Romans 9:6-9:13 - Israel Defined By God, Not Man

Calvin (12/14/01-12/15/01)

9:6: Knowing that his emotional display may have brought some to think an inconsistency had been shown in God, Paul now turns to show that God's covenant with Israel is intact, in spite of their blindness. Saying that he is distraught over their condition is not, he says, to say that God's covenant has failed. God's promise was to the seed of Abraham, but with distinction made between seed. The defection of some does not in any way show God unfaithful. It must be noted that the promise to Abraham still belongs to all whose natural lineage is from him, even to Ishmael and Esau, for they bear the seal of his covenant, the circumcision. Were they totally alienated from God, that circumcision would be to God's dishonor. It must be that the covenant promises are still theirs to receive even with their disbelief. (Ac 3:25 - You who are sons of the prophets are also sons of the covenant between God and Abraham, in which He said all the families of the earth would be blessed.) The promise belongs to all of his lineage, but they only in whom the promise has taken effect are children of the promise. If they have not abided by the rules of the covenant, where is the fault for their not partaking of its promise? The covenant was indeed made with the whole nation of Israel, but those who reject its offered salvation will not enjoy any of adoption's benefits. They were not 'included in the true election of God.' God may well choose whole nations by His general election and mercy, yet hide within that nation a people called by a second election. Now, Paul begins to restrict the meaning of children and descendants so as to include only those called by the second election.
9:7: Election is consistent with the covenant, but not included in its conditions. If God, at the very start, began making distinctions between the sons of Abraham, declaring only one the son of promise, how should we expect that He does any different now? (Ge 17:20-21 - I will indeed bless Ishmael. He will be fruitful, and father twelve nations. But it is with Isaac that I will establish My covenant, though he is not yet born.) So we see that some are chosen to election from out of the common adoption, making that adoption effective and valid.
9:8: If Ishmael, a natural son, was not considered as the seed of promise, it must hold that natural descent is not the determining factor of election to His promise.
9:9: Paul is careful in his explanation of Scripture, showing that although Ishmael was already born, yet God declared that His promise would remain suspended until Isaac was born. For the present, Paul is satisfied to present the fact of that choice, without going into detail. This he does to avoid exasperating the Jews early in his proof. He will explain in full later. Footnote: (Ge 18:10 - I will return this time next year, and Sarah will have a son. Ge 17:21 - My covenant will be established with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear next year. Ge 18:14 - Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will indeed return at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son. Ge 21:2 - So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham, at the appointed time of which God had spoken. 2Ki 4:16-17 - This time next year you will hold a son. But she said, "No, man of God, don't lie to me." Yet, she conceived, and bore a son at that time next year, just as Elisha had said.) In these cases, the appointed time indicates that the natural course of childbirth will be followed, although the conception itself might be miraculous in nature. The appointed time is the time required between conception and birth.
9:10: Some might argue that the example of Isaac is insufficient, as the two children were of different parents, and one a slave. However, in Jacob and Esau, not only do we have an example of God's choosing between sons of one mother, but between twins at that. This makes clear that flesh alone cannot determine the fulfillment of promise. In this, God's special election was revealed to Rebekah as it had been to Abraham. Footnote: The translation of this verse is a challenge, even though the meaning is clear. The 'this' of 'not only this' is not actually supplied in the text. It has been taken as this, she, or he by various translators, but it seems it should be 'not only so;' not only was this election revealed to Abraham, but to Rebekah also. Further uncertainty is found in the phrase 'by one man,' which might also be rendered 'by the first man.'
