In this episode, we are reading through the text, highlighting points of emphasis regarding the physical Israel of God and their role in God's scheme of redemption.

Delving into the intricate relationship between the physical Israel of God and the overarching scheme of divine redemption, this episode offers a profound exploration anchored in the epistolary writings of Paul, particularly Romans chapter nine. The Apostle Paul articulates a deep and personal sorrow over the spiritual fate of his fellow Israelites, emphasizing their unique status as God’s chosen people, recipients of His glory, covenants, and the law. This rich heritage positions them as pivotal players in the narrative of redemption, yet highlights the tragic reality of their collective rejection of the gospel.

We unpack the implications of Paul's assertion that 'not all Israel are of Israel.' This critical distinction draws attention to the nature of divine election and the characteristics that define true children of Abraham—namely, faith, rather than mere physical descent. Paul’s argument challenges the notion that lineage guarantees a place in God’s promises, instead positing that true inclusion in God's redemptive work is determined by one's faith in Christ.

Ultimately, this episode serves to illuminate the continuity between God's promises to Israel and their fulfillment in the church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles who embrace the faith of Abraham. It compellingly argues that while Israel's rejection of Christ signifies a pivotal moment in redemptive history, it simultaneously opens the door for a broader understanding of God's mercy, extending His promises to all who believe. This narrative not only enriches our comprehension of scripture but also invites a deeper appreciation of the inclusivity of God’s redemptive purpose.

Takeaways:

• The discussion emphasizes the significance of physical Israel in God's plan for redemption.
• Paul expresses profound sorrow for the Israelites who have rejected the Gospel of Christ.
• The theme of justification by faith, rather than law, is central to understanding God's promises.
• God's choice of Israel as a nation reflects His sovereign purpose for salvation for all.
• True children of God are those who share in the faith of Abraham, regardless of ethnicity.
• The rejection of the Gospel by Israel does not nullify the promises made to Abraham.

Good morning to you and welcome to our study.

From Romans chapter nine.

This morning is the text that we'll be studying from.

Paul would say, and I say the truth in Christ.

I lie not my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.

For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen.

According to flesh, who are Israelites, whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises, whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ?

As concerning the flesh, who is overall God blessed forever.

Amen.

Paul defines then, or at least describes the physical Israel of God by and ends with.

I think the point of his whole, his whole outline is that they are whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ.

In other words, it was through that seed that the Christ, the Messiah, would come forth.

And he even identifies it of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh.

So we're talking about the blessing that God chose a nation through, through whom the Messiah would be born.

As we enter this train of thought, it would continue all the way down through chapter 11.

He's already developed this theme that the Gospel is God's power to saving man.

That's the theme of the book.

And that justification is on the basis of faith, not on the basis of the law.

Well, that would naturally lead to certain questions concerning the Jewish nation.

How did it come to pass that they rejected the gospel?

And what would be their present state, their present condition or their future destiny?

These are questions that they might have been wondering.

And it is important, I think, to bear in mind that the selection throughout this thing is regarded as having reference not to the final salvation of persons, but to the execution of the purpose and will of God.

Underlying this whole section is the object of Paul to justify himself in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, that the promise was to his seed and the seed was Christ.

So now that justification by faith in Christ Jesus is promised to Jews and Gentiles, all of those who are of the faith of Abraham, who by the way, was justified by faith not being circumcised.

Paul would say in verse one, then I say the truth in Christ.

I lie not my conscience bearing witness with me in the Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.

Now let's look at this verse together.

Of course, there seems to be no reason for saying, as some people think, that Paul was making an oath here about telling the truth.

Anything Paul attempted to do was to tell the truth.

I don't think he was saying, now you need to listen to me, I'm telling the truth, as though there were other times he wasn't.

I don't think that's the meaning.

And we would use it that way, perhaps in conversation.

The word conscience is a knowing with oneself.

It's their consciousness.

The Greek here doesn't really make a whole lot of difference between being conscious of something and the word conscience.

I hope you heard the meaning one conscience and one conscious.

You know, the word comes from a Latin meaning with knowledge or in some cases, a knowing with oneself.

But neither the Greek nor the Roman used it in our sense.

It had no religious bearing at all and hardly was never known in the Old Testament, never used by the Lord.

And only Paul and Peter used the word.

