Romans 9:6

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 (Rom 9:6), which, considering the present state of the Jews, which created to Paul so much heaviness and continual sorrow (Rom 9:2), 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, Rom 9:6-13. 2. By asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, Rom 9:14-24. 3. By showing how this rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, Rom 9:25-29. 4. By fixing the true reason of the Jews' rejection, Rom 9:30, 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 (Rom 9:6), neither because they are, etc., Rom 9:7. 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 21:12, 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 17:19. 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, Phi 3:3. 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 4:29), 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, Rom 9:9, quoted from Gen 18:10. 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 4:28. It was through faith that Isaac was conceived, Heb 11:11. 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 (Rom 9:10-13), 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 unchurch 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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Not as though the word of God had taken none effect--"hath fallen to the ground," that is, failed: compare Luk 16:17, Greek.

for they are not all Israel which are of Israel--better, "for not all they which are of Israel are Israel." Here the apostle enters upon the profound subject of ELECTION, the treatment of which extends to the end of the eleventh chapter--"Think not that I mourn over the total loss of Israel; for that would involve the failure of God's word to Abraham; but not all 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 the apostle's teaching, which is plain enough, but in the truths themselves, the evidence for which, taken by themselves, is overwhelming, but whose perfect harmony is beyond human comprehension in the present state. The great source of error here lies in hastily inferring (as THOLUCK and others), from the apostle's taking tip, at the close of this chapter, the calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of Israel, 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 to religious advantages, not to eternal salvation. In that case, the argument of Rom 9:6, with which the subject of Election opens, would be this: "The choice of Abraham and his seed has not failed; because though Israel has been rejected, the Gentiles have taken their place; and God has a right to choose what nation He will to the privileges of His visible kingdom." But so far from this, the Gentiles are not so much as mentioned at all till towards the close of the chapter; and the argument of this verse is, that "all Israel is not rejected, 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 to eternal salvation, will abundantly appear from what follows.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:6-8. Not as though — The original expression, ουχ οιον δε οτι, is rather obscure; but Erasmus supplying, after the Greek scholiast, the words τουτο ου λεγω, 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 apostle’s 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, God’s 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 Abraham’s own family, and much less in his remote descendants. But, God then said, in Isaac shall thy seed be called — Isaac’s posterity, not Ishmael’s, 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 God’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:6 are truly members of God’s people (literally are Israel): “Israel” can refer to the people of Israel in a biological sense, i.e., everyone descended from Jacob. But in the latter part of the Old Testament and in Judaism, the idea of a “righteous remnant” within Israel developed (see Isa 11:10-16). On at least one occasion in the New Testament, Israel refers to everyone, Jew and Gentile, who belongs to God in a spiritual sense (Gal 6:16). Paul is stating that there is now an “Israel within Israel,” a community consisting of both Jews and Gentiles who truly believe (cp. Rom 11:16-17; Gal 6:16).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 9:6. Οὐχʼ οἷον,) 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.—δὲ) but; namely, although I profess great sorrow for Israel, who continue without Christ.—ἐκπέπτωκεν, 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 λόγος 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.—ὁ λόγος, the word) of promise, which had been given to Israel.—οὐ γὰρ πάντες, for not all) γὰρ, 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 (‘Particularistæ’); 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.—Ἰσραήλ, Ἰσραήλ, Israël, Israël) Ploce.[111]

[110] See on ‘Euphemia’ and προθεραπέια the Appendix.

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

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (δέ) he now proposes to justify the God of his people. Quite unnecessarily Lachmann has put Rom_9:3-5 in a parenthesis.

οὐχ οἷον δὲ, ὅτι] does not mean: but it is not possible that (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Homberg, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Morus, Böhme, Rosenmüller, Benecke, Ewald); for in that case ὅτι would not be allowable, but the infinitive must follow (Matthiae, § 479; Krüger, § 55. 3. 1); moreover, as Calvin has rightly observed, ΟἿΌΝ ΤΕ 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 οἷον without τέ, whilst the masculine οἷός εἰμι (without ΤΈ) is frequent (see Schömann, ad Is. p. 465; Weber, Dem. Aristocr. p. 469; Kühner, 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 οὐχ. οἷον with a following finite tense; e.g. οὐχ οἷον ὀργίζομαι in Phryn. p. 372, and the passages from Polybius in Schweighäuser, p. 403). According to this usage, the attracted οἷον is not to be resolved, with Hermann, ad Viger. p. 790, into τοῖον οἷον, because the following verb does not suit this, but with Fritzsche into ΤΟῖΟΥΤΟΝ ὍΤΙ: the matter is not of such a nature, that. But since Paul has here expressed ὅτι, he cannot have conceived it as contained in οἷον: in reality he has fallen into a mixing up of two kindred modes of expression,namely, of ΟὐΧ ΟἿΟΝ with a finite tense, and ΟὐΧ ὍΤΙ, i.e. οὐχ ἐρῶ ὅτι. See Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet. p. 128; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153 f.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 800 f. Without this intermingling he would have written οὐχ οἷον δὲ ἐκπέπτωκεν; but consequent on this intermingling he wrote οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπ., which accordingly may be analyzed thus: Οὐ ΤΟῖΟΝ ΔῈ ΛΈΓΩ, ΟἿΟΝ ὍΤΙ, 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 ΟὐΧ ΟἿΟΝ ΔῈ ἘΚΠΈΠΤ. (without ὍΤΙ); 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 οὐχ οἷον; 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, ηὐχόμην is to be again supplied to ΟὐΧ ΟἿΟΝ, and ὍΤΙ to be taken as because, so that thus Paul would deny that he had for that wish the ground which is named in ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν κ.τ.λ. This isindependently of the arbitrariness of the insertion of ΗὐΧΌΜΗΝincorrect, just because the thought that this ΗὐΧΌΜΗΝ 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.

