HAS GOD'S WORD FAILED?
Romans 9:1–13
Romans 8 ended with one of Paul's strongest statements of confidence:
Nothing can separate God's people from His love in Christ Jesus.
But that raises a serious question.
What about Israel?
Israel had received God's promises.
Israel had been God's covenant people.
The Messiah Himself came through Israel.
Yet many Israelites had rejected Jesus.
So if God's promises to Israel had apparently failed, how could Christians be certain that the promises Paul has just made in Romans 8 would not fail too?
That is the problem Paul now addresses.
PAUL BEGINS WITH SORROW
Paul does not begin Romans 9 with a theological argument.
He begins with a broken heart.
“I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit.”
— Romans 9:1
Then:
“I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.”
— Romans 9:2
Why?
Because of his fellow Israelites.
This is personal for Paul.
These are his own people.
PAUL'S LOVE FOR ISRAEL
Paul says something astonishing:
“For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers.”
— Romans 9:3
Paul is not coldly discussing predestination.
He is grieving over people he loves.
His theology has tears in it.
Whatever conclusions we reach from Romans 9, we should hear Paul's anguish before we begin debating his words.
LOOK AT WHAT ISRAEL RECEIVED
Paul lists Israel's extraordinary privileges.
“They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.”
— Romans 9:4
Then:
“To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.”
— Romans 9:5
Think about that list.
Israel received the covenants.
Israel received the Law.
Israel received the promises.
The patriarchs belonged to Israel.
And ultimately:
The Messiah came through Israel.
God certainly had not ignored Israel.
Israel had been at the center of God's unfolding plan.
THEN WHAT WENT WRONG?
Here is the problem.
If Israel received all those promises, why had so many Israelites rejected the Messiah?
Had God's plan failed?
Paul answers directly:
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed.”
— Romans 9:6
That sentence gives us the question Paul is answering.
Has God's word failed?
Paul says:
No.
Now he explains why.
“NOT ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ISRAEL BELONG TO ISRAEL”
Paul says:
“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”
— Romans 9:6
That is a crucial sentence.
Physical descent from Abraham never automatically guaranteed participation in God's promise.
Paul has already prepared us for this.
Back in Romans 2 he said:
“No one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly.”
And in Romans 4 he showed that Abraham is the father of all who believe.
Now Paul returns to Israel's own history to prove the point.
ABRAHAM HAD MORE THAN ONE SON
Paul writes:
“And not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.”
— Romans 9:7
Abraham had more than one son.
Ishmael was Abraham's physical descendant.
Yet the promise continued through Isaac.
Paul quotes:
“Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
Physical descent from Abraham was not enough.
God's promise determined the line through which His purpose would continue.
CHILDREN OF THE FLESH AND CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE
Paul explains:
“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
— Romans 9:8
That is Paul's explanation—not ours.
Physical descent alone was never the deciding factor.
God's purpose moved according to His promise.
Paul has already spent Romans 4 explaining that God's family is ultimately defined by promise and faith, not merely physical ancestry.
So Romans 9 is not appearing out of nowhere.
It continues an argument Paul has already begun.
ISAAC WAS A CHILD OF PROMISE
Paul quotes the promise:
“About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
— Romans 9:9
Isaac existed because God had promised him.
Human circumstances said Sarah could not have a child.
God's promise said otherwise.
And God's promise prevailed.
Again, Paul's larger point is:
God's word has not failed.
THEN PAUL MOVES TO JACOB AND ESAU
Paul gives another example.
Isaac and Ishmael had different mothers.
Someone might argue that this explained the difference between them.
So Paul gives a stronger example.
Jacob and Esau had:
the same father,
the same mother,
and were conceived at the same time.
Paul says:
“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac...”
— Romans 9:10
Then Paul tells us something important.
Before the twins were born...
before either had done good or evil...
God made a choice.
WHAT WAS GOD CHOOSING?
Paul says:
“Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls...”
— Romans 9:11
Then:
“She was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’”
— Romans 9:12
This passage is often immediately turned into a discussion about which individual babies God chose to save eternally and which He chose to condemn eternally.
But before reaching that conclusion, we should ask our usual question:
What does the text actually say God chose?
