Neither, because they are Abraham’s offspring, are they all children. But, “your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as heirs. For this is a word of promise, “At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only so, but Rebekah also conceived by one, by our father Isaac. For being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger.” Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Show the surrounding paragraph
Romans 9:7-13 sits inside this longer paragraph.
But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel. Neither, because they are Abraham’s offspring, are they all children. But, “your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as heirs. For this is a word of promise, “At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only so, but Rebekah also conceived by one, by our father Isaac. For being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger.” Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Parallel Translations
-
Neither, because they are Abraham’s offspring, are they all children. But, “your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac.”
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as heirs.
For this is a word of promise, “At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.”
Not only so, but Rebekah also conceived by one, by our father Isaac.
For being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls,
it was said to her, “The elder will serve the younger.”
Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
-
nether are they all chyldren strayght waye because they are the seed of Abraham. But in Isaac shall thy seede be called:
that is to saye they which are the chyldren of the flesshe are not the chyldren of god. But the chyldren of promes are counted the seede.
For this is a worde of promes aboute this tyme will I come and Sara shall have a sonne.
Nether was it so with her only: but also when Rebecca was with chylde by one I meane by oure father Isaac
yeer the chyldren were borne when they had nether done good nether bad: that the purpose of God which is by election myght stonde it was sayde vnto her not by the reason of workes but by grace of the caller:
the elder shall serve the yonger.
As it is written: Iacob he loved but Esau he hated.
Show all 3 translations
-
Neither are they all children, because they are the seede of Abraham: but, In Isaac shall thy seede be called:
That is, they which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, are counted for the seede.
For this is a worde of promise, In this same time wil I come, and Sara shall haue a sonne.
Neither he onely felt this, but also Rebecca when shee had conceiued by one, euen by our father Isaac.
For yer the children were borne, and when they had neither done good, nor euill (that the purpose of God might remaine according to election, not by workes, but by him that calleth)
It was said vnto her, The elder shall serue the yonger.
As it is written, I haue loued Iacob, and haue hated Esau.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (2)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (53)
- Malachi 1:2-3 (v13) “I have loved you,” says Yahweh. Yet you say, “How have you loved us?” “Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?” says Yahweh, “Yet I loved Jacob; but…
- Genesis 18:10 (v9) He said, “I will certainly return to you at about this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son.” Sarah heard in the…
- Genesis 21:12 (v7) God said to Abraham, “Don’t let it be grievous in your sight because of the boy, and because of your servant. In all that Sarah says to…
- 2 Timothy 1:9 (v11) who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to…
- Genesis 18:14 (v9) Is anything too hard for Yahweh? At the set time I will return to you, when the season comes round, and Sarah will have a son.”
Show all 53 cross-references
- John 1:13 (v8) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
- Ephesians 1:4-5 (v11) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without defect before him in love, having…
- Hebrews 11:18 (v7) to whom it was said, “Your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac,”
- Romans 4:11-16 (v8) He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, that he might…
- Genesis 17:21 (v9) But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this set time next year.”
- Genesis 25:22-23 (v12) The children struggled together within her. She said, “If it is like this, why do I live?” She went to inquire of Yahweh. Yahweh said to…
- Galatians 3:26-29 (v8) For you are all children of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There…
- 2 Peter 1:10 (v11) Therefore, brothers, be more diligent to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble.
- Romans 8:14 (v8) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are children of God.
- Romans 8:28-30 (v11) We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, for those who are called according to his purpose. For whom he…
- Ephesians 1:9-11 (v11) making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him to an administration of the fullness of…
- Genesis 21:2 (v9) Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
- John 8:37-39 (v7) I know that you are Abraham’s offspring, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I say the things which I have seen…
- Galatians 4:22-31 (v8) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the servant was born…
- Hebrews 11:11-12 (v9) By faith, even Sarah herself received power to conceive, and she bore a child when she was past age, since she counted him faithful who had…
- Titus 3:5 (v11) not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and…
- 1 John 3:1-2 (v8) See how great a love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God! For this cause the world doesn’t know us,…
- Genesis 25:21-23 (v10) Isaac entreated Yahweh for his wife, because she was barren. Yahweh was entreated by him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. The children…
- Isaiah 14:24 (v11) Yahweh of Armies has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so shall it happen; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
- Romans 11:5-7 (v11) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of…
- Galatians 4:23 (v7) However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 (v11) But we are bound to always give thanks to God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation…
- 1 Peter 5:10 (v11) But may the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little while, perfect,…
- Revelation 17:14 (v11) These will war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and those who are with him…
- Psalms 87:6 (v8) Yahweh will count, when he writes up the peoples, “This one was born there.”
- Romans 4:17 (v11) As it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations.” This is in the presence of him whom he believed: God, who gives life to the…
- Hebrews 11:17 (v9) By faith, Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac. Yes, he who had gladly received the promises was offering up his one and only son,
- Genesis 31:15 (v8) Aren’t we considered as foreigners by him? For he has sold us, and has also used up our money.
- Psalms 22:30 (v8) Posterity shall serve him. Future generations shall be told about the Lord.
- Psalms 51:5 (v11) Behold, I was born in iniquity. My mother conceived me in sin.
- Isaiah 14:26-27 (v11) This is the plan that is determined for the whole earth. This is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For Yahweh of Armies…
- Isaiah 46:10-11 (v11) I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done. I say: My counsel will stand, and I will do all…
- Ephesians 2:9 (v11) not of works, that no one would boast.
- Isaiah 23:9 (v11) Yahweh of Armies has planned it, to stain the pride of all glory, to bring into contempt all the honorable of the earth.
- Luke 3:8 (v7) Therefore produce fruits worthy of repentance, and don’t begin to say among yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father;’ for I tell you…
- Luke 16:26 (v10) Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that no…
- Ephesians 2:3 (v11) We also all once lived among them in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of…
- Philippians 3:3 (v7) For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh;
- 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (v11) We know, brothers loved by God, that you are chosen,
- 2 Samuel 8:14 (v12) He put garrisons in Edom. Throughout all Edom, he put garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David. Yahweh gave victory to…
- 1 Kings 22:47 (v12) There was no king in Edom. A deputy ruled.
- Luke 16:24-25 (v7) He cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue!…
- Luke 16:30 (v7) “He said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’
- John 8:33 (v7) They answered him, “We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, ‘You will be made free’?”
- Romans 5:3 (v10) Not only this, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces perseverance;
- Romans 5:11 (v10) Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
- Ephesians 3:11 (v11) according to the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.
- 1 Thessalonians 2:12 (v11) to the end that you should walk worthily of God, who calls you into his own Kingdom and glory.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (25 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv7–13 7. But, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”…
7. But, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Paul mentions this, to show that the hidden election of God overrules the outward calling, and that it is yet by no means inconsistent with it, but, on the contrary, that it tends to its confirmation and completion. That he might then in due order prove both, he in the first place assumes, that the election of God is not tied to the natural descendants of Abraham, and that it is not a thing that is included in the conditions of the covenant: and this is what he now confirms by a most suitable example. For if there ought to have been any natural progeny, which fell not away from the covenant; this ought to have been especially the case with those who obtained the privilege at first: but when we find, that of the first sons of Abraham, while he was yet alive, and the promise new, one of them was separated as the seed, how much more might the same thing have taken place in his distant posterity? Now this testimony is taken from Genesis 17:20, where the Lord gives an answer to Abraham, that he had heard his prayer for Ishmael, but that there would be another on whom the promised blessing would rest. It hence follows, that some men are by special privilege elected out of the chosen people, in whom the common adoption becomes efficacious and valid.
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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv7–12 The first proof is taken from the example of…
The first proof is taken from the example of Abraham’s own house, wherein Isaac only was counted the son, and that by God’s ordinance: although that Ishmael also was born of Abraham, and circumcised before Isaac.