9:11: Paul now explains explicitly what he has only hinted at thus far: why there is this distinction amongst the children of Abraham. The reason? God's election, given freely and gratuitously apart from any dependence on man's worth. There is no higher cause for salvation than God's goodness and mercy. There is no higher cause for condemnation of the sinner than God's 'just severity.' The covenant separated a nation. God's election separates some out of that nation for salvation, and others for condemnation. The basis for this choosing lies in God's goodness and mercy alone, having no regard for their works. God is free to choose whom He will, and is not bound to distribute His graces equally to all. There could be no basis in works in this present example, for no occasion had yet come for the children to work. No valid argument can be made for the idea that God foresaw that Jacob's works would declare him worthy of salvation, where Esau's would not. Nothing can God ever see in man that would so declare him worthy. The fall has ended all chances of that. In that fallen state, we see also that God is perfectly just in condemning Esau, for sins are excluded from the considerations of His elective will as much as are good works. The doctrine here established by Paul is that God has sufficient just reason for electing and for reprobating, in His own will. Footnote: While many theologians have reached this same conclusion, and while logic and reason support it well, the current passage does not seem to. Since we have it declared here that God's choice preceded any works of Jacob and Esau, it ought to be clear that those who attempt to take credit for the choice through their works move to subvert God's purpose. To make it abundantly clear, Paul explicitly excludes works from consideration. "We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the purpose of God alone." So we see that such doctrines as declare God's election to be based upon His foreseeing our actions are contrary to His word. Footnote: The contrast is not between faith and works, but between God's calling and works.
9:12: While the immediate issue in the story of Jacob and Esau certainly involves those rights and privileges due the firstborn, a higher meaning was given the event of their birth by God. A look at Jacob's story would show that the fleshly benefits of God's choosing were minimal. Nowhere in the course of His life do we see him moving in dominion over Esau. Rather, we see him driven from his home, and later returning fearful for his life, because of Esau. No, there was something greater promised in the Lord's answer.
9:13: The example of Jacob and Esau was used by Malachi in addressing the Jews in their ingratitude to a loving God. He reminded them that Jacob and Esau were brothers, with the implication that Esau ought to have had the greater privilege, yet God chose Jacob, and rejected Esau. This He did through no worth on their part, but solely by His own mercy. He had chosen Israel, the seed of Jacob, to be a blessed people, recipients of His kindness, yet they had forgotten Him. So much the worse was their failure, for having had His blessing upon them. Footnote: This choosing and rejecting is the proper meaning of the loving and hating of that verse, as elsewhere in Scripture. (Ge 29:31 - The LORD saw that Leah was unloved [unchosen], and opened her whom. Lk 14:26 - If one comes to Me, but does not hate [reject] his own family, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Jn 12:25 - He who loves [chooses] his life, loses it. He who hates [rejects] his life in this world will keep it for eternity.) The earthly blessings which the LORD may bestow are but symbols of His benevolence. "Where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where His love is, there is life."

Matthew Henry (12/16/01)

9:6: Now comes the proof that God's word is not invalidated by Israel's rejection. His promises to the patriarchs still stand. Though Israel's present situation might seem to show that God's word has failed, this is not the case. (Is 55:10-11 - Rain and snow do not return to heaven before watering the earth and making it fruitful. So shall be My word, which goes forth from My mouth. It will not return to Me without accomplishing My desire, without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.) One way or another, God will make His law honorable. His promises may indeed seem doubtful to our wavering faith, but they cannot be made of no effect. In the end, we will find He did not lie. Paul reconciles the rejection of unbelievers with the certainty of God's promise in four ways. He explains the true intent of the promise (v6-13), proves God's sovereignty over man (v14-24), shows that the rejection of the Jews and the choosing of the Gentiles was foretold by the prophets (v25-29), and sets forth the true reason for the Jew's rejection (v30-33). A promise must be understood before its fulfillment can be declared or denied. Paul shows it clear from the beginning that God's promise to Abraham was not unconditionally given to all his descendants, but only to a portion.
9:7: Many carried the name of Israelite, and yet showed no interest in the covenant. Though they boast much in the name, in being descended from Abraham, yet they are not so declared children of God. (Mt 3:9 - Don't think you can brag of having Abraham for a father, for I tell you God can raise children to Abraham from these stones. Jn 8:38-39 - I speak of what I have seen with My Father. You should also do as you have heard from your father. The Jews said that Abraham was their father, to which Jesus answered that they ought to do as Abraham did, if they are his children.) "Grace does not run in the blood." Nor is salvation tied to church membership. Membership does not save. Specific examples are now given, which show not only God's choosing of a portion, but that His choice was strictly by His own will, not by some binding commandment such as many cling to in false hope. In the verse quoted regarding Isaac and Ishmael (Ge 21:12), God establishes that His covenant is with Isaac, and thus Ishmael and his mother are to be driven from the camp. (Ge 17:19 - Sarah will bear you a son, whom you will name Isaac. With him, I will establish My everlasting covenant for his descendants.) In doing this, God's promise to be God to Abraham's seed was not broken. As His are the blessings, so His is the determination of whom His blessings shall be given to.
9:8: Here is a direct hit on those who put their confidence in the flesh, seeking justification in their own actions. (Php 3:3 - We are the true circumcision, who worship in God's Spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in the flesh. Gal 4:29 - In Isaac's day, the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the Spirit, and today it is no different.) If flesh could justify, Ishmael would be as much of the promise as was Isaac. Ishmael stands as a warning to those who seek to be justified by their own righteousness. It is not by merit nor by earning our place, that we are counted as the seed of Abraham, but purely by the virtue of God's promise, according solely to His own good pleasure.
9:9: Isaac was a child of promise (Ge 18:10), conceived by the force of that promise, a type of all who are true believers today, born not of their own will, nor the will of any other man, but solely by the will of God. (Gal 4:28 - You, like Isaac, are a child of promise. Heb 11:11 - By faith Sarah was able to conceive, far beyond the proper time of life, because she found God faithful, who had promised.) By such veiled types and examples was salvation declared in the Old Testament.
9:10: In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, one could suppose God was judging Ishmael's lineage or his disposition, in casting him out. But in the case of Jacob and Esau, no such judgment can be found, for the choice precedes all action on their part, and lineage is identical.
9:11-9:12: The choice was made solely by divine counsel, before yet they were born. Their ordering was declared by God before their birth, to establish the truth that He chooses some and refuses others apart from any obligation upon Himself. It is solely by His 'absolute and sovereign will.'
9:13: The declaration of Malachi is added to reinforce the example, for not only the heads, but the nations that came of them were differentiated in God's sight. Israel, He blessed with covenants, land, protection, deliverance, and all those other blessings declared at the start of this chapter. Edom knew none of these benefits. All this was done to show the sovereignty of God's choice, typifying the election and rejection that was yet to come. Some (most notably Arminius), seek to make this matter of choice apply to the means of salvation; declaring faith over against the Law, as the means of salvation. Were this the case, however, there would be no point in establishing God's sovereignty over man. Further, the whole tenor of Paul's argument speaks of people, not kinds of people. Others take this choice to apply solely to the individual, but it is clear that Paul is looking at the whole nations descended from these people, not just the people themselves. God does not condemn any by capricious will. The reason for condemnation is always taken from what they have deserved for themselves. It seems clear enough, however, that Paul is addressing the more complex matters of people groups. He moves to show that God is justified in taking the church to Himself, over the Jews. As He chose the younger Jacob over the firstborn Esau, so now He has chosen the Church of Christ over the priesthood of the Temple.

Adam Clarke (12/17/01)

