Romans 9:1

CHAPTER IX.

Paul expresses his great sorrow for the unbelief and obstinacy

of the Jews, 1-3.

Whose high privileges he enumerates, 4, 5.

Points out the manner in which God has chosen to communicate the

knowledge of his name to both Jews and Gentiles; and how he

deals, whether in judgment or mercy, with individuals; and

produces the cases of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh,

6-17.

God shows mercy and judgment as he thinks proper, and none have

a right to find fault with his proceedings, 18-20.

He has the same power over the human race as the potter has over

the clay, 21-23.

The prophets predicted the calling of the Gentiles, and the

rejection of the Jews, 24-29.

The Gentiles have attained to the knowledge of God's method of

saving sinners; while the Jews have not attained this

knowledge, 30, 31.

The reason why the Jews have not attained the salvation provided

for them in the Gospel, 32, 33.

NOTES ON CHAP. IX.

To this and the tenth chapter, Dr. Taylor has prefixed the following judicious summary:-

The apostle has largely proved in the preceding chapters, that the grace of God extends to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews; and that the dispensation of God's mercy was absolutely, and in itself, free to all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, in opposition to the merit of any works, or of conformity to any law whatever; and that the Gentiles have, by faith, a good title to the blessings of God's covenant, to which blessings the Jews cannot have a title any other way. Hitherto the apostle has not considered the Jews as rejected, except in an indirect way, but that they had the possibility of continuing in the Church, from entering into which they should not attempt to prevent the Gentiles, but allow them to be sharers in the mercies of God; and hence his language is in sum this: Why may not believing Gentiles be admitted, pardoned, and saved, as well as you?

But in this chapter, and the two following, the apostle considers the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom and covenant of God under the notion of calling or invitation, and of election or choice: which shows that he views the two parties in a light different to that in which he had before placed them. The Gentiles he considers as invited into the kingdom of God, and as chosen to be his people; and the Jews he considers as left out and rejected; for as the main body of them had now rejected the Gospel of Christ, he saw that God was about to unchurch them, overturn their polity, destroy their temple, and disperse them over the face of the earth. Thus he knew they would be accursed, or anathematized from Christ, and reduced to a level with the heathen nations of the world. And the event has proved that his declarations were dictated by the Spirit of truth.

It is observable that, agreeably to his delicate manner of writing, and his nice and tender treatment of his countrymen, he never mentions their rejection-a subject extremely painful to his thoughts-otherwise than in a wish that he himself were accursed from Christ for them, or to prevent them from being accursed from Christ, (Ro 9:3,) till he comes to Rom. 11, where he has much to say in their favour, even considered, as at present, rejected. But it is very evident that his arguments in this chapter rest on the supposition that the main body of the Jewish nation would be cast out of the visible kingdom of God; and it is for this reason that in this and the two following chapters he considers the reception of any people into the kingdom and covenant of God under the relative notion of inviting and choosing, or of calling and election. The Jews were rejected and reprobated; the Gentiles were chosen and called, or elected. As this is most obviously the apostle's meaning, it is strange that any should apply his doctrine to the particular and unconditional reprobation and election of individuals.

It is upon this rejection of the Jews that the calling and election of the Gentiles rest. If the Jews be not rejected, but are still the visible Church and kingdom of God, then the Gentiles, according to the most proper inference from the apostle's doctrine, have no right to the blessings of the kingdom. Instead of being invited or called, they are intruders at the heavenly feast; and this the unbelieving Jews laboured to prove, and thus unhinge the believing Gentiles by persuading them that they were not duly taken into the Church of God; that the Jews were, and ever must continue to be, the only Church and kingdom of God, and that they could not be cast off so long as God was faithful to his promise to Abraham; and that the Gentiles were most miserably deceived when they supposed they were brought into that kingdom by faith in Christ, whereas there was no way of entering it, or of being entitled to its privileges, but by submitting to the law of Moses. This being the fixed opinion of the Jews, and the ground on which they opposed the Gentiles and endeavoured to sap the foundation of their hope of salvation from the Gospel of Christ, it was therefore a matter of the utmost importance to be able to prove that the Jews, by rejecting Christ and his Gospel, were themselves cast out of the Church, and this in a way perfectly consistent with the truth of the promise made to Abraham. He had slightly touched on this subject at the beginning of the third chapter; but it would have broken in too much on the thread of his discourse to have pursued the argument there, for which reason he appears to have reserved it to this place, where he

(1) solemnly declares his tenderest affection for his countrymen, and his real grief of heart for their infidelity and consequent rejection, Ro 9:1-5;

(2) Answers objections against this rejection, Ro 9:6-23;

(3) Proves the calling of the Gentiles from their own Scriptures, Ro 9:24-30;

(4) Gives the true state and reasons of the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, Ro 9:30 to Ro 10:14;

(5) Proves the necessity of the apostolic mission to the Gentiles in order to their salvation, Ro 10:14-21.

And all this was intended at once to vindicate the Divine dispensations; to convince the infidel Jew; to satisfy the believing Gentile that his calling or invitation into the Church of God was valid; to arm him against the cavils and objections of the unbelieving Jews, and to dispose the Christian Jew to receive and own the believing Gentile as a member of the family and kingdom of God, by Divine right, equal to any to which he himself could pretend. See Taylor's notes, p. 321, c.

Verse 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not] This is one of the most solemn oaths any man can possibly take. He appeals to Christ as the searcher of hearts that he tells the truth asserts that his conscience was free from all guile in this matter, and that the Holy Ghost bore him testimony that what he said was true. Hence we find that the testimony of a man's own conscience, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost, are two distinct things, and that the apostle had both at the same time.

As the apostle had still remaining a very awful part of his commission to execute, namely, to declare to the Jews not only that God had chosen the Gentiles, but had rejected them because they had rejected Christ and his Gospel, it was necessary that he should assure them that however he had been persecuted by them because he had embraced the Gospel, yet it was so far from being a gratification to him that they had now fallen under the displeasure of God, that it was a subject of continual distress to his mind, and that it produced in him great heaviness and continual sorrow.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ch. Rom_9:1-6. The problem of Jewish unbelief: Paul’s distress in view of it

1. I say the truth in Christ, &c.] The discussion of the case of Israel occupies tins chapter and the next two. On the general subject thus introduced, we offer a few remarks. (See also Introduction, I. § 26.)

(1) The dedication of this large section to this special case is not out of proportion. Israel not only was immensely important as the Depositary of Revelation for ages past and the possessor as such of inestimable privileges, (Rom_9:4-5,) but at the time of St Paul it formed the vast majority of all professed believers in the God of Revelation. The unbelief of the great majority of Israel was therefore not only a distress to the Christian’s heart, but a perplexity to his mind, and so needed very special treatment and explanation.

(2) He distinctly foretells a future of grace and mercy for Israel, on a grand scale of conversion. A time is to come when “blindness in part” is no longer to characterize Israel as a people; that is to say, a time when unbelief, if existing still at all, shall be the exception, not the rule.

(3) He does not touch on any other than the spiritual aspects of that future. As to the question of a political, or local, restoration of Israel, or both, he is entirely silent whether to affirm or deny; and so in all his Epistles. So it is also in all the N. T. Epistles. St Paul’s great object here is (1) to explain the spiritual alienation of the mass of Israelites, and (2) to open the prospect of its blessed reversal.

in Christ] As a “member of Christ,” and so bound to inviolable truthfulness; and as speaking to other “members.” (Eph_4:25.)

I lie not] On this and similar appeals see on Rom_1:9.—The special reason for such words here is, perhaps, the thought that both Gentile Christians and unbelieving Jews (for different reasons) might think him now regardless of his earthly kindred, because so resolute in teaching the entire spiritual equality of all believers, Jew or Gentile. The Epistle might possibly be heard or read by unconverted Jews; and such words as these might reach their hearts.

my conscience also bearing me witness] Paul, as a man speaking to men, was corroborated (in his own consciousness) by Paul speaking to himself. Word and conscience coincided in statement.

in the Holy Ghost] Who, as the Sanctifier, pervades the conscience with new and intense light and sensibility. The reference is not to inspiration but to spirituality, of which he has said so much in ch. 8.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:1-5

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.

The truth

I. Should be spoken always, and under all circumstances.

II. Should be spoken in christ.

1. As a Christian duty.

2. As in Christs presence.

3. In Christs Spirit.

4. For Christs honour.

III. Should be attended by conscience.

1. Enlightened.

2. Influenced.

3. Approved by the Holy Spirit.

IV. May only be confirmed by direct appeal to God under very solemn and extraordinary circumstances. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Christ the sphere of spiritual being

In Christ. This was one of the apostles favourite expressions. All Christians according to him are in Christ. They have been baptized in Christ (Rom_6:3), i.e., they have been united to Christ by the baptism of the Spirit (1Co_12:13); so that they are in Christ as if they were parts of His person, members of His body. When the apostle thinks of this union, he sometimes allows the relations of time past and time future to interpenetrate, so that to his eye believers have not only been crucified with Christ (Gal_2:20) and buried with Him (Rom_6:4), but also raised with Him (Col_2:12; Col_3:1), and glorified with Him in heavenly places (Eph_2:6). Christians have their Christian being in Christ. They are justified (Gal_2:17), sanctified (1Co_1:1-31; 1Co_2:1-16), triumph (2Co_2:14), speak in Christ (2Co_2:17; 2Co_12:19). The personality of Christ had, to his transfiguring conception, become the sphere of his spiritual being and activity, so that what he did, in the express consciousness of his Christian state, he did in the realised presence of Christ, and thus all the nobler elements of his spiritual being were intensified and exalted. In such a mood how could he stoop to wilful misrepresentation? Realising that he was, so to speak, interred in Christ, he felt that in his ethical acts he was dominated by the power that ensphered him, (J. Morison, D.D.)

Conscience and the Spirit

1. St. Paul does here a most difficult thing. He distinguishes two voices within, and his own voice from either. Conscience--the Holy Ghost--bearing me witness. These distinctions are important. Some confuse conscience and the Spirit, others leave the Spirit altogether out, and conscience alone recognised as the guide of man.

2. Conscience--which is, literally, co-knowledge--is a natural faculty. Like intellect, affection, or any other department of the man, conscience is rather a state than an ingredient of the person. We introduce confusion when we speak of the unit being as split into parts. Memory, will, conscience, and the rest, are, in reality, only so many conditions or moods of the one man.

3. Conscience is that state of the man in which he reviews and judges his own actions. It is natural to every man to ask of himself, Of what complexion is this thing which I have thought, spoken, or done, in regard to right and wrong? We cannot help it--it is a sign, therefore, neither of good nor evil--we must sit in judgment upon ourselves. Who is so happy as never to have passed an unquiet night in the remembrance of word spoken or deed done during the day? And yet there was no one to reproach him! The thing itself was unknown to the world. No matter! He was his own accuser, witness, judge, and executioner. But conscience also exercises a legislative as well as a judicial function. It says, This is right, do it--this is wrong, shun it--as well as, This was wrong, and thou hast done it, etc.

4. This conscience was without the gospel, and is still with it. See the case of Paul (Act_23:1, of. 24:16; 2Ti_1:3, cf. 1Ti_1:19). As much towards mans nature, as towards the law, Christs office was to elevate, to deepen, to perfect, not to abolish. Just as Christ took the instinct of patriotism, and turned it into a world-wide benevolence, or the love of those that love us (Mat_5:46), and consecrated it into a universal charity; so He took the natural instinct which we call conscience, and both instructed it in the Divine law of which before it had but the dimmest conception, and also enabled it with that preventing grace which is the presence of the indwelling Spirit.

5. It is a great thing to be conscientious, but it does not make a man a Christian. St. Paul was conscientious, so were some Pharisees, and in these days of grace and the gospel there are conscientious lives which are both un-Christian and anti-Christian. But I am well assured of this, that for one man who lives a good life out of Christ, a hundred thousand are wallowing in the sty of sin for lack of Him. Even in those men who think themselves able to dispense with Him I can always notice some damaging deficiency, self-conceit, coldness, exclusiveness, or uselessness. All this makes me understand why St. Paul and the Master should make so much of that superadded gift, which is the presence of Gods Holy Spirit. There are those amongst us who have bitterly felt the powerlessness of conscience. They have suffered, resolved, hoped, struggled, but again and again they have found themselves no match for the strong man armed. We may blame, but the weak by nature may be made strong by grace. A man whose conscience has failed to give him the victory may find victory in Christ. It will be hard work for him; but prayer can prevail where resolution has faltered; the man whose conscience has been blunted may bare it set again and edged and made powerful by grace; he who knows what it is to have stifled and all but silenced the inward voice, may yet hear it again in new tones, but with new powers also, speaking of Christ crucified and the love of the Spirit.

6. The Church and the Churchs Lord can compassionate the feebleness which man never pities. The Physician came not for the whole but for the sick. This it is which makes His gospel so inestimably precious, and makes us weep for surprise and joy when we find Jesus sitting at meat with publicans and sinners, bidding welcome to sinful women, and drawing His loveliest parables from the history of prodigals, etc. Cry out to Him for the Spirit of adoption--and where nature fails, and conscience, prayer and the Spirit shall prevail and conquer yet! Most of all do I commend this to those who have sunk the deepest. But the gospel is a voice for all men. It addresses the moral man as well as the sinner. It says to him, St. Paul was no libertine; yet even he found his righteousness of no avail in the day of his trial. In the brightness of heavens light his fabric of self-assertion melted like snow. He cast away all trust in himself, and began to build quite afresh upon the one foundation which is Jesus Christ. How should it be otherwise with you?

7. Let so many of us as have risen into this higher life of grace and the Spirit see that we seek therein a liberty, not of sin, but of God. St. Paul himself exercised himself day by day to have always a conscience void of offence. Conscience in him was still the law; only it was a conscience not bounded by law, but enlarged and illuminated by the Spirit. When he described himself, for a moment, as without the law, he yet was careful to add, lest any should misinterpret him, being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. (Dean Vaughan.)

Conscience, consciousness, and the Spirit

In order to do justice to the Greek idea it is necessary to cord together mentally the two words conscience and consciousness. In the usage of New Testament and Stoic philosophy the term almost always throws out into relief its moral import. Hence we read of a good and pure, and also of an evil, defiled and seared conscience, of a conscience toward God, and one void of offence. The moral character of the conscience in this acceptation of the term is strikingly represented by the derivation conscientiousness. In Heb_10:2 the psychological idea of conscience is predominant, and is strong in 2Co_1:12. Here it must not be lost sight of, but the moral idea is predominant. The conscientious principle within the apostle attested the veracity of his utterance when he said, I am not lying. It is worthy of note that the apostle allows himself the use of a popular representation of the conscience--viz., as if it were distinct from himself--reminding us of Adam Smiths phrase, the man within the breast. Paul makes his appeal to this man. He had referred simply to himself when he said I lie not. That was his own proper testimony concerning himself. But either deliberately or instinctively realising that men often falsify even when they say We lie not, he turns to the man within, and listens till he hears him say, True, thou liest not. Of course the Romans could not look within the apostles breast and verify the concurrent testimony. There was but one person in the witness box, the apostle himself. But the apostle had not merely to satisfy the Romans; that might or might not be possible. He had to satisfy himself; and that was possible if he was honest. Thus it is that after his outward affirmation he turns in, and receiving inward confirmation, he, as it were, reaffirms. To all who know the man, such a solemn reaffirmation would render assurance, if that were possible, doubly sure. Once more, the apostles conscience bore witness in the Holy Spirit. Like the rest he was a man full of the Holy Ghost, so that at every point of his spiritual being he was touched and energised by the heavenly influence. There was still, it is true, the unimpaired principle of moral freedom in the centre of his being, in virtue of which it devolved on himself, as a real self-contained person, to welcome and cherish the hallowing influence. The mans individual manhood was not absorbed into the infinite essence. Neither was his moral accountability merged or superseded. But he in his freedom had made his choice. To him to live was Christ. And hence all the avenues to the very centre of his being were habitually left open to the ingress of the Holy Spirit whom he neither resisted nor grieved. And when, therefore, his inward conscience bore concurrent testimony with his outward declaration, there was more than itself in the voice of that conscience. There was the echo of the voice of Gods Spirit. (J. Morison, D.D.)

That I have great heaviness.--

Pauls concern for Israel

I. Its character.

1. Sincere.

2. Divinely inspired.

II. Its intensity.

1. Great.

2. Continual.

3. Self-sacrificing.

III. Its special grounds.

1. Their high privileges.

2. National affinity with Christ. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Concern for other mens souls

I. The persons about whom Paul felt this anxiety.

1. His worst enemies. If any of you in following Christ should meet with opposition, avenge it in the same way. Love most the man who treats you worst.

2. His kinsfolk according to the flesh. Charity must begin at home. He who does not desire the salvation of those who are his own kith and kin, how dwelleth the love of God in him? Is thy husband unsaved? Love him to Christ! Next to your homes let your own neighbours be first of all considered, and then your country, for all Englishmen are akin.

3. Persons of great privileges.

(1) They had privileges by birth--Who are Israelites. Many of you have the privilege of being born in the midst of gracious influences. Those poor gutter children start in the race of life under terrible disadvantages. And some of you have had everything in your favour; yet we tremble for you, lest you should be cast out, while many come from the east and from the west and sit down at the banquet of grace.

(2) They had the adoption, and enjoyed national advantages; and God has been pleased to adopt this nation, giving it special liberty, an open Bible, and the free proclamation of the gospel.

(3) They had the glory, i.e., God had revealed Himself in their midst from the mercy-seat in the bright light of the Shekinah. And in this very house of prayer the Lord has manifested His glory very wonderfully. Many hundreds have been turned from darkness to light in this place!

(4) They had the first hold of all spiritual gifts. They had seen God revealing His Son to them by types; but Christ is not so well seen in bleeding bullocks and rams and hyssop, etc., as He is seen in the preaching of the gospel.

4. Yet Paul had a great solicitude for these people because he saw them living in the commission of great sin. Although many of them were exceedingly moral and religious. The greatest of sins is to be at enmity with God. The most damning of iniquities is to refuse Christ. So many now value their external religiousness above faith in Jesus.

II. The nature of this anxiety. It was--

1. Very truthful. There was no sham about it, I say the truth in Christ. He did not fancy that he felt, but he really felt. He did not sometimes get up into that condition or down into it, but he lived in it. I lie not, he says. I do not exaggerate. For fear he should not be believed he asseverates as strongly as is allowed to a Christian man. Do we feel the same, or is it only a little excitement at a revival meeting? You must feel deeply for the souls of men if you are to bless them.

2. Very gracious. It was not an animal feeling, or a natural feeling; it was in Christ. When he was nearest to his Lord, then he felt that he did mourn over mens souls. It was truth in Christ that he was expressing, because he was one with Christ. It is of no use to try to get this feeling by reading books, or to pump yourself up to it in private; it is the work of God.

3. Spiritual. The Holy Spirit bore witness with his conscience. I am sometimes afraid that our zeal for conversion would not stand the test of the Holy Ghost. Perhaps we want to increase our denomination, or enlarge our church for our own honour, or get credit for doing good. None of these motives can be tolerated; our concern for souls must he wrought in us by the Holy Ghost.

4. Most deep and depressing he had great heaviness, and he tells us that this did not come on him at times, but that he always felt it whenever his thoughts turned that way: I have continual sorrow in my heart. In his very heart, for it was not a superficial desire; a continual sorrow, for it was no fitful emotion.

5. Most intense (verse 3). Of course the apostle never thought of wishing that he could be an enemy to Christ, but he did sometimes look at the misery which comes upon those who are separated from Christ, until he felt that if he could save his kinsmen by his own destruction, ay, by himself enduring their heavy punishment, he could wish to stand in their stead. He did not say that he ever did wish it, but he felt as if he could wish it when his heart was warm. His case was parallel with that of Moses when he prayed the Lord to spare the people and said, If not, blot my name out of the Book of Life. When the heart is full of love even the boldest hyperboles are simple truths. Extravagances are the natural expression of warm hearts even in ordinary things. What the cool doctrinalist pulls to pieces, and the critic of words regards as altogether absurd, true zeal nevertheless feels. Christ saved others, Himself He could not save. Men are extravagantly prudent, dubious, profane; they may therefore well permit the minister of Christ to be extravagant in his love for others. Such a text as this must be fired off red hot; it spoils if it cools. It is a heart, not a head business. The apostle means us to understand that there was nothing which he would not suffer if he might save his kindred according to the flesh.

III. Its excellences. What would be the result if we felt as Paul did?

1. It would make us like Christ. After that manner he loved. He became a curse for us. He did what Paul could wish, but could not do. I want you to feel that you would pass under poverty, sickness, or death, if you could save those dear to you. I heard of a dear girl the other day who said to her pastor, I could never bring my father to hear you, but I have prayed for him long, and God will answer my request. Now you will bury me, wont you? My father must come and hear you speak at my grave. Do speak to him. God will bless him. And he did, and her father was converted.

2. It will save us from selfishness. The first instinct of a saved soul is a longing to bring others to Christ. Yet, lest there should grow up in your spirit any of that Pharisaic selfishness which was seen in the elder brother, ask to feel a heaviness for your prodigal younger brother, who is still feeding swine.

3. It will save you from any difficulty about forgiving other people. Love mankind with all your soul, and you will feel no difficulty in exercising patience, forbearance, and forgiveness.

4. It will keep you from very many other griefs. You will be delivered from petty worries if you are concerned about the souls of men.

5. It will put you much upon prayer. That is the right style of praying--when a man prays because he has an awful weight upon him, and pray he must. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Concern for kindred

I. Its true expression.

1. Heartfelt compassion.

2. Earnest prayer.

3. Self-sacrificing zeal.

II. Its powerful motives.

1. Our brethren.

2. Specially privileged.

3. Dear to Christ. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Home and foreign missions

The fervency of affection professed by Paul in this passage is all in behalf of his own countrymen; and yet none more zealous than he in the labours of a Christian missionary among the distant countries of the world. What gives more importance to this remark is the tendency in our own day to place these two causes in opposition to each other. It might serve as a useful corrective to look at Paul and at the one comprehensive affection which actuated his bosom, cleaving with all the devotedness of a thorough patriot to the families of his own land; and yet carrying him beyond the limits of a contracted patriotism among all the families of the earth. The truth is, that home and foreign Christianity, instead of acting upon the heart like two forces in opposite directions, draw both the same way, so that he who has been carried forward to the largest sacrifices in behalf of the one, is the readiest for like sacrifices in behalf of the other. The friends of the near being also, as they have opportunity, the most prompt and liberal in their friendship to the distant enterprise; recognising in man, wherever he is to be found, the same wandering outcast from the light and love of heaven, and the same befitting subject for the offers of a free salvation. We cannot therefore sympathise with those who affect an indifference to the Christianisation of the heathen till the work of Christianisation shall have been completed at our own door. Let them be careful, lest there do not lurk within them a like indifference to both, lest the feelings and the principles of all true philanthropy lie asleep in their bosoms; and they, unlike to Paul, who found room for the utmost affection towards the spiritual well-being of his own kinsfolk and the utmost activity among the aliens and idolaters of far distant lands, shall be convicted of deep insensibility to the concerns of the soul, of utter blindness to the worth of eternity. (T. Chalmers, D.D.)

Earnestness in promoting the salvation of others

We were going from Camden to Philadelphia some years ago very late at night after a meeting. It was a cold winter night, and we stood on the deck of the ferry-boat, impatient to get ashore. Before the boat came to the wharf, a man who stood on the outside of the chains slipped and dropped into the water. It is the only man that we ever saw overboard. It was a fearful night. The icicles had frozen on the wharf, and they had frozen on the steamer. The question was how to get the man up. The ropes were lowered, and we all stood with feverish anxiety lest the man should not be able to grasp the ropes, and when he grasped it and was pulled up on to the deck, and we saw he was safe, although we had never seen him before, how we congratulated him! A life saved! Have we the same earnestness about getting men out of spiritual peril? Do we not go up and down in our prayer-meetings, and our Christian work, coldly saying, Yes, there is a great deal of sin in the world; men ought to do better. I wish the people would become Christians. I think it is high time that men attended to their eternal interests; and five minutes after we put our head on the pillow we are sound asleep, or from that consideration we pass out in five minutes into the utmost mirthfulness, and have forgotten it all. Meanwhile there is a whole race overboard. How few hands are stretched out to lift men out of the flood! how few prayers offered! how earnest opportunities! how little earnest Christian work! (T. De Witt Talmage.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:1-2. The apostle having insinuated, Rom 3:3, that God would cast off the Jews for their unbelief, a Jew is there supposed to object, that their rejection would destroy the faithfulness of God. To this the apostle answered, that the faithfulness of God would be established rather than destroyed, by the rejection of the Jews for their unbelief; because God had expressly declared, Gen 18:19, that Abraham’s children were to keep the way of the Lord, in order to their obtaining the promised blessings; and had thereby insinuated, that if they did not keep that way they would lose blessings, of which their being made the visible Church of God was one. This was all the answer the apostle thought proper to make in that part of his epistle. But the objection being specious, and, it seems, much insisted on by the unbelieving Jews, he introduces it a second time in this place, that he might reply to it more fully: this then is the subject of this chapter. The apostle shows therein, in answer to the objection of his countrymen, that the rejection of the unbelieving Jews from being the Church of God, and the reception of the believing Gentiles to be his people in their stead, was not contrary to the word of God. That the apostle had not here the least thought of personal election or reprobation, is manifest, 1st, Because it lay quite wide of his design, which, as has been just observed, was merely to show that God’s rejecting the Jews, and receiving the Gentiles, was consistent with his word: 2d, Because such a doctrine would not only have had no tendency to convince, but would have evidently tended to harden the Jews: 3d, Because when he sums up his argument, in the close of the chapter, he says not one word, nor gives the least intimation about it.

I say the truth in Christ — This being a solemn appeal to Christ and the Holy Ghost, as knowing the apostle’s heart, for the truth of what he affirmed, it is of the nature of an oath. I lie not — That which he had in the former clause expressed in the affirmative, he in this emphatically confirms in the negative, according to the manner of the Hebrews, who were wont to deliver, as well negatively as affirmatively, what they judged to be worthy of special observation. My conscience also bearing me witness — As to the truth of what I say; in the Holy Ghost — Who searches all hearts, and perfectly knows whether the soul on which he operates be sincere. That I have great heaviness, &c. — Greek, οτι λυπη μοι εστι μεγαλη, και αδιαλειπτος οδυνη τη καρδια μου, that I have great grief, and unceasing anguish in my heart — This is the fact, the belief of which the apostle desired to procure by that solemnity of attestation expressed in the preceding verse: he does not here mention the cause of his grief and anguish, but it is evident from the first verse that the cause was their obduracy, and rejection as a nation, and the many miseries which he foresaw to be coming upon them. By thus declaring his sorrow for the unbelieving Jews, who excluded themselves from all the blessings he had enumerated in the former part of his epistle, he shows that what he was now about to say, he did not speak from any prejudice to them.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It was obvious that the Church of Christ was coming to be almost entirely a Gentile Church, and that the Jews as a whole were refusing to accept Jesus as their Messiah. The Jew argued from this fact that Christianity could not be true. For if the Christian Church were really the fulfilment of the promised Messianic kingdom, and if the Jews were shut out from it, then God's promises to the Jews in the OT. would have been broken, which could not be imagined.

In Romans 9-11, St. Paul grapples with this objection:—

(1) He points out that in previous epochs God had narrowed His choice, making a fresh selection out of those already selected; and He may be acting so again (Rom_9:1-13).

(2) God is supreme. He may choose His instruments as He will, and we have no right to criticise (Rom_9:14-33).

(3) If the Jews have failed, it is because of their unbelief (Romans 10).

(4) After all, there may be more faithful Jews than is supposed, as in the time of Elijah (Rom_11:1-10).

(5) Seeing the reception of the Gentiles, the Jews themselves may be stirred up to accept Christ. God has forgotten neither them nor His promises, and His gracious purpose will not fail (Rom_11:11-36).

It should be noted that these chapters mainly treat of the selection by God of nations and Churches to spiritual functions and responsibilities. They have nothing to do with the predestination of individuals to salvation or condemnation, and the argument closes with the statement that what God has done has been with the purpose of having mercy upon all (Rom_11:32). While these chapters assume that God chooses His instruments for reasons which we cannot fathom, and which are independent of human merit and of birth or nationality, at the same time there are conditions which must be fulfilled on man's part. Those who have been chosen or elected, are free to fall away; they have done so in the case of the Jewish nation—they may do so in the case of the Gentile Church. They can only retain their position by 'faith,' i.e. here, by submitting themselves to God's purpose (Rom_10:20.).

The Rejection of Israel no Disparagement or Disproof of the Gospel

The Apostle sorrows over the exclusion of Israel (Rom_9:1-5), but their exclusion does not involve any breach of God's promises, for He always made a selection, even among the members of the chosen family (Rom_9:6-13). This cannot be unjust, for God has stated it to be His method (Rom_9:14-18). We should have no right to cavil, even if God seemed to use us sternly (Rom_9:19-21). But He has acted with mercy (Rom_9:22-29), and Israel has fallen through want of faith (Rom_9:30-33).

1-5. It is with the deepest sorrow that St. Paul sees the Jews outside the kingdom, for he loves them as brethren and remembers their privileges.

Paraphrase. '(1) It is the solemn truth (2) that my heart aches (3) over my brethren of Israel, so that I could wish to give my soul for their salvation. (4) How terrible is the fall of those who had. such privileges from God, (5) who are descended from the patriarchs, and from whom, on the human side, has come the Messiah, He who is almighty and divine!'

1. In Christ] see on Rom_6:11; Col_3:9. In the Holy Ghost] i.e. under His influence.

3. I could wish] i.e. if it were lawful and possible.

Accursed] RV 'anathema,' reproducing the Gk.: cp. 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22; Gal_1:8.; The word is used in LXX of that which is devoted to God, either as an offering (cp. Lev_27:28.), or for destruction as evil: cp. Jos_6:17.

4. Israelites] 'Israel' being the name given by God to Jacob, 'Israelite' described the Jew as the inheritor of God's promises: cp. Rom_11:1; 2Co_11:22. Adoption] i.e. of Israel by God as first-born son among other nations: cp. Exo_4:22. Glory] i.e. the light by which God's presence was manifested: cp. Exo_16:10; Exo_40:34. Covenants] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Service] i.e. of Tabernacle and Temple. Promises] i.e. of the Messiah.

5. Of whom, etc.] RV 'of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh.' God] cp. Joh_1:1; Joh_10:30; Col_2:9.

6-13. Jewish opponents argued that the privileges enumerated in the last section were guaranteed to them as a nation, unless God broke His word. St. Paul replies that God is not bound to the whole nation. There had been from the first a process of selection, by which some had been rejected. The same process of selection and rejection might be expected now.

Paraphrase. '(6) Vet it does not follow that God's promises have failed because some have rejected them. Heirship of the promise does not belong to mere natural descent from Jacob. (7) For consider the case of Abraham. Ishmael was his elder son, yet Isaac was selected to be the father of the chosen race; (8) which shows that a position of privilege with God is a matter not of accident of birth, but of special promise and choice; (9) in fact, Isaac was born on purpose to inherit the promise. (10) Take a plainer example. Esau and Jacob had the same parents and were twins; (11) yet in their case also God showed that He carries out His purpose by selecting whom He chooses, for before their birth (12) He destined Jacob's line for privilege, (13) as Malachi recognises.'

6. RV 'But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought.' Israel] in the sense of inheritors of the promise. Of Israel] i.e. by physical descent from Jacob.

7. Seed of Abraham] i.e. by natural descent. Children] i.e. inheriting privilege. In Isaac, etc.] from Gen_21:12.

8. Children of the flesh] i.e. those born into the family in the course of nature. Children of God] i.e. partaking of the 'adoption' to special privilege spoken of in Rom_9:4. Of the promise] i.e. born in fulfilment of a promise: cp. Gal_4:23.

9. The word] RV 'a word.' At this time] i.e. at this season next year (Gen_18:10).

11. The purpose] i.e. the purpose of salvation which existed in God's mind before creation: cp. Rom_8:28; Eph_1:9.; 2Ti_1:9. According to election] i.e. the method by which God carries out His purpose is the selection of individuals and nations to be its instruments. So the Jews were selected to preserve the knowledge of God in the world, and to prepare for the call of the Gentiles. The selection is not to assured salvation, but to the privilege of helping to carry out God's plan of salvation for the world. Not of works] a further thought. God's choice proceeds from unmerited bounty.

12. From Gen_25:23..

13. Loved.. hated] cp. Mal_1:2. which refers to the nations of Israel and Edom, and expresses the historical fact that Israel had privileges which were denied to Edom. 'Hated' implies decided rejection, but not vindictiveness: cp. Luk_14:26 with Mat_10:37. There is no reference to eternal salvation or rejection.

14-18. It is objected that the freedom of choice, which St. Paul attributes to God, would be unjust. This cannot be, for in the OT. God claims the same freedom. And, if then, so also now.

Paraphrase. '(14) The objector argues that such apparently arbitrary selection would be unjust. Far from it. (15) The Jew admits that all God does is just; here, then, are two passages in which God claims this freedom of choice. First, He told Moses, leader of the chosen people, that not even he could lay claim as a right to the favour about to be shown. (16) Therefore, human desire and striving are not the cause of God's choice of any, but His sovereign will and mercy alone. (17) Secondly, the words addressed to Pharaoh show that God did not punish him because he was an Egyptian, but for special reasons. (18) So, then, God is seen to show mercy or to harden according to His own will.'

