Not as though … – Not as though the promise of God had entirely failed. Though I grieve thus Rom 9:2-3, though I am deeply apprehensive for the nation, yet I do not affirm that all the nation is to be destroyed. The promise of God will not entirely fail.

Not all Israel – Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term; see the note at Rom 2:28-29.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 9:6-13

Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect.

Gods faithfulness vindicated

The apostles language is abrupt and broken, and fitly represents his feelings. He had felt his spirit drawn onward and upward as he proceeded with his enumeration of the high prerogatives of his countrymen, till at length he found himself climbing the ladder which Jacob saw, add which leads directly to glory, honour, and immortality. He was, as it were, caught up in a rapture, and carried off and away. Ere he was let down again, he had exclaimed, with fulness of heart, Amen. But, unable for the present to proceed farther in that sublime rapture, he as it were recalls himself, and returns to the melancholy fact which is bewailed in Rom 9:2; Rom 3:1-31. The fact, however, as a fact is not expressly stated. The statement is semi-smothered under the intensity of the writers feelings. Yet the enumeration of theocratic prerogatives finds a place in the writers record just because there was oppressively present to his mind and heart the fact that his countrymen in general had, through their rejection of Jesus the Messiah, ousted themselves from the privileges of the kingdom of heaven. They were refusing to be Israelites indeed, and were virtually passing on themselves sentence of spiritual expatriation. Confronting that fact, he says, is a spirit of recoil.

I. The case is not such as that the Word of God has fallen out of its due fulfilment. The melancholy fact referred to might and would occasion much embarrassment to multitudes of men, but it would and could not embarrass the Divine Moral Governor, nor frustrate His promises even in relation to Israel. Jewish disbelief and self-deposition, melancholy as they were, were yet within the sphere of the full overrulement of God.

1. The apostle specifies the Word of God, i.e., the Word spoken by God through His prophets to Israel, and in substance preserved in the volume of the book. On the one side it was simply predictive, on the other it was distinctly promissory; but in both respects a distinguished and distinguishing share of blessing was held out to the peculiar people.

2. The Word of God has not failed of fulfilment, literally, has not fallen out. The idea is transfigured from a heavenly occurrence, as when from the back of some burden-bearer an article falls and is lost.

II. For not all who are of Israel are Israel The apostle lays down a far-reaching principle. God had an ideal in view when He made choice of Israel to be His peculiar people. He had grand aims for future ages–aims that are yet to be realised in all peoples (Gen 12:3, etc.). The selected people could not all at once grasp the grand idea. It was not to be wondered at. Neither would God be exacting. Still, His idea must not be pushed aside or reversed, like an inverted pyramid; still less must it be trampled under foot. For God was not shut up to Israel. If needful, He could find in the evolution of the ages an Israel beyond Israel, or an Israel within Israel. As regards the old Israel, if it should persist in misunderstanding its position and mission, fancying itself to be the indispensable centre of the whole human circle, it could be told, in that language of events which makes epochs in history, that its candlestick was removable, and would be removed for a lamp that would actually give light. There were Israelites and Israelites. There were those in full possession of the name, but entirely without the inward ideal that gave it significance, and there could be those without the name, but with the inward ideal, though yet only struggling like a star through the mists of ignorance and imperfection (Rom 2:29). In this verse the two kinds of Israel are brought into juxtaposition. Not all who are the progeny of the patriarch Israel are truly and ideally the Israel to whom pertaineth the adoption. God, therefore, will not break His promise, though He refuse to fulfil it to those who have forfeited, by their unbelief, all right and title to an illustrious position and name. He is free to oust those who have persistently abused their high prerogative, and to introduce in their room a people who would seek to rise to the level of their high calling. (J. Morison, D.D.)

The work of Gods Word

God is the first cause of all things–sin excepted. All things were created by Him and for Him; but that which is effect to God, is often cause in other relations and connections. You Christians are Gods workmanship, but at the same time you are causes. Oh, do not underrate your influence as Christians. You can scarcely rise to a correct estimate of it, so immense is it. Well, we say that the gospel, so far as its authorship is concerned, is an effect; but so far as its power in the world is concerned, it is a cause, and a glorious cause.

1. We may expect it to be a mighty cause if we look at its nature. The Word of the truth of the gospel is a direct revelation from God of a wonderful provision which He has made by His Son, and through the Holy Ghost for the salvation of men. It is like the planting of a new sun of twofold power in our firmament.

2. We may expect the gospel to be a mighty cause if we look at the commission issued respecting the preaching of it: Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. The preachers are mocked, cruelly mocked, by this commission, and the world is cruelly mocked by the preaching, if it be intended that the word of Gods grace should take none effect.

3. We may expect the gospel to be a mighty cause if we connect with the promise of our Saviours presence with the preachers, the extraordinary ministry of the Holy Ghost. Why is the Holy Ghost sent to reprove the word of sin? And why did the Son of God promise to be with the first preachers always, if this word is to be of none effect?

4. We may expect the gospel to be a powerful cause if we consider the representations which are given concerning it. It is said to be glorious and everlasting, and the power of God unto salvation. It is called incorruptible seed, and the sword of the Spirit.

5. And we may expect the gospel to continue to be a powerful cause if we notice its first effects as recorded in our New Testament, and its subsequent effects as chronicled in uninspired writings; or if we look at all which the gospel is doing now, and remember that the nature of the gospel is such that the application of it does not exhaust it, and that time does not impair it. We would direct every Christian to his own condition as a saved man, and upon this ground would plead with you never to think, or feel, or speak, or act as though the Word of God had taken none effect. One soul saved is a marvellous effect–an effect in some respects more wonderful than even creation itself. Now trace the effect of the word of the truth of the gospel upon a mans mind. What is it like? It is like opening eyes which had always been blind. The effect of the word of the truth of the gospel is like unstopping deaf ears. The man hears that which he had never heard before. He hears God speaking to him. The effect of the Word of God upon him who believes it is to loose the dumb tongue. The man has spoken before, but never to God, or, if before to God, then as Cain spake to Him, and not as a child speaks to a father, that is, to a good father. The man now confesses his sin to God, as he feels the burden of his sin to be unbearable. The effect of the word of the truth of the gospel upon a man–still keeping to this illustration–is to strengthen the arms, so that work and conflict which appeared impossible are now undertaken as an easy task. The word of the truth of the gospel cleanses the hands–yes, the hands of the murderer from blood, and the hands of the thief from dishonesty, and the hands of the slothful from indolence, and the hands of the covetous from the rust and the canker of hoarded gold and silver. The Word of God effects that which is like restoring sensation and motion to withered and exhausted nerves. It quickens and arouses all the sensibilities and powers of soul and spirit–calling into life and activity godly love and godly hope, and godly joy, and all the moral and religious sensibilities and powers of soul and spirit–so that he who was as dead is now alive again, and God speaks to him as alive again. The Word of God–and perhaps we should have remarked this first–also changes the heart. Oh, brethren, do not think of the Word of God as though it had none effect; or if you be discouraged, just open your eyes, and see whether the ground of discouragement is not often to be found in the simple fact, that when Christians present the gospel to their fellow men they do not present it as God presents it. (S. Martin.)

The election of grace

I. Is independent of external preferences and human merit.

1. The phrase–

(1) Implies the eternal purpose of God to save them that believe;

(2) proceeds from free grace;

(3) is determined by the reception or non-reception of the truth, which is an act of free-will.

2. The proof supplied by the history of the elect people.

(1) By the difference in the moral condition of the Israelites (Rom 9:6; chap. 2:28, 29).

(2) By the different relations in which the immediate descendants of Abraham stood to God (Rom 9:7-8; cf. Mat 3:9; Joh 8:39). The same difference obtains in the Christian Church.

II. Is dependent upon Divine promise.

1. The whole work of grace is matter of promise, and affords hope of a better life.

2. This is shown by the examples quoted (Rom 9:9; Rom 9:13).

3. Hence it follows that we can only be partakers of the promise by a believing reception of it. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The freedom of Gods election

They had been so highly privileged, and were yet cast out. Oh, what a fall was there! But Gods promise had not come to naught, for as the history of their ancestry showed, the purposed working out of Gods plans for the salvation of the world–for which alone Israel had been chosen–was not committed rigidly to all Israel, but only to such of them as God should choose. And in this matter of choosing God was perfectly free. Note–

I. Gods purpose for the world. A Creators love must embrace His whole creation; a Fathers, all His children. God is the Father of mankind, even though all have fallen from Him. Any purpose of salvation must therefore comprehend all men in its wide scope, and only the wilfulness of man can prevent the accomplishment of its purpose. God has purposed the redemption of the world in Christ (Eph 3:11), but by reason of mans debasement the accomplishment of the purpose must needs be gradual. One great central work shall be wrought–Gods work through Christ; but up towards this the preparatory work must lead, and away from this the fulfilment must conduct. An education of the world; a great power of salvation; a world-wide application of the power.

II. An elect people. The election dealt with in these chapters, which has no reference to the election of individuals to eternal salvation, was the election of a people who should conduct the world toward Christ by way of preparation, and afterwards conduct Christs power to the world by way of application. In the matter of preparation the exclusion of this people from others was needful first, because of the abounding corruptions of the world. Sometimes this is the only safety: Come out and be separate! But a scattering was needful afterwards. So the captivities, overruled by God; so the dispersion in later times. For the subsequent evangelisation there must be concentration first, that the new power of life might be fully realised; a scattering afterwards, that the new power might touch the uttermost ends of the earth (Act 8:4).

III. The freedom of the election. In such work Gods hands cannot be tied, and surely He may choose whom He will; and the history of the past abundantly illustrates the freedom with which God has worked. First, God chose Abraham. The Jews would not complain of the freedom of election here. Again, of Abrahams sons He chose the later-born, showing that the matter of priority of natural claims could not weigh with Him; and of Isaacs twin sons before their birth He chose the later-born, showing that nothing done by the elected one constituted a claim on His electing grace. Neither Ishmaelites nor Edomites were rejected of God from personal salvation, but as regarded taking a special part in the work of the worlds salvation, they were reprobate. So, then, God had acted freely in the choice of Abraham, and in narrowing down the election among Abrahams seed. Was it to be wondered at that in the fulness of time He should act freely still, and elect only a remnant of the people to the work of evangelisation of the world, this work so soon to be entrusted also to Gentile workers themselves? The same principle still holds good. God elects us according to His sovereign will for work in His kingdom. Let us learn, as a first lesson, absolute submission–nay, the unquestioning fealty of love. (T. F. Lockyer, B.A.)

The Word of God taking effect

I well remember a time when this truth was brought home to me by the ease of one to whom I was permitted to minister during the closing days of his life. He was one who had stood foremost among the thoughtful and wise of this world; but he did not feel the full power of the Word of Life. I felt considerable anxiety. I thought that much depended on the way in which, in these closing scenes of life, I presented to him the vital and saving truths of Christianity. If presented in any over-confident way by one whom, perhaps, he would have considered less cultivated than himself, I felt–and I remember the anxiety with which I felt it–all ministrations might have done harm. I humbly conferred with my own poor heart, and I thus reasoned with my anxiety; Let me read from Gods Word some more than usually appropriate portion in such a case. But let me read Gods Word alone, and leave that Word to work in this heart. My words, I am confident, will be as nothing. I will read alone the Word of Life. The portion I chose was that contained in the last seven or eight chapters of St. Johns Gospel. I read perhaps about twenty verses at a time–not more; and I added only the very simplest comments where comments seemed to be necessary; and I remember well–it is a memory ever pleasant with me and that often encourages me–how the words seemed to find their way into the sick mans heart; how I saw shadows on the brow passing slowly away; how often the common human eye could observe the mystery of Gods Word finding its way to the heart. I remember once or twice humbly testing whether it was so by staying away almost purposely, and found, on my return, that not I, but the reading of the Word of Life, had been sadly missed. I read onward and onward, and I am confident–I am speaking now with carefully chosen words–that those words of life brought that soul very close to our saving Lord. The incident produced a very great effect upon me; and I never hear any one speak lightly of what is called the mere reading of the Word of God without having this as a proof that there is in this blessed Book alone, without word or comment, a power and a force that no human language can describe. (Bp. Ellicott.)

The Word of God taking no effect

I. In some the Word of God takes no effect.

1. They do not repent.

2. Do not believe.

3. Are not saved.

II. Their unbelief cannot impugh the efficiency of Gods Word.

1. It takes effect on others.

2. Would in them, but for their unbelief.

3. Must ultimately take effect in their final condemnation. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

For they are not all Israel which are of Israel.–Here is–

I. A solemn fact–not all Israel, etc. Some possess the name, the form, but deny the power.

II. The reason of it–not that the Word of God is without effect. Some realise its power, but others believe not, and to them the arm of the Lord is not revealed. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The distinction between the external and the true Church

I. Its origin (verse 6).

1. Not in the purpose of God, for His promise respects all (1Pe 3:19).

2. But in the conduct of men, who hold fast the form, and deny the power.

II. Its nature (verse 7-13).

1. The external depends upon parentage, education, prejudice, etc.; the true upon the promise of God.

2. The external rests in works; the true in the grace of God. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The true seed of Abraham is called

1. Not in Ishmael, but in Isaac.

2. Not by a natural, but by a spiritual birth.

3. Not by the will of man, but by the purpose of God in Christ. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The true children of Abraham

I. Not by a natural, but by a spiritual birth.

1. The example of Abraham.

2. Its application–natural advantages avail nothing, but a new birth in Christ the true seed of promise.

II. Not of works, but of grace.

1. The case of Esau and Jacob.

2. Election determined not by merit, but grace, and suspended on faith. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The true heirs of grace

I. Exemplified. Not all the children of Abraham.

1. Ishmael the child of nature, Isaac the child of promise.

2. Ishmael rejected, Isaac appointed heir.

II. Defined.

1. Those who are born of the flesh are not the children of God, but those who are born of the Spirit.

2. According to the promise made in Christ. These are the true heirs of salvation. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise.—

Children

I. Of the flesh. Children by mere natural generation, viz.–

1. Ishmael and his descendants.

2. Abrahams sons by Keturah, and their posterity.

3. The natural descendants of Abraham in general. Unbelieving Jews were children of the flesh as truly as was Ishmael.

II. Of the promise. Born entirely in virtue of a promise, viz.–

1. Isaac.

2. Believers whether Jews or Gentiles (Rom 4:11; Rom 4:16-17; Gal 3:29).

3. Isaac a type of believers–

(1) As born according to Divine promise.

(2) By supernatural power (Gen 17:5; Isa 53:10-12; Joh 1:13; Joh 5:25; Joh 6:44-45; Joh 6:65).