9:6: The Jews might object that including the Gentiles was to show infidelity to the covenant made with Abraham. (Ge 17:7-8 - I will establish My covenant with you and your descendants, to be an everlasting covenant, to be your God. And I will give to your descendants the land of your sojourn, the whole land of Canaan as a possession, and I will be their God.) However, in God's words to Abraham, more than natural Israel was in sight. Those of faith were also included in that promise. (Ro 4:16-17 - It is by faith, which is by grace, so that the promise is made certain to all the descendants, not only those of the Law, but those of faith, as well. For Abraham is the father of us all. Thus, God said to him that he would be a father of many nations. Because he believed in God, who gives life to the dead, and creates from what did not exist, he is our father.) Thus, we see that the Gentiles were included from the start.
9:7: Not only is God's promise not restricted to the physical descendants of Abraham, but He is not bound to include all of that physical line in His promises either. Abraham had many children, any of which God could have chosen to fulfill His promise, yet He spoke only of Isaac. (Ge 25:1-2 - Abraham took Keturah as a wife, and she bore him six children. Ge 17:18 - Abraham sought God to bless Ishmael with His promises. Ge 21:12 - But God told Abraham to cease being concerned over the fate of Ishmael and his mother, for Isaac, son of Sarah was chosen to be the one through whom the promise would come.)
9:8: It is not a matter of descent from Abraham. It is not a matter of bearing the outward signs of covenant. It is not a matter of expectations, Abraham's our any body else's. It is solely a matter of God's good pleasure that determines with whom His covenant is established.
9:9: While not explicit in the verse quoted (Ge 18:10), there is every implication that God will move through His sovereign power to cause Sarah to be with child at such an advanced age. It was His will alone that singled out the special seed which would inherit the promise. Paul quotes only in part, but expects his readers to remember and reread the whole passage, to better judge his argument. This can be seen in his conclusions. (Ro 9:16 - It doesn't depend on the man who wills or on him who runs, but only on God who has mercy.) Abraham's will regarding Ishmael, and Esau's running after a meal for the blessing are not mentioned specifically, but clearly Paul expects these features of the story to be known to his readers. The same is seen in the example of Pharaoh. (Ro 9:18 - He has mercy on whom He wishes, and hardens whom He will.) Pharaoh's hardening is never noted directly, but is expected to be understood.
9:10: In the case of Ishmael, matters of worth could be argued. However, the case of Jacob and Esau allows for no such argument, for the decision precedes their birth. (Ge 25:22-23 - When the twins struggled within her, Rebekah sought the LORD, and He said that two nations were in her womb, the one being stronger than the other. He also told her that the older would serve the younger.)
9:11: It would be more appropriate to speak of nations not yet born in this passage, as that is the subject Paul pursues. The word children is not in the text. His choice was made before any actions on their part could be seen to deserve one end or the other, to make clear that their distinctions depended upon nothing but God's free choice and purpose.
9:12-13: God's declaration in Ge 25:23, along with a quote from Mal 1:2-3, is cited to show that God's elective choices stand unchanged, and have no dependence on works. That this passage does not speak of the personal estate of Jacob and Esau, but the nations that sprung from them can be seen from their own history. In the record of Genesis, Jacob is never seen ruling Esau, but rather is seen declaring himself Esau's subject. (Ge 32:4 - Tell Esau that his servant Jacob has been staying with Laban until now. Ge 33:8 - Esau asked what was up with the company Jacob had sent ahead of himself. Jacob replied that by that company he hoped to find favor in his lord's sight. Ge 33:13 - He reminded Esau, as his lord, that his children and flocks were weak and nursing, and that driving them hard for a day would kill them) Indeed, even in the national history, there is nothing to show worth of either election or rejection, for many in Jacob's line have been evil, and many in Esau's line have become sharers in the faith of Abraham. The full text from Malachi shows the situation Paul has in mind. (Mal 1:2-5 - I have loved you, yet you question how it is I have loved you. Esau was Jacob's brother, yet I hated him, and loved Jacob. Esau's mountains I have laid waste, giving his inheritance to jackals. Edom may think they will return to rebuild, but though they might build, I will tear it down again, and their lands will be known as a wicked territory. It will be clear that My wrath is against them forever. This you will see for yourself, and declare that the LORD is magnificent beyond the border of Israel!) Clearly, Malachi does not speak historically of Esau, for his lands were never laid waste in his time. It is of the posterity of Isaac's children that Malachi speaks, and it in that same context that Paul writes. Since the discussion is not of Jacob and Esau's personal fate, there is no basis here for the doctrine of unconditional election. It is not Esau, but his posterity that are in sight here, and there is sufficient evidence in Scripture to show that not all of his progeny were rejected, nor were all of Jacob's elected. God's declaration of Jacob as lord over Esau does nothing to declare his election, for it is as possible for the slave to be the one elected as the master. God's hatred, by these passages, is not directed against the person of Esau, but against his posterity. Paul's purpose in this argument is to show God sovereign, to show that He has the right to bless as He chooses, and is not subject to our thoughts as to how He ought to save. He chose Israel over all nations to reveal Himself to. In this, they were elect, and all other nations rejected. (Gal 4:4 - in the fullness of time, God sent His Son, born under the Law.) This, He did so that the Gentiles might also know Him revealed. Since the Jews rejected this Gospel, they were themselves rejected even as the Gentiles were elected. In rejecting God's plan of salvation by faith, Israel became just like the Edomites, and now experience God's wrath forever. It would appear from Esau's actions, that he knew God's forgiveness, for he who had been so wronged by Jacob yet forgave all. (Mt 6:14 - If you forgive men, your Father will also forgive you.) It also seems clear that Rebekah understood no declaration of unavoidable damnation upon her yet unborn son, for such news coming just at the time of delivery could not but have produced such misery in her as would lead to an involuntary abortion. Were this the intent of God's message, He would have accomplished no spiritual good in so declaring against Esau, but would only have given men grounds to see Him as uncaring and unloving, having no compassion towards His own creation.

