Principles of Divine Election

by M. Rudge (Wales)

PAPER 1

One of the main objectives which the apostle Paul has before him in writing the epistle to the Romans, is to establish the righteousness of God in His dealings with men, in the gospel. Chs.9-11, are a parenthesis, but nevertheless maintain the important objective of demonstrating the righteousness of God in His dispensational dealings with Israel and the Gentile nations, 9.14. This is the specific reason for the parenthetical chapters, but at the same time Paul lays down general principles governing Divine election and human responsibility.

It has been thought that in attempting to draw attention to these principles, the best method of approach might be, to give a simple, straightforward exposition of the key passages, and limit our consideration to ch.9.

It is helpful to remind ourselves that the teaching of the epistle to the Romans is fundamental to our being established “according to my gospel,” in the same way that the teaching of the first epistle to the Corinthians is fundamental, to our being established in the truth concerning the church of God. The order in which these epistles are arranged in the New Testament, is significant. There would be fewer breakdowns and fewer desertions of the assembly position if this was the order in which the truth of God was learnt and put into practice.

9.6-13Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect [‘failed’ — JND] …”, v6.

In this passage, Paul is establishing principles of Divine sovereignty in election, using two examples, the two brothers, Isaac and Ishmael and the twin brothers, Jacob and Esau. God exercised His sovereign right to choose Isaac and not Ishmael, and then Jacob and not Esau, in order to further His purpose. His sovereign choice was the beginning of the formation of the nation, “of whom Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever,” v5.

It should be noted at this early stage, that election is firstly an individual matter and then collective. The principle of personal, individual selection in Divine election goes back to Abraham, “the father of the faithful” and is true of all his spiritual seed. “Thou, even Thou art LORD alone, … Thou art the Lord the God ,who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him out …”, Neh.9.6,7. Abraham was chosen when he was an idolater, “a Syrian ready to perish” Note also Acts 13.17, “The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers …”

God not only chose the line for the fulfilment of His promise but conferred upon the nation of Israel, the unique privileges which have already been described in v1-5. In the exercise of His sovereign will, God also chose to reject Ishmael and Esau. Paul is refuting the argument that the setting aside of richly privileged Israel, v1-5, and the bringing of Gentiles into blessing, had made the promises to Israel, [“the word of God”], of “none effect.” Paul’s opponents would be in agreement with his counter argument at this stage.

[But] Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect [‘failed’]. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called,” v6,7. When God chose the seed of Abraham, to be an elect nation through whom He would accomplish His purpose of redemption, it did not mean that all Israel were “children of God,” v7,8, neither did it mean that those who were Abraham’s seed, but not one of the chosen people, were excluded. In the distant future, Gentiles were also in mind, in the promise given to Abraham, “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”, Gen.22.18.

The Word of God has not been made “of none effect,” when this involves the setting aside of Israel and bringing Gentiles into blessing. This is now explained, “For they are not all “Israel [the true people of God], which are of Israel [the chosen race], neither because they are the seed of Abraham [tracing their genealogy to Abraham], are they all children [the children of God]: but, in Isaac, shall thy seed be called.”

The chosen line of those who were called to take a uniquely important place in the plan of redemption was “in Isaac” — “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” — and not in Ishmael, though he also was “of Israel.” But a true child of God and a member of the true Israel, must be among the “called”, the “children of the promise.” The principle that God is righteous in acting within His sovereign right to choose individuals and then a nation, to fulfil His purpose, is applicable in principle, to ourselves, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free,” Gal.4.21-31. In verse 7, the term “children”, tekna, is used in the sense that entitles them to the inheritance. Paul is making an important point.

The Jews who lived during the time that the Lord Jesus was on earth, were no different to many who had lived before them. They never grasped the point that Paul is making and had never learnt, that “the axe is laid to the root of the tree.” (Matt.3.7-10; Jn.8.37-47; Lk.16.24; Rom.2.1-11,17-29). Neither did they learn that they must “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman,” Gal.4.30, and “if the Son [the true Isaac] therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed,” Jn.8.36. Instead of casting out the bondwoman and her son, they cast the true Isaac, the true heir, out of the vineyard and slew Him.

That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come and Sarah shall bare a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac: (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;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” v8-13.

The Word of God, v6, is now described as “the word of promise,” and the [true] children of God are called “the children of the promise,” foreknown, ie fore-acknowledged, by God and “counted for the seed.” God did not fail to fulfil His promise concerning the birth of Isaac, in spite of Abraham and Sarai’s initial unbelief, and the Word of God has not failed now, and will not fail in the future, when the promises to Israel which are still outstanding, will be fulfilled at the Lord’s second advent.

And not only this, …”   v10. Isaac and Ishmael are not the only example of God’s sovereign choice. It may have been argued that the choice of Isaac, the son of the freewoman, and the rejection of Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, Gal.4, was an obvious one and did not really involve the exercise of God’s sovereignty. Paul now provides another example, demonstrating even more fully, not only the principle of election but sovereign choice.

God made an even more arbitrary choice, prior to the birth of Isaac’s children, when there was no ground whatever, for choosing one or the other, “neither having done any good or evil.” This example is emphatic in demonstrating the principle that Divine election is a sovereign act of God, independently of, and uninfluenced by, any external considerations.

Even at the birth of the twin boys, the firstborn’s right of primogeniture, which would normally have decided his entitlement to precedence as the elder son, was rejected, “The elder shall serve the younger,” v12. In the consideration of the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau, and the words, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, v13, it is important to bear in mind the following points:-
(i) ‘In speaking of Jacob and Esau, either as men or nations, neither Genesis or Malachi or Paul have salvation in view. … it is the part they played, regarded from the theocratic standpoint, as is proved by the word “serve”.’ [‘theocratic’ — the state of Israel, where God ruled as sovereign and through whom He furthered His purpose]. We must also remember that whilst Israel was an elect nation, it did not mean that every member of the nation was saved. It was not election to salvation in their case, as it is in the Church, which is His body, where all the members are saved. As point (iii) below, shows, it did not exclude Esau’s seed from salvation and becoming one of “the children of God.”

(ii) ‘Esau, though deprived of the promise and the inheritance, nevertheless obtained a blessing and an inheritance for himself and his dependants.’ See Gen.17.19-21.

(iii) ‘The natural character inherited from the father of the race, is not so impressed on his descendants that they cannot escape it. As there were in Israel, many Edomites, profane hearts, there may also have been many spiritual hearts in Edom.’ Note these references, “Concerning Edom, thus saith the Lord of hosts; is wisdom no more in Teman? Is counsel perished from the prudent? Is their wisdom vanished? ... “ Jer.49.7; also, “Eliphaz, the Temanite,” Job 4:1.

Esau have I hated,” v13. The word “hated”, should be understood in the sense which it has, when used in contrast to love, ie ‘loved less,’ rather than not loved at all and hated. Note Gen.29.30,37, “and he [Jacob] loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. … And she [Leah] conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, He hath therefore given me this son also, and she called his name, Simeon [Hearing].” See also Jn.12.25; Matt.6.24; Lk.16:26.

The only ground on which either of the twins, Jacob and Esau, could have been chosen for primacy under normal circumstances, was primogeniture, ie priority of birth, but consistently with the principles of Divine sovereignty, the choice of “the younger” Jacob, was made, without any consideration of external factors, ‘Esau, the elder, was rejected, and Jacob, the younger, was made heir of the promises.’

NB Generally the quotations are from F Godet, ‘Epistle to the Romans.’

—to be continued (D.V.)