15. From Exo_33:19.

16. Runneth] i.e. as a racer strives.

17. From Exo_9:16. Raised thee up] i.e. as king. St. Paul quotes Scripture to show that it was simply due to God's choice that Pharaoh, not some one else, was to be a world-wide example of God's power in punishment. It was not because of Pharaoh's nationality. The Apostle confines himself, here, to one point. It is that a Jew must admit that what God is shown, in the OT., to have done, cannot be unjust. He is not speaking, here, of eternal life or death. And he says nothing of Pharaoh's deserts or conduct, because that is not his point here. Presently he will assert (1) that those whom God has rejected have been rejected by their own fault after long forbearance; and (2) that it is God's will to have mercy upon all men.

18. Hardeneth] cp. Exo_4:21. God is said to harden, because He has made man so that, by the constitution of his nature, hardening follows persistent disobedience.

19-29. It is now objected that if God's will is irresistible, He ought not to blame the Jews. The answer is that, first, it is presumptuous of man to criticise his Maker; and, secondly, that God has been longsuffering with the Jews, as well as merciful to the Gentiles.

Paraphrase. '(19) Another objection. If those who resist God's will, do so because He has hardened them, and so fulfil His purpose, how can they be guilty? (20) The answer is twofold. First, we are not competent to criticise our Maker. (21) It is His right to mould each nation of mankind for whatever purpose He chooses. (22) But secondly, as a matter of fact, God has not been arbitrary. Although He is determined to punish sin, yet when the Jews have proved unfit for high purposes, He has borne long with them; (23) not only for their sakes, but that by their means He might be able to show mercy upon those prepared from the beginning, (24) even upon us, called—such is His mercy—from Gentiles as well as Jews. (25, 26) His word confirms this again: the call of the Gentiles was foretold by Hosea, (27-29) and the fact that only a remnant of Israel would enter the kingdom was prophesied by Isaiah.'

20. Shall the thing] cp. Isa_29:16; Isa_45:9.

21. Power] RV 'a right': cp. Isa_64:8; Jer_18:6. Honour.. dishonour] not referring to final salvation or condemnation, but to the inequalities of life. Nations as well as individuals are called to duties and positions of greater or less honour: cp. 2Ti_2:20.

22. Longsuffering] cp. Rom_2:4. Vessels] the metaphor of the potter continued. Of wrath] i.e. deserving wrath. Fitted] St. Paul does not say, 'God had made them fit for destruction' (contrast 'afore prepared,' Rom_9:23). They had become 'fitted for destruction,'because, being intractable under the moulder's hand, they were of no use for His purpose.

23. Might make known] cp. Rom_11:11. Of mercy] i.e. experiencing mercy. Prepared] cp. Rom_8:28.

25, 26. From Hos_1:10; Hos_2:23 passages used freely and typically; originally speaking of the restoration of the Ten Tribes, who had become like those who were not God's people.

27, 28, 29. From Isa_1:9; Isa_10:22.

27. A remnant] RV 'it is the remnant that shall be saved.'

28. RV 'for the Lord will execute his word' (i.e. sentence) 'upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short,' i.e. making it conclusive and brief.

30-33. The Jews have been rejected because they sought acceptance with God in their own way by meritorious works. They had not that faith which would make them attentive to hear and do God's will, and so could not fulfil His purpose (see Rom_9:22 paraphrase). Stereotyped in a conventional religion, they were unable, for want of living faith, to receive the Messiah.

Paraphrase. '(30) We conclude that Gentiles, who were not seeking acceptance with God, won acceptance given to those who have faith, (31) while Israel, who was seeking to be accepted because of meritorious works, has failed. (32) The reason is that instead of living by faith in God, i.e. instead of waiting on God to learn what His will for them was, they fixed their attention on observances. Hence they refused the Messiah, fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy that the stone, the strength of those who should have faith in Him, would cause the fall of the unbeliever.

30. Followed.. attained] as a runner in a race: cp. Php_3:12.

31. The law] RV 'a law.'

32. By the works of the law] RV 'by works.' For] RV omits. Stumbling stone] cp. 1Co_1:23.

33. A combination of two passages. In Isa_28:16 the prophet spoke of a foundation stone which God was laying, and which would give a sense of security to those who trusted His promise. In Isa_8:14 the prophet spoke of Jehovah as being a stumbling-block to the unbeliever. St. Paul combines the two passages to show that Christ, who is strength and support to those who trust in Him, has been a stumbling-block to the faithless Jews. The 'stone' of Psa_118:22 was interpreted by Christ of Himself, Mat_21:42, etc., and from this, probably, the 'stone' of other passages was interpreted of Him. 'The stone' may have been a Jewish title for the Messiah.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. St. Paul’s great Grief at Israel’s Rejection, Rom_9:1-5.

1. In Christ—Some commentators have strangely rendered this as an oath by Christ. The phrase is parallel with in the Holy Ghost in this verse, and both are parallel to the phrases in Christ in a great number of passages.

The Christian, as such, is in Christ; his whole words and works are wrought in Christ. (See note on Rom_6:3.)

Lie not—As doubtless the Jewish zealots in the synagogue disputes had often charged him with doing.

My conscience—The moral self speaking within him.

In the Holy Ghost—As if his moral being were imbued and impregnated by the Holy Spirit. To the Jews, therefore, he offered three witnesses: his moral man, his intellectual man, and God.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_9:1. I speak in Christ the truth.—Not to be rendered, “I speak the truth in Christ.” The apostle, not as a man merely, but as a member of Christ, in His name, as His apostle.

Rom_9:2.—λύπη, ὀδύνη, sorrow and pang.

Rom_9:3.—St. Paul considers personal happiness subordinate to the general salvation.

Rom_9:4.—The glory, the Shekinah; the covenants frequently repeated; the service of the tabernacle and temple; the true worship of God.

Rom_9:5.—“In this passage five distinct assertions concerning our Lord, His incarnation, His existence from everlasting, His supremacy, His divinity” (Dr. Wordsworth). “Although εὐλογημένος is used by Christ, εὐλογητός never is. Had Paul wished to teach in this verse that Christ is God, he might have done so, and put his meaning beyond doubt, by writing ὅς ἐστιν, as in Rom_1:25. Consequently the word ὤν lends no support to the former exposition” (Dr. Beet).

Rom_9:6.—ἐκπέπτωκεν, has been void, as כָפַל (Joshua 21).

Rom_9:7.—κληθήσεται, be named, and obtain celebrity.

Rom_9:8.—τέκνα τ. ἐπαγγελίας, for τέκνα ἐπαγγέλμενα, those to whom pertained the felicity promised to Abraham. Heirship of God’s blessings derived from the realisation of special promises.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_9:1-8

St. Paul’s intensity.—St. Paul was a thorough man, and did not believe in half measures. His spirit was always raised to a high degree. If he was opposed to Christianity, he showed himself an opponent to be dreaded. He was an intense persecutor. If he was in favour of Christianity, he showed himself an ardent admirer. The Christian religion has produced no more fervent and devoted adherent. Paul’s spirit manifests itself in this opening passage.

I. The intensity of his defence.—He declares his truthfulness as one who speaks from the Christ standpoint. The truth in Christ should be the preacher’s aim—the truth from Christ, the truth as Christ’s ambassador, the truth as from one who is united to the Spirit of truth. Let us get into the light of Christ, and then we shall be delivered from all falsehood, and conscience will bear a true witness. A Christ-enlightened conscience is the only reliable witness. The witness of conscience must coincide with the witness of the Holy Ghost.

II. The intensity of his love.—Such was his love that his soul endured the mourning of sorrow and the harrowings of a great pang. His love had the bitter as well as the sweet aspect. All true love has its intense anguish. Jesus loved and Jesus wept; Jesus loved and Jesus sighed. Paul loved, and in consequence had great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart. Love glides on the pleasant stream. The sun shines overhead; the banks are gay with flowers; sweet fragrances delight the senses; pleasant songs gladden the heart. But love is not always a smooth passage. The wail of distress harrows the soul; storms have to be encountered. Love’s earthly portion is often great heaviness and continual sorrow in the heart.

III. The intensity of his patriotism.—He loved his country and his kinsmen according to the flesh. Such was his patriotism that he could wish himself “accursed from Christ.” Whatever this may mean, it shows Paul’s intensity. He was willing for any sacrifice. He would fall, if by his fall his kinsmen could rise. Too many of our so-called patriots sell their patriotism at a good price. They rise by means of swelling words. They profess self-sacrifice, and live in luxury; the country is impoverished, and they are enriched. What Paul was in words he was in deeds. Self-sacrifice was his creed and his practice. He laboured for the universal good, and earthly emolument was not his reward. He was not one of your good men who manage to make “the best of both worlds.” If he were not accursed from Christ, he was accursed from earth royalties. Patriotism is inspired by a sense of the country’s greatness and glory. Paul had an exalted view of the privileges with which the Israelites were favoured. They were the adopted children of God. The Shekinah shed a heaven light on their pathway; the covenants sustained a connection with heaven; the service of God exalted; the promises cheered; the moral code placed them in the forefront of nations, and is to-day the backbone of highest forms of civilisation. All these glories culminated in the glory of giving to the world the divine-human Man, the representative of manhood; the one entire and perfect chrysolite. Well indeed might Paul love that nation from which as concerning the flesh Christ came.

IV. The intensity of his perception.—Long before our day Paul knew that things are not what they seem. He distinguished between the semblance and the reality; between the being and the not-being; between the phantasm of a man and the glorious reality of a man; between an Israelite who might be known by the cast of his physical features or by the cunning of his mercantile transactions, and the Israelite who might be known by the glory of his moral manhood and by showing himself the honourable and grand heir of all the ages. The children of the promise are counted for the seed—children fashioned according to the divine ideal. The children of the flesh are not the children of God. The children of the promise are the children of the Promise-giver. The children of the Spirit are the offspring of the eternal Spirit. They rise above all materialism; they move in highest realms. Are we children of the promise? Are we living the higher life? Are we seeking and serving Christ-like aims and purposes?

Rom_9:1-3. Christian zeal.—One thing he would not part with, the love of Christ. That love he would have with him wherever he was, wherever God might place him. Who shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus? That he could not lose, for none can lose it who part not willingly from it. But the presence of Christ, the blissful glory of His countenance, the joy of being with his Master, the entrancing, transporting vision of Him who had called him while he was persecuting Him—this, the very bliss of eternity, the blessed-making sight of God, St. Paul was ready to forgo, if so be his Redeemer might be the more glorified and the souls of his kinsmen after the flesh. They, to whom the promises appertained, might be saved and joined to the heavenly choirs who adore the Master whom he loved. St. Paul would not be separated from the love of Christ; but he could endure to think of being separated, in place, in sight, in joy, from Christ Himself. “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ.” He willed, like the thing devoted, separated to God, and sacrificed to Him, to be cut off from all besides; yet not from God, but from the presence of God. He who had been the “off-scouring of the world” could have borne to forfeit the very sight of God, if so be God Himself might thereby be the more glorified and souls might be won to Him and live to Him eternally. Such was an apostle’s fervour, such an apostle’s love. Great must be the preciousness of zeal for souls, that God put into his soul such a thought as this, that he could bear even to be separated from the sight of Him whom His soul loved, if so be greater glory might so be gained to Him and there were more to love Him. Precious indeed in the sight of the Lord is true zeal for souls—precious indeed, because there is nothing in the whole world so precious as the soul of man redeemed by the blood of Christ. Not the whole world, sun, moon, and countless hosts of heaven, would be as the very dust in the balance weighed with one soul for which Christ died. Great and divine you would think the office to uphold in being and direct in their courses all those heavenly lights which brighten our day and make our night serene and calm. When Joshua bid the sun and the moon stand still, it is said, “There was no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man.” Great was it when, at the prayers of Elijah and Elisha, St. Peter or St. Paul, death gave back its slain—when, at apostles’ prayers, the blind saw, or the deaf heard, or the lame walked. But greater far is it when one human soul is won out of the jaws of Satan to adore its Redeemer forever.… It is the greatest work in which God employs man; for it is the greatest work of God Himself. It is the end for which God the Father made all besides; for which God the Son became man; for which God the Holy Ghost pleads with, calls, sanctifies, indwells man, and unites him unto God. The salvation of man is the combined work of the holy Trinity. They together ordained it; they in union brought it about; and in this their work they join in with themselves the work of man. But, then, zeal which would be heard must be self-denying. “Charity begins at home.” Wouldst thou have true zeal, be zealous with thyself. First have pity on thine own soul, and then have zeal for the souls of others. And so it is a blessing to thee to be asked to aid in any act of spiritual mercy. It is a twofold blessing to thee, in that it is an offering to Him, the good Father, thy blessed Maker, thy tender Redeemer, and He will repay thee; it is a means of denying thyself, putting restraint upon thyself, giving up to God some self-indulgence which the rather hindered thee in taking up thy cross and following Christ. It is to exchange a weight which clogs thee for wings which shall bear thee towards thy God.—Pusey, D. D.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_9:1-8

“Accursed from Christ.”—The word translated “accursed,” which in the marginal reading is rendered “separated,” sometimes means also “cut off” or “destroyed.” Now, if we take it in this sense, the difficulty will be in a great measure removed; for the words will mean merely that the apostle was willing to be cut off, or to suffer death, if by that means he could save his countrymen from the calamities impending over them. But the expression “separated from Christ” is unfavourable to this view of the meaning; for these words usually imply “separated from the favour of Christ,” and consequently from the hope of salvation through Him. This difficulty, however, is at least diminished when it is borne in mind that Paul often denominates the Christian Church “the body of Christ,” and that sometimes the phrase “to be in Christ” seems to mean nothing more than being “a member of the Church of Christ.” Now, if we take the words rendered “accursed from Christ,” or rather “separated from Him,” to mean “separated from the Church of Christ,” or “cut off by a violent death from the communion of the Church,” we shall have a meaning suitable to the circumstances. For the Jews were not cut off from being the Church of God, and destined to be destroyed; and it was not unnatural for the apostle to say that he would willingly submit to this fate in their stead if that could save them. This interpretation is the more probable, that the word translated “accursed,” or “separated,” is the common Scripture term for denoting “excommunicated,” or “cut off,” from the communion of the visible Church. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema” (the word here employed)—cut off from the privileges of a Christian and the communion of the Church. It is true that cutting off from communion of the Church was, according to the opinion of the time, equivalent to cutting off from the hope of salvation. But this opinion rested on no authority; and consequently St. Paul, in saying that he was willing to submit to this fate in place of his countrymen, does not mean that he was willing to submit to eternal condemnation for them—a wish which it seems hardly possible for him to have expressed.—Ritchie.

Not one must perish.—Tholuck reminds us that Paul’s eye falls on the mighty company of the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy, which, offering as a whole a hostile resistance to the Christian scheme of salvation, seems on that ground to deserve total rejection. Paul’s conversion to Christianity did not rob him of love for his own nation. Cast out, despised of them, he does not give them up. He still hopes for their salvation.

I. The apostle shows his wariness. In full keeping with Christ’s warning, “Be wise as serpents,” etc. He has to win a prejudiced people. Hence he identifies himself with them; and it is as brother pleading with brother, a case of winning to Christ “making a difference.”

II. Paul is moved to godly sorrow at others’ danger.—As though “Woe is me if,” etc. He follows out Christ’s injunction, “Bless them that curse you.” Shows how the forgiving spirit of Christianity works in Christ’s true followers.

III. While pleading, Paul does not spare where blame is demanded.—He shows the Jews that if they are not received by God they have themselves to blame. Salvation is for every one. No exclusiveness, no favouritism, no respect of persons, in the scheme of redemption. To Jews, and all others, if they are lost, pride and wilfulness, and not God’s exclusion, are their ruin. It is not God who shuts the door against us.

IV. A true child of God is willing to be a cross-bearer for the sake of those in peril.—“I could wish myself accursed.” Here is Christ mirrored in His follower. Christ willing to spend and be spent, even treading the sad way of sacrifice, that men might be saved. Paul a worthy follower, imitating Christ in this full surrender of self; ready for the great extremity, if by so doing he could save some; This is true surrender of self for the good of others. This is true self-sacrifice; and self-sacrifice is a principle pre-eminently Christian.

V. A noble ancestry does not save us from sin’s penalties.—

1. The Jews were naturally proud of their descent—a chosen people, a royal priesthood. But this ancestry brought its dangers. It fostered pride, self-confidence, blinded the sense of any need of reformation or penitence. Yet our blessings are not founded on our merits, but on the free grace of God. It was so with the Jews; it is so with everyone.

2. Our privileges render the guilt of rejection and forgetfulness the more manifest. Jews were of one blood with Christ; yet they set Him at defiance, denounced Him, rejected Him. Thus they rejected Him who is blessed for ever, “God over all.” Little do we know, sometimes, the extremity to which our pride takes us, the terrible guilt we incur.

VI. Does not this strong feeling on Paul’s part suggest God’s tenderness to the sinner?—Saving the vilest. Paul so knew his Lord that he knew there was pardon wherever there was penitence. The old gospel story was in his mind; and he was constrained to tell it, to plead with them as one who must give account. Mercy is offered even to those who challenge Heaven to bruise and crush them. Shall we not come to Christ for mercy?—Albert Lee.

Paul does not wish to be damned.—Paul does not teach that we should be willing to be damned for the glory of God.

1. His very language implies that such a wish would be improper. For in the ardour of his disinterested affection he does not himself entertain or express the wish, but merely says, in effect, that were it proper or possible, he would be willing to perish for the sake of his brethren.

2. If it is wrong to do evil that good may come, how can it be right to wish to be evil that good may come?

3. There seems to be a contradiction involved in the very terms of the wish. Can any one love God so much as to wish to hate Him? Can he be so good as to desire to be bad? We must be willing to give up houses and lands, parents and brethren, and our life also, for Christ and His kingdom; but we are never required to give up holiness for His sake, for this would be a contradiction.—Hodge.

“I wished myself accursed.”—The more I consider the passage, I am the more satisfied that the first part of the third verse should be rendered in the past time and thrown into a parenthesis—“For I myself wished to be accursed from Christ.” The considerations in support of this rendering are strong:—

(1) It is literal. The other is not. I wished, not I could wish, is the simple and direct rendering of the verb. To make it conditional it should be in another tense or have a particle of conditionality prefixed to it. If instances to the contrary, they are exceptions to the rule.

(2) The sense is complete without the parenthesis.

(3) It gives a natural connection to the second verse, which otherwise it wants.

(4) The emphatic expression I myself is in this way most naturally explained. It evidently has the sense of, I myself as well as they—I too, like them, wished to be accursed from Christ. Our translators have shown that this emphatic expression does not naturally suit the ordinary interpretation, by omitting it—“I myself could wish “would not be natural; and they have therefore separated the myself from the I.

(5) It affords an interesting and beautiful sense. It assigns the reason of his “great heaviness and sorrow of heart.” The reason lies in the recollection of what he himself had been. He too had rejected Jesus, and thought he should do many things against His name.—Dr. Wardlaw.

“Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came.”—The Christ, according to the prophecies that went before, was to be the seed of Abraham and of David. It was pre-eminently in this sense that “salvation was of the Jews.” They gave birth to the Saviour. In this, God put the very highest honour upon the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by bringing from among them the human nature of IMMANUEL. The “horn of salvation for Jews and Gentiles was raised up in the house of God’s servant David.” The expression “as concerning the flesh,” or “as far as respects the flesh,” or “as to His human nature,” is a phrase which prepares us to expect something more. It is a phrase which most assuredly we should never think of using respecting any mere man. It instantly suggests the question, What was He else?—what was He not according to the flesh? There is an obviously designed antithesis, the taking away of which divests the words of all their force and meaning, and converts them into a useless and unnatural pleonasm, which adds weakness instead of strength and propriety to the expression and the sentiment. The antithesis is fully brought out by what follows: “Who is over all, God blessed for ever.” We need not wonder that the adversaries of our blessed Lord’s divinity have been sadly put to it with this most simple and explicit declaration of that all important and essential article of gospel truth. The most commonly approved gloss is that which converts the last clause of the verse into a doxology—either making the stop in the enumeration at the word “came,” or at the word “all.” In the former case the doxology is, “God who is over all be blessed for ever! “in the latter simply, “God be blessed for ever!”—Dr. Wardlaw.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 9

Rom_9:3. Ambrose and Nazianzen.—Out of the greatest zeal to God and love to his countrymen, the apostle wisheth himself anathema—that is, not to be separated from the Spirit and grace of Christ (for so he should have sinned), but from the comforts of Christ, the happiness that comes in by Christ, as one well interpreteth it. Charitas exuberans optatetiam impossibilia, saith Luther—his over-abounding charity wisheth impossibilities; but his wish was voluntas conditionata, saith one. His love to the Church was like the ivy, which, if it cleave to a stone or an old wall, will rather die than forsake it. Somewhat like to this holy wish was that of Ambrose, that the fire of contentions kindled in the Churches might (if it were the will of God) be quenched with his blood. And that of Nazianzen, that (Jonah-like) he might be cast into the sea, so by it all might be calm in the public.—Trapp.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

THIRD DIVISION

SIN AND GRACE IN THEIR THIRD ANTITHESIS (IN THEIR THIRD POTENCY): HARDENING, AND THE ECONOMIC JUDGMENT OF HARDENING (THE HISTORICAL CURSE OF SIN), AND THE CHANGE OF JUDGMENT TO DELIVERANCE BY THE EXERCISE OF DIVINE COMPASSION ON THE COURSE OF THE WORLD’S HISTORY. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SIN TO THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT, AND OF THE REVELATION OF SALVATION TO THE EXHIBITION OF COMPASSION. THE INWARD CONJUNCTION OF GOD’S JUDICIAL AND SAVING ACTS, AND THE EFFECTING OF THE SECOND BY THE FORMER.

Romans 9-11

First Section.—The dark problem of God’s judgment on Israel, and its solution

Rom_9:1-33

A

1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness inthe Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness [grief] and continual sorrow inmy heart. 3For I could wish1 that [I] myself2 were accursed from Christ formy brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth [whose is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,3 and the giving of the law, and the service of God [of the sanctuary], and the promises;5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning [as to] the flesh Christ came [is Christ], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.4

B

6Not as though [It is not however so, that]5 the word of God hath taken none effect [come to nought]. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel [Fornot all who are of Israel, are Israel]:6 7Neither, because they are the seed ofAbraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.7 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God [Not those who are the children of the flesh, are children of God]: but the 9children of the promise are counted for the seed [reckoned as seed]. For this is the word of promise [this word was of promise], At this time [season]8 willI come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10And not only this;9 but when Rebecca11also had conceived by one, even by [omit even by] our father Isaac, (For the children being not yet born, neither having [Without their10 having as yet been born, or] done any [any thing] good or evil,11 that the purpose of God according12to election might stand, not of works, but of him that [who] calleth;) It wassaid unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.12 13As it is written,

Jacob have [omit have] I loved,

But Esau have [omit have] I hated.13

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will [omit will] have mercy,16and I will have compassion on whom I will [omit will] have compassion.14 So then it is not of him that [who] willeth, nor of him that [who] runneth, but ofGod that [who] sheweth mercy.15 17For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same [very] purpose have I raised [did I raise] thee up,16 that I might shew my power in thee [in thee my power],17 and that my name might bedeclared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy [Therefore on whom he will he hath mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why [then]18 doth he yet find fault? Forwho hath resisted [resisteth] his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed [or, moulded, πλάσμα] say to him21that formed it, Why h‘ thou made [didst thou make] me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour,22and another unto dishonour? What [But what] if God, [although]19 willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known [make known his power], endured with much long-suffering the [omit the] vessels of wrath fitted to [for]23destruction: And [Also, i. e., he endured for this purpose also]20 that he might make known the riches of his glory on the [omit the] vessels of mercy, which he hadafore prepared unto [before prepared for] glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called [As such, i. e., vessels of mercy, he also, besides preparing, called us] not of [from among the Gentiles ?

25As he saith also in Osee [Hosea],21

I will call them my people, which [who] were not my people;

And her beloved, which [who] was not beloved. [;]

26And it shall come to pass,22 that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children [called sons] of27the living God. Esaias also [And Isaiah] also crieth concerning Israel,

Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,

A [The] remnant23 shall be saved:

28For24 he will finish the work [is finishing the word],25 and cut [cutting] it short in righteousness:

Because a short work [word]26 will the Lord make upon the earth.

29And as Esaias said before [And, as Isaiah hath said],

Except27 the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,

We had been [become] as Sodoma [Sodom],

And been made like unto Gomorrah.

30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not [who were not following] after righteousness, have [omit have] attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed [following] after the law of righteousness, hath not attained [attained not] to the law 32of righteousness [omit of righteousness].28 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law [or, as by works].29 For30they stumbled at that stumbling-stone [stone of stumbling]; 33As it is written, Behold,31 I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone [Zion a stone of stumbling] and [a] rock of offence: and whosoever believeth [he who believeth]32 on him shall not be ashamed [put to shame].

[Preliminary Note on the whole chapter, and its connection with the rest of the Epistle.—In order to understand this chapter, which is in many respects the most difficult section of the whole Epistle, its connection with the preceding context, but especially with chaps. 10 and 11, must not be overlooked. Before passing from the doctrinal part, which reached its culmination in the song of triumph at the close of chap. 8, to the practical exhortations (chaps. 12 ff.), the Apostle institutes (in chaps. 9–11) a profound inquiry into the historical course of development of the kingdom of God, seeking especially to enlighten and satisfy his readers respecting the enigmatical phenomenon, that the greater part of the people of Israel rejected salvation in Christ.33 The thought might readily arise, that the promises given to the covenant-people had to come to nought, or that Jesus was not the Messiah, who had been promised principally to the Jews. After expressing his sorrow at the exclusion of so many of his people from the Christian salvation, he shows:

1. That God’s promise was not thereby rendered void; for (a.) it refers, not to all of Abraham’s descendants, but to those chosen by God of free grace, as Isaac and Jacob (Rom_9:6-13). (b.) God is not unjust in this election, for He is the Sovereign over His creatures, who can make no rightful demands of Him (Rom_9:14-29).

2. The ground of the exclusion lies in the unbelief of the Jews themselves, who despised the true way of salvation through the righteousness of faith, and substituted their own righteousness; while the gospel announced to them, as indeed the Old Testament frequently indicated, that salvation could be attained only through faith (Rom_9:30 to Rom_10:21).

3. God had not, however, cast off His people; for (a.) there is a remnant elected of grace, though most are hardened (Rom_11:1-10); (b.) the unbelief and fall of Israel, in the wisdom and mercy of God, turns out for the salvation and reviving of the Gentiles, who should not, however, boast themselves (Rom_11:11-24); (c.) finally, the rejection is only temporary, since, after the conversion of all the Gentiles, grace will come to the whole of Israel (Rom_11:25-32). In conclusion, the Apostle breaks forth into a doxology to the grace and wisdom of God, who in such a manner will solve the enigma of the world’s history, and lead all things to the glory of His name and the best interest of His kingdom (Rom_11:33-36).—P. S.]

De Wette on chaps. 9–11: A supplement (!) to the foregoing discussion: lament, explanation, and comfort concerning the exclusion of the greater portion of the Jews from Christian salvation. Meyer, likewise: A supplement on the foregoing nonparticipation of the greater part of the Jews in the Christian institution of salvation, containing: a. The lament on it (Rom_9:1-5). b. The theodicy accounting for it (Rom_9:6-29). c. The guilt of it,which rests upon the Jews themselves (Rom_9:30-33, and Rom_10:1-21). d. The consolation arising from it (Rom_11:1-32), with praise offered to God (Rom_11:33-36). While De Wette regards the section of chaps. 9–11 as only a supplement, Baur considers it the real centre and kernel of the Epistle. If this be so, the kernel would indeed have a very massive shell.

[Forbes (following Olshausen) finds a parallel between Rom_1:18 to Rom_3:20, and these three chapters. “We have here an instance of the Epanodos, the object of which is to bring the main subject into prominence by placing it first and last. In both sections the subject is the relation of Israel, and of the Gentiles, to the new way of salvation. But in Rom_1:18 to Rom_3:20 it is regarded more on the side of the Law—as condemning Israel equally with the Gentiles, and necessitating them equally to have recourse to the gospel. In chaps. 9–11 it is regarded more on the side of Grace (on the part of God, as possessing a right to prescribe His own terms of acceptance), and of Faith (on the part of man, as the one only condition for attaining salvation, and which is demanded equally of Israel as of the Gentiles). Another point of resemblance between the two sections consists in the striking parallelism between the three objections of the Jew in Rom_3:1-8, and those in Rom_9:1-23.”—Jowett: “The Apostle himself seems for a time in doubt between contending feelings, in which he first prays for the restoration of Israel, and then reasons for their rejection, and then finally shows that, in a more extended view of the purposes of God, their salvation is included. He hears the echo of many voices in the Old Testament, by which the Spirit spoke to the Fathers, and in all of them there is a kind of unity, though but half expressed, which is not less the unity of his own inmost feelings toward his kinsmen according to the flesh. As himself an Israelite and a believer in Christ, he is full of sorrow first, afterwards of hope, both finally giving way to a clearer insight into the purposes of God toward His people.” As respects the relation of these chapters to the preceding part of the Epistle, in an experimental view, Luther well says: “Who hath not known passion, cross, and travail of death, cannot treat of foreknowledge (election of grace), without injury and inward enmity toward God. Wherefore take heed that thou drink not wine, while thou art yet a sucking babe. Each several doctrine hath its own season, and measure, and age.”—R.]

Tholuck gives, on pp. 466, 467, a copious catalogue of the literature on Romans 9. See also Meyer, p. 347. We may here call attention to a more recent monograph: Beck, Versuch einer pneumatisch-hermeneutischen Erklärung des 9te Kap., &c., 1838. To this we add the following: C. W. Krummacher, Das Dogma von der Gnadenwahl, nebst Auslegung des 9te, 10te, und 11te Kap. im Briefe an die Römer, Duisburg, 1856; Lamping, Pauli Apostoli de prœdestinatione decreta, Lenwarden, 1858; Delitzsch, Zur Einl. in den Brief an die Römer. Zeitschrift für die luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1849, No. 4; Van Hengel mentions (2, 323) Wysuis, Leerredenen over Romeinen, ix., x., xi., tom. i. [Philip Schaff, Das neunte Kapitel des Römerbriefs übersetzt und erklärt, in the author’s Kirchenfreund, Mercersburgh, Pa., 1852, pp. 378–389, 414–422, largely used in the exposition of this chapter in the present volume.—R.]

Summary.—A. The painful contrast between the misery of the Jews and the described salvation of the Christians, most of whom had been Gentiles. The Apostle’s sorrow over the apparently frustrated destiny of his people (Rom_9:1-5).

B. The exultation of the Apostle in the thought that God’s promise to Israel would nevertheless remain in force (Rom_9:6-33). Proof: 1. Differences in the election: they are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom_9:6-13). 2. Antitheses in the ordination (predestination): God is not unrighteous in showing mercy and in hardening, and in His manner of connecting judgment and compassion (Rom_9:14-18). 3. God’s freedom in the actual call of salvation (Rom_9:19-29): a. Proof from the existing fact (Rom_9:19-24); b. Proof from the witnesses of the Old Testament (Rom_9:25-29). 4. The correspondence of God’s freedom in His administration, and the freedom of men in their faith or unbelief. The firmness of the fact that the Gentiles believe, and the greater part of Israel do not believe (Rom_9:30-33).

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

A. The Apostle’s sorrow over the apparently frustrated destiny of his people (Rom_9:1-5). Winzer, Programm in Röm. ix. 1–5, Lips., 1832.

After the Apostle has portrayed the glory of believers in the New Testament, he must return to the surprising phenomenon, that it is just the majority of the people of the Old Testament who are absent from this feast of salvation—from the Supper of the Lord in the New Testament. The Jews, however, have already come into view (Rom_8:33) as among the accusers and persecutors, and thus the way has been prepared for this transition. In a systematic reference, the Apostle turns from the consideration of the consummated salvation, to the most extreme contrast—sin in its third potency, the judgment of hardening.

Rom_9:1. I say the truth in Christ [ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῶ. Dr. Lange retains the article, as is done in the E. V., and in most revisions (except Noyes’). It seems required by the genius of both the German and English languages.—R.] The Apostle strengthens his subsequent declaration in a threefold way: I say the truth in Christ; I lie not; my conscience bears me witness. The energetic battle which the Apostle waged against the Jews’ righteousness of their works, and their claim to prerogatives in God’s kingdom, made him odious to the Jews and an object of opposition and suspicion to many prejudiced ones among the Jewish Christians; while biased Gentile Christians might be tempted to regard him as one of their partisans. He meets all this by the solemn asseveration of his pain.

[Alford: “The subject on which he is about to enter, so unwelcome to Jews in general, coupled with their hostility to himself, causes him to begin with a deprecation, bespeaking credit for simplicity and earnestness in the assertion which is to follow. This deprecation and assertion of sympathy he puts in the forefront of the section, to take at once the ground from those who might charge him, in the conduct of his argument, with hostility to his own alienated people.”—R.]

But the Apostle treats also of a further great progress in the glorification of Divine grace, which, in its third potency, glorifies as compassion that gloomy judgment of hardening which the Apostle can only disclose by an expression of the greatest pain. The Apostle is doubly assured of the sincerity of his declaration. First, he expresses his feeling in the consciousness of the fellowship of Christ34 (Eph_4:17; 1Th_4:1), while he, so to speak, transfers himself into the feeling of Christ (Luk_19:41). Second, he proves and tests the truth of his feeling by his conscience, and by the strong and clear light of the Holy Spirit. Now, is this declaration an oath, according to most of the earlier and many of the later expositors (Reiche, Köllner, and others); or is it not, according to the exposition of Tholuck, De Wette, and Meyer? This much is clear, that the Apostle’s asseveration is not a formal taking of an oath, and not in the form of an oath. [The form of an oath would be πρός with the accusative.—R.] It will be remembered, in favor of this view, that the ὀμνύειν (Mat_5:34) is here wanting; and that the Apostle does not swear by Christ, nor by the Holy Ghost. Neither does he swear in a legal sense in general; we may only ask, whether he does not here give a solemn assurance in God’s presence, and whether such an assurance is not an ideal oath?

