article27

§21 The Election of Israel (Rom. 9:1–13)

What remains of God’s promises to the Jews now that the Messiah has come and the Jews from whom and for whom he came have, for the most part, failed to recognize him? That is the theme of Romans 9–11. Finding the exact term to describe Paul’s discussion of the theme is somewhat difficult. On the one hand, Romans 9–11 is more or less an excursus complete in itself. The beginning declaration (9:1) and the concluding doxology (11:33–36) delimit it clearly from the remainder of the epistle. The chapters are thematically coherent, with an uncharacteristic reliance on quotation (thirty percent of 9–11 is quoted from the OT, of which forty percent comes from Isaiah). The numerous studies and monographs devoted to Romans 9–11 further evince a history of interpretation unique to itself.

On the other hand, the question of Israel’s salvation flows out of the argumentation of Romans 1–8 and is demanded by it. Earlier themes are reemployed and applied to the question: e.g., Jews and Gentiles (1:16–17 / 11:1–32), ethnic versus spiritual Israel (2:28–29 / 9:6), the advantage of Israel (3:1ff. / 9:4–5), salvation for all (3:21–26 / 10:5–13), God’s faithfulness (8:31–39 / 11:25–32), and doxologies (8:38–39 / 11:33–36). These chapters are therefore an excursus not in the sense of a digression from the theme of the epistle, but as a development of it. Romans 9–11 is therefore a thematic focus of the righteousness of God applied specifically to Israel’s enduring place in salvation history.

With typical Johannine simplicity the Fourth Gospel notes the same problem addressed in these chapters: “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (1:11). The problem, as Paul develops it, can be elaborated in a series of questions: Why did God’s chosen people reject the Messiah, and, having done so, what further role do they play in God’s plan? What is the relationship between the old and new covenants, and between Israel and the church? If Israel has rejected its calling, has God rejected Israel? Does Israel’s rejection of God’s Messiah thwart God’s providence and Israel’s election? These questions determine Romans 9–11.

With “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” (9:2) Paul enters the fray. Will the God who proved faithful to errant sinners be found equally faithful to an errant nation? Does the grace involved in justification by faith apply also to salvation history and Israel’s place in it? To this end Paul develops the argument in three stages. Chapter 9 vindicates God’s freedom and mercy in the face of Israel’s stubbornness. Chapter 10 demonstrates that even though Israel is chosen by God, Israel is free to reject God’s overtures—and is responsible for its exclusion from salvation when it does. In chapter 11 Paul argues that Israel’s rejection does not frustrate God’s sovereign purpose, but that God uses it for the inclusion of the Gentiles—and ultimately of Israel itself!—in salvation.

Paul was a Jew, and he remained one all his life. He was deeply distressed by the fact that those who had been the recipients of God’s promises had failed to inherit them. Important as this was, however, the “Jewish question” was for Paul but a test case of a larger problem. In the face of human rejection, does God renege on his promises? Does the rejection of the Messiah relieve God of fulfilling his promises to the Jews? This theological problem was not merely of historical interest to Paul the Jew, but of existential interest to Paul the Christian. For, if God cancels his promises to Jews because of their hardness, under similar circumstances might God cancel his promises to Christians in the gospel? Paul does not fully resolve the problem, but he concludes that God’s choices are not provisional, but sovereign and eternal, sealed by his invincible faithfulness and guided by his mercy.

9:1–5 / The chapter opens with the seriousness of a court proceeding. The gravity of the matter and Paul’s authority are underscored by a chain of assertions: I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit (v. 1). This is not simply an introductory formality. It is a declaration which involves Paul deeply in its outcome, in great sorrow and unceasing anguish of heart. He does not formally define the cause of his distress, but verse 3 reveals his torment over the failure of his people to receive Christ. One might expect the Apostle to the Gentiles to distance himself from his unbelieving Jewish kinsfolk, but he does nothing of the sort, referring to them rather as my brothers and my own race. So inseverable is Paul from his fellow Israelites that he would be willing to forfeit his own salvation if it would gain theirs: I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of Israel.