Isaac shall be thy true and natural son, and therefore heir of thy blessing.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv7–13 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham,…
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Ver. 7. Neither because they are] This profiteth them no more than it did Dives that Abraham called him son.
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.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv7–13 He had before made a difference of Israelites, and…
He had before made a difference of Israelites, and now he makes a difference of the seed of Abraham. This was ever and anon in the mouths of the Jews: We are Abraham’s seed, Joh 8:33. But here he tells them, that all Abraham’s seed were not the children of the promise; for it was said to Sarah, Gen 21:12, that the promised seed should be confined to Isaac’s line, of his issue should the Messiah come, and all the true seed of Abraham, who are born after the manner of Isaac, by the word and promise of God. And as Ishmael, though Abraham’s natural seed, was cast out, and therein was a type of those who are born only according to the flesh; so Isaac is a type of Abraham’s spiritual seed, who are born not of the power of nature, but by virtue of the promise of God.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v10 Our apostle having in the foregoing verses proved, from…
Our apostle having in the foregoing verses proved, from what was done in Abraham’s family, that it was the purpose and pleasure of God to account only those for Abraham’s seed who were the children of his faith, and to reject the rest for their unbelief; in these verses he prosecutes the same argument, by insisting upon another special dispensation of God in the family of Isaac, whose wife Rebecca had twins, namely Jacob and Esau, and had neither of them anything in them to move God to love the one and dislike the other: yet a preference was given to the one before the other.
So that the apostle’s argument runs thus: "As Jacob and Esau were begotten of the same father, born of the same mother, laid together in the same womb, and had neither of them done anything at all to oblige or disoblige Almighty God; yet he was pleased to make a difference between them and their posterity after them, giving the beloved Canaan to Jacob and his seed, which by birth-right belonged to Esau and his offspring: so in like manner is it the will and pleasure of God, that the believing Gentiles should become heirs of the promise by faith in Christ, and that the unbelieving Jews should be rejected and cast off for their infidelity."
Read full note →
Learn hence, 1. That Almighty God chooses persons to the participation of divine favours.
Learn, 2. That the choice which God makes of men to the enjoyment of that special favour of being his peculiar people is not according to their external privileges or works, but according to his own free pleasures.
Learn, 3. That as Jacob’s and Esau’s being unborn, and having done neither good nor evil, is used as an argument to prove, that the choice of the one before the other could not be of works; so it is a strong argument against the preexistence of souls, and their being sent into bodies by way of punishment for former sins. For upon that supposition it could not be true, that the children had done neither good nor evil before they were born, seeing they might both have sinned in that state of pre-existence.
Learn, 4, and observe, That the apostle doth not say, That before the children had done either good or evil, God said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated: but only the elder shall serve the younger.
Hatred here may be taken two ways, either,
1. For a less degree of love; God preferring the seed of Jacob before the posterity of Essau, giving the former the good land of Canaan, to the latter the barren mountains of Seir.
Or, 2. If hatred be taken in the strictest sense, the God is said to hate Esau, that is, the Edomites, after their wicked and unnatural behaviour towards their brethren the Israelites; and upon that occaion see For thy violence against thy brother, Jacob, shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever Oba 1:10.
Nothing renders a person the object of God’s hatred but sin; he doth not hate the devil himself, as he is his creature, but only as he is a sinner. God adjudges none to eternal perdition, but with respect to sin.
Observe, 5. That Jacob and Esau are not here to be considered personally, but collectively; for the Israel that descended from Jacob, and for the Edomites which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did serve the Israelites. Thus the elder did serve the younger.
Again, it appears that Job and all his friends were of the posterity of Esau: God did not then hate the person of all the posterity of Esau, but only those of them who by their violence and wickedness rendered themselves the object of his hatred.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv7–13 That is, they which are the children of the…
That is, they which are the children of the flesh,.... This is an explanation of the foregoing verse, and shows, that by "the seed of" Abraham are meant, the natural seed of Abraham, who are born after the flesh, or descend from him by carnal generation:
these are not the children of God; that is, not all of them, nor any of them, on account of their being children of the flesh, or Abraham's natural seed; for adoption does not come this way; men do not commence children of God by their fleshly descent; they are not "born of blood", but of God, who are the sons of God:
Read full note →
but the children of the promise are counted for the seed; "children of the covenant", is a common phrase with the Jews; who reckoned themselves as such, because they were the seed of Abraham: thus in their prayers they say (e) to God,
"we are thy people, , "the children of thy covenant", the children of Abraham thy friend.''
And so they were the children of the covenant, or promise, which God made with Abraham and his natural seed, respecting the land of Canaan, and their enjoyment of temporal good things in it; but they were not all of them the children of the promise, which God made to Abraham and his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles, respecting spiritual and eternal things; to whom alone the promises of God, being their God in a spiritual sense, of spiritual and eternal salvation by Christ, and of the grace of the Spirit of God, and of eternal life belong; and who are the seed which were promised to Abraham by God, saying, "thou shalt be a father of many nations", Gen 17:4, for which reasons, because these spiritual promises belong to them, and because they themselves were promised to Abraham, as his children, therefore they are called "children of the promise": or rather, because as Isaac was a child of promise, being born after the Spirit, by virtue of the promise of God, through his divine power and goodness, when there were no ground or foundation in nature, for Abraham and Sarah to hope for a son; so these are called "children of promise", Gal 4:28, because they are born again, not through the power of nature, and strength of their own free will; they are not born of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, according to the will of God and his abundant mercy, by the word of truth, through his power, Spirit, and grace; and by faith receive the promises made unto them; and are counted and reckoned as "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise", Gal 3:29, whether they be Jews, or whether they be Gentiles: and since now the promises of God are all made good to these persons, the word of God is not without effect, or is not made void, by the casting off the children of the flesh, or the carnal seed of Abraham, who were not children of the promise in the sense now given.
(e) Seder Tephillot, fol. 3. 2. Ed. Basil. fol. 6. 1. Ed. Amstelod.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 Neither because they are lineally the seed of Abraham,…
Neither because they are lineally the seed of Abraham, 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 - That is, Isaac, not Ishmael, shall be called thy seed; that seed to which the promise is made.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv7–12 Verse 7. Neither because they are the seed of…
Verse 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, c.] Nor can they conclude, because they are the natural descendants of Abraham, that therefore they are all of them, without exception, the children in whom the promise is to be fulfilled.
But, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.] The promise is not confined to immediate natural descent, but may be accomplished in any part of Abraham's posterity. For Abraham had several sons besides Isaac, Ge 25:1, Ge 25:2, particularly Ishmael, who was circumcised before Isaac was born, and in whom Abraham was desirous that the promise should be fulfilled, Ge 17:18, and in him God might have fulfilled the promise, had he so pleased and yet he said to Abraham, Ge 21:12: Not in Ishmael, but in Isaac, shall thy seed be called.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v9 Rom 9:9-13. For this is the word of promise…
Rom 9:9-13. For this is the word of promise — To show that Isaac was a son of promise, (and so a meet type of those that should be begotten of God by the promise of the gospel through faith,) he cites the words of the promise in substance, by which Isaac was begotten and born. See Gen 17:20; Gen 18:10; in which places two circumstances are mentioned, the one of God’s coming to fulfil his promise, in causing Sarah to have a son; the other of the set time when he would thus come; which plainly evince Isaac to have been a son of promise, conceived and born by virtue of that peculiar promise, which Abraham and Sarah believed, in order to his conception. At this time — As if he had said, Even now, though thy body and Sarah’s are dead, or at the time which I now appoint; I will come — Will manifest my power, and she shall conceive, and have a son — And he only shall inherit the blessing, and not whosoever is born of thee. Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God’s children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. — And that God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil — The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand — Whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works — Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that calleth — Of his own good pleasure, who calls to the enjoyment of particular privileges whom he sees good. “Nothing can be more evident,” says Mr. Sellon, “to any one that considers the beginning and end of this chapter, than that the apostle is not speaking of the election of particular persons to eternal life, but of particular nations to outward church privileges, which duly used, through Christ, should be the means of bringing men to eternal life, and to higher degrees of glory therein than others should enjoy, who were not favoured with these privileges. Nor is God, the great Governor of the world, on this account, any more to be deemed a respecter of persons, than an earthly king, who takes some of his subjects for lords of his bed- chamber, and others for lower employments; since he will make them all, that behave well in their station, completely happy.” See his Works, vol. 2. p. 134. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger — Not in person, for Esau never served Jacob; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. But though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation: as little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites, in David’s days, a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. Add to this, that the circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very properly taken notice of to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favour: but if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever. As it is written — With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees; I have loved Jacob — With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob; and I have comparatively hated Esau — That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1st, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau: 2d, Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the Scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. And his intent herein, as appears from Rom 9:30-33, (which passage is a key to the whole chapter,) is evidently to show, that as God before chose Jacob, who represented the Jews, and admitted him and his posterity to peculiar privileges, above the Gentiles, without any merit in him or them to deserve it; so now, (the Jews through their unbelief having rejected the Messiah, and being justly therefore themselves rejected of God,) he had chosen the Gentiles, represented by Esau, to be his peculiar people; according to the prediction of Hosea, I will call them my people, &c., cited Rom 9:25, where see the note; and that without any thing on their part to deserve this favour. It was entirely free with respect both to them and Jacob, God’s mercy and goodness preventing, not the endeavour only, but even the will of both. As, before Jacob either willed or strove for it, the blessing was designed of God for him; so, before ever the Gentiles sought after God, the blessings of Christ’s kingdom were designed for them. Yet it does not follow that all who are called Christians, and enjoy outward church privileges, shall be finally saved, any more than it is to be concluded that all the Jews were saved before Christ came in the flesh, on account of their privileges.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv7–13 Are they all children - Adopted into the true…
Are they all children - Adopted into the true family of God. Many of the descendants of Abraham were rejected.
But in Isaac - This was the promise; Gen 21:12.
Read full note →
Shall thy seed ... - Thy true people. This implied a selection, or choice; and therefore the doctrine of election was illustrated in the very commencement of the history of the nation; and as God had then made such a distinction, he might still do it. As he had then rejected a part of the natural descendants of Abraham, so he might still do it. This is the argument which the apostle is pursuing.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv9–10 To prove that the children of Abraham are the…
To prove that the children of Abraham are the children of the promise, he adduces the passage of Scripture: "I will come in a year’s time, and Sara shall have a son." (Genesis xviii.) This promised child was Isaac, the true son of the promise of God, and of the faith of Abraham; and not the son of the flesh, for Ismael was this as well as Isaac; but he was granted to the prayers of Abraham, a child of the grace and mercy of God. All the faithful, therefore, of whatever race or nation they may be, are in this sense the children of Abraham, by being gratuitously chosen by God, and by the fidelity in which they are imitators of Abraham. (Calmet)
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).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv7, 10 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are…
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children--"Not in the line of mere fleshly descent from Abraham does the election run; else Ishmael, Hagar's child, and even Keturah's children, would be included, which they were not."
but--the true election are such of Abraham's seed as God unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in that promise.
Read full note →
in Isaac shall thy seed be called-- (Gen 21:12).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 7. Children—That is, children and heirs of the Abrahamic…
7. Children—That is, children and heirs of the Abrahamic promise; for that promise includes the natural seed only as they are the faith-seed, and comprehends all the faith-seed of the earth, even though not natural seed.
In Isaac—As the representative lineal personage in whose name all the faithful are called to be seed.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv7–13 7. neither because, &c.] An illustration from manifest fact,…
7. neither because, &c.] An illustration from manifest fact, to shew that an apparently inclusive promise may be limited. We may paraphrase: “Abraham’s descendants, again, are not all his ‘children’ in the sense contemplated, just because they are his descendants; on the contrary, there is a distinct limitation: ‘in Isaac and his line are they who shall bear the title of thy seed.’ ”—The cases of Israel’s and Abraham’s “children” are not here precisely parallel; because all Israel’s bodily descendants inherited a Promise, in some sense. But the second case illustrates the possibility of a limitation in the first.
In Isaac, &c.] The quotation is verbatim from LXX., Gen_21:12, and literally according to the Hebrew. It is introduced without “It is written,” as being perfectly well known with its context. See on Rom_4:18.
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 12 (7) Neither are all the bodily descendants of Abraham…
(7) Neither are all the bodily descendants of Abraham also his spiritual descendants. It was expressly stated from the first that the promise was confined to a particular branch of his posterity. The posterity of Abraham, strictly so called, was to be that derived through Isaac. This is very nearly the sense of the original, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” i.e., in “Isaac shalt thou have posterity, which shall be called thy posterity”—“true and legitimate descendants,” thus excluding the seed of Hagar.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 11, 13 Vers. 8, 9. That is, They which are the…
Vers. 8, 9. 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 seed. For the word of promise is this, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. (Gen_18:10) In other words, it is not in virtue of mere carnal descent, but of the promise, that any are so counted; mere carnal descent establishes no claim. It is to be observed that in the first recorded promises to Abraham (Gen_13:15 Gen_15:5 Gen_17:7) there was no restriction; and so through Ishmael, who is also called Abraham"s seed, (Gen_21:13) as well as through Isaac, the fulfilment might have been. But the subsequent promise (Gen_17:19, 21 18:10, 14) limited it to Isaac; which limiting promise is, therefore, in ver. 9, referred to. With tekna tou Yeou in ver. 8 Compare h uioyesiaa (ver. 4), and also Isa_63:16. The apostle may have been led to use the expression here in view of the spiritual sonship to God of Christianswhich (cf. Rom_8:15, etc.) was typified and prepared for by the uioyesia of the chosen seed. A still further limitation of "the children of the promise" is next referred to; and one still more telling for the apostle"s argument. It might be said that Ishmael was not, even carnally, the true seed, as being born, not of the with, but of the bondwoman; or perhaps that he had forfeited any claim he might have had by his proved unworthiness. (Gen_21:9, etc.) But Esau and Jacob were twin children, not only of the same patriarch (ex enov), but also of the same wedded wife; and yet one was chosen and the other rejected, and this even before birth; so that, as the selection was not due to carnal descent, so neither could it be due to proved desert. Thus by this second consideration is disposed of the Jew"s assertion of an indefeasible claim to inheritance of the promises on the ground of his boasted works, as by the other is disposed of his claim on the ground of his race. St. Paul"s argument to the Jews of his own day would be You cannot set up a claim to be all of you the necessary inheritors of the promises for all time on the ground either of your carnal descent or of your works, since the selection of Israel himself did not depend on either of these grounds; nor can you say that my position (viz. that Christian believers, to the exclusion of most of you, are now the true inheritors of the promises) implies unfaithfulness in God to his ancient promises; for it is in accordance with the principle on which, according to your own Scriptures, he fulfilled of old his promises to the patriarchs. St. Paul, however, is not to be understood here as writing with a direct polemical intention, but rather as discussing a problem which had at one time perplexed himself, and which seemed to him to call for solution.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv8, 10, 13 For I could wish that myself were accursed from…
Rom_9:8
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.
