“It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants. For this is what the promise declared: “About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac—even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)—it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Romans 9:6-13 NET
The promise of God is unwavering and faithful, and not a
single word spoken by Him will fail to be fulfilled. However, our perceptions
of these promises and of God Himself can often be misleading. The statement
that “not everyone born from Israel’s seed is truly Israel” highlights a
profound truth: mere genetic lineage does not guarantee spiritual identity.
Likewise, not all individuals descended from Abraham can claim to be faithful
heirs to his legacy. This raises a crucial question: Does God exercise selective
choice, choosing some individuals for His purposes while rejecting others? This
is where the doctrine of election becomes intricately complex. If God sent His
son to offer salvation to the ‘world,’ then aren’t all people, in a sense,
descendants of Abraham?
The essence of being God’s children is not determined by
mere natural descent but by a profound spiritual lineage that traces back to
Isaac. It is essential to emphasize the miraculous circumstances surrounding
Isaac’s birth: Abraham was a hundred years old, and Sarah was ninety, significantly past their childbearing years. Paul poignantly describes
Abraham’s condition as “as good as dead” in relation to his capacity to procreate.
Similarly, Sarah had long ceased to ovulate, marking the end of her
reproductive potential. If Isaac were to be born, it would be a miracle
of divine creation—an immaculate conception in more ways than one. Isaac is
recognized as the son of promise, distinctly separate from anyone born purely
of human effort or desire. Sarah was simply the vessel through which this
promised son would come, unable to contribute viable genetic material, as her
biological clock had run its course. Likewise, Abraham, having surpassed the
natural limits of fatherhood, was rendered incapable of contributing any effort to give his genetic material in a conventional sense.
When the Lord assured Abraham with the words, “I will give
you a son,” He was not merely indicating that He would enhance Abraham’s
physical abilities to procreate, nor was He suggesting that Sarah would
suddenly produce an ovum following a lifetime of infertility. Instead, God declared His intention to produce a son for Abraham—a son who would fulfill a personal promise and become the forefather of many nations. But do these chosen people stand apart from the rest of
humanity? I contend that their distinction lies not in their ancestry but in
their conscious choice to die to their fleshly desires and be reborn by the
Spirit of God, thus stepping into a new life in Christ.
The concept of election, therefore, does not imply that God
arbitrarily selects individuals for salvation; rather, it expresses His
established criteria—those who belong to Him are not defined by their bloodline
of the flesh, but are instead born again, shaped, and continually renewed by
the Spirit of God. These individuals live lives that resonate with obedience to
the living God, actively pursuing a relationship that transcends the
limitations of their earthly heritage. Through this lens, we begin to understand
the true nature of God’s promises and the depth of His plan for those who seek
Him wholeheartedly.
The concept of election in a theological context is profound and intricately layered. It reveals that God has not merely selected a
few people for salvation; He has lovingly extended His invitation to
all of humanity. This invitation transcends geographical, cultural, and ethnic
boundaries, calling individuals from every nation to embrace their identity as
His children. Yet, within this sweeping invitation lies a poignant truth: some
choose to reject it. Their refusal often arises from various influences,
including the limitations of a worldly perspective, cultural beliefs that
conflict with divine truths, or a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s
generous intentions.
God’s love has been intended for
all since the dawn of creation. However, following the significant event of rebellion at the Tower of
Babel, where humanity attempted to assert dominance and independence from God, He
enacted a pivotal shift by choosing Israel as His covenant people to tell
the world about God’s love. This moment shaped the narrative of history as God
divided the rest of humanity into seventy distinct nation-states, each uniquely crafted and positioned in the tapestry of His creation.
God appointed spiritual governors to guide these nations back to Himself, often referred to in scripture as “sons of God.”
These governors were entrusted with the monumental task of shepherding the people’s hearts, steering them away from rebellion and toward divine
reconciliation. Unfortunately, these governors faltered, succumbing to their
own pride and leading the people astray, demanding that the people worship them
rather than the Creator Himself.