III. Of God.

1. Children in Gods esteem, and by Gods appointment.

2. Those to whom He will be a God as He was to Abraham (Gen 17:7). Children of the flesh distinguished from the children of God (Joh 1:13). (T. Robinson, D.D.)

Children of the flesh and of the promise

Within the family circle of Abraham there were children who should never have been. They were not really wanted in the world. Their existence was attributable to the unrefined manners of the age. Hence they might be called children of the flesh. The designation was sufficiently explicit, and could stand appropriate antithesis to that of the children of promise, and thus the Messianic children of God. Such were Isaac and then Jacob, and their legitimate descendants. God promised these to Abraham, and they were at once children of the promise, and the Messianic children of God. To the exclusion of all other descendants they were reckoned for the Messianic offspring by God. He had sovereign right to choose, and He exercised His right. The phrase children of God is susceptible of varied applications. All men are His offspring (Act 17:28), and thus His children. The pure, the benevolent, and the unrevengeful, these in particular are His children (Mat 5:45). And if from among the lapsed any rise up and earnestly urge their way toward purity, etc., then all these are emphatically the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26). Having received Christ they have power to become the sons of God (Joh 1:12). Jesus Himself is the Son of God in the highest sense But in the passage before us the designation is restricted to those who were His Messianic children. Viewed in unity, they are His national sons, His firstborn (Exo 4:22). Viewed in individuality they are His theocratic sons and daughters. (J. Morison, D.D.)

The children of the promise

St. Paul as a Christian patriot was ready to sacrifice his everlasting fellowship with Christ if it could ensure the salvation of his fellow countrymen. But, alas! the fact of the rejection of Jesus and His gospel by many of the Jews must be accepted. And when the apostle turns to history, he finds that there has been no wholesale salvation of either the descendants of Abraham and Israel, but a certain proportion only became children of promise. How can these facts be dealt with under the Divine government? It is to this the apostle devotes himself in the present passage.

I. Gods judgment upon any man is not determined by the qualities of his natural disposition.

1. God did not elect to privilege either all the children of the patriarch, or even those whom we would incline to elect. Abraham had eight children (Gen 25:2), yet only one became the child of promise. Isaac had two, but only the younger became the child of promise. Moreover, when we consider Ishmael and Esau, we are inclined to consider them the more manly and noble. They may have become sons of the desert, but there is something in them that commands our admiration. Of course we see in them purely natural endowments. They live lives of sense rather than of faith, and are what we call now worldly men. Their natures are as interesting as pure worldliness of spirit will allow.

2. Now let us suppose that Gods electing love had laid hold on these well-made noblemen of nature, and had passed by their feebler brothers, the mediative Isaac, the cowardly Jacob; would not an outcry have resulted against a God who professed to be a Father, and yet could favour the strong and pass by the weak? But, as Dr. Leonard W. Bacon says, God does not cast out His crippled and deformed children to perish. He holds to a stricter and sterner responsibility the sons that are nobly endowed. He is not the gentlemans God, nor the Redeemer of persons of fine culture and instincts, but the Saviour of the lost. And by many a story as strange as this of Jacob and Esau He has shown to the generous and highminded that there is a possible way of ruin for them; and to those who know in their own sorrowful consciences, and by the scorn of others, that they are not of noble strain, that there is a way by which they may find salvation.

II. The children of the promise have been led to prize it and to trust in the faithful Promiser. Both Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise in this sense, that their mothers would never have borne them had not God sustained their hope of children by the promise of a seed. But Esau was included in this promise as well as Jacob. There was, however, another and better promise, about all the families of the earth being blessed through a particular seed. In other words, the promise of a Messiah was held before them as their highest hope. Now Ishmael and Esau despised this arrangement; they did not feel indebted to posterity, as many a worldly mind thinks still. But Isaac and Jacob got interested in the promised blessing, and were led to trust Him who uttered it. Their very weakness led them to lean on One mighty to save, and they were pardoned, accepted, and in due season sanctified. Gods electing love thus moves along lines where there is the likelihood that poor, crippled, crushed souls will learn to trust God who is mighty to save. It is harder for a rich man, e.g., to trust God than for a poor man; hence God has chosen the poor, rich in faith, etc. (Jam 2:5). It is harder to get able-bodied, healthy men to trust God than the sick and sorrowing; and hence we find that the Jobs and Asaphs are made, by Gods grace, to show to the unbelieving world that they can serve God for nought, etc. (Job 1:9; Job 13:15; Psa 73:1-28.). And so, as Dr. Bacon again says, Be of good comfort. You shall be saved not only in spite of your faults and infirmities, but from them. Faith in God is the vital air of all true nobleness. In this air the stunted germs of human virtue unfold and blossom. Without faith their fairest growths tend to shrivel and decay. For lack of faith in God, the noble gifts of Esau are of no avail. He shuts himself out a willing stranger to the covenants of promise, having no hope, without God in the world. He moves, a wandering star, in a track without a centre, on towards, blackness of darkness. By faith the low nature of that worm Jacob is by and by redeemed from the power of evil, and, transformed in character and name, becomes the prince that hath power with God.

III. Gods electing love and reprobating hate cannot be charged with injustice. In analysing Gods love for the children of promise Paul traces their election to Gods good pleasure (verse 15). And if mercy be undeserved favour, then He may justly give it to whomsoever He pleaseth. On the other hand, those who are passed by, having no claim to better treatment, simply receive the reward of their deeds. And here it may be well to guard against a false view of Gods hatred of Esau. It is not to be inferred that God hated Esau before he was born and had any opportunity of doing evil. When we consult the passage (Mal 1:2) here quoted by Paul we find it refers to the judgment of Edom in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, 996 years later. Without being blessed like his brother, Esau received his home in the fastness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven. His indifference had cost him his right of primogeniture, and he could no more receive it back (Gen 25:32; Gen 27:33-37; Heb 12:16-17); yet the law prescribed Thou shalt not have the Idumean in abomination, for he is thy brother, and God endured ten centuries of hardness of heart before He said I have hated Esau. That is to say, Gods reprobation of Esau is not to be confounded with His election of Jacob. The opposite of election is not reprobation, but non-election; and no human being has any evidence that he is not elected. The opposite of reprobation is approbation, and we are all reprobated by God so long as we do not accept Christ. Election rests on the good pleasure of God; reprobation on His holiness, which leads Him to antagonise what is unholy. (R. M. Edgar, D.D.)

Election not the ground of our faith

We are not to make election a ground for our faith, but our faith and calling a medium or argument to prove our election. Election, indeed, is first in the order of Divine acting–God chooseth before we believe–yet faith is first in our acting–we must believe before we can know we are elected; yea, by believing we know it. The husbandman knows it is spring by the sprouting of the grass, though he hath no astrology to know the position of the heavens: thou mayest know thou art elect, as surely by a work of grace in thee, as if thou hadst stood by Gods elbow when He wrote thy name in the Book of Life. (W. Gurnall.)

For this is the word of promise.—

Gods word of promise

1. Is unmerited and free.

2. Surpasses human thought.

3. Removes every difficulty.

4. Is suspended on faith. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.] A Jew might have objected, as in Ro 3:3: “Is not God bound by his faithfulness to continue the Jews as his peculiar Church and people, notwithstanding the infidelity of the major part of them? If they are brought to a level with the Gentiles, will it not follow that God hath failed in the performance of his promise to Abraham? Ge 17:7, Ge 17:8 : I will establish my covenant between me and thee for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee.” To which it may be answered: This awful dispensation of God towards the Jews is not inconsistent with the veracity of the Divine promise; for even the whole body of natural born Jews are not the whole of the Israelites comprehended in the promise. Abraham is the father of many nations; and his seed is not only that which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, Ro 4:16; Ro 4:17. The Gentiles were included in the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Jews; and therefore the Jews have no exclusive right to the blessings of God’s kingdom.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

An objection is here obviated: the Jews might object and say: If they were cast off and rejected, then God is unfaithful, and all his promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their seed, are ineffectual. To this he answers by a distinction of Israelites. Some are Israelites only in respect of their carnal generation; and others, again, are true Israelites, children of the promise, and of the faith of Abraham: see Rom 2:28,29. Now the promises of God were made to the true Israelites, and in all such it is effectual: and under the name of Israel, or true Israelites, all those are comprehended, who imitate the faith of Abraham, and walk in his steps, whether they descended from him by fleshly generation or not. This he further asserts in the following verse.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. Not as though the word of God hadtaken none effect“hath fallen to the ground,” thatis, failed: compare Lu 16:17,Greek.

for they are not all Israelwhich are of Israelbetter, “for not all they which are ofIsrael are Israel.” Here the apostle enters upon the profoundsubject of ELECTION,the treatment of which extends to the end of the eleventhchapter”Think not that I mourn over the total loss of Israel;for that would involve the failure of God’s word to Abraham; but notall that belong to the natural seed, and go under the name of’Israel,’ are the Israel of God’s irrevocable choice.”The difficulties which encompass this subject lie not in theapostle’s teaching, which is plain enough, but in the truthsthemselves, the evidence for which, taken by themselves, isoverwhelming, but whose perfect harmony is beyond human comprehensionin the present state. The great source of error here lies in hastilyinferring (as THOLUCK andothers), from the apostle’s taking tip, at the close of this chapter,the calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection ofIsrael, and continuing this subject through the two next chapters,that the Election treated of in the body of this chapter is national,not personal Election, and consequently is Election merely toreligious advantages, not to eternal salvation. In thatcase, the argument of Ro 9:6,with which the subject of Election opens, would be this: “Thechoice of Abraham and his seed has not failed; because though Israelhas been rejected, the Gentiles have taken their place; andGod has a right to choose what nation He will to the privileges ofHis visible kingdom.” But so far from this, the Gentiles are notso much as mentioned at all till towards the close of the chapter;and the argument of this verse is, that “all Israel is notrejected, but only a portion of it, the remainder being the‘Israel’ whom God has chosen in the exercise of His sovereign right.”And that this is a choice not to mere external privileges, but toeternal salvation, will abundantly appear from what follows.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect,…. Or “it is not possible indeed that the word of God should fall”; see 1Sa 3:10; This the apostle says, partly to relieve his own mind pressed with sorrow, and partly to obviate an objection some might make, or prevent any mistake any might be ready to go into; as though from what he suggested that what God had said concerning the people of the Jews, was made void and without effect: for whether by the “word of God” are meant, the Scriptures in general, the prophecies of the Old Testament, these were now about to have their accomplishment, in the rejection of the Jews, and in the conversion of the Gentiles; or whether by it is designed the Gospel, this, as preached both by Christ and his apostles, had had its effect upon God’s chosen ones among that people; it was become the power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first: or rather by it may be intended, God’s word of promise to Abraham, that he would be a God to him, and to his seed after him; and that he and they should be heir of the world, of this and of that which is to come; particularly the heavenly inheritance, which he gave to him by promise; this was not made void, or had taken none effect: for this was made only to Abraham and his spiritual seed; and therefore though his carnal seed believed not, and for their unbelief should be cut off, this did not make the faith, or faithfulness of God of none effect:

for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; that is, they which are the descendants of the patriarch Jacob, whose name was Israel; or who are of the Israelitish nation, of the stock of Israel, belonging to that people; they are not all , “the Israel”, by way of emphasis, as in Ps 25:22, or the “Israel of God”, Ga 6:16, the Israel whom Jehovah the Father has chosen for a peculiar people; which Christ has redeemed from all their iniquities; which the Spirit of God calls with an holy calling, by special grace, to special privileges; the seed of Israel who are justified in Christ, whose iniquities are so pardoned and done away, that when they are sought for they shall not be found, and who are saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: or in other words, though they are “Israel after the flesh”, 1Co 10:18, yet not after the Spirit; though they are by nation Israelites, they are not Israelites “indeed”, as Nathanael was, Joh 1:47; they are Jews outwardly, not inwardly; they have not all principles of grace, uprightness, and sincerity in them: now to these spiritual Israelites, or seed of Abraham, were the word of God, the promises of God concerning spiritual and eternal things made, and upon these they had their effect; and therefore it could not be said that the word of God had taken none effect; though the whole body of Israel after the flesh were cut off and rejected. Some copies, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “who are Israelites”; and the Ethiopic version, “they are not all Israel who came out of Egypt”.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

      6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:   7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.   8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.   9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.   10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;   11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)   12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.   13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

      The apostle, having made his way to that which he had to say, concerning the rejection of the body of his countrymen, with a protestation of his own affection for them and a concession of their undoubted privileges, comes in these verses, and the following part of the chapter, to prove that the rejection of the Jews, by the establishment of the gospel dispensation, did not at all invalidate the word of God’s promise to the patriarchs: Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect (v. 6), which, considering the present state of the Jews, which created to Paul so much heaviness and continual sorrow (v. 2), might be suspected. We are not to ascribe inefficacy to any word of God: nothing that he has spoken does or can fall to the ground; see Isa 55:10; Isa 55:11. The promises and threatenings shall have their accomplishment; and, one way or other, he will magnify the law and make it honourable. This is to be understood especially of the promise of God, which by subsequent providences may be to a wavering faith very doubtful; but it is not, it cannot be, made of no effect; at the end it will speak and not lie.

      Now the difficulty is to reconcile the rejection of the unbelieving Jews with the word of God’s promise, and the external tokens of the divine favour, which had been conferred upon them. This he does in four ways:– 1. By explaining the true meaning and intention of the promise, v. 6-13. 2. By asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, v. 14-24. 3. By showing how this rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, v. 25-29. 4. By fixing the true reason of the Jews’ rejection, v. 30, to the end.

      In this paragraph the apostle explains the true meaning and intention of the promise. When we mistake the word, and misunderstand the promise, no marvel if we are ready to quarrel with God about the accomplishment; and therefore the sense of this must first be duly stated. Now he here makes it out that, when God said he would be a God to Abraham, and to his seed (which was the famous promise made unto the fathers), he did not mean it of all his seed according to the flesh, as if it were a necessary concomitant of the blood of Abraham; but that he intended it with a limitation only to such and such. And as from the beginning it was appropriated to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau, and yet for all this the word of God was not made of no effect; so now the same promise is appropriated to believing Jews that embrace Christ and Christianity, and, though it throws off multitudes that refuse Christ, yet the promise is not therefore defeated and invalidated, any more than it was by the typical rejection of Ishmael and Esau.

      I. He lays down this proposition–that they are not all Israel who are of Israel (v. 6), neither because they are, c., &lti>v. 7. Many that descended from the loins of Abraham and Jacob, and were of that people who were surnamed by the name of Israel, yet were very far from being Israelites indeed, interested in the saving benefits of the new covenant. They are not all really Israel that are so in name and profession. It does not follow that, because they are the seed of Abraham, therefore they must needs be the children of God, though they themselves fancied so, boasted much of, and built much upon, their relation to Abraham, Mat 3:9; Joh 8:38; Joh 8:39. But it does not follow. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privileges, though it is common for people thus to stretch the meaning of God’s promise, to bolster themselves up in a vain hope.

