Romans IX (God's Word Stands)

Verses 6-9
(Bible)

The common response from the people Paul was speaking to would be something along the lines of: "If the Israelites had all this, and were God's chosen people, and there are now unbelieving Jews accursed and cut off, then hasn't God's word failed?"

This creates a bit of a crisis not only for the Israelites but for us as well. Our eternal salvation rests wholly on God's faithfulness, if God's word can fail the Israelites then it can fail us as well. The security we have is nothing if this is true. And this is what the Jews saw in the words of Paul, that at one point the Israelites were the chosen (as they thought for salvation), and now they are eternally damned. Paul will spend the rest of this chapter as well as chapters 10 and 11 disproving this argument and proving that "it is not that the word of God has taken no effect" (some translations render "has taken no effect" as "failed" the Greek literally means to have "fallen"). This is the assertion, now he will prove it by stating three things in this paragraph, (as well as giving two OT examples, which I will discuss in my next post), (1) There is a difference between ethnic Israel and the true Israel v.6b, (2) two types of "children" of Abraham v.7, (3) there is a difference between children of flesh and children of promise v.8.

I. Ethnic vs. True Israel

"For they are not all Israel who are of Israel." As with the Church we distinguish between the true Church, or the mystical unseen Church of the true believers, and the visible Church (ref. Parable of the wheat and tares starting in Matt. 13:24). The same is true for Israel, there is the visible Israel or the ethnic which are the seed of Abraham, but as Henry puts it "Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privelages..."(Henry). So then it is the "True" Israel that is saved it is the "remnant" as the Bible puts it that is saved and always has been, God's word has never failed the true Church.

II. All Descendants of Abraham vs. the "Children" of Abraham

"Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham," as John Piper notes, "[Paul] distinguishes here between two kind of 'children'...there are all of Abraham's descendants, and there is a narrower group in that number whom he calls here 'the children,' or we could say, 'the true children' since the others are physical children also. The assumption is that the promises of God hold true for the true children of Abraham but not for all the descendants of Abraham"(Piper). So we now have the true Israel and the true Children.

III. Children of Flesh vs. Children of Promise

"Those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." There is here the difference between the "children of flesh" and the "children of God" or the "children of promise." To those children of the promise the word of God has never failed or fallen. The reason that so many Israelites are being cut off and accursed is because all that they are is "children of the flesh." Being "the 'children of God,' in this case is not an ethnic or physical or historical term, it has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16 or Philippians 2:15. And when he then says that these 'children of God' are 'children of promise,' he means that they ahve their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God's effective promise. The promise produced the position"(Piper).

IV. Taking a Step Back

While I plan on going into more detail on the OT examples of Isaac and Jacob, I think I should address the Old Testament references within this paragraph (though I think it will become more clear in the next post).

After mentioning the difference between all of Abraham's descendants and the true "children" of Abraham, Paul references Genesis 21:12: "In Isaac your seed shall be called." Paul is here showing the Jews that there is a difference and you can clearly see it (he will go more into it in verses 10-13). Thinking of the context of this passage you understand why this is. If you'll remember Abraham already had a son named Ishmael born of Hagar. "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. 4:29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness"(Henry). God promised that the seed of promise would pass through the son that He was going to give to Abraham, God did not need Abraham's assistance and Abraham seemed to think He did. "For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." Keeping this in mind, understand that God does not need help in salvation, man's works and apparent assitance does nothing, God works His spirit in those whom He chooses. As will be further explained next time.

Citation:
*NKJV Bible
*ESV Bible
*Matthew Henry Commentary (Romans)
*John Piper (Sermons on Romans)