Related resources...

Summary on the Attributes of God
Spurgeon on the Attributes of God

Israel of God - Is God "Finished" with Israel in His prophetic plan?

Off Site - Table Comparing/contrasting Israel & Church
Off Site - Does the Church Fulfill Israel's Program? - John Walvoord
The Jewish People, Jesus Christ and World History - S Lewis Johnson

Are you confused about God's plan for Israel? Then I highly recommend Tony Garland's 12 Hour Course on Romans 9-11 in which he addresses in depth the question of  What Will Happen to Israel?  (click) or see the individual lectures below)

Romans 9:1-5 Paul's Sorrow Concerning Israel
Romans 9:6-13 Children of the Promise
Romans 9:14-24 The Potter and the Clay
Romans 9:25-33 A Remnant Will be Saved
Romans 10:1-13 The Righteousness of God
Romans 10:14-21 Has Israel Not Heard?
Romans 11:1-6  God Has Not Cast Away The Jews
Romans 11:7-15 Life from the Dead
Romans 11:16-24 Two Olive Trees
Romans 11:25-36 The Salvation of Israel

Note that when you click the preceding links, each link will in turn give you several choices including an Mp3 message and brief transcript notes. The Mp3's are long (avg 70+ min) but are in depth and thoroughly Scriptural with many quotations from the Old Testament, which is often much less well understood than the NT by many in the church today. Tony Garland takes a literal approach to Scripture, and his love for the Jews and passion to see them saved comes through very clearly in these 12 hours of teaching! Take your home Bible Study group through this series if you dare! Take notes on the tapes as the transcripts are a very abbreviated version of the audio messages. This course is highly recommended for all who love Israel! I think you will agree that Tony Garland, despite coming to faith after age 30 as an engineer, clearly has been given a special anointing by God to proclaim the truth concerning Israel and God's glorious future plan for the Jews. Garland has also produced more than 20 hours of superb audio teaching in his verse by verse commentary on the Revelation (in depth transcripts also available) which will unravel (in a way you did not think was possible considering the plethora of divergent interpretations) God's final message of the triumph and return of the our Lord Jesus Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords! Maranatha!

FOR THIS IS A (the) WORD OF PROMISE AT THIS TIME I WILL COME AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON: epaggelias gar o logos houtos kata ton kairon touton eleusomai (1SFMI) kai estai (3SFMI) te Sarra huios: (Genesis 17:21; 18:10,14; 21:2) (Hebrews 11:11,12,17)

Epaggelia - 52x in 50v (note concentration in Hebrews = 14x in 13v) - Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 39; 7:17; 13:23, 32; 23:21; 26:6; Rom 4:13f, 16, 20; 9:4, 8f; 15:8; 2 Cor 1:20; 7:1; Gal 3:14, 16ff, 21f, 29; 4:23, 28; Eph 1:13; 2:12; 3:6; 6:2; 1 Tim 4:8; 2 Tim 1:1; Heb 4:1; 6:12, 15, 17; 7:6; 8:6; 9:15; 10:36; 11:9, 13, 17, 33, 39; 2 Pet 3:4, 9; 1 John 2:25. NAS = promise(37), promised(1), promises(12), what was promised(2).

This verse is taken from from (Ge18:10) but not an exact quote of the LXX in this case.

And he said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him. (Ge 18:10)

Paul is reminding his readers that God's choice is not based on natural descent. Isaac's  birth is supernatural and represents God's sovereign choice.

Time (2540) (kairos means a point of time or period of time, time, period, frequently with the implication of being especially fit for something and without emphasis on precise chronology. It means a moment or period as especially appropriate the right, proper, favorable time (at the right time).

Kairos can refer to a fixed and definite time, the time when things are brought to crisis, the decisive epoch waited for or a strategic point in time.

And not only this - The connective "and" indicates Paul is giving another example to illustrate his point.

By one man our father Isaac - Rebekah's children had one and the same father

Conceived (1520) (koite) is a word which in general first refers to a structure on which one can lie down (a bed). Then koite came to be used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Heb 13:4) or even illicit sexual activity (Ro 13:13). Here in Romans 9:10, koite is combined with the verb echo (to have) and literally reads "bed having" (or have bed) and is an idiomatic way of saying conceive or become pregnant.

Paul's point is that unlike Ishmael and Isaac who were of a single father, but two mothers, Esau and Jacob had one mother and one father and that furthermore, they were twins conceived in the same act of union (Ge. 25:21, 22, 23, 24 ) .

Koite - 4x in 3v - Luke 11:7; Rom 9:10; 13:13; Heb 13:4.