      II. He proves this by instances; and therein shows not only that some of Abraham’s seed were chosen, and others not, but that God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will; and not with regard to that law of commandments to which the present unbelieving Jews were so strangely wedded.

      1. He specifies the case of Isaac and Ishmael, both of them the seed of Abraham; and yet Isaac only taken into covenant with God, and Ishmael rejected and cast out. For this he quotes Gen. xxi. 12, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, which comes in there as a reason why Abraham must be willing to cast out the bond-woman and her son, because the covenant was to be established with Isaac, Gen. xvii. 19. And yet the word which God had spoken, that he would be a God to Abraham and to his seed, did not therefore fall to the ground; for the blessings wrapt up in that great word, being communicated by God as a benefactor, he was free to determine on what head they should rest, and accordingly entailed them upon Isaac, and rejected Ishmael. This he explains further (Rom 9:8; Rom 9:9), and shows what God intended to teach us by this dispensation. (1.) That the children of the flesh, as such, by virtue of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, are not therefore the children of God, for then Ishmael had put in a good claim. This remark comes home to the unbelieving Jews, who boasted of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, Phil. iii. 3. Ishmael was a child of the flesh, conceived by Hagar, who was young and fresh, and likely enough to have children. There was nothing extraordinary or supernatural in his conception, as there was in Isaac’s; he was born after the flesh (Gal. iv. 29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness. (2.) That the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Those that have the honour and happiness of being counted for the seed have it not for the sake of any merit or desert of their own, but purely by virtue of the promise, in which God hath obliged himself of his own good pleasure to grant the promised favour. Isaac was a child of promise; this his proves, v. 9, quoted from Gen. xviii. 10. He was a child promised (so were many others), and he was also conceived and born by force and virtue of the promise, and so a proper type and figure of those who are now counted for the seed, even true believers, who are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God–of the incorruptible seed, even the word of promise, by virtue of the special promise of a new heart: see Gal. iv. 28. It was through faith that Isaac was conceived, Heb. xi. 11. Thus were the great mysteries of salvation taught under the Old Testament, not in express words, but by significant types and dispensations of providence, which to them then were not so clear as they are to us now, when the veil is taken away, and the types are expounded by the antitypes.

      2. The case of Jacob and Esau (v. 10-13), which is much stronger, to show that the carnal seed of Abraham were not, as such, interested in the promise, but only such of them as God in sovereignty had appointed. There was a previous difference between Ishmael and Isaac, before Ishmael was cast out: Ishmael was the son of the bond-woman, born long before Isaac, was of a fierce and rugged disposition, and had mocked or persecuted Isaac, to all which it might be supposed God had regard when he appointed Abraham to cast him out. But, in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was neither so nor so, they were both the sons of Isaac by one mother; they were conceived hex henos—by one conception; hex henos koitou, so some copies read it. The difference was made between them by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any good or evil. Both lay struggling alike in their mother’s womb, when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen, that the purpose of God according to election might stand–that this great truth may be established, that God chooses some and refuses others as a free agent, by his own absolute and sovereign will, dispensing his favours or withholding them as he pleases. This difference that was put between Jacob and Esau he further illustrates by a quotation from Mal 1:2; Mal 1:3, where it is said, not of Jacob and Esau the person, but the Edomites and Israelites their posterity, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. The people of Israel were taken into the covenant of peculiarity, had the land of Canaan given them, were blessed with the more signal appearances of God for them in special protections, supplies, and deliverances, while the Edomites were rejected, had no temple, altar, priests, nor prophets–no such particular care taken of them nor kindness shown to them. Such a difference did God put between those two nations, that both descended from the loins of Abraham and Isaac, as at first there was a difference put between Jacob and Esau, the distinguishing heads of those two nations. So that all this choosing and refusing was typical, and intended to shadow forth some other election and rejection. (1.) Some understand it of the election and rejection of conditions or qualifications. As God chose Isaac and Jacob, and rejected Ishmael and Esau, so he might and did choose faith to be the condition of salvation and reject the works of the law. Thus Arminius understands it, De rejectis et assumptis talibus, certa qualitate notatis–Concerning such as are rejected and such as are chosen, being distinguished by appropriate qualities; so John Goodwin. But this very much strains the scripture; for the apostle speaks all along of persons, he has mercy on whom (he does not say on what kind of people) he will have mercy, besides that against this sense those two objections (Rom 9:14; Rom 9:19) do not at all arise, and his answer to them concerning God’s absolute sovereignty over the children of men is not at all pertinent if no more be meant than his appointing the conditions of salvation. (2.) Others understand it of the election and rejection of particular person–some loved, and others hated, from eternity. But the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, not in their own persons, but as ancestors–Jacob the people, and Esau the people; nor does God condemn any, or decree so to do, merely because he will do it, without any reason taken from their own deserts. (3.) Others therefore understand it of the election and rejection of people considered complexly. His design is to justify God, and his mercy and truth, in calling the Gentiles, and taking them into the church, and into covenant with himself, while he suffered the obstinate part of the Jews to persist in unbelief, and so to un-church themselves–thus hiding from their eyes the things that belonged to their peace. The apostle’s reasoning for the explication and proof of this is, however, very applicable to, and, no doubt (as is usual in scripture) was intended for the clearing of the methods of God’s grace towards particular person, for the communication of saving benefits bears some analogy to the communication of church-privileges. The choosing of Jacob the younger, and preferring him before Esau the elder (so crossing hands), were to intimate that the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and the first-born of the church, should be laid aside; and the Gentiles, who were as the younger brother, should be taken in in their stead, and have the birthright and blessing. The Jews, considered as a body politic, a nation and people, knit together by the bond and cement of the ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood, the centre of their unity, had for many ages been the darlings and favourites of heaven, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, dignified and distinguished by God’s miraculous appearances among them and for them. Now that the gospel was preached, and Christian churches were planted, this national body was thereby abandoned, their church-polity dissolved; and Christian churches (and in process of time Christian nations), embodied in like manner, become their successors in the divine favour, and those special privileges and protections which were the products of that favour. To clear up the justice of God in this great dispensation is the scope of the apostle here.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

But it is not as though ( ). Supply after : “But it is not such as that,” an old idiom, here alone in N.T.

Hath come to nought (). Perfect active indicative of , old verb, to fall out.

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel ( ). “For not all those out of Israel (the literal Jewish nation), these are Israel (the spiritual Israel).” This startling paradox is not a new idea with Paul. He had already shown (Ga 3:7-9) that those of faith are the true sons of Abraham. He has amplified that idea also in Ro 4. So he is not making a clever dodge here to escape a difficulty. He now shows how this was the original purpose of God to include only those who believed.

Seed of Abraham ( ). Physical descent here, but spiritual seed by promise in verse 8. He quotes Ge 21:12f.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Not as though [ ] . Rev., but it is not as though. The thought is abruptly introduced. I am not speaking of a matter of such a nature as that the doctrine of faith involves the failure of God ‘s promises to Israel.

Hath taken none effect [] . Lit., has fallen out. Rev., come to nought.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL JEWS – V. 6-13

1) “Not as though,” (ouch oion de) “Not of course,” not that, He explains that he does not mean to say, in spite of his grief for Israel, that, God’s Word concerning them as a nation will not be fulfilled, or individuals can not be saved.

2) “The Word of God had taken none effect,” (hoti ekpeptoken ho logos thou theou) “that the Word of God has failed,” become non-effective or come to nothing regarding God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Rom 3:3. The rebellion, obstinacy, and anarchy of even natural Israel does not make void God’s provision and offer of salvation to all, Rom 1:16.

3) “For they are not all Israel,” (ou gar pantes hoi eks Israel) “For not all those out of the fleshline of Israel,” not all born of the patriarch, or not all of his natural family line – are true Israelites, people of God, Joh 8:37; Joh 8:39. Just as it is not what we inherit from our parents that insures us a place in the family of God, Joh 3:3-7. Salvation is not an inheritance.

4) “Which are of Israel,” (houtoi Israel) “Which ones are Israel,” It is those who have become “children of God” “by faith in Christ Jesus,” who are the true Israel, true children of God, Gal 3:7; Gal 3:26 – not those merely of Abraham’s seed of flesh lineage, for some were of Ishmael, as the Arabs of today are. It is the new creature, (new creation) by thy new birth, that makes one of the Israel of God, 1Jn 5:1; Gal 6:15-16; Rom 2:29 reads, “‘But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision (that counts) is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.”

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Old Testament is the first chapter of the history of man and the history of God. The experience of the Jews is our experience. It is for us that we see this people alternately gathered together and forsaken, scourged and blest. Not that they are not loved for themselves, and for the fathers’ sakes, as Paul says, but in the marvellous guidance of this people God was preparing an immortal lesson for the whole human race. Not only the doctrine preached to the Jewish people, but more especially their history, constitutes the treasure of all ages and nations; because, as history, it not only teaches, it establishes what God is and what man is, to what extent God’s authority is absolute, and His law sacred; and, in fine, it establishes the active, determinate, and paternal manner in which God constantly interposes in human affairs.

-A. Vinet

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

6. Not however, etc. Paul had been carried away by the ardour of his wish, as it were, into an excess of feeling, ( in ecstasin ,) but now, returning to discharge his office as a teacher, he adds what may be viewed as somewhat qualifying what he had said, as though he would restrain immoderate grief. And inasmuch as by deploring the ruin of his own nation, this inconsistency seems to follow, that the covenant made by God with the seed of Abraham had failed, (for the favor of God could not have been wanting to the Israelites without the covenant being abolished,) he reasonably anticipates this inconsistency, and shows, that notwithstanding the great blindness of the Jews, the favor of God continued still to that people, so that the truth of the covenant remained firm.

Some read, “But it is not possible,” etc., as though it were in Greek οἷον τε (290) but as I find this reading in no copy, I adopt the common reading, Not however that it had failed, etc., and according to this sense, “That I deplore the destruction of my nation is not because I think the promise, given formerly by God to Abraham, is now void or abolished.”

For not all, etc. The statement is, — that the promise was so given to Abraham and to his seed, that the inheritance did not belong to every seed without distinction; it hence follows that the defection of some does not prove that the covenant does not remain firm and valid.

But that it may be more evident on what condition the Lord adopted the posterity of Abraham as a peculiar people to himself, two things are to be here considered. The first is, That the promise of salvation given to Abraham belongs to all who can trace their natural descent to him; for it is offered to all without exception, and for this reason they are rightly called the heirs of the covenant made with Abraham; and in this respect they are his successors, or, as Scripture calls them, the children of the promise. For since it was the Lord’s will that his covenant should be sealed, no less in Ishmael and Esau, than in Isaac and Jacob, it appears that they were not wholly alienated from him; except, it may be, you make no account of the circumcision, which was conferred on them by God’s command; but it cannot be so regarded without dishonor to God. But this belonged to them, according to what the Apostle had said before, “whose are the covenants,” though they were unbelieving; and in Act 3:25, they are called by Peter, the children of the covenants, because they were the descendants of the Prophets. The second point to be considered is, That the children of the promise are strictly those in whom its power and effect are found. On this account Paul denies here that all the children of Abraham were the children of God, though a covenant had been made with them by the Lord, for few continued in the faith of the covenant; and yet God himself testifies, in Eze 6:9, that they were all regarded by him as children. In short, when a whole people are called the heritage and the peculiar people of God, what is meant is, that they have been chosen by the Lord, the promise of salvation having been offered them and confirmed by the symbol of circumcision; but as many by their ingratitude reject this adoption, and thus enjoy in no degree its benefits, there arises among them another difference with regard to the fulfilment of the promise. That it might not then appear strange to any one, that this fulfilment of the promise was not evident in many of the Jews, Paul denies that they were included in the true election of God.

Some may prefer such a statement as this, — “The general election of the people of Israel is no hinderance, that God should not from them choose by his hidden counsel those whom he pleases.” It is indeed an illustrious example of gratuitous mercy, when God deigns to make a covenant of life with a nation: but his hidden favor appears more evident in that second election, which is confined to a part only.

But when he says, that all who are of Israel are not Israelites, and that all who are of the seed of Abraham are not children, it is a kind of change in the meaning of words, ( παρονομασία); for in the first clause he includes the whole race, in the second he refers only to true sons, who were not become degenerated.

(290) Were this the case, the verb which follows, as [ Wolfius ] says and proves by an example, must have been in the infinitive mood. [ Piscator ] says the same. But [ Pareus ] and [ Beza ] take this to be the meaning; and so does [ Macknight ] , “Now it is not possible that the promise of God hath fallen.” — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(6) Not as though.The scholar will observe that there appears to be here a mixture of two constructions, the case is not such that, and I do not mean to say that, I do not intend to say that the case is such as that.

Taken none effect.Fallen through, or failed of its accomplishment.

Of Israeli.e., descended from Jacob. (Comp. Gen. 32:28.) The promise of God was indeed given to Israel, but that did not mean roundly all who could claim descent from Jacob without further limitation.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(6-13) Now follows a vindication of the dealings of God in rejecting Israel. And this is divided into three parts. Part 1 extends to the end of Rom. 9:13, and the object of it is to clear the way by defining the true limits of the promise. It was not really to all Israel that the promise was given, but only to a particular section of Israel.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. Israel’s downfall is no proof that the PROMISE of God has failed of fulfilment; for the PROMISE was not to the seed by birth, but to the seed by faith , Rom 9:6-13 .

We are guided in the interpretation of this paragraph by the parallel passage, Rom 4:1-10. In that passage Paul shows, by the case of Abraham, as we have there noted, that the faith-condition underlies the very foundation of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, essential Christianity underlies Judaism. Here he defends the same view by the case of Abraham’s and Isaac’s children. Even they were truly saved neither by birth nor works, but, as he explicitly declares in 30-33, by faith. The faith-condition underlies even the patriarchal dispensation.

It strongly demonstrates the truth of our interpretation of this paragraph that we can trace through this entire ninth chapter two contrasted lines of character discriminated by faith and unbelief. The following two columns present to the eye the two contrasted characters of Faith and Unbelief in each successive verse:

Line of Unbelief Line of Faith.

Rom 9:6. Of Israel Israel.

“7. Seed of Abraham Children.

“8. Children of the flesh Children of God, children of promise.

“12. The elder The younger.

“18. Esau Jacob.

“15-18. Pharaoh Moses.

“18. Hardeneth Showeth mercy.

“21. Vessel unto dishonour Vessel unto honour.