ἐκπέπτωκεν] 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 διαπίπτειν, Jos_21:45; Jdt_6:9; and ΠΊΠΤΕΙΝ, Jos_23:14; both in use also among the Greeks; comp. ἘΚΒΑΛΛΕΣΘΑΙ, Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. xi. 30. The opposite is μένειν, Rom_9:11. Comp. also 1Co_13:8.

Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] 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 ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κ. ς., Rom_9:5, without our having exactly to think of Gen_12:3, where the promise is to Abraham (Th. Schott).

οὐ γὰρ πάντες κ.τ.λ.] for not all who spring from Israel, not all υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ (Rom_9:27), are Israelites (Israels 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 Ἰσραήλ is the name of the patriarch; the second, instead of which the old reading Ἰσραηλῖται (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 οἱ ἐξ, takes the first ἸΣΡ. 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 οἱ ἐξ Ἰσρ. corresponds ΣΠΈΡΜΑ ἈΒΡ., Rom_9:7.

Rom_9:6-13. First part of the Theodicée: Gods 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:6 . οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι : this unique expression is explained by Buttmann ( Grammar , p. 372, Thayer’s Transl.) as a blending of two formulas οὐχ οἷον followed by a finite verb, and οὐχ ὅτι , 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 οὗτοι in this verse to resume and define the subject see Gal 3:7 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 δέ, 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 οὐχ οἶόν τε 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 οἶον has only the meaning of it is possible, when it is followed by the particle τε; and finally, when it has this meaning, the verb following is in the infinitive, whereas we have here the perfect ἐκπέπτωκεν. This meaning must therefore be given up, and we must abide by the ordinary signification of the word οἶος, 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 ὅτι, that, which intervenes between οἶον and the verb ἐκπέπτωκεν: such as that it has been annulled. This that was already contained in οἶον, 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 God—promises 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 οὐχ οἶον, 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 οὐχ οἶον 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 ἐκπίπτειν, 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:

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Romans 9:6-24

Analysis

The apostle now approaches the subject which he had in view, the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles. That God had determined to cast off his ancient covenant people, as such, and to extend the call of the gospel indiscriminately to all men, is the point which the apostle is about to establish. He does this by showing, in the first place, that God is perfectly free thus to act, vv. 6-24, and in the second, that he had declared in the prophets that such was his intention, Rom_9:25-33.

That God was at liberty to reject the Jews and to call the Gentiles, Paul argues,

1. By showing that the promises which he had made, and by which he had graciously bound himself, were not made to the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but to his spiritual seed. This is plain from the case of Ishmael and Isaac; both were the children of Abraham, yet one was taken and the other left. And also from the case of Esau and Jacob. Though children of the same parents, and born at one birth, yet Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated, is the language of God respecting them, Rom_9:6-13.

2. By showing that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favors; that he is determined neither by the external relations, nor by the personal character of men, in the selection of the objects of his mercy. This is proved by the examples just referred to; by the choice of Isaac instead of Ishmael, and especially by that of Jacob instead of Esau. In this case the choice was made and announced before the birth of the children, that it might be seen that it was not according to works, but according to the sovereign purpose of God, Rom_9:6-13.

Against this doctrine of the divine sovereignty, there are two obvious objections, which have been urged in every age of the world, and which the apostle here explicitly states and answers. The first is, that it is unjust in God thus to choose one, and reject another, at his mere good pleasure, Rom_9:14. To this Paul gives two answers:

1. God claims the prerogative of sovereign mercy; saying, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, Rom_9:15, Rom_9:16.

2. He exercises this right, as is evident from the case of Pharaoh, with regard to whom he says, For this same purpose have I raised thee up, Rom_9:17, Rom_9:18. The second objection is, that if this doctrine be true, it destroys the responsibility of men, Rom_9:19. To this also Paul gives a twofold answer:

1. The very urging of an objection against a prerogative which God claims in his word, and exercises in his providence, is an irreverent contending with our Maker, especially as the right in question necessarily arises out of the relation between men and God as creatures and Creator, Rom_9:20, Rom_9:21.