Barnes' Notes (12/18/01)

9:6: Though I grieve, yet I don't believe the whole of Israel will be destroyed, for God's promise will not fail. Not all descendants of Jacob share the true spirit of Israel. (Ro 2:28-29 - It is not outward form that defines a Jew, nor is circumcision simply a matter of marking the flesh. To be a Jew is to be one inwardly, circumcised in the heart by the Spirit, not simply according oneself with the letter of the Law. Such a one has his praise from God, not man.)
9:7: Many of Abraham's descendants were not adopted into God's family, as shown most immediately in the choosing of Isaac. (Ge 21:12 - Don't worry over the maid and her son, for it is through Isaac that I shall name your descendants.) Thus, at the start of the nation we see election at work, which election Paul is attempting to show here.
9:8: Flesh cannot demand adoption by God. To be a Jew did not provide automatic inclusion in His family. By corollary, His family is neither restricted to Jews alone, but could as easily include Gentiles. If distinctions were made then, they can be made now, in choosing the Messiah. Whom God regards as His children are indeed His children, for He reckons truly. Such as He chooses partake of His mercy and salvation. Since such benefits as these are in view, it should be clear that the individual is being discussed, and not nations.
9:9: God's promise to Abraham clearly excluded Ishmael, applying only to Isaac. This promise, God declared He would fulfill at precisely the time predicted. (Ge 18:10 - I will return at this time next year and Sarah shall have a son. Ge 18:14 - Is anything to difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah shall have a son. 2Ki 4:16 - At this season next year you shall embrace a son, said Elisha. Yet the woman thought he must be lying to her.)
9:10: In Jacob and Esau, we see the principle of election continued. And in this case, there can be no claim of works justifying the selection of one and not the other, for the choice was made before they were born. In this, God shows that election is strictly according to His own good pleasure. (Ge 25:21 - Isaac prayed for his wife Rebekah, because she was barren. The LORD answered, and she conceived. Ge 25:23 - The LORD told here that two nations were within her, of which one would be the stronger. He declared further, that the elder child would serve the younger.)
9:11: It was not their character, not their actions, that had caused such a distinction between the two, for the choice preceded all character, finding its basis solely in the purposes of God. Having done nothing yet, either good or bad, there could be no moral character. Thus, they were not yet moral agents. God's purpose is found before character is formed, before actions are undertaken. Thus, His purpose is not due to something he sees in the individual, but for His own reasons, which He has not chosen to explain to man. Thus, they are known simply as His purpose and good pleasure. (Eph 1:5 - He predestined us to adoption as sons, according to the intention of His will.) If this is the basis on which God operated then, it is the basis on which He still operates now. Nothing in this choice speaks to what Jacob or Esau would do when once they became moral agents. The example proves only that they had not as yet acted. The balance of Scripture indicates that they, like the rest of us, would sin as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Yet, all stands according to His purpose. (Ro 8:28 - We know God causes all things to work for the good of those who love Him, and are called by His purpose.) His favors were not given due to any merit, but because of His own wise plan, preceding all actions. This is election. Thus, His sovereignty in dispensing His favors is proved to be free of any regard for merit, being founded on other principles. His reasons for saving whom He saves are good, though He has not deigned to reveal them to man. He has, however, revealed that works are not the reason. The reasons for our election are to be found with God, 'formed and executed according to His good pleasure,' with His glory as the prime consideration.
9:12: (Ge 25:23 - Two nations are within you, one stronger than the other. The older shall serve the younger.) Esau ought to have known the honors and privileges due the first born, but this custom was reversed in his case. The text in Genesis shows this to be intended toward their posterity, and not to them specifically as individuals. To Jacob, then, the honors, the promised land, and the other promises that came with being chosen by God. Although national in context, the example shows that God can and does make distinctions among people, even in the same nation or family, without consideration of their works or character. He may bless whom He will. What He may do to nations, He may also do to individuals. Justice remains the same. It remains the same whether we discuss temporal blessings, or spiritual blessings. Attempts to restrict this discussion to national contexts fail to solve the question of why He makes distinctions at all, rather than making all peoples equal. To this there is no answer better than Jesus' own. (Mt 11:26 - Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.)
9:13: Malachi declares the same principle, that God distributes His favors as He will. He has bestowed great blessings on the nation of Jacob. The hatred declared against Edom is not 'positive hatred,' but a statement of God's preference for Jacob, shown in His withholding of those blessings from the Edomites. (Jer 49:17-18 - Edom will cause all who see it to be horrified, for it will be like Sodom and Gomorrah, where no man will live. Eze 35:6 - As I live, I will give you over to bloodshed. It will pursue you because you have not hated it.) The use of love and hatred to express comparative degrees is a Hebraism. (Ge 29:30-31 - Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah. When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He made her fruitful, but Rachel, He made barren. Pr 13:24 - He who spares the rod hates his son, but if he loves him, he will be diligent in disciplining him. Mt 6:24 - You can't serve two masters, for it is inevitable that one you will love more, and the other you will come to despise. Lk 14:26 - If you come to Me, and don't hate your own family, even your own life, you cannot be My disciple.)