And so all that Paul knew of himself being enlightened by the Holy Spirit bore witness that he was telling the truth.

When he said that he had sorrow and unceasing pain in his heart, he was conscious of his feelings, of his pain, and that he was telling the truth.

So Paul did frequently use this word.

He did use it in a moral sense, about he living before God in all good conscience.

To this day, he was conscious.

He lived in good conscience.

The Greeks really had one word.

Paul is just simply saying, I'm not aware of anything but that I'm telling the truth.

I'm bearing witness, my conscience bearing witness that there is great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.

Then he said, I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen, to according according to the flesh.

And ever since Paul became a Christian, rather, the Jews, of course, they were the object of his persecution.

And his greatest obstacles were the Jews who followed him from town to town or mistreated him when he was in town based on the message that he was preaching.

And even the Judaizing teachers had been bitter toward him.

And yet still he had the tenderest of feelings toward his kinsmen.

According to flesh, he didn't actually wish himself to be anathema from Christ for his brethren's sake.

He'd given up all things for Christ.

But I think he's just simply saying he would be willing to sacrifice all for the sake of his brethren.

Then he describes them as verse four.

He says, who are Israelites, and whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises, whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ?

As concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.

So here are Jews who have all these privileges.

They have the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law.

You remember, that was one of the points he made back in chapter three when he asked the question, what vantage then did the Jew have?

Much, in every way he said, because unto them were committed the oracles of God.

So they had been given these, the service of God and the promises, whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ?

So I think, of course, they had been adopted from the standpoint that they were a small nation among many nations that God chose.

There was nothing that particularly drew them to God from the standpoint of their own perfection or goodness or qualities that God saw that qualified them for the choice may have ever would have been the fact that they were of small stature and of no nation.

When he chose Abraham and made him a nation.

It might have been the very fact that they had, you know, small beginning and that he would have chosen them to begin with.

And of course everyone, all the nations came to know about Jehovah, God as being a God to reckon with and being powerful.

So God chose this unknown small people through whom the Messiah would be born.

He chose them.

The glory here that they were given, perhaps that includes all the various manifestations of God's power.

His presence, the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, for example, and all the other things that God had demonstrated to show his glory and his power, his care for them.

Abraham from Abraham on, God made a covenant with no other people.

And so he describes here in verse three that they also had covenants.

God had made no other covenant with any other peoples.

He had not given any laws to any other people.

And as the laws were God given, they were perfectly suited to their needs and their greatest glory.

And their greatest distinction is of whom that is.

Through this peoples Christ would come as concerning the flesh.

And with all of these distinctions they still rejected him and still continue to do so.

But this Christ is overall God blessed forever.

So we can't fail to notice that Christ is now over all.

In fact, it says, speaking of Christ who is over all, God blessed forever.

In Revelation chapter one, when John begins to reveal the things that he'd seen, he sees the Christ who speaks and says, I was dead, but I'm alive and I have the keys of death and Hades.

He's overcome and he is reigning.

He is King of kings and Lord of Lords.

John would record, I think it's important to note, and it's just in passing, that nowhere does Paul give any hint that Christ is yet to be exalted to that high state.

He is now exalted to that high state, my friends, and is now sitting at God's right hand, reigning in his kingdom.

But it is not as though the word of God hath come to naught.

Verse 6 says, for they are not all Israel that are of Israel.

The condition of fleshly Israel, though not clearly stated here in verses 1:5, is somewhat implied.

The fact that fleshly Israel had rejected Christ and were therefore anathema from Christ did not show that the word of God or the promise to Abraham had come to naught.

In other words, just the fact that they had rejected Christ doesn't mean that all the blessings through spiritual Israel had come to naught, because all nations would be blessed through Abraham, through his seed.

That is Galatians 3 says Christ being the seed.

Verse 7 shows the promise made to Abraham is the word of God that Paul had in mind.

And even though fleshly Israel had rejected Christ, there was yet a spiritual Israel, and the promise was fulfilled in them, not fleshly Israel.

So Paul's language in these verses shows us that the promise made to Abraham terminated insofar as the April the Abrahamic promise of physical Israel.

But the Abrahamic the promise made to Abraham is complete in spiritual Israel.

Not all who are Israel are of Israel, the spiritual Israel.

And so the promise was through Christ.