2. There is nothing in the exercise of this sovereignty inconsistent with either justice or mercy. God only punishes the wicked for their sins, while he extends undeserved mercy to the objects of his grace. There is no injustice done to one wicked man in the pardon of another, especially as there are the highest objects to be accomplished both in the punishment of the vessels of wrath, and the pardon of the vessels of mercy. God does nothing more than exercise a right inherent in sovereignty, viz., that of dispensing pardon at his pleasure, Rom_9:22-24.

Commentary

Rom_9:6

It has already been remarked (Rom_3:3), that it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the promises of God being made to Abraham and to his seed, all his natural descendants, sealed, as such, by the rite of circumcision, would certainly inherit the blessings of the Messiahs reign. It was enough for them, therefore, to be able to say, We have Abraham to our father. This being the case, it was obvious that it would at once be presented as a fatal objection of the Jews, that it was inconsistent with the promises of God. Paul, therefore, without even distinctly announcing the position which he intended to maintain, removes this preliminary objection. It is indeed peculiarly worthy of remark, as characteristic of the apostles tenderness and caution, that he does not at all formally declare the truth which he labors in this chapter to establish. He does not tell the Jews at once they were to be cast off; but begins by professing his affection for them, and his sorrow for their destiny; thus simply, by implication, informing them that they were not to be admitted to the Messiahs kingdom. When he has shown that this rejection involved no failure on the part of God in keeping his promises, and was consistent with his justice and mercy, he more distinctly announces that, agreeably to the predictions of their own prophets, they were no longer the peculiar people of God. The remark, therefore, which Calvin makes on Rom_9:2, is applicable to the whole introductory part of the chapter. Non caret artifico, quod orationem ita abscidit, nondum exprimens qua de re loquatur; nondum enim opportunum erat, interitum gentis Judaicae aperte exprimere. In Rom_9:2, Rom_9:3, in which he professed his sorrow for his brethren, and his readiness to suffer for them, it was, of course, implied that they were no longer to be the peculiar people of God, heirs of the promises, etc., etc. This, Paul shows, involves no failure on the part of the divine promises. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect, etc. That is, I say nothing which implies that the word of God has failed. The simplest explanation of the words οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι, is, not as that, i.e., I say no such thing as that. It is thus an elliptical phrase for οὐ τοῖον δὲ λέγω οἷον ὅτι, non tale, (dico,) quale (hoc est) excidisse cet. Winer, §64. 6. Others give οὐχ οἷον δέ; followed by ὅτι, the force of οὐχ οἷόν τε followed by an infinitive, viz., it is not possible. This, however, is not only contrary to usage, but to the context. Paul does not intend to say that it is impossible the promise should fail, but simply that his doctrine did not conflict with the promise. God had not bound himself never to cast off the Jews; and therefore what the apostle taught concerning their rejection did not involve the failure of the word of God. Meyer, who generally defends the apostle from the charge of violating Greek usage, assumes that he here confounds two forms of expression, οὐχ οἷον ἐκπέπτωκεν and οὐχ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν. He agrees, however, with the explanation quoted above from Winer. The word of God means anything which God has spoken, and here, from the connection, the promise made to Abraham, including the promise of salvation through Jesus Christ. Hath taken none effect, literally, hath fallen, i.e., failed. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail, literally, to fall, Luk_16:17. So this word is used frequently. The reason why the rejection of the Jews involved no failure on the part of the divine promise, is, that the promise was not addressed to the mere natural descendants of Abraham. For they were not all Israel which are of Israel, i.e., all the natural descendants of the patriarch are not the true people of God, to whom alone the promises properly belong. The word Israel may refer either to Jacob or to the people. All descended from the patriarch Jacob called Israel, are not the true people of God; or, all belonging to the external Israel are not the true Israel; i.e. all who are in the (visible) Church do not belong to the true Church. The sense is the same, but the former explanation is the more natural. In the following verse the apostle distinguishes between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham, as here he distinguishes between the two classes of the descendants of Israel.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

He entereth into the handling of predestination by a kind of preventing an objection: How may it be, that Israel is cast off, but that therewithall we must also make the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, frustrate and void? He answereth therefore, that God’s word is true, although that Israel be cast off: for the election of the people of Israel is so general and common, that notwithstanding the same, God chooseth by his secret counsel, such as it pleaseth him. So then this is the proposition and state of this Treatise: The grace of salvation is offered generally in such sort, that notwithstanding it, the efficacy thereof pertaineth only to the elect.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 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 Acts 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 the sixth chapter of Ezekiel, 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 Israel—i.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.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6–13. Limitations of the problem from facts of Divine election

6. Not as though, &c.] Here begins a paragraph, and with it the main subject of the rest of this chapter. St Paul has expressed his intense grief over the failure of the mass of his brethren to “inherit the promises.” He now, in the true manner of the Scripture writers, vindicates dicates the veracity and majesty of the Faithful Promiser. This he does by considerations on Divine Sovereignty and Election.

the word of God] The Promise to Abraham, that his seed should be blessed and a blessing.

hath taken none effect] Lit. hath fallen out, hath failed.

