Romans 9: Part Three

A Second Look
Had indeed God's Word failed? Does God's declared purpose of blessing Israel still stand? According to the Jewish objector, Paul's gospel nullifies the Word of God concerning His promises to Israel. If the majority of Jews had rejected Christ, then God's promises were impotent. Thus, Paul's message must be wrong. So how did Paul respond to this objection?

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (9:6-7a).

Paul's answer is clear. Not every Israelite is entitled to the promises spelled out in the Word of God. Not all of ethnic Israel is a part of spiritual Israel. The privileges listed in v. 4-5 were not for every Jew. In fact, God's promise to bless Israel was never meant to include every Jewish person. In other words, Paul is saying that having Jewish blood doesn't guarantee you that God is going to bless you. Of course, this idea didn't fit very well with 1st century Judaism. Alan Johnson writes, "Most Jews believed and taught that all circumcised Israelites who have died are in paradise and that there are no circumcised Israelites in gehenna" (174).

The Proof Is in the Pudding
Then Paul gives two illustrations (or types) to demonstrate that not every physical descendant of Abraham is a recipient of God's promises. Before we examine these illustrations, we should first make some preliminary observations about their role in his argument.

It's important for us to remember that most illustrations are never perfect. What I mean is, that they don't always have a direct correspondence. For instance, CS Lewis' work The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was intended to be an illustration of the New Testament story of redemption. However, while Lewis' story has many similarities to the gospel, there are many other areas that do not correspond with the story of Jesus. After all, Jesus isn't a lion. Satan isn't a witch. And Jesus was never tied to a stone. So illustrations are never intended to have complete correspondence to the author's main point. They are only meant to bring clarity to the author's thesis.

I propose that the same is true here. These two illustrations that Paul uses are only intended to build a Biblical precedent to his argument that not every ethnic Jew is entitled to God's promises as expressed in God's Word. This, of course, means that the gospel is true even if the majority of Jews reject Christ. However, while his argument deals with the eternal salvation of the Jews in his lifetime, Paul is not necessarily discussing the salvation of the individuals that he mentions in his illustrations. In his ICC work, Cranfield says concerning v. 12,

"It is important to stress that neither as they occur in Genesis nor as they are used by Paul do these words refer to the eternal destinies either of the two persons or of the individuals members of the nations sprung from them; the reference is rather to the mutual relations of the two nations in history. What is here in question is not eschatological salvation or damnation, but the historical functions of those concerned and their relations to the development of the salvation-history" (479).

We must remember that in the Old Testament, life-after-death was somewhat of an unknown subject. God had not clearly revealed the concept of heaven or hell. Thus, the promises in Genesis from which Paul gets his illustrations deal primarily with physical blessings (land, family, and prosperity). So we shouldn't stretch the illustrations too far in trying to find a direct correspondence between Paul's illustrations and his thesis.

Paul did not intend to prove from these illustrations that God had damned Ishmael or Esau. With the possible exception of Heb. 12, the Biblical record is quite silent concerning the eternal futures of either of these individuals. This is not the focus. Paul is only illustrating that in the past not every physical descendant of Abraham was selected to be a recipient of God's temporal blessings. This means that now God is not obligated to give eternal blessings to every Jew regardless of their rejection of Christ.

Both of these examples come from the families of the early patriarchs. Let's examine one by one.

"Nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: through Isaac your descendants will be named. That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son" (9:7-9).

Abraham had several children from several different wives: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah. And yet God only considered one of these children to be the son of promise, Isaac. Not Ishmael, not any of Keturah's sons. Only Isaac. Now this is important to Paul's argument. Here is an example from the Old Testament that shows that someone can be a physical descendant of Abraham, and yet not entitled to the privileges that God promised Abraham.

Hold On a Second...
But now Paul's imaginary opponent has a possible objection. Couldn't that be just because they had different mothers? So Paul brings up a second illustration: Jacob and Esau. Not only did they have the same parents, but they were twins, conceived at the same instant.

"And not only this, but there Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our fatherIsaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"" (9:10-13).

If we look back at Genesis 25, we would notice that after the initial conception Rebekah began to worry about the fact that the babies were fighting within her womb. So she asked God about what was happening. Then God made an unusual announcement. The older twin would serve the younger. This was contrary to their cultural expections. Normally the elder son held the position of prominence as the firstborn.

Thus the timing of God's announcement is of vital importance. First, it demonstrates that God is not obligated to bless everyone of Abraham's physical descendants. Secondly, it shows us that God's declared purpose of blessing Israel is not dependent upon human works. As we read through Genesis, it becomes pretty evident that both Jacob and Esau were scoundals. God did not chose to bless Jacob because he was a better person than Esau.