Kay

“Here we see clearly that Jacob is chosen unconditionally before they were born. Paul is very precise to include that it is not ‘because of works’. So your hypothesis that God chose the Israelites (Jacob) because the Edomites (Esau) were wicked is simply false and contradictory to Rom 9.”
Mark,

I agree that it is not because of “works.” But I believe it is also about claiming national ancestry as well. It appears you misunderstood my point – I was not claiming that God chose Israelites because the Edomites were wicked. Much later Edom was rejected because of their wickedness.

I agree, Paul has shown in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of both Jew and Gentile, and justification not by the “works of the law” (3:20) but rather by “faith in Jesus Christ” (3:22). He uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (Paul explains, Abraham is pronounced righteous by God *before* ‘circumcision’), and the practical implications of justification by faith. Paul’s argument is nicely wrapped up at the end of ch.8, except for establishing the relationship between “justification by faith in Christ” and the historic relationship God has had with ethnic Israel. Even though Paul represents justification by faith not as a novelty but as something that began with Abraham, that does not answer the question of why God had related to His people Israel primarily on the basis of their descent from Abraham and on their keeping of the Law. The Jews, who had not been coming in great numbers to Christ, may well argue that if Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith were true, then God would have essentially broken His promises to Israel. If Israel sees inclusion in the covenant as based on descent from Abraham and keeping the Law, then how can God turn around and say, “No, inclusion in the covenant is not based on descent from Abraham or keeping the Law, but rather on faith in Christ”? It would seem to them that God’s word had failed (v.6), which is just what Paul is at pains to dispute.

In short, Paul’s line of argument in Romans 9-11 is intended to answer the specific charge that if the Gospel were true, God’s word would have failed regarding Israel. Many readers of this passage seem to keep this emphasis in mind only for a few verses, but in fact this charge is the primary position against which Paul is writing throughout the three chapters.

It is the essential position of the “questioner” that Paul invokes in 9:19-20, and is implied in several other verses (9:6, 16, 32). Remember, in chapter 3, Paul has already demolished the possible contention that Jews can rely on keeping the Law; however, Jews may still be relying on their descent from Abraham as indicating their inclusion in the covenant community. After all, the Old Testament promises regarding the restoration of Israel are not contingent upon perfect obedience to the Law; in some ways, it appears that adherence to the Law is actually one of the promises to be fulfilled (Jer. 31:33). So, if Paul says that justification is by faith in Christ, and if this standard ends up excluding the majority of Jews, who have not come to faith in Christ, then he seems to void God’s promises to Israel.

Paul’s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob. In other words, the attrition that occurs with the generations of Isaac and Jacob does not stop there, but progresses throughout the descendants of Israel. It is in this sense that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6).

In Rom.9:7, Paul quotes Gen. 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac. The original context of this passage, God reassures Abraham in the very next verse (Gen. 21:13) that “I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” In the following verses we read that “God heard the boy [Ishmael] crying …. ‘I will make him into a great nation’ …. God was with the boy as he grew up” (Gen. 21:17-18, 20). In other words, God has a positive plan for Ishmael and his descendants as well as for Isaac and his descendants; it is only as a member of the covenant nation that will bring forth the Messiah Ishmael is rejected.

Paul, significantly, interprets the quotation by stating that “it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (v. 8). He is subtly doing here what he does clearly in Galatians 4:21-31: he identifies ethnic Israel with the children of Hagar, as opposed to those of Sarah. Since ethnic Israel is depending on natural descent from Abraham, they are identified with Ishmael, who was Abraham’s descendant (not to mention the firstborn). The Christians, trusting that “those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7), are identified with Isaac, the child of promise. In Romans 9:8, Paul quotes Gen. 18:10, 14 to establish that the promise had indeed occurred before Isaac’s conception.

Paul’s use of Isaac and Ishmael is not primarily intended to be a statement of their individual eternal election, nor to be typical of the elect and reprobate. It rather establishes that the Jewish people have no reason to trust in their *physical descent* from Abraham to guarantee inclusion in the covenant – if they could, then the descendants of Ishmael would have just as much right to claim as could the descendants of Isaac.

In case the Jews argue that Isaac was the legitimate son, as opposed to the illegitimate, Paul moves down to the next generation to find an even more compelling example, that of Jacob and Esau (9:10-13). These even have the same set of parents, and were born together as twins. The only natural primacy that one would have over the other would have been the birthright, which would have gone to Esau. And yet, before they were born, Rebekah was told that “the older will serve the younger” (9:12, quoting Gen. 25:23). Paul even states that the reason God told Rebekah this was “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” (v. 11).

Paul means to exclude personal merit from consideration of Jacob and Esau’s election. Such election is “not by works, but by him who calls.” God was perfectly free to choose either Jacob or Esau.

But I contend the choice doesn’t involve individual “election” for personal salvation or damnation, but rather the line through which the covenant people will come. Gen. 25:23, which Paul quotes, clearly refers to nations, not individuals:

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

What is the subject? Individuals or nations?

So,“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13, quoting Mal. 1:2-3) looking at the source of the quote in context clearly shows that the *nations* are being referenced, not individual Jacob and Esau.

The point of comparison lies in the nature of the land that was given to the two nations. God had given preference to Jacob in the land that He gave to Israel. Malachi goes on to discuss the fact that Edom had come under such judgment that it would never be able to rebuild its land; but was this a foregone conclusion from before Jacob and Esau were born? It seems not to be. Deut. 2:4-6 suggests the opposite. God did not allow the Israelites to attack Edom or to take any portion of their land, stating that “I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink.” This hardly seems consistent with a people whom God “hated.”

It seems that “loved” and “hated” in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 are to be understood that God had given preference to Jacob over Esau, in terms of the land received by their respective descendants, and in terms of whose line would comprise the covenant ‘nation’.

If you want to argue that “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated” *must* refer to election for salvation, how do you account for the fact that this statement first appears, not in Genesis, but about 1000 years later in Malachi?

Do you contend that all of Israel in Malachi’s time are saved?

In fact, God indicts Israel throughout the rest of Malachi specifically because they have been “unfaithful” to the covenant and have broken faith with God in many ways. Rather than being a pleasant assurance of God’s favor, the statement, “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated,” forms part of God’s indictment—that even though God had chosen to work through Israel, nevertheless Israel had been unfaithful, and was under judgment.

Paul uses these quotations to oppose those Jews who would say that, if the Gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or *ethnicity*, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the *basis* of “faith in Christ”, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity. To the Jewish questioner, God’s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith) would appear to be unjust (v.14).

Notice that this interpretation of Paul’s argument makes perfect sense of the Jewish questioner’s sense of injustice. No Jew would see injustice in God’s gratuitous election of Isaac over Ishmael or Jacob over Esau as individuals. The only thing about the argument that would have caused them to view God as unjust is the implication that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6), and for Paul, of course, to be a true descendant of Abraham was to follow him in faith (4:11-12, Gal. 3:7-8). And this is just what Paul’s point is. Hopefully, I have been thorough enough this time that you can see my point.