Israel—Israel] Probably (1) is the descendants, (2) the forefather, Jacob. The emphasis of the Gr. is not precisely as in E. V., but rather (with a slight paraphrase) “Israel” (as intended in the Promise) “is not the total of the descendants of Israel.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Neither because they are the seed of Abraham,.... The Jews highly valued themselves, upon being the natural seed of Abraham; and fancied, upon this account, that they were children, which the apostle here denies: neither

are they all children; as in the former verse, he explains in what sense they were Israelites, which he had mentioned among their high characters and privileges, as descending from Jacob, and in what sense they were not; so in this he shows in what manner the "adoption", Rom 9:4, belonged to them, and it did not; being Abraham's seed, they were his natural children, and the children of God by national adoption; but, they were not all the spiritual children of Abraham, nor the children of God by the special grace of adoption; these characters only belonged to some of them, and which are equally true of Gentile believers; who being of the same faith with Abraham, are his children, his seed, and also the children of God: natural descent from Abraham avails nothing in this case, as is clear from the instance of Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the natural seed of Abraham, as well as Isaac; but he was not a son of Abraham in a spiritual sense, nor a child of God; he was not a child of promise, this was peculiar to Isaac:

but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; see Gen 21:12. The meaning of which is, either that the progeny of Abraham in the line of Isaac should only be called, accounted, and esteemed, in an eminent sense, the seed of Abraham, and not his posterity in the line of Ishmael: agreeably to which the Jews say (c), that

"Ishmael is not , "in the general account of the seed of Abraham"; for it is said, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called", Gen 21:12; nor is Esau in the general account of the seed of Isaac; hence, says R. Joden bar Shalom, in Isaac, that is, in part of Isaac.''

So another (d) of their writers, on mentioning this passage, observes,

"that it is said in Isaac, , but "not all Isaac";''

or all that sprung from him. Or this has respect to the most eminent and famous seed of Abraham, the Messiah, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed; who was to spring from him by Isaac, in the line of Jacob; and may likewise have a personal respect to Isaac himself, the son of the promise, a child of Abraham in a spiritual sense, when Ishmael was not; and to whom belonged the spiritual promises and blessings, and who was to be, and was effectually called by the grace of God; and may include also his whole seed and posterity, who, both natural and spiritual, were children of the typical promise, the land of Canaan, and the enjoyment of temporal good things; and the matter also children of the antitypical promise, or of those spiritual and eternal things, which God has promised to Abraham's spiritual seed, whether among Jews or Gentiles; and which always have their effect, and had, even when, and though Abraham's natural seed had a "lo ammi", Hos 1:9, written upon them.

(c) T. Hieros. Nedarim, fol. 38. 1. (d) Yom Tob in Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 7. sect. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Not as though the word of God hath failed in his promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs. The Jews pretended that the promises were made to them only, and to those that were of their race, and that the Gentiles were not to partake of them. St. Paul shews them their mistake, by telling them who are to be esteemed the true children of Abraham, and of the patriarchs, according to the promises which God made, and who are not. (Witham) --- All are not Israelites, &c. Not all, who are the carnal seed of Israel, are true Israelites in God’s account: who, as by his free grace he heretofore preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so he could, and did by the like free grace, election, and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles, and prefer them before the carnal Jews. (Challoner) --- Neither are all they, who are of the seed of Abraham, his true spiritual children, to whom these promises were made: nor are all they who are descended from Isaac the children of these promises nor are all they true Israelites, to whom these blessings were promised, although they are descended from Israel; but only they who are the children of the patriarchs by faith in Jesus, the Messias, in whom God promised that he would bless all nations. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 6-13. (2) (a) After this avowal of his deep sorrow, and his reasons for feeling it, the apostle now proceeds to deal with the subject. First (as has been said above) he shows (vers. 6-13) that the present exclusion of the great majority of the Jews from Christian privileges does not imply any unfaithfulness on God"s part to his ancient promises; and thus it follows that the fact of their exclusion is no proof of the gospel not being the true fulfilment of those promises.