Read full note →
St. Pauls wish
A considerable group of expositors have regarded the first moiety of this verse as parenthetical, I have great heaviness and sorrow of heart (for I myself used to wish to be accursed from the Messiah) for my brethren, etc. The apostle is supposed to be referring to his own infatuation during the time of his antagonism to Christ and Christianity, for the purpose of obliquely depicting, from the standpoint of his own experience, the lamentable condition of his countrymen, and of thus accounting for the overwhelming sorrow under which he was suffering. Others, without the mechanical parenthetical expedient, give substantially the same interpretation, I was wishing, viz., at a former period, not now. But it is impossible that the apostle was speaking historically. The expression is a Greek idiom meaning, I could pray or wish to God--an idiom which grew out of the imperfect or incomplete tense, I was praying. If it were wished to represent the act as completed some other tense would be required. Take another instance (Gal_4:20). I could wish (for reasons obvious enough, and if my ether engagements did not forbid) to be once more in the midst of you. Or (Act_25:22) Agrippa said to Festus, I also could wish to hear the man myself (viz., if it were not, O Festus, trespassing too far on your indulgence). So in the case before us I could wish to God to be vicariously an anathema for my kinsmen, if my conceptions of my duty on the one hand, and of Gods wisdom and will on the other, would allow me to carry forth into completion such a desire and such a prayer. The apostle did not actually desire to be an anathema. He knew that such a desire would never be Divinely fulfilled, and hence he did not cherish it. A wise man keeps his desires under control. A pious man takes Gods desires and purposes into account, and does not entertain any desire which he knows to be at variance with the Divine will, or with the arrangements that are dependent on the Divine will. Hence it is that the apostle does not say, I desire, but only I could desire. So far as he was concerned, he was ready for the self-sacrifice, provided it was legitimate, and could be efficacious. It would not, however, have been of avail, and hence the wish was never fully formed. The potential did not pass into the actual. It is true that the potential translation of the verb, though doubtless the only correct one under the circumstances, is nevertheless an imperfect reflection of the original imperfect tense. The tense is a time, not a potency; but it is a past tense incomplete. Hence the real idea of the word is I was desiring. The desire rose up in the apostles heart, and to a certain extent he allowed it, yet only to a certain extent, for a higher desire struck in and controlled it--the desire to be in perfect accord with Gods desire and will. Hence it hung suspended, and remained imperfect. It was conditional, and the condition that would have brought it to maturity was never forthcoming. Thus the embryo desire was in reality but a potency. It may now be further noticed that the word means properly I could pray. The word is so rendered in 2Co_13:7; Jam_5:16, and has really that meaning in 2Co_13:9; 3Jn_1:2; Act_27:29. In the last text they lifted up their desires to their gods and prayed for the break of day. The word only occurs elsewhere in Act_26:29. If I might venture to use the liberty of openly expressing the fulness of my feeling, I would audibly lift up my prayer to God. Hence our text is admirably expressed in our idiomatic I could wish to God. It is impossible to believe that St. Paul ever presented such a prayer. The utmost stretch of conceivability extends no farther than this--that the apostle felt, time after time, the incompleted uprising of an impulse to pray that if it were compatible with all great interests, permission might be given him to be, by the sacrifice of his own happiness, the means of rescuing his infatuated countrymen from their doom. Such sacrifice he would gladly make, if it were among the moral possibilities. (J. Morison, D.D.)
Pauls wish
The word accursed often signifies no more than being devoted to temporal death, or being made a sacrifice of (Deu_21:23, cf. Gal_3:16), and the words from Christ may signify after Christ, i.e., after His example (2Ti_1:3). The verse then would read thus: I could be content, nay, I should rejoice to be made a sacrifice myself, as Christ has been before me, for my brethren. (D. Waterland, D.D.)
Accursed from Christ
The solutions that have been offered of this difficult text group themselves under one or other of the three following alternatives.
I. If his Jewish kinsmen could only thereby be saved, Paul could himself sublimely consent to be finally damned. Many have so understood him, and applauded the sentiment as the climax of the morally sublime, as exhibiting a love stronger than death, because stronger than even hell. But is this a Christ-like love? When did Christ consent to be made a curse in a sense so vile, or incur a doom so final? For me to wish myself accursed from Christ for any end whatever, would be to wish not only doom, but sin. So far from glorifying God, it would but dishonour and contradict Him, for it would be to choose as a means of good what God brands as the very quintessence of evil.
II. A qualified and softened sense that falls short of final doom.
1. Some have taken the phrase, accursed from Christ, to mean temporal death, in proof of which appeal is made to the prayer of Moses in Exo_32:32. But Moses expression for temporal death presents no parallelism whatever to the apostles expression. Moreover, if Paul meant temporal death, what could he mean by from Christ? Temporal death, so far from separating the believer from Christ, cuts short all seeming separation. Anathema originally denoted the act of depositing gifts in temples, and also the votive offerings themselves. These were of course sacred and irrevocable. When the gift was a living creature, beast or man, the life was devoted in sacrifice. Hence devoted stands for doomed. In the spiritual sphere the doom thus expressed was utter and final. As anathema from Christ the life, what less could it be? This we find to be its intensity of meaning in all the other places in which the word occurs in the New Testament (Act_23:14 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22; Gal_1:8-9). Thus the words accursed from Christ refuse to be softened down. Whatever final damnation may mean, all that they mean. Nor will it in the least help the matter to resort to the forms of Jewish excommunication, for in its milder form of expulsion from the synagogue, the phrase before us is far too strong, and is never once so employed: while in its direr form of thorough Jewish malediction, it embraced all the terrors of eternal judgment.
2. Turn we now to the opening expression I could wish. The tense in the original is the imperfect: and the explanation given is I was wishing, only it was no use. But if Paul wished, in any degree and for any reason, to be accursed from Christ, he wished what was wrong. If he wished, or professed to wish, an acknowledged impossibility, he simply trifled with his readers, and with his tragic theme. And if he did not really wish at all, then his words reduce themselves at best to a simple extravagance. That be far from our apostle (see verse 1).
III. The historical interpretation remains.
1. The tense used is the imperfect, and the most literal rendering would be, I wished. In Gal_1:13 the same tense occurs, and that, too, in an affirmation very parallel to the one before us. Had our translators rendered that imperfect tense there as they have done here we should have had, I could persecute.
2. Again note that the word myself stands connected with the word wished. For I myself used to wish to be accursed from Christ. This makes it clear that he takes us back to his unconverted past. It is as if he had said, I myself used to hurl those curses which you are now launching at the Nazarene. I, even I, once dared the doom you now defy, and it is because I once did so, and now see the terrible doom I incurred, that I feel such sorrow for my kinsmen.
3. But how Paul could be said to wish this dreadful anathema for his brethrens sake? Granting that the connection is the true one the answer would be, Paul did all this as a zealous Jew, devotedly attached to his nation, and thinking that he was doing them, as well as God, service by those dreadful maledictions. But the clause is clearly parenthetical. The sorrow, not the wish, is for his brethren.
4. But if the words accursed from Christ mean nothing less than final doom, how, even in his unconverted state, could Paul have wished that? The answer is that the Jewish anathema was double-edged. It might be launched directly at Jesus, and doubtless it often was by Paul amid his breathings of threatening and slaughter. But it might also take the more indirect form of imprecating direst anathemas upon himself if he espoused the cause of the Nazarene.
5. But while recalling the past he cannot forget the present. To his unbelieving sense the anathemas at that past period meant one thing. To his now Christianised sense they are seen to have meant infinitely direr things than he then conceived. He now saw that the Nazarene was no false Messiah, but the true; hence the significant use of the article in the original, accursed from the Christ. He wished, and willed, that rejection of Christ which leads to the curse of utter and irremediable woe.