I lie not [οὐ ψεύδομαι]. (1Ti_2:7.) White lies being very much in vogue at the time, this addition surely meant that he was perfectly conscious of his responsibility for his declarations, since he called on Christ as a witness.

My conscience also bearing me witness [συμαρτυρούσης μοι τῆς συνειδήσεώς]. Meyer: Since my conscience bears me witness. But Paul’s conscience could not bear witness to the Romans apart from Paul himself. The distinction between his own declaration and that of his conscience, means that he has proved his feelings in regard to his people by the light of conscience and of the Spirit of God. [Alford: The σύν in composition, denoting accordance with the fact, not joint testimony.—R.]

In the Holy Ghost [ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίω]. This is not an addition to συνείδησις itself (a conscience governed by the Holy Ghost; Grotius), and still less to οὐ ψεύδομαι (although this is favored by many: ώς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίω ὤν), but to συμμαρτ. μοι (Tholuck, Meyer, and others). [Meyer: “Paul knows that the witness of his conscience is not outside the Spirit which fills him, but spirito sancto duce et moderatore (Beza) in it.”—R.]

Rom_9:2. That I have great grief and continual sorrow in my heart [ὅτι λύπη μοίἐστιν μεγάλη καὶ ἀδιάλειπος ὀδύνη τῆκαρδία μου. The position of the words is solemnly emphatic.—R.] The Apostle does not immediately and directly mention the subject or occasion of his grief. Why not? Meyer: “From tender compassion. Tholuck: “In lively emotion.” But the object is indicated by the ὑπὲρ τ. ἀδ μοι (Rom_9:3), and it is the ἀπώλεια threatened them (Rom_9:22). But the great pain relates not only to the great fall of his glorious people, which had already occurred, but to the Apostle’s tragical position toward his brethren according to the flesh, and to the hard prophetic call now to disclose publicly the whole judgment of hardening pronounced on Israel, with its incalculably sad consequences. Christ also wept as He prophesied Jerusalem’s fate. Comp. Isaiah 6 [How noble the Apostle appears here, with this holy patriotism and hearty love to those who, from the day of his conversion, had persecuted him with relentless hatred; who, soon after the composition of this Epistle, occasioned him a long imprisonment, and who were the immediate cause of his martyrdom!—P. S.]

Rom_9:3. For I could wish. [Lange: Denn ich that ja das Gelübde, for I made the vow]. See the discussions on this difficult passage, quoted by Tholuck. For an elaborate account of the earlier expositions, see Wolf’s Curœ, iii. p. 164. Explanations of the ηὐκόμην:

1. I have wished, namely, formerly (Vulgate: optabam; Luther: I have wished). This explanation divides, again, into two:

a. When I was a Jew, I wished to keep the Jews far from Christ; yea, to be myself the personal, medium of the alienation; ἀνάθεμα = χωρισμός (Pelagius, Abelard, and others). In this case he appeals to his former blind zeal for Israel against Christ, in order to prove that he loves his people, and, in his love, that he now sorrows for their fate.

b. In my pain I have gone so far, as a Christian, that I wished, &c. (Significat, se aliquando hoc orasse, nimirum cum dolor iste singulariter invaluisset) Bucer. Meyer, and others, suggest, to the contrary, that there is here no ποτέ, or any other word of similar import. Philippi adds: it must then mean ηὐξάμην ποτέ.35

2. I wished, namely, even now.

a. Tholuck: Dum modo fieri posset, si liceret.

b. Meyer: I would wish, if the import of my wish could contribute to the good of the Israelites.

c. Philippi: But ηὐχόμην is also not identical with ηὐχόμην ἄν; that is, I would wish, if the wish were possible; but since it is not possible, I do not wish. But it is = I wished, namely, if the wish could be realized, and therefore really wish on this supposition.

The difference between the explanations is this: a. If the wish were possible (Tholuck); b. If the thing wished for were possible (Philippi); c. If the thing wished for, and also the wish itself, were possible (Meyer). There has, perhaps, not been enough regard to analogies in Paul’s method of expression. Paul says ηὔξαίμην ἄν (Act_26:29), for I wished, in the sense of I would wish, and why not here, too? Luke relates, on the contrary, Act_27:29, in the imperfect: ηὔχοντο, they wished (at that time); and why should not the imperfect be used here in the same sense? If, indeed, the word should mean here, I have wished, or even, I have prayed (Theodoret, and others), the presence of ποτε might be insisted upon. But if the Apostle wishes to say, I made a vow—i. e., if he speaks of a definite fact—the ποτέ lies already in the emphasis of the ηὐχόμην itself, especially as joined with the addedαὐτὸςἐγώ. It is very probable that he made some pledge, when he (according to Act_9:2) received from the high priest authority to persecute the Christians; for a hierarch of exalted station does not confide in a young man without some such pledges. His present perception of the fearful import of that engagement is immediately expressed in ἀνάθεμα, κ.τ.λ..

If we disregard such an acceptation, the exegetical difficulty will really begin with ἀνάθεμα. [Dr. Lange prefers, yet does not commit himself to, this view of the imperfect. It is far-fetched; and were there no other grounds to influence the interpretation than those of grammar, as Alford hints, any school-boy could tell that the imperfect does not refer to a definite past act, but represents “the act unfinished, an obstacle intervening.” In support of the grammatical correctness of this view, see Buttman, N. T. Gramm., p. 187; Kühner, ii, § 438, 3; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 373; Kruger, § 54, 10; Winer, p. 266. It seems perilous to give up the obvious meaning, I could wish, for one barely allowable. The aorist was at hand, if Paul wished to refer to a past vow. If there be a difficulty in the passage, it is met most fairly by Meyer’s view, that the verb implies an impossibility, or at least an insurmountable obstacle, both as to the wish and the thing wished for. We can then take ἀνάθενα in its obvious sense, without putting it also on the rack to extort another meaning. See the final Exeg. Note on this verse.—R.]

That I myself were accursed from Christ [ἀνάθεμα εἶαι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ]. Ἀνάθεμα, Attic Ἀνάθεμα, dedicated to God; hence, also, dedicated to the Divine judgment, and consequently to ruin; in the latter sense = חֵרֶם (Gal_1:8-9; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22). Though the later sense of חרם “must not be construed as the Jewish curse of excommunication” (Meyer), yet the theocratic idea: to excommunicate from the Church of God, and to dedicate to ruin, cannot be separated. In the Christian sphere the ἀνάθεμα is, indeed, in the ecclesiastical form, a temporally qualified exclusion: “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved” (1Co_5:5).

[Excursus on Anathema.—The proper understanding of this passage may be furthered by discussing at this point the precise meaning of the word ἀνάθεμα. The following dissertation is from Wieseler, Commentary on Galatians (1:8, 9, pp. 39 ff.). The fact that it is founded upon another passage, adds to its weight in determining the meaning here, since the discussion of Gal_1:8 is not beset with the prejudices which arise here.

“Ἀνάθεμα36 is the Hellenistic form for the Attic ἀνάθημα (comp. εὕρημα and εὕρεμα, πρόσθημα, and πρόθεμα, Lobeck, Ad Phrynich, p. 249, and Paralip, pp. 391 ff.), and, like the latter form, denotes in general ‘something dedicated to God, a votive offering;’ but in the Bible it is usually the translation of the Hebrew חֵרֶם, as ἀναθεματίζειν is of הֶחְֶרִים, and then denotes something dedicated to God in a bad sense, as we shall presently see more particularly; comp. the Latin sacer. When any thing consecrated in a general sense is to be denoted, however, the form ἀνάθημα, in the Scriptures and their dependent literature, is wont to prevail; in the other case, the form ἀνάθεμα, although the genuine reading, on account of the divergence of manuscripts, is often very difficult to determine. Ἀνάθημα as translation of חֵרֶם is found, e. g., in the LXX., Lev_27:28-29, where, however, the reading ἀνάθεμα also appears. At all events, this use of ἀνάθημα is the exception throughout, as appears also from the fact that ἀναθη ματίζειν is nowhere used, but ἀναθ ε ματίζειν. We are more apt to find ἀνάθεμα also in the sense of a customary votive offering; e. g., 2Ma_2:13, and Jdt_16:19, Codex Alex. Luke uses ἀνάθημα, Luk_21:5 (yet Cod. A. and D. [so א.], and also Lachmann, read ἀνάθεμα) of a customary votive offering, and Act_23:14, ἀνάθεμα, of a consecration in a bad sense. Suidas therefore says, with essential correctness: ἀνάθεμα καὶ τὸ ἀνατιθέμενον τῷ θεῷ χαι τὸ εἰς ἀφανισμὸν ἐσόμενον ἀμφότερα σημαίνει· λέγεται δέ καὶ ἀναθηματὸ τῷ θεῷ ἀνατεθειμένον. [ἀνάθεμα signifies both that which is hung up as an offering to God, and that which is destined to destruction; but that which is hung up as an offering to God is called also ἀνάθημα.] So Theodoret, respecting the usage of his time on Rom_9:3 : τὸ ἀνάθεμα διπλῆνἕχει τὴν διάνοιαν· καὶ γὰρ τό ἀφιεώμενον τῷθεῷ ἀνάθημα ὀνομάζεται, καὶ τὸ τούτου ἀλλότότριον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει προσηγορίαν. [The word ἀνάθεμα has a twofold sense: for both that which is consecrated to God is named ἀνάθημα, and the contrary of this has the same appellation.] So much respecting the distinction between ἀναθεμα and ἀνάθημα.”

“The ἀνάθεμα in the passage before us has been understood principally (1) of excommunication.37 So Grotius, Semler, Burger (waveringly), Rosenmüller, Flatt; the rationalismus vulgaris in the well-known Bremen controversy occasioned by F. W. Krummacher’s Gastpredigt, upon this passage, represented by Paniel, Weber, and Paulus (comp. Gildemeister, passim, and also Baumgarten-Crusius). Either an actual excommunication was understood, as by Rosenmüller (excludatur he cœtu vestro), which Flatt thinks possible with regard to a teacher, or it was even explained as by Grotius (cum eo nihil vobis sit commerch, non magis, quam eum iis quos Synagoga aut Ecclesia penitus abscidit) and by Semler (fugite, abhorrete talem doctorem); in which case we should at least have expected ὥσπερ ἀνάθεμα (ὥσπερ ὁ ἀναθεματισμἑνος) ἔστω ὑμῖν; comp. Mat_18:17.”

“In particular in recent times, it is explained (2) almost universally and also correctly: ‘to have become obnoxious to the wrath or curse of God;’ Winer, Schott, Rückert, De Wette, Usteri, Meyer, Gildemeister; so that, therefore, Luther, with his: ‘der sei verflucht,’ according to Krummacher’s interpretation, is justified. Luther would be right also in the main matter, according to Olshausen’s assertion, which he presents without proof, and which stands midway between Nos. 1 and 2, that in this formula (3) we are not merely to understand ecclesiastical excommunication, but that this is only so far included in the signification as it presupposes Divine reprobation.”

“All these explanations, notwithstanding their divergences, proceed from the correct assumption that this ἀνάθεμα is the translation of the Hebrew הֵרֶם. The question is therefore this, what this חֵרֶם among the Jews was, and whether it denoted—i. e., in the time of Paul—the Jewish excommunication. If the latter were disproved, Nos. 1 and 3 would fall; but if this should really be the case, the question would be whether ἀνάθεμα here is used of excommunication, or of what it is used. But, in the first place, it is clear that, in the whole Old Testament, חֵרֶם and חֶחְֶרִים are never used of excommunication. Indeed, they are used with at least as frequent reference to the idolatrous apostasy of the heathen nations, especially of Canaanitish ones, as with reference to idolatry and impiety within Israel. חֵרֶם is used of every thing, person or thing, which, on account of its worthiness of death, founded in God’s Word—the thing usually in connection with, and on account of, its impious possessor—was, whether of free resolve, or at the express command of God, consecrated to Jehovah, without capability of being ransomed; Lev_27:21; Lev_27:28. The person who had become a חֵרֶם might not continue to live; Lev_27:29; and only the thing—to which class, according to ancient view, the slave also belonged—could, if a living creature, remain alive, falling then forever to Jehovah—that is, to the priests; Lev_27:28; Num_18:14; Eze_44:29. From this it arises, that הֶחְֶרִם, as to its sense, signifies simply ‘to destroy,’ and is not seldom connected with לְפִי חֶרֶב (comp. the Hebrew קָדַשׁ, which also originally signifies ‘to be holy;’ Exo_29:37; Exo_30:29; and חֵרֶם is rendered in the LXX. not simply by ἀνάθεμα, or ἀφόρισμα, Eze_44:29, but also by ἀφάνισμα, Deu_7:2; ἐξολόθρευμα, 1Sa_15:21; and ἀπώλεια, Isa_34:5. From this it appears that, according to the Old Testament, הֶחְֵרִם neither literally nor by derived use can signify excommunication, as exclusion from the fellowship of the chosen people. Nay, the latter is expressly mentioned, Ezr_10:28; but the verb חָרַם is not used of the excommunicated persons, but, in contrast with it, the verb בָּרַל; the former verb, on the other hand, is used in its true sense (see above) of their property, because this escheated forever to the sanctuary. Had the הָחְֶרִם been decreed against the persons in question on the part of the Jewish assembly, they would thereby not have been excommunicated, but destroyed in honor of the God whom they had outraged. On the other hand, in the Talmud, חֵרֶם is unquestionably used formally of excommunication. According to Elias Levita, the three grades of excommunication among the Jews have not seldom been assumed as (1) the נִדּוּי, (2) the חֵרֶם, and (3) the שַׁמַּחָּא. Paniel and Weber also assumed them, asserting that only the highest grade, as the Shammatha, was conjoined with those ‘fearful curses’ which we read in the Talmudists, but that Paul, with his ἀνάθεμα, meant no other than the חֵרֶם. On the other hand, Gildemeister, passim, preceded by Selden, and others, has lately thoroughly demonstrated anew that the Talmud and the Jews, by those three names, do not designate three different grades of excommunication, but that the Shammatha is only another word (the Chaldaic translation) for Niddui; that, therefore, if the Apostle, by his ἀνάθεμα, meant the Cherem as excommunication, the highest grade of excommunication—that accompanied with these ‘curses’—must have been meant.”

“The next question is, therefore, whether the Cherem, as excommunication, already existed among the Jews at the time when the Epistle to the Galatians38 was written. Although the primitive history of Jewish excommunication is veiled in great obscurity, we certainly shall not err if we ascribe to it, from its first documentarily attested appearance under Ezra (Ezr_10:8), up to the time of Paul, a certain course of development, and that a more extensive one than Gildemeister appears to do.”

“According to New Testament testimony there were, then, the two grades of excommunication: (1) The exclusion from the worship in the Temple and synagogue, Joh_9:22; Joh_12:42; Joh_16:2; and (2) what, as it was already practised under Ezra, can least surprise us, the expulsion39 from the congregation of the people, Luk_6:29 (ἀφορίζειν), which concluded with obliteration of the name in the δέλτοις δημοσίοις (ἐκβάλλειν τὸ ὄνομα ὡς πονηρόν, l. c.); which latter circumstance is here expressly added, that the hearers may not understand the excommunicatio minor. Quite as certainly, however, is the Jewish excommunication at Paul’s time not yet designated as Cherem, which even antecedently is improbable, on account of the above developed Old Testament use of חֵרֶם, which could only gradually, and after a longer time, be so considerably modified. For in the Mishna, where excommunication is largely handled, Cherem is as yet never used of excommunication, but this is denoted by Niddui; it is in the Gemara that Cherem appears as excommunication, and that the sharpest form of the same—that joined with fearful ‘curses’ having reference to everlasting destruction, from whence also its name—is explained. With this alone agrees, moreover, the New Testament use of ἀνάθεμα and ἀναθεματίζειν, Rom_9:3; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22; Gal_1:8-9; Act_23:12; Act_14:21; Mar_14:71, which in none of these passages signify excommunication, or to excommunicate. On the other hand, ἀνάθεμα, in entire congruity with the Old Testament Cherem, is used of a person who is dedicated to God, subjected to the Divine curse for his death,not, however, to bodily, as in the more ancient formula—which reference, however, was not necessarily contained in the root, but resulted only from the historical relations of the Jews in ancient time—but to spiritual and eternal death. The ἀνάθεμα, 1Co_16:22, cannot signify excommunication, since otherwise it would be denounced against a temper of mind, the οὐ φιλεῖν; nor yet 1Co_12:3, since no one could have wished to excommunicate Jesus, no longer dwelling on earth; nor Rom_9:3, as appears sufficiently from the defining ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ. In the case of the verb ἀναθεματίζειν, indeed, it has not yet come into any one’s head, in respect to the New Testament passages, that it signifies, to excommunicate; but ἀναθεμ. ὅτι, Mark, l. c., signifies, ‘under self-imprecations (by his soul’s salvation) to attest, that;’ ἀναθεματίζειν ἑαυτίν, Acts, l. c., ‘under self-imprecations to oblige himself.’ Quite as little can ἀνάθεμα, Gal_1:8-9, be used of excommunication, on this account, if no other, because one cannot excommunicate an angel from heaven (Rom_9:8), but can very well call down God’s curse of damnation upon him, in the ἀνάθεμα. Rom_9:9 must have been used in the same sense as in Rom_9:8. Independently of the subjective participation expressed by the imperative, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω expresses neither more nor less than Gal_5:10, where Paul denounces against the same false teachers the judgment of God at the end of days; comp. 2Th_1:9. In form, as in meaning, the Pauline ἀνάθεμα ἔστω (or ἤτω, 1Co_16:22) reminds us strongly of the אָרוּר, LXX.: ἐπικατάρατος, Deu_27:15 ff.; only that not every אָרוּר in the Old Testament needs, like our ἀνάθεμα, to be taken as invoking the highest and most intensive evil—eternal damnation—but may very well, according to the connection, be used of that; comp. Gal_3:13; Mat_25:41; it being, of course, understood that, by the ἀναθεμα, the loss of eternal life and the blessed fellowship of God is meant to be invoked against the sinner, only so far and so long as he persists in his wickedness, or this in its nature is irremissible. As to the rest, when Rückert and Schott, in the case of the ἀνάθεμα in this passage, will have it that it does not mean excommunication, for the additional reason that that age was not yet acquainted with this among the Christians, this assertion is unquestionably erroneous; 1Co_5:2 ff.; 1Ti_1:20; 3Jn_1:10; Jude 22; comp. Mat_18:17-18; 2Th_3:14; 2Jn_1:10; 2Jn_1:11. The Church fathers afterwards used the ἀνάθεμα, doubtless deriving the use through the Pauline passages, of Christian excommunication, similarly as the Jews their חֵרֶם, but these commonly misunderstood the proper sense of this expression. Comp. the criticism of them in Fritzsche, l. c., tom. ii., p. 249, Note.”

With this well-established view of the meaning of our word, we can pass to the exegesis of this passage, remembering that the burden of proof now rests with those who, to avoid difficulties, assign any other meaning than that so ably defended by Wieseler.—R.]

Meyer: “The destruction to which Paul would commit himself for his brethren must not be understood as a violent death (Jerome, Limborsch, Flatt, and others), but as the eternal ἀπώλεια, as is required by the ἀπὸ τ. X. It has often been objected that the wish of this ἀπώλεια is unreasonable, and Michaelis even says that it would be a raving prayer. But the standard of selfish (!) reflection does not harmonize with the emotion of boundless self-denial and love in which Paul here speaks.” (Comp. Chrysostom and Bengel in loco.) Tholuck quotes Chrysostom’s expression on this point, and adds: “Thus interpret the vast majority of expositors of ancient and modern times, even the Socinians, with Socinus himself.” We nevertheless hold unhesitatingly that the explanation of Michaelis is more admissible than Meyer’s well-nigh unmeaning overstraining of the idea of self-denial.

The justifiable hesitation in accepting the explanation, that Paul wished to be eternally cast out from Christ—that is, given over to the devil, to be damned—has led to mitigations of the real meaning of the ἀναθεμα. It has been interpreted:

1. As temporal death, as already mentioned. Analogies in 2Co_12:15 : the death of Christ as κατάρα (Jerome, Nösselt, and others). Tholuck, on the other hand: With temporal death as Cherem, there is connected the accursing, which is additionally comprised here in ἀπό τ. χ.

2. Banishment from church fellowship (Grotius, and others; apparently, Luther also).

On the controversies arising from a sermon by Fr. Krummacher on Gal_1:8, in regard to this explanation, comp. Tholuck, p. 471 ff. There is, now, no question that the supposition of an exclusion to injury is always connected with a true exclusion from church fellowship. But if we explain the Old Testament Cherem and the ecclesiastical ban according to the New Testament—that is, specifically according to the words quoted from 1Co_5:5—then it becomes evident that the Old Testament Cherem did not declare eternal condemnation when it declared extermination from the congregation of the people, and that devotion to eternal condemnation could never have been the meaning of an authorized ecclesiastical Christian ban. If the explanation, I wished to be accursed from Christ, were therefore correct, it would nevertheless not be the same as: I wished to be eternally damned; but: I would be willing to be cast into boundless misery for the brethren.40 From the overstrained interpretation of the accursed, it would follow, that the Apostle regarded the brethren in question as eternally damned. See, on the contrary, Romans 11—Tholuck refers to the Jewish and Arabic manner of speaking: May we be thy ransom; may my soul be the redemption of thine! Evidently, hyperboles of Oriental politeness. He cites the reference of Origen to the example of Moses (Exo_32:32 ): Paul has spoken like Moses, says Origen: devotione, non prœvaricatione. But Moses spoke thus at a moment of the deepest emotion, and just as Moses, in the Old Testament sense of the theocratic judgment of reprobation. Jerome takes the value of many souls against one into account; Cyril accepts a hyperbole; and Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between a separatio a damnatis per culpam and a separatio a fruitione gloriœ.41 Tholuck remarks, that Fenelonhas referred to this passage in order to defend the mystical idea of amour désinteressé,42 and that Bossuet replies, by saying, that fellowship with God cannot be separated from participation in saving blessings (salvation). Yet Tholuck returns at last to Fenelon’s distinction, after quoting many other theological explanations (Calvin: erupiio animi confusi; later moralists, especially Dannhauer, Spener, and Bengel: vertus heroica). Most expositors, by their reference to the hypothetical si fieri posset, return to the acceptance of a hyperbolical expression.

The αὐτὸς ἐγώ leads us back to the simplest rendering.

The current explanation is incorrect at the very outset. Meyer is nearest right: The antithesis is the brethren, the majority of whom are seen by Paul as ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ going to the ἀνάθεμα. In this case the ἐγώ would still be superfluous. Our present expression refers to the αὐτὸς ἐγώ (Rom_7:25). We have seen how the expression there designated the opposition of spiritual and carnal life in the identity of the same individuality. And thus it denotes here the antithesis of his earlier and of his present standpoint, in the identity of an individuality which, at that time, acted from a love for Israel.43 For I even pledged myself, I, the same Paul who must now pronounce the following judgment on Israel, &c.—His former wish to destroy the Christians by means of the Cherem, he now denominates in its true meaning: to be accursed, ἀπὸ τοῦ X., away from Christ; as he is not aware of any other ban from the Church of God than banishment from Christ. Nösselt, and others, have understood by the expression, that Christ would be the author of the ban; which would increase the harshness of the expression. With our view, the ὑπέρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου can only mean this: for my brethren, as one zealous for their interests. Even with the opposite view, Meyer explains ὑπέρ as for the good of; but Tholuck, on the contrary, says that the idea of substitution underlies the ὑπέρ, at least indirectly. [Olshausen makes ὑπἑρ = ἀντι.—R.] This would render the idea still more intolerable. Paul would not venture to utter the thought, that his ruin might still bring salvation to the people for whom even the death of Christ brought no salvation.

[The interpretations of this difficult passage may be classified, as follows:

(1) Those which take ηὐκόμην in the past sense. The grammatical objection to this is so decided, that, unless the gravest difficulties attend every other view, it must be rejected. The view of Dr. Lange, which makes it equivalent to a definite aorist, is grammatically less admissible than that which takes it as = optabam, I was wont to wish.

(2) Those which give to ἀνάθεμα some less strong sense than accursed, devoted to destruction. Dr. Lange has cited most of these. The least objectionable among these is that which interprets the word as meaning: untold misery, not necessarily eternal. The lexical objection here is very strong; see Excursus above. If Wieseler’s statements are reliable, all of these are necessarily excluded. There remains, then,

(3) The obvious meaning, I could wish myself devoted to destruction from Christ for my brethren’s sake; implying either that the wish was not formed, because it was impossible to wish, or of impossible fulfilment; ὑπἑρ, involving, not necessarily substitution, yet such a suffering for the benefit of others as would turn to their corresponding advantage; for Paul often speaks of what he does for (ὑπέρ) his readers. The question then arises, Are the difficulties attending this view so great, that it must be abandoned for such doubtful exegesis as (1) and (2) present? Dr. Lange objects:

(a.) That it implies a senseless overstraining of the idea of self-denial. But who shall put the limit? “It is the expression of an affectionate and self-denying heart, willing to surrender all things—even, if it might be so, eternal glory itself—if thereby he could obtain for his beloved people those blessings of the gospel which he now enjoyed, but from which they were excluded. Others express their love by professing themselves ready to give their life for their friends: he declares the intensity of his affection by reckoning even his spiritual life net too great a price, if it might purchase their salvation” (Alford). Surely we dare not let our assumption of how far his self-denial would go, limit words, which, if they do not mean this, have always borne this as their obvious meaning.

(b.) It is further objectea, that then the Apostle would regard the brethren in question as eternally damned. But it is Paul who says that those out of Christ are already perishing (1Co_1:18); and Christ himself speaks of the wrath of God abiding on men (Joh_3:18; Joh_3:36). This objection sunders too widely the present and the future state of unbelievers. Paul would, at all events, feel the powerof the future state of retribution in the case of these brethren, just to the extent that he attached a definite meaning to ἀνάθεμα; so that this objection is of no weight.

(c.) The implication suggested above, that Paul then would deem his ruin more powerful than the death of Christ, involves the strongest meaning of ὑπέρ. If the idea of substitution be excluded, this objection falls to the ground. But if Paul could not use ὑπέρ here, in the sense that his sufferings might produce certain beneficial results to others, he could not use it elsewhere in the same sense (Eph_3:13; Col_1:24 twice). The objection, in any case, lies not against the degree, but the quality of the suffering.

(d.) Lange characterizes the current interpretation as hyperbolical. If it be, then objection (a.) has no weight, for a hyperbole would not overstrain the idea of self-denial. But this interpretation is not strictly a hyperbole. For Paul wished by this to express a degree of feeling which could be measured in human expression by nothing less strong than this. The objective impossibility did not destroy the subjective intensity of feeling. And although he may not have actually formed the wish, still any student of human nature knows that feelings often exist, never taking shape in definite wish, which are contrary both to what is possible and what is actually wished. The expression is, however, truthful in Paul’s consciousness, hence not a hyperbole.

On the whole, the objections to this view (3) seem of so much less weight, that the majority of commentators adopt it. Besides the grammatical and lexical grounds in its favor, it presents the great Apostle to the Gentiles under the influence of feelings most akin to the self-sacrificing love of the Lord he preached. And it detracts nothing from our estimate of his affection to know, as he did also, that such love flowed only from his love to Christ, his fellowship with Christ, which would itself change hell to heaven.—R.]

My kinsmen according to the flesh [τῶνσυγγενῶν μου κατὰ σαρκα ]. This addition expresses both his former motive and his continued patriotic feeling (see Rom_11:14).44 [There is, however, here an implied antithesis to “brethren in the Lord.” Paul’s patriotism is here justified, but, as the next verse shows, it has a deeper ground in the gracious gifts and religious advantages which the Jews had hitherto enjoyed.—R.]

Rom_9:4. Who are Israelites. Οἵτινες.—Quippe qui. Thus he announces the characteristics of his kindred “according to the flesh,” who lay so near his heart, and the decline of whose glory excited his profound compassion. The collective glory of the Jews lies in the fact that they are Israelites—that they bear the honorable name of Israel, as those who are called, like their ancestor, to be a people of God consisting of wrestlers with God—a people of wrestling prayer. [It should be remarked here, that the ground of the prerogatives afterwards enumerated was the free grace of God, not any superior natural excellence of this people as compared with the heathen. This is implied in the very character of the prerogatives. Besides, in calling them “Israelites,” there is a direct reference to the fact that their advantages grew out of their relation to one directly chosen of God. So that the very glory of Israel shows the sovereignty of God, toward which the chapter points, in discussing the enigma of the present position of this favored people.—R.]

By a rhetorically forcible και, και, &c., Paul now discloses six prerogatives, from υἱοθεσία to ἐπαγγελίαι, after which he extols the highest glory of the Israelites—that the fathers belong to them, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ also came.

He calls them Israelites, and not merely Israel (see Rom_9:6). Although the majority of the people turned away from Christ, and but a minority identified themselves with Him, this minority nevertheless constitutes, par excellence, the people of Israel. See the τινές in Rom_3:3, and also Rom_11:1. He can, indeed, call also the unbelieving majority “Israel” in a qualified sense (Rom_9:31). But the name “Israelites” is still placed as the name of honor at the very head of the advantages (see 2Co_11:22; Php_3:5; Joh_1:47). On the use of the name in Josephus, see Tholuck, p. 476.

Tholuck’s division of the advantages into three pairs is well grounded; but he is less warranted in regarding them as designations of their theocratic honor, their theocratic basis, and their theocratic hope, “to which the prerogatives of the fathers of the theocracy, and of their head, is connected as a fourth member.” According to the import of the designations, the υἱοθεσία indicates, at the outset, the whole state of honor; then the first pair describes the patriarchal foundation, including the new calling of Israel as a people; the second pair, on the contrary, set forth the Mosaic legal constitution of Israel; then, again, the ἐπαγγελίαι, “the promises,” denotes the collective transition from Moses to Christ by the prophets. To these real advantages of Israel there then corresponds the an tithesis of personal advantages: the true fathers of the people down to Christ.

Whose is the adoption [ὡν ἡ υἱοθεσία] God’s acceptance in the place of a child, adoption; yet not in the sense of the New Testament realization, but in that of the Old Testament typification (see Exo_4:22 ff.; Deu_14:1; Deu_32:6; Hos_11:1; Rom_8:1-2). The foundation of this adoption was the election, calling, and sealing of Abraham. But in this right of the child there was not merely comprised the real enjoyment of “theocratic protection,” but also the foundation and guidance to real adoption (Gal_4:1-2); and, in relation to the promise for the remaining nations, the determination that Israel should be the first-born son of God (Exo_4:22). [It therefore comprises, though only germinally and typically, the close union which Christ, the Only-begotten, who was in the bosom of the Father from eternity, forms between God and men through the regeneration of the Holy Ghost.—P. S.]

And the glory. The δόξα, כְּבוֹר יְהוָֹה. This is that revealed form of Jehovah underlying the call to adoption throughout the Old Testament, which often stands out more definitely in the appearance of the Angel of the Lord (see Lange’s Comm. Genesis) [p. 385 ff., Amer. ed.]. Comp. Exo_24:16; Exo_40:34; 1Ki_8:10 f.; Eze_1:28, and other passages). Untenable explanations: 1. The ark of the covenant (Beza, Grotius, and others, with reference to 1Sa_4:22). 2. The glory of Israel itself (Calovius, Köllner, Fritzsche, Beck, and others).For the still more untenable explanations of Michaelis and Koppe, see Meyer (the adoption itself as glory, the promised felicitas). Meyer’s own explanation is totally unsatisfactory: “The symbolical and visible presence of God as manifested in the desert as a pillar of cloud and of fire, and as the cloud over the ark of the covenant, the same שְכִינָה” (Buxtorf, Lexic., Talmud, &c.). For more particular information on Meyer’s indefinite view, see Tholuck.—De Wette and Philippi do not really get beyond “the visible and operative presence of God,” or, the “symbol of God’s gracious presence.” [As Paul is enumerating the prerogatives of the Jews, a definite meaning is to be sought for. Meyer’s view attaches a definite meaning to δόξα, extending it, however, over a wide period of time. Dr. Lange’s objection to this grows out of his classification of these prerogatives in chronological order. If this δόξα must be referred to patriarchal times, then Lange’s view alone is admissible; but the word is used by one who is glancing over the whole Jewish history, and in that history “the visible presence of God” seems most worthy of the title δόξα.—R.]

And the covenants. Αἱ διαθῆκαι. The compacts. The δόξα already announced itself at the call of Abraham. [If Meyer’s view of σόξα be adopted, then the reference to the call of Abraham in υἱοθεσία is the point of connection here.—R.] The covenant with Abraham was renewed with Isaac (and this is of importance here, in contrast with Ishmael), with Jacob (in contrast with Esau), and, finally, with the whole people through Moses. Various explanations: 1. The two tables of the law (Beza, and others). 2. The Old and the New Testaments [see Textual Note3.—R.] (Augustine, Jerome, Cocceius, Calovius; with reference to Jer_31:33). Meyer: “The compacts concluded by God with the patriarchs after Abraham.” Comp. Book of Wis_18:22; Sir_44:11; 2Ma_8:15; Eph_2:12. [This is undoubtedly the simplest view.—R.]