To anyone familiar with the Pauline formula “in Christ” (some 70 instances in his epistles, including the Pastorals), it is startling to hear the apostle speak of wishing to be cut off from Christ! The ultimate price anyone can pay is life itself, a price which Paul prominently volunteers: I could wish that I myself were cursed. Following Israel’s debacle with the golden calf, Moses prayed that God would “forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). The Greek word for cursed, anathema, derives from the Hebrew ḥērem, which means a sacrifice (whether of an animal or heathen people) devoted to the Lord for total destruction (Lev. 27:28ff.; Deut 7:26; Josh 6:17). Nothing was more dreaded for a Jew than banishment from the elect community of Israel. For Paul separation from Christ was worse than banishment because it meant separation from eternal salvation. The idea reveals the extent to which Paul thought “messianically.” Had not Jesus himself become accursed for the sake of Israel’s salvation (Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21)? The Greek preposition hyper, translated for the sake of in verse 3, is the same word Paul used throughout 8:31–39 for God’s sacrificial love on behalf of believers. Paul’s sorrow over Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, combined with his willingness to take Israel’s curse upon himself if it would gain Israel’s salvation, could hardly bespeak a more earnest sacrifice (cf. 2 Cor. 12:15)—especially since he has just asserted that nothing “in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39).

From a Jewish perspective, Israel was preeminent among the nations. The name “Israelites” (NIV, the people of Israel, v. 4) derives from Jacob, the patriarch who wrestled with God and prevailed (Gen. 32:28). It means the elect, covenant people of God (Isa. 43:1). Who else could claim adoption as sons (Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1)? What other people had beheld the divine glory, the very presence of God in theophanies (Exod. 3:2ff.; 24:10), in the desert (Exod. 13:21–22), in the temple (1 Kings 8:29; Ps. 11:4), and in the ark of the covenant (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2)? With what other nation had God entered into covenants, first with Abraham (Gen. 15:17f.), later with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:5) and on the plains of Moab (Deut. 29:1) and in the promised land (Josh. 8:30f.), and finally with David (2 Sam. 7:21ff.)? What people could boast of receiving … the law, the Torah, Israel’s crown and eternal instruction? Was not temple worship ordained and pleasing to God (2 Chron. 7:11ff.; Ps. 11:1)? Did not God make promises to the patriarchs, to Abraham (Gen. 12:7), Isaac (Gen. 26:3ff.), Jacob (Gen. 28:13ff.), and David (2 Sam. 7:12)? Not surprisingly, Israel’s crowning hope was the advent of the Christ, the final deliverer of the ages. Truly, “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). And why does Paul rehearse this glorious heritage? To magnify the mystery that Israel, who had been arrayed so divinely, had in the end rejected its crown!

9:6–9 / Verse 6 is the crux of Paul’s argument. Israel (for the most part) has failed to receive the Messiah, but it is not as though God’s word had failed. Significantly, the phrasing primarily emphasizes God’s purposes, not Israel’s failure. Moreover, Israel’s failure to fulfill its calling does not annul God’s word and sovereignty (3:3–4). God’s sovereignty remains operative through a principle of two Israels: For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. The first Israel (all who are descended from Israel) refers to ethnic Israel, whereas the second refers to Israel that received the gospel, the “Israel of God,” according to Galatians 6:16. Herein lie the seeds of the idea of the remnant, a true Israel within nominal Israel, which will be developed in chapter 11.

Paul defends the principle of an Israel within Israel by arguing that God made limiting choices among Abraham’s various descendants. Thus, as every Jew knew, Abraham was the father of many descendants, including Ishmael (Gen. 16:15) and the sons of Keturah (Gen. 25:1ff.), but God chose to fulfill his plan of salvation only through Isaac (Gen. 17:20–21). In the language of verses 7–8, the former were descendants of Abraham, or natural children, but only Isaac and his line were God’s children, or children of the promise. Obviously, what constitutes Israel is not biological generation, but the supernatural endowment of God’s promise. This is the point of verse 9, where Isaac’s conception and birth are foretold again during a visit from three divine messengers (Gen. 18:10–14). All of this is the result of divine decree. Abraham’s wider descendants were not rejected for any failure, nor was Isaac chosen for any virtue; both choices and their consequences lay in the sovereign will of God. What role, if any, Ishmael, for example, played in God’s broader economy we do not know, although we are told that God blessed and cared for him (Gen. 16:10–14; 17:20; 21:13–21). The salvific line as the line of promise, however, remained with Isaac.