Wycliffe (12/19/01)

9:6: For the next three chapters, Paul pursues the question of how it is God could reject His elect people, as well as what He plans for their future. As a starting point, Paul deals with the prevailing view of the Jews of his day, that being God's chosen people (as shown by circumcision), they would not perish. (Ge 17:7-14 - I will establish an everlasting covenant to be God to you and your descendants, giving you the land of Canaan. You on your part will keep My covenant, as will your descendants, the keeping of which requires that you circumcise every male on the eighth day. Any male that remains uncircumcised will be cut off from his people because he has broken My covenant.) Several rabbinical teachings are noted to confirm this view that circumcision carried a guarantee of admittance to heaven. To counter this view, Paul notes God's freedom and sovereignty in acting as He chooses.
9:7: In Abraham's immediate children, God had already made a choice.
9:8-9:9: Not only Ishmael is in view as a child of the flesh, but also the sons of Keturah. Lineage is no guarantee of automatic inclusion in God's family.
9:10-9:11: To this initial argument, the Jew might reply that he is a son of Isaac, and so, still in. Paul counters with the example of Jacob and Esau, showing that God's choice between them preceded all action and possibility of action on their part. "God's selection was not based upon legalistic works but upon Himself and His plan for the world."
9:12-9:13: In the two quotations Paul provides, he looks both at the individuals and the nations that devolved from them. God's choosing clearly went beyond their individual contributions, and looked at the roles their lineage would play in history. His love for Jacob showed in His choosing of that family for His revelations, which were not given to Esau. "The historical situation of both individuals and peoples certainly affects their eternal destiny." However, the election spoken of here is not that which pertains to salvation or damnation, but rather God's selecting of certain individuals and nations to play particular roles upon the earth.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (12/19/01)

