Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Romans 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Romans 9:10 And not only that, but this too: Rebekah conceived twin sons by one man [under the same circumstances], by our father Isaac; |
Subject: Jacob and Esau |
Bible Note: Greetings Forum Friends! Allow me to continue my exegesis of Romans 9-11 by looking at Rom. 9:10-15 today! What have we seen thus far in Rom. 9? Paul has been dealing with the question, "Why hasn’t Israel been saved?" Has God failed? Have His promises failed? Paul’s answer is "No! Israel is being saved, but Israel is no made up those who are physically descended from Abraham." To prove this point, Paul looked at Isaac and Ishmael, who were both sons of Abraham, but God only made a covenant with Isaac. In Rom. 9:9-15, Paul continues his argument with another example. Some might say, well Ishmael had a different mother. So, Paul looks at the case of Jacob and Esau. Here is where I differ from my Calvinistic brothers. The question being addressed thus far in Romans 9 is "Who is Israel," not "Who has God elected to save." I agree with them on the point that God’s sovereign right is being asserted in this passage, but it is His sovereign right to work through whom and how He pleases. Verses 10 and 11 illustrate very clearly that God’s working among His people is based solely upon His sovereignty. God’ choice of Jacob over Esau to be the one with whom He would establish His covenant was not based upon anything within the two men (vv. 11-12), but only upon God’s purpose according to election (v. 11). Herein lies the difference between the understanding of this passage by Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists say that God's purpose according to election is to unconditionally elect certain individuals to salvation. However, this passage never says that. In fact, v. 12 tells us exactly what God’s purpose according to election was in regard to Jacob and Esau…."The older will serve the younger." Notice that the text does not say, "I will save the younger, but not the elder." The context clearly is dealing with national destinies. In fact, look at the full quote from Gen. 25:23, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger." The train of thought is clear. Just as God chose to establish His covenant with Isaac, but not Ishmael, so also God chose to establish His covenant with Jacob and not Esau. Thus, proving Paul’s point that simply being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make you a part of the spiritual Israel. Verse 13 offers further proof that Paul is not dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals, but the Divine working out of His sovereign purpose though whom He chooses. Verse 13 quotes Mal. 1:2-3, which is a passage dealing with the nations of Israel and Edom. I will try to avoid to many quotes, but consider the following from Leon Morris, who is a Calvinist: "It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation. Moreover, it seems clear that Paul intends a reference to nations rather than individuals….The words quoted say specifically that the elder will serve the younger, but Esau did not in fact serve Jacob, though the Edomites in time came to serve the Israelites. We must also bear in mind that the oracle Paul quotes has earlier said, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated’ (Gen. 25:23). The argument concerns Israel as a whole and its place in the purpose of God." (Leon Morris, "The Epistle to the Romans, pg. 356.) Verses 14 and 15 deal with a possible objection that some might raise at this point. Is God unjust in His dealings with Jacob and Esau. Leon Morris summarizes the verses in this way, "To say that God is not just in His treatment of Jacob and Esau misses the point that neither has a claim on God and that in both cases He acts in mercy" (Morris 359). This is the point that I feel Calvinists are missing in Romans 9. The complaint is not that God has restricted His mercy. The complaint is that God has over extended His mercy, past Israel to the Gentiles. Rom. 9:14-15 answers this complaint by point out that God’s actions, far from being unjust, are complete consistent with His merciful nature. Next time, I will be looking at Rom. 9:16-18. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |