“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 offspring. 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.’”
Paul has established the tension created by Israel’s condition. His fellow Israelites possess an extraordinary history with God: the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, and the patriarchs belong to them, and from them came Christ according to the flesh. Yet Paul speaks of these same Israelites with great sorrow and unceasing pain.
The first issue he addresses is therefore the faithfulness of God: “But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing.” Paul answers by turning to Israel’s own history. Physical descent from Abraham never meant that every descendant occupied the same place within the line through which God carried his promise. Abraham had multiple descendants, but the promised offspring was reckoned through Isaac. Isaac in turn fathered Jacob and Esau, yet before the twins had been born or had done good or evil, God declared that the older would serve the younger.
Paul describes this as “the purpose of God according to election.” In the examples he gives, God determines how the covenant promise proceeds through history. Isaac’s place depends upon divine promise rather than natural descent alone, while Jacob’s place is established before works can explain the distinction between him and Esau. Israel’s own existence therefore demonstrates that the promise has always advanced according to God’s purpose rather than automatically through physical descent or human achievement.
The unbelief of many of Paul’s fellow Israelites consequently does not establish that God’s word has failed. Physical descent and participation in the promise were never identical categories.
The Word of God Has Not Failed
Romans 9:6
“But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel.”
The opening statement identifies the theological issue created by the privileges Paul has just attributed to Israel. If the promises belong to the Israelites, the unbelief of many Israelites might appear to call the reliability of those promises into question. Paul rejects that conclusion immediately: “It is not as though the word of God has come to nothing.”
He does not solve the problem by denying Israel’s privileges or minimizing the condition of his fellow Israelites. Instead, he challenges an assumption about the relationship between physical descent and participation in the promise: “For they are not all Israel that are of Israel.”
Both uses of “Israel” matter. Paul has explicitly identified his relatives according to the flesh as Israelites. He does not now withdraw that identification. His point is that descent from Israel according to the flesh does not by itself establish participation in Israel as defined by the divine promise.
This distinction arises from Israel’s own patriarchal history rather than from a new principle introduced after the coming of Christ. The nation itself emerged through distinctions God made within the physical descendants of Abraham.
Not All Abraham’s Offspring Are Children
Romans 9:7
“Neither, because they are Abraham’s offspring, are they all children. But, ‘your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac.’”
Paul makes the distinction more specific by turning to Abraham. Physical descent from Abraham does not by itself identify the children through whom the promise proceeds. Abraham had descendants besides Isaac, yet God declared, “your offspring will be accounted as from Isaac.”
The quotation comes from Genesis 21:12 and concerns Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham was the biological father of both sons. The distinction between them therefore existed within Abraham’s physical family. Ishmael was genuinely Abraham’s offspring according to the flesh, yet the promised line was reckoned through Isaac.
Paul’s argument depends upon recognizing both realities. Ishmael’s ancestry is genuine, but ancestry alone does not determine participation in the line of promise. God’s word concerning Isaac does.
Natural descent and the promise therefore cannot simply be equated.
Children of the Promise
Romans 9:8–9
“That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is a word of promise, ‘At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.’”
Paul explains the significance of Isaac by distinguishing “the children of the flesh” from “the children of the promise.” Both Isaac and Ishmael descended physically from Abraham, so Abrahamic ancestry cannot explain the difference between their places within the covenant history.
Isaac was the child whose birth occurred according to God’s promise: “At the appointed time I will come, and Sarah will have a son.” Genesis emphasizes the impossibility of that birth by ordinary human expectation. Abraham and Sarah were old, and Sarah was beyond the ordinary age of childbearing. Isaac’s existence therefore testified to the faithfulness of the God who had spoken concerning him.
The distinction between flesh and promise is consequently not a distinction between one biological son and someone unrelated to Abraham. Both sons belong to Abraham according to the flesh. The difference lies in God’s determination that the promised offspring would be reckoned through Isaac.
Paul can therefore say that “the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” The language of being “counted” corresponds to the earlier declaration that Abraham’s offspring would be “accounted as from Isaac.” The identity relevant to Paul’s argument depends upon God’s promise rather than physical descent considered by itself.
Israel’s beginnings already demonstrate the principle. The existence of physical descendants who do not occupy the same place within the promise does not indicate that God’s word has failed, because the promise was never governed by physical descent alone.
Rebekah Conceived by One
Romans 9:10
“Not only so, but Rebekah also conceived by one, by our father Isaac.”
The example of Isaac and Ishmael establishes a distinction within Abraham’s physical descendants, but the circumstances of their births differ. They had the same father and different mothers. With Jacob and Esau, even that difference disappears.
Rebekah conceived both sons “by one, by our father Isaac.” Jacob and Esau shared the same father and mother and were twins from the same pregnancy. Neither possessed a stronger natural claim to the patriarchal line on the basis of parentage.
Yet Israel’s covenant history proceeds through Jacob rather than Esau. The distinction cannot therefore be explained by different degrees of physical descent from the patriarchs. Both brothers stand equally within Isaac’s natural family.