Haldane

And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; Not only in the case of Isaac was the election limited to him as the son of promise, but also in a still more remarkable instance was this truth indicated in the case of the two sons of Isaac. They were conceived by Rebecca of the same husband, yet God chose the one and rejected the other. An original difference between Isaac and Ishmael might be alleged, since the one was born of the lawful wife of Abraham, the free woman, and the other was the son of the bond woman; but in the case now brought forward there existed no original difference. Both were sons of the same father and mother, and both were born at the same time. The great distinction, then, made between the two brothers could only be traced to the sovereign will of God, who thus visibly notified, long before the event, the difference of the Divine purpose, according to election, towards the people of Israel.

Matthew Poole comments that this is added

because there might be some objection against the former; as if there were some reason why God chose Isaac, and refused Ishmael. Isaac was born of a free-woman, and when Abraham was uncircumcised: besides, Ishmael no sooner came to years, but he showed some tokens of perverseness, and of a wicked spirit. Therefore, in this and the three following verses, he gives another, which was beyond all exception; and that is in Esau and Jacob, betwixt whom there was no disparity, either in birth or in works: they had both one and the same mother; Rebecca conceived with them at one and the same time, and that by no other person than our father Isaac; and yet the one of these is chosen, and the other refused. Tills now was an undeniable proof, that the promise belongs not to all the children of Abraham, or of Isaac, according to the flesh; all the seed of neither are the children of the promise.

Constable

God's special election of one portion of Abraham's descendants for special blessing is further evident in His choice of Jacob rather than Esau. Someone might say that Isaac was obviously the natural son through whom blessing would come since he was the first son born to Abraham and Sarah. That was not true of Jacob. Furthermore Esau and Jacob both had the same mother as well as father, so that was not a factor as an objector might claim it was in Isaac and Ishmael's case. Jacob and Esau might have shared the firstborn privilege since they were twins. One conception produced both of them. However, God chose Jacob even though Rebekah bore Esau before Jacob. As in the case of Isaac, God made a choice between them before their birth. Their birth was also supernatural since their mother was barren. God chose Jacob before he had done any deeds or manifested a character worthy of God's special blessing. The fact that Jacob became a less admirable person in some respects than Esau shows that God's choice was not due to Jacob but to Himself. (Romans Expository Notes)

In Romans 9:10, 11, 12, 13 John Murray explains that

Good (18) (agathos) (see in depth study on agathos) means profitable, benefiting others, whereas the related word kalos means constitutionally good, but not necessarily benefiting others.

Bad (5337) (phaulos [word study]) worthless, bad or of no account. It describes the impossibility of any true gain ever coming forth. The notion of worthlessness is central to the meaning. Note the KJV (Textus Receptus) translates a different Greek word (kakos) which denotes a lack of something and thus that which is bad or not as it ought to be.

Phaulos - 6x in 6v - John 3:20; 5:29; Ro 9:11; 2Cor 5:10; Titus 2:8; Jas 3:16. NAS = bad(3), evil(3).

God foresaw both Esau and Jacob as born in sin, "by nature children of wrath even as the rest" (Ephesians 2:3). If left to themselves they would have continued in sin through life; but for wise and holy reasons, not made known to us, God purposed to change Jacob's heart, and to leave Esau to his perverseness.

IN ORDER THAT GOD'S PURPOSE ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE MIGHT STAND (remain continually): hina e kat eklogen prothesis tou theou mene (3SPAS): (Ro 8:28, 29, 30; Isaiah 14:24,26,27; 23:9; 46:10,11; Jeremiah 51:29; Ephesians 1:9, 10, 11; Ephesians 3:11; 2Timothy 1:9) (Ro 11:5,7; Ephesians 1:4,5; 1Thessalonians 1:4; 2Peter 1:10) (Ro 11:6; Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5) (Ro 8:28; 1Thessalonians 2:12; 2Thessalonians 2:13,14; 1Peter 5:10; Revelation 17:14)
 
Purpose (4286) (prothesis [word study] from protíthemi = set before oneself and so to purpose or plan) means to plan in advance. It describes that which is planned or purposed in advance. Here it describes God’s intention beforehand.

Prothesis - 12x in 12v -Matt 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4; Acts 11:23; 27:13; Rom 8:28; 9:11; Eph 1:11; 3:11; 2 Tim 1:9; 3:10; Heb 9:2. NAS = consecrated(3), purpose(7), resolute(1), sacred(1).

