Romans 9

Paul’s oath in Christ, with the Spirit as witness, is not theatre. Wesley: In Christ—this seems to imply an appeal to him; in the Holy Ghost—through his grace. The man who will name Israel’s privileges and Israel’s unbelief starts by swearing he is not their enemy.

Wesley’s heirs hear a pastor of kinsmen, not a decree that has already discarded them. The truth he speaks will distinguish Israel within Israel (v. 6), but the distinction is not a cold list. Grief that needs an oath is grief for people who might still believe—and who, as 9:30–32 will say, still resist.

Calvin: as it was an opinion that Paul was a sworn enemy to his own nation, he adopts a preface and declares by an oath that he speaks the truth. The oath does not postpone election; it prepares the reader for a hard distinction inside Israel.

Conscience in the Holy Spirit is not a disclaimer of sovereignty. The next verses will name privileges and then deny that every Israelite is Israel. Sorrow under oath and a purpose of election (v. 11) will stand together, as they did in Calvin’s comment on v. 2.

Wesley: by declaring his sorrow for the unbelieving Jews, who excluded themselves from all the blessings he had enumerated, he shows that what he was now about to speak, he did not speak from any prejudice to them.

The anguish is for people who shut themselves out. Arminian interpreters refuse to hear this as pity for a reprobate roster assigned from eternity. Unceasing sorrow is the sound of an earnest offer refused—the same refusal 9:30–32 will name as unbelief, not as a fate that made the unbelief someone else’s.

Calvin: the perdition of the Jews caused very great anguish to Paul, though he knew that it happened through the will and providence of God. Obedience to providence does not prevent us from grieving at the destruction of lost men.

Reformed comfort is not apathy. The same mind can look to God and bear the ruin of those He has decreed to destroy, and turn to men and condole with their evils. Election does not undo tears. Anguish here is compatible with the purpose of election that will stand in v. 11.

Wesley: I could wish to suffer in their stead; yea, to be an anathema from Christ in their place. The thing could not be; yet the wish was pious and solid, though with a tacit condition, if it were right and possible.

Paul’s relatives according to the flesh are an actual people, not a metaphor. Corporate Israel is on the table. The wish is for their salvation, which Arminians take as evidence that their exclusion is not an unconditional personal reprobation from eternity. Individuals still resist; he could wish himself accursed for those who will not believe.

Calvin: he could not have expressed a greater ardour of love. Anathema from Christ signifies separation from the hope of salvation. Paul did not connect God’s election with his wish; the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the salvation of the Jews.

The wish is love, not a retraction of particular election. Calvin notes Paul knew his own salvation was based on election which could by no means fail—yet ardent feeling regards the object in view. Relatives according to the flesh can be loved with Mosaic intensity while still not all being the Israel of v. 6. Match Ephesians 1:3–6: the people chosen in Christ are not identical with every kinsman of the flesh.

Wesley enumerates the prerogatives: the adoption and the glory—Israel is the first-born child of God; the covenants, so often repeated; the service, and the promises. These are national gifts, historically given to a people.

Arminians read the list as corporate privilege, not as a census of eternally elect individuals. Adoption, covenants, and promises belong to Israelites as a people. How a person shares them is another question: by remaining among the children of promise (vv. 6–8), by faith, not by blood alone. 9:30–32 will show many Israelites missing righteousness because they didn’t seek it by faith.

Calvin: these titles of dignity were testimonies of love. The Lord had by a kind of privilege so raised them that they were separated from the common order of men. They had become unbelievers and broken the covenant, yet their perfidy had not rendered void the faithfulness of God.

The gifts are true, and they do not make every Israelite a child of the promise. Calvin will distinguish a general election of the nation from a hidden election of persons. The covenants and promises stand; the word has not failed (v. 6). National furniture is not the same as the purpose of election in v. 11.

Wesley: theirs are the fathers—the patriarchs and holy men of old, yea, the Messiah himself. Who is over all, God blessed for ever: no words can more clearly express his divine, supreme majesty, and his gracious sovereignty both over Jews and Gentiles.

Christ according to the flesh is Israel’s highest privilege. The line of promise runs to the Messiah. The privilege is the people’s, and the Christ is for those who believe from Jews and Gentiles. It is not a secret choosing of some Israelites to faith irrespective of the gospel they may refuse.

