But Genesis, Chapter 25, shows the exact opposite. This leads to the undeniable conclusion that it is not who we are in the flesh that makes us children of God and heirs of salvation. Rather, it is by God’s election to salvation. Only when a person stops trusting in their own efforts or in their upbringing as a reason to be counted among the saved, can they be born again by the grace of God through the work of the Holy Spirit.¹⁶

We can see how this argument by Luther fits our current situation where those who are born into families that adhere to one branch of Christianity, and who have been ceremonially sealed through baptism and christening into the faith, still call themselves children of God. But just as Paul has shown that this outward purification alone is not enough. Nicodemus certainly met all of these requirements, yet Jesus told him he must be born again to become a true child of God. From John Calvin’s point of view, Paul mentions this same truth when it came to those wanting to be counted as true children of Abraham. It was intended to show that the hidden election of God overrules the outward calling. ¹⁷

Verse 7: Indeed, not all descendants are true children of Abraham.¹⁸ This is what God said to Abraham: “Your true descendants will be those who come through Isaac.”¹⁹

Robert Haldane puts Paul’s argument into context by distinguishing the difference between true Israelites and imitation Israelites, both of which were original descendants of Abraham. Paul points out that it is all in understanding what was meant by “the seed of Abraham.” The error made by the Jews was that they counted themselves as children of God just because they were physical children of Abraham. The promise to Abraham about his seed was not made to all his descendants, but to a particular seed. When God said to Pharaoh, “Let my son go,”²⁰ He was using a figure of speech to identify them as His children through Jacob. As of that time, there were none yet born of the spiritual seed of Abraham, either among the Jews or Gentiles.²¹ That would only come after the Son of God came into the world.

Albert Barnes makes note of Paul’s implication that only the seed of Abraham through Isaac can be declared as the children of promise, not through his other wives. Looking at it from his point of view implies a selection or choice is made based on God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, the doctrine of election was illustrated in the very beginning of Israel’s history as a nation only through Issac. As such, part of the natural descendants of Abraham was rejected. Since God made such distinctions at that time between those He chose and those who did not get chosen, what would keep Him from doing it again to establish the Kingdom of Heaven? For Barnes, this is the argument which the Apostle is trying to make.²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson VII)

Reformer Martin Luther points out that Paul is not arguing that the Word of God was somehow made ineffective because of the Jew’s unbelief concerning the Messiah. Rather, that God’s promise to Abraham, which included them, was in His Word. The problem is, they refused to accept and obey it. Therefore, what was intended for them was prohibited from having the expected effect.¹ The same is true for unbelievers today, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. When a preacher stands up and tells those in the audience that God’s love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness is available to those who hunger to be saved, he cannot grant it to them without their confessing their need for a Savior, repenting of their sins, and accepting God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ, with the intent of serving Him out of love as their Lord and Savior.

Fellow reformist John Calvin sees it the same way. He says it may be more evident on what conditions God adopted the descendants of Abraham as a special people to Himself if two things are considered. The first is, that the promise of salvation given to Abraham was meant for all who can trace their natural origin to him. It was given to Abraham without exception, to be passed on to all who were rightly called the heirs of the covenant. In this respect, they can be referred to as, what the Scripture calls them, children of the promise. The second point is this, among all those referred to in the first case, the name “children of promise” is restricted only to those in whom its power and effect are found. That’s what prompted Paul to specify here that not all the children of Abraham became the children of God without any changes in their behavior. In fact, so few had followed through with the requirements of the first covenant that many were not even considered candidates for redemption under the last covenant.²

German scholar John Bengel leaves little doubt as to how he feels when it comes to some who oppose the idea of grace for the human race. He makes the point that God gives faith to whom He will. Therefore, it prevents Him from wasting it on those He knows will not follow His Word. As far as Paul sees it, God gives righteousness to individuals that believe in Him by faith. He does not hand it out to anyone who thinks they deserve it because of their good works. This is not in any way contrary to His Word. God has declared in assorted ways that those He determines to be worthy of His calling will be chosen to be His children. Just claiming you are a child of God does not count unless God claims you as one of His own.

This decree of God is certain and indisputable. We see the same thing when someone who knows the law but tries to get around it or disobey it, cannot be given the same rights and courtesy as someone who not only hears it but obeys it. When it comes to being chosen by God, He will show mercy to the willing but waste no time on the disobedient.³ In other words, there were some in Jerusalem and Rome who apparently felt that God’s grace was limited to a certain portion of mankind, namely the Jews. Paul makes it clear that God’s grace is available to all mankind. However, it is not imposed on everyone. It is theirs for the taking, but only by faith.

