When William Carey and his partners formed an agreement concerning their mission work in Serampore, India, they began by explaining why they were there instead of back in England. God had planted them in India in order to cultivate the gospel among these people without knowledge of Him. Then they declared, “We are sure that only those ordained to eternal life will believe, and that God alone can add to the church such as shall be saved.” In other words, they confessed their confidence in the sovereign grace of God in salvation. They continued, “Nevertheless we cannot but observe with admiration that Paul, the great champion for the glorious doctrine of free and sovereign grace, was most conspicuous for his personal zeal in the word of persuading men to be reconciled to God.” In the same spirit, holding strongly to the doctrine of God’s electing grace and the corporate responsibility for the church to take the gospel to all men, The Serampore Compact of 1805 laid the foundation for the modern missionary movement. It is fair to surmise that the doctrines related to God’s free and sovereign grace in salvation motivated and assured Carey and his partners in their many years of missionary work [The Serampore Compact of 1805].
As we begin to work our way through the biblical teaching on election, I want to remind you that it is the same truth that anchored Carey and many other missionaries to leave their homelands, and invest their lives in taking the gospel to the nations that we consider in our study. Yet we also admit that this doctrine faces the most scrutiny and objection above any we could name. And why is that the case? Any time that we rely wholly upon the grace of God and in no wise upon our merits, abilities, or will, we become unsettled.
The context of this doctrine is important for us to reconsider. Paul had given the Roman believers the clearest and most magnificent treatment on assurance of salvation offered anywhere in Scripture. Chapter 8 reverberates with the certainty of what God in Christ has done for those who are in Christ. Nothing can separate the believer from the constant, effective love of Christ.
But the Apostle recognizes an objection. What about the Israelites? Why did most of them reject Christ and the gospel in spite of the promises in the gospel belonging to them? How can we, as Gentile believers, be certain of our salvation if the Israelites, to whom the promises were initially given, show no interest in the gospel of Christ or give evidence of union with Christ? That’s the quandary that Paul addresses and answers. In the opening paragraph he explains his own burden for the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen to whom were given the covenants and the promises. So it is certain that he is not dealing with mere corporate Jewish identity but the salvation of his kinsmen. The emphasis, as Paul unpacks the doctrine of election, is then on salvation and assurance. The question is whether or not we can believe the promises of assurance if most of Israel rejected the Messiah.
God’s electing grace assures us that His purposes forever stand. But how does the doctrine of election strengthen assurance in the believer? Let’s consider how Paul begins his explanation of it in these verses.
Verse 6 is key. It serves as the foundation for the entire argument in the following verses. “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” That’s what the objection claimed. ‘Paul, you are so certain about this salvation by grace apart from works based on God’s promises in the gospel, yet what about the promises made to the Jewish nation? How can we be sure that God’s promises will not fail us when we see so many Jewish friends rejecting the Messiah that, “according to the flesh,” came from them?’
So the Apostle begins his argument by stating his proposition: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” In other words, ‘you have assumed something that is not true. Consequently, I will systematically explain what is true so that you might rest in the faithfulness of God’s gospel promises.’
With that kind of statement, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed,” one might expect that we should embark on a broad study of the truthfulness of Scripture. Examples abound! “Every word of God is tested. (Prov. 30:5). “All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8).
Yet Paul has something narrower in mind while not excluding the larger picture of the trustworthiness of God’s Word. He has in view the specific promises of God to Israel regarding relationship to Him. The assumption is that God promised to save every ethnic Israelite without distinction—that it was a quantitative promise rather than a qualitative one. What the Apostle must show is that such a belief begins on a false assumption. “God never pledged that every individual Israelite would experience eschatological salvation,” Tom Schreiner points out [ECNT: Romans, 493]. Paul has already stated this earlier in chapter 2 but must go into greater detail now. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (2:28-29). So there was more to being a Jew than ethnic identity and circumcision.
But that was Paul, someone might say. He had it in for the Jews because they persecuted him so severely. Paul cancels that argument in the opening words of this chapter when he expresses his willingness to be cut off from Christ to face the wrath of God if that would mean the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen (10:3). But even more, the Lord Jesus objected to ethnic identity as the totality of a true Israelite. In a verbal battle with a group of Jews (John 8:39-47), Jesus told them, “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants,” so biologically they could claim to be Israelites. But they were seeking to kill Him who was the Messiah—the promised seed of Abraham! Jesus told them, “If you are Abraham’s children,” as they claimed to be, “do the deeds of Abraham.” Then He told them, “You are doing the deeds of your father.” And He did not have Abraham in mind! “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father,” He told them. In other words, they may have had a biological claim as an Israelite but they did not have a spiritual claim. They existed with an ethnic identity as Jews but they had no place eternally in the kingdom of God.