“22, 23. Vessels of wrath Vessels of mercy. Destruction Glory.

“24. (Unbelieving Jews.) Even us, (Christian believers, Jew or Gentile.)

“30-32. NOT OF FAITH RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

6. Not as though The Jew must not imagine that Paul’s grief implies God’s unfaithfulness. The same denial as in Rom 3:3-4, where see our note.

Word Equivalent to promise in Rom 9:8. The great promise, as comprehensively embracing all the promises, is in Gen 22:18: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” This great faith-conditioned promise underlay all the prerogatives of Israel in Rom 9:4-5, above, including the Messiah and all the blessings comprehended in him.

Of Israel Literally, out from Israel; that is, born from Jacob.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘But it is not as though the word of God has come to nought. For they are not all Israel, who are of Israel,’

Paul is here concerned to demonstrate that the word of God has not come to nought in the failure of Israel to be what they should be, and it is on the basis that God never intended His word to apply to the whole of physical Israel. It was rather addressed to a spiritual remnant within Israel. To put it in simple terms, ‘they are not all Israel who are of Israel’. Here we have clearly expressed two meanings of the word Israel, one referring to the outward nation (including both believers in the Messiah and unbelievers) and one referring to the true spiritual Israel, the Israel within Israel (consisting at this time of believers in the Messiah, that is, of Christ). We should note in this regard that even the concept of the physical nation of Israel was fluid, for the Jews were scattered around the world, and large numbers had made themselves at home among other nations, of whom some would be careless of their ‘privilege’. But the point of Paul’s statement is that within what anyone might claim as representing Israel, were a spiritual inner core who were in God’s eyes the true Israel. Thus the fact that some of Israel had proved unworthy would not mean that God’s word concerning Israel had failed, and this was because God had always intended that what He had said only applied to the ones whom He chose, the true Israel, as he will shortly further demonstrate both here and in Rom 11:1-10.

That Paul is speaking of election to salvation is made clear, firstly by the terminology used (‘children of God’ – compare Rom 8:16; ‘reckoned’ – compare Rom 4:3-11; ‘children of promise’ – compare Gal 4:28; ‘called’ – compare Rom 1:6; Rom 8:28; Rom 8:30; ‘not of works’ – compare Rom 3:27-28; Rom 4:3-5; Eph 2:9; all terms used elsewhere of those who had been accounted as righteous through the righteousness of God), and secondly by what follows. He has in mind those who were ‘prepared unto glory’, in contrast to those ‘fitted for destruction’ (Rom 9:22-24).

‘The word of God.’ Here this must mean His word as given through the prophets (including Moses) and therefore through the Scriptures. It is ‘the word’ in which the promises were made, and Paul will justify his position precisely in terms of the Scriptures (e.g. Rom 9:25-29; Rom 9:33 and continually).

‘Israel.’ We should note that this is the first statement concerning Israel in the three chapters, and as such might be seen as defining ‘Israel’. Indeed we might say that Paul is going out of his way to define it. And his definition of ‘Israel’ is that it consists of the elect of God. Thus while he uses the term Israel in three ways, 1). as referring to the whole of Israel, including both believers in Jesus the Messiah and unbelievers; 2). as referring to unbelieving Israel only; and 3). as referring to the elect of Israel, it is only once specifically defined, and that is here. Thus when it comes to definition Paul defines ‘Israel’ as primarily meaning ‘those in the nation who are elect’. This might be seen as important when deciding the meaning of ‘all Israel’ in Rom 11:26.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Rejection Of Their Messiah By The Majority Of Israel Has Not Brought The Word Of God To Nought For It Has Always Been The Case That Not All Of Supposed Israel Are Truly Israel, But Only Those Who Are Chosen In Line With The Purposes Of God (9:6-13).

Paul now deals with the charge that his teaching, in which he has rejected the idea that the Jews who cling to the Law are in process of salvation (e.g. Rom 2:1 to Rom 3:20), and in which he has opened to Gentiles a way back to God through a means other than submission to the Law (the whole of 1-8), would mean that the word of God had come to nought in that Israel had not fulfilled its purpose. One such purpose, for example, was that the word of God was given to Israel so that it might be a teacher of the nations concerning Him (Isa 2:2-4; Isa 49:1-6). They would have claimed that that assurance was not given in order that it might be sidelined. (Paul, of course, could have pointed out that that very prophecy was in fact being fulfilled, for it was being fulfilled in himself and in the original Jewish church). Indeed some Jews would have gone further for many believed that all who were circumcised Israelites were the elect of God and would thereby, unless they apostasised, obtain eternal life. The cases of the earnest Pharisee (Luk 10:25) and rich young ruler (Luk 18:18) do, however demonstrate, that this view was not widely accepted in Jesus’ days, at least among the more earnest, for in their case they wanted to be sure how they could obtain eternal life. Thus the danger was that Paul’s arguments might have been seen by some as suggesting:

1) That Israel were not God’s chosen people, or that if they were, in some way God’s word had failed. His reply to this is that Scripture reveals that only a portion of Israel, the truly godly, are God’s chosen people as far as salvation is concerned (Rom 9:6-29).

2) That salvation was not to be obtained by uniting with Israel as ‘the people of God’. Paul’s reply to that will be that the Gentiles were in fact saved by uniting with the true people of God (the Jews who followed their Messiah) as they were united with Christ (Rom 11:17-28; Eph 2:11-22).

3) That all of God’s efforts with regard to Israel had been in vain. Paul’s reply is to indicate that God’s efforts were not in vain, for it was from Israel that the Messiah came (Rom 9:5), and that in fact the foundation on which the church was built consisted of the Jewish Apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22) and the remnant of Israel (Rom 11:17-28).

And the argument would then continue by suggesting that if Israel was rejected in this way, what does it say about God and His word and His faithfulness?

Paul’s answer with regard to election is simple. A look back at Israel’s history will reveal that God has always been selective as to whom He allocates His blessing, and that He has always chosen those who would come within His blessing from among the many. It has never been the case that all have been blessed. God has always worked through an elect. That is why even at this very time it is only some Jews who have been called out along with some Gentiles (Rom 9:24). In other words he is saying that within the physical nation of Israel there was a spiritual Israel who are in God’s eyes the true Israel, the Israel from among Israel.

His analysis is pungent and powerful. The fact that of all the sons of Abraham Isaac alone was the one through whom his seed would be called (Rom 9:7) demonstrated that not all sons of Abraham were of the ‘called’. Furthermore the fact that not all the seed of Isaac (who was the chosen one) benefited by that call, but only Jacob, demonstrated that God’s call was of a proportion of the promised seed and not of the whole. Enough is thus said to demonstrate that even the seed of the elect of God were not necessarily elect.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Not All Israel Are The True Israel. The True Israel Are a Remnant Of Israel Chosen By God, Together With Some Believing Gentiles. For God Has A Right To Do What He Will (9:6-29).

Paul now begins to establish from the Scriptures what God’s method of working is, and what the true situation of the Jews (who considered themselves to be ‘the elect’) was. The basic purpose of these verses is in order to emphasise that the Scriptures themselves demonstrate that not all of Israel are to be saved and inherit eternal life, but only a proportion, (not all are ‘the elect’), while at the same time some Gentiles are among the elect (Rom 9:23-24). This was basic to his whole argument about ‘justification by faith’ in Rom 1:16 to Rom 4:25. If many Jews were right who believed that Israel were God’s elect and therefore that to belong to the Jewish nation under the Law, and to be circumcised, was a guarantee of God’s final mercy for all Israelites, then Paul’s teaching concerning justification by faith would be seen to be false. He has already partially dealt with this problem in Rom 2:1 to Rom 3:18 from the angle that all Jews were sinners. Now he will deal with the question of the election of Israel, and how it relates to salvation, and to Gentile believers

This section of the chapter can be divided up as follows:

Not all of supposed Israel are truly Israel, and are the children of God, but only those who are chosen in line with the elective purposes of God (Rom 9:6-13).

The Scripture demonstrates that God is sovereign over all things and has mercy on whom He wills (Rom 9:14-18).

God has the sovereign right to do what He chooses, and has opted to save only a proportion of Israelites, whilst also including many Gentiles (Rom 9:19-26).

It is in accordance with Scripture that Gentiles would become children of God whilst only a remnant of Israel would be saved (Rom 9:27-29).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Israel’s Election is Based Upon God’s Promises In Rom 9:6-13 Paul explains how Israel’s election before God did not come because of their physical birth as the descendants of Abraham. It came, rather, because of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In addition, the Gentiles have been grafted into the vine of Israel, and become partakers of her promises. Although Israel has failed God, Paul explains how the word of God has taken effect not only for Israel, but also for the Gentiles who have been grafted into this vine. Paul had written earlier to the Galatians and called those who are in Christ as the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). This phrase also described the biological Israelites as those who had accepted the Messiah as well as those Gentiles who had been grafted into the vine of Israel, as we will describe in Rom 11:17-20.

Gal 6:16, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God .”

Paul is able to call the Church the “Israel of God,” because the Gentiles have been grafted in, or included in, Israel’s election and blessed with their promises. The Gentiles are now covered by the blessings of Israel. When God looks down from Heaven He sees His people Israel, and makes no distinction between the natural vine that those grafted in; for all are partaking of the same promises and blessings that were given to Israel.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Paul’s Testimony of the Son of Promise Rom 9:6-9

2. Paul’s Testimony of Divine Election Rom 9:10-13

Illustration – After graduating from college, I returned home and began to teach a twelfth grade Sunday school class in my home church of Hiland Park Baptist Church. I was relatively unversed in the Scriptures and followed the teacher’s lesson book. One Sunday morning two students had a disagreement as to how the people in the Old Testament were saved and went to Heaven. We were all clear about how a person goes to Heaven since Christ’s redemptive work on Calvary two thousand years ago. However, we as Christians are not always clear about Old Testament salvation. I did not have an answer for them, so I went home and studied the Scriptures that week and came to the conclusion that people in the Old Testament were saved, or justified, by faith in Calvary the same way that we as New Testament believers are saved. The only difference is that they had to look forward to the Cross and we look back to it. I took this answer to the class the next Sunday and the statement seemed to satisfy their inquisitive minds. Although this is the right answer, I did not realize until years later that this is what Paul is implying in Rom 9:6-13. Although Paul is placing emphasis upon their divine election by God in this passage, it also reflects their need to believe in these promises for justification.

Rom 9:6-9 Paul’s Testimony of the Son of Promise – Rom 9:6-9 serves as a Paul’s testimony of Isaac serving as a son of promise that established faith as the rule for God reckoning a man righteous. These verses also serve as a summary of Abraham’s genealogy in recorded in Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11. This genealogy records God’s promise and His fulfillment of a son for Abraham and Sarah, with Abraham’s faith to believe in God.

Rom 9:6  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 9:6 Comments – Because the children of promise are reckoned by god as justified, and not children of physical birth, Paul is about two give several Old Testament witnesses that God’s Word has taken root in this depraved word, and a people of righteousness are in this world as members of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:7 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – In Rom 9:7 Paul quotes from Gen 21:12 where God was explaining to Abraham that the promise was in his son Isaac and that he should send Hagar away with his first son Ishmael.

Gen 21:12, “And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Rom 9:8 Comments Each time Paul uses the word ( ) (G3049) (reckon) in the epistle of Romans, he is explaining God’s plan of redemption for mankind from a divine perspective, which is a position we must take by faith, not being able to see it in the natural realm.

Paul will give two Old Testament witnesses of God’s promises, one to Abraham (Rom 9:9) and one to Isaac (Rom 9:10-13), to support this statement in Rom 9:8 that God reckons Israel’s righteousness by those who believe the promises, and not by Jewish birth. Both Sarah and Rebecca were barren, and both had a child by a promise from God. Paul could have continued with other Old Testament examples, but he is compelled to immediately explain the issue of divine election that these examples address (Rom 9:14-33).

Rom 9:9  For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Rom 9:9 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – Rom 9:9 refers to Gen 18:10; Gen 18:14.

Gen 18:10, “And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.”

Gen 18:14, “Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”

Rom 9:10-13 Paul’s Testimony of Divine Election: The Elder Shall Serve the Younger Rom 9:10-13 serve as a testimony of Jacob’s election serving as a son of promise that established faith as the rule for God reckoning a man righteous. These verses also serve as a summary of Isaac’s genealogy in Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29. This genealogy records God’s promise and His fulfilment of an elected son to fulfil His promise of raising a nation of righteous offspring on the earth in order to fulfil His divine plan of redemption for mankind.

God’s Immeasurable Love for His Children – F. F. Bruce tells us that it is not so much the individuals that are referred to in Gen 25:23, when God said that “the elder shall serve the younger,” as it is the two nations that will descend from Jacob and Esau. [195] The Scriptures reveal that Esau himself never served Jacob. However, during the long stretch of biblical history, Edom did in fact serve the nation of Israel a number of times.

[195] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 46-7.

Gen 25:23, “And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger .”

In the same sense, it is not so much the two individual sons of Jacob that are meant in Mal 1:2-3 where it says, “yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau.” as it is the two nations. In other words, God loved the nation of Israel and hated the nation of Edom.

Mal 1:2-3, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau , and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

F. F. Bruce goes on to explain that the Hebrew thought and speech is making an extreme contrast in these passages for the sake of emphasis. He uses Luk 14:26 to illustrate this Hebrew way of saying that someone must love God far more than his earthly family.

Luk 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

This is exactly what the parallel passage in Mat 10:37 says when Jesus tells us that we must love Him more than our parents or children.

Mat 10:37, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Thus, God was saying that He loved Jacob far more than his closest blood kin. God also had a love Esau, as He does for all of mankind, but not in the same way as He loved His people Israel. This statement in Rom 9:10-13 is, therefore, meant to place emphasis upon the immeasurable love that God has for His people.

Rom 9:10  And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

Rom 9:10 Comments Rebecca’s natural conception is described in Rom 9:10 as being “conceived by one,” which stands in contrast to Sarah’s miraculous conception.

Rom 9:11  (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Rom 9:11 Comments Rom 9:11 reads, “in order that the purpose of God might remain and continue by election” Divine election is the gear that turns the wheel of God’s plan of redemption. God chooses to intervene in the affairs of mankind outside of man’s efforts. Thus, Rom 9:11 says, “not of works, but of him that calleth” Rom 9:18 will show us that God’s mercy is the oil that greases the gear that turns the wheel of redemption.

Rom 9:18, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

Rom 9:12  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Rom 9:12 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – In Rom 9:12 Paul quotes from Gen 25:23 where Isaac prayed and asked the Lord why the children within his wife were kicking so much.

Gen 25:23, “And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger .”