And the giving of the law. Opposite explanations: 1. Meyer, and others: the act of giving the law, not ὁ νόμος itself. 2. Tholuck [Hodge], and most expositors: νομοθεσία, by metonyme for ὁ νόμος; νομοθεσία is the more rhetorical and euphonious word. Evidently, the act of giving the law would have had no permanent force for Israel apart from its substance; but even its substance would be no permanent νομοθεσία without the continued repetition (Deuteronomy), establishment, and restoration of the law. The νόμος was, and continued to be, a permanent act of the νομοθεμα. [Meyer inquires why Paul did not write νόμος, if he meant it. “At all events, whoever had the νομοθεσμα, had also the νόμος. Still, the difference of signification is to be preserved. The giving of the law was a work by means of which God, who was himself the νομοθέτης, distinguished the Jews above all other nations.” It seems safer to make the primary reference to the giving of the law, without, however, excluding the necessary secondary reference to its substance.—R.]

And the service of the sanctuary. The worship, ἡ λατρεία; Heb_9:1. [The Jewish ritual service, including the tabernacle worship, but fully established in the temple. The connection of this with the giving of the law is sufficiently obvious.—And the promises, αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι.—R.] Meyer holds that the service corresponds to the giving of the law, as αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι (the Messianic prophecies) correspond to αἱ διαθῆκαι. This is a chiasm, according to Meyer, occasioned by the necessity of the promises standing at the conclusion, immediately before the Promised One. But a chiasm is altogether out of the question, as the promises in the stricter sense—the prophetic promises—followed the giving of the law, and as the λατρεία also was already, in the main, a typical promise, from which the ἐπαγγελίαι are only to be distinguished as verbal prophecies. Tholuck concludes, without good ground, from the reasoning (Rom_9:6), that the predictions of the prophets are not meant here, but “chiefly” those communicated to the patriarchs. But how could Paul have enumerated the principal elements of Israel’s glory, without thinking of the prophets? We must adhere to the position that, apart from the connections of historical sequence, the υἱοθεσία, the δόξα, &c., and, indeed, all the particular elements, pervaded all the periods of Israel’s existence. Even the νομοθεσία, for example, is found in the germ in Abraham.

Rom_9:5. Whose are the fathers [ὧν οἱ πατέρες]. The fathers, the elect, the men of God, as preludes to the chief Chosen One, the Son of God; the glorious root of the Israelitish parent-tree, as well as the fatness of the tree (see Rom_11:17), referring to the only glorious crown (Exo_3:13; Exo_4:5). These are chiefly, but not exclusively, the patriarchs, but, in addition to them, the long line of the true fathers of Israel.

And of whom as to the flesh is Christ [καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστός τό κατά σάρκα]. It is the highest characteristic of Israel’s glory, that Christ descends from it, or comes of it according to the flesh (Rom_1:3; Rom_4:1 ff.). [Christ, the promised Messiah, is the greatest of all the blessings imparted to the people of Israel, to whom all the others pointed typically and prophetically, and in whom they first obtained their full truth and reality.—P. S.] The τὸ κατά σάρκα is evidently a qualifying addition, and refers to an antithesis; Tholuck: “οὐ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα” (Rom_1:3-4). [Alford marks the antithesis by rendering: “as far as regards the flesh;” finding in τό, accusative, the implication “that He was not entirely sprung from them, but had another nature.”—R.]

Who is over all [Ὁ ἒν ἐπὶ πάντων. There are two renderings which are nearly allied: Who is God over all, blessed forever, and: Who is over all, God blessed forever. The doctrinal results are the same, whichever be adopted; but Lange prefers the latter, for reasons which will appear, and seems warranted in his preference. The E. V. gives the latter; Luther, and most interpreters, the former.—R.] We explain the passage thus: He who is over all Israelites, believers and unbelievers, is that glorified One of our universally known synagogical formula: God, blessed forever. Amen. We must first of all accept a strong Pauline breviloquence. Then we must call to mind Paul’s expression concerning the unknown God (Act_17:23). As Paul could say to the Greeks: “You seek and worship by your altar the one true God, without knowing Him,” so can he say of the Jews: “Even those who reject Christ must render homage to Him, though unconsciously, as, by the well-known doxology, they often praise Jehovah, the God of revelation, who has appeared in Christ, and thus rules supremely over all, believers as well as unbelievers.” The ὁ ὤν therefore stands for ὅς ἐστι, though with the additional strength peculiar to the participle. That the ἐπὶ πάντων here refers to the Jews, according to their antithesis of believing and unbelieving Jews, is evident from the strong prominence previously given to them (οἵτινες, ὦν, ἐξ ὧν). [The form of the E. V. favors this view of ἐπι πάντων. By taking it as masculine, the whole clause is brought into closer connection with the context, an increased difficulty in the interpretation of the doxology is obviated, while this closer connection gives strength to the view that the doxology refers to Christ. It seems preferable to the view which connects it with θεός, in the sense of the supreme God (Hodge, and many others). Whether all that Lange suggests is included, is perhaps doubtful; but comp. his remarks below on Psa_68:19.—R.]

God blessed for ever. Amen [Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν]. We must regard this clause as a quotation from the synagogical liturgy, sufficiently well-known to all the Jews, and to Jewish Christians and believers in general. According to modern usage, it should, therefore, be written with quotation-marks. But the sense is this: Christ is the object of the Israelitish doxology to the revealed God, Jehovah, for He is the δόξα itself; is consciously praised by some, and unconsciously by the rest; for this latter class, notwithstanding their rejection of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot get away from the adoration of the Shekinah, and thus Christ also, the personally revealed God, rules over all (as they praise Him), even over unbelievers, for their future salvation. This is therefore the last advantage of Israel (see chap. 11). For the details of all the explanations, we must refer to the Commentaries extant.45

Every exposition is attended with great difficulties. The strongest reasons are still in favor of the old one, transmitted to us by the early writers, all of whom favored it, with the single exception of Theodore of Mopsvestia (see Tholuck, p. 479). We may say, perhaps, that Julian maintained, with Cyril, that Paul never called Jesus “God,” and that the Codd. 11 [5], 47 place a period after σάοκα, and Cod. 71 places one after ἐπ ὶ πάντων. Here belong also Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, &c., and the most of the later expositors (see Meyer). The passage is, therefore, a doxology to the divinity of Christ. This is most strongly favored by the requirement of the antithesis comprised in the τὸκατά σάρκα (see Rom_1:3-4; 1Ti_3:16). This explanation has been rendered unnecessarily difficult by regarding ἐπὶ πἀντων as neuter: “over every thing” (Beza referred it as masculine to the patriarchs, to the antithesis of Jews and Gentiles), thus giving up its proximate reference to the Jews.

Since the time of Erasmus, this exposition has been directly opposed by another, the reference of the clause to God. “The Codd. 11 [5], 47, of the 11th and 12th centuries, like Diodorus of Tarsus, place a period after σάρκα; this punctuation has been preferred by Erasmus, so that what follows is a doxology to the Almighty God. This proposition has found favor with the majority of recent exegetical writers, with the Socinians, &c., with Reiche, Rückert, Meyer, and Fritzsche.” Tholuck: A middle ground is occupied by the interpretation which unites with a second punctuation proposed by Erasmus, according to Cod. 71, as it places a period after ἐπὶ πάντων; this has been adopted by Locke and Baumgarten-Crusius, a construction to which Tholuck also inclines to a certain degree. In addition to these three explanations are, the conjecture of Erasmus, that θεός is not authentic, and the reading ὧν ὁ θεός proposed by Crell, and others. But, according to Tholuck, the detached character of the doxology is against the third exposition.

The following may be said against the second explanation:

1. In simple doxologies, without a relative form, the εὐλογητός generally precedes the θεός. See examples in Tholuck, 483; Philippi, 369 ff. Tholuck regards it as a beautiful fact connected with Faustus Socinus, that his attention was first directed to this circumstance, and that, owing to it, he changed his exposition of the passage. Tholuck, indeed, cites a passage in which the εὐλογητός comes after the θεός (Psa_68:10)—a passage which, in view of its connection, we regard as very important, and must hereafter return to it.

2. A doxology to the omnipotent God cannot interrupt the train of thought under consideration at its very outset; least of all, can an elegy or funeral discourse be changed abruptly into a hymn. The doxology for the whole discussion in Romans 9-11, is at the conclusion of chap. 11.

3. The expression, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, which limits Christ’s descent from the Jews to His human nature, requires, as an antithesis, a reference to His divine nature. We have here had special reference to Calvin, Tholuck, Neander, and Philippi. In the attack on the old exposition, it is remarkable that the same critical exegesis which elsewhere urges the immediate context, and leaves the analogy of Scripture altogether in the background, here reverses its method. Meyer, indeed, only says, that both expositions might be equally right, according to the words. But he imagines that he can overcome the requirement of the antithesis in this passage merely by the assurance that divinity does not necessarily belong to the object represented. The doxologies to God which Meyer cites (Rom_1:25; 2Co_11:31; Gal_1:5; 1Ti_1:17), are fully occasioned by the connection, which would not hold good of the present doxology. Meyer contradicts himself when he first urges that the present passage does not read ὁ θεός, but only the predicative θεός, without the article; and when he concedes that Paul, by virtue of his appropriate and real harmony with John’s christology, could, just as properly as John (Rom_1:1), have used the predicative θεός (divine nature) of Christ (with reference to Php_2:6; Col_1:15 ff; Col_2:9; 2Co_4:4), and yet urges that Paul never used the expression θεός of Christ, since he never accepted the Alexandrian form, like John, but adhered to the strictly monotheistical form. He seems, therefore, to regard that “Alexandrian form” as prejudicial to strict monotheism. [It should be remarked that Meyer, who is usually so clear anddecided in his statements of the reasons for his views, halts here, as if the grounds against the reference to Christ were not sufficient to satisfy himself. This fact is suggestive.—R.] As far as those passages are concerned in which Paul brings out the divinity of Christ, we refer to the Doctr. Notes. We must here, however, oppose the hermeneutical supposition that there are no doctrinal ἅπαξ λεγόμενα as culminating points of the view corresponding with them. Meyer even holds that John calls Christ θεός but once. It is a perfectly gratuitous increase of the difficulty before us, to say that Christ is here called God over all. It is certainly a fact that Paul speaks preëminently of the historical Christ, and that, when he expresses also the ontological idea of Christ, he immediately places it in relation with the historical perfection of Christ; but when this historical subordination which Paul expresses (1Co_8:6; Eph_4:5 f.; 1Co_15:28) is allowed to be identical with His ontological subordination, the error is owing to a defective ecclesiastical education and speculative penetration.

We now come to Psa_68:19, according to the Septuagint: Κύριος ὁ θεός εὐλογητός, εὐλογητὸς κύριος ἡμέραν καθ’ ἡμέραν. It must be borne in mind that Paul was particularly familiar with that passage. In Eph_4:8 he quotes a good part of Rom_9:18, and refers it to Christ. But this verse reads, according to De Wette’s translation, thus: Thou ascendest to the high seat, thou leadest captive, thou receivest gifts for men, and the rebellious shall also dwell with Jah. Tholuck: Even the apostates shall still dwell with God the Lord. Do we not plainly hear the reëcho of this passage in the ὁ ὥν ἐπὶπάντων? And since we know that Paul applies this passage to the glorification of Christ, is it not clear that he immediately adds that ascription of praise in Psa_68:19? His expression occupies the middle ground between the LXX. and the Hebrew text. Hence we return to the acceptance of a synagogical form.

[The main point being not the synagogical form—to which, however, there is little to object—but the reference to Christ, the following summary in favor of that view is added:

(1) This view is the most simple and natural one. Alford seems justifiable in remarking: It is the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement.

(2) It accords best with the context, presenting an antithesis to τό κατὰ σάρκα, and forming a suitable culminating point after the enumeration of the advantages of the Jews.

(3) It is sufficiently Pauline, for Paul wrote Col_1:15 ff., and in view of that and many similar passages, any other reference would be derogatory to the divinity of Christ.

(4) On no exegetical point, where there is room for discussion, has the unanimity of commentators, of all ages and confessions, been so entire, as in referring this to Christ.—R.]

B. The Apostle’s exultation at the thought that the promise of God or Israel nevertheless remains in force (Rom_9:6-33).

First Proof: Differences in election (Rom_9:6-13). Meyer: “The first part of the theodicy is, that God’s promise has not become untrue through the exclusion of a portion of the Israelites; for the promise is valid only for the true Israelites, who are according to the promise—which result is confirmed by the Scriptures.”

Rom_9:6. It is not however so that. The οὐχυἷον δὲ ὅτι is variously rendered: 1. Analogously to the οὐχ ὅτι, not that, not in the sense that (Tholuck). But this does not afford a satisfactory connection with the foregoing. 2. Fritzsche: οὐτοιοῦτον ὅτι [the matter, however, is not so, as that]. 3. Οὐ τοῖον δέ λέγω οἷον ὅτι, “but I do not say any thing of such a kind as that” (Meyer). 4. The least tenable explanation is, it is not possible that (Beza, Grotius). [Between (2) and (3) there is little choice. Paul does not say any thing of such a kind as that, because the matter is not so as that; or vice versâ.—R.] The connection, therefore, consists in the Apostle’s declaration of a restriction of the profound sorrow which he has already expressed; but not, according to Origen, in connecting the declaration that the promise still holds good, to the previously mentioned ἐπαγγελίαι. Tholuck: “Paul adduces the proof according to the idea with which he was quite familiar, that the real Israel was not based upon its physical relationship with Abraham (Gal_3:9; Rom_4:12). This brings out in glaring contrast the shibboleth of the carnal Jew, &c.; gross heretics, deniers of the resurrection of the dead, &c., are only mentioned as exceptions.”

The word of God hath come to nought [ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁλόγος τοῦ θεοῦ]. The word of patriarchal promise in its relation to Israel, not specially to the ἐπαγγελιαι alone.

For not all who are of Israel, are Israel [οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσρήλ, οὖτο Ἰσραήλ]. The germ of the distinction between the true religious Israel and the impure and merely national Israelites, already lay in the Old Testament (see chap. 10.; Psa_112:1; Eze_13:9; Jer_7:23, &c.); the distinction was already prepared by the relations of election in the history of the patriarchs. The Apostle’s thought distinguishes, first of all, between Israel as the collective people of God, and the single apostate branches. But then he establishes this general distinction chiefly by the relations of election.

Rom_9:7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children [οὐδ’ ὅτιεἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, πάτεςτέκνα]. The σπέρμα Ἀβρ. denotes here natural posterity, but the τέκνα, on the contrary, his spiritual posterity, and directly from Israel. It may be asked here, whether the subject of the preceding verse (which are of Israel) still continues (Meyer), or whether the present clause generalizes the subject: not all those who are Abraham’s seed are therefore also Abraham’s children. We prefer the latter construction, because, otherwise, the verse cited would furnish no proof. The first clause—for they are not all Israel which are of Israel, God’s people—is therefore supplemented by the second—likewise not all who are descended from Abraham, and thus, directly from Ishmael and Isaac, are true children of Abraham; that is, not merely individual believers, as in chap. 4, but rather the individuals chosen, elected beforehand through God’s free choice.

This is now followed by particular proofs, which show that God’s election, notwithstanding the promise given to Abraham, remained totally free, contrary to the boast of a right of natural descent.

First proof: Abraham’s first born son was not Abraham’s child of promise, but, according to God’s disposition, the younger, with his seed. And that, indeed, was previously established by God. Reference could also be made here to the preference of Sarah to Hagar; and, therefore, the second and more convincing proof follows: Rebecca. It is import ant that Rebecca, and not Isaac, appears in the foreground, but then, also, that she conceived twins by Isaac in one pregnancy; and third, that a determination is made respecting children as yet unborn, which gave the preference to Jacob.

But (thus the promise reads) in Isaac [ἀλλ’ Ἐν Ἰσαάκ. Gen_21:12 See Textual Note7 for the Hebrew.] Though the decisive promise is quoted directly and authentically, without a γέγραπται, or any thing of similar import, as in Gal_3:11-12, it is nevertheless a simple logical requirement to supply something of the kind mentally; this, however, is contested by Meyer. The promise is quoted from the Septuagint. Meyer maintains, in accordance with Gesenius, that the original text בְיִצְחַק would say: Through Isaac will the posterity be called; but that the Apostle has conceived the sense of the passage according to its typical meaning, and confined it to Isaac’s person. [So Philippi, Ewald.] The entire digression on this supposed antithesis rests upon a mistake of the significance of the typical collective name. The name of Isaac here can just as little exclude his posterity, as the included posterity can exclude Isaac himself. Meyer says: all Jews belonged to the offspring of Isaac, and therefore the expression would be inappropriate, if those whose claims are to be disappointed, are also described by it. But yet, in Rom_9:11-12, the election of Jacob is evidently meant at the same time with that of his posterity, but without the Apostle having designed thus to favor again the claim of individual Jews. The examples cited serve to prove that the distinguishing process of election, in reference to the descendants of Jacob also, was not hindered by the election of their ancestor with his σπέρμα, but rather that it took place with perfect freedom in reference to the posterity.

Shall thy seed be called [κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα]. Different explanations of the κληθήσεται, (erit, shall be; shall be awakened; shall be called from nothing); [Tholuck, Stuart; Reiche. Meyer objects to this, on the ground, that this promise was made after Isaac was born. As we are less warranted in referring the citation exclusively to Isaac’s descendants, than to Isaac alone, this objection seems to be valid and conclusive.—R.]

The καλεῖν brings out the freedom of Divine choice; not in the sense that he merely became the ancestor of the promised seed, but in and with Isaac the seed of promise belonging to Abraham was called, according to the election. [Hodge, Alford, and most.] Freedom of election is thus distinguished by two characteristics: only in Isaac, and, only by virtue of free appointment.

Rom_9:8. That is, They who are the children of the flesh [Τοῦἰ ἔστιν, οὐ τέ τέκνατῆς σάρκος. Comp. Gal_4:23]. The children who are to be regarded merely as the fruit of physical generation. The antithesis, the children of the promise [τά τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας], makes these appear as born under the predetermination and coöperation of the Divine promise. The expression, “promised children,” would be too little; while the expression, “begotten by the power of the Divine promise” (Meyer), would be too strong. [The facts respecting the birth of Isaac, and Paul’s language in Galatians, seem to justify Meyer’s view; the conception of Isaac was so extraordinary, and so connected with the promise, that he is called “after the Spirit,” in distinction from one “born after the flesh,” as well as “by promise;” still in neither case is Isaac said to be born by promise or after the Spirit, as if to guard after any thought of miraculous conception. Lange himself says below, that “the promise acted as a producing and coöperative cause.”—R.]

Not those children of the flesh are children of God [ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ], but the children designated by the promise are reckoned as seed [λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα]. The antithesis must be carefully observed. Even the children of promise are not, in themselves, children of God in the New Testament sense. They are counted such according to their faith, and therefore typically so called in the sense that they are the seed of God’s children as the seed of promise. Also in this line there are not yet children born of God (see Joh_1:13).46

Rom_9:9. For this word was of promise [ἐπαγγελίας γάρ ὁ λόγος οὗτος. Notice the emphatic position of ἐπαγγελίας. “The children of promise are reckoned for seed; for this word, in fulfilment of which Isaac was born, was a word of promise” (Alford).—R.] Free quotation from Gen_18:10; Gen_18:14, according to the Septuagint.

At this season [Κατὰ τόν καιρόν τοῦτον; i. e., next year at this time. See Textual Note8.—R.] The accessory proof in this verse will show, first, that Isaac was now already an object of promise; second, that the promise (“according to the time”) acted as a producing and coöperative cause; and third, that the bestowal of the right of childhood was attributed for Abraham’s faith.47

Rom_9:10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also [οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλά καὶ Ῥεβέκκα]. Winer’s supplementing explanation, οὐ μόνον δὲ Σάῤ̔ρα ἐπαγγελμένη ἦν (Meyer: Not only Sarah, but Rebecca also, had a Divine promise), is repelled by Tholuck, with the reminder that it was not Sarah, but Abraham, who had received that ἐπαγγελία. Tholuck, with Erasmus and Rückert, prefers to supply a τοῦτο to μόνον δέ, and δείκνυσι τοῦτο, or something similar, to Rebecca. Grotius, and others, in acordance with the sense, interpret similarly: non solum id, quod jam diximus, documentum est ejus, quod inferre volumns. [The view of Tholuck seems least objectionable. Ῥεβέκκα is then either the nominative absolute, or we must accept an anacoluthon. The sense is the same in either case. Philippi prefers the former decidedly, on grammatical grounds, and takes this as almost = behold, Rebecca too. The progress of thought is against Meyer’s view.—R.]

In consequence of the ambiguity of the brief form of expression, we must consult the contents themselves. But, according to these, Rebecca is not merely a second example, but even a new one for the same fundamental thoughts. She is a new example, in whom there appear three new characteristics. First, Rebecca appears in the foreground as a principal person, and becomes the parallel to Abraham. The Apostle says to the Jews, as carefully as he can, that the weight of the promise does not rest upon Isaac, the promised natural seed of Abraham, but on the daughter-in-law, Bethuel’s daughter, who had become Isaac’s wife. Then comes the principal characteristic which constitutes the real antithesis:

[Had conceived by one, our father Isaac, ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἕχουσα, Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ πάτρὸς ἡμῶν.—R.] Between the twin children of one marriage, by one husband, and from one conception or pregnancy (bed, κοίτη, see Rom_13:13; not emphasized as unity, but really so understood), the election already made the greatest difference before birth. This leads to the third characteristic:

Rom_9:11. [Without their having as yet been born, or done any thing good or evil, μήπωγάρ γεννθέτων μηδὲ πραξάντων τίἀγαθὸν ἤφαῦλον ἤ φαῦλον. See Textual Notes10 and 11.—R.] Before the children had done any thing either good or bad.48 This example denies once more, as though superfluously, the exclusive privilege of birthright. In view of all this, we think that the real explanation of the οὐ μόνον δέ is contained in the second characteristic—not merely that Sarah, the unfruitful one, is a proof, but also Rebecca, in her pregnancy with twins. It is Sarah, in so far as the promise determines a year beforehand that the unfruitful Sarah, instead of the mother of Ishmael, should be the mother of the promised one; and Rebecca, in so far as the promise made even the greatest difference between the twin-fruit of her womb.

The expression, τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, indicates that also the paternity of Isaac did not guarantee any choice concerning the Jews. The μήπω49 expresses the fact that God’s revelation concerning the preference of the younger before the birth of the twins (αὐτών must be supplied) was intentional, in order

That the purpose of God according to election might stand [ἵνα ἡ κατ’ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ μένη.] Meyer holds, that the ἵνα therefore determines, at all events, a purpose. But he incorrectly denies that the λογή here precedes the πρόθεσις. [Meyer opposes this precedence, on the ground that the election is essentially pre-temporal (Eph_3:11; 2Ti_1:9), objecting also to the view of Grotius, and others, that the phrase means: a decree considered with respect to an election. He holds that, as an essential inherent of the purpose, καἰ ἐκλογήν expresses the modality of πρόθεσις. Perhaps it is not safe to affirm positively more than this respecting what belongs to the order in the mind of God. Meyer also repels the strong view of Bengel: propositum Dei electivum; but after all has been admitted, that must be respecting the primary reference to theocratic privilege (Meyer limits thus), the Apostle’s language fairly implies a choice of individuals, and a free choice, whether we can reconcile this with our systems, or our consciousness of our own freedom or not. The emphasis throughout, it may well be admitted, rests on the unmerited choice of Jacob, rather than on the rejection of Esau.—R.] The ἐκλογή is founded in the εὐδοκία, and the πρόθεσις joins with the latter. Meyer’s opposition to the explanation of the expression (of Rosenmüller, and others) propositum Dei liberum, is correct only so far as the election of love and arbitrary freedom are different; but the election of love is certainly free in relation to human claims. The following clause expresses a principal maxim of the πρόθεσις.

Not of works, but of him that calleth [οὐκ ἐξ ἕργων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος]. The explanation of most commentators, that the πρόθεσις is announced by this negation, is contrary to Meyer’s assertion, that this addition relates only to μένῃ: and indeed he has this, his strong assurance, not from works, &c., but of him that calleth.—Works cannot be the foundation of the call to salvation, but just the reverse; it is only this call that can be the foundation of works. [This phrase seems to be “a general characteristic of the whole transaction” (Alford). Such a view is favored by the peculiarly broken construction of the whole verse. In any case, it establishes the position of Augustine: “God does not choose us because we believe, but that we may believe.” “Hence, too, we are justified not on account of faith (propter fidem), but through faith (per fidem), which God himself works in us through the Holy Ghost (Schaff). Any other view would contradict the obvious meaning of this verse. Comp. Hodge and Philippi on each side of the predestinarian question as involved here.—R.]

Rom_9:12. The elder (that is, the first-born) shall serve the younger [ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῶ ἐλάσαονι] (Gen_25:23, according to the Septuagint).—Here, again, Meyer finds a difference between the original sense of the passage and the Apostle’s explanation. According to the connection of the original, the expression extends to the nations concerned (Jews and Edomites), and was fulfilled in David’s conquest of the Edomites (2Sa_8:14, &c.);50 but Paul means, on the contrary, Esau and Jacob themselves. The adjustment of the difference by regarding the two brothers as representatives of two nations, is insufficient; rather, the indoles of Jacob was really continued in the Jewish people, and the indoles of Esau in the Edomites. [The reference of the original Hebrew, as shown by the context, is to the nations springing from the twin children (“two nations are in thy womb;” Gen_25:23). Lange and Meyer agree that there is also a personal reference, though differing in their mode of stating the relation of the two. Neither should be excluded, though the whole passage seems to indicate that the personal reference was the more prominent one in Paul’s mind. On the national reference, Schaff remarks: “At all events, in the passages quoted here and Rom_9:13, Jacob and Esau appear as the heads of two nations. If the promised lordship of Jacob be not limited to the transfer of the birthright and the theocratic blessing to Jacob, but taken in its full, physical, and spiritual sense, the fulfilment did not take place until long after their death, in their descendants, when David conquered the Edomites (2Sa_8:14). Since then the Ishmaelites and the Edomites, together with the other heathen, were at all events called to the gospel, though later than the Jews (comp. Gen_27:40, where Isaac predicts the future cessation of the bondage of Esau; and Amo_9:12; Act_15:16-17; Rom_11:11 ff.); it follows that Paul speaks here, not as many Calvinistic expositors misunderstand him, of an eternal reprobation, but of such a preference of one nation as shall prepare for the final salvation of all nations (we do not say, all individuals).” The individual reference is also undeniable, though it by no means follows that it here implies eternal results. The point here is not what or how much God did in His election, but that He had a πρόθεσις κατ ἐκλογήν.—R.]

Rom_9:13. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated [Τὸν Ἰακώβ ἠάπησα τὸν δέ Ἠταῦ ἐμίησα]. Mal_1:2 ff.: “I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I ated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” Here the statement that Jehovah hated Esau is proved by the fact that He gave a desolate land to the Edomites for an inheritance, and that He called it a wicked land, on which His indignation rested. Thus the people are placed first here, but with them also their ancestor, as in Gen_25:23 the ancestor is placed first, but with him his people also.

The following is therefore assumed throughout: 1. The continuity of the indoles in the ancestor and in the real substance of his posterity; 2. The universal connection between the indoles and its religious and moral conduct; 3. The universal connection between the religious and moral conduct and the historical decrees. The sum of these characteristics is now referred to the Divine purpose, and is applied to Esau in the sentence, “I hated him.” Yet this sentence has, at most, only a relative meaning: God has hated Esau in the relation of Esau to Jacob, and in antithesis to the fact that He loved Jacob. God’s whole arrangement, therefore, proceeds from the primary πρόθεσις that He loved Jacob. In that fact lies the causality of Jacob’s glorious history, the determination of his theocratic inheritance. But the whole sentence depends upon various conditions on both sides:

1. An economical condition. The question is not at all concerning decrees of eternal salvation and damnation, but concerning the economical relations of the ordination and call to the possession of salvation and to the economy of salvation in time. On the prospects of salvation for Edom, comp. Isa_11:14 (Dan_11:41); Amo_9:12; Mar_3:8. On the other hand, Edom has become, on its dark side, a type of anti-christianity. See the article Edomiter, in the Bibl. Wörterbuch für das christliche Volk. Likewise the passage in Heb_12:17 relates to Esau’s incapacity to inherit the theocratic blessing even with tears and penitence.

2. An individual condition. There could be also in Edom individuals having the character of Israel, and in Israel there could be individual Edomites. The LXX. has regarded Job as an Edomite prince. Allowing this to be uncertain, the Edomite nature of the Israelitish Judas is beyond a doubt.

3. A religious-ethical condition. Salvation was as little secured unconditionally to the individual Jew by Israel’s election, as the individual Edomite was personally subjected to condemnation by that theocratic rejection of Edom (see Bengel). Meyer: “We must not attach such a merely privative meaning to the ἐμίησα51 as not to love, or to love less (Grotius, Estius [Hodge, Stuart], and others), which is also not confirmed by Mat_6:24; Luk_14:26; Luk_16:13; Joh_12:25; but it expresses just the opposite of the positive ἠγάπ.—positive abhorrence.” This would be still more than hatred! Meyer also speaks of a becoming fond of and abhorrence even before the birth of the brothers. Yet here the meaning might be: I have loved the letter, but the spirit of the letter I have loved less!52 This, indeed, might be said of many of the results of modern criticism and exegesis. Philippi lessens at least the antithesis in relation to Jacob and Esau themselves, but yet without thereby becoming rid of the traditional prejudices respecting the sense of this passage. “Jacob’s reception of the theocratic birthright, and Esau’s exclusion from it, constitute, in Paul’s mind, only the type for the law of the reception of eternal salvation and of abandonment to eternal perdition.” But the law of this reception and abandonment is not given here, but in Mar_16:16. The following interpretation is better, if we understand thereby not absolute, but relative antitheses. Calvin well explains ἀγαπᾶν and μισεῖν by assumere and repellere. The use of μσεῖν is similar (Gen_29:30-31; Deu_21:15 ff.; Pro_13:24; Mat_6:24; Luk_16:13; Mat_10:37; comp. with Luk_14:26; Joh_12:25). “To hate father and mother, and his own soul, does not mean to love them less than the Lord, but to reject them altogether in a case of collision, or to so act toward them as if one positively hated them (?); in which case there might still exist a great deal of love for them, though certainly less than for the Lord.”—If, indeed, absolute love and a conditional love = loving less, are at variance with each other, then the disregard, which is similar to hatred, though not partaking of the nature of hatred, follows of itself; it is the negation of the defect or of the sin to which the hated individual cleaves, but it is not the individual to which the defect or the sin cleaves. See also Tholuck, p. 498, against Fritzshe, Meyer, De Wette, and Philippi.

It must be observed, further, that, in Rom_9:18, the description of fore-ordination or predestination according to election, is introduced by ἡ κατ’ ἐκλογὴνπρόεσις. The idea of election refutes the following claims to a right in God’s kingdom:

1. The claim by virtue of natural descent from Abraham, the father of the faithful, especially by virtue of birthright; 2. The claim by virtue of descent from the legitimate marriage concluded under the promise; 3. The claim by virtue of the merit of works.

Election takes place freely:

1. Without regard to the advantage of birthright; 2. to descent from a family that is blessed; 3. to community even in a twin-birth; 4. and to the foreseeing of works. And all this is on the simple ground that election, a. voluntarily determines the indoles beforehand, thereby avoiding all appearance of natural necessity, the requirement of birthright, &c.; b. and, according to the indoles or economical endowment, it also makes a πρόθεσις in regard to the economical call. [The sum of the whole matter, detaching from it all reference to the extent of the preference or the result of the choice of God in this instance, is, that God does exercise a prerogative of choice or election, independently of all these human considerations. That this is the point to which Paul would bring his readers, is evident from what immediately follows. A further proof that a general truth is also to be drawn from it, is afforded by the constant use made of special points in Old Testament history and of Old Testament passages to establish general propositions (see the case of Pharaoh, below, Rom_9:17, which, as far as the individual in question is concerned, has no connection with the discussion, and New Testament passim). This method of citation is based on the stability of the Divine character; to deny its propriety, is to presume an arbitrariness on the part of God, in far greater opposition to His character than is implied even in most fearfully fatalistic view of this chapter.—R.]

Second Proof: The antithesis in fore-ordination (predestination). God is not unrighteous in showing mercy and in hardening, and in His manner of uniting judgment and compassion (Rom_9:14-18).53 Meyer: The second part of the theodicy.

Rom_9:14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? [Τί ὁὖν ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἀδικία παρά τῷ θεῷ; Comp. Rom_3:5.] The Jew cannot refute the facts that Ishmael was rejected in spite of his birthright, and that Esau was rejected in spite of his legitimacy and birthright. Just here was a special point of pride with the Jew. But the consistency of this fact had now appeared—the absolute freedom of Divine choice. Israel’s call was itself the strongest witness against the claims of the Israelites, because by it the most weighty prejudices concerning their privileges were overcome. But, finally, God’s promise to Rebecca stood firm, and by this was decided, that the works of the Israelites could no more impose conditions on God’s free exercise of His authority, than could be done formerly by the works of Jacob, when God assigned to him beforehand the domination over his brother—that is, the theocratic honor. It was especially this declaration against the claims established on works which was calculated to excite the Judaizing spirit, and lead it to the conclusion that, by so doing, God would be unrighteous. This is the interpretation of Augustine, Hervæus, the majority of Lutheran writers, and Bullinger and Tholuck. But even this conclusion he rejects with abhorrence (comp. Rom_3:5). He adduces his proof immediately afterwards.