And as was noted earlier in the book of Romans in chapters three through four, that promise and being children of Abraham is that all those, whether Jew or Gentile, who come to Christ in faith justification can be theirs, just because justification is not on the basis of the law, but based on faith in Christ Jesus.

Verse 7 says, Neither because they are Abraham's seed are they all children talking about fleshly Israel, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called the blood descent from Abraham does not entitle one to share in the promises.

And so Paul's language in these verses shows that the promise made to Abraham is talking about a spiritual relationship.

People err greatly who think the promise to Abraham is yet to be fulfilled in fleshly Israel.

There are too many places, this being one of them that really does contradict that conclusion.

In verses 6 and 7, then Paul begins to show the Jews that they had no right to complain, even if God did reject them for another people.

Because in working out his plans, God had rejected the other sons of Abraham and had selected Isaac, through whom the promised seed would Come, Paul would give some other illustrations of that.

In verses eight, beginning, Paul says, that is, he's explaining, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.

For this is a word of promise.

According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

See, if it had been the children of the flesh, then all of Abraham's sons would have been included in the promise.

But Isaac was a child of promise.

And now God's people, true Christians, are children of promise as much as was Isaac.

How Isaac was a child of promise is explained in verse nine.

And so Paul would say, and not only so, but Rebekah also, having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.

For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the promise of God according to election might stand not of works, but of him that calls.

It was said unto her, the elders shall serve the younger.

Now, it's very important that we clearly go through this.

In working out his plan to bless the world through the seed of Abraham, that is the Christ, God had selected Isaac to be the heir of the promise, that is the one that through whom the Messiah would be born and rejected all the other sons of Abraham.

And the Jew might say that as Isaac was the only son of Abraham's real wife, his selection was natural and right.

But it was different with the selection of Jacob and Esau, and he uses that illustration too.

So if you're gonna compare these two together, you see, Jacob and Esau were full brothers.

And though they were twins, Esau was the firstborn.

In other words, he was the natural heir of the promise.

And yet of the two, God selected Jacob.

So the argument that, you know, Isaac was the only son of Abraham's real wife, his selection was.

Was the only right one to make.

Doesn't fit here because if you use this, the other illustration that he that he speaks of with regard to Jacob and Esau, and they were full twins.

And not only were they full twins, but Esau, he had the rightful place.

He was a natural heir of the promise.

But still, even then, God chose Jacob instead of Esau.

But notice the reason here were two children that were born before they were even born.

God made the selection before they had ever done anything good or bad.

They had made the selection.

But notice the purpose that's stated here.

Listen carefully.

That the purpose of God according to election might stand.

God had a purpose.

God had a plan.

And in choosing Jacob, God chose his descendants.

Of course, every Jew glorified, that was, of that seed, glorified in that choice that God made.

But the selection of Jacob and the rejection of Esau had nothing to do with their personal salvation.

Nor does it have anything to do with the descendants who followed their seed have anything to do with personal salvation.

If Jacob and his seed were chosen, then that would mean that not only was Jacob saved, but every descendant of Jacob down the line was also elected.

That isn't the point that Paul is making in this text, my friends.

And so by choosing Jacob, God is simply saying he chose his seed, his descendants, his line, his bloodline.

The selection of Jacob and the rejection of Esau had nothing to do with God saving them or rejecting Esau.

If it had pertained to their salvation, there would have been no point in mentioning the fact that the younger was selected instead of the older.

I mean, even the most dogmatic predestinarian would not say that the oldest son is the natural heir of salvation and all the other sons are reprobates.

The selection has nothing to do with personal salvation.

The fact is, the selection of Jacob was the selection of a people rather than an individual.

Had it been the selection or the election to salvation, then the nations descending from Jacob were all elected to salvation and all of Esau's descendants were lost.

And Jehovah's language to Rebekah shows plainly that he's talking about their descendants.

He's talking about the descendants of Jacob and Esau rather than of them as individuals.

In fact, if you would look at the place in Genesis where this statement is taken from, it's down in Genesis 25.

If you'll turn there for just a second and look at verse 23.

Listen carefully now.

Two nations are in thy womb.

The two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger.

Now, this statement does.

This doesn't mean that the elder shall serve the younger.

That doesn't apply to Esau and Jacob as individuals, because as individuals, Jacob came nearer serving Esau than Esau.