9:10–13 / It might be asserted that God chose Isaac because he was the first (and only) legitimate son of Abraham and Sarah, Abraham’s other children being born of mistresses or second wives. This argument was in fact advanced by those Jews who believed they were heirs of the promise because of physical descent. But God’s way was less calculable, as the case of Esau and Jacob proved. Both were twins of Rebekah, yet while they were still in the womb and before they had done anything good or bad, God rejected the older Esau (the obvious choice) and chose the younger Jacob. If God chose Jacob before he demonstrated any worthiness, then certainly God’s election was not by works but by him who calls. Israel’s election is the result, therefore, of the eternal decree of God, not of its merit. Jacob became Israel, the people of God, not because of deserving works but because of a divine resolution as merciful as it was unsearchable; and Esau became Edom, a people of the earth like any other, not because of failure but because of the same inscrutable will of God. Luther correctly saw here the same gracious will operative in justification by faith: “Hence, it follows irrefutably: one does not become a son of God and an heir of the promise by descent but by the gracious election of God” (Lectures on Romans, p. 266).

The heart of the matter is that God’s purpose in election might stand. The crucial word, purpose, prothesis, appeared in 8:28 concerning those “who have been called according to his purpose.” There, as here, it is shrouded in ineffability. But what God had ordained before creation he executed in history. The reason God chooses Jacob and rejects Esau is not because God is arbitrary or unjust, but because God wills for his eternal purpose to stand. The Greek word for stand, menē, means “to remain or endure,” thus relieving any anxiety from verse 6 that God’s word might have failed. If God’s purpose is not ours, neither are his ways and reasons ours. “ ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord” (Isa. 55:8). The mystery of God’s purpose is not cause for anxiety or terror, however, but for confidence, because “God is for us” (8:31ff.). Following the exodus, Israel concluded that God had elected it for a purpose (Deut. 7:6; Ps. 135:4; Isa. 41:8–9), but the only reason Israel could discover for that purpose was God’s unmerited love (Deut. 7:8; 10:15; Isa. 44:21–22). Not because Israel was more numerous or powerful did God choose it, but simply because he loved Israel, although it was the least of the nations.

At this point we find ourselves in a maelstrom of theories “Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, and Fate, Fixt Fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,” as Milton put it (PL, 2.559–60). The idea of predestination has always had an unfair ring to it, and particularly the idea of double predestination, which teaches that before the foundation of the world God determined who would be saved and who would be damned. With regard to the latter doctrine it must be said, at least from a NT perspective, that double predestination is not as compelling theologically as it may appear logically. At root, predestination is simply God’s way of assuring that his gracious will in restoring creation to glory does not fail, i.e., that God’s purpose in election might stand. In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God’s purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ. The question is how God separated the thread of Israel, through which he would fulfill his promises, from the fabric of all the nations. It was to that end that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. The intent is functional rather than eschatological. The question is how God operates in history rather than what is the final fate of individuals or nations.

Predestination as it is here understood is a doctrine presupposed throughout Scripture, although (apart from Rom. 9 and Eph. 1) seldom discussed. When Deuteronomy speaks of the choosing of Israel, or when John’s Gospel tells of the sending of the Son, or when Paul relates the plan of redemption, the fundamental issue is God’s free and sovereign engagement for saving his people, which is predestination. The idea is presented from a positive perspective (and only from this perspective), that in Jesus Christ God is for the world, electing believers in grace and equipping them by the Spirit for his saving purposes in the world. God’s choices within history—of Jacob over Esau, or Moses over Pharaoh, or Gentiles over Jews (ch. 11)—are interim choices to serve his salvific ends. They are not presented as final choices. The eternal destiny of all things lies solely with God, who is perfect love and perfect justice. As a means of salvation, predestination has an inclusive “ripple-effect”: like a stone thrown into a pool, God intervenes at a point in history (e.g., the call of Abraham) and extends the effects of his intervention outward in ever-widening circles. “God our savior … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3–4). “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

If verse 13 has an antagonistic ring (“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”), it must be understood that the statement arose from centuries of antipathy between Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau). The source from which it is quoted makes this clear (Mal. 1:2–5; also Gen. 36:1). In the present context it simply attests to God’s unfettered, unconditional election of Israel and rejection of Edom in history. It says nothing about the salvation or damnation of individuals in the respective groups. Although Edom as a nation was rejected, Edomites were beyond neither Israel’s compassion nor God’s (e.g., “Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother,” Deut. 23:7). If at one point in history God rejects Edom and chooses Israel, and at another point rejects Israel and chooses the Gentiles, then both choices originate in his inscrutable wisdom and promote his salvific will. Moreover, if God wills to regraft the severed branch of Israel back onto the stock of his saving purpose (11:17–27), then we ought not dismiss the possibility that God has cards in his hand with regard to the Edoms of the world which he has not yet played.