Robert Haldane also speaks to the curious claim by Paul that not all Israelis are true Israelites. He offers what he feels is a good explanation of this mystery. Since the Jews, as a people rejected the Messiah this automatically disqualified them as being true Israelites in the spiritual sense of the promise. They may be Israelis by birth, but not the new birth. The Jews certainly might object to Paul’s notion and say if that is true, then God is unfaithful, and His promises are of no value. But Paul has an answer ready. He tells them that some are Israelis because of their claims of being Abraham’s offspring, while others are true Israelites because they are part of the promise God gave to Abraham.

Just like Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was Abraham’s son by way of the flesh, but Isaac was his son by way of a promise. Ishmael did not inherit anything from Abraham, but Isaac was given everything God had promise to his father because he was Abraham’s one and only firstborn son. However, Paul also wanted to point out that the election of the Israelite nation to be God’s people did not prevent the Sovereign of infinite holiness from choosing out of that chosen nation whom He willed for that blessing. This was in accordance with His secret counsel on that selected portion of His creation He determined to redeem and save. That’s why Paul says they are not all Israelites which are part of Israel. We could paraphrase this for today and say that not all who carry a necklace with a cross on it or wear a cross pin on their lapel are true Christians.⁴

H. A. Ironside has an interesting take on this verse. As he sees it, to the faithful Jew who depended on the promises of God to Israel to get them through into the world-to-come, it appears that either their promises failed or God’s promises failed. Why else would Israelites be set to one side and Gentiles brought in to take their place? That is a good question, but Paul was ready to show that God never acted on the principle of blanket grace. All special privileges that Israel enjoyed were to be attributed to another principle. God choose them out from among the nations as an elect group. In doing so, He was able then to call them His people. In the same way, God intended to select from all nations a new people to be regenerated by the Spirit as His chosen children of the promise. That’s why not all descendants of Abraham who were generated by natural means could lay claim to being the true children of God generated by supernatural means.

As such, the natural seed of Abraham, such as Ishmael, were not automatically children of promise. It would take a supernatural seed, as in the case of Isaac, to be in that category. In His electing grace, God said to Abraham, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”⁵ He chose to pass over Ishmael, the man born after the flesh, and take up Isaac, whose birth was the result of a miracle. In this Paul illustrates the principle that, “The children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s true offspring.”⁶ This certainly is a staggering blow to those in our day who are pretentious and boast loudly about what they call the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of all mankind. They must be reminded that the Gospel clearly states that the children of the flesh are not to be confused with the children of the spirit. Jewish scholar and Sanhedrin member Nicodemus came to Jesus hoping that as a faithful Jew and practicing Pharisee he would qualify for the Kingdom of God, and the same answer Jesus gave Nicodemus is given to everyone: “Except a person is born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.⁷”⁸

For Professor F. F. Bruce, Paul has successfully pointed out that true Jews are the ones whose lives are lived to bring honor, praise, and glory to God.⁹ It’s not their genealogy, ethnicity, race, or religion that is taken into account, it is their regeneration. As a matter of fact, when they are chosen by God, none of these things count in His decision. Likewise, Paul points out that in a similar vein, while all descendants of Israel are Israelites on the outward, physical sense, not all are true Israelites on the inward, spiritual sense. Paul explained this back in chapter 4. By the same token, we can say today that not all members of churches are true members of Christ’s body.

Throughout First Covenant history we see God’s purpose was to hand pick an exclusive group, an elect minority, as the saved remnant. Those who would faithfully carry on what God revealed to them step by step. God would use this to save the rest of the world. We know that Abraham had a number of sons, but only through Isaac, the child of promise, can this line be traced. Isaac in turn, had two sons, but only through Jacob was the holy seed transmitted. Bruce wants us to keep in mind that by God passing over Esau and choosing his younger brother Jacob, this did not in the least depend on the behavior or character of the twin brothers. It happened because God in His foreknowledge predetermined this before they were even born.¹⁰

Paul knew what he was up against as far as the Jews in the congregation in Rome were concerned. Their Mishnah made it clear that all Israelites, including those who were executed for their crimes, will still have a portion in the world-to-come. That’s because it is written: “Your people are all righteous; they will inherit the land forever. They are a branch that grew out of what I planted by My own hands.”¹¹ But the Mishnah goes on to say that there are still some who will have no portion in the world-to-come: Whoever says that resurrection is not a Torah doctrine; that the Torah is not from God; one who belittles the Torah, and one who disparages Torah scholars.¹² So unless Paul also agreed that those who did not believe in the resurrection, such as the Sadducees, and those who profaned the Torah and the scholars who studied it, and everybody else was bound for heaven, they did not want to hear his Gospel.

