TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on Romans 9 verses 6–13
The apostle, having made his way to that which he had to say, concerning the rejection of the body of his countrymen, with a protestation of his own affection for them and a concession of their undoubted privileges, comes in these verses, and the following part of the chapter, to prove that the rejection of the Jews, by the establishment of the gospel dispensation, did not at all invalidate the word of God's promise to the patriarchs: Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect (Rom 9:6), which, considering the present state of the Jews, which created to Paul so much heaviness and continual sorrow (Rom 9:2), might be suspected. We are not to ascribe inefficacy to any word of God: nothing that he has spoken does or can fall to the ground; see Isa 55:10, Isa 55:11. The promises and threatenings shall have their accomplishment; and, one way or other, he will magnify the law and make it honourable. This is to be understood especially of the promise of God, which by subsequent providences may be to a wavering faith very doubtful; but it is not, it cannot be, made of no effect; at the end it will speak and not lie.
Now the difficulty is to reconcile the rejection of the unbelieving Jews with the word of God's promise, and the external tokens of the divine favour, which had been conferred upon them. This he does in four ways: - 1. By explaining the true meaning and intention of the promise, Rom 9:6-13. 2. By asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, Rom 9:14-24. 3. By showing how this rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, Rom 9:25-29. 4. By fixing the true reason of the Jews' rejection, Rom 9:30, to the end.
In this paragraph the apostle explains the true meaning and intention of the promise. When we mistake the word, and misunderstand the promise, no marvel if we are ready to quarrel with God about the accomplishment; and therefore the sense of this must first be duly stated. Now he here makes it out that, when God said he would be a God to Abraham, and to his seed (which was the famous promise made unto the fathers), he did not mean it of all his seed according to the flesh, as if it were a necessary concomitant of the blood of Abraham; but that he intended it with a limitation only to such and such. And as from the beginning it was appropriated to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau, and yet for all this the word of God was not made of no effect; so now the same promise is appropriated to believing Jews that embrace Christ and Christianity, and, though it throws off multitudes that refuse Christ, yet the promise is not therefore defeated and invalidated, any more than it was by the typical rejection of Ishmael and Esau.
I. He lays down this proposition - that they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Rom 9:6), neither because they are, etc., Rom 9:7. Many that descended from the loins of Abraham and Jacob, and were of that people who were surnamed by the name of Israel, yet were very far from being Israelites indeed, interested in the saving benefits of the new covenant. They are not all really Israel that are so in name and profession. It does not follow that, because they are the seed of Abraham, therefore they must needs be the children of God, though they themselves fancied so, boasted much of, and built much upon, their relation to Abraham, Mat 3:9; Joh 8:38, Joh 8:39. But it does not follow. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privileges, though it is common for people thus to stretch the meaning of God's promise, to bolster themselves up in a vain hope.
II. He proves this by instances; and therein shows not only that some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but that God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will; and not with regard to that law of commandments to which the present unbelieving Jews were so strangely wedded.
1.He specifies the case of Isaac and Ishmael, both of them the seed of Abraham; and yet Isaac only taken into covenant with God, and Ishmael rejected and cast out. For this he quotes Gen 21:12, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, which comes in there as a reason why Abraham must be willing to cast out the bond-woman and her son, because the covenant was to be established with Isaac, Gen 17:19. And yet the word which God had spoken, that he would be a God to Abraham and to his seed, did not therefore fall to the ground; for the blessings wrapt up in that great word, being communicated by God as a benefactor, he was free to determine on what head they should rest, and accordingly entailed them upon Isaac, and rejected Ishmael. This he explains further (Rom 9:8, Rom 9:9), and shows what God intended to teach us by this dispensation. (1.) That the children of the flesh, as such, by virtue of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, are not therefore the children of God, for then Ishmael had put in a good claim. This remark comes home to the unbelieving Jews, who boasted of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, Phi 3:3. Ishmael was a child of the flesh, conceived by Hagar, who was young and fresh, and likely enough to have children. There was nothing extraordinary or supernatural in his conception, as there was in Isaac's; he was born after the flesh (Gal 4:29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness. (2.) That the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Those that have the honour and happiness of being counted for the seed have it not for the sake of any merit or desert of their own, but purely by virtue of the promise, in which God hath obliged himself of his own good pleasure to grant the promised favour. Isaac was a child of promise; this his proves, Rom 9:9, quoted from Gen 18:10. he was a child promised (so were many others), and he was also conceived and born by force and virtue of the promise, and so a proper type and figure of those who are now counted for the seed, even true believers, who are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God - of the incorruptible seed, even the word of promise, by virtue of the special promise of a new heart: see Gal 4:28. It was through faith that Isaac was conceived, Heb 11:11. Thus were the great mysteries of salvation taught under the Old Testament, not in express words, but by significant types and dispensations of providence, which to them then were not so clear as they are to us now, when the veil is taken away, and the types are expounded by the antitypes.