The quotation says:
“The older will serve the younger.”
That quotation comes from Genesis 25:23.
And there God told Rebekah:
“Two nations are in your womb.”
Jacob and Esau were individuals.
But they also represented two peoples.
Israel came through Jacob.
Edom came through Esau.
And God chose Jacob's line for the unfolding of His covenant purpose.
“JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED”
Then Paul quotes:
“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
— Romans 9:13
Those words do not come from the Genesis account of the babies' birth.
They come from Malachi 1:2–3, written many centuries later.
And Malachi is talking about:
Israel and Edom.
Jacob represents Israel.
Esau represents Edom.
That context matters.
If we read Paul's quotation without asking where it came from, we can easily make it say more than Paul has demonstrated.
LET THE OLD TESTAMENT HELP DEFINE PAUL'S WORDS
This is exactly why we should look up Old Testament quotations when reading the New Testament.
Paul quotes:
“The older will serve the younger.”
Go back to Genesis and we find:
“Two nations are in your womb.”
Paul quotes:
“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Go back to Malachi and we find a discussion of:
Israel and Edom.
That doesn't settle every question about election in Romans 9.
But it tells us something important about the examples Paul chose.
They concern God's sovereign right to choose the people and line through whom His purpose would move forward.
GOD CHOSE THE LINE — NOT BECAUSE OF HUMAN MERIT
Why Jacob rather than Esau?
Because Jacob had earned it?
No.
The choice was announced:
“Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad.”
God's plan did not depend upon Jacob earning the privilege.
God was free to carry out His own purpose.
And that purpose eventually brought us to Christ.
Remember what Paul just said:
“From their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.”
This is the story of God's promise moving through history toward Jesus.
IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL SALVATION?
Individual salvation certainly matters in Romans.
Paul has spent much of the letter explaining how sinners are justified.
But we should be careful about assuming that every example of God's choosing automatically means:
God chose this individual for eternal salvation and that individual for eternal condemnation before either was born.
Paul hasn't said that here.
His examples concern the historical line of promise:
Abraham.
Then Isaac, not Ishmael.
Then Jacob, not Esau.
Through that line came Israel.
And ultimately:
Christ.
Before building a larger doctrine from these verses, we should first allow Paul's examples to function in the argument he is actually making.
WHY DOES THIS ANSWER PAUL'S QUESTION?
Remember the question:
“Has the word of God failed?”
Paul's answer is:
No.
God never promised that physical descent alone determined who belonged to the people of promise.
Even within Abraham's physical family, God distinguished between:
physical descendants
and:
children of promise.
So the unbelief of many physical Israelites does not mean God's promise failed.
Paul is only beginning his argument.
But his first point is clear:
God's purpose has always moved according to His promise—not merely according to physical ancestry.
READ PAUL BEFORE READING A SYSTEM INTO PAUL
Romans 9 is one of those chapters where we can arrive carrying a theological system before we have read Paul's argument.
Let's resist that temptation.
Start with Paul's own question:
Has God's word failed?
Then follow Paul's evidence.
Israel had tremendous privileges.
Yet physical ancestry alone never guaranteed participation in God's promise.
Ishmael was Abraham's descendant.
Esau was Isaac's son.
Yet God chose the line through:
Isaac.
Then:
Jacob.
And through that line eventually came:
Jesus Christ.
That's where Paul's argument has taken us so far.
Let's not run ahead of him.
BEFORE YOU LEAVE
Ask the passage:
Why is Paul grieving?
Because many of his fellow Israelites are separated from Christ.
Had Israel received God's promises and privileges?
Absolutely.
Does their unbelief mean God's word failed?
Paul says:
No.
Was every physical descendant of Abraham automatically a child of promise?
No.
What did God tell Rebekah?
“Two nations are in your womb.”
Where does “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” come from?
Malachi's discussion of Israel and Edom.
Paul's argument isn't finished.
In fact, he knows his answer raises an immediate objection:
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?”
That is exactly where we'll begin next.
NEXT: IS GOD UNJUST?
Romans 9:14–29
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
Questions or comments?
Agree or disagree—we'd like to hear from you. Use the response form on our Home page