Meyer remarks: “This reason is demonstrative, in so far as by it the absolute divine worthiness of what God predicates of himself must be assumed.” Yet this would be only an absolute proof of authority. Also, according to Calvin, the proof lies in the refuting effect of the biblical declaration: satis habet, scripturœ testimoniis impuros latratus compescere.54 [In this choice and preference of the one before the other there is no unrighteousness. For he only is unrighteous who is under obligations which he does not fulfil; but God is under no obligations to His creature, hence can do with him what He will (Rom_9:14-29). God’s will is the absolute and eternal norm of righteousness, and all that He does is necessarily right (Deu_32:4). There is no norm of righteousness above Him to which He is subject; else were God not God.—P. S.] For other explanations, see Tholuck, pp. 507, 508.

Tholuck: “Origen’s regarding this as the objection of an opponent, and Rom_9:15 as the Apostle’s answer, and Rom_9:16-18 as another objection of the opponent, is a result of doctrinal perplexity.” Theodore of Mopsvestia, Storr [Jerome], and Flatt, regarded Rom_9:15-18, and Heumann, Rom_9:15-21, as the objection of an opponent. [Rom_9:15; Rom_9:17 are quotations from the Scripture, and hence cannot be objections; while Rom_9:16; Rom_9:18 are not the incorrect deductions of an opponent from these passages, as Chrysostom and Pelagius suppose, but the correct conclusions of the Apostle himself.—P. S.]

Rom_9:15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion [Ἐλεήσω ὅν ἄν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτειρήσω ὅν ἄν οἰκτείρω.55 See Textual Note14, for the Hebrew]. An answer to the self-proposed objection in Rom_9:14, taken from Exo_33:19, according to the LXX. The form of the original text is evidently this: I have (already) had mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I have had compassion on whom I will have compassion. The sense is therefore not: To whom I am gracious, to him I am gracious; that is, I act in the matter according to my own authority or freedom, unrestrainedness (the view of most commentators, also of Tholuck, p. 511. Yet the latter thus modifies his view, against Olshausen: The question is not concerning God’s right, but God’s grace; p. 114), but: I remain just, as Jehovah, and continue the work of my grace where I have once revealed it, &c.—That is, Jehovah is the God of revelation in His consistency, and so are also His grace and His compassion consistent. His freedom binds or unbinds itself. His freedom is rather to be regarded as decision also. According to the connection, indeed, the וְחִנֹּתִי could be regarded as a future form; but this is hardly admissible in connection with the simple future form אָחֹן, and with the name Jehovah; therefore the Hebrew translations—for example, that of Philippson—are to no purpose: “And as I have mercy on whom I have mercy,” &c.

In sense, the inverted form of the LXX., from which Paul quotes, is therefore correct: καὶ ἐλεήσω ὅν ἄν ἐλεῶ, κ.τ.λ. [Alford objects, without suffiicent reason, to laying the stress on ὅν ἄν, whomsoever; but Paul, following the LXX., makes it the scriptural expression of general proposition. It is in the form of a Divine axiom (Meyer).—R.] The meaning of the name Jehovah is: Divine consistency. But Jehovah’s speaking to Moses has a special significance. The Jews regarded Moses as the founder of righteousness by works. Paul, on the contrary, brings out the fact that God said to this very Moses, that the consistency of the work of grace is grounded on the beginning of the work of grace in free grace. [This view is ingenious, and gives at least some warrant for a reference to works, which too often is “all supplied by the commentator” (Hodge). But it can scarcely be accepted, as it seems to be rather an effort to avoid than to discover the meaning of the passage.—As regards the thought of Divine consistency, which seems to rest on the present tense in the relative clauses, it is scarcely proper to limit the meaning thus. Certainly Meyer does not often let a grammatical point escape him; yet he paraphrases: “ ‘I will have mercy upon him who (in whatever given case) is the object of my mercy,’ so that I am thereby dependent on nothing without myself. That is the sovereignty of the Divine will of mercy. Notice that the future is the mercy, proving itself in fact and act, which God accords in all those cases where He stands to the persons affected in the settled disposition (present ἐλεῶ) of mercy.”—R.]

Rom_9:16. So then it is not of him who willeth, &c. [ἄρα οὖν τοῦ θέλοντος, κ.τ.λ. On the construction, see Winer, p. 556.—Meyer: “From the saying of God, Paul deduces the inference lying therein respecting the causality of the Divine saving deliverance.”—R.] That the entrance of human good conduct in faith is presupposed, follows not only from the analogy of Scripture, but also from the antithesis (Rom_9:17); though the Apostle here precludes the delusion that man, by his willing and running, can acquire that foundation of salvation which proceeds only from the freedom of the compassionate God. Meyer: “Incorrect, according to Locke, and most commentators; Reiche: θέλοντ. is probably chosen with regard to Abraham’s wish to constitute Ishmael, and Isaac’s wish to constitute Esau, the heir; but τρέχ. is chosen with regard to Esau’s fruitless running home from hunting (Theophylact thought that it refers to his running to the hunt).56 For Paul, by his ἄρα οὖν, draws his conclusion only from God’s declaration promulgated to Moses.” But, by this declaration to Moses, Paul proves that God was not unjust to Esau; that is, that God, acting in harmony with the application of that declaration to Judaism, does not now do any in justice to one who relies on righteousness by works. The willing and running are not rejected in them selves, but are elsewhere required according to the Divine call (1Co_9:24. Meyer even derives the running in this passage from the races, which ill suits the connection); it is only not recognized as the causality of the line of development. This causality is God’s grace (the ἐλεῶντος must here be defined conformably to the preceding distinction between ἐλεεῖν and οἰκτείρειν).

[Paul obviously draws an inference from Rom_9:15, with ἄρα οὖν. The question is, How general is that inference? The verse is certainly general in form; any limitation must be found in the preceding context, or in the scope of the Apostle’s argument. To limit it to Esau, as an illustration of God’s method, is, in fact, to extend it, since Esau was not of the chosen people; and what God said to Moses, the head of the chosen people, could not be applicable to him, unless it was of general validity. To limit it to the Jewish people, because they are under discussion in this part of the Epistle, is forbidden by the fact that the instances or illustrations are outside that people (Esau, Pharaoh). The only safe view is, that the word to Moses is a Divine axiom, and this, an inference of universal application and validity. It will not interfere with human means in salvation; for, if true, it applies to willing and running in general, and yet it stops no volition and its accompanying muscular exertion. That side of the matter is not under consideration. Alford: “At present the Apostle is employed wholly in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. It is most true that the immediate subject is the national rejection of the Jews; but we must consent to hold our reason in abeyance, if we do not recognize the inference, that the sovereign power and free election, here proved to belong to God, extend to every exercise of His mercy—whether temporal or spiritual, whether in Providence or in grace, whether national or individual. It is in parts of Scripture like this that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written—not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of God’s Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He himself does not teach us.”—R.]

The antithesis of the consistency of free Divine grace, as experienced by Moses, is the consistency of Divine judgment as revealed in the case of Pharaoh.

Rom_9:17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh. The γάρ announces the proof which arises from the uniformity of the same Divine dealing in its rejection. The Scripture saith, is a metonymy for God saith according to the testimony of Scripture. But the metonymy brings out prominently the fact that this declaration of God is not merely temporary and isolated, but has the force of a permanent scriptural declaration, which is applicable to all analogous cases. The scriptural statement itself is in Exo_9:16.

[Even for this very purpose have I raised thee up, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε. For the original Hebrew, and LXX., here altered, see Textual Note16.—R.] If we look at the connection, Paul’s translation, ἐξήγειρά σε, corresponds in sense to the original text, הֶצְֶמַדְתִּיךָ, just as well as the διετηρήθγς [LXX.] does, only it is more specific; from which consideration Meyer again educes a difference between the original sense of the Hebrew text and Paul’s meaning. After the judgment of murrain and boils and blains (the fifth and sixth plagues) on Egypt, we read, as before: “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh,” after it had already been said (Exo_8:15; Exo_8:32): “Pharaoh hardened his heart;” and Moses must solemnly declare God’s message to Pharaoh, which, according to the translation of Zunz, is as follows: “For I would already have stretched out my hand, and would have smitten thee and thy people with pestilence, so that thou wouldst be cut off from the earth. Yet I have allowed thee to exist on purpose to show thee my strength, and that my name may be extolled throughout all the earth.” Evidently the translation allow to exist (also in Stier), is as much an enervation of the causal הֶצְֶמִיד as that of the LXX. is, and probably the cause in this case is also the same hesitation in accepting the full strength of the thought.

The expression is chiefly used of positive setting up (for example, of statues), and then also of arousing, awaking; and even the weaker meaning of allowing to exist has still the sense of a positive support. According to Meyer, Paul makes the Scripture say: “ ‘I have awakened thee;’ that is, allowed thee to appear, to stand forth; thy whole historical appearance has therefore been effected by me,” &c. This interpretation introduces a harsh fatalistic sense into the text; and though Meyer presents a series of expositors as saying the same thing, this proves incorrect in the case of the very first one, Theophylact, who says: εἰς τό μεσον ἤγαγον. Bengel: ׃הֶעְֶמִיד omnibus locis omnino prœsupponit subjectum jam ante productum. Philippi’s explanation is: “I have awakened thee to being, let thee exist.” Calvin’s interpretation is strongest: Deus Pharaonem a se profectum dicit, eique hanc impositam esse personam.

The explanation: vivum te servavi (Grotius, Wolf, and others), at all events weakens the force; but it is not incorrect, since it follows from the connection: “I might have already destroyed thee, but, on the contrary, I have once more fully raised thee up.” The interpretation, “I have raised thee up to opposition” (Augustine, De Wette [Haldane, Hodge: have placed and continued thee as my adversary. Alford: pro dire fecit, excitavit. Stuart: have roused thee.—R.], and others), has one feature of the context in its favor, namely, the circumstance that the word, according to the following σκληρύνει, appears to be used synonymously with this σκληρύνει. For, according to the sense, this idea is also comprised in the Apostle’s translation, ἐξήγειρά σε; although this sense does not follow directly. He also presents no antithesis to the declaration: I could have cut thee off; the sense is rather: I have, so to speak, once more erected and raised thee up in thy hardened conduct from the judgment of death to which thou wast already subject, that I might show my power, &c.—To the more forcible construction of the Apostle there also corresponds the εἰς αὐτὸτοῦτο, even to this end; instead of the weaker ἕνεκεν τούτου of the LXX.

[It is perhaps to be expected, that in the somewhat wide scope afforded to interpreters by the text of the Hebrew, LXX., and our passage, theological bias will largely determine the view of each. But Paul has chosen the stronger term, and uses it to establish a strong position (Rom_9:18, introduced by the inferential ἄρα οὖν). Hence, while we must utterly reject, both on lexical and theological grounds, the extreme supralapsarian view: God created thee—i. e., as a hardened sinner; the view of Lange, and many modern interpreters, is too weak—is out of keeping both with the original transaction and the use here made of it. The view of Meyer (and also substantially of Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, De Wette, Hofmann, Schaff, and many others) is perhaps most tenable, and is certainly accordant with the original passage. The objection that it is fatalistic, is an objection of too wide scope. Olshausen: “It by no means follows from this high view of the subject, that St. Paul intends to say that God has made Pharaoh evil by any positive operation; but he only means that God permitted that evil person, who of his own free will resisted all those rich workings of grace which were communicated in rich measure even to him, to come into manifestation at that time, and under these circumstances, in such a form that the very evil which was in him should serve for the furtherance of the kingdom of The Good and the glory of God.” So Schaff: “All events of history, even all wicked deeds, stand under the guidance of God, without whose will not a hair falls from our heads, much less is a world-historical fact accomplished. God does not cause the evil, but He bends and guides it to His glory.”—A too definite, and too weak view, though a modification of the correct one, is that of Flatt, Benecke, Glöckler, and Wordsworth: placed thee as king.—R.]

That I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. This is a strengthening generalization of the purpose, namely, that God will make Pharaoh, precisely in his opposition, a monument of His power (His majestic power), by allowing him to perish. Pharaoh, the hardened one, will only experience His crushing power and become a monument of it; but in the world, the glory of His name revealing itself in Pharaoh’s case will be declared to Israel (see the Song of Moses, Exodus 15).

Rom_9:18. Therefore on whom he will he hath mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth [ἄρα οὖν ὅν θέλει ἐλεεῖ, ὃν δέ θέλει σκληρύνει]. This passage, if taken out of its connection, seems to declare an absolute predestination in the supralapsarian sense. Meyer, with others, protests against any mitigation of the sense: “Paul’s simple and clear meaning is, that it depends upon God’s free authority either to bless by His saving mercy, or to remove to that spiritual state in which one cannot be a subject of His saving grace, but only of His ὀργή.” Of the two modes of view, each of which, according to him, forbids the other—that Pharaoh in part produces his own hardness himself (Exo_8:15; Exo_8:32; Exo_9:34), and that it in part seems to be wrought by God (Exo_4:21; Exo_7:3, &c.)—he makes the Apostle expressly follow the latter. [Meyer is perhaps unnecessarily harsh in his view, but he intimates that it suits the purpose of the Apostle better to choose this aspect of the hardening, as this Pharaoh, hardened by God, is to him a type of the Jew resisting the gospel.—R.]

The usual mitigations of the passage are, at all events, insufficient, particularly the explanation: though God permits hardening (Origen, Grotius, and others), and also the interpretation of σκληρύνειν as duriter tractare (Carpzov, Semler, Beck, and others). Tholuck, without finally and positively adopting the latter of these, adduces many special grounds in its favor. [Against this untenable view of σκλρύνει, see Alford in loco. “The word here refers to a hardening, such a fortification in sin, that the sinner is unsusceptible of all workings of grace and better influences, the removal into a state where conversion is either absolutely impossible, or rendered difficult in the highest degree. This is an act of God, in so far as He has ordained the laws of the development of evil, ‘that, propagating still, it brings forth evil,’ (Schiller). It is here viewed as a punishment for a previous self-hardening of the sinner” (Schaff). So Hodge, who regards it as “the judicial abandonment of men. ‘to a reprobate mind,’ a punitive withdrawing of the influences of His holy Spirit, and the giving them up to the uncounteracted operation of the hardening or perverting influences by which they are surrounded.” So Wordsworth, but less strongly. If objection be made to such a judicial process as a work of God, then the same difficulty “lies in the daily course of His providence, in which we see this hardening process going on in the case of the prosperous ungodly man” (Alford). The facts remain, the solution is lacking, except so far as God plainly speaks in such passages as this. Meyer objects to the introduction of previous self-hardening here. See the clear and thoughtful note of Olshausen in loco.—R.]

Evidently, the context in Exodus 9 indicates a postponement of the well-merited judgment, in which postponement God’s long-suffering is concurrent (comp. chap. 23). The definite sense of the passage must be ascertained from the connection. We must here take into consideration the following:

1. Previously the question was, God’s purposes preceding the birth of the children; here, on the contrary, it is the free will with which God dealt with fixed characters—Moses, on the one hand, Pharaoh, on the other. If this free will be referred to a purpose of God, it is nevertheless not the purpose of election, which first settles personality, but the purpose of ordination, which, in the establishment of its destiny, presupposes its conduct. Consquently, because this purpose is conditional, God is still left free to have mercy on the real Moses, just as He is free to harden the still existing Pharaoh.

2. As the ἐλεῶ must here be taken emphatically, and expresses the free consistency of Jehovah in His mercy to Moses until He can reveal His glory to him (see Exo_33:19 ff.), so has also σκληρύνει the meaning of a continuation of the judgment of hardening to the extreme, in antithesis to the self-ripened judgment of retribution. The more strongly we here press the ὅν θέλε the more will every notion of an abstract authority be excluded, and the stronger becomes the emphasis on the pure divinity of the θέλειν. [In other words, the more will the will of God, in its absolute freedom, appear, not as blind arbitrariness, which is the very reverse of freedom, but as a will of infinite love and wisdom. It proves itself such in the special cases from which the general proposition of this verse is drawn.—If θέλειν (as is claimed by Professor Hitchcock, Lange’s Comm., Eph_1:9) always implies spontaneity, then the “will” here, in each case, finds its justification in the character of God, which immediately prompts it. This may be what Dr. Lange means by the “pure divinity of the θέλειν.”—R.]

3. The whole of the immediate result of this fearfully significant expression is, that God, in His freedom, has mercy on Moses to the utmost, and has, to the utmost, led Pharaoh to judgment; that Moses can thereby make no just claim on the ground of the righteousness of works, and that Pharaoh can protest against nothing that he might regard as injustice done to him. In this way the justifiable use of the passage quoted by Paul is determined. [The freedom of God seems to be the main thought. The reference to the righteousness of works seems needless. Meyer concludes his exegesis of the passage thus: “Undoubtedly the will of God is just and holy, but it is not conceived and presented here from this point of view, but in its independence of all human θέλειν and τρέχειν, consequently in its simple self-origination (Aseität); which meaning is to be preserved in the clear sharpness of ὅν θέλειἐ λεεῖ.” The words certainly favor this view; we need but guard against inferences, which are drawn, not by the Apostle, but by imperfect human logic.—R.]

Third Proof: God’s freedom in the actual call to salvation (Rom_9:19-29).

A. The proof from the real relation (Rom_9:19-24).

Tholuck regards this section as the collective carrying out of the thought, that the excluded one can bring no complaint against God, because he is left free in his conduct, &c.; but Meyer, on the contrary, regards Rom_9:19-21 as the third part of the theodicy: “Man is not entitled to reply against God by saying, ‘Why doth He yet find fault?’ For his relation to God is as that of the thing formed to him that formed it, or of the vessel to the potter, who has power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor.”57 Then he regards Rom_9:22-29 as the fourth part of the theodicy: “God has endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, in order to make known His glory on the vessels of mercy, even us Christians, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” We make the following distinction: In the first case, in Rom_9:6-13, the question was the freedom of God’s election in antithesis to the human, and especially to the theocratic, right of inheritance. Then, in Rom_9:14-19, the question was, the freedom of God’s ordination in antithesis to the claims of human righteousness by works (since even Moses himself, the lawgiver, did not merit mercy by the works of the law, and Pharaoh was visited by the judgment of hardening, instead of by the judgment of destruction which he had merited). The Apostle now passes over to God’s freedom in His call.

[Whatever be the division adopted, or distinctions made, there can be no doubt, that the objection the Apostle here raises and answers is one which arises at once against the freedom of God’s will, viz., that it destroys our responsibility. As this was more likely to arise as an inference (οὖν , Rom_9:19, which seems to have troubled the transcribers, however) from what precedes, there is the greater ground for holding that the preceding verses refer to God’s sovereignty, considered in the light of an objection (ver 14), and that this paragraph presents it in opposition to another (Rom_9:19). At all events, whatever limitations and special applications be made, the reader now deals with the passage (and subject) in this more general reference, and most commentators have felt obliged to treat it thus.—R.]

Rom_9:19. Thou wilt say then unto me [ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν]. The conclusion which the Apostle allows the Jew to draw from the supposition that he has derived mercy and hardness from God’s will, has been urged by thousands against Calvin’s predestinarian system; and, indeed, they have done it with much better ground than the Jew could object to Paul’s doctrine; yet they have also in many ways mistaken the infinite importance of the exercise of Divine authority in human guidance.

If the whole development of man is only an absolute Divine decree, the objection in Rom_9:19 says: Why then doth he yet find fault? [τί οὖνἕτι μέμφεται; See Textual Note18.] How, then, can God find fault with man, or rebuke him for being a sinner? By doing so, He would even contradict himself. The expression μέμφεται seems to be purposely chosen to bring out the authoritative character in a finding fault, in which the question cannot be a really objective relation to guilt. Tholuck: “Neither the charge against Pharaoh (Justin Martyr); nor that of the ungodly in the prophets (Zwingli, and others), is meant, but the rebuke of hardening brought against the Jews. Every penal declaration of revelation in general is meant, in so far as it would not be authorized by the doctrine of fate. The Jew does not here have in mind God himself, but that presupposition of the idea of God which Paul seems to present. But he nevertheless betrays the inclination of the one who relies upon the righteousnss of works to find fault with God. [In so far as one holds that notion of God, however derived, which in any way allows the possibility of His being the author of evil in man, this objection will arise. It cannot be confined to the Jew and his legal righteousness. (Meyer, De Wette, make the objection general, while Philippi finds in the sharp answer of Rom_9:20 a proof that the objector is a Jew.)—R.]

[For who resisteth his will? Τῷ γάρβουλήατι αὐτοῦ τίς ἀνθέτηκεν; Meyer renders βούλημα, which Paul uses only here, das Gewollte—i. e., captum consilium. It obviously implies deliberation, as βούλομαι does, when properly distinguished from θέλω.—R.] Though the ἀνθέστηκε has the present meaning, yet the form seems to indicate also the thought that God has already anticipated every attempt of human opposition. The Apostle does not hasten to refute the charge directly, by urging the truth of the relations of guilt, because this charge is based upon such a one-sided standpoint from the overrating of human action, that this human boasting must first of all be prostrated. Rom_3:5 ff. proves that he can also reply to a similar charge by an answer which-brings out the ethical relations in harmony with the connection. But the first task presented to him here is, to go back with the quarrelsome Jew resting upon the righteousness of his works, to the absolute dependence of man on God.

Rom_9:20. Nay but, O man [ὦ ἄνθρωπε, μενοῦγε]. We translate the μενοῦνγε with Tholuck: Much more; Meyer construes it as irony: “Yes, indeed, O, man.” Its most probable use is to strengthen the thought: “Just the opposite, O man, &c. Thou sayest that God disputes with thee, and thou rather, in thy erroneous claims of right, darest to dispute with God.” [Still better, Alford: “Yea, rather, taking the ground from under the previous assertion, and superseding it by another; implying that it has a certain show of truth, but that the proper view of the matter is yet to be stated. It thus conveys an intimation of rebuke; here with severity.” Comp. Rom_10:18. Hodge: “Gross as is this perversion of the Apostle’s doctrine on the part of the objector, Paul at first rebukes the spirit in which it is made, before he shows it to be unfounded.”—R.] The ὦ ἄνθρωπε expresses already man’s complete dependence on God; and this is increased by the σὺ τίς εἶ, who art thou [quantulus es; Meyer].

[That repliest against God, ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμεος τῷ θεῷ.] According to Theodore of Mopsvestia, Jerome, and others, Paul, in using the ἀνταποκρινόμενος, refutes his opponent by referring him to his own words. His opponent replies against God, and therefore opposes God, in the very moment in which he maintains that He cannot be opposed. In that case, indeed, μενοῦνγε would be ironical. This interpretation is ingenious, but too refined, and is opposed by the following words.

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? [Μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάομα τῶ πλάσαντι, Τίμε ἐποίησας ὅτως;. An echo of, but scarcely a quotation from, Isa_29:16, though the first clause is found word for word in the LXX.—R.] The explanation tractasti (Grotius, and others) is evasive. The tertium comparationis is the causality of him that forms, but here as the causality of the form. [It must be observed that even a pressing of the figure cannot make πλάσμα mean the thing created; the reference is not to original creation, but to the subsequent ethical moulding, from which, of course, must be excluded the mystery of universal sin referred to in Rom_5:12. That enters into the nature of the “clay” and the “lump” alike. Against Glöeckler’s argumentatio a minore ad majus: “If a thing moulded cannot thus speak, much less a man,” &c., see Meyer in loco.—R.]

Rom_9:21. Hath not the potter power over the clay [ἥ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὅ κεραμεύς τοῦπηλοῦ. The order indicates the two emphatic thoughts: 1. That the human subjects under discussion are as “clay;” “his clay,” would be a proper rendering. 2. That God has power; the definition of that power is given in the next clause.—R.] Tholuck: “The potter’s clay is regarded by infralapsarianism as the massa jam perdita. The vessels are not considered, as is observed by the Gl. ord. and Brenz, as naturally part silver and gold, and part dirt, but altogether dirt. Consequently, these expositors prefer the allusion to the Old Testament, Jeremiah 18, where a people already ruined, which God forms into vessels of honor or dishonor according to its own conduct, is spoken of; the supralapsarians, on the contrary, as Thomasius, Estius, Calvin, and Gomarus, decide in favor of an allusion to Isaiah 29 or 45 Supralapsarianism, to wit, regards the πηλός as the massa absolute, qualis erat massa angelorum (Estius) and the πλάσμα—which the meaning of the word is alleged to favor—as the product of the first creation.” Tholuck finds in the simile only the sense expressed by Calvin: Nullam dei arbitrio causam superiorem posse adduci, &c. For the harsh expressions of Calvin, the still harsher ones of Zwingli, and the equally mild ones of Buillinger, see Tholuck, p. 528.

According to Arminius, and others, together with Lutherans, Rom_9:21 contains only a preliminary rejoinder; the real answer follows in Rom_9:22-23. [It is indeed a preliminary, but one that “aims rather at striking dumb the objector by a statement of God’s undoubted right, against which it does not become us men to murmur, than at unfolding to us the actual state of the case” (Alford). Comp. the emphatic order of the words.—R.] Besides, Armenians and Socinians have asserted that here Paul does not speak of “an election of individuals, but of classes—of believing Gentiles” (Tholuck).58

According to Tholuck, further, the principal question here is, What must we understand by the πηλός? If we regard the earthy clod as the real clay from which man was made, then the work of Him that formed may be transferred to the creation itself. According to this idea, indeed, the individual man is only “a specimen of the species.” But if we regard God’s breath as the real substance of man’s formation, according to the biblical idea of personality, Calvinistic supralapsarianism is obviated.

[Of the same lump to make, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι. The power of the potter is defined more closely by the infinitive. Fairness to the figure compels us to identify the “clay” and the “lump.” The “clay” is the substance itself; the “lump” presents it as already in use by the potter for his purpose. Beyond this we cannot press it. Meyer perhaps goes too far, but certainly is justified in making the πηλός co-extensive with human nature. It must be borne in mind that the potter is not represented as making the “clay,” or even the “lump,” but as having power “over the clay,” to make vessels “of the lump.”—R.] The word here is not, as Meyer has properly remarked against Hofmann, created, but made. He understands by the φύρμα “the very same mass of human nature in and of itself.” But we can just as little regard the massa jam perdita as merely the human race, prostrated in the ruin of the fall. In Rom_11:16 the φύραμα is the Jewish people; and, according to Rom_9:24 of the present chapter, it is the same wretched state of the Jews and Gentiles at the time of Christ. God, as the Maker, in His exercise of the efficacious call (see Rom_9:24), has disposed of this φύραμα, first of all, of the Jewish people. [Granting this immediate reference, we must still avoid limiting the meaning of φύραμα. For even Rom_9:24 includes the Gentiles, while the discussion hitherto has embraced Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh.—R.]

[One vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor, ὅ μέν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος ὃ δέ εἰςἀτιμίαν. Meyer calls attention to the position of εἰς τιμήν. Even here, in this strong assertion of “power,” the preparation of the vessel for honorable use is emphasized.—R.] But as he that forms does not wantonly destroy his φύραμα, but, according to his own pleasure, makes of it vessels unto honor and unto dishonor—that is, vessels for honorable and vessels for dishonorable use—so also does God’s exercise of authority as Maker go no further than to appoint a great difference between honorable and dishonorable vessels of His call, according to the personal conditions which have been established by the call corresponding to the necessity of salvation (2Ti_2:20; 1Co_12:23). But the Apostle does not carry out his figure in this direction. He rather urges, only for a moment, the figure that God has the ἐξουσία, the free and full power, which is at the same time essentially the right, to make of the φύραμα, of His people [or, of all people, of the race] vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor; but then, in Rom_9:22, he turns to say that God has never made full use of this right; but that He has even endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath which He found before Him, His object being to make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy. In Rom_9:22 there is thus repeated the thought of the sentence awarded Pharaoh.

Preliminary note on the connection of Rom_9:22-23. But how now? If God—notwithstanding His perfect power and His ready will to show forth His wrath and demonstrate His power—has just as much adhered to himself as formerly, when He suspended the judgment of destruction on Pharaoh, by enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto δόξα—how does the case stand with the complaint that. He makes an unrighteous use of His power? It is evident that the thought is presented here which is elaborated in chap. 9 In God’s exercise of authority, judgment and long-suffering are united. His judgments are interpositions of long-suffering. In this sense God rules freely in His call, just as He has ruled freely in His election and ordination. With the explanation of the divine economy of the call, in Rom_9:21-24, the Apostle has also now refuted (in Rom_9:20) the charge that God is represented as an unrighteous God. He has therefore now proved the righteousness of divine ordination, Rom_9:15-18, from the righteousness of the divine call in Rom_9:20; just as he had already proved the righteousness of divine election (Rom_9:9-13) from the righteousness of divine ordination. The proof of the freedom of election lies in the fact that God is still free also in His ordination, and the proof of the freedom of His ordination lies in the fact that He is still free in His call.

But God’s manner of using His freedom in these three stages testifies to the righteousness of His dealings.

1. His exclusion of Ishmael, gives an ethical character to the whole series of God’s acts of freedom.

2. His hatred of Esau is only relative; it denotes the infinite difference between the two, by making the first-born theocratically subject to the younger.

3. It is plain, to one acquainted with the Scriptures, that God’s hardening of Pharaoh resulted from Pharaoh’s having hardened himself; and besides this, there is connected with this the additional fact that, even though Pharaoh was ripe for the judgment of destruction, God makes the useless man still useful by allowing him to exist longer, and by raising him up, in order, through him, to declare His power and His mercy. With the same consistency, He goes so far on the side of His exercise of mercy toward Moses, whose fidelity is well known to Israel, that He can reveal to him His glory, though it is in only a qualified manner.

4. He finally stood with the formative power of His call to salvation over the φύραμα of Israel prepared in the Old Testament, and could exercise His freedom by immediately allowing a Christianity to come from it, by virtue of which the whole φύραμα crumbled into vessels of honor and dishonor, if peradventure He allowed new wine to be poured into the old bottles, or the new cloth to be sewed into the old garment. But then it came to pass that another antithesis was prepared in the Israel of the apostolic age. The representatives of the φύραμα (not this merely) living at that time, had already transformed themselves in part into vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction; that is, to be broken to pieces (see Psalms 2), but not to be worn out as vessels of dishonor; and the blessing of the Old Testament in part exhibited itself in them by their allowing themselves to be prepared by God as vessels of glory. And He was already about to break those vessels of wrath; but as He had once patiently made use of Pharaoh as a means of revealing His majesty and of declaring the glory of His name, so did He now endure in great long-suffering the vessels of wrath; and for this purpose, that their contradiction might be the means for the transferrence of salvation to the Gentiles, and for making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy. In brief, the turning-point was this: Instead of a φύραμα, which could have been simply used in the antithesis of vessels of

honor and dishonor, He found that the developing process of the covenant people of the Old Testament had gone to such an extreme, that the people were divided into vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy; and instead of now making a stunted Jewish Christianity from the whole substance of the people, He established that economy of saving interposition explained by the Apostle in chaps.10 and 15.

Though Paul has principally allowed only the factors of the divine exercise of authority to appear, the ground for this was, that he had to establish the freedom of God’s grace in relation to Judaism. But afterward he shows the righteousness of God in relation to the unbelief of most Israelites and the faith of the Gentiles.

Meyer remarks, in reference to the idea σχεῦος εἰς τιμἠν: “It shall be either honored, so that it has τιμἠν (as, for for example, a sacred vase); or else it shall experience the opposite, so that ἀτιμὶα adheres to it (as, for example, a vessel designed for a low and filthy use).” According to 2Ti_2:20, the difference in material comes most prominently into consideration; but as far as the use is concerned, the antithesis of sacred and unclean will suffice. Tholuck emphasizes principally the antithesis: held in honor and in dishonor, but maintains that the simile is not adequate in the very chief point of comparison; the potter moulds the clay, but God is the Creator of the creature, therefore Pareus also speaks of a comparatio a minori ad majus. Yet it is incorrectly assumed here that the creation is spoken of.

The passage undoubtedly cited by Paul,59 Isa_29:16, refers to a people relying upon the righteousness of their works (Rom_9:13), on whom judgment is about to be visited (Rom_9:14), because they claim a false independence toward God in return for their service, as if God was related to them as an equal—as if the potter were equal with the clay, and the clay could say: “He has not made me,” or, “He does not understand the matter.” Besides, the vessels unto honor and unto dishonor must by no means be identified with the vessels of wrath and of mercy, which error has been committed by De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer, and others.

Ver 22. But what if God, although willing to show, &c. Εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ θεός, χ.τ.λ. [See Textual Note60. The question as to what should be supplied with εἰ δέ, is discussed below. Meyer suggests: “Wilt thou still venture this replying against God” (Rom_9:20).—R.] Two opposite explanations here present themselves: because God would, and although God would. The sense in the former case would be this: the μαχροθυμία was also designed to enhance the penal judgment (De Wette, Rückert, [Calvin], and most commentators). But this cannot be the purpose of the μαχροθυμία. Though the result is, that the judgment is enhanced (Rom_2:4) by the abuse of the μαχρ., yet this abuse must by no means be referred to the μαχροθυνια. The translation although God would, adopted by Fritzsche, Philippi, and Meyer, is therefore preferable. [It may be added in favor of this view, that it gives to θέλων the meaning of willing—i.e., spontaneous will. It was the will of God, growing out of His character, to show His wrath, &c., but He endured notwithstanding, &c. The other view takes the participle in the sense of purposing, which is too strong. The passage then presents another answer to the objection of injustice, by showing how the sovereign God had withheld the exercise of a power in accordance with His holy will. The position of θἑλων, as Meyer remarks, prepares the way for the strong contrast with “long-suffering.”—R.] If we look at the explanatory parallels in Pharaoh’s history, the meaning becomes more definite: although, and since already; as God was already about to do. In Exo_9:15, God said to Pharaoh: “For now I will stretch out my hand.” Likewise the aorists ἐνδείξασθαι, γνωρισαι, indicate this readiness of judgment, not less than the expressionσχεῦη ὀργῆς, and especially χατῃρτισμένα. The expression: ἐνδειξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρὶσαι τὸ δυνατόν,61 in connection with the foregoing, forcibly calls to mind the declaration to Pharaoh.