2.The case of Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:10-13), which is much stronger, to show that the carnal seed of Abraham were not, as such, interested in the promise, but only such of them as God in sovereignty had appointed. There was a previous difference between Ishmael and Isaac, before Ishmael was cast out: Ishmael was the son of the bond-woman, born long before Isaac, was of a fierce and rugged disposition, and had mocked or persecuted Isaac, to all which it might be supposed God had regard when he appointed Abraham to cast him out. But, in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was neither so nor so, they were both the sons of Isaac by one mother; they were conceived hex henos - by one conception; hex henos koitou, so some copies read it. The difference was made between them by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any good or evil. Both lay struggling alike in their mother's womb, when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen, that the purpose of God according to election might stand - that this great truth may be established, that God chooses some and refuses others as a free agent, by his own absolute and sovereign will, dispensing his favours or withholding them as he pleases. This difference that was put between Jacob and Esau he further illustrates by a quotation from Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, where it is said, not of Jacob and Esau the person, but the Edomites and Israelites their posterity, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. The people of Israel were taken into the covenant of peculiarity, had the land of Canaan given them, were blessed with the more signal appearances of God for them in special protections, supplies, and deliverances, while the Edomites were rejected, had no temple, altar, priests, nor prophets - no such particular care taken of them nor kindness shown to them. Such a difference did God put between those two nations, that both descended from the loins of Abraham and Isaac, as at first there was a difference put between Jacob and Esau, the distinguishing heads of those two nations. So that all this choosing and refusing was typical, and intended to shadow forth some other election and rejection. (1.) Some understand it of the election and rejection of conditions or qualifications. As God chose Isaac and Jacob, and rejected Ishmael and Esau, so he might and did choose faith to be the condition of salvation and reject the works of the law. Thus Arminius understands it, De rejectis et assumptis talibus, certa qualitate notatis - Concerning such as are rejected and such as are chosen, being distinguished by appropriate qualities; so John Goodwin. But this very much strains the scripture; for the apostle speaks all along of persons, he has mercy on whom (he does not say on what kind of people) he will have mercy, besides that against this sense those two objections (Rom 9:14, Rom 9:19) do not at all arise, and his answer to them concerning God's absolute sovereignty over the children of men is not at all pertinent if no more be meant than his appointing the conditions of salvation. (2.) Others understand it of the election and rejection of particular person - some loved, and others hated, from eternity. But the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, not in their own persons, but as ancestors - Jacob the people, and Esau the people; nor does God condemn any, or decree so to do, merely because he will do it, without any reason taken from their own deserts. (3.) Others therefore understand it of the election and rejection of people considered complexly. His design is to justify God, and his mercy and truth, in calling the Gentiles, and taking them into the church, and into covenant with himself, while he suffered the obstinate part of the Jews to persist in unbelief, and so to unchurch themselves - thus hiding from their eyes the things that belonged to their peace. The apostle's reasoning for the explication and proof of this is, however, very applicable to, and, no doubt (as is usual in scripture) was intended for the clearing of the methods of God's grace towards particular person, for the communication of saving benefits bears some analogy to the communication of church-privileges. The choosing of Jacob the younger, and preferring him before Esau the elder (so crossing hands), were to intimate that the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and the first-born of the church, should be laid aside; and the Gentiles, who were as the younger brother, should be taken in in their stead, and have the birthright and blessing. The Jews, considered as a body politic, a nation and people, knit together by the bond and cement of the ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood, the centre of their unity, had for many ages been the darlings and favourites of heaven, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, dignified and distinguished by God's miraculous appearances among them and for them. Now that the gospel was preached, and Christian churches were planted, this national body was thereby abandoned, their church-polity dissolved; and Christian churches (and in process of time Christian nations), embodied in like manner, become their successors in the divine favour, and those special privileges and protections which were the products of that favour. To clear up the justice of God in this great dispensation is the scope of the apostle here.