Jacob as individuals.

Now, it's true that as nations, their descendants that came along, the descendants of Esau, did serve the descendants of Jacob.

But that's not what the text says.

It says the elder shall serve the younger.

But yet Esau never served Jacob not as individuals.

So what are we talking about here?

We're talking about the very thing that he started that verse out saying, Two nations are in your womb.

Two peoples shall be separated from your bowels.

Now in verse 13, he goes on to say, even as it is written, jacob I have loved, but Esau I hated.

Now some people again get this all out of proportion and think that, you know, this was said before Jacob and Esau were born.

But you know we're getting for that from Genesis 25.

But really no language like that is found in what Jehovah said to Rebecca.

It's the language here quoted was written several hundred years after the days of Jacob and Esau, and that the language refers to the two peoples again instead of as individuals.

Notice if you want proof, more proof, look at Malachi chapter one, and I'll read the first four verses.

This is really the quotation from which this statement was made that Esau I loved and Jacob I loved, and Esau hated.

Here it is, beginning in verse one.

The burden of the word of Jehovah to Israel by Malachi I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, wherein have you loved us?

Was not Esau Jacob's brother, saith Jehovah, 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.

Thus saith Jehovah of host, they shall build, but I will throw down, and men shall call them the border of wickedness, the people against whom Jehovah hath indignation forever.

Again, please note we're not talking about God hating Esau personally.

For whatever reason, he chose Jacob to be through whom the Christ would be born, that is his bloodline, his descendants.

They formed a nation, and Esau another nation, God chose Jacob and his bloodline instead of Esau.

God has that right of choice.

But the choice has nothing to do with their salvation.

That's what I'm getting at.

It had to do with God's eternal purpose to bless the world through a seed of his selection.

Well, what shall we say then?

Verse 14 says, Is there unrighteousness with God?

Is it unfair for God to have chosen the younger over the older?

He says, God forbid there was no unrighteousness with God in the selection that he made.

If God selected Jacob and selected Isaac because they would be the best instruments through which to work out his plan, and the Jews gloried in that selection too, then why should they think that it would be out of harmony with God's nature to reject the Jews because of unbelief and accept the Gentiles who believed in Him?

Why Is it unreasonable to think that even though God had rejected the Jewish nation as such, they had the same opportunity as did the Gentiles, to become children of God?

It was just on a different level, a different basis.

On the basis of faith in Christ.

Made no difference whether you were Jew, Gentile.

It applied to the Jews, much of the Gentile.

It wasn't like God was abandoning the Jews.

And it's just that he had, you might say, he made clear the condition upon which the promise was made, that is faith in Christ Jesus.

Now, I know that became a stumbling block to many Jews.

My point simply is God didn't push the Jews out.

They had as much right to that promise as did any Jew.

Excuse me.

As did any gentile.

Now, verse 15 says, for he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

And I think it appears to me that Moses had grown somewhat discouraged on the occasion where this quote is taken, and maybe had showed some reluctance to keep going on.

And perhaps this was a general reminder to Moses that God had shown mercy to his people in spite of all that Pharaoh could do.

And, and he could, and he would continue to show them mercy even if Moses became discouraged and gave up.

No one can keep God from showing mercy on whom he will.

But to whom will he show mercy?

Well, he covereth his transgression, and those he covers shall not.

The proverb says, he that covereth his transgressions, true, shall not prosper, but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy.

And of all the objections and the efforts of the Jews that would not keep him from having mercy on the Gentiles who turn to him, as Isaiah says in chapter 55, let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to Jehovah, and he will have mercy upon him, and, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

The point simply is God is just and he will have mercy.

Not because of who, what descendants they were from, not because they were physically descended down from Isaac, but because again, that they are children of Abraham by promise.

And the promise to all heirs is that to have the faith of their father Abraham.

And that's what gives, I guess you'd say, the adoption and the right and the privilege of sonship.

It wasn't the fact that they had been given the Old Testament law.

It wasn't the fact that they had this priestly service.

It wasn't any of that.

It was the fact that in Christ they can be his children.

And so then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that showed mercy.

That's the conclusion.

And not so much from what is said in verse 15 as from the whole scope of Paul's argument.

And so in bringing to completion his plans to bless all nations through Abraham's seed.

That was the promise, by the way.