Vers. 6, 7. But it is not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect (or, hath come to naught, ekpeptwken). For they are not all Israel who are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. The promises to the patriarchs never, from the first, implied the inheritance of them by all the physical descendants of those patriarchs; even in Israel there is a recognized distinction between being of the race of Israel and being the true Israel of God; in the original promise to Abraham the descendants of Ishmael (though equally with those of Isaac, his physical seed) were excluded. And so even the race of Israel is but a part of the whole seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was made. Hence it follows that the present exclusion of the majority of even the race of Israel from the inheritance of the promises is not inconsistent with the original purport of those promises. The quotation from Gen_21:12, "In Isaac," etc., is properly (as in the original Hebrew) "In Isaac shall a seed be named to thee;" i.e. "In Isaac it shall come to pass that posterity of thine shall have the name and position of the seed of Abraham, and be recognized as the inheritors of the promise" (Meyer).

The true Israel.

Since one great aim of the apostle in this Epistle is to combat the view of religion which regards the external as of main interest and importance, he finds it necessary to disabuse of their prejudice and error those Israelites who not only prided themselves upon their descent from Abraham, but who relied upon that descent for their acceptance with God. He points out that it is one thing to be "of Israel," i.e. sprung from the patriarchs in the way of natural lineage, and quite another thing to be "Israel," i.e. to possess the ideal character of the true Israelite. Even some of Abraham"s posterity were not included in the covenant, but only the offspring of Isaac. This was in itself a limitation; and if God appointed a limitation of an external and racial kind, how far more obviously did it consist with Divine wisdom and justice to confine spiritual blessings to those spiritually prepared and qualified to enjoy them!

I LIGHT IS HERE CAST UPON THE CHARACTER AND PURPOSES OF GOD.

1. God is faithful to his promises, but not to men"s misunderstanding of these promises.

2. God is just, and not partial, in his treatment of the subjects of his kingdom upon earth.

3. God does not look upon men"s outward relations and position, but upon the character and heart.

II LIGHT IS CAST UPON THE MORAL CONDITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEN.

1. Men are blamable and foolish if they rely upon adventitious advantages; as e.g. upon parentage, ancestry, associations, acquired knowledge, religious privileges.

2. Men are wise if they remember, and act upon their remembrance, that it is God"s prerogative and method to search the heart.

3. Men should use diligently the opportunities they enjoy, knowing that it is not their advantages, but the use they make of them, that is all-important.

4. Men should look forward to the individual account to be rendered at the last to the supreme Judge of all.

Vers. 6-13 with 24-32. Israel"s rejection no violation of the Divine promise.

The natural question suggests itself to the mind, on thinking of the rejection of the Jewish people What, then, becomes of the promises of God? Has the Word of God, then, become of no effect? The apostle answers this question in the negative (ver. 6), and proceeds to give his reasons.

I THE PROMISE WAS A SPIRITUAL PROMISE.

1. It was a promise of spiritual blessing. "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

2. It was a promise made on spiritual conditions. It was not a promise made to Abraham"s children according to the flesh, for then Ishmael and his children would have been partakers of it. "In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (vers. 7, 8). Isaac was Abraham"s son, not in the ordinary course of nature, but by reason of the special promise of God, and Abraham"s faith in it. Many think they have a claim on God"s promises who forget that every promise has a condition attached to it, and who fail to fulfil that condition.

II ABRAHAM"S TRUE CHILDREN ARE THOSE WHO EXHIBIT ABRAHAM"S FAITH. "For they are not all Israel, who are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children" (vers. 6, 7); "The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith" (ver. 30). The same thought is brought out in Rom_4:9-17. Abraham"s righteousness was the righteousness of faith. He had this faith when he was yet uncircumcised, "that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised". (Rom_4:11) Hence the Gentiles who exhibit Abraham"s faith are heirs of the same promise and partakers of the same righteousness. There is no violation of the Divine promise in rejecting those who are Abraham"s seed according to the flesh, but who do not exhibit Abraham"s faith, and in including those who are Abraham"s true spiritual children, because they exhibit Abraham"s faith, though they are not his seed according to the flesh. God looketh on the heart. "In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." External forms and outward privileges will not save us unless we have the change of heart which is required of all who would enter into the kingdom of God. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

III GENTILES AS WELL AS JEWS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PROMISE. The apostle not only argues by inference, but also from God"s specific statements. "As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved" (ver. 25). The Jews were too much inclined to limit the Divine promises to themselves only, though there were many clear indications in the Divine Word that, while they were God"s chosen people, other nations also were to be partakers of the blessing conveyed through them. We may so pride ourselves upon our privileges, while we neglect our duties, that at last even the privileges themselves shall be taken away. C.H.I.

Vers. 6-13. The freedom of God"s election.

They had been so highly privileged, and were yet cast out. Oh, what a fall was there! But had God"s promise come to naught? Nay, verily. For, as the history of their ancestry showed, the purposed working out of God"s 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. This freedom is illustrated by the apostle from the election of former times.