Endured [ἤνεγκεν]. Chrysostom, De Wette, and others, have referred this to the long-forbearing with Pharaoh; but Meyer, on the other hand, is of the opinion that Paul means the previous time in general (which shall thus continue under this divine forbearance until the second coming of Christ). But it is evident from the connection, that the Apostle means the hardened portion of the Israelitish people. This is the view of Tholuck, with others: “The unbelieving Jews at Christ’s time; there can only be a mere allusion to Pharaoh.” For other views, see Tholuck.62

The whole passage in Rom_9:22-23 has occasioned very great difficulty. The principal difficulty lies in the fact that it is not fully carried out; that is, that it is an aposiopesis. Augustine [so Stuart] observed this, and supplied a σὐ τίς εἶ from Rom_9:20; but the better supplement would be: μὴ ἀδιχία παρα τῷ θεῷ; μὴ γένοιτο! in Rom_9:14; but the best of all would be Rom_11:33.

The second difficulty lies in the brief expression καὶ ἵνα, which at once becomes clear by bringing over once more the ἤνεγκεν: has also endured in order to. For the different attempts at construction, see Tholuck (p. 535).

1. Καὶ γνωρίσαι, καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ; the καὶ—καὶ just as well—as also (Nösselt, Baumgarten-Crusius). Tholuck says, on the contrary, that in that case it must read θέλων ῆ̓ν.

2. Our own construction. The καὶ ἳνα is connected to ἤνεγχεν, so that the latter expresses a double purpose (thus Calvin, Grotius, Winer, Meyer, and others).[63] Tholuck does not regard the connection by the mere καὶ as sufficient, and thinks, with Baumgarten-Crusius, that this construction does not present any clear thought. But the previous formation of this clear thought is already contained in Exo_9:15-16.

3. Beza, Rückert, and Fritzsche, have connected καὶ ἵνα to the participial χατνρτισμένα: “those who are originally (!) appointed to destruction, for the purpose,” &c. The χαί would thus be epexegetical, which is Calvin’s view of the thought; but the χατηρτισμ. is totally misconstrued. Tholuck proceeds, with Philippi, from the unwarranted supposition, that the Apostle is expected to treat uniformly of God’s dealings in relation to the σχεύη εἰς ἀτιμ́αν and to the είς τιμήν; he requires, accordingly, the acceptation of a double anacoluthon. “Mentally, the Apostle must have written,” &c. Philippi interprets similarly. (See Meyer [p. 380, 4th ed.], on the contrary). On the constructions of Hofmann, Bengel, Schöttgen, and Beck, see Tholuck, p. 533 ff.

With much, long-suffering [ἐν πολλῇ μαχροθυμία]. On the obscurity of the idea of μαχροθυμία in Calvin, Hofmann, and others (as only meaning waiting for), see Tholuck, p. 536. [The immediate end of the long-suffering is undoubtedly to lead to repentance (comp. Rom_2:4; 2Pe_3:9; 2Pe_3:15). But, as Alford intimates, this is a mystery we cannot fathom.—R.]

Vessels of wrath [σχεύη ὀργῆς. Without the article. Not some, but these in general, limited, however, by the clause immediately following. The absence of the article seems also to favor Lange’s distinction between “vessels unto dishonor” and “vessels of wrath.”—R.] Meyer: Vessels full of Divine wrath. Totally foreign to the figure! Vessels filled with Divine wrath would be very holy and honorable, as is the case with the vials of wrath in the hand of the angels, in John’s Revelation. De Wette and Tholuck correctly expain: Objects of divine wrath. [So Stuart, Hodge. The latter taken the phrase as a modification of “vessels unto dishonor” (Rom_9:21).—R.] The figure in Psa_2:9 is undoubtedly closely connected with the Apostle’s thought.

Fitted for destruction [χατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν. This is the end for which they are fitted; the divine ὀργή is accomplished in the ἀπώλεια.—R.] Meyer: “But the subject who has fitted them for the ἀπώλεια is God (see Rom_9:20 f.), and the insertion of any clause by which it should follow that they had fitted themselves for destruction (see Chrysostom, Theodoret, Œcumenius, and Theophylact) is contrary to both the word and the context (likewise Tholuck and De Wette).” But apart from the fact that, according to Ps. ii., God breaks the vessels of wrath, but does not make them, the very decided change of the verb as well as of the tense (χατηρτισμένα; ἃ πθοητοίμασεν) should guard the exegetical author, who usually holds so tenaciously to the letter, against this conclusion. It is a much bolder leap from the thought: God has the power to make vessels unto dishonor, to the thought that He has made the vessels of wrath. In the Apostle’s choice of verbs he presents three antitheses, which may well serve as a warning to the expositor.

1. The verbs themselves are different: in χαταρίξειν, the idea of making ready predominates (to make fitting, to prepare fully); but in the expression προετοιμάξειν, on the contrary, the idea of the previous preparation predominates.

2. The former word is put in the perfect, and (which strengthens the matter) also in the participle; but the latter, being in the form of the aorist, is much less conclusive.

3. The former stands irrelatively in the passive; but the latter, as activity, is referred definitely to God. Such antitheses as these cannot be dusted off by the brush of mere assurance. Therefore a third explanation takes its place beside the two foregoing ones. According to this last, the perfect passive participle must be read as a verbal adjective: prepared, ready, as in Luk_6:40, &c. (Grotius, Calovius, Beck). The Apostle has probably chosen this form, because this being ready certainly arises from a continual reciprocal action between human sin and the Divine judgment of blindness and hardness. De Wette has an uncertain surmise of this relation: “The mixture of two different modes of view—the moral and the absolute—undoubtedly occurs here. It must also be granted that the Apostle avoids saying: ἃ χατήρτισε εἰς ὰοὠλειαν (Bengel).” The “two different modes of view” are reduced to one, according to which every development of sin is a network of human offences and Divine judgments, that are related to each other as chain and clasp.64 The poet knew something more of the matter than many theologians, when he wrote: “This is the very curse of evil deed,” &c.65 provided the curse is not taken as a mere phrase.

Rom_9:23. And that he might make known the riches, &c [καὶ ἳνα γνωρίση τὸν πλοῦτον χ.τ.λ. As intimated above, this clause should be connected (Winer, p. 530) with endured. Καί, also. This was a second purpose of God’s endurance, undoubtedly the more important one. Ἵνα is of course telic.—Τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. The divine majesty in its beneficent glory. Bengel: Bonitatis, graitœ, misericordiœ, saplentiœ, omnipotentiœ.—R.] The riches of glory form the antithesis to another miserable train of development which Christanity could conceivably have taken within the Jewish nationality. The riches of glory are the train of development which God has actually taken, the course of the unlimited universality of evangelization, to the wonderful blessing of which, in the con version of the Gentiles, the Apostle ever reverts with rapt adoration (Rom_10:11; Eph_3:5-10; Col_1:6; Col_1:20 ff).

According to Calvin, the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης should be so regarded that by the interitus improborum co luculentius divinœ bonitatis, erga electos amplitudo should be strengthened. According to the explanation of the Remonstrants, the liberalitas of God should be made known on the vessels of mercy, by the comparison of this mercy with the patient endurance with the vessels of wrath. According to Fritzsche, the purpose of sparing the Jews was, that many of them might be converted before the second coming of Christ. But this overlooks Rom_9:24, according to which the vessels of mercy are only partly among the Jews.66 Meyer must also here mix up the second coming of Christ, which he everywhere brings in, just as Dr. Baur does Clemens Romanus. “If, namely, God had not so patiently endured the σχεύη ὀργῆς, but had already permitted His penal judgment to be inflicted upon them (which must be regarded together with the second coming), He would have had no period to declare His glory to σχεύεσι ἐλέους.” That is, the final judgment, as the end of the period of mercy, would have been present with the complete penal judgment of Israel. The destruction of Jerusalem has certainly become a type of the end of the world, but not the end of the world itself. The Apostle presents us with an excellent exegesis of his own language, in Rom_11:11; Rom_11:25; Act_13:46, and also in other passages.

[On vessels of mercy, ἐπὶ σχεύη ἐλέους. Not to (De Wette), but toward, with regard to, depending on πλοῦτον (Alford). The making known is represented by the preposition as stretching itself over the men who are its objects (Meyer). The latter is preferable. We have no right to limit the “vessels of mercy” to any period. The preceding context would extend the reference to the times of Pharaoh; Rom_9:24 extends it indefinitely into the Christian dispensation.—R.]

Which he before prepared for glory [ἅ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν. The verb is aorist, and refers to a definite past act. The two meanings suggested by Hodge: (1) predestined; (2) prepared by providence and grace (also that of Olshausen), are both objectionable. (1) Because it is not the proper meaning of the word; (2) because this is a continued work, and would be indicated by the perfect, as was the “fitted” of Rom_9:22. It probably refers to the actual constitution of the individual, as clay in the hands of the potter, the result of election, yet distinct from it.—There is no necessity for limiting δόξα to “the glory of the new covenant.” Its antithesis, “destruction,” shows that it means the full and eternal glory of the kingdom of heaven.—R.] Tholuck translates, “which he had prepared unto glory from eternity,” and remarks thereon, that, from the circumstance that the χατηρτισηένα does not have the προ before it, it follows that Paul could have thought only of a decretum electionis, but not reprobationis. [So Schaff.] Tholuck cites, in favor of this explanation, Eph_2:10; Mat_24:34; Book of Wis_8:9.

We must remark, in relation to the middle passage, that the expression: Βασιλεία προετοιμασμένη ἀπὸ χαταβολῆς χόσμου must not be confounded with πρὸ ξαταβολῆς χόσμ. From the foundation of the world, through all time, God has labored for the preparation of the βασιλεία. The thought, God has chosen us before the foundation of the world, is also totally different from the infeasible thought, that He prepared us for glory before the foundation of the world. The two other passages are equally undemonstrative. Meyer explains, more correctly, thus: God formed the σχεύη ἐλέους therefor beforehand, before He declared His glory on them. But the general statement has also its historical relation on this side. As the true children of faith among the Jews came out from the pedagogical exclusion under the law (Gal_3:23), they found themselves already prepared for the glory of the new covenant, and the preparatory mercy had operated in this direction on even many of the Gentiles (Rom_2:14-15). The πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης came over them like the rising of a spiritual sun—ἐπὶ σχεὑη ἐλέους, the vessels which were subjects of mercy—and went far beyond them in the evangelization of the Gentile world (see Isa_9:2).

[The paraphrase of Meyer (Rom_9:22-23) is appended, as a clear resumé of the exegesis, for the most part supported in the notes above. “But if God, notwithstanding His holy will leads Him, not to allow His anger and His power to remain un-proven, but to make it known in act, has yet, with great long-suffering, endured such as were objects-of His wrath, and spared them the destruction, into which they are, however, fitted and prepared to fall, as a vessel from the potter—endured and spared not merely as a proof of such great long-suffering toward them, but also with the purpose of making known, during the continuance of this forbearance, the fulness of His glorious perfection upon such as are objects of His mercy, whom He had before prepared, as a potter a vessel, and enabled for eternal glory.”—R.]

Rom_9:24. As such he also called us, &c. [οὓς καὶ ἐχαίλεσεν ἡμᾶς, χ.τ.λ. Οὓς, of which kind, quales (Alford). As such vessels of mercy, he also, besides preparing, called us. He prepared us among these vessels of mercy, and, as such, has also called us, Jews and Gentiles. Stuart would supply here ἠλέησε, He showed mercy to us; but this is unnecessary in our view of the passage.—R.] We have already brought out the meaning of the ἐχάλεσεν in this passage. It denotes the fundamental thought of Rom_9:21-23, God’s freedom in the economy of His call. Even us whom; namely, even such vessels of mercy; or they, even whom. That is, in this characteristic He has also called us (not us also) as vessels of mercy. Because He had in mind only objects of mercy, but not the probable legitimate heirs, He could, consistently with His mercy, conformably to His preparatory mercy, really call us:

Not from among the Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles. [Ἐξ, from among. Bengel notes the reference to the call of the Jew as: “Non eo ipso vocatus, quod Judœus est, sed ex Judœis.” Hodge: “How naturally does the Apostle here return to the main subject of discussion! How skilfully is the conclusion brought out at which he has continually aimed!”—R.]

B. The third proof, corroborated by witnesses of the Old Testament (Rom_9:25-29).67

Rom_9:25.As he saith also in Hosea [ὡς καὶ ἐν χ.τ.λ. See Textual Note68, for the Hebrew text. Alford suggests, very properly, that καί implies “that the matter in hand was not that directly prophesied in the citation, but one analogous to it.” See below.—R.] The call of believing Gentiles is not only a New Testament fact, but is also attested previously in the Old Testament.—In Hosea; that is, in the Book of Hosea.—The first quotation is Hos_2:23 : “And I will say to them which were not my people (see Hos_1:9), Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” Paul has changed the ἐρῶ of the original text and the LXX. into χαλέσω, which, according to Fritzsche and Meyer, should mean, I will call. Tholuck, on the contrary, properly observes that the naming of them already comprises the call. Paul has also left out the addition, irrelevant in this connection: “And they shall say, ‘Thou art my God;’ ” while, on the other hand, he has, in conformity with the sense, correctly supplied the clause καὶ τὴν οὐχ ἠγαπηυένηυ, χ.τ.λ, in harmony with Hos_1:6, referred to Hos_2:23.69

Rom_9:26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place. [See Textual Note70.] In order to understand the whole argumentative force of this citation, we must, like the Apostle, connect the second citation, Hos_2:1 (LXX. 1:10), with the first (and this is simply an exegesis according to the analogy of Scripture, as we frequently find in Paul). The Apostle, designing to emphasize the word בּמְקו̇ם, brings it out once more in his conclusion: ἐχεῖ χληθἠσονται, χ.τ.λ. Hitzig explains the expression: in the place, by instead of. According to Meyer, the prophet meant by this expression the locality of the Gentiles, the Gentile lands; but Paul understood by it, Palestine. That the expression denotes the stay of the Jews in the Gentile world, is proved by Hos_1:11 : “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land.” It is just on this point that the weight of the proof rests. The call will be published to them among the Gentiles, therefore among the “no-people,” among whom they themselves are scattered as “no-people.”

According to Meyer, Paul finds the demonstrative force of the two passages in the fact, that he perceives the mercy shown to the ten tribes as a type of the reception of the Gentiles to salvation. According to Tholuck, his proof rests upon the hermeneutics of the Jewish exposition. This “was accustomed to refer biblical declarations, according to the law of ideal analogy, to such subjects also as are comprehended in the same category” (see p. 541).71 It must be assumed that the decision: “not my people,” has placed the Jews among the Gentiles, and that the decision: Lo-Ruhamah, has adjudged them to be a very intractable people even among the Gentiles themselves. If, now, the call to salvation is published to this not my people, in the midst of the Jews, then it has a creative, original meaning; it is not published to Israel as God’s people, but it creates for itself a people of God from the mixed “no-people” of the Jews and of the Gentiles. According to the typical construction, De Wette has referred the τόπος, to the ideal state or divine kingdom, and Fritzsche to the cœtus Cristianorum. Yet, according to the connection, this locality means the equalization of Jews and Gentiles in one common need of mercy.

Rom_9:27. And Isaiah cries also concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. [Rom_9:27-28 contain a quotation from Isa_10:22-23; the verses being divided differently, however. The original reference was undoubtedly to the return from Babylon. Here, however, the emphasis is laid on remnant, mainly with reference to the call of the Gentiles, though perhaps not without a secondary reference to the future salvation of Israel—a premonition of chap. 11—R.] That the question in the foregoing was the call of the Gentiles (the Jews, of course, included, in so far as they have sunk into heathendom), and not the call of the Jewish people, as Hofmann holds, is proved by the verse which now follows—a quotation from Isa_10:22, nearly according to the LXX. The Apostle here emphasizes the remnant, as he has emphasized the Gentile land in the foregoing passage. Only a remnant of Israel, τὸ ὑπόλειμμα, will be saved. The LXX. translated the original ישָׁרּב: will return, be converted, by σωθήσεται, in the sense of will be saved, though in a more restricted sense than Paul intends. The term remnant is of all the more weight, as it stands in contrast with the declaration, “though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea.” Similar passages: Isa_65:8-9; Mal_3:2; Mal_4:1.—The crying, χραίξει, describes the bold declaration of a truth very offensive to the people.

Rom_9:28. [For he is finishing the word, and cutting it short in righteousness; because a short word will the Lord make upon the earth. Λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν διχαιοσύνῃ ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει χύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. See Textual Notes.24, 25, 26. Lange renders: For He who consummates the reckoning, is also he who limits it in righteousness. Yea, a restrained work will the Lord carry out on the earth. Against this view, see below.—R.] Zunz translates the following words of the same quotation, כּלְּיזן חָרוּץ, &c., thus: “The ruin is decreed, righteousness overflows. For the Lord, the God of Hosts, executes a firmly determined desolation in the midst of all the land.” The LXX. has translated: λόγον συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνθν ἐν διχαιοαυνῃ, ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον χύριος ποιήσει ἐν τῇ οἰχουνένῃ ὅλῂ. Paul follows this in the main, with the exception of the last words.

It may now be asked, Has the LXX. translated incorrectly, and has Paul incorrectly quoted from it, under the supposition that this translation corresponds better to his purpose? (see Tholuck, pp. 542 ff.) כָּלָה means, first of all, completion, consummation, and concurs with the λόγος in the idea of settlement (see the LXX., 1Ma_10:40; 1Ma_10:42; 1Ma_10:44). Accordingly, כּלְּיז̇ן also means the judgment of destruction in the sense of settlement. Now the LXX. translates the first clause thus: “He who has determined the settlement (the same as the final judgment) is the same who limits it, cuts it short in righteousness; so that a remnant can be left from the destruction.” We read the καὶ συντέμνων as a conclusion with ἐστί, and understand by righteousness, not penal righteousness, but righteous restraint in punishing, according to the saving purpose of righteousness, whose highest glory does not consist in inexorable rigor.

This translation is undoubtedly exegetical. First, it takes over Adonai, the subject of the following clause, in order to bring back the definition of the first clause to the defining clause. Then it does not explain the ̇שׂטֵף צְדָקָה as a higher degree of the first term כּלְּךיז̇ןחָרוּץ, but, antithetically, as a mitigation, which is even already indicated in the חָרזּץ. This exegesis will be perceived from the sense, also, to be altogether correct. Destruction is defined as settlement, but therewith also cut short; overflowing (restraining itself) with righteous mildness, deliverance. The word צְדָקָה frequently has the sense of mildness, of righteousness, as fairness in its saving effect. The verb שָׁטַף is here transitive. See Gesenius, Lexicon. On συντέμνειν, see the Lexicon. This translation is further in harmony with the connection which gives prominence to precisely this thought, that a remnant shall be saved from the decreed judgment.72 The “shortened days,” in Mat_24:22, denote the same thing. See the Commentary on Matthew [Amer. ed., pp. 425, 426].

The second clause changes the maxim of divine government declared in the first clause, according to which, judgment always brings a deliverance, into a declaration; here the word of the LXX. is explained of itself by the foregoing: for the Lord will effect a shortened, that is, a moderated settlement in the whole world, or, as Paul says in a more general way, upon the earth. Now there seems to be no support for the συντετμημένον in the original text. But the niphal participle נֱחְרָצָה, like the substantive נֱחֶרֶצֶת, does not by any means denote in turn, like כָּלָה, the penal judgment in itself, but the definiteness and fixed limitation of the penal judgment. Thus the word וְנֶחֱרָצָה after כָּלָה, in Isa_28:22, evidently serves to express the limitation of the judgment, as is plain from the explanation in Rom_9:23-29. (Rom_9:28 : He will not ever be threshing it.) Therefore the Vulgate properly translates consummationem et abbreviationem audivi; according to the Septuagint, συντετελεσμένα καὶ συντετμημηένα πράγματα ηχουσα. Comp. also Dan_9:27; Dan_11:36. From this it follows that in the חָרוּץ, in the first member of Paul’s citation, there is comprised not merely the close, but also the limiting conclusion of the judgment of destruction.

According to Meyer (and Fritzsche), the LXX. exhibits an ignorance of the passage, yet Paul found the sense of the translation suited for his purpose. In consequence of a defective construction, the word λόγος has been differently explained: purpose; fact; dictum. According to Meyer, the λόγον συντετμ. signifies the shortest possible consummation of the λόγος. Tholuck: “The Lord will execute an exactly defined declaration.” (On the usual opinions on Paul’s quotations, see Tholuck’s Note on p. 543. See also the account of the different expositions of the present passage; for example, the patristic one of Chrysostom, Augustine, and others, that λόγος συντετμ. is the gospel as an abridged doctrine of salvation, in antithesis to the elaborateness of the Old Testament).73 Luther’s translation of the present passage is very inexact,74 but it is more in harmony with the sense than the more recent explanations.

[Few verses present such a combination of difficulties as this one.

(1) Critically, the text is in doubt. See Textual Note75, where the longer reading of the Rec. is accepted (against such careful critics as Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles).

(2) The LXX. seems to have departed from the sense of the Hebrew original. Paul varies from the former, but not materially; thus endorsing what is deemed by many an incorrect rendering of the Word of God. Out of this grows the difficult exegetical problem of getting the sense of the Hebrew out of the Greek words (which seems to be Dr. Lange’s endeavor), or the equally difficult solution of the strange fact, that an apostle would choose such an altered version of the Hebrew.

(3) This state of things has encouraged expositors in departing almost at pleasure from the obvious meaning of Paul’s words, while it has not led them to adopt the obvious meaning of the words of the prophet. Dr. Lange has chosen an ingenious interpretation, with a view of discovering in the passage a declaration of forbearance on the part of God. It is open to lexical objections (see below), and is not in accordance with the context; since the only verse which intimates a kindred thought is Rom_9:22, while the immediate connection is rendering the opposite thought very prominent.

The only method, which seems fair in dealing with any author when he quotes, is to take it for granted that he quotes wittingly, and then to interpret his citation,, making the original passage, especially when- used through the medium of a translation, entirely subordinate. The interpretation then becomes a simple exegetical question. What, then, does Paul say here, as his view of the meaning of the prophet's words ?

(a.) Λόγον word, saying. It does not mean work (E. V.). Many render: decree. Doubtless this idea underlies the passage, and is found in the Hebrew, but the Greek word never means this. It is better, then, to render word (i. e., of promise or threatening, probably both—threatening to the mass of the people, promise to the remnant). This is the view of many of the best modern commentators, although they differ as to the precise reference.

(b.) Συντέμνων. The verb (only here in the New Testament) means to cut short, to finish rapidly. It obviously refers to the rapid accomplishment of what God has said. It seems, then, altogether unnecessary to find in the rapid accomplishment of what God says, an indication of something different from what He says—i. e., that this quick fulfilment of wrath is an exhibition of mercy to those who are its objects. This is Dr. Lange’s position. Admitting that “in righteousness” includes God’s mercy to the chosen remnant, that does not imply “mitigation of judgment” to the apostate mass. Nor is it necessary to find a different meaning for the word in the second clause, though such a variation can be justified. We render, therefore: is cutting short, and cut short, supplying ἐστι, (with the present participles; Meyer, and others).

(c.) Ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ is referred most naturally to the judicial justice of God, which punishes, in order to save the remnant. The former thought is the prominent one, as we infer both from the context here, and from the original. The sense of the whole verse then is: He (i. e., the Lord) is finishing and cutting short the word (making it a fact by rapid accomplishment) in righteousness, for a cut-short word (one rapidly accomplished) will the Lord make (execute, render actual) upon the earth. This is, in the main, Meyer's rendering. While the original reference was to the Jews in the times of Isaiah, the Apostle here makes the prophecy of more general validity, referring it to the sad fact that most of the Jews were cut off (so Hodge), though including the other fact, that the remnant should be saved, both sides supporting the general thought of the chapter. Dr. Lange at last comes to nearly the same view. The question then arises, Is this at all in keeping with the words of the prophet himself? A comparison will show that it preserves the spirit of Isaiah’s language most fully, and actually conveys to the reader's mind a clearer sense than a literal rendering of the Hebrew would do. Hence he used the LXX., and (as all authors do) inserted such unimportant words as would make its language conform to the use for which he designed it.—R.]

The prophet has uttered a twofold truth in the quotation; first, that only a remnant will be left from the great judgment of destruction, but then that this remnant shall be preserved in security. The Apostle, in Rom_9:27-28, has brought into prominence this first feature, but without altogether excluding the second. This latter is proved by the remaining part of his citation.

Rom_9:29. And, as Isaiah bath said, or prophesied (Isa_1:9), &c. [καί, καθὼς προείρηκεν Ἡσαΐας, κ.τ.λ. We give the pointing of Meyer (a comma after καί). The meaning then is: And, as Isaiah has already said (so I appropriate his words), Except, &c. See below, however. If it be objected, that this gives to the verb the unusual sense of prophesy, it will be seen that this is not the necessary meaning of has already said. The introduction of καθώς calls for some such paraphrase, and the πθό seems to refer to the time of the Apostle, rather than to the place of the last citation. Besides, the propriety of a direct adoption by the Apostle appears both from the use of the first person, and the quasi-prophetic character of the application Paul makes of the passage here.—R.] The explanation: he has already said, namely, in an earlier chapter (Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others), is opposed by Tholuck, and others, with the remark, that such a reference to earlier passages is without an analogy in the Apostle’s constant quotation memoriter. Against this explanation, at all events, is the Apostle's design of returning to the fact of the present condition of believing Israel; so that he seems to construe the prophet’s declaration chiefly as a typical prophecy. But that passage is immediately more than a description of an existing condition; it is a vision of an immeasurable ruin extending to the future,76 as the passage, Isa_6:9; comp. Mat_13:15; Joh_12:39 ff.; Act_28:26-27; 2 Cor. 3, 14 ff. It may be asked, whether we would read καὶ ἕστι καθὼς Ἡσ. &c.: It stands thus, as Isaiah has prophesied, or: And—as Isaiah has prophesied—Except, &c. Meyer defends the latter construction; but we prefer the former, because the Apostle designs to adduce this quoted expression, like the former and the following one, as an expressive prophetical declaration. The term σπέρμα means the κατάλειμμα, as well in its external smallness as in its inward importance for the future. The Septuagint has translated the שָׂרׅיד of the original text by σπέρμα.77 Compare Isa_65:8.

Fourth Proof: The correspondence between God’s freedom in His government with the freedom of men in their faith or unbelief. The stability of the fact that the Gentiles believe, and Israel, in its popular totality, does not believe (Rom_9:30-33). Meyer says, on this section: “The Jews themselves bear the guilt of their own exclusion, because they obtained it not by faith, but by works of righteousness, for they were offended at Christ.”

[A new chapter should begin here. For, having already stated the objective, Divine ground of the rejection of the Jews, Paul now passes to the subjective or human cause, hinted at frequently before, viz., their unbelief. They were rejected by God, because, in spite of the many warnings of their own prophets, they sought their own righteousness, springing from an external view of the law, and were offended at the promised Messiah, when He actually appeared, instead of seeking salvation through vital faith in the grace of God in Christ. This mode of view, which is carried out further in chap. 10, solves in part the enigma of the preceding discussion; yet it cannot be denied that, in the Divine predestination, there ever remains an obscure background, which reason is not in a condition to fully comprehend, and should humbly adore.—P. S.]

Rom_9:30. What shall we say then? [Τί οῦ̓ν ἐροῦμεν; Precisely as in Rom_9:14, where it introduces an objection.—R.] We may ask, whether the Apostle again uses this expression here in order to avoid a false conclusion, or whether he merely “deduces the historical result from the foregoing prophecies” (Meyer).78 Evidently, this passage is a turning-point of the greatest importance. The Apostle has heretofore described God’s freedom, and finally His freedom even in rejecting the greater part of Israel in contrast to His call of the Gentiles, and has strengthened his declaration by appealing to the prophecy of the Old Testament. This is now the place where this question arises: From all this, does there not follow fatalism, or a simple absolute authority of Divine freedom? He does not absolutely express this false conclusion, in order to make short work of it by a μὴ γένοιτο, because he has really anticipated it already. But he actually removes it. The Gentiles have not first attained to salvation from an exercise of absolute authority; they have attained to righteousness, the righteousness of faith, which can only be obtained from the source of righteousness.

Some expositors (Pelagius, Cyril, Theodore of Mopsvestia, Flatt, Olshausen) have not understood the expression from ὅτι to ἔφθαδε as an answer, but as the real import and continuation of the pending question, under different modifications (ὅτι as because, that, somehow that). This is opposed by the following: 1. The statement in Rom_9:30-31 can by no means be regarded as a summary of the foregoing; 2. It has not been at all present as yet in this definite deduction of the antithesis. It contains something new, which only arises as a conclusion from what has preceded. Chrysostom says that this passage is the σαφεστάτη λύσις of the chapter. Baur, and others: The Apostle here first becomes conscious of the subjective point of view. Tholuck, correcting this view, says that the Apostle here first brings it out to prominence. On the discussions of the Predestinarians and the Remonstrants concerning the τὶ οῦ̓ν ἐροῦμεν, see Tholuck, p. 546.

That the Gentiles. Ἔθνη; not merely Gentiles. [Against Meyer, who says: “Not the Gentiles as a whole. On the Gentile side was righteousness,” &c.—R.]

Who were not following after righteousness, attained. Τὰ μὴ διώκ. The Apostle uses the διώκειν with especial reference to the races (see Meyer on Php_3:12; Php_3:14), and thus καταλαμβ. means not merely the reaching, but also grasping; in this case it is especially the grasping of the prize (see 1Co_9:24). This constitutes a double antithetical oxymoron. The Gentiles did not run after righteousness, and yet even they grasped righteousness at the goal of the race-course.79 But the Jews, who ran, or so far as they were runners after the law of righteousness, never reached the proper terminal point of the race—the well-understood law. The Apostle does not design to say that the Gentiles in general had known no higher pursuit; for he has already referred to the Gentiles in his expression concerning preparatory grace: ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν.80 But the Gentiles were not only not companions with the Jews in the course in which the latter ran after the law of righteousness; righteousness, as an explicit moral law, was not the fundamental idea of their pursuit (although it constituted the unity of the platonic virtues). The Greek struggled for ideality, or wisdom, while the Roman struggled for an innocent legal order, or for power. Thus it came that they did not run astray by looking at an analytical phantom of righteousness, like the majority of the Jews; and hence that they could be subjected (that is, for a preliminary condition of faith) to the curse of their ideals, to a profound despair in themselves and in the glory of the world (see chap. 4; Act_16:9; Rom_9:27-30).81

Even the righteousness which is of faith [Δικαιοσύνην δέ, κ.τ.λ.. That is, precisely the true righteousness. On the delicate meaning of δέ, see Alford in loco; Winer, p. 412.—R.]

Rom_9:31. But Israel, following after the law of righteousness, attained not to the law [Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόυον δικαιοσύνης, εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν. On the reading, see Textual Note82, and below.—R.] It is not: the righteousness of the law, but, more strongly: the law of righteousness. This would mean, in the figure of the race, that Israel has by no means advanced so far as to run after righteousness itself; the programme of the race became its goal; in striving after an endless analysis of the law, it has run astray in statutes of external legality. Therefore it has come to pass that it has not reached νόμος in its truth—that is, in its real inward character—and that, after all its running, it has never attained to the true beginning, the principle of the running. This antithesis is in harmony with the subject-matter (see Rom_7:7 ff.), and is much stronger than if the Apostle had said: It has not attained to the law of the righteousness of faith, which would be self-evident; or even if he had said: It has not attained to the righteousness of the law according to the letter—which charge he could not bring against them. Therefore we prefer the reading of Codd. A. B. D., given in the text. [The briefer reading is quite well supported, and certainly, when rightly understood, adds to the force of the passage. They did not even attain to the law. Comp. Alford in loco.—R.] It hardly needs to be called to mind, that the question here is relatively concerning the Gentiles and Israel; that is, concerning the antithesis between the believing Gentile world and unbelieving Israel. This limitation in reference to Israel lies in the διώκων νόυμον.

The law of righteousness. The expression has been regarded by many as an exchange for δικαιοσύνην νόμου (Chrysostom, Calvin, Bengel, and others). Undoubtedly this was the basis of the effort of the Jews, but their real following extended, in Pharisaism, far beyond, to the amplification of the law into an endless series of ordinances. The view: The justifying law (Meyer), obscures the strong emphasis of the νόμος itself, when this νόμος is subsequently explained thus: “The law was an ideal, whose realization the Israelites strove to experience by their legalness.” Comp. Rom_2:17-24. The theoretical, legal orthodoxy of the Jews was the perfect development of their righteousness of works, according, also, to the Epistle of James.83

Most of the early expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others) hold that Paul meant the Mosaic law in both cases in Rom_9:31. Others, on the contrary (Theodore of Mopsvestia, Bengel, and De Wette [Hodge]), have understood, by the second law, the Christian δικαιοσύνη. These two constructions are opposed not only by the διώκων (Meyer: it does not express the effort to fulfil the law, but to possess the law), but also by the consideration that a true following after the Mosaic law—that is, after its fulfilment—must not only lead to it, but even to Christianity (see chap. vii.). Tholuck (with Calovius, Philippi, and others) takes νόμος in the wider sense, as via, disciplina of righteousness: “They strove for the means which furnished justification.” But this striving, construed in a general sense, cannot be regarded as fruitless. The law, in the former case, can only mean their illusive image of the law, according to which the law, in its external shape, should become to them a real means of justification, and would in reality be made this means;84 but, in the second place, it is the Mosaic law in its truth, and in that inward tendency by which it became the schoolmaster which led them to Christ.