Choice (1589) (ekloge from eklegomai [eklego - word study] in turn from ek = out + lego = select, choose, eklegomai meaning to choose or select for oneself, but not necessarily implying rejection of what is not chosen. See study of related word eklektos = elect) means literally a choosing out, a picking out, a selection or an election (2Pe 1:10, 1Th 1:4 - referring to God's selection of believers). In the passive sense ekloge refers to God's selection for a purpose or task. In other words it represents a special choice as when God referred to Paul as "my chosen instrument" (Acts 9:15). In Ro 11:28 ekloge speaks of God's choice of Israel, who were selected by Him to carry out His specific plan of redemption for mankind.

In the context of Scripture ekloge speaks of election, the benevolent purpose of God by which any are chosen unto salvation so that they are led to embrace and persevere in Christ’s bestowed grace and the enjoyment of its privileges and blessings here and hereafter. Although not used in this way in the present context, ekloge, can describe election which is vocational. The Lord called out the tribe of Levi to be His priests, but Levites were not thereby guaranteed salvation. Jesus called twelve men to be apostles but only eleven of them to salvation. After Paul came to Christ because of God’s election to salvation, God then chose him in another way to be His special apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Ro 1:5).

Ekloge - 7x in 7v - Acts 9:15; Ro 9:11-note; Ro11:5-note, Ro 11:7-note, Ro 11:28-note; 1Th 1:4-note; 2Pe 1:10-note. NAS = choice(4), choosing(1), chosen(1), those who were chosen(1).

NIDNTT elaborates on several interesting aspects of secular use of this word group (eklego, eklegomai, ekloge, eklektos) in classic Greek noting that...

(1) eklegomai (Herodotus) is the middle voice of eklego, pick out, choose out a person or thing (from a sizeable number). The active form does not occur at all in the NT and only occasionally in the LXX. It is derived from lego = count, collect, read (Word). The verbal adjective eklektos, which is sometimes used absolutely (attested since Plato), denotes the person or thing upon whom the choice has fallen. The noun ekloge, derived from the verb (likewise Plato) and originally meaning exclusively the act of choosing, can be used with the verbs lambano = take, poieomai = do, or ginomai, here in the sense of arrive at.

The words of this group are used in various contexts, but wherever they are found, it is evident that certain things common to them all are implied.

First, there are several objects from which to choose; secondly, the person making the choice is not tied down by any circumstances which force his hand, but is free to make his own decision. Thirdly, the person making the choice-at least at the moment of choosing-has the person or thing to be chosen at his disposal. Moreover, the act of choosing (and thus the words of this group) includes a judgment by the chooser as to which object he considers to be the most suitable for the fulfilment of his purpose. It is not of vital importance whether it be objective criteria, or subjective feelings and considerations which are paramount in making the decision.

(2) Although these words originate in military vocabulary, by the time of Plato eklegomai and ekloge are already in use in a political sense (referring to elections). In every case it is a matter of electing people to perform a certain task, or administer a certain office. These include in the political sphere the presbytai, elders, for the administration of the polis (city) (Plato, Rep., 536c; Polybius, 6, 10, 9), the archontes (Plato, Rep., 414a, Beginning, art. arche NT 4), or other officials and people with public responsibilities (Plato, Laws, 802b). ekloge, however, is also used of the general conscription of men for military service (Polybius 5,63,11), and the selection of individuals from the whole army for a particularly difficult or glorious mission (Polybius 9, 13, 9). 

Prudence and experience, appropriate standing in society or sufficient wealth, courage and suitability constitute the conditions necessary in each instance, if a person is to be considered for election. But it is the election itself which makes it possible for him to take up his function and which at the same time lays an obligation upon him. For election, whether of individuals or of a group, is regarded as a distinction (very occasionally it is used in a negative sense, implying especial severity). It is usually conducted in a manner in keeping with the concept of an aristocratic élite. It is always, however, accompanied by some kind of obligation or task concerned with the well-being of all the other members of the community of which the one elected forms part. Through its proper organs, the polis gives the individual who has special gifts the opportunity to develop these for the benefit of all.

(3) At the same time, the words may be applied to objects. eklegomai is used of the choice of certain places (Plato, Tim., 24c), deciding in favour of what is intellectually or aesthetically good (Symposium, 198d), or selection of especially treasured passages from literature in general or from the work of a certain author (Athenaeus, 14, 663c; Polybius, 1, 47, 9). Ekloge can also refer to the requisition of material (e.g. ships), or the levying of official tribute and taxes (Athenaeus 6, 235b).