They also pointed to the Babylonian Talmud where a discussion on this same subject is recorded. Instead of giving you the original text which is hard to decipher, let me share this paraphrase. Leading Rabbis interpret this saying in Deuteronomy, “You are sons of Adonai your God,” this way:¹³ When you behave like sons you are called sons, and if you do not behave like sons you are not called sons. However, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir disagreed. They say that in both of these cases you are called sons regardless because there are such things as stupid sons and disobedient sons.¹⁴ The Scripture also says: “They are sons in whom there is no faith.”¹⁵ And in another place, “…a seed of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly.”¹⁶ And again, “It shall come to pass that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it will be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’”¹⁷ What all this adds up to is that Paul and all the Jews in the congregation in Rome were taught that good or bad, right or wrong, smart or stupid, if you are a descendant of Abraham you are guaranteed a spot at the banquet table in heaven. So now you can see what Paul was up against.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson VI)

Charles Hodge explains his understanding of Israel’s adoption as sons of God. He writes that Paul is speaking here of Abraham’s physical descendants. Therefore, the adoption or sonship pertaining to them must also be seen as physical. This is very different from the spiritual relationship Paul talked about in the previous chapter. As sons of God, they were the objects of His special favor. They had been selected from the nations of the earth through Abraham to be the recipients of specific blessings. This put them in a one-of-a-kind relationship with God. Everything in the First Covenant is considered a type or shadow of the blessings of the Last Covenant. So the sonship of the Israelites was a representation of the sonship of believers. This sonship of Israel was extended and became common to all the Jews. It came by way of their relationship with God as recipients of His blessings as their only God and King. The sonship of believers is not common to all who call themselves Christians. It is only extended to those who are true children of God through the new birth. This relationship allows them to stand justified before God by virtue of regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the family of God.¹

The great preacher Octavius Winslow sees here a distinct declaration of the complex person of our Lord. When we speak of His humanity, we can call Him a human being. When it comes to touching His Deity, we can call Him a divine being. When we think of His ethnicity, we refer to Him as a Jew. When we think of His divinity, we call Him God. It is doubtful that any language can make it more explicit than that. Paul stated clearly to Timothy: “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit; seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”² Now here Christ is declared to be the visible Yahweh, God embodied in Christ. That made it tangible for us to better understand who He really was. Therefore, this one passage should be enough to remove any doubt His being One of the Trinity.³

Frédéric Godet also gives us something to think about as to why Jesus was born a Jew. Paul was well aware that this mode of reference as to His race was only referring to the human side of our Lord’s nature and personality. In the same manner Paul refers to His relationship to the Jews as a kinsman in the flesh, not in the spirit.⁴ The term “flesh,” therefore, encompasses human nature in its totality. Since Paul bore no resemblance with them on the spiritual level, there is no need to believe he was making a contrast between the flesh and the spirit.⁵

In other words, the only thing Jesus owed to the Jews was His natural heritage through His mother Mary. His spiritual heritage came from His Father in heaven. Likewise, all believers owe their heritage to some racial or ethnic origin here on earth. But only those who are redeemed have a spiritual relationship with each other regardless of their earthly race or ethnicity. That’s why Paul made the point that since God is the creator of the entire human race, why then should any of them be left out of His message of salvation and invitation to become part of His spiritual kingdom? That’s why Paul wished he could do something, anything, to get them all through the door of God’s kingdom.

In one of his sermons, Charles Spurgeon spoke on what troubled the Apostle so much concerning the Jews. Why was it that they still enjoyed such an extraordinary privilege of being called the children of God, and yet, end up being thrown away as outcasts? Not only that but in spite of all they did to the prophets in the past, they were still selected to be the race through whom Jesus the Messiah, the Savior of men, should come. Not only that, but His being bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, still did not keep them from rejecting Him, even though He came to save them first. How hard can the human heart become? And whatever they hoped to gain, be it riches or power, notoriety or fame, how could such temporary things be compared to the eternal riches God’s grace?⁶

Let’s imagine Americans hostages, being held in some isolated prison camp, being suddenly confronted by soldiers dressed like that countries’ military, yet spoke English with a southern accent and related to them as fellow Americans, who had secretly crawled into the compound to free them. What would we say if the hostages refused to be rescued because the soldiers were not dressed like they thought they should be as American GI’s? So it was with the Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah because He did not fit the image they concocted in their imagination.