Rom_9:32. Wherefore? [διὰ τί;] The failure to attain to the law.

Because they sought it not by faith [ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως. The E. V. properly supplies sought it]. As the proper observance of the law leads to saving faith, so does it proceed from a germ of faith, which is shown by Abraham’s historical precedence of Moses. Faith is the inward relation of confidence and obedience to God’s Word; only the Spirit in the law gives to the legal striving, which is a preparatory school to the gospel, its proper direction.

But as by works [ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐξ ἕργων, comp. Winer. p. 573. Alford: “as ‘if about to obtain their object’ by.” See Textual Note85.—R.] Meyer correctly maintains that the ὡς is not redundant—as Koppe holds—and that it does not indicate hypocrisy, according to Theophylact; but Meyer is incorrect in opposing Fritzsche’s construction, presumed works, with this explanation: As a διώκειν proceeding from works is constituted. His ground is, that the Jews really set out from the works of the law, but not simply from true works (see Rom_10:3.)86 A pointed ἐξ ἔργων must correspond to the pointed ἐκ πίστεως, which former can then be only an ὡς ἐξ ἕργων. In their seeking, they proceeded on the supposition of having one treasure of good works, and they continually piled law upon law, in order to become richer in such works. In short, the starting-point, but not the διώκειν, should be emphasized as fundamentally false.

For they stumbled [προσέκοψαν γάρ. On the rendering, should γάρ be rejected, see Textual Note87. Meyer, however, opposes this connection, though rejecting γάρ. The figure of a race, if not prominent here, seems at least to have suggested the “stumbling.”—R.] To what does for refer? First of all, it presents the proof that the Jews did not stand in the direction of faith, but in the illusion of the righteousness of works. Then this proves indirectly, also, the principal statement in Rom_9:30-31. But the full strength of the proof lies in the fact that they have come to shame at the touchstone of the true Israelites, which made a distinction between those who trusted (that is, believers) on the stone laid by Jehovah, and those who stumbled—that is, who were defective in faith because of their presumed righteousness of works.

At that stone of stumbling [τῷ λίθω τοῦ προσκόμματος]. (Isa_8:14; Isa_28:16; Luk_2:34; 1Co_1:23; 1Pe_2:6-8). The Jews, in their hypocrisy, have been offended first of all at the unworldly spirituality, the penal office, the independence, and the spiritual freedom of Christ (see Mat_4:1 ff; Joh_2:18; Joh_4:1; Joh_5:9 ff.), and then, in their claim to the reward of universal Messianic glory, at His poor appearance, His renunciation, His love of sinners, and His suffering and death on the cross. In their running, they ran all the more violently against the stone, because they were just then engaged in their strongest running. The Apostle proves that this fact also is represented beforehand in the Old Testament. He here freely connects the passages in Isa_8:14; Isa_28:16, into one prophecy, in which he follows the original text in preference to the LXX. According to Isa_8:14, Jehovah himself assuredly becomes a stone of stumbling to both houses of Israel; but it is Jehovah who has now concealed His face, in order to declare himself in future to those who patiently wait for Him (see Isa_8:17; Isa_9:7). But that, in Isa_28:16, only the ideal theocracy of the Old Testament sphere is meant, seems very doubtful. The ideal theocracy of the Old Testament is properly defined as the growth of the New Testament kingdom of God. Now, if a corner-stone for this is laid in Zion, it must nevertheless be the foundation of the “ideal theocracy,” and not the whole ideal theocracy itself, or even this ideal theocracy apart from its foundation. Likewise, the collective corner-stone in Zion (Rom_9:16) constitutes a grand antithesis to the Jewish dissolution of God’s Word into a ruined diversity (Rom_9:13), and it stands in connection with the judgment, from which the ὑπόλειμμα appears. Therefore Paul and Peter had a perfect right to regard this passage as more than a typical prophecy.

Rom_9:33. [As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling, &c. The “stone of stumbling and rock of offence” (σκανδάλου; LXX.: πτώματι) is taken from Isa_8:14, and substituted for the “corner-stone,” &c. of Isa_28:16. Both passages were interpreted by the Jews as referring to the Messiah. Comp. Luk_2:34; 1Pe_2:6-8. The combination is therefore both justifiable and natural.—He who believeth on him, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ. Πᾶς, which is found in Rom_10:11, is omitted here (see Textual Note 32). The emphasis there is on πᾶς; here, on πιστεὑων, in antithesis to er. 32.—R.]

Shall not be put to shame, καταισχυνθἠσεται. The original word יִָחישׁ[make haste; Gesenius: flee hastily.—R.] is here given as an explanation, after the precedence of the Septuagint [καταισχυνθῇ, from which Paul varies, as above].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

[The Literature on the Doctrinal questions involved in this chapter really includes all works on systematic theology, all confessions since the times of the Reformers, together with a large proportion of modern psychological and ethical treatises. The larger commentaries, especially those of Hodge, Stuart, Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer, Haldane, Wordsworth, Jowett, and Forbes, are very fall on the predestinarian question. The literature of the Arminian controversy (much of which is enumerated in the Homiletical Notes on chap. 8) bears on this subject. (Comp. lists, Introd. p. 51, 5:12–21, p. 191.) We may mention further; Augustine, De libero arbitrio; Anselm, De libero arbitrio; also, De casu Diaboli. The works of Calvin, Arminius, Episcopius, Pres. Edwards, An Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will (in numberless editions; necessarian in its conclusions, and more commented upon than any work in this department of thought). Coleridge, Aids to Reflection (latter part; his views have done much to mould thought in England and America). The Canons of the Synod of Dort give the strongest Calvinistic statements. A list of important controversial works is given by Tholuck (pp. 466, 467). The philosophical works which discuss the subject in its ontological aspects cannot be enumerated, but the names of Sir Wm. Hamilton, J. S. Mill, Mansel, Bain, Tappan, McCosh, readily suggest themselves to the American reader. The latest monograph, published in America, is by G. S. Bishop (Newburgh, N. Y.), Reprobation (a sermon on Rom_9:22), New York, 1869.—R.]

1. In regard to the copious, and, in many respects, mysterious contents of this chapter, we must refer principally to the Exeg. Notes, where we have anticipated many points. We would also refer to the history of the exposition of this chapter, and especially to the monographs bearing on the subject, mentioned above. The real difficulties which the chapter presents have been greatly increased by attempts at its exegesis. This has occurred, first, in consequence of the little account that has been taken of the connection, the immediate relation of this chapter to Israel, and the judgment of hardening on Israel; and because there has not been an effort made to explain with sufficient clearness, according to the analogy of Scripture, the nature of the judgment of hardening, or sin in its third potency. A second cause of difficulty has been the confusion of the antitheses of the Apostle with the antitheses of the history of doctrines—of Augustine and Pelagius, or Calvin and the Catholic righteousness of works, or even the doctrine of the Remonstrants. A third source of difficulty has been a failure to use aright the key to this chapter in the passage, Rom_8:29-30, and a disposition rather to accept a contradiction between Rom_9:7-29 and chaps. 9:30–11:36, than to accommodate the former part of the whole section to the latter.

2. In the division and headings we have already given the connection between the whole of this section and the former chapters. The fundamental thought is, the antithesis of sin and grace in its three potencies.

First antithesis: The actual corruption of the whole world, and therefore no conceivable righteousness of works; in contrast with this is the saving and preponderating righteousness of faith, which is prepared by the heartiness of conduct toward the law, in antithesis to external legality (chaps. 1:18–5:11).

Second antithesis: The corruption of human nature, the hereditary character of liability to sin and of the judgment of death, in which the whole creature-sphere of humanity is subject to vanity and corruption; but Christ as the preponderating principle of the new birth and of the glorification of man, of humanity and its sphere, stands in contrast with the Adamic principle. This principle is operative from the standpoint of a watchful spiritual life, which abnegates the old carnal propensity, in order to lead to resurrection a new embryonic life of consecrated corporealness, in antithesis to the life in the liability of the flesh to death, to which the external legality also belongs (Rom_5:12 to Rom_8:39).

Third antithesis: The corruption of the religious people, the noble people of humanity, and of the manifested form of their theocracy, in the judgment of historical hardening, in consequence of their false reliance on natural descent, historical privileges, and the righteousness of a practice of legalism. In contrast with this, on the other hand, is the freedom of Divine grace in its election, ordination, and call, which, as election distinguishes persons, as ordination, shows mercy and hardens, and as a call makes the judgment of hardening first of all a means for the advancement of the call to salvation, and finally cuts itself short and is turned in another direction by the historical exercise of compassion. On both sides it is conditional, in consequence of the antithesis of pride and humility (chaps. 9–11)

3. The construction of the chapter. The Apostle’s first prologue (Rom_9:1-5). An apology for his painful duty to pronounce clearly the decisive declaration on the rejection of the majority of Israel; or, if we may so speak, to sum up all the individual experiences and Divine judgments relating to this fall. At the same time, he pronounces an elegy on the fall of his glorious people of God, on the retributive rejection of the old hereditary people of God, in antithesis to the realization of the glorious inheritance of God’s children (chap. 8), with the declaration of his patriotic and tragical feeling (increased and become to him a “thorn in the flesh” by its ruin with the direction which the Jews had taken, and by the hatred with which they opposed his love)—an analogue to David’s elegy on the fall of Jonathan, Jeremiah’s Lamentations, and similar laments in the Old Testament. But he finally gives expression also to a doxology in regard to the victorious exercise of the authority of the God of revelation on Israel, as well in its ancient history as in its New Testament fulfilment in Christ, whose glorification predominates over the division between believing and unbelieving Israel. The theme: The rejection of the majority of the members of the Israelitish people is not an abrogation of the promise to the theocratic Israel itself (Rom_9:6).

First proof (from the time of the patriarchs): The fact of election. The election is not made conditional by descent, nor by heirship, nor by birthright, nor by works; it is God’s free exercise of love in the predetermination of an individual and personal nature, which is only self-conditioned by the organic relation to Christ and to each other into which the elect individuals shall enter, and by the promise made to them, in which the thought of love, which shall appear in future conceptions and births, is already reflected. It unites in the relative antithesis (Jacob and Esau) the infinitely great difference in the qualifications of persons for God’s kingdom, but not the absolute antithesis of salvation and condemnation (Rom_9:6-13).—[The doctrine of the predestination of a part of the human race to eternal perdition by no means follows from the statements of these verses. Even Calvin himself calls the decree of reprobation “horrible” (decretum horribile, attamen verum), and it is opposed to those passages of the Scriptures according to which God wills not the death of the sinner, but that he might turn unto Him and live. (1) The Apostle is not treating here at all of eternal perdition and eternal blessedness, but of a temporal preference and disregard of nations in the gradual historical development of the plan of redemption, which will finally include all (Rom_11:25; Rom_11:32), and hence the descendants of Esau, who stand figuratively for all the Gentiles (Amo_9:11-12; Oba_1:18-21). On this account we may well say, with Bengel: “not all Israelites are saved, nor all Edomites lost.” (2) The hate of God toward Esau and his race cannot be sundered from their evil life, their obduracy against God and enmity to His people. It is true, Rom_9:11 (with, however, Rom_9:13, does not stand so closely connected as Rom_9:12) seems to represent not only the love of God, but His hatred as transferred even into the mother’s womb. But it must not be forgotten that, to the omniscient One, there is no distinction of time, and all the future is to Him present. Besides, an essential distinction must be made between the relation of God to good and evil, to avoid unscriptural error. God loves the good, because He produces the very good that is in them; and He elects them, not on account of their faith and their holiness, but to faith and holiness. But it cannot be said, on the other hand, that He hates the evil men because He produces the very evil that is in them; for that would be absurd, and destroy His holiness; but He hates them on account of the evil that they do or will do in opposition to His will. While human goodness is the effect of Divine love and grace, on the contrary, human wickedness is the cause of Divine hatred and abhorrence; and on that account alone can it be the object of the punitive wrath and condemnatory decree of God. Were evil the effect of His own agency, He would be obliged to condemn himself—which is irrational and blasphemous.—P. S.]

Second proof (from the time of the giving of the law): The fact of ordination. The predetermination of the historical train of development of persons is the free exercise of God’s (Jehovah’s) righteousness on persons. It is not made conditional on a self-volitional human willing and running; but it conditions itself by its consequence in relation to a definite human course of conduct, by further showing mercy on him to whom mercy has once been shown, and allowing all his experiences to contribute to his salvation, and, by its influence and long-suffering, leading him who has once hardened himself to the judgment of hardening. In the infinitely vast antithesis between the one to whom mercy has been shown and the hardened one (Moses and Pharaoh), it constitutes the perspective of the antithesis of a final glorification and rejection, but not yet this antithesis—i. e., the final judgment itself (Rom_9:14-18).

Third proof (from the time of the development of Israel of the Old Testament):

a. The fact of the call. The free exercise of Divine wisdom on the φύραμα, or the spiritual, plastic material of the ancient world, and especially on Israel. This exercise is not made conditional on the historical Israel’s claims to inheritance, and had the right to make of Israel, as it had become, vessels unto honor and unto dishonor, by a universal Christianization. But the call makes itself conditional by the actual state, in which it still endures with much long-suffering the existing vessels of wrath, which are already fitted to destruction, that, by their existence and opposition, the full display of God’s glory, of His spiritual revelation in Christ, may be made known on the vessels of mercy. It thereby constitutes the economic antithesis of hardening in the New Testament, and of the historical judicial curse on the great mass of Israel, and of an opposing immeasurablemeasurable display of the glory of its exercise of mercy in the Gentile world. But this antithesis, as we shall further perceive, does not preclude the possibility of mercy on individual Jews, and of the rejection of individual Gentiles (Rom_9:19-24).

b. The proof of this freedom of the Divine call from the Old Testament. First, the equalization of Jews and Gentiles in their rejection is prophesied by Hosea (Rom_9:25). Second, the equalization of Gentiles and Jews in the mercy shown to the latter (Rom_9:26). Likewise, Isaiah has prophesied, first, the reduction of the great mass of Israel to a small remnant, who shall be saved from the judgment (Rom_9:27); but second, the certainty that such a remnant shall arise from a judgment cut short by righteous mildness (Rom_9:28-29).

Fourth proof: The correspondence of the exercise of Divine authority on Jews and Gentiles, with their ethical conduct, or with the antithesis of faith and unbelief. The conclusion from the whole chapter, as drawn by the spirit of the Apostle (Rom_9:30-33).

[4. This chapter cannot be fairly explained or properly honored without a recognition of the profound truth which lies at the foundation of the doctrine of election, viz., the free, unconditioned grace of God. Those expositors who would limit the sovereignty of the Divine will by human freedom, and deduce salvation more or less from the creature, must do great violence to the text if they make it accord with their systems. Yet we must guard against the opposite extreme of supralapsarianism, which, with fearful logical consistency, makes God the author of the fall of Adam, hence of sin; thus really denying both God’s holiness and love and man’s accountability, to the ultimate extinguishment of all morality. Many, indeed, have held this view, whose lives, by a happy inconsistency, were far better than their theories. They arrived at this extreme position through a one-sided explanation of this passage, and through the logical consequence of their conception of the sovereignty of God’s all-determining will. But if we would not have the Bible prove any thing man wishes, we must interpret single passages in their connection with the whole, and according to the analogy of faith. In the early part of this Epistle (Rom_1:18; Rom_3:30), Paul unequivocally declares that God is not the author, but the enemy and judge of evil; how, then, can he here affirm a specific Divine foreordination of sin and perdition? In Rom_5:12 ff. he shows that redemption through Christ, as to its indwelling power and purpose, is fully as comprehensive as the fall of Adam. With this agree many passages, which speak of God’s sincere will to save all men, and of a general call, extended not at once, but gradually, to all (Eze_33:11; 1Ti_2:4; Tit_2:11; 2Pe_3:9). Accordingly, Paul must have in mind here such a general reprobation, as is either a self-incurred result of unbelief, or only a negative preparation for the extension of the plan of salvation, which it therefore ultimately furthers. Besides, in chap. 10 the casting away of the Jews is attributed to their own unbelief, hence to the personal guilt of the creature; and in chap. 11 the rejection is represented as temporary. In God’s gracious decree, the fall of the Jews redounds to the blessing of the Gentiles, and the conversion of the Gentiles ultimately to the salvation of the Jews. So He has permitted the fall of Adam, in order to redeem humanity in Christ, the second Adam (Rom_9:12 ff.); He has included all under disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all (Rom_11:32; comp. Gal_3:22). But the salvation can become actual only gradually; and the gradual redemption of all (not all as individuals, but the mass in an organic, not a numerical sense) presupposes the temporary rejection of some.

The Scriptures teach, on the one hand, the absolute causality and unconditioned grace of God; and, on the other, the moral nature of man, including also his relative freedom and his responsibility (i. e., human personality). They ascribe redemption and sanctification, as well as the creation and maintenance of all things, to God alone. He works both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Php_2:13); no man cometh to the Son, except the Father draw him (Joh_6:37; Joh_6:44); without the Son, believers can do nothing (Joh_15:5). Not only the beginning, but also the progress and completion of conversion, are attributed to God (Jer_31:18; Heb_12:2; Luk_22:32; Eph_2:10; 1Co_4:7; 2Th_3:2; 1Jn_5:4). Hence all believers confess, with Paul: “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1Co_15:10), and ascribe all the honor and glory to the Lord alone (2Co_10:17). Indeed, even evil, as a phenomenon, and according to its material forces, cannot be excluded from the absolute activity of God. He hardens Pharaoh and raises up Nebuchadnezzar; He creates the light and the darkness; He gives peace and effects evil (Isa_45:7); and there is no evil (misfortune) in the city, that the Lord has not done (Amo_3:6).—On the other hand, however, the Scriptures never treat of man as a mere machine, but as a moral being. They hold up before him, in the Old Testament, laws, with the promise of blessing if he obeys, and the threatening of a curse if he transgresses; they offer him, in the New Testament, the gospel, baptism, faith; bid him, with fear and trembling, work out his own salvation (Php_2:12); present to him the highest moral duties as commands: Be ye holy, be ye perfect; and account sin and the rejection of salvation as his own personal fault. “How often would I have gathered you, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Mat_23:27; Luk_13:34).88

If the first truth respecting the absolute, creative causality of God in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification be denied, we fall into the Pelagian error, which destroys the very marrow of Christianity, and attributes salvation to the creature; but if the second class of Scripture texts be denied or wrested, we are brought to the brink of the abyss of fatalism or Pantheism; man is degraded into a mere instrument without a will, and his responsibility, guilt, and punishment abrogated. The task of theology consists, not in the establishment of one of these postulates at the expense of the other, but in reconciling both, and bringing into right relations with each other the infinite and finite causality; in loosing, not in cutting the gordian knot. This is, indeed, one of the greatest and most difficult problems, which can never be fully solved from the standpoint of earthly knowledge. Only after the accomplished victory over evil can the deep, dark enigma of evil, which forms the main difficulty in the problem, be fully solved.89

For practical and popular use, the following remarks will suffice:

(1) There is an eternal predestination of believers unto holiness and blessedness, and hence they must ascribe all the glory of their redemption, from beginning to end, to the unmerited grace of God alone.

(2) They do not, however, on this account cease to be free agents, responsible for all their doings; but, as God works in nature not magically and immediately, but through natural laws, so He works in men, through their wills, hence through the mediation of finite causes; and the more that grace is developed within them, so much the more is their true freedom developed; so that perfect holiness and perfect freedom coincide with each other. Accordingly, the highest freedom is the complete triumph over the evil, and is consequently identical with the moral necessity of the good. In this sense, God is free just because He is absolutely holy.

(3) There is no Divine foreordination of sin as sin, although He has foreseen it from all eternity, and, with respect to redemption, permitted it, while constantly overruling it to His purposes. Hence, those who are lost are lost through their own fault, and must blame their own unbelief, which rejects the means of salvation proffered them by God.

(4) In the time of the calling of nations and individuals to salvation, God proceeds according to a plan of eternal wisdom and love, which we cannot fathom here, but should adore in silent reverence.

(5) The right use of the doctrine of election is the humbling of sinners and the comforting of believers, as well as the increase of their gratitude and happiness. Only a culpable misunderstanding and misuse of it can lead to carnal security and to despair.

(6) Instead of meditating much upon the profound depths of the Divine decrees, it is better for each to make his own calling and election sure, and, with fear and trembling, to work out his own salvation.—P. S.]

5. The forbearance and confidence with which the Apostle pronounces his opinion on the fall of Israel, his patriotic and truly human pain (2Co_12:7-9), and his prophetic elevation above it, reaching to sublimity, are characteristics of this wonderful man of God.

6. Israel’s glory is revealed in the correspondence of its great actual blessings with its chosen individuals. The line of actual saving blessings enters into reciprocal operation with the personal line of the fathers down to Christ according to the flesh, the climax in which divinity and humanity unite. Its foundation is Israel’s adoption, in Abraham, to son-ship. On this there is founded, first, the patriarchal antithesis of the δόξα or of the revealing angel of Jehovah, and of the covenants, in which the evangelical element is properly placed in advance of the legal element, conformably to the character of the patriarchal revealed religion; then comes the antithesis of the Mosaic period, of the gift of the law, and of the services; and here, in conformity with the character of the legal economy, the legal element precedes the evangelical. Both the patriarchal and Mosaic economies then comprise each other, just as the evangelical and legal elements are comprised in the promises of the prophetic period. It has already been remarked that, notwithstanding this articulation, each particular of the attributes mentioned is peculiar in a more general sense to the entire theocracy.

7. Careful attention must be paid to the fact that, in the election in Rom_9:6-13, the communication of the Divine decree precedes the birth of the children. But, on the other hand, in the ordination in Rom_9:14-18, it applies to characters already existing—Moses and Pharaoh—in accordance with the direction which they have taken themselves. In the call in Rom_9:19-24, this communication finally follows the state of the case already existing: Vessels of wrath, vessels of mercy. From the whole of this section, chaps. 9–11, it follows that the decrees underlying these communications belong also to eternity. But they belong to eternity as decrees which are conditioned upon individual conduct, as God universally conditions himself in the measures which He adopts in reference to persons to be determined or already determined, and their personal relations. The decree of election (or of love) takes cognizance of no other condition than that the single individual must be defined according to the organism of the members of God’s kingdom in Christ.The decree of ordination (or of righteousness) is conditioned by the fact that individuals, in their free self-determination, need, both for themselves and for their relation to the whole body, their historical destination and special guidance. The decree of the call (or of wisdom) is conditioned by the fact that it makes the judgments pronounced on unbelief itself means for subserving the promotion of faith. The distinction of the elder theology, decretum prœdestinationis, decretum gratiœ, decretum justificationis, has confused election and ordination—which has generally been the case from Augustine’s time down to the present. This distinction has likewise overlooked the fact that the decretum gratiœ constitutes the very centre of the decretum prœdestinationis (Christ ὁ ὡρισμένος, Act_10:42; Rom_1:4). The decretum justificationis is most intimately connected with the decree respecting the vocatio.

8. We have elsewhere brought out the truth, that the wonderful flower of the biblical doctrine of election, like the aloe, has been long concealed, yet with its character determined, in the sharp thistle of the ecclesiastical doctrine of predestination; and that it is a duty of our day to acquire, with its full idea, the whole depth and glory of the biblical doctrine of personality; but not to seek to weaken and render indifferent, by the old Lutheran or Arminian-Reformed definitions, the solution of an enigma to whose real solution every living distinction of individuals contributes, more than a scholastic hatching of confessional antitheses can do. In this respect, Lavater’s Physiognomy may be regarded as an explanatory enlargement upon Calvin and Zwingli. The mystery of predestination, like that of the atonement, and every other Christian mystery, is reflected in the midst of life.

9. Rom_9:1. The intimate proximity of salvation and sorrow (Rom_8:39; Rom_9:1) in the Apostle’s state of mind, as in our Lord’s states of mind.

10. Rom_9:3. For more particular information on the ban, see Tholuck, p. 472. [See also Excursus on Anathema, p. 302.—R.]

11. The Apostle’s patriotism is a tragical feeling, subject to the dominion and kingdom of Christ, and thereby glorified to the intercessory feeling.—On the Shekinah (doxa), see the note in Tholuck, p. 477.

12. On the divinity of Christ, and the relevant passages of the New Testament in which He is in part called really God, and in part appears to be so called (Joh_1:1; Joh_16:28; 1Jn_5:20; Act_20:28; the present passage, Rom_9:5; Rom_16:27; Eph_5:5; 1Ti_3:16; 2Ti_4:18; Tit_2:13; 1Pe_4:11; 2Pe_3:18; Rev_5:13), comp. Tholuck, p. 482. My Positiv Dogm., p. 160 ff.

13. Biblical doxologies: Rom_1:25; Rom_9:5; Rom_11:36; Rom_16:27, &c.; 2Ti_4:18; 1Pe_4:11; 2Pe_3:18, and others.

14. Rom_9:6. Not all are Israel which are of Israel. This applies also to every nation, to every confession, to every Christian community, just as it applies in general to the branches of the mystical vine, Christ (Joh_15:2).

15. The children of the flesh and the children of promise. See the Commentary on John, Joh_1:13. [Comp. Galatians, pp. 119, 123.—R.]

16. On the theological discussions with reference to the doctrine of predestination in the present section, see Tholuck, pp. 490–506, and below.

17. Rom_9:15. On the idea of consistency in the name of Jehovah, as well in His having compassion as in judging, see the Exeg. Notes. It is in harmony with the righteousness of Jehovah’s exercise of authority, that even the judgment of death redounds to the life of the sincere and compassionated one; while the gospel, on the other hand, is a savor of death unto death to the perverse and unbelieving. But the consistency of Jehovah does not lie in His carrying out the abstract decrees of His own will, inflexibly and in an exact direction, but in His remaining like himself, and therefore in His even assuming a different position in relation to the changed positions of man; yet this is, of course, in harmony with the consistency of the principles established and realized by Him. Therefore, there is propriety in speaking of a Divine repentance—for example, in the history of the Flood. The position of mankind toward God has become so thoroughly perverted, that the Creator must become the Destroyer. Comp. Psa_18:24-27.

18. On the Egyptians’ remembrance of the Pharaoh under whom Israel went forth, see the article Ægypten, by Lepsius, in Herzog’s Theol. Encyc., and Tholuck, p. 516. On the hardenings of Pharaoh especially, see Exo_4:21. Since the judgment of hardness is here declared collectively, the passage does not decide on the succession of the particular ones. The same applies to Exo_7:3. Then the particular historical ones follow. First, Pharaoh is hardened by the counteraction of the magicians (Exo_7:13; Exo_7:22). A significant illustration of the free volition of Pharaoh in the latter case; see Exo_7:23. In Exo_8:15 we read: “Pharaoh hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them.” And now his heart becomes hardened, even in spite of the warning of the terrified magicians; Exo_8:19. Again, in Exo_8:32 : “And Pharaoh hardened his heart.” We read the same thing in Exo_9:7. But in Exo_9:12 we read: “And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” In Exo_9:34, on the other hand, we again meet with self-hardening, which is then designated as a judgment; Exo_9:35. In Exo_10:27, the Lord again hardens him. The same occurs in Exo_11:10; Exo_14:8.

As regards this whole series of particulars, the atomistic exegesis of earlier times led to its being regarded as fatalistic. But we must, in the first place, distinguish the prophetical declarations of the judgment of hardening as general views of the whole course of events, from the historical particulars. As for the historical particulars, we must always be very careful to notice that the hardening is not a single act, but a long succession of acts, which succeed momentary shocks and apparent awakenings. But the periods of hardening themselves are divided into three particular acts: 1. Pharaoh is hardened by the magicians; 2. He hardens himself; 3. The Lord hardens him. We must further consider, that he always hardens himself just as soon as he has recovered a little from the penal judgments. But the series of his expressions of penitence must be regarded as arising particularly from fear (attritio, not contritio). Pharaoh’s starting-point is the defiant question: Who is the Lord? Rom_5:2. Then he requires a miraculous proof; Rom_7:7-10. He does not take the first plague to heart, because the magicians do likewise; Rom_7:22-23. The first shock and its characteristic expression; Rom_8:8. Similar emotion; Rom_9:28. The first confession of sin; Rom_9:27-28. The second, Rom_10:16. It is characteristic that Pharaoh pays least attention to the plagues that least affect him and his house. This may be seen in the first and third plagues; but he observes with more attention, on the other hand, the second and fourth, which rest heavily upon himself. He does not trouble himself about the murrain; the boils and blains seem to spare him personally. The thunder and hail, on the contrary, terrify him; the locusts also, but the darkness less. Finally, the death of the first-born at the decisive moment breaks the tyrant’s defiance, yet without being able to convert him. And it is out of this wonderful network of human offences and Divine judgments that a ponderous fatalistic decree has been contrived. Meyer quite gratuitously opposes Olshausen’s explanation, that the hardening assumes at the outset the already existing beginnings of evil. The ὃν θέλει does not oppose it, for God can let man die before his hardening. Meyer, also, does not favor Calovius’ definitions of hardening, that God does not harden man ἐνεργητικῶς, but 1. συγχωρητικῶς, propter permissionem; 2. ὰφορμητικῶς, propter occasionem; 3. ἐγκαταλειπτικῶς; 4. παραδοτικῶς.

19. Just as Pharaoh hardened himself more and more at Moses’ deeds of faith, so was Moses always advanced and strengthened in faith by the trials of faith which were prepared for him by Pharaoh’s hardenings—that is, by the apparent failure of his miraculous deeds. This is a fundamental law of God’s kingdom. The kingdom of darkness displays itself in its reciprocal action with the kingdom of light, but the latter is also displayed in its reciprocal action with the former.

20. Tholuck’s explanation on having compassion and hardening, p. 523, harmonizes with the old Lutheran dogmatics. Meyer’s resumé, p. 310.

[pages 390 ff., 4th edition. Justice to this author, whose clear and acute exegetical notes have been so freely used by Dr. Lange, as well as in the additions, requires the insertion of a larger portion of his theological resumé than is given in the original

“The contents of Rom_9:9-23, as they have presented themselves purely exegetically, and taken in and of themselves, of course exclude the idea of a decree of God conditioned by human, moral spontaneity; for indeed God’s absolute activity, considered in itself as such, cannot depend on that of the individual; but a fatalistic determinism, which robs man of his self-determination and free self-positing for salvation, making him the passive object of Divine arbitrariness, must not be deduced from our passage as a Pauline doctrine. For this reason, that this passage is not to be considered separately from what follows (Rom_9:30 ff; Rom_10:11), and also because the countless exhortations of the Apostle to believing obedience, to steadfastness and Christian virtue, as well as all his warnings against falling from grace, are so many witnesses against that dreary view which annuls the nature of human morality and responsibility. Should we, with Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, and Krehl, suppose that Paul, in his dialectic zeal, had permitted himself to be hurried into self-contradiction,90 we would have a self-contradiction so manifest, yet so extremely important and dangerous in a religious and ethical aspect, so harshly opposed to the Christian moral ideas of Divine holiness and human freedom, that it were least of all to be expected of this Apostle, whose acuteness and dialectic skill could guard him against it on the one hand, while especially, on the other, his apostolic illumination and the depth and clearness of his moral experience must guard him against it.” “But this by no means justifies the interlining of the clear and definite expressions of the Apostle in our passage, on the part of anti-predestinarianism from Origen and Chrysostom until now, to the effect that the moral self-determination and spontaneity of man is the correlative factor to the Divine decree. The correct judgment of the deterministic propositions (Rom_9:15-23) lies rather between the psychologically and morally impossible admission of a self-contradiction, and the exegetically impossible interpolation in this way, of thoughts the direct opposite of the Apostle’s expression. How there can be the concurrence, so necessary in the moral world, of the individual freedom and spontaneity of man and the absolute self-determination and all-efficiency of God, is incomprehensible to human reflection, at least so long as it does not desert the sphere of Christian view, and pass into the unscriptural, pantheistic sphere of Identity, in which, indeed, there is no place for freedom in general.91 Whenever, of the two truths: ‘God is absolutely free and all-efficient,’ and ‘man has individual freedom, and is also on his side, in his own self-determination as free agent, the causer of his salvation or misery,’ we handle but one, and that one consistently, and hence, one-sidedly, we are compelled to speak as if the other seems to be invalidated by our reasoning. But only seems; for, in fact, there is in this case only a temporary and conscious abstraction with respect to the other.” “Paul, then, found himself in this case. For he wished to present, in opposition to the fancy of the Jews respecting descent and works, the free and absolute almightiness of the Divine will and work, and all the more decidedly and exclusively the less he would leave any ground for the presumptuous error of the Jews, that God must be gracious to them. The Apostle has here placed himself entirely on the absolute standpoint of the theory of God’s pure independence, and that, too, with all the boldness of clear consistency; but only until he has done justice to that polemic purpose. Then he returns (Rom_9:30 ff.) from that abstraction to the humano-moral standpoint of practice, so that he grants to both modes of view, side by side, that right which they have within the limits of human thought. The view which lies beyond these limits, the metaphysical relation of the essential connection of the two points, viz., objectively Divine and subjectively human freedom and voluntary activity, was necessarily without and beyond his present circuit of view. He would have had no occasion either to enter upon this problem, since it was incumbent upon him to defeat the Jewish presumption with but one side of this—with the absoluteness of God. That, or how far the Divine election is no delectus militaris, but finds its norm immanently in God himself through His holiness, and thus may be conditioned by moral conditions on the human side, remains for the present entirely out of the account. It enters, however, with Rom_9:30, in which the one-sided method of consideration, followed for a time, is again compensated for, and the ground afforded for a time for apologetic purposes, to the doctrine of absolute decrees, is again withdrawn.”—R.]