These heavenly spiritual governors were only intended as
temporary figures, designed to prepare the way for the ultimate fulfillment of
God’s redemptive plan through the coming of Jesus Christ. Born into humble
circumstances, Jesus heralded a new era, establishing Himself as the Savior and
Lord of all people. Through His life, death, and resurrection, He dismantled
barriers created by these spiritual governors and ended their rebellion by
extending an open invitation into a transformative relationship through Him directly.
This rich theological perspective is beautifully captured in what is commonly
referred to as the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, which paints a picture of God’s
overarching design for redemption, reconciliation, and the restoration of all
humanity to its rightful place within His eternal family.
The promise of God intricately flows through the protracted
lineage of Abraham, beginning with Isaac, the seminal firstborn of that
holy promise, and extending through his wife, Rebecca. Even before their two
sons, Jacob and Esau, had the opportunity to manifest their true natures
through their actions—whether virtuous or flawed—God pronounced a remarkable
declaration regarding their destinies. His divine choice was anchored in His
sovereign will rather than any deeds or merits of the individuals involved. The profound revelation came to Rebecca: “the older will serve the younger.” This
divine pronouncement sets the stage for a significant narrative shift, echoed
in scripture: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Esau is portrayed as a robust, vigorous, quintessential “man of the field.” He embraced the wilderness, showcasing his
prowess as a skilled hunter who thrived amidst the raw elements of nature. His
striking appearance, marked by a reddish complexion and a wealth of thick,
coarse hair, accentuates his rugged, earthy personality. In sharp contrast
stands Jacob, often depicted as a more reserved, gentle, and introspective
figure. The Hebrew term “tam,” used to describe him, suggests a
person who is not only plain but also embodies a sense of integrity and
completeness, hinting at a deeper spiritual stature.
Where Esau epitomizes the pursuit of immediate, earthly
pleasures—with a life focused on the pursuit of the chase and the demands of
the wild—Jacob symbolizes the yearning for spiritual depth and transcendent
truths. His quest for blessings beyond mere survival positions him
as a man of the Spirit, continually reaching for something greater than the
tangible world. This fundamental contrast between the two brothers ultimately
shapes their destinies and the unfolding of God’s promise to His people,
weaving a rich tapestry of divine purpose versus human effort.
So God did not fail in His promises; He only defined what a
true spiritual man would look like. This is why Jacob was renamed Israel. The
name Israel is nuanced, which can mean many things, but specifically, it embodies distinction and purpose. The following etymology of Israel
carries connotations of resilience and the notion that God’s purposes are
pursued with determination.
The meaning of the name “Israel” has been analyzed
and interpreted consistently across many scholarly sources, including the NOBSE
Study Bible Name List, the BDB Theological Dictionary, and Alfred Jones in his
“Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names.” All three agree on the
significance of the Hebrew verb שָׂרָה
(sarah), though its exact meaning remains somewhat ambiguous.
NOBSE interprets “Israel” as “God
Strives,” suggesting a dynamic relationship between the divine and
humanity marked by struggle and persistence, like when Jacob wrestled with God
(Genesis 32:22-32). In contrast, the BDB Theological Dictionary proposes the
meanings “El Persists” or “El Perseveres,” emphasizing the
enduring nature of God’s support and involvement in human affairs.
Alfred Jones, however, presents a more nuanced interpretation
of the enigmatic Hebrew verb שָׂרָה,
suggesting that it may be understood as “to be princely” or “to rule.” He
posits that the name “Israel” comprises a future form of this verb, which
indicates not just a current identity, but also a potential for transformation
and greatness in the future. This interpretation leads Jones to conclude that
the name Israel can be translated as “He Will Be Prince With God.”
This perspective highlights a vision of leadership,
authority, and divine favor, encapsulating the notion that the Israelite people
are destined for a unique role in relation to God. Jones invites a deeper understanding of their cultural and
spiritual significance by emphasizing the close relationship between the Israelites and the divine and the royal implications of their identity.
Furthermore, Jones’s interpretation resonates with
the Christian understanding of believers’ relationship with Jesus, portraying
them as co-heirs with Him in His heavenly reign. It suggests that just as
Israel was meant to embody a princely status through their covenant with God,
Christians are called to participate in a royal identity through their believing
loyalty and connection to Christ, who rules from heaven.
Stephen Barnett
No comments:
Post a Comment