Rom 9:13  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Rom 9:13 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – In Rom 9:13 Paul quotes from Mal 1:2-3.

Mal 1:2-3, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau , and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The promises of God concern the spiritual descendants of Abraham:

v. 6. Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel,

v. 7. neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

v. 8. that is. they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

v. 9. For this is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

From what the apostle had said in the first verses of the chapter the Jews might argue that he was setting aside the very promises of God which he had just mentioned as a privilege of the Israelites. He therefore proceeds to show that the rejection of the Jewish people does not prove that the promises of God given to them are not being fulfilled. He makes his meaning clear: But I do not mean to say that the Word of God has fallen to the ground, has come to nothing. The promise of God that Israel was to be the people of God and the bearer of the prophecy concerning Christ was still valid and reliable. The Prophet of Nazareth was the Savior of Israel also, He was to be given to all children of Abraham. And pet the external Israel has become a curse and an abomination before the Lord. This apparent contradiction Paul now solves: For not all that are of Israel, that belong to the Jewish race by carnal descent and relationship. are really Israel in the sense in which God uses the expression: meaning the spiritual descendants of Israel, those who followed the patriarch in his faith. Neither are those that are the seed, the children of Abraham according to the flesh, all children in truth, and acknowledged as such by God; but: In Isaac shall be named to thy seed, Gen 21:12; after Isaac shall thy seed be called; Isaac’s descendants, speaking literally, are to be considered the true children of Abraham. A mere carnal descent from the patriarchs cannot be made a basis of boasting, for Ishmael was rejected in spite of his natural descent from Abraham, and therefore God may well reject the Jews, though they can trace their lineage back to Abraham.

In addition to the proof from history to which Paul has just referred, he now brings out the spiritual meaning contained in the promise of God to Abraham: That is to say, Not the children of the flesh, that are born according to the regular course of nature, are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed, as the true descendants of Abraham. For the word of promise is this: According to this time, the time required by the course of nature, I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. Viewed from the historical side only, these words, Gen 18:10, might mean that Isaac was born by virtue of a special promise. But the apostle includes here the wider, spiritual sense. The children of the promise are those that have accepted the promise, the prophecy and message of the Messiah, by faith, Gal 4:24-28, in this sense Isaac is the type of the spiritual children of promise, those that have become children of God by virtue of their acceptance of the divine promise in Christ Jesus, the believers of all time. So the trend of Paul’s argument is, that just as God made a distinction between the children, the offspring of Abraham, so He is discriminating still: the fact that many people, the great majority of the Jews, do not receive the Gospel and are cast away by God no more proves that the promise has failed than the fact that God of old chose Isaac only and set aside Ishmael.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Rom 9:6. The word of God The word of promise. See Rom 9:9 and chap. Rom 3:3. St. Paul urges, that they are not all Israel which are of Israel, as a reason to prove that the promise of God failed not to have its effect, though the body of the Jewish nation had rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore were naturally rejected by God from being any longer his people. The reasoning stands thus: “The posterity of Jacob, or Israel, were not those alone who were to make that Israel, or that chosen people of God, who were intended in the promise made to Abraham, Gen 17:7-8. Others, besides the descendants of Jacob, were to be taken into this Israel, to constitute the people of God under the Gospel; and therefore the calling and coming-in of the Gentiles was a completion of that promise:” and then he adds in the next verse, “Neither were all the posterity of Abraham comprehended in that promise; nor were those who were taken-in in the time of the Messiah to make the Israel of God, taken-in because they were the natural descendants from Abraham; nor did the Jews claim it for all his race:” and this he proves by the limitation of the promise to Abraham’s seed by Isaac only. He does all this to shew the right of the Gentiles to that promise, if they believed; since that promise did not concern only the natural descendants either of Abraham or Jacob, but those only who were of the faith of their father Abraham, of whomsoever descended. See chap. Rom 4:11-17 and Locke. We may read the last clause of this verse, For not all they that are of Israel, are Israel.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 9:6 . Having in Rom 9:4-5 adduced the great divine prerogatives of his people, and given honour to God for them, as his Israelitish sympathies impelled him to do, his thought now recurs to that utterance of grief in Rom 9:2-3 , over-against which ( ) he now proposes to justify the God of his people. Quite unnecessarily Lachmann has put Rom 9:3-5 in a parenthesis .

, ] does not mean: but it is not possible that (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Homberg, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Morus, Bhme, Rosenmller, Benecke, Ewald); for in that case would not be allowable, but the infinitive must follow (Matthiae, 479; Krger, 55. 3. 1); moreover, as Calvin has rightly observed, would be found, at least according to the invariable usage ( 4Ma 4:7 ; Xen. Anab . ii. 2. 3, vii. 7. 22; and Bornemann, in loc.; de Rep. Ath . ii. 2; Mem . iv. 6. 7; Thuc . vii. 42. 3; Soph. Phil . 913; O. C . 1420; Ast, Lex. Plat . II. p. 425), instead of which scarcely an uncertain example (as Gorgias, pro Palam . in Wetstein) is forthcoming of the simple without , whilst the masculine (without ) is frequent (see Schmann, ad Is . p. 465; Weber, Dem. Aristocr . p. 469; Khner, II. 2, p. 702. 580). It is rather to be explained by the very current usage in later Greek (Lennep. ad Phalar . p. 258; Fritszche on our passage) of . with a following finite tense; e.g . in Phryn . p. 372, and the passages from Polybius in Schweighuser, p. 403). According to this usage, the attracted is not to be resolved, with Hermann, ad Viger . p. 790, into , because the following verb does not suit this, but with Fritzsche into : the matter is not of such a nature, that . But since Paul has here expressed , he cannot have conceived it as contained in : in reality he has fallen into a mixing up of two kindred modes of expression, namely, of with a finite tense, and , i.e . . See Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet . p. 128; Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 153 f.; Khner, II. 2, p. 800 f. Without this intermingling he would have written ; but consequent on this intermingling he wrote ., which accordingly may be analyzed thus: , , I do not speak of a thing of such kind, as (that is) that . So also substantially Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 319, and previously, by way of suggestion, Beza. The deviation from Greek usage into which Paul has fallen renders also necessary this solution, which deviates from the analysis of the Greek . (without ); and we have here, amongst the many solecisms falsely ascribed to the apostle, a real one. Observe, moreover, the strength of the negation implied in ; for this affirms that the lament of the apostle was to be something quite other than a lament over the frustration of the divine word. According to Hofmann, is to be again supplied to , and to be taken as because , so that thus Paul would deny that he had for that wish the ground which is named in . . . This is independently of the arbitrariness of the insertion of incorrect, just because the thought that this could have had that ground would be an absurd thought; for it would suppose a fact, which is inconceivable as a motive of the wish.

] has fallen out of its position, i.e. fallen through , become unavailing, without result. See Plut. Tib. Gracch . 21; Ael. V. H . iv. 7; Kypke, II. p. 173 f. So , Jos 21:45 ; Jdt 6:9 ; and , Jos 23:14 ; both in use also among the Greeks; comp. , Dissen, ad Pind. Nem . xi. 30. The opposite is , Rom 9:11 . Comp. also 1Co 13:8 .

. ] namely, not the Dei edictum (Rom 9:28 ) as to the bestowal of blessing only on the election of the Israelites, as Fritzsche, anticipating, would have it, but generally the promise given by God to the Israelites , by which the assurance of the Messianic salvation is obviously intended. This sense the context yields generally, and especially by . ., Rom 9:5 , without our having exactly to think of Gen 12:3 , where the promise is to Abraham (Th. Schott).

. . .] for not all who spring from Israel , not all (Rom 9:27 ), are Israelites (Israel’s children, according to the divine idea), so as to be all destined to receive the salvation promised to the Israelites. Comp. Gal 4:29 ; Gal 6:16 . The first is the name of the patriarch; the second , instead of which the old reading (D. Chrys.) contains a correct gloss, is the name of his people (Rom 11:2 ; Rom 11:7 ; Rom 11:26 , al ). Mistaking the subtle emphatic character of this mode of expression, Hofmann, in spite of the clear , takes the first . also as a name of the people, so that the sense would be: the unity of the people is something other than the sum of its members . To . corresponds ., Rom 9:7 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Rom 9:6-13 . First part of the Theodice: God’s promise, however, has not become untrue through the exclusion of a part of the Israelites; for it applies only to the true Israelites, who are such according to the promise , which is confirmed from Scripture.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1884
ISRAEL IN THE MIDST OF ISRAEL

Rom 9:6. They are not all Israel who are of Israel.

EVIL as have been the dispositions of those who have set themselves against the doctrines of the Gospel, we have been greatly indebted to them: since they have called forth statements which we should never otherwise have received; and have drawn from the Apostles of our Lord a disclosure of their inward motives and principles, which nothing but an absolute necessity for the vindication of their own character could ever have elicited. The epistle before us is full of objections, started against every doctrine which the writer of it maintained. In the former part of the third chapter the objections are urged with a pertinacity and boldness, which compelled the Apostle to say respecting the persons who so urged them, that their damnation was just [Note: Rom 3:8.]. In the sixth and seventh chapters, the objections against both the Law and the Gospel gave rise to an elucidation of them, so clear, that there can be no doubt entertained respecting their proper use, or their transcendent excellence. In the chapter which we are about to consider, the Apostle begins with expressing his deep and continual sorrow on account of the judgments impending over the Jews for their obstinate rejection of their Messiah. He then anticipates an objection which would be brought against him; namely, that if, as he had supposed, the Jews were to be cast off, the word of God, which had promised all manner of blessings to Abraham and his seed, would be made void. But to this he replies, that the promises were made to Abraham and his spiritual seed: and that all others, however they might be descended from him after the flesh, would assuredly be cast off, since all were not Israel, who were of Israel; neither, because they were the natural seed of Abraham, were they necessarily to be numbered amongst the children to whom the promises were made [Note: ver. 6, 7.].

Now, in considering this reply, I shall notice,

I.

The affirmation itself

It is here supposed that the whole nation of Israel possessed the same advantages, and, in appearance, enjoyed the same blessings. Yet the Apostle distinguishes between some of them and others; and affirms, that some had claims and privileges, to which the others were not entitled. This was true respecting them: and it is true at this time, also, in relation to ourselves. For, as then, so now also,

1.

All are not objects of the same electing love

[It is undeniable, that God chose Abraham out of an idolatrous world, and gave to him a promise of blessings which were withheld from others of the human race, and which had never been merited by him. To his seed also were these blessings promised; but not to Ishmael, who was then alive: no; they were entailed on a son who should afterwards be born, and should be born too after that neither the father nor the mother could, by reason of their advanced age, expect any progeny. Here, then, was the same sovereignty manifested as in the selection of Abraham himself. In the children of Israel, too, was the same sovereignty displayed: for, even whilst the twins were in their mothers womb, Gods determination respecting them was made known; and it was appointed that the blessings of the covenant should descend to the younger in preference to the elder: as it is written, The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger [Note: ver. 11, 12.]. In this, the intention of God to display his sovereignty in the disposal of his blessings is expressly asserted, as the end for which he made the appointment at that precise time: for it was impossible that they should have done either good or evil previous to their birth; and, consequently, nothing of theirs could be the ground of Gods dispensation towards them.

The same point is no less clearly seen in the objections which are urged against it.
The objector replies, that, if this doctrine be true, God must be unrighteous, since he withholds from one, what he gives to another [Note: ver. 14.]. Now, what room can there be for any such objection as this, except on the supposition that the Apostle has been mantaining the sovereignty of God in the disposal of his favours? On any other supposition, it would be impossible for the idea to arise, that there was, or could be, unrighteousness with God. The Apostles answer shews the same: for he proves that the doctrine which he had maintained was declared to Moses, when God said to him, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion [Note: ver. 15.]. And the conclusion which the Apostle draws from the whole clearly confirms the same: So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy [Note: ver. 16.]. I ask again, What room could there be for such an answer, and such a conclusion, if the Apostle had not asserted and maintained the doctrine of election as exercised by God according to his own sovereign will and pleasure?

But the same is pursued still farther.
St. Paul, not contented with having established his point, prosecutes it yet farther; and declares that God had exercised the same sovereignty in raising Pharaoh to the throne of Egypt, and in making use of the pride and obduracy of that haughty monarch as the means of displaying his own almighty power, and of confirming the word which he had previously declared to Moses [Note: ver. 17, 18.]. And this calls forth another objection: Thou wilt say, then, unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will [Note: ver. 19.]? Here again, you will perceive, is an objection which could not possibly arise, but on the supposition that the Apostle is maintaining the absolute sovereignty of God. And his answer to it proves the same: Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour [Note: ver. 20, 21.]? Of all the images that could ever be thought of, it would not be possible to find one which could more strongly illustrate the sovereignty of God than this. It is here indeed supposed, that all men are alike corrupt and sinful, all one mass of sin; no part of which has any greater claim upon God for mercy, than the potters clay has on him for distinguishing favours at his hands.

Let this reasoning be candidly considered, and the inference from it will be clear. Nothing but our high thoughts of self, and our low thoughts of God, could ever make us entertain a doubt about the truth which is here maintained. Indeed, we see it at this day, as well as in former ages. God chose the Jews of old, and distinguished them above the rest of the world: so he has done with the Christians now. Moreover, he had an Israel in the midst of an Israel then: and so he has now: a people within a people; a Church within a Church; an elect within a mass who are partakers only of external privileges. Yes, as then, even so at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace [Note: Rom 11:6.].]

2.