The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger." From which it is evident, that not only were there prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but that both should be of one and the same Father.
Much more aptly would they have matched the Christian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son, "according to the analogy of faith," if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca's womb permitted the inversion: only that (in that case) the concluding paragraph would oppose them; for it will he fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it he true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel.
For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less." Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and "greater" through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be "less" in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and "greater" people-that is, the Jewish-must necessarily serve the "less; "and the "less" people-that is, the Christian-overcome the "greater.
Paul says that Sarah was not the only one to give birth in a typological manner. Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, did the same, though in a different way. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior, but Jacob and Esau were born as types of two peoples, believers and unbelievers, who come from the same source but are nevertheless very different.… One person represents the entire race, not because he is their physical ancestor but because he shares their relationship to God. There are children of Esau who are children of Jacob, and vice versa. It is not because Jacob is praised that all those descended from him are worthy to be called his children. Nor is it because Esau was rejected that all those descended from him are condemned, for we see that Jacob the deceiver had unbelieving children, and Esau had children who were faithful and dear to God. There is no doubt that there are many unbelieving children of Jacob, for all the Jews, whether they are believers or unbelievers, have their origin in him. And that there are good and faithful children of Esau is proved by the example of Job, who was a descendent of Esau, five generations away from Abraham and therefore Esau’s grandson.
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac." The subject in question was an important one. Hence he turns to several arguments, and endeavors by all means to solve the difficulty. For if it was at once strange and new for them to be cast out after so great promises, it is much more strange that we even should come into their good things, who did not expect anything of the kind.
I might, he implies, have mentioned the children by Keturah besides, but I do not. But to gain the victory from a vantage ground it is those born of one and the same father, and mother too, that I bring forward. For they were both sprung from Rebecca, and from Isaac the true-born, the elect, the son honored above all, of whom He said, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," who became "the father of us all;" but if he was our father, then should his sons have been our fathers; yet it was not so. You see how this happens not in Abraham's case only, but also in that of his son himself, and how it is faith and virtue in all cases that is conspicuous, and gives the real relationship its character.
Not only are Ishmael and Isaac (who were born of different mothers but the same father) not equal in the sight of God; Jacob and Esau too (who were born of Rebecca by a single conception), were separated in God’s sight before they were born, because of their future faith, so that God’s plan to choose the good and reject the evil already existed in his foreknowledge. Thus God has now chosen from among the Gentiles those whom he foreknew would believe and has rejected those of Israel whom he foreknew would not believe. Rebecca is thought to have been the first woman to have borne twins; it is because this strange thing has happened to her that she inquires of God.
God’s foreknowledge does not prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent.
Paul reinforces here what he said earlier about Sarah and Isaac, in case someone might think that the election depended on the mother. For although Rebecca had twins, only one of them was chosen.