9:6: So that it might be clear that this glorious Israel God had blessed had not totally failed, Paul now moves to distinguish between physical and spiritual Israel. God's word has not failed. (Lk 16:17 - It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for any part of the Law to fail.) The topic of election, which is pursued here, is something that may well lie beyond our abilities to understand in full. Many feel that Paul is speaking only of national election in this passage, because he speaks of the Gentiles at the end of the chapter. However, were that the case, the Gentiles would be noted at the start. It is no simple matter of advantage that Paul writes of, but the matter of salvation itself. The choice discussed here is that between portions of Israel, not between Israel and some other. Clearly, it is a matter of salvation.
9:7: If flesh defined the line of election, all Abraham's children would have been included, but the promise was made only to Isaac. (Ge 21:12 - Through Isaac your descendants will come.) Election stands on God's unconditional choice.
9:8: Only such as are children of His promise count as seed.
9:9-9:12: No comments.
9:13: Natural reasons can be found for the choice of Isaac over Ishmael, but no such case can be made for Rebecca's children. Here the choice was made before any possible reason could exist for choosing, so as to show that the choice lay solely in God's will. Thus, election is shown to be no matter of works, but solely of God's choosing. This cannot be taken as a discussion of God choosing the means by which He will save. Were that the topic, Paul would have laid the matter on faith, not God's choosing. The discussion is around unconditional choice, not around methods by which that choice is made. The servitude of Esau was not some political matter, but a spiritual dependence that came of selling his birthright. To soften the ideas of love and hate in this passage is to do injustice to the text. The context in Malachi speaks of unrelenting wrath, not a mere lessening of love.

New Thoughts (12/20/01-12/21/01)

I think Mr. Barnes has given as good a definition of election as can be, even though it appears to be an accident of the text. God's own wise plan, preceding all actions on our part; that is election. That is what it's all about. It's not that I chose Him, but that He chose me. Before I knew existence, He knew that He wanted me in His family. Who else is able to choose their family, but God! This speaks great honor and comfort to me. He wanted me in His family. He planned and worked to make it so! It's not some cosmic accident, it's His desire, the working out of His will.

Father, so often, looking at my own family, it seems such a jumble of accidents that we share this roof. I cannot look back at the times before we became one family, and say, "this is what I'd always hoped for." I cannot look at my wife and say, "she's exactly what I wanted." Yet, You knew. You planned. Just as You have chosen us for Your family, You chose us to be together in this family. As painful as it often is, as imperfect as it often seems, yet this family being a family serves Your purposes in some fashion. In times when it seems so out of whack, help me to remember this. In times when I tire of being the head of this household, let me seek You out and learn where we are going. Lord, I feel so overloaded of late, every facet of my world seems to be changing at once, and charting a course for us is beyond me. I need to hear You. I need to know which way You are pointing us, my Master, so that we together can go in that direction.

I wrote, some time a bit over a year ago, that the unity God desires us to share cannot be declared and defined by man's rules. Yet, man throughout the ages has ever sought to declare the boundaries of that unity for themselves. In ancient times, it was Israel claiming that the bounds of their nation were the bounds of God's unity. One could not possibly join with God without joining the camp of Israel. But God tore down that boundary with the message of the Gospel, and His unity called in the Gentiles to join His people.

However, as time went on, the Gentile camp rebuilt the walls, seeking to keep God for themselves, and declaring that Israel was no longer within the boundaries of His unity at all. How could we miss the message God wrote so clearly? Romans 4:16 we love to quote, especially in Protestant circles. It is by faith, and that by grace, that the promise of God comes to all the descendants. But we stop there. We seem to have missed the implications of the remainder of the verse. It comes not only to those of the Law, but also those of faith. The rules of language suggest that we could reverse that ordering, and remain accurate. His promise comes not only to those of faith, but also to those of the Law.

God did not reject Israel completely. That's the whole point of this passage. Yet, too often in the course of the centuries, the Church has rejected Israel completely. How could we? In large part, I think this division imposed by man has been removed once more. But I have to ask, what walls are we putting up in its place? We seem rather incorrigible when it comes to declaring God's bounds for Him. Who have we declared beyond saving? Whom have we decided God cannot possibly want? Are the poor beyond His reach? The rich? Is He become so impotent that He cannot, should He so choose, change the heart of another atheist like you were yourself? Is He become so weak that He cannot change the inclinations of one lost in homosexuality?

In this passage, Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau to show God's election. Our natures being what they are, we then put up the boundary for God, and declare that Esau's descendants are beyond redemption. Look! God has said He hates Edom, should we not hate them, too? Seemingly, there is Scriptural justification for us to reject and despise these enemies of God. Yet, history and Scripture both show that among the Edomites, there have been those who came into His family. In the end, we must recognize that we have no more cause to declare some group beyond God's family than we do to insist on some other group's inclusion.