IV. Conclusion.
1. Let the reckless dealer in common oaths beware. His lightly uttered blasphemies may have more momentum than he thinks. Your oaths may fasten on your soul a lasting curse.
2. Be not hasty in your conclusions. Paul once allowed himself to be borne away by the current. He had need to save himself from that untoward generation. So have we from ours. We may have to breast the current that would else float us past Christ, and drift us to ruin.
3. See how remote Christianity is from Pharisaism. The Pharisees scowled on Jesus because He was the friend of sinners. They cared for no mans soul. Now, if we want a picture the very opposite of that, we may behold it here in Paul. But that same Paul was himself once a Pharisee. And lo! here he stands stripped of the last shred of his Pharisaic cloak, and dissolved in tender tears for the souls of his fellows!
4. We have here a splendid example of love to our deadly foes. This word anathema may remind us of what dire anathemas those very Jews pronounced over this same Paul (Act_23:14). And how does he repay them? By returning blessing. So well had he caught the spirit and conned the lesson of his Master (Mat_5:44-45).
5. We have also here a spirit-stirring example of love to souls as souls. It was the spiritual condition and prospects of his Jewish kinsmen that wrung his heart; but Gentiles drew forth this tender concern no less than Jews.
6. How solemn is human life! How tragic is human ruin! How saddening to reflect that such tragedies are hourly enacting themselves under all the sheet-lightning play of laughter and shallow merry-makings of the world! Life is real, life is earnest.
7. How vitally indispensable is the gospel; for is it not implied in our apostles statement that there is life only in Christ? Separation from Christ is here assumed to be separation from bliss, and to be identical with curse.
8. And how free is that gospel! No reprobating decree; else these tears of Paul, if tears of sympathy for men were tears of antipathy and even treachery in relation to God. The grace of God that hath appeared brings salvation unto all men. It is brought to our very door. It is pressed upon us, but not forced. The issue rests with our own free will. Paul the persecutor acted out his wish, or choice; and so with equal freedom did Paul the preacher (Deu_30:19-20). (J. Guthrie, M.A.)
Anathema
The word was originally employed to denote what was by way of consecration put up in a temple. The anathema might be an offering of gratitude for deliverance or some other blessing; or it might be, in the ages of spiritual darkness, a kind of sacred bribe presented to the deity. But whatever it was it would, if of convenient shape and bulk, be hung up on a pillar, or suspended on the wall of the shrine. It thenceforward belonged to the god, and it would have been not only theft but sacrilege for any one, even a priest, to have appropriated it. When the term was adopted by the Greek-speaking Hebrews it was used in exchange for the Hebrew cherem, which had for its radical import the idea of severance. Whatever was by Divine arrangement utterly cut off from any mans enjoyment was cherem to that man. God reserved its use. It was His cherem. If it were a thing that still continued fit for human use, God might assign it to His peculiar servants for their benefit (Lev_27:21; Num_18:14; Eze_44:29), or if that were not desirable He might put it entirely out of the way, or doom it to destruction (1Ki_20:42). Such devotement to destruction is often desirable in a world such as ours, so polluted, perverted, abused. There are things which cannot be turned to better account than to be utterly destroyed. There are moral nuisances which can only be swept away by the besom of destruction. Among these moral nuisances are morally leprous and festering men, who will not be healed of their contagious sores. These and their infected rookeries must be swept away. The sooner the better for society at large. God will be glorified in the work of destruction. Hence anathema, which at first meant something valuable devoted to a god, came, when applied within the sphere of the moral government of the living and true God, to denote objects which had become irreclaimably corrupt, and which consequently He wisely doomed to be destroyed. The apostle disintegrating one particular line of Hebrew thought from amid the complexity of ideas that were woven around the word felt at times that, if the ethical element were eliminated from the case, he could submit to be himself destroyed, even from the presence of his Lord, if thereby his kinsmen could be constituted heirs of everlasting life and bliss. The destruction of which he thought was thus the annihilation, not of his being, but of substantial elements and factors of well-being. (J. Morison, D.D.)
Anathema from Christ
St. Paul closes the previous chapter with the triumphant confidence that neither death nor life, etc., should be able to separate him from the love of God which is in Christ. The inventory of possible separating forces is comprehensive enough, but it is not exhaustive. The apostle omitted one potentiality which, alas! is constantly separating men from the love of Christ--self. The citadel which can resist any combination of external adversaries may fall through the voluntary act of the garrison within. The gate which cannot be battered down can be opened. Men cannot be driven from Christ, but they can go away. But in his rush of inspired feeling St. Paul would not entertain the thought of himself as withdrawing from the love of Christ, and naturally so. He knew himself too well to admit for one moment the likelihood of a guilty abandonment of One who was his life. There was no possibility of spiritual murder, nor probability of spiritual suicide. But the rush of feeling over he now in cool thought recollects that separation from Christ and His love was not only conceivable and possible, but, in certain circumstances, even desirable; and not from a sinfully selfish motive, but for one Divinely philanthropic. His hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved (Rom_10:1). How much depended upon the gratification of that desire in relation to the Jews themselves, to the kingdom of Christ, and Christ Himself, he goes on to show. How was this devoutly wished for consummation to be reached? He had used every means within his power, and had sacrificed every interest but one--his interest in Christ. Could the salvation of his countrymen be accomplished by the sacrifice of this? Would a self-devotion paralleled only by that which extorted the My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? suffice? If so he asked to drink of the same cup, and be baptized with the same baptism--knowing, unlike the sons of Zebedee, what he asked. To secure the worlds redemption the Master did not shrink from the Divine abandonment; to secure the effectual application of that redemption to his kinsmen the servant would not shrink from the abandonment of his Master. The greatness of the issue overshadowed the magnirude of the personal sacrifice. Let us ponder--
I. The wonderful wish. What did it mean?
1. Dismissal from the work of Christ. This was the apostles joy, and not all the persecutions of this world nor all the allurements of the next could tempt him even to wish that he could abandon it. Yet anathema from Christ meant dismissal after all he had accomplished, and prohibition against attempting any more. The labourer was willing to set aside that another might continue and reap the fruits of his labour; the warrior was willing to resign the weapons of the warfare and the laurels of the victory to other hands.
2. Alienation from the friendship of Christ. What the friendship of Christ was to the apostle may be gathered from what he gave to win it, what he did to cherish it, his own testimony to its surpassing worth and the recorded instances of its tenderness and power. This was the effectual consolation of the lonely man in the strange city, in the presence of raging mobs amidst the perils of shipwreck, and at last in the Roman dungeon. Measure then what it must have been for Paul to perfect it. Dissolution of union with Christ. Review his own illustrations of what this oneness was: that between head and body, husband and wife, tree and branches, foundation and building, etc. Christ and Paul were one in life, one in mind, one in heart. Yet Paul was willing to be anathema from all this.
4. Eternal abandomnent by Christ. Life would have been unendurable but for Christ, yet Paul did not shrink from the prospect of eternity without Him.
II. The wonderful wish viewed in the light of its ultimate purpose. Many have become anathema from Christ, abandoned His work, renounced His friendship, sundered the union between them and gone away into everlasting destruction from His presence, for the lowest and most selfish motives. The labour has been felt to be too hard, the friendship too exacting, the union so self-crucifying, and the heaven so holy and so far away. Or association with Christ has barred the way of pleasure, riches, advancement, and renown. In Pauls case self was absolutely annihilated. Christ was all to him, he was willing to renounce that all if by that means others might have it. He was only one, his kindred were many. He was content that he, the unit, should be sacrificed so that the multitude might be blessed. His wish in this view of it was--
1. That his beloved work in other hands might be more successful. Hitherto he had only aroused the hatred of his kinsmen to his Lord. He wished, therefore, to stand aside if another agency could win their love.