All are not partakers of the same converting grace

[The Jews had all the same ordinances of grace; but did not all make the same improvement of them. In the ministry of John the Baptist, those who were the least likely to receive his word were the most effectually impressed with it: The publicans justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him [Note: Luk 7:29-30.]. The twelve Apostles were chosen by our blessed Lord according to his sovereign will and pleasure; and for them were reserved advantages, not known to any others. To them our Lord explained in private the parables he delivered in public; saying to them, To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to others, in parables; that seeing, they may not see; and hearing, they may not understand [Note: Luk 8:10.]. To them, in like manner, was peculiar favour shewn after our Lords resurrection; for then opened he their understandings to understand the Scriptures [Note: Luk 24:45.]. But see this matter yet more plainly in the Apostle Paul. He was full of wrath, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the whole Church of Christ; and yet, whilst pursuing his murderous career, he was stopped, and converted by the grace of God; the Lord Jesus Christ himself appearing to him in the way, and revealing himself to him; whilst, of all who were present, not one except himself was permitted to hear the words that were spoken to him. Was here no proof of Gods electing love? Take the ministry of this Apostle: some received his testimony, and others rejected it. And whence was it, that, at Philippi, a poor woman, named Lydia, embraced the truth, whilst the magistrates and a great mass of the inhabitants joined in persecuting the ministers who proclaimed it? We are told, that the Lord opened her heart to attend to the things that were spoken by Paul [Note: Act 16:14-15.]. The same words made one cry out, Paul, thou art beside thyself; and another, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian [Note: Act 26:22; Act 26:28.]. And is it not so at the present day? Are not still, as formerly, many called, and few chosen? Does not the Saviour himself, as preached unto men, still become a sanctuary to some, whilst he proves a stumbling-block and a rock of offence to others [Note: 1Pe 2:6-8.]? And whence is this? To what must it be traced, but to Gods electing love? Assuredly, to that does the Apostle trace it, in the case of his Thessalonian converts: for, in his first epistle to them he says, Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God; for our Gospel came not unto you in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance [Note: 1Th 1:4-5.]. So then it is in every instance, where persons are enabled to receive the word aright: it is given them to believe [Note: Php 1:29.]; and they believe through grace [Note: Act 18:27.]; or, in other words, they are quickened from the dead [Note: Eph 2:1.], and made willing in the day of Gods power [Note: Psa 110:3.]: and to God must they trace their new creation, as entirely and exclusively as the creation of the world [Note: Eph 2:10.]. To these the word becomes a savour of life unto life; whilst to others it is made a savour of death, to their deeper condemnation [Note: 2Co 2:16.].]

3.

All are not heirs of the same eternal glory

[All are not vessels unto honour. But this, however, must be remembered, that whilst it is God alone who prepares any to glory, the wicked fit themselves for destruction. This is marked, in a peculiar manner, in the chapter from whence my text is taken [Note: ver. 22, 23. See the Greek.]; and we must never forget it: for though the salvation of man is altogether of God, his condemnation is of himself alone, the fruit of his own wilful perseverance in sin. That those who are saved owe their happiness to Gods electing love, is clear from hence, that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation [Note: 2Th 2:13.]; and called them unto his eternal glory [Note: 1Pe 5:10.]. The process, as ordained in Gods mind, and executed in his dispensations, is thus declared in the chapter preceding that which we have been considering: Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified [Note: Rom 8:30.]. And, among those who are exalted to glory, there will be no difference in relation to this matter: they will all acknowledge that they did not choose God, but God them [Note: Joh 15:16.]; and that they loved him because he first loved them [Note: 1Jn 4:10; 1Jn 4:19.]: and, in ascribing glory to his name, they will remember this saying, To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and the Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen [Note: Rev 1:5-6.].]

Having shewn, I trust, the truth of the affirmation, I proceed to state,

II.

The improvement to be made of it

Amongst the diversified uses to be made of it, I will mention three:
It should teach us,

1.

A holy fear and jealousy respecting ourselves

[It is here admitted that we are of Israel: that, as the Jews had all been admitted into covenant with God by circumcision, so have we by baptism; and that, as to them belonged the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises, so do all the blessings of the Gospel belong to us [Note: Rom 9:4-5.], precisely in the same manner and to the same extent that the privileges of Gods ancient people belonged to them. But as, then, all were not Israel who were of Israel, so now all are not Christians indeed who are called by the name of Christ. Our descent from Christian parents will do no more than the descent of Israel from Abraham did for them. We are expressly told on this head, that the unconverted among them were not the true circumcision: they were only the concision: the circumcision were those who worshipped God in the Spirit, and rejoiced in Christ Jesus, and had no confidence in the flesh [Note: Php 3:3.]. And this is the description of the true Christian: no one deserving that name who does not answer to that character. The Apostle further confirms this, when he says, He is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart; in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God [Note: Rom 2:28-29.]. Should we not then fear, lest we deceive ourselves, just as the Jews of old did? Should we not carefully examine ourselves, and prove our ownselves, whether we be in the faith [Note: 2Co 13:5.]? Should we not compare our character with that of the saints of old, to see whether we be Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile [Note: Joh 1:47.]? Let it be well settled in our minds, that we are not indeed children of Abraham, unless we walk in the steps of Abraham [Note: Rom 4:12.], and do his works [Note: Joh 8:39.].]

2.

A humble acquiescence in reference to God

[We are extremely prone to rise against the sovereignty of God, and to deny him the right of disposing of things according to his own will and pleasure. Yet we arrogate that right to ourselves; and if we were called unjust for bestowing our alms on one and not on another, we should indignantly reply, Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own [Note: Mat 20:15.]? But do what we will, we cannot deny the election of God in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob? We cannot deny that there were given to the Jews means of grace, which were withheld from all the world besides. We cannot deny the same in reference to Christians at this day: for we have in our hands the blessed Gospel, which reveals unto us the way of salvation, whilst five-sixths of the world never so much as heard of Christ. Nay, more: of those who most dispute against the doctrine of election generally, it may be doubted, whether one can be found who, when deeply convinced of his own guilt and misery, will not go to God, and implore mercy for mercys sake, as much as the most zealous advocate of that offensive doctrine. He will scarcely venture to claim mercy on account of his own merits, whether past, present, or future. And, if he obtain a sense of Gods pardoning love, I much doubt whether he will deliberately refuse to make that acknowledgment, By the grace of God I am what I am [Note: 1Co 15:10.]. That there are depths in this doctrine which we cannot comprehend, I readily admit. But, would the denial of it involve us in no depths? or is there any other doctrine of our holy religion which we can fully fathom? Let us know this, that whether we can comprehend Gods ways or not, the Judge of all the earth will do right [Note: Gen 18:25.]; and whether we are pleased to acquiesce in them or not, He will be justified in his sayings, and be clear when he is judged [Note: Rom 3:4.]. Let us, then, not presume to sit in judgment upon God, or dare to charge him foolishly: but let us make our supplication to him, assured that none shall seek his face in vain; and that not one who shall come to him in his Sons name shall ever be cast out [Note: Joh 6:37.].]

3.

An adoring gratitude, if we have been made partakers of his mercy

[We cannot but see, whether the doctrine of election be true or not, that there is an Israel within an Israel; and that, whilst a small remnant only are truly alive to God, the great mass of the Christian world are as careless about salvation as even the Jews themselves. If, then, God has in mercy favoured us, and made us partakers of his grace, shall we sacrifice to our own net, and burn incense to our own drag [Note: Hab 1:16.]? God forbid. Let us rather bow with humble adoration before our God; saying, Why me, Lord? Why am I taken, when so many others are left [Note: Luk 17:34-36.]? In truth, this is the spirit that becomes us. Even for the favours conferred upon us in providence, it becomes us to bless and magnify our God, with a deep sense of our own unworthiness, and with a lively gratitude for such undeserved bounties. But for the blessings of his grace, O what thanks should we render unto the Lord! Hear the Psalmist, when contemplating these things: Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless his holy name! Bless the Lord, O my soul! and forget not all his benefits! Let such be the state of our minds. Surely, the more we are sensible of our obligations to God, for his free, unmerited, and sovereign grace, the more profoundly we shall adore him, and the more determinately shall we serve him.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. (10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The Apostle seems to have found his soul relieved at the opening of this verse, in calling to remembrance that the true Israel of’ God, notwithstanding the Israel after the flesh were shut out, had all the blessings of the covenant in Christ designed them. The people, the true Israel of God, whom Jehovah formed for himself, were still, and everlastingly must be, his chosen generation, his peculiar people, a royal priesthood. God called them a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation, Exo 19:6 . And Paul here makes the distinction between nature and grace, between Israel after the flesh, and after the spirit. He runs up the subject to the fountain head of the appointment, and in the everlasting purpose, counsel, will, and pleasure of Jehovah, shews how the Church was chosen in Christ from the beginning; nothing in the children of promise, who were the happy partakers of it, predisposing to the mercy, or in the smallest degree contributing to it, because the thing was done before they were born. Paul most plainly and decidedly shews this, and confirms it by quotations from the Old Testament scripture. If the Reader will consult the scriptures referred to, and compare them with one another, the subject Paul had in view to establish will appear in its obvious sense and meaning, Gen 25:21-27 ; Mal 1:3 ; Gal 4:28 , to the end.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Ver. 6. Not as though the word ] That word of promise, Rom 9:4 , which is sure hold, “Yea and Amen.”

For they are not all Israel ] Multi sacerdotes, et pauci sacerdotes, Many priests and few priests, saith Chrysostom, multi in nomine, et pauci in opere, many in name and few in work. So here.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

6 13 .] God has not broken His promise: for He chose from the first but a portion of the seed of Abraham (6 9), and again only one out of the two sons of Rebecca (10 13).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

6. ] Not however that ( , = , ., ‘ but I do not mean such a thing, as that .,’ or ‘ the matter however is not so, as that .’ De W. cites from Athen [77] vi. p. 244, , and from Phrynich. p. 332, , in a similar sense. The rendering, ‘ it is not possible that ,’ would require ordinarily with an infinitive, and St. Paul is asserting, not the impossibility , however true, of God’s word being broken, but the fact , that it was not broken ) the word (i.e. the promise) of God has come to nothing (see refif., so Lat., excidit ); viz. by many, the majority of the nominal Israel, missing the salvation which seemed to be their inheritance by promise.

[77] Athenagoras of Athens, 177

For not all who are sprung from Israel (= Jacob, according to Tholuck: but this does not seem necessary: Israel here as well as below may mean the people , but here in the popular sense, there in the divine idea), (these) are Israel (veritably, and in the sense of the promise).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 9:6 . : this unique expression is explained by Buttmann ( Grammar , p. 372, Thayer’s Transl.) as a blending of two formulas followed by a finite verb, and , which is common in the N.T. The meaning is, But, in spite of my grief, I do not mean to say any such thing as that the Word of God has come to nothing. For not all they that are of Israel, i.e. , born of the patriarch, are Israel, i.e. , the people of God. This is merely an application of our Lord’s words, That which is born of the flesh is flesh. It is not what we get from our fathers and mothers that ensures our place in the family of God. For the use of in this verse to resume and define the subject see Gal 3:7 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Rom 9:6-13

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11for 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, 12it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Rom 9:6 “the word of God” In this context this phrase refers to the OT covenantal promises. God’s promises are sure (cf. Num 23:19; Jos 21:45; Jos 23:14; 2Ki 10:10; Isa 40:8; Isa 55:11; Isa 59:21).

NASB, NRSV,

TEV, NJB”has failed”

NKJV”has taken no effect”

This term (ekpipt) was used in the Septuagint several times for something (cf. Isa 6:13) or someone (cf. Isa 14:12) falling. Here it is a perfect active indicative, which denotes a state of being with lasting results (but it is negated). See note above for the surety of God’s word.

NASB”For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”

NKJV”For they are not all Israel who are of Israel”

NRSV”For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel”

TEV”For not all the people of Israel are the people of God”

NJB”Not all those who descend from Israel are Israel”

The meaning of this paradoxical statement revolves around the different biblical meanings of the term “Israel.”

1. Israel, meaning Jacob’s descendants (cf. Gen 32:22-32)

2. Israel, meaning the elect people of God (cf. TEV)

3. spiritual Israel, Israel meaning the church, (cf. Gal 6:16; 1Pe 2:8-9; Rev 1:6) versus natural Israel (cf. Rom 9:3-6)

Only some of Abraham’s children were the children of promise (cf. Rom 9:7). Even the Jews were never right with God based solely on their lineage (cf. Rom 9:7), but on their faith (cf. Rom 2:28-29; Rom 4:1 ff.; Joh 8:31-59; Gal 3:7-9; Gal 4:23). It was the believing remnant (see Special Topic at Rom 9:27-28) who received God’s promises and walked in them by faith (cf. Rom 9:27; Rom 11:5).

Rom 9:6 starts a series of supposed objections (cf. Rom 9:14; Rom 9:19; Rom 9:30; Rom 11:1). This continues Paul’s diatribe format. It conveys truth by means of a supposed objector (i.e., Mal 1:2; Mal 1:6-7 [twice],12,13; Rom 2:14; Rom 2:17 [twice]; Rom 3:7; Rom 3:13-14).

Rom 9:7 The second half of this verse is a quote from Gen 21:12 d. Not all of Abraham’s children were children of God’s covenant promise (cf. Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:1-11; Gen 17:1-21; Gen 18:1-15; Gal 4:23). This shows the distinction between Ishmael and Isaac in Rom 9:8-9, and Jacob and Esau in Rom 9:10-11.

Rom 9:8 Here Paul is using the term “flesh” to refer to national descent (cf. Rom 1:3; Rom 4:1; Rom 9:3; Rom 9:5, see Special Topic at Rom 1:3). He is contrasting the natural children of Abraham (the Jews of Rom 9:3) with the spiritual children (children of the promise) of Abraham (those who will trust God’s promised Messiah by faith, cf. Rom 2:28-29). This is not the same contrast as Rom 8:4-11, fallen mankind versus redeemed mankind.

Rom 9:9 This is a quote from Gen 18:10; Gen 18:14. The promised child (“the seed”) will come from Sarah at God’s initiative. This eventually will culminate in the birth of the Messiah. Isaac was a special fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3 thirteen years earlier.

Rom 9:10 The wives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were barren; they could not conceive. Their inability to have a child was one of God’s ways to show that He was in control of the covenant promises, the Messianic line.

The other way was that the true Messianic line never proceeds through the oldest son of the Patriarchs (which was culturally expected). The key is God’s choice (cf. Rom 9:11-12).

Rom 9:11-12 Rom 9:11-12 are one sentence in Greek. This account is taken from Gen 25:19-34. This example is used to prove that God’s choice (cf. Rom 9:16), not (1) human lineage or (2) human merit or achievements (cf. Rom 9:16). This is the new mechanism of the gospel, the new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:22-36). However, it must be remembered that God’s choice was not meant to exclude, but to include! The Messiah will come from a select seed, but He will come for all (who exercise faith, cf. Rom 2:28-29; Rom 4:3; Rom 4:22-25; Romans 10).

Rom 9:11 “purpose” This is the compound term pro plus tithmi, which has several senses.

1. in Rom 3:25

a. set forth publicly

b. propitiatory gift

2. to plan beforehand

a. of Paul, Rom 1:13

b. of God, Eph 1:9

The noun form (prothesis), used in this text, means “to set before”

1. used of the shewbread in the temple, Mat 12:4; Mar 2:26; Luk 6:4

2. used of a predetermined, redemptive purpose of God, Rom 8:28; Rom 9:11; Eph 1:5; Eph 1:11; Eph 3:10; 2Ti 1:9; 2Ti 3:10

Paul uses several compound terms with the preposition pro (before) in Romans 8, 9 of Romans and Ephesians 1 (they show God’s planned activity).