Calvin says that the covenant was made with all of Israel, but there were those in Israel who rejected the salvation that was offered by that covenant. If they rejected it, how can they expect to have the benefits of adoption that accompany it? We, as the Church of God today, also have a covenant with God. We need to understand that all the terms of that covenant come as a package. We cannot pick and choose which bits we want to accept. Israel tried that. It didn't work. If we choose to reject a portion of God's covenant with us, we have effectively rejected the whole. How shall we expect His salvation if we reject the requirements?

This is the other side of the coin. We can no more count on our church membership to save us, than Israel could count on their national status to save. Membership does not save. Flesh cannot demand adoption by God. We have become a society of entitlement by and large, and that mentality has in many ways come to the church. We don't come expecting, we come demanding, as though it were our inherent right to enjoy the presence of God, as though it were our right to have His blessings upon us. We have forgotten grace. We have forgotten that all that we have from Him, we have simply by His favor toward us. He has been so gracious to give to us all we could want and more. And how do we respond? Like a precocious child, we demand that He continue to give us gifts, that He continue to play with us. We demand more and more. "More of You, God!" But, is it a pleading, or a demanding?

Have we not yet learned that there is no cause we can point to that could insist that God do His part for us? What possible reason can we offer Him? No higher cause can be found for His saving us than His own goodness and mercy. Not only can no higher cause be found, no other cause at all can be found. No higher cause can be found for the sinner's condemnation that justice. Not only no higher cause, but no other cause at all. Did you 'find Jesus?' Only because He so worked upon your character that you could desire to look for Him.

We simply must get it through our heads that we don't deserve this. We have not done anything to deserve it, nor could we. God didn't see something in us, something that perhaps we might do later, that gave Him reason to save us. He certainly didn't see anything that would require that He save us. Yet, He did. Why? For His own reasons. Will you insist that He explain them to you? This much He has explained: The choice is His. It is solely a matter of His own will, His own divine counsel. In His own counsel, there is no consultation with another. In His own will, there is no outside demand. It is strictly by His unfettered choice, and be very glad it is!

Our desire, our merit, is shaky ground indeed. Even with the Holy Spirit abiding, we find our flesh too often on top, causing us to do that which we would not. If my salvation rested on this, I would be completely without hope. Thanks be to God, that the truth is even as Calvin has said: "We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the purpose of God alone." This is our assurance. It's not about us, it never was. It's about God's purpose, and nothing else. If we have confidence in calling on God, it's not by right, it's not by any requirement we can place on Him, as though He were some magic amulet, or the like. No! Our confidence in calling upon Him is because of His promise.

We are children of promise. His promise. We can be confident and bold to come before Him because He has promised to hear. He has promised to answer, as we seek His will in all things. I know for myself, it often seems as though these promises are doubtful. I know that looking back at my notes when I first came through this passage last year, there was seeming cause for doubt. I look at the prayer that was in my heart then, and I see two things. I see first, that I have not been as constant in that prayer as I ought to be. I see secondly, that the prayer seems to go unanswered. I see my wife's health continue to be a plague upon her.

At least, this is what the eyes of my flesh see. But in my spirit, I see something different, something as wonderful as her suffering is painful. For I see a growth in her, over this last year, that is stunning to behold. As never before, she truly has become a woman of God and, although it sometimes drives me crazy, in saner moments I can only rejoice to see what my Lord has done in answer to my prayers. I still long to see that healing come to her body, but oh, what a work He has done already! Yes, His promises have often seemed doubtful to me. My faith has wavered, but His faithfulness has stood firm. His promises cannot be made to be of no effect! My weakness will not stop Him from being true. I don't believe that there has ever been an earnest prayer offered up by a saint of God that He has not heard and answered. If weakness of faith has ever kept His hand from moving, it is because that weakness kept the prayer from ever being offered, not because He couldn't act on what He'd already heard.

This is our confidence. This is our assurance. This is our hope, our only hope. What God has chosen, He will not 'un-choose.' What He has joined to Himself in unity, He will in no wise reject. His choice was not made because of our works, and our continuance in Him is not because of our works, but because of His work and His will. He has so worked in us that we can and do desire after Him. He has renewed our minds to know and love Him. He has saved us for His own glory. It's all about God.