2. That by his exclusion from it the circle of Christs friends might be indefinitely enlarged. If mere prejudice against himself were keeping his brethren away, he would gladly forego all the blessed privileges connected with Christs companionship, if his brethren would only come and accept them instead. He would, if possible, view with gratitude from a distance the unceasing spread of Christs influence, and the constantly augmenting number of Christs friends.
3. That the whole race of which he was but a solitary member might become one with Christ at his expense. He saw what this would mean for the world. A Christianised Judaism as a moral force would be irresistible. He, then, would not stand in the way of this.
4. That heaven might be now richly peopled by his exclusion. The thought of the great body of his kinsmen anathema from Christ for ever was so terrible that, if lawful, he would renounce his heavenly hopes that they, instead of himself, might be for ever with the Lord. Conclusion:
1. The wish marks the advance of Christianity beyond all the worlds conceptions of philanthropy. Many sublime sacrifices had been made, but where is the record of such a wish as this? Read it in the light of Rom_5:7-8.
2. The wish could not be gratified. Paul could have devoted himself without sin; but Christ could not have consented. Even such an end could not justify such a means. Christ loves the world, but He loves the individual, and such an individual as Paul could not be sacrificed for the world without the sacrifice of Christs own love and equity as well.
3. The carrying out of the wish is unthinkable. Anathema from Christ from such a motive would necessarily bind more closely to Him. The means of repulsion are the very means of attraction. Pauls wish is the very spirit of Christ; and for Christ to have allowed it would have been for Christ to deny Himself. (J. W. Burn.)
The vicariousness of gospel philanthropy
I. Its strong substitutionary craving. Paul wishes here to suffer for the sake of his brethren. All love is in a sense substitutionary. It suffers for others. The more love a being has in a world of suffering, the more vicarious agony he must endure. Love loads us with the infirmities and sorrows of all around. Christ came here with an infinite love for the whole world; and by an eternal law of sympathy He suffered for the world. But there is, moreover, a craving in love to suffer instead of its object. Does not the mother desire to suffer instead of the babe that lies on the bed of anguish? Substitution of this kind is the law of love.
II. Its self-sacrificing power. The apostle not only desired to suffer instead of his brethren, but to suffer the greatest evil, to sacrifice his all for them. He desired to be anathema from Christ. What does this involve? Terrible enough, says Dean Plumptre, would have been that word anathema if it had brought with it only the thoughts which a Jewish reader would have associated with it. To come under all the curses, dark and dread, which were written in the book of the law; to be cursed in waking and sleeping, going out and coming in, in buying and selling, in the city and in the field; to be shunned, hated as a Samaritan was hated, shut out from fellowship with all human society that had been most prized, from all kindly greeting of friends and neighbours. This was what he would have connected with the words as their least and lowest meaning. The Christian reader, possibly the Jewish also, would have gone yet further. The apostles own words would have taught him to see more. To be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh; to come under sharp pain of body, supernaturally inflicted, and to feel that that excruciating agony or loathsome plague was the deserved chastisement of a sin against truth and light, and to be shut out from all visible fellowship with the body of Christ, and therefore from all communication with Christ Himself; to be as in the outer darkness while the guests were feasting in the illumined chamber, here too to be shunned by those who had been friends and brothers. This would have been the Christians thoughts as to excommunication in the apostolic age. But beyond all this the apostle found a deeper gulf and a more terrible sentence. To be anathema from Christ, cut off for ever from that eternal life which he had known as the truest and highest blessed-ness, sentenced for ever to that outer darkness, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, this was what he prayed for if it might have for its result the salvation of his brethren. Gospel love involves self-abnegation. Self sinks as love rises. Christ is the highest example. He loved us, and He gave Himself for us. Here is the cause and the effect. Love is the high priest of the soul; it offers the whole self.
III. Its soul-saving aim. Why did Paul wish to sacrifice himself? What was the grand object he had in view? The spiritual salvation of his countrymen. The vicarious love of the gospel endures and craves sufferings, not merely or mainly to serve men materially and temporarily, but chiefly spiritually and eternally; to save their souls. It counts no perils too great, no sufferings too distressing, no sacrifices too exacting, in order to redeem immortal spirits from ignorance, selfishness, worldliness, guilt, misery, hell. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
The extravagance of holy love
One of my hearers used to keep puzzling himself fearfully with that passage in Scripture about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. He went and looked at Dr. Gill about it, he went to Thomas Scott about it, and he went to Matthew Henry about it; and these good divines all puzzled him as much as they could, but they did not seem to clear up the matter. The good man could not understand how Jesus Christ could say as He did, How often would I have gathered thee, but thou wouldst not! One day he received more grace, and got to have a love for souls, and then the old skin of narrowmindedness which had been large enough for him once began to crack and break, and he went to the passage then, and said, I can understand it now; I do not know how it is consistent with such and such a doctrine, but it is very consistent with what I feel in my heart. And I feel just the same. I used to be puzzled by that passage where Paul says that he could wish himself accursed from God for his brethrens sake. Why, I have often felt the same, and now I understand how a man can say in the exuberance of his love to others, that he would be willing to perish himself if he might save them. Of course it never could be done, but such is the extravagance of a holy love for souls that it breaks through reason, and knows no bounds. Get the heart right and you get right upon many difficult points. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Heroic devotion
For an example of heroic devotion let us go, not to our own sacred book, but to a heathen story in the Mahabharat. Have you read of Yodhishtera, the stainless king, who, on account of his pure life and tender pity for all that lives, is allowed to enter heaven without tasting death? But, arrived in the presence of the immortal gods, he misses the faces of brothers and friends whom he had loved and lost, and bliss is not blissful to him, and he cries, Show me those souls; I cannot tarry where I bare them not. Heaven is there where love and faith make heaven; let me go. I do desire, he said, that region, be it of the blest, as this, or of the sorrowful, some other where, where my dear brothers are. So where they have gone there will I surely go. He quits the heaven he has gained, and hellwards turns. But while he traverses the place of dread, again the angels invite his return. He answers, Go to those thou servest tell them I come not thither; say I stand here, in the throat of hell, and here will abide, nay, even perish, if my well-beloved may win ease and peace by any pain of mine. Are we going backward? Have we no passion for saving?--no sympathy with the them also I must bring?
Heaven is not heaven to one alone;
Save thou one soul, and thou mayest save thine own.
(Mrs. E. Campagnac.)
A passion for souls
All the great revivalists of the Church have had what has been Galled a passion for souls. John Smith, the mighty Wesleyan preacher, used to say, I am a broken-hearted man; not for myself, but on account of others. God has given me such a sight of the value of precious souls, that I cannot live if souls are not saved. Oh, give me souls, or else I die!
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv7–13 7. Neither because they are Abraham's seed are they…
7. Neither because they are Abraham's seed are they all children. Abraham had other children besides Isaac, notably Ishmael, but none of these belonged to the chosen people, for it was said (Gen. 21:12), In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v9 Rom_9:13. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but…
CRITICAL NOTES
Rom_9:13. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated—There is no necessity to soften the “hated” into “loved less”; the words in Malachi proceed on the fullest meaning of ἐμίσησα (Wordsworth). The words refer to temporal conditions (Alford).