Continue studying Romans 9:10 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Romans 9:10 serves as a crucial illustration in Paul's defense of God's faithfulness to His covenant promises, particularly concerning Israel's rejection of Christ. Following the example of Isaac over Ishmael, this verse introduces Rebecca's conception of twins, Jacob and Esau, by the same father, Isaac. This shared parentage underscores that the subsequent divine choice between the brothers was not based on their lineage or any pre-existing merit, but solely on God's sovereign purpose and election, setting the stage for Paul's profound theological argument about God's unmerited favor and His method of choosing His people.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Paul employs several literary devices in Romans 9:10 to strengthen his argument. Primarily, he uses Exemplum, presenting the historical account of Rebecca, Jacob, and Esau as a concrete illustration of God's sovereign election. This serves as a powerful, undeniable precedent from their own sacred history, making his theological claims more persuasive. The phrase "by one, even by our father Isaac" employs Emphasis and Repetition (of the idea of singular origin) to underscore the identical parentage of the twins. This deliberate focus on their shared biological source is crucial, as it systematically eliminates any human or natural factor that could explain God's choice, thereby highlighting the purely divine and unconditioned nature of His election. The verse also functions as a form of A fortiori argument, implying that if God's choice was so evident and unmerited even in the case of twins from the same womb and father, how much more is His election based solely on His will in the broader scope of salvation history.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Romans 9:10 is a foundational verse for understanding the doctrine of divine election, emphasizing that God's choice is not predicated on human merit, lineage, or any foreseen works, but solely on His sovereign will and purpose. This principle, demonstrated through the identical parentage of Jacob and Esau, underscores that God's salvific plan operates according to His unconditioned grace rather than human performance. It challenges any notion that salvation or spiritual privilege can be earned or inherited, directing all glory to God's initiative and wisdom. The verse sets the stage for Paul's declaration that God's purpose of election is "not of works but of him who calls" (Romans 9:11), firmly grounding the New Testament understanding of grace in Old Testament precedent.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Romans 9:10, in its broader context, invites us to deeply ponder the nature of God's sovereignty and our place within His grand design. The fact that God's choice of Jacob over Esau was made before they had done anything good or bad is a profound challenge to our natural human inclination to believe that our standing with God is earned or based on our own efforts or inherent worth. This truth should cultivate a profound sense of humility, recognizing that any spiritual privilege or blessing we experience is purely a gift of God's unmerited favor. It frees us from the burden of striving to earn God's love and instead calls us to rest in His perfect, wise, and loving plan. Understanding this sovereign election should not lead to passivity but to a deeper trust in God's mysterious ways, knowing that His purposes will always prevail. It also reminds us that our primary identity and security are found not in our lineage, achievements, or even our choices, but in God's eternal choice of us in Christ.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Does Romans 9:10 imply that God is unfair or arbitrary in His choices?
Answer: No, Romans 9:10, when understood in its full context, does not imply that God is unfair. Instead, it highlights that God's choices are not based on human merit or external factors, but on His own sovereign will and righteous character. Paul directly addresses the question of God's fairness in Romans 9:14, asking, "Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" He then explains that God has the right to show mercy to whom He wills and to harden whom He wills, drawing on the example of Pharaoh in Romans 9:15-18. The point is not that God is arbitrary, but that His justice and mercy are exercised according to His divine wisdom and purpose, which transcends human understanding and expectations. His election is not a reflection of injustice but of His absolute freedom and grace in bestowing His favor.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Romans 9:10, by illustrating God's sovereign election through the example of Jacob and Esau, lays crucial groundwork for understanding the ultimate outworking of God's redemptive plan in Christ. Just as God chose Jacob not based on merit but on His divine purpose, so too has He chosen a people in Christ, not based on their works or lineage, but solely on His grace. Jesus Christ Himself is the ultimate "seed" of Abraham, through whom all the promises of God find their "Yes" and "Amen" (2 Corinthians 1:20). He is the true Israel, the one in whom God's election is perfectly embodied and through whom all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile, are brought into the family of God. The New Covenant, established through Christ's sacrifice, fulfills God's ancient promises by creating a new spiritual Israel, a people chosen by grace through faith in Him (Galatians 3:26-29). Thus, the principle of God's unmerited choice, so clearly demonstrated in Rebecca's conception of twins, foreshadows the radical inclusivity of the gospel, where salvation is entirely a gift of God's sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, available to all who believe, regardless of their earthly origins or accomplishments (Ephesians 2:8-9).