The words express in every case the idea that a part has been claimed from a greater quantity, by an independent act of decision for a particular purpose, and that the remainder has been passed over. (Brown, Colin, Editor. New International Dictionary of NT Theology. 1986. Zondervan) 

NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS BUT BECAUSE OF HIM WHO CALLS: ouk ex ergon all ek tou kalountos (PAPMSG): (Ro 11:6; Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5) (Calling - Ro 8:28; 1Thessalonians 2:12; 2Thessalonians 2:13,14; 1Peter 5:10; Revelation 17:14-note)

Not because of works but... - Literally the Greek reads "not out of works but out of the calling".

JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN: kathos gegraptai (3SRPI) :

Written (1125) (grapho [word study]) is in the perfect tense which emphasizes the lasting and binding authority of that which was written. It has been written at some point in time in the past and it "stands" written.

Paul is saying in this section (Ro 9:10, 11, 12, 13) that God's election is...

Not based on natural descent
Not based on works (good or bad)
But
According to His purpose

JACOB I LOVED BUT ESAU I HATED: ton Iakob egaphesa (1SAAI) ton de Esau emisesa (1SAAI):

Paul quotes the Septuagint (LXX) of (Malachi 1:2,3).

Loved (verb) (25) (agapao [word study] see related study of noun agape) means to love unconditionally and sacrificially as God Himself loves sinful men (John 3:16), the way He loves the Son (John 3:35, 15:9, 17:23, 24). Agapao is a verb and by its verbal nature calls for action. This quality of love is not an emotion but is an action initiated by a volitional choice.

A student once said to Dr. Griffith Thomas that he was having trouble with this passage because he could not understand why God hated Esau. Dr. Thomas answered,

I am having a problem with that passage too, but mine is different. I do not understand why God loved Jacob. (Ed: And I'll add "I don't know why He loved me!")

That is the big problem. It is easy to see why God rejected Esau. He was godless, filled with pride, and not surprisingly from his loins came forth a nation (Edom) that wanted to live without God and which as a result turned their backs to Him. And so from a human perspective we can find some rationale for why God rejected Esau, but that is not the case with why He chose Jacob. This reminds me of the passage in Deuteronomy which says "the secret things belong to the LORD." (Dt 29:29)

Jacob I loved - The Hebrew idiomatic phrase (according to Rienecker) can mean "I prefer Jacob to Esau". In other words in context God choose Jacob even though Esau was the firstborn. Don't forget though that Esau sold his birthright for a mess of porridge -- he despised his birthright (Ge 25:34)

Hate (3404) (miseo from misos = hatred) means to dislike strongly or to love less.

Hate is a relative term as employed here. Jesus used the same word in a similar way when He cautioned that a man must hate his father and mother if he would come to Christ (Lk 14:26). Obviously Jesus, who was an advocate of the Law (Ex 20:12), was not encouraging "hate" in the usual sense of the word. But through a consecrated use of the hyperbole of antithesis, Jesus is saying that the love a man has for Christ ought to dwarf his love for his father to the extent that the latter would seem to be "hate" by comparison. Hatred in this sense is not absolute but relative to a higher choice.

Therefore, God did not "hate" Esau in the conventional sense of the word. In fact, He greatly prospered and favored him (Ge 27:38, 39, 40). Esau did receive earthly blessings, as he himself testified (Ge 33:9.) 

However, God's favor and blessing upon Jacob was so extensive that by comparison Esau would appear to be hated. The verse could be understood to mean that God has chosen Jacob to fulfill His elective purpose, but He has passed over Esau. Keep in mind that Esau rejected God. The divine rationale for this action is simply the elective purpose of God in Israel.

F B Meyer writes...

The apostle is dealing here, not with individuals as such, but with peoples w id nations. For instance, Isaac stands for the entire Jewish race — Abraham’s seed (Romans 9:7). He is dealing with the question, why it was that God chose Israel and rejected Edom; chose Jacob and rejected Esau: and he shows that the ultimate decision of their destinies lay in the purpose of God, according to election. The one was elect to be a channel of immense blessing to the world; whilst the other was rejected.

But we must always associate the Divine foreknowledge with the Divine choice. “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate.” We must regard Jacob and Esau, not as individual personalities merely, but as the founders of nations. For God’s purpose in the building-up of the chosen people, Jacob the methodical and far-seeing, was more suited than Esau the free-lance, the rover, the child of impulse and passion. And, besides, there were religious aptitudes and capacities within him, of which Esau gave no sign or trace. This does not solve the entire mystery, perhaps; but only casts it a degree or two further back. Still, it ought to be considered. Like a candle, it casts a slender ray on to the black abyss. In any case, is it not certain that God’s choice did alight on him who was most suited to serve the Divine purpose?