Read full note →
Rom_9:14.—τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν. Formula used in the Jewish schools; employed by Paul as dealing with Jews.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_9:9-16
St. Paul’s deep things.—Augustine asks, How can man understand God, since he does not yet understand his own mind, with which he endeavours to understand Him? This question comes home to the candid and reflective nature. If we were properly penetrated with the sense of our own littleness, we should not presume to compass the infinite greatness. “Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?” Zophar’s questions have only one answer. Neither science nor philosophy nor theological criticism; can find out the Almighty to perfection. A part of the divine ways alone is known. Paul has given a glimpse of the unknown parts, and we cannot pierce the darkness which revelation has not cleared. It is our wisdom to accept the known and wait patiently for the all-revealing light of that realm where there are no clouds. In a docile and praying spirit let us study St. Paul’s mysterious utterances. In this passage we have:—
I. The word of promise.—In this promise we find contained a divine visit and a divine gift. God has not left the world. He is ever present, and by special interventions He gives proof of that presence. He breaks in upon the laws of nature by the intervention of higher laws, and thus declares that all law emanates from His eternal mind. He is always about us, but there may be special seasons when our vision is cleared, and then He may be said to “come.” He is ever giving sons, but He gave to Joseph and Mary a special Son, that the world might more fully rejoice in the love and nearness of the Father. God’s special gifts are the outcome of His general gifts. The miraculous gives proof of divine agency at work in the ordinary. Sons born to the young Sarahs of time are no less God’s gifts than the sons born to a Sarah when nature’s powers were in decay. Let us believe in God’s presence and in God’s promise.
II. A word of mystery.—A word, many words, of mystery. “The elder shall serve the younger. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Divine declarations coincident with historical records, with the facts of experience. The elder shall serve the younger. The older nation serves the younger. And so with individuals. Joseph commands the service of his brethren. The enterprising youth of the family goes from the homestead, and the elder members stay at home and become his subordinates. The elders of time serve the younger ones who have just risen up to appreciate the greatness of the service. Here is the mystery. Why should some elder ones be doomed to service? Why should some younger ones command service? Why should Jacob be loved and poor Esau hated? Does God put a premium on the cunning plotters who can overreach their fellows? Does infinite Wisdom love the Jacobs who know how to feather their nests, and hate the Esaus whose prudence and worldly caution are overmastered by passion? This cannot be. We hope for a world where the needful light will be thrown on divine proceedings. Even Paul may not have fathomed the depth of meaning hidden in the words, “Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated.”
III. A word of sovereignty.—God’s mercy does not move along the channels cut by human limitations. His mercy is guided by His sovereignty. His compassion is under the control of His will; and surely that will is both compassionate, just, and intelligent. Whatever happens, whatever doctrinal views may be broached, whatever seeming partiality may appear in divine allotments, our souls must hold on to this truth, that there is no unrighteousness with God, no injustice with Him who is the perfectly just.
IV. A word of mercy.—All is “of God that showeth mercy.” Shining above all other words is the sweet word “mercy”; crowning and giving effect to all other deeds is the glorious deed of mercy. Mercy is the darling attribute. It encircles the eternal throne; it spans the earth like a rainbow of many attractive colours. Shrinking from the awful attribute of divine sovereignty, we find refuge in the attribute of mercy as revealed in the method of our salvation by Jesus Christ.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_9:9-16
Divine sovereignty and freewill.—I must pause again here to remind the student that I purposely do not enter on the disquisitions so abundant in some commentaries on this part of Scripture by which it is endeavoured to reconcile the sovereign election of God with our freewill. We shall find that freewill asserted strongly enough for all edifying purposes by this apostle when the time comes. At present he is employed wholly in asserting the divine sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. I must also protest against all endeavours to make it appear that no inference lies from this passage as to the salvation of individuals. It is most true that the immediate subject is the national rejection of the Jews; but we must consent to hold our reason in abeyance, if we do not recognise the inference that the sovereign power and free election here proved to belong to God extend to every exercise of His mercy—whether temporal or spiritual, whether in providence or in grace, whether national or individual. It is in parts of Scripture like this that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written, not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of God’s Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us.—Alford.
The privileges of Jews and Christians.—It is generally thought an office of love to conceal from persons any truths the recital of which will afford them pain; but true love will rather stimulate us to declare such truths as are necessary to be known, though it will incline us to declare them with the greatest tenderness and circumspection. An admirable pattern presents itself before us in the text. The apostle was about to enter on a subject most offensive to the Jews, but a subject that ought in no wise to be concealed from them—namely, the determination of God to cast off their nation, and to engraft the Gentiles on their stock. But as it would be thought that he was actuated only by a spirit of revenge, he declares to them in the most solemn manner, and appeals to God for the truth of it, that, so far from wishing their hurt, he was affected with the deepest sorrow on their account, and that there was nothing he would not do or suffer if it might but be the means of saving them from the impending ruin. His enumeration of the privileges which they abused and his pathetic lamentation over them may well lead us to consider:—
I. The exalted privileges enjoyed by true Israelites.—The Jews as a nation were favoured beyond all the nations upon earth. But their privileges were only a shadow of those enjoyed by true Israelites. But by how much the more exalted our condition under the gospel is, by so much the more may we see—
II. The disposition we should manifest towards those who despise these privileges.—The expressions used by the apostle admit of different interpretations. But in whatever sense they be taken, they certainly import that we should be deeply concerned about their state, and we should account nothing too much to do or suffer for their salvation. Inference: How far are they from a Christian spirit who not only use no means for the salvation of others, but oppose and thwart them that do! How earnest should every Christian be in seeking his own salvation!—Simeon.
God does not owe favours.—He gives not as a thing due, but as a fruit of His love, which does not imply that therein He acts arbitrarily. Such a supposition is excluded precisely because the giver in question is God, who is wisdom itself, and who thinks nothing good except what is good. The principle here laid down included God’s right to call the Gentiles to salvation when He should be pleased to grant them this favour. The words, “of him that willeth, of him that runneth,” have often been strangely understood. There have been found in them allusions to the wish of Isaac to make Esau the heir of the promise, and to Esau’s running to bring the venison necessary for the feast of benediction. But Isaac and Esau are no longer in question, and we must remain by the example of Moses. It was neither the wish expressed in his prayer nor the faithful care which he had taken of Israel in the wilderness which could merit the favour he asked; and as no man will ever surpass him in respect either of pious willing or holy working, it follows that the rule applied to him is universal. So it will always be. Israel, in particular, should understand thereby that it is neither their fixed theocratic necessities nor the multitude of their ceremonial or moral works which can convert salvation into a debt contracted toward them by God, and take away from Him the right of rejecting them if He comes to think it good to do so for reasons which He alone appreciates. But if the words of God to Moses prove that God does not owe His favours to any one whomsoever, must it also be held that He is free to reject whom He will? Yes. Scripture ascribes to Him even this right. Such is the truth following from another saying of God in reference to the adversary of Moses, Pharaoh.—Godet.
