4

Romans 9:6-9 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 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.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

What does Paul mean by Christians being the children of the promise, being called like Isaac?

1
  • Compare with Galatians 4:21-31. – Perry Webb Feb 28 '18 at 21:36
3

Paul is arguing that "fleshly" descent from Abraham does not in itself make one of Israel. Not only, however, does this apply to Christians, but even to the Jews themselves.


Normally we think of similar arguments he makes in the context of Christians being able to call themselves of Israel even if they are not genetically descended from Abraham. For example:

Galatians 3:26, 29

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

But here, in Romans 9:6ff, Paul is explaining that this even applies to the Jews themselves. Not all children of Abraham's flesh can be called Jews: the children of the bondwoman and Keturah, for example, are not considered to be part of Israel (Genesis 16:15; 25:1-4). These are not the children of God, writes Paul; it is, rather, the children of the promise (i.e. the promise that in Isaac shall thy seed be called) that are counted for the seed.


A modern commentary on this particular passage in Romans explains:

Concerned about what may be inferred from his lament [v.1-5], his anguish over Israel's rejection of the promised Savior, the Apostle hastens to declare that there has been no failure; God's promises have indeed been effective and do remain: this word has not failed. Some Jews have believed, and what is more, some Gentiles, too. These believers constitute the real Israel. Not all of those who are biological descendants of Abraham deserve the name - only those who have put their faith in Christ and are thus "a new creature", "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16)

Not all the fleshly sons of Abraham are his children, "his seed"; take, for example, the children of the bondwoman and Keturah, whom he had married after Sarah's death (Genesis 16:15; 25:1-4). But, as the Apostle reminds us, it was "in Isaac" that Abraham's "seed should be called" (Genesis 21:12; Hebrews 11:18). This does not mean, however, that fleshly descent from Isaac is the guarantee of being "counted for the seed" [cf. Galatians 3:26,29].

This new understanding of "the seed" had been foretold by the Psalmist, when he put these words in the mouth of the Man, the Anointed or Christ: "But I have been appointed king by Him on Zion His holy mountain ... The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations [LXX: τὰ ἔθνη, "the Gentiles"] for thine inheritance" [Psalm 2:6-8].*


* Dmitry Royster, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2008), pp.234-235.

1

If you compare this passage with Galatians 4:21-31, Paul wrote that Ismael was the son of human effort or works (keeping the law), while Isaac was the promised son, God's miracle, signifying grace. Thus, the son of promise means the church is the son of God's grace, not of human effort and human action.

0

The answer to this question depends a great deal on a persons theological and hermeneutical methodology.

Typically those who approach the text from the perspective of covenant theology would apply this text to Christians as they typically are also proponents of replacement theology--the idea that Israel has been replaced by the church as the "true Israel."

On the other hand there are those who approach the text from a more consistently literal hermeneutic, namely, a dispensational hermeneutic. Using a dispensational hermeneutic here is what is being discussed in the open verses of Romans 9.

At the end of Romans 8, Paul declares the great position believers have in Christ, the idea that there is nothing that can separate them from the love of Christ. Since Romans is written using the rhetoric of a Greek diatribe, Paul in Romans 9 is cutting off the doubter who might think, well what about Israel. If they were separated from God, how can you say that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.

Paul argues in 9:6-32 that it was not the physical descendants of Jacob who were blessed and called of God. True Israel were the elect who had exercised faith in God (V 32) and as the elect they had been chosen by God. I would argue that most of the passage is talking about Israel in the past (especially Vs. 6-9). The intent was to reassure the Romans that God had cared for the true Israel and as a result your faith is secure in Christ as well.

Christians are in view in V24:

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The even us means that we are also the vessels of mercy just as the true Israelites were the vessels of God's mercy.

This is based on a hermeneutic that may not be that popular on this site but it is the one this author uses in his approach to the Scriptures.

0

In Ephesians 3:5-6, Paul elaborates on the dispensation of the grace of God given him toward the Gentiles, "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;"

That mystery is this: "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"

There are many other verses which expound on this mystery (see circumcision), but I'll leave you with one more:

Romans 2:28-29 - For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

In other words, just because you were born into the physical family of Abraham, doesn't guarantee you the inheritance, much like today: being born into a Christian home doesn't make you Christian. It is up to the individual to accept Christ as Saviour for themselves, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal 5:6), and thus be placed into the family of God as children of the promise (cf. Jn 1:12).

0

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance shows (pgs. 58 and 120 of hebrew dictionary, 3327 and 6711) that the etymology of Isaac, with Yitzak, indicates not just laughter.

Mocking scorn is what is indicated with the Hebrew roots for Isaac.

The gruesome crucifixion of Jesus Christ is to atone for all of the mocking scorn of the human heart.

1
  • Welcome to BHSX. Thanks for your contribution. Please remember to take the tour (link below) to better understand how this site works. This answer could be improved by providing some references to support your assertions. – Dottard Feb 10 at 8:23
-2

Isaac was not Abraham's first born son, but he was the son of which the promise would come through. This is true over and over in scripture.

Let's take Adam as an example.

  1. Adam is the 1st born "Son of Man".

  2. Adam was given the LAW (it was one law, but the LAW none the less).

  3. Adam was given stewardship of the garden.

  4. Adam was tested. In the MIDST of the garden were two trees, The Tree of Life, and The Tree of Death, and God told Adam essentially, don't choose Death. He failed, and chose death.

In 1 Cor 15:45 Paul compares Jesus to the son of promise the second Adam. Jesus choose The Tree of Life every time.

Now let's take Israel as an example:

  1. Israel is God's 1st born "Son of Nations" (Ex 2:22).

  2. Israel was given the LAW.

  3. Israel was given stewardship of the Promise Land.

  4. Israel was tested 3 times in the wilderness and failed all 3 times.

  5. And in Deuteronomy 30:19 God said "...I have set before you (Israel) life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life..." This time God gives his son the answer, but you guessed it Israel chose death.

Now fast forward to Jesus, and he is tested 3 times and He he chose Life every time. The "son of promise" is the one who chooses life, or faith in God.

Jesus is the second Adam, the son of promise, who redeems man. Israel on the other hand is God's first born son of nations, but the church is the son of promise, a holy nation unto God (1st Peter 2:9).

5
  • Interesting , I like the information you said about Adam and Israel compared to Christ. But I don't see how this is what Paul meant. – diego b Feb 28 '18 at 22:50
  • Where is Adam called the son of man? Adam=man so he is not the son of himself. Luke calls him the son of God , not son of man. Also where did you get "son of the nations" from Exodus 2 22? – diego b Feb 28 '18 at 23:39
  • When you say son of man, your literally saying son of Adam. Adam is Hebrew for man. So your saying Adam is the son of adam. No where in the scriptures is Adam referred to as the son of man. Christ is the son of man /adam because he is a descendant of adam. – diego b Mar 1 '18 at 0:47
  • Adam isn't called "son of man" but it's logical. He is a direct creation of God, hence son, and he is Man. I.e. God's son of man. Other times in the Bible "son of man" is used for someone other then Jesus. Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end [shall be] the vision. (Daniel 8:15-17). The whole book of Ezekiel "son of man" is used for Ezekiel. – John E Miller Mar 1 '18 at 0:49
  • I'm sorry diego b, I didn't make it clear. Jesus is the second Adam, the son of promise, who redeems man. Israel is the first born son of nations, but the church is the son of promise, a holy nation unto God (1st Peter 2:9) – John E Miller Mar 1 '18 at 1:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.