I GOD"S PURPOSE FOR THE WORLD. A Creator"s love must embrace his whole creation; a Father"s must go forth towards all his children. God is the Father of mankind, even though all have fallen away from him; any purpose of salvation must, therefore, comprehend all men in its wide scope, and only the wilfulness of man can prevent the perfect accomplishment of the purpose. God has purposed the redemption of the world in Christ Jesus, (Eph_3:11) but by reason of man"s debasement through sin the accomplishment of the purpose must needs be gradual. One great central work shall be wrought God"s work through Christ; but up towards this the avenue of preparatory work must lead, and away from this the avenue of 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 whatever to the election of individuals for eternal salvation, was the election of a people who should conduct the world towards Christ by way of preparation, and afterwards conduct Christ"s power to the world by way of application. In the matter of preparation, an 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. In the subsequent evangelization there must be concentration first, that the new power of life might be fully realized; a scattering afterwards, that the new power might touch the uttermost ends of the earth. (vide Act_8:4)

III THE FREEDOM OF THE ELECTION. But surely, in such a work of grace, God"s hands cannot be tied? surely he may choose whom he will for the great purpose of the world"s salvation? Even so. We can conceive nothing other; 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 his freedom of election here. Again, of Abraham"s sons he chose the later-born, showing that the matter of priority of natural claims could not weigh with him. And of Isaac"s twin sons, before their birth, he chose again the later-born, Jacob, showing that nothing done by the elected one constituted a claim on his electing grace. Neither the Ishmaelites nor the Edomites were rejected of God from personal salvation, but as regarded taking a special part in the work of the world"s salvation they were reprobate. So, then, God had acted freely in the choice of Abraham, and in the narrowing down of the election among Abraham"s seed. Was it to be wondered at that, in the fulness of the times, he should act freely still, and elect only a remnant of the people to the work of evangelizing 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 the first lesson, absolute submission; nay, the unquestioning fealty of love. T.F.L.

Vers. 6-18. The children of the promise.

We have seen St. Paul as a Christian patriot 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 or of 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 GOD"S JUDGMENT UPON ANY MAN IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE QUALITIES OF HIS NATURAL DISPOSITION. When we take up the cases here given, we see that God did not elect to privilege either all the children of the patriarchs, or even those we would incline to elect ourselves. St. Paul mentions the children of Abraham; and, as the history shows, he had eight, (Gen_25:2) yet only one becomes the "child of promise." Isaac also had two sons, but the younger, not the elder, becomes in his turn the "child of promise." Moreover, when we consider Ishmael and Esau, who are apparently both before Paul"s mind, we are inclined to regard them as more manly and noble men than their brothers Isaac and Jacob. They may have become "sons of the desert," yet there is something in both the rejected men which commands our admiration. Of course, we see in them purely natural endowments. They live lives of sense and sight rather than of faith. They live solely under the power of things seen, and are what we now call worldly men. Their natures are as interesting and as noble as pure worldliness of spirit will allow. Now let us suppose for a moment that God"s electing love had laid hold on these well-made "noblemen of nature," with all their physical force and muscular power, and had passed by their feebler brothers, the meditative Isaac and the cowardly Jacob; would not violent outcry have surely resulted against a God who professed to be a Father, and yet could favour the strong and pass by the weak? It is plain that an electing love which moved along such lines as these would have been denounced by all serious and thoughtful men. But, as a recent preacher has said, "the Father in heaven is a considerate Father. He 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 by birth and nature. He is not the gentleman"s God, nor the Redeemer and Saviour of persons of fine culture and beautiful instincts. He is, and from the beginning has been, the Saviour of the lost. And by many a story as strange as this of Jacob and Esau he has shown to the honourable and generous and high-minded that there is a possible way of ruin for them; and to those who know in their own sorrowful consciousness, and by the scornful words or looks of others, that they are not of noble or generous strain, that there is a way by which such as they may find salvation and the eternal favour of God.

II THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE HAVE BEEN LED TO PRIZE IT AND TO TRUST 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 a better promise a 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 and cowardice led them to lean upon One mighty to save, and they were pardoned, accepted, and in due season sanctified. God"s electing love thus moves along lines where there is the likelihood that the poor, crippled, crushed souls will learn to trust God who is mighty to save. It is harder for a rich man, for example, to trust God than it is for a poor man; hence God has "chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom". (Jam_2:5) It is harder to get able-bodied men, who never knew what a day"s sickness is, to trust God than it is to get the sick and the sorrowing; and hence we find that Jobs and Asaphs, who have been plagued all the day, and who are in deep waters almost constantly, are made by Divine grace to show to the unbelieving world that they can serve God for naught, that even though he slays them, yet will they trust in him. (Job_1:9 Job_13:15 Ps 73) And so, as the writer already quoted says, "Be of good comfort, all whose need of salvation is deepest and most inward. You shall be saved, not only in spite of these shameful faults and infirmities which you abhor in yourself and which God abhors; you shall not only be saved, blessed, loved, in spite of them; -you shall be saved from them and that is a greater thing. Faith in God is the vital air of all true human nobleness. In this air the stunted germs of human virtue unfold and blossom. Without faith, their fairest, strongest 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 in name, Jacob the supplanter is changed to Israel the prince that hath power with God" (Bacon, ut supra).