1. proginsk (foreknew), Rom 8:29

2. prooriz (design beforehand), Rom 8:29 (Eph 1:5; Eph 1:11), 30 (Eph 1:9)

3. prothesis (predetermined purpose), Rom 9:11

4. proetoimaz (preface beforehand), Rom 9:23

5. proleg (previously said), Rom 9:29

6. proelpiz (hoped beforehand), Eph 1:12)

Rom 9:12 This is a quote from the prophecy of Gen 25:23 related to Esau and Jacob. This shows that Rebekah and Jacob acted out of prophecy, not personal gain, in tricking Isaac in regard to the blessing!

Rom 9:13 “but Esau I hated” This is a quote from Mal 1:2-3. “Hate” is a Hebrew idiom of comparison. It sounds harsh in English, but compare Gen 29:31-33; Deu 21:15; Mat 10:37-38; Luk 14:26; and Joh 12:25. The anthropomorphic terms “love” and “hate” relate not to God’s emotions towards these individuals, but His commitment to a Messianic line and promise. Jacob was the son of promise based on the prophecy of Gen 25:23. Esau, in Mal 1:2-3, referred to the nation of Edom (the descendant of Esau).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD DESCRIBED AS HUMAN (ANTHROPOMORPHISM)

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

word. Greek. logos. App-121.

God. App-98.

taken, &c Literally fallen out = failed. Compare 1Co 13:8.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

6-13.] God has not broken His promise: for He chose from the first but a portion of the seed of Abraham (6-9), and again only one out of the two sons of Rebecca (10-13).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 9:6. ,) This is not of that kind [not as though] The Jews were of opinion, that, if all the Jews were not saved, the word of God becomes of none effect. Paul refutes this opinion, and at the same time intimates, that the apostacy of the Jews had been foretold, rather than otherwise, by the word of God.-) but; namely, although I profess great sorrow for Israel, who continue without Christ.-, hath taken none effect) A suitable expression, 1Co 13:8, note. If all Israel had failed, the word of God would have failed; but the latter cannot occur, so neither can the former: for even now there are some, [Israelites believers], and in future times there will be all. For this sentence comprehends all the statements in Chapters 9 10 11, and is most aptly expressed. It is closely connected with what goes before in Rom 9:2, and yet in respect of what follows, where the word occurs again, there is a studied gentleness of expression and anticipatory caution[110] that whatever is said of a disagreeable description may be softened before it is expressed; as in 1Co 10:13.- , the word) of promise, which had been given to Israel.- , for not all) , for begins the discussion, not all, is mildly said instead of, there are not many. This was what the Jews held: We all and we alone are the people of God. Wherefore the all is refuted here; and the alone at Rom 9:24, etc. The Jews were Particularists (Particularist); therefore Paul directly refutes them. His whole discussion will not only be considered as tolerable, but will even be much admired by those, and those alone, who have gone through the former chapters in faith and repentance; for in this the prior regard is had to faith [rather than to repentance]. The sum of this discussion, in the opinion of those who deny universal grace, is as follows. GOD gives FAITH to whom He will; He does not give it, to whom He will not; according to the mind of Paul, it is this: God gives RIGHTEOUSNESS to them that believe, He does not give it to them that work; and that is by no means contrary to His word. Nay, He himself has declared by types and testimonies, that those, the sons of the promise are received; that these, the children of the flesh are rejected. This decree of God is certain, irrefragable, just; as any man or people listens to this decree or strives against it, so that man or that people is either accepted in mercy or rejected in wrath. The analysis of Arminius, which has been gleaned from Calovius Theol. Apost. Rom. Oraculo lxviii., and adopted Oraculo lxix., comes back to this [amounts to this at last]. Compare by all means Rom 1:16, note. In the meantime Paul, in regard to those, whom he refutes, does not make any very wide separation between the former chapter [or head] concerning faith and the latter concerning righteousness; nor indeed was it necessary.-, , Isral, Isral) Ploce.[111]

[110] See on Euphemia and the Appendix.

[111] See Appendix. A word twice put, once in the simple sense, once to express an attribute of it.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 9:6

Rom 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought.-The Israelites, having received the word of God and these privileges and honors, then having rejected Jesus Christ, does not prove that the word of God had taken no effect. [The word of God here must be taken comprehensively of all the promises to Abraham and to his seed.]

For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:-All those who were of the family of Abraham after the flesh did not belong to his true family, and were not the children of the promises.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

For they are not all Israel

The distinction is between Israel after the flesh, the mere natural posterity of Abraham, and Israelites who, through faith, are also Abraham’s spiritual children. Gentiles who believe are also of Abraham’s spiritual seed; but here the apostle is not considering them, but only the two kinds of Israelites, the natural and the spiritual Israel. (Rom 4:1-3; Gal 3:6; Gal 3:7; Joh 8:37-39.)

(See Scofield “Rom 11:1”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

as though: Rom 3:3, Rom 11:1, Rom 11:2, Num 23:19, Isa 55:11, Mat 24:35, Joh 10:35, 2Ti 2:13, Heb 6:17, Heb 6:18

they are not: Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29, Rom 4:12-16, Joh 1:47, Gal 6:16

Reciprocal: Gen 17:19 – Sarah Gen 17:21 – my Psa 59:5 – the heathen Psa 73:1 – to such Psa 77:8 – doth Isa 45:4 – Jacob Isa 45:25 – the seed Isa 48:1 – which are Eze 39:28 – and have Mic 2:7 – named Luk 1:33 – the Rom 4:11 – father Rom 9:4 – are Israelites 1Jo 2:19 – they might Rev 2:9 – which

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

9:6

Romans 9:6. Word . . . taken none effect is explained at chapter 3:3. Not all Israel . . . of Israel. There are two Israels being considered, the fleshly and the spiritual.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 9:6. But it is not so, that. The Apostle returns to the fact that the Jews rejected the gospel, and proceeds to account for it by stating that the promise holds good only for the true Israelites; a result indicated in the Scriptures. The opening clause, which is quite peculiar, means: What I am saying is not of such a kind as to mean that, or, the matter is not of such a kind that. The former sense would imply the latter. Whatever he says, he does not mean that the word of God hath come to nought. The promise of God, as given in the Old Testament, has not fallen to the ground, notwithstanding the unbelief of the Jews.

For not all who are of Israel (that is Israelites by birth) are Israel, constitute the true Israel of God. The exact form of the original cannot be reproduced, but the meaning is unmistakable. The Apostle here presents the negative side of the idea already advanced in this Epistle (chap. Rom 4:12) and in Gal 3:9, that physical relationship does not constitute membership in the true Israel.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here the apostle answers an objection against the rejection of the Jews: “If they cast off by God, what will become of the promise of God, made to Abraham, saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed?

He answers, by distinguishing a two-fold seed that Abraham had. Some were only his carnal seed, or the children of his flesh; others were his spiritual seed, or the children of his faith.

Now the carnal seed of Abraham, born according to the course of nature, were not the children of God to whom the promise was made, but the children represented by Isaac, born by the supernatural power of the Spirit of God; these are to be accounted the true seed of Abraham, mentioned in the covenant, when God says, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

So that the force of the apostle’s argument lies thus: The rejection of such Jews, or such of Abraham’s seed only who were so according to the flesh, cannot make the word or promise of God to Abraham and his seed of no effect, becuase he made no absolute promise to them as such.

But, says the apostle, none of those Jews, whose rejection I speak of, have any such promise made to them; therefore the rejection of some of Abraham’s natural seed doth not, cannot make void the word and promise of God.

Learn hence, 1. That the promises of God to his children and people are firm and stable; they shall not be made void, but be accomplished and made good to those that have a title to them, and interest in them, and fulfill the conditions of them: not as though the word or promise of God has taken no effect, all are not Israel that are of Israel.

Learn thence, 2. That as all were not true Israelites of old that did bear the name of Israelites; so all are not true Christians at this day, who take upon them the name of Chrsit, and bear the name of Christians.

Learn, 3. That men are very prone to bear up themselves upon the piety of their ancestors, though strangers, in practice, to their piety; as the Jews boasted they were the seed of Abraham, but did not the works of Abraham, but did not the works of Abraham; whereas men are so far from being God’s children, because they had godly parents, that Christ told the Jews, who came forth out of Abraham’s own loins, that they were of their father the devil. Joh 8:44.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 9:6-8. Not as though The original expression, , is rather obscure; but Erasmus supplying, after the Greek scholiast, the words , seems to have given the sense of it thus; I do not say this, that the word of God hath fallen, namely, to the ground, without effect. The apostles meaning is, that nothing he had now said concerning the rejection of the greater part of the Jews, drew any such consequence after it, as that the word of God (that is, his promises made to Abraham and his seed) should miscarry, or fall to the ground; the Jews imagining that the word of God must fail, if all their nation were not saved. This sentiment Paul now refutes, showing, 1st, That the word itself had foretold their rejection: and, 2d, That though the body of the nation was rejected, Gods promises were already fulfilled to the true Israelites, and hereafter all Israel should be saved: which is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. For Here he enters upon the proof of it; they are not all Israel True spiritual Israelites, to whom the promises belong; which are of Israel The natural posterity of Jacob, and Israelites by birth, and so visible members of the church. The Jews vehemently maintained the contrary; namely, that all who were born Israelites, and they only, were the people of God. The former part of this assertion is refuted here, the latter, Rom 9:24, &c. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the children of the promise, while unbelievers are rejected, though they are children after the flesh. It is true the great promise, that Jehovah would be their God, was delivered to all the posterity of Israel without exception; but it was intended to be understood in a conditional sense, as what would not be fulfilled to them, unless they imitated the faith of Abraham. And in this sense it was made to the Gentiles, and to the whole world, as well as to the Jews. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham According to the flesh; will it follow, that they are all children of God. This did not hold even in Abrahams own family, and much less in his remote descendants. But, God then said, in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaacs posterity, not Ishmaels, shall be spoken of as thy seed, by way of eminence; that seed to which the promises are made. That is, they who are the children of the flesh The carnal seed of Abraham; are not Purely upon that account; the children of God In the true sense; namely, spiritual children. But the children of the promise Those whom God hath promised to acknowledge for his children; namely, such as are born again by the supernatural power of Gods Spirit, (as Isaac was conceived and born by a power above the course of nature,) and who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation made in Christ; these are they who are intended in the covenant with Abraham, the persons whose God Jehovah promised to be, and to whom the spiritual blessings and the inheritance belong. In quoting these words, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, and inferring therefrom that the children of the promise shall be counted for the seed, the apostle does not intend to give the literal sense of the words, but the typical only; and by his interpretation signifies that they were spoken by God in a typical and allegorical, as well as in a literal sense, and that God there declared his counsel concerning those persons whom he purposed to own as his children, and make partakers of the blessings of righteousness and salvation. As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the lineal descendants of Abraham, but they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are the true children of God.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 6-9. Not as though the word of God were made of no effect; for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed. For this is a word of promise, At this time will I return, and Sarah shall have a son.

The , but, between Rom 9:5-6, is strongly adversative: But all those privileges, excellent as they were, could not assure to Israel what the word of God did not promise; that the divine election should apply to all the children of Abraham according to the flesh.

As the form signifies: it is not possible, this meaning has been adopted here by Beza and others: But it is not possible that the word of God should be of no effect; which would imply that this word proclaimed the exclusion of the Jewish nation as inevitable, and that consequently this exclusion could not fail to come about some time or other. But the apostle does not go so far. In the demonstration which follows, he proves the possibility of the rejection of the mass of the people, but not its necessity; then has only the meaning of it is possible, when it is followed by the particle ; and finally, when it has this meaning, the verb following is in the infinitive, whereas we have here the perfect . This meaning must therefore be given up, and we must abide by the ordinary signification of the word , such that: The thing is not such that, that is to say, the rejection of Israel must not be so interpreted, that the word of God is thereby annulled. There is only a grammatical difficulty in the way of this explanation; that is the conjunction , that, which intervenes between and the verb : such as that it has been annulled. This that was already contained in , and forms a pleonasm. It has been variously explained; it seems to me the simplest solution is to suppose that it depends on an idea understood: such that one might say that…, or: that it comes about that…

The word of God here denotes the promises by which Israel had been declared to be the people of Godpromises which seemed to exclude the possibility of their rejection. Hofmann, followed in this case by Volkmar, interprets the transition from Rom 9:5 to Rom 9:6 somewhat differently. He applies the , not that the thing is such that, to Paul’s desire to be cast off for the love of his people, and gives to Rom 9:6 this meaning: Not that my wish signifies that without the sacrifice of my salvation which I am ready to make, the promise of God to Abraham would be nullified. This meaning is more than forced. How could Paul suppose that the keeping of God’s promise depends, even hypothetically, on the wish which he has expressed, especially when, in the very act of uttering it, he himself declares it to be impracticable? Holsten makes the bear on the grief itself: not that I distress myself as if the word of God were made of no effect. This is less inadmissible, but far from natural. Could Paul suppose it possible for God to give man occasion to weep over the forgetfulness of His promises? The verb , to fall from, denotes the non-realization of the promise, its being brought to nothing by facts. And it must be confessed that the present rejection of Israel would be a giving of the lie to the divine election, if all the individuals composing the people of Israel really belonged to Israel, in the profound sense of the word. But that is precisely what is not the case, as the apostle declares in the second part of the verse. In this proposition Meyer applies the second Israel to the person of the patriarch Jacob; the first, to the people descended from him. But it is not till later that Paul comes to Jacob personally. We must beware of destroying in this place the significant relation between the first and second Israel. The word is used both times collectively, and yet in two different applications. They who are of Israel denote all the members of the nation at a given moment, as descendants of the preceding generation. By the first words: are not Israel, Paul signalizes among the nation taken en masse, thus understood a true Israel, that elect people, that holy remnant, which is constantly spoken of in the O. T., and to which alone the decree of election refers, so that rejection may apply to the mass of those who are of Israel, without compromising the election of the true Israel.