F. F. Bruce points out that it was essential to Paul’s argument that the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached was not of their own innovation. Bruce says there were several things that would help them in any debate: First, that it was attested to in the Hebrew Scriptures; then, that it was the fulfillment of God’s promise to the patriarchs; and further, that it proclaimed that God’s way of righteousness through faith, by which Abraham had been blessed, was still open to all who believed in God as Abraham did. So why was it then that Abraham’s descendants became the first to reject the Gospel, and Jesus as the Messiah?

Surely, the Jews had everything going for them, and no doubt the Jews agreed with Paul on their elite status with God. But certainly, there were objections voiced when Paul told them it didn’t count when it came to being the recipients of God’s redemption plan. Such was the paradox, even perhaps a scandal, that the very nation especially prepared by God to produce and receive the Messiah and His message; the nation which could brag about so many unique privileges of God’s favor and miracle-working power; the nation into which the Messiah had been born, should fail to recognize Him when He came. And, meanwhile, men and women of other nations, who had no such relationship with God as Israel did, and never enjoyed the privileges of the Jews, embraced the Gospel eagerly the first time they heard it. How could this be harmonized with God’s choice of Israel and His declared purpose of blessing the world through Israel, yet now rejecting them as they rejected Him?⁷

Jewish commentator David Stern takes this whole phrase in verse five that describes the Messiah as coming from a Jewish family and to be the One over all things, as a way to thank and honor God forever and ever. When we understand this right, it constitutes one of the few statements in the Last Covenant that the Messiah is God.⁸ No doubt it was the desire of every Apostle and is the desire of every Christian today to find Scriptural support for affirming Yeshua’s divinity. But although it was only right for Paul to make such a strong and surprising theological statement, something that would be especially shocking to Jews, while it would enhance Paul’s argument, required a simpler expression that did not need any complex explanation. That’s because for any Jew hearing this letter read they would immediately have so many questions they would be unable to get past it and concentrate on what else Paul had to say.⁹

Verse 6: The present condition of Israel does not mean that the Word of God has failed. For not everyone from Israel is truly part of Israel.¹⁰

But Paul wanted the church in Rome to know that just as there is a difference between the called and the chosen among Christians, there was also a difference between the children of Israel and those who would have the authority to be called sons of God.¹¹ We can see this distinction when Jesus greeted Nathaniel: “Here comes an honest man – a true son of Israel.”¹² And Paul echoed the same concept in his letter to the Galatians, calling them new creations in Christ Jesus: “As many as by this rule do walk – peace upon them, and kindness, and on the Israel of God!”¹³ The Jewish Bible translation of Galatians renders it the same way.

The early church Bishop of Paul’s hometown of Tarsus sees the point Paul is making this way: Since God originally made the promise of the Messiah and the new covenant with the Jews, it is now being transferred to the Gentiles. But that does not mean that God lied about His promises. Instead, God remains faithful to what He said. It’s the Jews who have been unfaithful. So don’t blame this on God. Paul also wants to make it clear that Scriptures indicates that just because someone claims to be an heir to the promise given to Abraham, it does not make it so. Israelites who by their faith in God and who have walked worthy of their calling are the only ones deserving to be called true children of Abraham.¹⁴

Another way to put this might be: Although a Jew may lay claim to being part of the genealogy of Abraham, this would only be accepted in terms of the flesh. But any Jew who tried to claimed they could be a child of God based on the same evidence would be wrong. Such a spiritual association with God is only possible by way of the Holy Spirit. Today we might illustrate it this way: Anyone born in the United States can certainly claim to be an American. But if they refuse to accept the Constitution, or salute the flag, or say the Pledge of Allegiance, or serve in the military if called during time of war, they are not a true American.

Another early church scholar adds that the Apostle Paul grieves over the fact that although the Jews failed to accept the promises of God by grace, the Word of God was not sent in vain. The things which were promised are due only to those who keep the faith of the patriarchs and are, therefore, reckoned to be their true descendants. This does not apply to someone just because they were born of the stock of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel according to the flesh.¹⁵ Paul is making a case here that just as those who claim sonship with God in the family of Abraham through birth, so in the future, those who claim sonship with God through Christ will do so through a new birth.