This becomes clearer as we see Paul layering this distinction. (1) “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” It is the same argument he posed earlier in chapter 2. It was not outward circumcision that made one a true Israelite but rather inward circumcision—the regenerating work of the Spirit, in New Testament language (e.g. John 3:1-11). So one could be an Israelite without truly being an Israelite. Ultimately, the biological identity that caused pride to swell in many Jews meant nothing when it came to eternal salvation. Living as a Jew, dwelling in Israel under the Davidic king was not equivalent to eternal salvation and citizenship in His kingdom.
(2) “Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but through Isaac your descendants will be named [or called].” Abraham had one son by the Egyptian handmaid Hagar and six sons by Keturah after Sarah’s death. Genesis 25:5-6 records, “Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east.” Though Ishmael became a great nation it was “through Isaac” that Abraham’s descendants were legally “named” or “identified” (Gen. 21:12) [Schreiner 495]. Paul uses the natural example as spiritual typology.
(3) Then in language similar to Galatians 4, he drives home this distinction. “That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Paul explains in Galatians 4, “And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise,” that is, you are not born of flesh but “born according to the Spirit” (4:21-31). Paul has used “flesh” to describe the works of man seeking through his own ability to achieve righteousness. “Children of the promise” compare to Isaac as “recipients of God’s saving promises” [Schreiner 496], and especially, in this context, those whom God predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies (8:28-30).
Some of Paul’s Jewish kinsmen thought they were righteous before God because of their biological identity with Abraham. But no, that’s not adequate; one must be a child of the promise by God’s sovereign initiative through the gospel of Christ. So if you are relying upon your religious heritage or clinging to a relative’s Christianity as your own, learn the same lesson that Paul pressed two millennia ago. You must personally be born of the Spirit; you must personally believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why does Paul move from “children of the promise” to election? What do these two have to do with each other? Keep in mind how the Apostle has already framed our salvation and assurance. It begins in the foreknowledge and predestinating work of God. Then in the words of certainty, he declares, “And these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Following that golden string of redemption he builds the great crescendo of assurance: “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? …Who will separate us from the love of Christ?” Nothing can separate us from our God, whom God graciously elects, calls, justifies, and glorifies! What then does election imply?
To prove the doctrine of God’s sovereign, unconditional election, Paul takes us back to the three Patriarchs of Israel. He makes the point that none of them came to God by their own doing or design. None had sufficient merit to claim righteousness before God. Instead, God pursued them with electing love in spite of their faults and foibles.
(1) He first alludes to Abraham: “Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: through Isaac your descendants will be named.” Joshua reminds us that Abraham, along with his father and brother “served other gods” instead of Yahweh (Joshua 24:2). But the Lord chose Abraham and not his brother Nahor. He pursued him, graciously saving him out of a life of darkness and idolatry to bring him into a relationship of faith. God revealed Himself to Abraham and gave him promise of an heir. Genesis 15:6 declares, “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” None who believe in salvation through faith alone doubt the correspondence to faith and righteousness explained in Genesis 15. But how did Abraham get to that point of hearing the promise of God and believing? God’s electing grace pursued him and God called him through the promise.
(2) Abraham did try to help God out when it came to the promise of an heir by taking Hagar as his wife and fathering a son named Ishmael. In his weakness of faith, he even begged God to let Ishmael be his heir. But the Lord insisted, “Through Isaac your descendants will be named.” This came on the basis of God’s promise. “For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son’.” Instead of Ishmael, Isaac would be born, even though Sarah was past childbearing years. God’s sovereign action is emphasized by the phrase, “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” God chose Isaac not Ishmael. His sovereign choice was recognized by His grace at work to give Sarah a son. The grace of sovereign election came in spite of Abraham’s initial objections. But God had His purpose.
(3) But someone might object. That’s just not a good enough example. Hagar was an Egyptian and not Abraham’s wife but a concubine. Just so, the next example puts forth the electing grace of God with Jacob instead of Esau. “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac.” So we’re speaking of the same father, same mother, and same conception unlike the previous example. ‘But God knew what kind of a person Esau would be so he chose that good, godly man Jacob!’ In case someone tries to object to election on that ground, Paul explains, “For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger’.” The emphasis in this verse is on God’s sovereign, unconditional action in election. These boys had not been born so there were no behavioral issues to consider. They had not done good or bad (the word means “foul” or “worthless”), so there was no foreseen merit that moved God to make a choice for Jacob and not Esau. Everything, instead, was grounded in God’s sovereign purpose.