Calvin: it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed to have been united by a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world. Yet when this favor of being allied by kindred is unconnected with godliness, it leads to a greater condemnation. Christ descended from the Jews according to the flesh, and is God blessed for ever.

The highest national gift—the Christ himself—does not save the race as a race. Two natures in one person; two Israels in one people (v. 6). Kindred with God-over-all is honour, not automatic election. The elect are in the Son, as Ephesians 1:3–6: chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Wesley: the Jews imagined that the word of God must fail if all their nation were not saved. All are not Israel, who are of Israel—not in the favour of God, who are lineally descended of Israel. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; believers are accepted as the children of the promise, while unbelievers are rejected, though they are children after the flesh.

Do not flatten this into Calvin’s hidden election of persons irrespective of faith. Wesleyan Arminians hear the promise-line versus mere ethnicity: the word has not failed because it never promised every ethnic Israelite. Corporate/national: true Israel is the believing people. Individuals still resist (9:30–32). Foreknowledge and promise name the children; unbelief names those who are of Israel and yet not Israel.

Calvin: the promise was so given to Abraham and to his seed that the inheritance did not belong to every seed without distinction. All who are of Israel are not Israelites. The general election of the people of Israel is no hindrance that God should not from them choose by his hidden counsel those whom he pleases. His hidden favor appears more evident in that second election, which is confined to a part only.

This is individual election inside the nation, not a new definition that “Israel” simply means whoever later believes. The word has not failed because God always had a people He actually chose. Match Ephesians 1:3–6: chosen in Christ before the foundation; faith is fruit, not the cause that constitutes Israel.

Wesley: neither because they are lineally the seed of Abraham will it follow that they are all children of God. This did not hold even in Abraham’s own family. In Isaac shall thy seed be called—Isaac, not Ishmael, shall be called thy seed; that seed to which the promise is made.

The type is corporate: God names the line of the promise, not every child of Abraham’s body. Classical Arminians read Isaac as the promised way of dealing, the family defined by the word God spoke, entered by those who share Abraham’s faith. Do not flatten through Isaac into the unconditional reprobation of Ishmael as a person from eternity.

Calvin: the hidden election of God overrules the outward calling, and is yet by no means inconsistent with it. Of the first sons of Abraham, one was separated as the seed. Some men are by special privilege elected out of the chosen people, in whom the common adoption becomes efficacious and valid.

Isaac is not merely a national channel. The naming is God’s particular choice inside the already-chosen family. Outward seed is not enough; hidden election makes the calling stand. This is the same personal, prior choice as Ephesians 1:4—chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

Wesley: this is a clear type of things to come, showing that in all succeeding generations, not the children of the flesh, the lineal descendants of Abraham, but the children of the promise, they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are children of God.

Children of promise, on the Arminian reading, are those who receive what God promised—believers, the spiritual seed. Counting is God’s, and the counted are those who do not resist the promise. Corporate people, entered by faith. 9:30–32 will still explain why many of Israel were not counted: they did not pursue it by faith.

Calvin: if Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the seed, though the one as well as the other was Abraham’s son, all natural sons are not to be regarded as the seed. The children of the flesh have nothing superior to a natural descent; the children of the promise are those who are peculiarly selected by the Lord.

“Counted as heirs” is God’s counting of those He selected, not a later tally of who believed. Peculiar selection is unconditional personal election. Faith will mark the children of promise; it does not create the count. The promise is the instrument of a choice already God’s.

Wesley: this is the word of the promise—by the power of which Isaac was conceived, and not by the power of nature. Not, Whosoever is born of thee shall be blessed, but, At this time which I now appoint, Sarah will have a son—and he shall inherit the blessing.

The promise is particular as to the line, not a decree of two infants’ eternal destinies. God appoints how the family will run. This is foreknowledge and promise together: God keeps the word He spoke. Ishmael’s exclusion from this blessing is about the covenant seed, not unconditional reprobation of a person from eternity.

Calvin: when the Lord said he would come and a son would be born of Sarah, he intimated that his blessing was not yet conferred, but still suspended. Ishmael was already born when this was said; then God’s blessing had no regard to Ishmael.

The timing is the point: the blessing is God’s coming, not Abraham’s existing child. Reformed readers do not take this as mere national scheduling. The word of promise selects a son. Selection by promise, before works, prepares v. 11: the purpose of election stands because of Him who calls.