Of course, the Jews, in their arrogance had the idea that they were a blessing to the world just by their presence, because they had the law.

They knew what God wanted.

And so God had followed the counsel of his will.

He had purposed that through Christ, the promised seed, all nations would be blessed.

And that seed was not the Jewish nation as the Jews thought.

Now these blessings would be bestowed according to God's good pleasure.

It wasn't anything to do with racial distinction.

The Jews willed that it would be otherwise.

They would have no Gentile blessed unless he came circumcised or kept the law of Moses or something.

They strove earnestly.

In fact, the whole idea of this word running, and so you know that they had run implies that they could not defeat the purpose of God.

Of all their efforts and all their running, they couldn't thwart God's purpose any more than Isaac and Esau could defeat God's purpose to bless Jacob.

The working out of God's plan through these men that Paul has mentioned, none of it had anything to do with those men's personal salvation.

Someone had to be selected through whose seed the world would be blessed.

God selected Abraham.

And of Abraham's sons, one had to be heir of the promise.

One had to be the progenitor of the Messiah, the promised seed.

And so God selected Isaac.

And so also with reference to Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau, Jacob was the selection.

But since the way of salvation through Christ has been opened, a man's own will is the deciding factor in his salvation.

And that's not what's discussed here.

It's always that to him that is athirst, let him come, and he that will, let him take the water of life freely.

And justification being pronounced free of guilt and having a relationship with God and Christ is accomplished by faith in him.

And that is true whether Jew or Gentile, those are true children of Abraham.

But the promised seed was through the men that God chose these nations, them and their progenitors, those their seed after them would then and finally ultimately produce a family through whom the Christ would be born.

Verse 17 picks up another similar idea.

For the scripture saith unto 8 Pharaoh, for this very purpose did I raise you up, that I might show in thee my power and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.

Again, the word for here shows a close connection with what had been said previous.

The time came for God to show mercy to his oppressed people in Egypt.

And Pharaoh determined not to let the Israelites go.

And so, through Moses and Aaron, Jehovah said to Pharaoh, let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.

And Pharaoh said, who is Jehovah that I should hearken unto his voice to let Israel go?

Say I know not Jehovah, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.

And so, in saying this, Pharaoh openly defied God.

He arrogantly said, I will not.

In his estimation, God didn't have the power to dictate to him what he should do or not do.

And so the demand to let the Israelites go stirred in him a full determination to do whatever it is he pleased with Israel, no matter what God said or did.

Instead of producing in Pharaoh a willing obedience, the demand of God stirred him up to determine even more to defeat God's purpose to show mercy to Israel.

He felt that Israel belonged to him.

They were the property of his kingdom.

So every demand that God made through Moses and his attitude toward them served to harden his heart.

It shows how God hardened his heart and how he hardened his own heart.

So it is said that Jehovah hardened his heart.

It is said a number of times that he hardened his own heart.

And this contest continued quite a length of time to attract attention through all Egypt and the nations around about Egypt.

And when God in his own time and in his own way triumphed over Pharaoh and and all of his gods, his power was shown and his name was published all over the earth.

And so in Pharaoh.

If Pharaoh had immediately let Israel go, there would have been no contest.

God's people, his power rather would not have been displayed before the world.

But Pharaoh would would have gotten the credit with being good and kind to Israel.

The language that's quoted by Paul here was spoken to Pharaoh after the miracles had been given before pharaoh and after six of the 10 plagues had been visited upon him.

Each plague further hardened his heart.

It stirred him to greater determination to hold Israel in bondage.

So the term raise up is from a Greek word that is defined to raise up from the dead.

In other words, to stir up, to kindle as a fire, to arouse and that's the only definition given here that really fits the case.

God's demands stirred Pharaoh's antagonism.

The best way to say that, interestingly enough, God was long suffering to Pharaoh and that long suffering contributed much to the hardening of his heart.

The text says so then he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardens.

The whole circumstance shows that it's not necessary to conclude that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by some direct operation of the spirit or God's own choosing arbitrarily to to harden his heart.

But rather he simply said, let my people go.

Pharaoh was of such a heart that said.

You're not going to tell me what to do.

Listen, our time is up for this morning and I I will continue these thoughts.

I trust you'll stay with me on it and we'll pick up right here where we left off.

Thanks again and have a great day.