This possibility of rejection for the mass of the people is what is proved by the two following examples. And first, that of Isaac:

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. [Or, as Fritsche translates, “The matter, however, is not so as that the word of God had come to nought.” Paul is answering the reasoning of the Jew which runs thus: “You speak of God’s covenants and promises given to the fathers and enlarged in the Scriptures, yet you say the Jew has failed to receive the blessings guaranteed to him by God in those covenants and promises. If such is the case, then you must admit it that the word of God has failed of fulfillment.” Paul begins his answer by denying the failure of the word of God, and proceeds to prove his denial. But his argument is not rigidly polemic; it is rather a heart-to-heart discussion of well-known historic facts which show that God’s present enactments, rulings and executions harmonize perfectly with those of the past, which, too, have been heartily and unanimously approved by the Jews. “No,” is then Paul’s answer, “the word of God has not come to nought in Israel’s rejection, for it (in the Old Testament), as you well know and approve, taught and worked out in precedent and example the same principles and same distinctions which are today affecting the rejection of Israel.” God has not changed, nor has his word failed: it was Israel which had changed and failed.] For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel [The Jews would never have regarded Paul’s reaching as subversive of the promises or word of God if they had not misconstrued the promises. They read them thus: “The promises guarantee salvation to all Jews, and the Jews alone are to be saved.” Paul begins his argument by denying the correctness of their construction of God’s word. “The word of God has not failed,” says he, “because God has cast off a part of Israel (the fleshly part represented by the Jews), for God’s word is kept as long as he keeps covenant with the other part (the spiritual part, represented by the Christians, principally Gentiles), for you are wrong in thinking that all the descendants of Jacob are reckoned by God as Israelites, or covenant people, and also wrong in supposing that Israel has only fleshly children, and no spiritual children.” This argument apparently concedes for the moment that God’s covenant was to give Israel salvation, which was not really the case. God’s covenant was to provide the sacrifice in his Son, which would afford the means of salvation, conditioned on faith and obedience]:

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Rom 9:6-18. Gods Free Election.

Rom 9:6-9. We must distinguish: to be of Israel, is not to be Israel. Mere physical heredity counts for nothing: Isaac was the proper seed of Abraham, designated as the child of promise (Gen 21:12, etc.). Here Isaacs case illustrates the sovereignty of God; in Rom 4:18-21, the efficacy of faith.

Rom 9:10-13. The case of Esau and Jacob is equally significant. Twin offspring of the same parents, the unborn babes had done nothing to achieve merit or display worth, when God said, The elder shall serve the younger, an election governing the history of the descendant peoples (Mal 1:2 f.*).

Rom 9:14. No Jew would deem God unjust in such preferences; the question of Rom 9:14 answers itself. The application to contemporary Judaism is patent.

Rom 9:15 f. The election of Jacob recalls words used to Moses: I will show mercy to whomsoever I will show mercy, etc.not that God is arbitrary in His compassions, but He is untrammeled; even Moses may not prescribe to Him. Hence the inference: it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs (as Moses was doing then, Paul now, for Israels salvation), but of God, etc. (cf. 1Co 3:6 f.). Dictation, like prerogative, is out of court.

Rom 9:17 f. This holds in respect of hardening too. Witness the Pharaoh of the Exodus: God raised this evil-hearted man to greatness, on purpose to demonstrate His power as the Judge of the earth. As the story shows, the monarchs defiant temper was the nemesis of unbelief; cf. Rom 1:24; Rom 1:28. In every decision God judges for Himself, despite human pleas of privilege and pride of power: Whom He will He compassionates, whom He will He hardens.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 6

Not as though, &c.; that is, his solicitude, as expressed above, did not arise from fear lest the promises of God should not be fulfilled.–Not all Israel which are of Israel; they are not all the true children of God which are of the Jewish nation.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 28 YET GOD IS NOT UNFAITHFUL

CH. 9:6-13

But not as though the word of God has fallen through. For not all they who are from Israel are these Israel. Neither because they are seed of Abraham are all children; but in Isaac will a seed be called for thee. That is, not the children of the flesh, not these are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. For a word of promise this word is, At this season I will come; and for Sarah there shall be a son.

And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conceived from one, Isaac our father:- for they not yet having been born, nor having done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God according to election might continue, not from works but from Him that calls, it was said to her that The greater will be servant to the less; according as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

Rom 9:6. The word of God: His promises to Abraham, e.g. Gen 12:2-3; Gen 13:16; Gen 22:17-18. Cp. Rom 4:13-17. Pauls sorrow and the present sad position of the unbelieving Jews do not involve anything like a failure of the word of God to Abraham. He thus challenges an objection to the Gospel, viz. that if it be true God has broken the great promises on which rest the hopes of Israel. The Gospel promises infinite blessing to all who believe in Christ, and threatens destruction to those who reject Him. But with Abrahams seed God made an eternal covenant, and promised to be their God for ever: Gen 17:7. It might be objected that, by limiting salvation to those that believe, the Gospel implies the partial failure of the ancient promises. Paul does not hesitate to admit that these promises on which the Jews base their claims are the word of God. But he now declares, and in Rom 9:7-13 will prove, that the sad position of the Jews does not involve failure of the promises; that so long as they continue in their present unbelief, they are outside the number of those for whom the promises were given.

For not all etc.: commencement of this proof.

They from Israel: Jacobs descendants. So Rom 1:3 : from Davids seed.

Are Israel: sharers with their father Israel of the blessings promised to the seed of Abraham.

Rom 9:7-9. An unexpected transition from the sons of Israel to those of Abraham, an assertion touching the latter similar to that made in Rom 9:6 touching the former. We shall find, in Rom 9:7-9, that the assertion about Abraham proves that about Israel.

Rom 9:7. Seed of Abraham: natural descendants, corresponding to they of Israel in Rom 9:6.

Children: heirs of Abrahams rights: cp. Rom 8:17. It corresponds with are Israel: cp. Joh 8:39.

But in Isaac etc.: quotation of Gen 21:12, proving the foregoing assertion: same quotation in Heb 11:18. When God bid Abraham send away Ishmael, He promised that from Isaac should arise a posterity who would be called by Abrahams name and inherit the promises made to his seed. The quoted text evidently limits the promises to Isaac and his children: cp. Gen 17:19-21. It therefore proves that not all the natural offspring are Abrahams children and heirs.

Rom 9:8. Exposition of the foregoing quotation, and of the principle involved in it.

Not the children of the flesh: descendants born according to the natural laws of the human body.

Children of God: recalling Rom 8:16. Since Paul is deducing a general principle applicable to the Jews of his own day, he expresses it in N.T. form. He here asserts that natural descent from Abraham does not place a man in a new relation to God. This explains the exclusion of Ishmael.

Children of the promise: born, as Isaac was, in fulfilment of a promise of God and therefore by supernatural power.

Reckoned: as in Rom 2:3; Rom 4:3-6.

Rom 9:9. Proof that Isaac is a child of promise. It therefore supports, from his case, the general principle asserted in Rom 9:8. Paul quotes from Gen 18:10 a definite promise of a son for Sarah.

The objection challenged in Rom 9:6 assumes that the Jews claim the blessings promised to Abraham on the ground that they are descendants of Israel and that if these blessings be denied them the promises of God have failed. Paul reminds us that this claim is not admitted in the case of Abrahams children: for no Jew asserts that both his sons were included in Gods covenant with their father. Nay more. The claim of the unbelieving Jews is precisely the same as that of Ishmael; whereas they who believe in Christ hold a position analogous to that of Isaac. For they, like him, have been born, not by natural generation, but in fulfilment of a special promise of God. If the Gospel be true, even though some Israelites be excluded from the blessings promised to their nation, God is only acting in reference to Israels sons as He acted of old to the sons of Abraham.

Rom 9:10. Another proof of the same, from the family of Isaac.

Not only was a distinction made between the sons of Sarah and Hagar, but between the sons of Rebecca and Isaac, both parents being the same. Paul thus evades a possible objection that Ishmael was a bondwomans child.

Rom 9:11-12. Further exposition of this second case.

Not yet having been born etc.: excluding all possibility of human merit as influencing Gods selection. This is emphasised by the words not having done anything good or bad.

The purpose of God: the eternal purpose revealed in Gods action in the families of Abraham and Isaac.

Election: cognate to elect in Rom 8:33 : the selection of a smaller out of a larger number. God acted on this principle, i.e.

according to election, when, instead of receiving into this covenant both Isaac and Ishmael, he took Isaac only. He acted on the same principle when he took Jacob and left Esau. Inasmuch as whatever God does in time He purposed from eternity, Paul speaks of Gods action as resulting from a purpose according to election. And, inasmuch as, in both patriarchal families, He acted on the same principle of selection, Paul says that He did so in the second case in order that the purpose according to election might continue, i.e. in order to act in the family of Isaac as He had already acted in the family of Abraham. The word continue calls attention to a permanent element in the divine action.

Not from works, but from Him that calls: source of this elective purpose. It was not prompted by any works of man, past or foreseen, but had its origin simply in God, who calls to Himself whom He will: cp. 2Ti 1:9; Tit 3:5.

It was said to her: as recorded in Gen 25:23.

Greater less: perhaps equivalent to older and younger; cp. Gen 29:16; Gen 10:21 : probably designed to be an enigma to Rebecca, to be explained only by fulfilment. It evidently means that the one least likely should have the pre-eminence. So important in Pauls thought, as a permanent element in divine administration, was the principle of selection as contrasted with indiscriminate blessing that he represents the maintenance of this principle as a purpose of the famous words spoken to Rebecca before her children were born. Subsequent history proves that these words were a limitation of the covenant to Jacob and his children. Had God bestowed the promised blessings on both sons of Isaac, He would have cast aside the elective purpose adopted in His dealings with the family of Abraham.

Rom 9:13. That Paul stated correctly in Rom 9:12 Gods purpose in speaking to Rebecca, he now proves by quoting Mal 1:2.

The words Esau I hated are expounded by those following, they shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them Border of wickedness, and The people with whom God is angry for ever. Cp. Psa 5:5-6 : Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Human passions are attributed to God in order to teach that He acts as men do when influenced by such passions: and only thus can men understand God. So Gen 6:6; 1Sa 15:11, where God acts as a man does who has changed his mind. similarly Pro 13:24 : he that spares his rod hates his son, i.e. he is practically his sons enemy. God acted as a friend to Jacobs descendants and as an adversary to those of Esau: and His words in Mal 1:2 imply that His different treatment of the two nations was due not to anything they or their respective fathers had done but simply to His undeserved favour to Israel. This is also confirmed by the history of Israel and of Edom. Therefore, looking back on Gods words to Rebecca, Paul may justly say that they were spoken in order to declare the great principle that the promised blessings were given apart from human merit.

Notice that in Gen 25:23; Mal 1:2, and in the O.T. frequently, the fathers and their descendants are identified. In the children the fathers seem to live on: and blessings or curses pronounced on the fathers go down to the children. And the sins of one generation are punished in another: Exo 17:16; 1Sa 15:2.

Gods treatment of the sons of Isaac, as of those of Abraham, supports Pauls assertion in Rom 9:6 that not all the descendants of Israel are heirs of the promises. By acting on the principle of selection, first in the family of Abraham and then in that of Isaac, God affords a strong presumption that He will do so in the third patriarchal family, that He will accept not all, but a part of, the descendants of Israel. The Gospel proclaims that He does so, that He gives the inheritance only to those who believe in Christ. This seemed to some a failure of the ancient promises.

But Paul has now shown that the unbelieving Jews have no better claim than have the descendants of Ishmael, whose claim no Jew would admit.

Again, Paul uses the early date of the prophecy about Isaacs sons, in connection with Gods comment in Mal 1:2 on His treatment of them, to meet another objection to the Gospel. He asserts, in Rom 3:27, that justification through faith shuts out all boasting on the ground of works, by bringing down all men, Jews or Gentiles, moral or immoral, to the level of sinners. He now points to a similar disregard of works, as a ground of Gods favour, in His treatment of the family of Isaac. If to-day God receives into His family, on the same terms of repentance and faith, the Pharisee and the publican, and rejects all unbelievers, moral or immoral, He only acts as He did when He chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they had done anything good or bad.

This argument however suggests an objection to the Gospel as serious as that which it removes, viz. that if God receive men without reference to previous morality, He is, if not unfaithful, yet unjust. This objection will be stated and answered in Rom 9:14-18. To provoke it, Paul quotes the mysterious words of Mal 1:2. They teach that even the children of Abraham may be objects of Gods fiercest wrath.

The above argument is simply a reply to an objection. Paul shows that this objection to the divine origin of the Gospel tells with equal force against that which all admit to be a revelation from God. As a positive argument, this only raises a presumption, based on the similarity of Gods previous action, that He will do what the Gospel announces. But as a reply to the objection that the threatenings of the Gospel are inconsistent with the promises of God, the argument is irresistible.

On the doctrine of Election, see further in the note at the end of this chapter.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

9:6 {3} Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all {h} Israel, which are of Israel:

(3) He enters into the handling of predestination, by means of presenting an objection: How may it be that Israel is cast off, and that in addition we must also make the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, frustrated and void? He answers therefore that God’s word is true, although Israel is cast off: for the election of the people of Israel is so general and common, that nonetheless the same God chooses by his secret council those as it pleases him. So then this is the proposition and state of this treatise: the grace of salvation is offered generally in such a way, that in spite of how it is offered, the efficacy of it pertains only to the elect.

(h) Israel in the first place, is taken for Jacob: and in the second, for the Israelites.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

2. God’s election of Israel 9:6-13

Paul’s train of thought unfolds as follows in these verses. Because God’s election of Israel did not depend on natural descent (Rom 9:6-10) or human merit (Rom 9:11-14), Israel’s disobedience cannot nullify God’s determined purpose for the nation.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The word of God that was in Paul’s mind was evidently God’s revelation of His plans for Israel in the Old Testament. God revealed that He had chosen Israel to be a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:5-6). The Israelites were to function as priests in the world by bringing the nations to God (cf. Isa 42:6). They were to do this by demonstrating through their life in the Holy Land how glorious it can be to live under the government of God. Israel had failed to carry out God’s purpose for her thus far and consequently had suffered His discipline. It looked as though the word that God had spoken concerning Israel’s purpose had failed. The Greek word translated "failed" (ekpeptoken) means "gone off its course," like a ship. Paul proceeded to show that God would accomplish His purpose for Israel in the rest of chapters 9-11.

". . . Romans 9-11 contains 11 occurrences of the term ’Israel,’ and in every case it refers to ethnic, or national, Israel. Never does the term include Gentiles within its meaning. The NT use of the term is identical with the Pauline sense in this section." [Note: S. Lewis Johnson Jr., "Evidence from Romans 9-11," in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, p. 203.]

Even though all the physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) constitute the nation of Israel, as Scripture speaks of Israel, God spoke of Israel in a more restricted sense as well, namely, saved Israelites. Paul had previously pointed out this distinction between the outward Jew and the inward Jew (Rom 2:28-29). Non-dispensationalists, who believe that the church replaces Israel in God’s program (i.e., "replacement theology"), frequently appeal to this verse for support. They take the first "Israel" here as the "old Israel," and the second "Israel" as the "new Israel," the church. [Note: For further refutation of this interpretation, see Saucy, The Case . . ., pp. 195-98.] Saved Gentiles are also Abraham’s seed, but they are not in view here. Paul was considering only two kinds of Israelites: natural (ethnic) Israelites, both saved and unsaved, and spiritual Israelites, saved natural Israelites.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)