III GOD"S ELECTING LOVE AND REPROBATING HATE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY INJUSTICE. NOW, in analyzing God"s love for the children of promise, the apostle distinctly traces their election to God"s good pleasure. He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and compassion on whom he will have compassion. And if mercy be undeserved favor," that is to say, if no one deserves it or is entitled to it, then he may justly give it to whomsoever he pleaseth. On the other hand, those who are passed by and hardened, having no claim to better treatment, receive simply the due reward of their deeds. And here it may be well to guard against a false view of the statement about God"s 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 here quoted by Paul, we find it refers to the judgment of Edom in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. It is in Mal_1:2: "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." To quote an acute writer upon this very subject, "Esau is left in his inferiority before his birth, but he is not hated, in the sense of the prophet, until nine hundred and ninety-six years later, when King Nebuchadnezzar put his mountains to desolation. Without being blessed like his brother, Esau received his home "in the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above." His indifference had cost him his right of primogeniture, and he could no more receive it hack; (Gen_25:32 Gen_27:33-37 Heb_12:16, Heb_12:17) yet the Law prescribed respect for him," Thou shalt not have the Idumaean 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, God"s reprobation of Esau is not to be confounded with his election of Jacob. The mistake made by many in thinking of these subjects is in taking reprobation as the opposite of election as if God decreed men"s reprobation in the exercise of the same pure sovereignty in which he decrees the election of others. But so far from this being the case, election and reprobation rest upon two distinct portions of the Divine nature. 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 of Christ, and have him in us, cur Hope of glory. Election rests on the good pleasure of God; reprobation on his holiness, which leads him to antagonize and loathe what is unholy. I cannot do better than quote the elder Robert Hall, in his admirable little treatise, "Help to Zion"s Travellers." He says, Reprobation in Scripture always stands opposed to, and is the natural negative of, approbation, whether it respects the state of a person, the frame of his mind, or the nature of his actions. Hence, vile professors are compared to the alloy or dross frequently mixed with metal, which on trial is found to be base or deficient in quality; therefore reprobate silver shall men call them, because God has rejected them. (Jer_6:30) So in the text, "Know ye not that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" the apostle"s obvious meaning is that such are destitute of real worth. For however splendid a profession be, yet, without Christ, all will be found mere refuse at last: therefore he puts them upon close examination, lest they should be deceived by appearances, thinking themselves something, while in fact they are nothing. Hence in the next verse he adds, "But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates"; (2Co_13:5, 2Co_13:6) and in ver. 7 he says, "Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates." Thus he considers reprobation and approbation as natural opposites. Again, men of corrupt minds are said to be reprobates concerning the faith, i.e. destitute of a true understanding of the truth. (2Ti_3:8) And the abominable and disobedient are unto every good work reprobate. (Tit_1:16) Agreeably, therefore, to this view of reprobation, those vile affections to which the Gentiles were given up are called a reprobate mind. (Rom_1:26, Rom_1:28, Rom_1:29) Meaning that their dispositions and conduct were odious, and could not possibly be approved of, either by God or good men. From the above considerations, it evidently appears that election and reprobation are not inseparably connected, nor even so much as related as kindred ideas, and that reprobation does not intend an absolute appointment to eternal misery, for such may still find mercy as Paul did; but that it is the awful opposite to Divine approbation, whether it respect persons, principles, or proceedings." Hence we are not to think that either Esau or Pharaoh was unfairly dealt with. Their histories show that they had their fair chance of accepting God"s plan and submitting to him. But preferring their own course, and to fight rather than submit, they became the object of God"s righteous reprobation and leisurely wrath. God is slow to anger; but when it comes about, it is seen to be wen deserved. At close quarters, the injustice charged against God is seen altogether to disappear, R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Not as if - The Jews imagined that the word of God must fail if all their nation were not saved. This St. Paul now refutes, and proves that the word itself had foretold their falling away. The word of God - The promises of God to Israel. Had fallen to the ground - This could not be. Even now, says the apostle, some enjoy the promises; and hereafter "all Israel shall be saved." This is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. For - Here he enters upon the proof of it. All are not Israel, who are of Israel - 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, ver. 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." All are not Israel - Not in the favour of God. Who are lineally descended of Israel.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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]:

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6–9. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. The Jew might reply, “Why, then, if Israel had such privileges, covenants and promises, is the nation rejected? Has God, if Jesus is really the Christ, made his word of none effect?” The apostle in the rest of the chapter answers this objection. The first point is that there is a wider, greater Israel than that of the flesh. Those of Israel are not all Israel. There is an Israel according to the promise as well as according to the flesh.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul emphasizes that those who are born in the family of Israel can really only be a true part of Israel through faith.