Providence and freewill.—Now these two facts, that there is a will in man, that the universe shows marks of providence and design, are so evident when taken singly, the one from the immediate witness of our own consciousness, and the other as an inference hardly avoidable from the facts which science and history bring before us, that we ought to suspect any attempt to obliterate one or the other by bringing them into collision. I speak not now of pious efforts to make them explicable together, to enable us, if I may say so, to put our finger on the. point of contact between man’s will and the divine power that acts upon it: such phrases as “irresistible grace,” “unconditional decree,” “co-operating grace,” will at once serve to recall them and to suggest their difficulties. But any one who watches at all the drift of the current of modern thought will see another set of influences at work. Two thoughts occur which in leaving this subject ought not to be passed over. First, our Church, in her article on predestination, draws a distinction between the effect of the study of it on the good and on the bad, the sincere believer and the unbeliever. To the godly it is “full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable consolation”; whilst it leads the carnal to “wretchedness of unclean living.” Our own hearts tell us that the distinction is just. There cannot be a more perilous symptom of the moral state than where men profess to abandon the struggle with their passions because they think they have no choice but to succumb, thus clasping to their arms that loathsome body of death which they were intended to escape from through divine aid. On the other hand, it does not detract from the sweetness of self-approval to ascribe to God alone all the good that we find within us. The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart—that is, He withdrew from it His grace, without which it must needs be hardened, because the lost king did not wish to retain it, and had hardened himself in stubborn resolution against the Lord. Sin, then, is sometimes punished with sin. If any one begins to neglect prayer, he finds it day by day easier to do so without compunction. If any one is pursuing a course of sensual vice, he feels that the protecting sense of shame grows daily weaker in him and the craving lust more imperious. And at a certain stage in his dreary, downward course the Lord hardens his heart. God is not responsible for his sin; but when he has repelled the voice of conscience and the warning of his Bible and the entreaties of friends, then grace is withdrawn from him, and sin puts on a judicial character, and it is at once sin and punishment. Oh, beware of that cumulative power of sin! Human actions admit of three degrees: where the choice is perfectly free, as it is in light and indifferent matters; where the choice is fettered with motives hardly resistible; and an intermediate condition, where motives exist to sway but not to coerce our choice. Every sin we commit adds weight to the motives that endanger our freedom. See the folly of those who allow themselves to continue in sin, believing that hereafter, as their passions cool, they will forsake their evil ways. It is a fearful danger to immerse the moral nature in uncleanness, meaning to escape from it at a future time. Every day makes repentance more difficult; and who can tell when the face of God may be wholly averted from you, so that He will harden your heart? And even if you escape this, the bitter recollection of many a past sin will cleave to you even after your repentance.—Archbishop Thomson.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 9
Rom_9:13. The mystery of God’s love.—A gentleman who thought Christianity was merely a heap of puzzling problems said to an old minister, “That is a very strange verse in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans—‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’ ” “Very strange,” replied the minister; “but what is it, sir, that you see most strange about it?” “Oh, that part, of course,” said the gentleman patronisingly and with an air of surprise, “ ‘Esau have I hated is certainly very strange.” “Well, sir,” said the old minister; “how wonderfully we are made, and how differently constituted! The strangest part of all to me is that He could ever have loved Jacob.” There is no mystery so glorious as the mystery of God’s love.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv11–13 11. “For the children not having yet been born,…
11. “For the children not having yet been born, nor done anything good nor evil, in order that the purposes of God may stand according to election, not of works but of him that calleth.” This was because Jacob was elected to the progenitorship before he was born, and Esau reprobated from the same. Yet the atonement was as free and efficacious for Esau as for Isaac, for the Arabs as the Jews.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv7–13 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all…
neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but [as God said to Abraham-- Gen_21:12 ], In Isaac shall thy seed be called . [I. e., the children of Isaac alone shall be known distinctively as thy children, the heirs of thy covenant. Here, again, Paul attacks a second false construction which the Jews placed upon the promises. They said: "We must all be saved because we have Abraham for our father ( Mat_3:9 ). If God does not save us, he breaks his word with Abraham." "Here again ye err," says Paul, "for at the very start when Abraham had but two sons, God rejected one of them, casting Ishmael off, and choosing Isaac; and later when Abraham had many sons God still refused all but Isaac, saying, The sons of yours which I shall call mine shall descend from Isaac alone."]
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.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v7 Also Rom 9:8. (Greek - τέκνον, child).
children
Also Rom 9:8. (Greek - τέκνον, child).
Read full note →
(See Scofield "Rom 8:16")
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v10 An additional example of rejection:
An additional example of rejection:
v. 10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,
Read full note →
v. 11. (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,)
v. 12. it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.
v. 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
To give additional corroboration to his statements! Paul introduces another example from the history of the patriarchs: But not only this. The instance just cited is not the only one; Rebecca also furnishes evidence for the point in question. "In the former case it might be supposed that Isaac was chosen because he was the son of Sarah, a free woman, and the legitimate wife of Abraham, whereas Ishmael was the son of a maidservant. " (Hodge.) But here such a supposition would not hold. For Jacob and Esau had one father, one mother, and were twin sons, children of the same conception and birth. There was, therefore, only one point, humanly speaking, in which a preference might be shown, and that was by reason of the right of the firstborn. But this very factor was disregarded by God when it was said to Rebecca: The greater, the older, shall serve the smaller, the younger, Gen 25:21-26. By the will of God and through His power Jacob, the younger, representing the Jewish nation, received the promise of God, became the bearer of the Messianic prophecy, while Esau, the older, representing the Edomites, was not a member of the chosen people of God. This general statement regarding the preference of God and His deliberate choice is explained and placed into its relation to the argument of the apostle by three modifying clauses. The first is: For although they were not yet born, neither had done anything good or bad. This is for the information of people that were not acquainted with the situation and might therefore think that the decree of God was determined by the actions of the two sons. God in no way considered the natural condition or conduct of Esau and Jacob. The second explanation is: That the decree of God according to choice might remain. God had said to Rebecca that the older would serve the younger, in order that the purpose of God according to election might stand, be fulfilled and realized. God had firmly determined to accept Jacob’s offspring as His people and to reveal to them His judgments and testimonies, according to which the Savior of the world should issue from Jacob. This was a selection, or choice; God chose the younger son of Rebecca for His purpose. Jacob, not Esau, was to be the progenitor of the people of God, was to transmit the promise of the inheritance, was to be the forefather of the Redeemer Himself. The third modifying clause is: Not of works, but of Him that called. The statement of God to Rebecca was not made on the basis of works, not in consideration of a future better conduct of the younger son, but solely by reason of Him that called, because God, in His sovereign freedom, chose to make Jacob the bearer of the promise; by His words to the mother, God installed Jacob in his office as patriarch. And the call of Jacob was the consequence, the realization, of the selection of God.
The truth thus brought out is further confirmed by a passage from the Old Testament Scriptures: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Mal 1:2-3. The special distinction which was conferred upon Jacob according to the sovereign will of God was denied to Esau. Scripture here speaks in accord with a man’s manner of judging the situation; in the case of men such treatment as is here described would be the effect of love and hatred; with God it is the manifestation of gracious love in the one case and the withholding of the same in the other. God bestowed upon Jacob and his descendants the prerogative of His revelation and of His presence, according to which He accepted the Jews as His people and entrusted to them His Word and promise. The entire passage, therefore, does not refer to the election of grace unto salvation, but only to the relative position of the Israelites and the Edomites over against the history of salvation. Ishmael as well as Esau may very well have been saved; there is no passage in Scriptures which compels us to assume their final condemnation. But the general trend of Paul’s argument stands and is confirmed by this historical reference. Esau, being excluded from the inheritance of the promise, offers evidence of the fact that not all Israelites that are descendants of Abraham are Israelites in the true sense of the word. And even as Jacob was chosen by God for his prominent position in the history of salvation without any merit or worthiness in himself, so the spiritual children of God, the believers, are chosen from the midst of redeemed humanity by the merciful election of God.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv8, 10 the children of the flesh are not
the children of the flesh are not
Here "children of the flesh" is a metonym that refers to the physical descendants of Abraham. AT: "not all of Abraham's descendants" (See: Metonymy)
Read full note →
children of God
This is a metaphor that refers to people who are spiritual descendants, those who have faith in Jesus. (See: Metaphor)
children of the promise
This refers to people who will inherit the promises that God gave to Abraham.
this is the word of promise
"these are the words God used when he made the promise"
a son will be given to Sarah
You can translate this in an active form to express that God will give a son to Sarah. AT: "I will give Sarah a son" (See: Active or Passive)
translationWords
children
son
Sarah
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv7, 10, 12, 13 9:7 This quotation is from Gen 21:12, which God…
9:7 This quotation is from Gen 21:12, which God spoke to Abraham when he was reluctant to follow Sarah’s advice to banish his son Ishmael, who was born to the slave woman Hagar. God assured Abraham that Sarah’s child, Isaac, was the son through whom God’s promises would be fulfilled.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.