Wesley: God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham. This appears not only by Isaac and Ishmael, but by Esau and Jacob, who was chosen to inherit the blessing before either of them had done good or evil. The apostle mentions this to show that neither were their ancestors accepted through any merit of their own.

One father, one mother, twins: the choice cannot be explained by unequal parentage. Arminian reading still hears the blessing as the covenant inheritance of a people, not two eternal destinies assigned to infants irrespective of faith. Jacob is chosen to inherit the blessing—the promise-line. Merit is excluded; so is flattening this into Esau’s personal reprobation from eternity.

Calvin: there is a much more evident example in Jacob and Esau. In the former instance some might allege that their condition was unequal, the one being the son of a handmaid; but these were of the same mother, and were even twins: yet one was rejected, and the other was chosen by the Lord. The fulfilment of the promise does not take place in all the children of the flesh indiscriminately.

Out of the same lump come two persons. Paul tightens the case from households to twins so that only God’s choice remains. One, by our father Isaac—no difference in father, mother, or moment of conception. The next verse will say why: that the purpose of God according to election might stand.

Wesley: that the purpose of God according to election might stand—whose purpose was, to elect or choose the promised seed. Not of works—not for any preceding merit in him he chose. But of him that called—of his own good pleasure who called to that privilege whom he saw good.

Do not flatten “not yet born” into unconditional reprobation of Esau as a person from eternity. Those in Wesley’s line hear the promised seed and the privilege of the line: God chose how He would deal with the two nations in the womb, not on the basis of their works. Foreknowledge and promise, not a decree irrespective of faith. Individuals still resist (9:30–32). “Him who calls” names the God who calls to covenant privilege; it does not void a grace-enabled response.

Calvin: by these words, when the children had not yet been born, nor had done any good or evil, he shows that God in making a difference could not have had any regard to works, for they were not yet done. Those who say God foresees who would be worthy stumble: God can see nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, to induce him to manifest his favor. False then is the dogma that God elects or rejects as he foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of his favor.

This is individual unconditional election. Before they were born or had done good or bad, God’s purpose of election stands, not of works but of Him who calls. Match Ephesians 1:3–6: chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; faith is fruit, not cause. The calling here precedes works and foresight of works alike.

Wesley: the elder—Esau. Shall serve the younger—not in person, for he never did; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites.

Genesis 25:23 is about two nations in the womb. Classical Arminians take this as decisive: “the elder will serve the younger” concerns nations and ways of dealing, not two infants’ eternal destinies irrespective of faith. Esau never served Jacob in his own lifetime; the word landed on posterity. Point toward 9:30–32: persons in those nations still believe or stumble.

Calvin: see how the Lord makes a difference between the sons of Isaac while they were as yet in their mother’s womb. Though this had reference to the right of primogeniture, yet in this, as the symbol of something greater, was manifested the will of God. Jacob derived little benefit according to the flesh from his primogeniture; there was then something greater promised in the answer.

The oracle is not exhausted by Edom serving Israel. Calvin: the spiritual condition of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and the servitude of Esau. The oracle concerns persons, not merely nations. The word spoken before birth is the same purpose of election as v. 11.

Wesley: I have loved Jacob—with a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob. And I have, comparatively, hated Esau—that is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe: this does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau, nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity.

Malachi 1:2–3 is nations. “Loved/hated” elects one people for covenant privilege, comparatively preferring Jacob’s line to Esau’s. Do not flatten the sentence into Calvin’s naming of two persons’ eternal destinies. Corporate election of a people; individuals in both lines still resist or believe (9:30–32). Foreknowledge and promise, not unconditional reprobation of Esau as a person from eternity.

Calvin: the spiritual condition of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and servitude of Esau, and Jacob obtained this favor through the kindness of God, not through his own merit. I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. Though earthly blessings are recorded, it is not right to view them but as symbols of his benevolence: for where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where his love is, there is life.

“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” names persons, not merely nations. Reformed reading matches Ephesians 1:3–6: chosen in Christ before the foundation; the difference is mercy, not foreseen faith. Faith is fruit, not cause. Love and hate here are God’s electing distinction, the purpose of election that stood before they had done good or bad.