But it is not as though the promises of God have failed

"But God has not failed to keep his promises" or "God has kept his promises"

For it is not everyone in Israel who truly belongs to Israel

God did not make his promises to all the physical descendants of Israel (or Jacob), but to his spiritual descendants, that is, those who trust in Jesus.

Neither are all Abraham's descendants truly his children

"Nor are they all children of God just because they are Abraham's descendants"

translationWords

promise

Israel

Abraham

Isaac

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

6–13. The present condition of Israel has not been explicitly stated in Rom 9:1-5, but implied in S. Paul’s wish that he might have been ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ for them. They are ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ in spite of all their privileges: yet not all; and the fact that some have accepted the Gospel shows that the Word of GOD, the basis of their call and privilege, has not utterly failed; indeed that Word itself drew distinctions even within the seed of Abraham, between the descent of nature and the descent of promise or spirit; and again in the children of Isaac between the one chosen of GOD for His purposes and the one not chosen.

In this section, then, the first line of argument is stated: the condition of Israel depends solely on GOD’S choice for the execution of His purpose.

6. οὐχ οἷον—ὅτι. A unique combination: cf. Field, ad loc[180] He decides that οὐχ οἶον is in vulgar use a strong negative = nequaquam, ne minimum: ‘It is by no means the fact that.…’

[180] ad loc. ad locum

δὲ contrasts with the implicit thought of Rom 9:4-5: this wonderful dispensation has not ended in failure on GOD’S part.

ἐκπέπτωκεν. Absolute use not common. Here = to fail of its purpose (cf. Polyb. IV. 82. 8); cf. Sir 31:7, slightly different.

ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ = the utterance of the purpose of GOD, as given in promises and covenants to Israel; cf. Joh 10:35: a rare, perhaps unique (S. H.), use in N.T.; for the thought cf. Rom 4:14 = Gal 3:17.

οὐ γὰρ πάντες κ.τ.λ., blood relationship does not of itself admit to the spiritual position.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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).

6.] Not however that (οὐχ οἷον δέ, ὅτι = οὐ τοῖον δὲ λέγω, οἷον ὅτι.…, ‘but I do not mean such a thing, as that.…,’ or ‘the matter however is not so, as that.…’ De W. cites from vi. p. 244, οὐχ οἷον βαδίζει, and from Phrynich. p. 332, οὐχ οἷον ὀργίζομαι, in a similar sense. The rendering, ‘it is not possible that,’ would require ordinarily οἷόν τε 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.

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).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. The Apostle, after conciliating his readers by a short preface, now passes to the discussion of his theme. He has never definitely stated it, but it can be inferred from what he has said. The connexion in thought implied by the word δέ is rather that of passing to a new stage in the argument, than of sharply defined opposition to what has preceded. Yet there is some contrast: he sighs over the fall, yet that fall is not so absolute as to imply a break in God’s purpose.

οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι: ‘the case is not as though.’ ‘This grief of mine for my fellow countrymen is not to be understood as meaning.’ Lipsius. The phrase is unique: it must clearly not be interpreted as if it were οὐχ οἷόν τε, ‘it is not possible that’: for the τε is very rarely omitted, and the construction in this case is always with the infinitive, nor does St. Paul want to state what it is impossible should have happened, but what has not happened. The common ellipse οὐχ ὅτι affords the best analogy, and the phrase may be supposed to represent οὐ τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι οἷον ὅτι. (Win. § lxiv. I. 6; E. T. p. 746.)

ἒκπέπτωκεν: ‘fallen from its place,’ i.e. perished and become of no effect. So 1Co 13:8 ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε ἐκπίπτει (TR); Jas 1:11.

ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ: ‘the Word of God,’ in the sense of ‘the declared purpose of God,’ whether a promise or a threat or a decree looked at from the point of view of the Divine consistency. This is the only place in the N. T. where the phrase occurs in this sense; elsewhere it is used by St. Paul (2Co 2:17; 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 2:9; Tit 2:5), in Heb 13:7, in Rev 1:9; Rev 6:9; Rev 20:4, and especially by St. Luke in the Acts (twelve times) to mean ‘the Gospel’ as preached; once (in Mar 7:13), it seems to mean the O. T. Scriptures; here it represents the O. T. phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου: cf. Isa 31:2 καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ (i. e. τοῦ Κυρίου) οὐ μὴ ἀθετηθῇ.

οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ: the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, the υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ of ver. 27.

οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ. Israel in the spiritual sense (cf. ver. 4 on Ἰσραηλῖται which is read here also by D E F G, Vulg., being a gloss to bring out the meaning), the Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ of Gal 6:16, intended for the reception of the Divine promise. But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i. e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel. This statement, which is the ground on which he contests the idea that God’s word has failed, he has now to prove.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Not as though [ουχ οιον δε οτι] . 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 [εκπεπτωκεν] . Lit., has fallen out. Rev., come to nought.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.