The measure of this choice of Jacob is found in those searing words, “Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’.” Here Paul quotes from Malachi’s argument regarding the faithful love of God for Israel. They had questioned His love during the post-exilic days when Israel cared more for consumerism and nationalism than loving and obeying the Lord God. So he explained the distinction that God made between Jacob and Esau by using the language of love and hatred. We might be aghast that anyone would dare to infer hatred on the part of God! Yet we must not impugn the righteousness and holiness of God by ascribing the ill-will bound up in most of our hatred. Some have explained this in terms of preference. I found John Murray’s explanation most helpful.
The divine reaction stated should scarcely be reduced to that of not loving or loving less. Thus the evidence would require, to say the least, the thought of disfavour, disapprobation, displeasure. This is also a vehement quality that may not be discounted. We must not predicate of this divine hate those unworthy features which belong to hate as it is exercised by us sinful men. In God’s hate there is no malice, malignancy, vindictiveness, unholy rancour or bitterness…. We must, therefore, recognize that there is in God a holy hate that cannot be defined in terms of not loving or loving less. Furthermore, we may not tone down the reality or intensity of this hate by speaking of it as “anthropopathetic” or by saying that it “refers not so much to the emotion as to the effect.” …The hate of verse 13 belongs to the transcendent realm of God’s sovereignty for which there is no human analogy [NICNT: Romans, II, 22-23].
The magnanimous nature of God’s electing love is couched in those most severe terms so that we understand that salvation is all of grace. Jacob was no prize yet God chose him out of His own sovereign, free, unconditional grace. What do we learn about election from these pictures among the Patriarchs?
There are more lessons later in the chapter but three stand out here.
(1) Election reveals God’s sovereign, unconditional choice. The very nature of election implies a choice being made. Our translation even uses that word “choice” to express it. What we see emphasized is that none of those chosen by God did something for which He chose them. “For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad,” Paul writes to stress the unconditional nature of election. Justification is not unconditional, as we’ve noticed particularly in Romans 3-5. One is justified through faith in Jesus Christ alone. “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28). But election is another case altogether. The point Paul makes is that there was no unseen merit in Jacob which motivated God to make a choice. If that were the case, election would be conditional and certainly not sovereign. If something outside the nature of God inclines or motivates Him to elect anyone to salvation as though deserved, then that person would have grounds for boasting before God. As Paul taught the Corinthians about God’s electing grace, he emphasized the reason for sovereign, unconditional election: “so that no man may boast before God” (1 Cor. 1:26-31). I agree with John Piper, “What unconditional election does is knock from underneath salvation every ground of human boasting, and replaces it with the unshakable electing love and purpose of God” [www.desiringGod.org, “God’s Word Stands: Not All Israel Is Israel, Part 2, p. 4].
(2) Election assures God’s saving action. We see this in the latter part of verse 11: “so that God’s purpose according to His choice [election] would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.” In other words, it is not the works of the one elected that achieves his salvation but rather it is due to the God who powerfully calls him by the gospel through the Spirit. Paul has already explained, “And these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified.” It is the same assurance found in Philippians 1:6, “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” If God has acted savingly in your life then you have the assurance that He elected you before the foundation of the world. That puts you into the very bosom of God’s love!
(3) Election maintains God’s eternal purpose. The question is not why God elected you and me but did not elect your neighbor or your sibling. The question is why God elected any of us! Analyze Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You will find lying, deceit, worldliness, duplicity, and contrariness. Yet God chose them. Why did He do it? Paul explains, “so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand.” If you study the passages where “purpose” is used of God (Rom. 8:28; 9:11; Eph. 1:11; 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9) I think that you are led to one conclusion about His intent or purpose: that everything might redound “to the praise of His glory” or “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph. 1:12; 1:6). There is nothing more important or praiseworthy or of higher ambition than the praise of God’s glory! Election rings with praise to His glory because it displays the sovereign, gracious, loving, kind intention of God for unworthy, sinful, hopeless people like us. Who gets the glory in that picture? Not us! But to Him alone belongs the glory!
So, does the word of God’s promise fail? Of course not, for He has everything right on schedule to the praise of the glory of His grace. Election magnifies this grace especially when we consider that He elects us so that we might be justified through faith in His Son who bore God’s judgment for us at the cross. That’s what we celebrate as we gather at the Lord’s Table this morning. Think of the costliness of electing grace. For God to show such love to you ultimately meant the cross for His Son. And so we remember the death of Jesus Christ and the great electing love that sent Him to the cross for us.
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by South Woods Baptist Church.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy:
Copyright South Woods Baptist Church. Website: www.southwoodsbc.org. Used by permission as granted on web site. Questions, comments, and suggestions about our site can be sent here.
Copyright 2011, South Woods Baptist Church, All Rights Reserved