Paul locates the explanation in God’s purpose rather than in anything distinguishing the brothers by birth or achievement.
Before They Had Done Good or Bad
Romans 9:11–12
“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.’”
God’s declaration concerning Jacob and Esau came before their birth and before either had “done anything good or bad.” Paul explains the significance of that timing: “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls.”
Jacob’s place in the covenant line cannot be explained as a reward for superior conduct. The choice was announced before either brother had performed works that could provide the basis for the distinction. Genesis itself would make an appeal to Jacob’s superior merit difficult, but Paul does not need to compare the later moral records of the brothers. He excludes works from the explanation by locating God’s declaration before their birth.
Paul calls what is established through this choice “the purpose of God according to election.” In the example before him, the content of that election is supplied by the declaration itself: “The elder will serve the younger.”
The quotation comes from God’s words to Rebekah:
Genesis 25:23
“Yahweh said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples will be separated from your body. The one people will be stronger than the other people. The elder will serve the younger.’”
The Genesis context identifies the brothers both as individuals and as patriarchal heads of peoples: “Two nations are in your womb.” Jacob and Esau become the fathers of Israel and Edom, and God’s declaration establishes a reversal of the ordinary expectation concerning the elder and younger.
The election Paul cites therefore has concrete historical content. God determines through which brother the covenant line will proceed, and he does so before their works can account for his choice. Israel itself, the nation descended from Jacob, consequently owes its historical position to the purpose of the God who calls rather than to natural priority or ancestral merit.
This does not reduce God’s election to foreknowledge of which brother would eventually prove more suitable. Paul deliberately places the declaration before either had done good or evil and describes the purpose as “not of works.” The determining factor in the argument is God’s freedom to carry forward his covenant purpose according to his own calling.
Jacob I Loved, but Esau I Hated
Romans 9:13
“Even as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”
Paul reinforces the Genesis declaration with Malachi:
Malachi 1:2–4
“‘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 Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness.’ Whereas Edom says, ‘We are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places;’ Yahweh of Armies says, ‘They shall build, but I will throw down; and men will call them “The Wicked Land,” even the people against whom Yahweh shows indignation forever.’”
Malachi speaks centuries after the deaths of Jacob and Esau. In the prophecy, their names represent the peoples descended from them. The context makes the corporate reference explicit by identifying Esau with Edom and speaking of his mountains, heritage, land, and people.
Paul therefore brings together two passages concerned with the same historical distinction. Genesis speaks before the brothers are born and identifies them as the heads of “two nations.” Malachi looks back upon the histories of those nations and describes God’s relationship with Jacob and Esau in the language of love and hate.
The force of “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” should be determined by that scriptural context. Paul does not state here that before the individuals were born God selected Jacob for eternal salvation and Esau for eternal condemnation. The Genesis quotation concerns the relationship of the peoples descending from them and the line through which God’s covenant purpose would proceed, while the Malachi quotation explicitly concerns Israel and Edom within their subsequent history.
Recognizing that context does not weaken the force of God’s choice. God genuinely distinguished Jacob from Esau, established the covenant line through Jacob, and dealt differently with the nations that came from the two brothers. Paul’s argument requires a real exercise of divine freedom. What it does not require is assigning to the quotations a subject they do not themselves address.
Israel’s own Scriptures therefore establish that natural descent did not control the progress of God’s covenant purpose. The nation descended from Jacob exists within a history shaped by God’s choice of the younger over the elder before works could explain the distinction.
Children of the Promise
Paul’s defense of God’s faithfulness rests upon Israel’s own history. The existence of unbelieving Israelites does not mean that the word of God has failed, because physical descent and participation in the promise have never been identical.
Abraham fathered both Ishmael and Isaac, yet God reckoned the promised offspring through Isaac. Isaac fathered both Jacob and Esau through Rebekah, yet God announced before their birth and before either had done good or evil that the elder would serve the younger. Neither natural descent nor works determined the line through which the covenant promise proceeded.
Paul describes this as “the purpose of God according to election.” The examples themselves establish what that election accomplishes. God determines the line of promise through Isaac and then Jacob, exercising his freedom independently of natural priority and human achievement. Genesis identifies Jacob and Esau as heads of two nations, and Malachi later describes the histories of Israel and Edom through the language of God loving Jacob and hating Esau.
These texts therefore do not require Paul to be describing an eternal decree assigning the individual Jacob to salvation and the individual Esau to condemnation before their birth. Paul’s concern in these verses is the reliability of God’s word concerning Israel, and the scriptural history he cites demonstrates that God has always been free to determine how his covenant promise advances.
Israel itself is the evidence. The nation that might appeal to physical descent from Abraham exists because the promised line was reckoned through Isaac rather than Ishmael and through Jacob rather than Esau. Its history therefore demonstrates the distinction Paul has made: “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
The word of God has not failed. The history of the promise shows how that word has operated from the beginning.