He opposes those who have charged the Apostle With a self-contradiction—determination and freedom (Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, &c.); but he himself thinks that the metaphysical relation of unity between the all-prevailing efficiency of God and man’s freedom is incomprehensible by Christian reflection, and that, therefore, we can only speak of the one, considered in itself alone, in such a way that the other seems to be removed by our reasoning. But this is not the case if we speak either of human freedom or of God’s free grace in a proper way. The former assumes dependence on God; the latter requires faith. Though God’s all-efficiency is not conditional on man, yet it conditions itself as the personal exercise of authority in relation to man, so soon as he is determined by election, according to the stage of development in which man is. It may also be said that the one decree of God is explained, according to Rom_8:29-30, in five decrees, and these are reciprocally conditional.

If the decree of election were an absolute determination of salvation and condemnation, there would be no peculiar decree of ordination or historical predetermination; God would no more be free to say to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” But if the decree of ordination were absolute, then we could no more speak seriously of a new decree of the call, and still less of a free idea of justification, as well as of glorification. The Divine decree in relation to the final judgment has conditioned itself by the nature of all the preceding decrees. And only in this way does God remain a free God, while, on the other hand, we would make of an unconditional decree of predestination itself a real divinity, which would have bound the personal God. But it is quite in harmony with the nature of religion, the real relation between God and man, that the truth asserts the majesty of the Divine right against every human arrogation, every irreligious claim against God. The free power of election stands in opposition to the claim of a natural heirship in God’s kingdom; the free power of grace, in its historical exercise of authority, opposes the claim to the merit of works; and the free power of the Divine call in the economic relations of God’s kingdom opposes the claim to both. If the point is reached where man will make God conformable to himself, before whom he would present himself independently, yea, one whom he thinks that he can bind by “replying against” him, then God himself opposes him in His truth as the God who stands in absolute free power above him, and before whom he is as nothing, or as the clay in the potter’s hand. Up to this point the Apostle must have recourse to the Jewish assumptions against God’s majesty. The pioneers of the Reformation, but particularly the Reformers themselves, were in a similar situation; ecclesiastical tradition had, in the latter case, taken the place of descent from Abraham; ecclesiastical righteousness of works had taken the place of Levitical righteousness of works; the self-righteous creature began to prescribe laws for his Creator. The Reformers, adhering to the truth, thus reversed the relation: God’s sovereignty and grace are every thing, while the arrogated right and merit of man are nothing. But their arriving in theory—which was really only one chapter in their system—to the negation of human freedom of election (Melanchthon, in his later life, excepted), and their being led into contradiction with their ethical principles, were in part a tribute of weakness which they had to pay to their independence from the Catholic Augustine (strong expressions of Calvin and Zwingli, see Tholuck, p. 528), and in part the false conclusion from a profoundly justified religious feeling. They taught, with good ground, that God’s government of the world is a government controlling and pervading all moral events, and that even sin is not merely permitted, but accepted and determined as a fact in God’s plan; only they had not yet found—as Sebastian Frank, at their time, and, subsequently, such orthodox teachers in the Church as Breitinger, Vœtius, and others—the distinction between sin as a wicked counsel of the heart, that merely appertains to man, and sin as a fact in which inward sin itself is already treated with irony, captured, and judged (see Pro_16:1 ff.). The Apostle himself, on the contrary, has united the doctrine of the absolute judicial power of God with the doctrine of the importance of faith, yet particularly with the declaration that God has delayed His historical judgment in long-suffering, and has made the already existing judgment of hardness a medium of compassion.92—”The people, clay in the potter’s hand,” is a frequently recurring biblical expression. See Tholuck, p. 530; also the Note on p. 532; likewise p. 536.

21. The concatenation of judgment and compassion which appears throughout in the facts of Holy Scripture, as well as in its doctrines, has not been sufficiently comprehended and made use of by the popular ecclesiastical conception; and this is a principal source of its hindrances and imperfections. Righteousness and mercy are regarded as collateral modes of God’s revelation. Judgment and compassion absolutely preclude each other. But the Scriptures unite both facts in various ways.

First, the reconciliation of men themselves, both collectively and individually, inwardly as well as outwardly, is made conditional on a judgment which separates the old from the new life. Second, the display of redemption and its institutions, of the theocracy and of the Church, is conditioned by judicial acts that separate the old from the new states. Third, judgment, even from the flood downward, separates an old from a new race, and brings to pass the redemption of the latter by the still conditional rejection of the former. Even in the final judgment, the consummation of heaven is made conditional on the separation of the wicked; Mat_13:43.

22. With the confusion mentioned above, there is also connected the fact that righteousness has ever been too much regarded as the extreme consequence of rigor, but not also in the light of forbearance and mildness. This latter idea of righteousness is frequently taught in the Scriptures (see Mat_1:19; 1Jn_1:9), and so also in the present chapter, Rom_9:28. Comp. also Rom_3:26, p. 135.

23. The full and direct force of the passage in Rom_9:31 is only reached by accepting the reading preferred by us. The Jew’s righteousness of works, as such, was never faithful righteousness of works, but a righteousness of boasting of the practice of statutes, and therefore it was a failure to obey the trueγόμος itself. In a similar sense, James portrays the orthodoxy of the Jews (see the Commentary in loco). This is also the case with the ecclesiastical righteousness of works in the Middle Ages; its weight does not lie in fidelity to the law, but in the fanatical zeal to explain and sharpen the statutes to excess. And so the orthodoxy of the seventeenth century was not strictness of confessional fidelity, but zeal for the statutory amplification and sharpening of confessional formulas. Centrifugal deviations from the collective fundamental thought and original fountain everywhere prevailed.

24. Israel, in its guilty and accursed destiny, is also a type of the richly deserved curses in the political as well as in the ecclesiastical life of nations.

25. Chaps. 10 and 11 are an enlargement upon chap. 9.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Rom_9:1-5

[Homiletical Bibliography on Rom_9:3 : Weemse, J., Of the Highest Degree of Love to God; An Exposition, &c., vol. i. 48; Lightfoot, J., St. Paul’s Wish to be Accursed. Works, vol. vii. 312; Gell, R., Remains, 2; Witsius, H., De votivo anathemate Pauli; Miscellaneæ, vol. ii. 41; Waterland, D., S. Paul’s Wish Explained and Illustrated, Sermons, Works, vol. ix. 252; Dodwell, W., The Importance of the Christian Faith, Illustrated in the Explanation of St. Paul’s Wish of being Accursed for his Brethren, Oxford, 1752; Keeling, B, Three Discourses on St. Paul’s Wish, &c., Oxford, 1766; Mason, W., Christian Patriotism, Works, vol. iv. 105; Toplady, A. M., Thoughts, &c., Works, vol. iii. 418; Reconsidered Texts, No. I., J. C. Knight, Kitto’s Journal, 1st series; Nos. 10–12. Two Letters, by A. Davidson and J. C. Knight, on the above interpretation, Ibid.—J. F. H.]

The Apostle’s sorrow for his brethren: 1. A great sorrow, so that he wished to be accursed from Christ for them; 2. A natural sorrow, because they (a.) are his kinsmen according to the flesh; (b.) are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption, &c. (Rom_9:1-5).

An apostolical asseveration (Rom_9:1).—Words only have strength when our conscience bears us witness in the Holy Ghost that we say the truth in Christ (Rom_9:1).—The witness of our conscience in the Holy Ghost is a witness for us that we say the truth in Christ (Rom_9:1).—Magnanimous heaviness and magnanimous pain (Rom_9:2).—The Apostle’s readiness to stake the dearest possession for his brethren (Rom_9:3).—The difference between Israelites and Jews (Rom_9:4).—What do Israelites possess? 1. The whole of the Old Testament, with all its covenant blessings; 2. The fathers; 3. Through the fathers, Christ, so far as His human descent is concerned, belongs chiefly to them (Joh_4:22) (Rom_9:3-5).

Starke, Cramer: In important matters for God’s honor and the advancement of our neighbors’ salvation, we may swear (Isa_19:18; Jer_12:6); but to wantonly affirm a thing before God, is an abuse of God’s name (Exo_20:7) (Rom_9:1).—The saints are not stoical blocks of wood (!); therefore we should also weep with those that weep, and rejoice with those that rejoice (Rom_9:2).—Love has certain degrees, and one may with a good conscience prefer in love his natural friends and blood relations to others (Rom_9:3).—Nova Bibl. Tüb.: Nothing grieves pious people more than the ruin of the ungodly. Particularly a true shepherd can do nothing else than speak of them with sorrow and tears (Rom_9:2).—Hedinger This is love! Oh, that we had even a less degree of it! Exo_32:32.

Gerlach: Calvin beautifully says: “It is not contradictory to this wish of the Apostle, that be knew of a surety that his salvation by God’s election could not prove a delusion. For as such a glowing love always burns out more violently, so does it see nothing and care for nothing except its object” (Rom_9:1-5).

Lisco: The Apostle’s sorrow at Israel’s unbelief (Rom_9:1-5).—In Christ every thing was glorified and fulfilled which Israel already had; how important, therefore, it was to believe in Him whom the antitypes had announced, and who brought grace and truth! Joh_1:16-17.

Heubner: Asseveration of the Apostle’s love for his people (Rom_9:1-5).—It is only a spirit sanctified by God’s grace that can be grieved at the spiritual fall of others. The unconverted man is indifferent to the moral misery of his neighbor. The holiest sorrow is for others (Rom_9:2).

Besser: Throughout the Holy Scriptures there is not another passage where, as in the present instance, the most profound darkness of sorrow is in juxtaposition with the brightest sun of joy. Paul has ascended on the wings of faith to the height where he sees the whole kingdom of the world and the devil lying at his feet; and, sheltered in the rock-strong love of God in Jesus Christ, he has sung a triumphal song in the upper choir. There he pauses, and as one who is still dwelling in the land of pains and tears, just at this point he discloses to his brethren, first, the profound and concealed sorrow of his life by a solemn assurance of that of which he would have God also conscious (Rom_9:1).—The sainted Bengel says: “Souls which have made no progress, do not comprehend Paul’s wish We should not lightly pronounce judgment upon the measure of love in Moses and Paul. The modicum of our thoughts of love is too small for us to do so; just as a boy does not appreciate the heroic spirit of a general “(Rom_9:3).—Not Jacobites, but Israelites, wrestlers with God, are called the descendants of the patriarch, who obtained of the Lord a blessing upon his seed, that they might be called after his name, and the names of his fathers Abraham and Isaac (Rom_9:4).—Eight blessings of God’s house united in four pairs (Rom_9:4-5).

[Burkitt: God has placed a conscience in every man, whose office it is to bear witness of all his words and actions; yea, of all his thoughts and inward affections. Conscience is God’s register, to record whatever we think, speak, or act; and happy is he whose conscience bears witness for him, and doth not testify against him.

Rom_9:2. Note: 1. What are the dismal effects and dreadful consequences of obstinate unbelief, under the offers of Christ tendered to persons in and by the dispensation of the gospel, without timely repentance? 2. The true spirit of Christianity is to make men mourn for the sins and calamities of others in a very sensible and affectionate manner. Good men ever have been and are men of tender and compassionate disposition; a stoical apathy, an indolence of heart, a want of natural affection, is so far from being a virtue, or matter of just commendation unto any man, that the deepest sorrow and heaviness of soul in some cases well becomes persons of the greatest piety and Wisdom 3. Great sorrow and continual heaviness of heart for the miseries of others, whether imminent or incumbent, but especially for the sins of others, is an undoubted argument, sign, and evidence of a strong and vehement love toward them.—Henry: We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special obligations; and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and we must, in a special manner, give account concerning them, and our usefulness to them.—Hodge: Fidelity does not require that we should make the truth as offensive as possible. On the contrary, we are bound to endeavor, as Paul did, to allay all opposing or inimical feelings in the minds of those whom we address, and to allow the truth, unimpeded by the exhibition of any thing offensive on our part, to do its work upon the heart and conscience.—J. F. H.]

[Schaff: Rom_9:4-5. These advantages of Israel, sketched by the Apostle, are at once types and prophecies of the higher blessings, which continue uninterruptedly in the Christian Church, and are enjoyed daily and hourly by all believers. In their lap is the adoption and heirship of eternal life, the continued presence of the Lord in the means of grace, the eternal covenant of grace instead of the successive covenants, the free, life-giving spirit, instead of the killing letter of the law, the worship in spirit and in truth in all places instead of the service confined to Jerusalem, the far more plain and precious promises of the heavenly Canaan and amaranthine inheritance, the incomputable cloud of witnesses, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and confessors, from all climes and tongues, and, as the sum of all blessings, Jesus Christ, the God-man and Saviour, who is flesh of our flesh, aye, our Brother and Friend, and yet exalted above all, the eternally adored Head of the Church, which He calls “His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all.”—R.]

Rom_9:6-23

a. Rom_9:6-13. Who are the true Israelites? 1. By no means all who are of Israel, or are the seed of Abraham, are children according to the flesh; but rather, 2. The children of promise, whom He has freely chosen according to His purpose (Rom_9:6-13).—The question of Divine adoption does not depend upon natural descent, but upon the mercy of the call, without the merit of works (Rom_9:6-13).—God’s word (promise) has not failed because many are not Israelites—that is, are not participators in the promise (Rom_9:6-8).—Neither has God’s word failed to us because many who are called evangelical are not evangelical (Rom_9:6-8).—How Paul, the Apostle of the righteousness of faith, reminds us of John the Baptist, the preacher of repentance 1 Comp. Rom_9:6-8 with Mat_3:9.—The children of the promise: 1. Isaac, the son of Abraham; 2. Jacob-Israel, the son of Rebecca (Rom_9:9-10).—The mystery of election and reprobation (Rom_9:10-14).—Not by the merit of works, but by the mercy of Him who calleth! A passage: 1. For our humiliation; but also, 2. For our consolation (Rom_9:12).

Starke: God does not look at carnal service and external advantages and privileges in the distribution of His mercy and spiritual blessings; 1Co_15:10 (Rom_9:12).—Hedinger: God’s word always has its fulfilment in either one way or the other; Jer_32:42 (Rom_9:6).—Beware of founding your hope of salvation on birth, or the visible Church, or merely seeming work. One must inwardly be a Christian and Abraham’s heir (Rom_9:7).

Spener: By this instance (Rom_9:8-9) Paul has sufficiently shown that salvation does not depend on natural birth, and that, therefore, not all the descendants of Israel were necessarily the people of the covenant. But because it might have been said that Ishmael was born of the bondwoman, and lost such an honor in consequence of his wicked life, for he was a scoffer, Paul proceeds to show, by the example of Esau and Jacob, that it depended upon God’s free choice as to whom He would show certain spiritual or temporal advantages and benefits, in which case He does not look at works (Rom_9:10-13).

Roos: The children of the promise are such as have become the children and true seed of Abraham by belief in God’s promise (Rom_9:8-11).—An election does not preclude the foreknowledge of faith and works, but, on the contrary, it always goes in advance, while faith and good works follow afterward. Thus, a soldier is chosen before he has furnished a proof of his bravery; a child is chosen for adoption before he has given evidence of filial gratitude. The exhibition of bravery and gratitude is hoped for. But what is man’s hope, is God’s foreknowledge. Yet it must not be said that, in making an election, the one who chooses has been influenced by works that have already occurred. It was not from works already performed by Jacob that God’s promises resulted, but from the loving will of God, who stands in need of nothing, whom no creature can place under obligation, and who does not inwardly pass from hatred to love (Rom_9:11-13).

Gerlach: As the preference of Jacob to Esau, and of the Israelites to the Edomites, was declared by God before the birth of the two ancestors, and thus what Jacob had in advance could by no means depend upon any privilege or merit of birth, so is free grace the bestowal of justification through Christ; it does not depend upon anticipated virtues or services of him who receives them; it admits valid claims of any kind (Rom_9:11-13).

Lisco: The Apostle’s purpose is to prove that God, far from all arbitrary authority, and with the most exalted love, holiness, and wisdom, though without binding himself to natural laws (primogeniture, posterity of Abraham), or to the narrow limits of a certain descent, proceeds in His guidance of nations, and now calls this one and now that one to the gospel, just as He formerly called to a share in the privileges of the old covenant people. The Israelite, as such, had legal claims to salvation in Christ, yet not on account of his natural descent, as is shown from both the examples adduced. Even Esau’s descendants, and, indeed, all heathen, have been called to salvation in Christ; therefore evidently Esau’s rejection is by no means regarded as eternal, and the object of Jacob’s preference is the temporary salvation of the nations descended from both Esau and Jacob (Rom_9:11-13).

Heubner: We must maintain: 1. Paul’s speech is altogether individual or national, and applies solely to Israel, in order to prostrate Israel’s perverse pride; 2. The question is not concerning an eternal election and reprobation, but the calling of a people by the external call, by revelation, and concerning, the subsequent rejection of such a call (Rom_9:6-13).

b. Rom_9:14-18. Is God unrighteous? This objection is refuted by Paul: 1. By reference to God’s declaration to Moses; 2. By reference to such a declaration to Pharaoh (Rom_9:14-18).—Moses and Pharaoh: 1. Moses, an example of God’s mercy and compassion; 2. Pharaoh, an example of hardening; 3. Both together are examples of God’s free election (Rom_9:14-18).—On what does our salvation depend? 1. Not upon our willing or running; 2. But upon God’s mercy (Rom_9:16).

Starke: God is and ever remains righteous, however He disposes things according to His sovereign will and good pleasure (Rom_9:14).—Oh, the great and exceeding riches of divine mercy and compassion, by which God performs all the good which He bestows on man, without regard to any service, greatness, honor, or appearance! (Rom_9:15.)—Hedinger: One’s own running, working, exerting himself, devising services, doing penitence, and inflicting scourging, crawling into caves and putting on sackcloth, accomplish nothing; God must open the heart, and, when He knocks, open to Him! He has the key himself, and you have from Him the hands and the power to throw wide open for His entrance (Rom_9:16).—Hardening is a great judgment. Many are involved in it, and yet they do not know it (Rom_9:17).—Spener: Thus God’s will is perfectly free and unconfined in its own work, and He has the power to show mercy or not, just as He will, without our ability to find sufficient cause for the difference, although He himself, as the wise and holy God, does nothing without a holy cause, so that even His freest power wills and does in such a way as His wisdom perceives conducive to His glory. For as men of understanding do not foolishly and thoughtlessly use their freedom, but do every thing considerately and with a rational choice, even when they are in the enjoyment of the most unfettered freedom, how should we suppose that the all-wise God can have mercy and harden without holy causes, or in any other way than is in harmony with His goodness, righteousness, and majesty, though above our understanding? This should be enough for us: The holy and righteous God, who never can wish to do any thing evil, wills it to be thus.

Roos: Rom_9:16 : Moses desired to see God’s glory; but his desire would not have obtained this view by force. More than once Moses ascended to the top of Sinai, and came down again; but his running did not earn as a reward that which he prayed for. God met his willing by compassion: out of compassion He crowned Moses’ ascent of Mount Sinai by an extraordinary blessing.—Gerlach: Rom_9:16 : Paul elsewhere exhorts (1Co_9:24-27; Php_3:12-14) in the most decided way to will and to run; but it is a willing whose soul is God’s mercy toward sinners, and it is a running whose power is God’s renewing grace.

Lisco: The last and only ground of participation in God’s kingdom is and ever remains God’s mercy (Rom_9:16).—All of Pharaoh’s efforts did not prevent the execution of the Divine purposes, but he himself became, contrary to his will, an instrument for their execution; accordingly, God was glorified in the perverse king, who did not escape His righteous punishment (Rom_9:17).—Thus, then, God shows His mercy on whomsoever He will with unlimited freedom; and He hardens whomsoever He will—that is, He allows His mercy to redound to the ruin of those who, like Pharaoh, are impervious to all of His instructions and guidance; and thus it can also come to pass to the unbelieving Jews, that God will withdraw His mercy from them if they scorn His gospel, just as Pharaoh once despised God’s will (Rom_9:18).

Heubner: No people can prove that it will be God’s people (Rom_9:16).—The humiliation of presumptuous tyrants is a glorification of God (Rom_9:17).—Hardening is therefore never a blindly absolute, but always a righteous decree of God on those who have long withstood all of His calls. Pharaoh would not have been hardened, if his many cruelties had not already hardened his heart (Rom_9:18).

Besser: To sum up, says Luther (Works, vol. xxii. p. 745): “Every thing is spoken against the proud. ‘He to whom I give shall have it, and you shall not take it from me by your holiness.’ What more shall he do? He nevertheless says, ‘You shall have it, but if you seek and wish to have it for the sake of your righteousness and your piety, I cannot and will not allow you to have it; I will sooner tear to pieces and destroy every thing, both priesthood and kingdom, and even my own law. But show me mercy, and you shall have it’ ” (Rom_9:16).—He who can still take upon himself to say, “God has had compassion on me because I am not as Pharaoh was,” has not yet read the Epistle to the Romans aright. The reverse is the case: Because God has had compassion on me, I am not as Pharaoh, but as Moses (Rom_9:18).

c. Rom_9:19-29. Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? 1. Remember that thou art only the work, but He is the Maker; 2. Therefore submit unconditionally to His sovereign will (Rom_9:19-21).—What does God design by His unconditional and free election? 1. On one hand, to show His wrath and make known His power; 2. But, on the other, to make known all the more, by this means, the riches of His glory (Rom_9:22-29).—The vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy (Rom_9:22-24).—Who are the vessels of mercy? All who are called; not alone, 1. of the Jews, but, 2. also of the Gentiles (Rom_9:24).—Hosea and Isaiah as witnesses of God’s grace, showing mercy on and calling Jews and Gentiles: 1. Hosea 2. Isaiah (Rom_9:25-29).

Luther: Although the greater part fall away and remain unbelieving, He will nevertheless not let all fall, but will support the rest, and by them all the more abundantly disseminate His word and grace, in order that they may be righteous and glorious (Rom_9:28).

Starke: God, in leading man to salvation, does not deal with him according to the unconditional purpose of His will and with unlimited power, but in a certain order, in which they who are ennobled by the rational soul have obtained the freedom to obey or to oppose (Rom_9:29).—Also teachers and preachers must exhibit an appropriate gentleness when censuring the ungodly, and must not always select the rarest words of abuse and reproach, to pour them out upon them like a heavy shower (Rom_9:26).—Do not despair, though you be miserable; the merciful and gracious Lord can cause a light to arise within you; Psa_112:4 (Rom_9:25).—Hedinger: God be praised for His long-suffering! How many thousand brands of hell dost thou bear with! Thou art, and ever remainest, my righteous God! Psa_103:8 (Rom_9:22).—Lange: If you would be a true vessel of mercy, you must draw grace for grace from the fulness of Jesus (Joh_1:16).—Let the love of God be poured out in your heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom_5:5); and in order that you may be useful in the Lord’s house, and a vessel sanctified to His honor, seek to be purified from contact with all impure vessels (Rom_9:23).

Spener: The Apostle says of the vessels of mercy, that God has prepared them for glory. He is not only their Creator, but their being the vessels of His mercy is His own preparation. But he does not say of the vessels of wrath, that God prepared them for destruction, but that they are fitted to destruction who have fitted and corrupted themselves to it, so that their condemnation does not come from God, but only that He has long borne with them patiently, just as He did to Pharaoh, and that He finally destroys them with all the more violence. By this are declared His glory, power, compassion, and righteousness, without one coming in conflict with the other (Rom_9:22-23).—Roos: The great long-suffering of which Paul speaks, proves that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the vessels of wrath; for if He had wished, He could at any time have given them up to destruction sooner than He really did; but the efficacious call, which applies to the vessels of mercy both of the Jews and Gentiles, proves that God does not indulge a preconceived hatred either of the Jewish people or of the Gentile nations, and it is only His call that makes a difference between the vessels of wrath and of mercy (Rom_9:22-24).—Gerlach: We must always bear in mind, that when God has compassion, and when He hardens, He acts in different ways; in the former case, He produces good in the human heart by His compassion; and in the second, He withdraws from man His divine light and life, yet does not awaken evil in him, but only allows the evil already existing to assume the form and take the course which, to Him, is evidently necessary for the salvation of the world. Man’s seeing, in mercy as well as in hardening, a perfectly similar operation of God—namely, His own arbitrary authority—is his own fault, since he closes himself against God’s compassionate love by his own claims (Rom_9:21).

Lisco: All humanity, and not merely Israel (which fancied itself thus), is like the clay from which God, of His own free choice, chooses unto participation in the kingdom of heaven; and He is not bound to Israel in such a way that He cannot also appoint the Gentiles to the same privilege (Rom_9:20-21).

Heubner: Before God rejects a people, He patiently gives it time for repentance (Rom_9:19-23).—Especially on Rom_9:19 : The universal objection of all determinists, fatalists, and absolutists, is: “How can man be free, since in his existence, and in the formation and change of his mind, he is totally dependent on God?” This is here represented in a special direction, thus: “How can sin be imputed to man? Why does God’s punishment of him enrage him? He is only what God makes him! Who can oppose God?” This objection is still frequently heard in such modifications as these: “Man becomes every thing, just according as he is trained, educated, and placed in a favorable or unfavorable state?” We may answer this objection somewhat as follows: Although man does not himself control his destiny, and although this destiny has an influence upon his development, yet it is by no means compulsory; the external world does not operate irresistibly upon him.—Yet Paul does not exactly answer thus, but says, Rom_9:26 : “Yea, dear man,” &c.

Rom_9:21 : This comparison would be inaptly applied if it were regarded as an irresistible formation of character: “Can God not make out of this man a bad one, and out of that a good one?” The question is only the determination of the external state which operates on man: “Cannot God, according to His own will, direct to every one his condition, and all the circumstances that operate upon him?” It still depends on man whether he will make use of his condition in this or that way, and in what shape he will allow himself to be be formed. Comp. 2Ti_2:20-21. In Jer_18:6, the type of the potter applies to the events that God allows a people to experience, but not to the determination of their salvation or destruction.

d. Rom_9:30-33. The faith of the Gentiles, and the unbelief of the Jews: 1. The establishment of this fact; 2. The explanation of its origin (Rom_9:30-33).—In the righteousness of faith, the law of righteousness is really fulfilled (Rom_9:30-31).—Who attains to the law of righteousness? All who seek its fulfilment, not: 1. By the works of the law, but, 2. By faith (Rom_9:31-32).—The stumbling-stone: 1. For some a rock of offence; 2. For others a rock of salvation (Rom_9:33). Comp. 1Pe_2:4-10.

Luther: Christ justifies without works; they who do not believe Him, run against Him and stumble (Rom_9:32).

Starke: O thou tempted soul, who art ever indulging in fearful thoughts, thou shalt certainly not be ashamed! (Rom_9:33.)—Cramer: If one should seek fire in snow, or ice in fire, he would not find it; so he who seeks life, righteousnesss, and salvation in the law, and not in Christ, will never receive them (Rom_9:32).

Spener: God laid such a stone in Zion as would of itself be a stone of help, a tried and precious corner-stone, on which the fallen could and should rise. But man’s wickedness, &c., causes many to stumble against it, and their fall is more dangerous than if such a stone had not been placed there Yet God’s saving counsel must not be in vain for all, for there are others, on the other hand, who hold to this rock, and believe on it. These will not be deceived in their hope, nor come to shame, as they will take from it that which they have hoped for—salvation (Rom_9:33).

Roos: As Paul had previously made every thing dependent on simple grace and mercy, and on God’s free will, so he now makes every thing dependent on faith. Grace and faith, the will of God and faith, correspond to or meet each other. Grace is in God, faith is in man (Rom_9:30-33).—Gerlach: God did not enforce His right against the unbelieving Israelites, nor harden their hearts, nor fit them for destruction, because He predestinated them for destruction before their existence, but because they “replied against God” (Rom_9:18-22).

Lisco: The reason why Israel refuses to accept the gospel, and is rejected, is because they seek it—righteousness—before God, not of faith, but by doing the works prescribed in the law; and therefore they experience the judgment of falling against the stumbling-stone (Rom_9:32).

Heubner: No people or no man is so corrupt that God cannot call and save if they will only believe in the gospel, and become sensible of their guilt (Rom_9:30).—All the works on which man relies cannot save him, but rather hinder him (Luk_12:24). Therefore the paradox: It would be better for many if they were worse (Rom_9:32).—Offenee at Christ is culpable; it is one that is taken, and not given (Rom_9:33).

Besser: Luther (Works, vol. vii. p. 321) strikingly compares the law to the field in which Christ, the Treasure, is buried. The Jews had the field, and even tilled it with great pains, but they did not see the buried treasure; but the Gentiles, on the contrary, since they found Christ in the law, went for joy beyond the law, and sold every thing which they had, and bought the field with its treasure—that is, the law with Christ (Rom_9:30-31).

Lange: The forbearance and decision with which the Apostle expresses the strict judgment on Israel, is an example for us, when occasion occurs, to speak unpleasant truths.—The Apostle’s fidelity to the Israelites is conditioned by his fidelity to the Lord; or the duty and limits of patriotism.—Israel’s fall is an eternal admonition for churches, states, and nations.—The greater the glory of a community, the deeper is its fall.—Israel, which was once saved, is now judged in Christ its Head.—God’s freedom with respect to humanity: 1. How it is bound by institutions and promises; 2. Yet how it also remains free.—His freedom in His determinations: 1. In the determination of the personalities themselves; 2. Of their fate, and its effect; 3. Of their call to the kingdom.—The freedom and consistency of Divine sovereignty in the name Jehovah.—The antitheses: Israel and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. The judgment of hardening elucidated by Pharaoh’s history.—Judgments changed by the sovereignty of God himself to the glorification of His mercy.—God’s judgments are cut short by His wisdom and grace.—The importance of faith in antithesis to ordinances.—The twofold operation of the cornerstone.

[Lightfoot: Rom_9:3. We owe charity to every one because of his soul. If a soul, in its essential constitution, be not beautiful and lovely, what thing upon earth can be accounted beautiful and lovely? A soul that carries the image of God in its very constitution—that is like to the nature of angels in its essence and being—that is capable of divine nature and of eternal life and glory—if this be not lovely, what is? It is a great piece of wisdom to study souls, and to observe the nature, worth, price, and excellency, both of our own and other men’s; and there is not a more general and comprehensive cause of the ruin of souls, than men’s ignorance of and unacquaintance with their own souls. Shall I hate any man’s soul? It may be united to God. Hate any man’s body? It may be a temple of the Holy Ghost. Any man’s person? He may be an inheritor of eternal glory. Scorn not poor Joseph; for all his rags and imprisonment, he may come to sit upon a throne. Despise not poor Lazarus; for all his sores and tatters, he may be carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom.—Burkitt: Learn: 1. What the sincere believer shall not be ashamed of: a. He shall never be ashamed of his choice; b. Nor of his profession; c. Nor of the cause and interest of Christ, which He has owned and vindicated in the world; d. Nor of any time sincerely spent in the work and service of Christ; e. Nor of reproaches and sufferings, tribulations and persecutions, for the sake of Christ; f. Nor in eternity, that he never was ashamed here of Christ and His gospel, His work and service, His cause and interest. 2. When the believer shall not be ashamed: a. When he is called to bear testimony of Christ before the world, at the hour of death, or at the day of judgment; b. Nor the dreadfulness of the day, nor the majesty of the Judge, nor the number of the accusers, nor the impartiality of the sentence, nor the separation which shall then be made. 3. Why the believer shall never be ashamed: a. Sin, the cause of shame, is removed; b. Those only from whom he can reasonably fear shame, will never be ashamed of Him; c. He can look God and Christ, his own conscience and the whole world, in the face, without shame and suffering.—Henry: What does God do for the salvation of His children? He prepares them beforehand for glory. Sanctification is the preparation of the soul for glory, making it meet to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light. This is God’s work; we can destroy ourselves fast enough, but we cannot save ourselves; sinners fit themselves for hell, but it is God that prepares saints for heaven.—Waterland: There is a degree of pity and regard due even to very ill men, to ungodly, and sinners; not to be shown by caressing them and smiling upon them, but by earnest and ardent endeavors to reclaim them. There is not a more forlorn or miserable wretch under heaven than an overgrown sinner, become mad, desperate, and incurable in his sins. For though such persons regard neither God nor man, nor have any mercy or tenderness for friend or brother, but would go any lengths in mischief, and set the world on fire, if it lay in their power, yet we very well know, all the while, that they are weak and impotent, and are under bridle and restraint. The utmost they can do is only to afflict and torment good men for a time here, while they themselves lie exposed to eternal vengeance, to torments everlasting hereafter.—Doddridge: We know a descending, a risen Redeemer. He still visits us in His gospel, still preaches in our assemblies, and stretches out a gentle and compassionate hand to lead us in the way of happiness.—Where we see a zeal for God, let us pay all due regard to it, and compassionate that ignorance which may sometimes be mingled with it.—Scott: Modesty, caution, humility, and profound awe of the holy majesty of God, should restrain and guide the tongues and pens of all who speak or write on the great subjects connected with salvation, however satisfied such men may be with their own views of them; and every sentence which is written or spoken with impetuous injustice to God, is a proof of the pride and irreverence of the writer or speaker.—Hodge: Rom_9:15-19. It should be assumed as a first principle, that God cannot do wrong. If He does a thing, it must be right. And it is very much safer for us, corrupt and blinded mortals, thus to argue, than to pursue the opposite course, and maintain that God does not and cannot do so and so, because, in our judgment, it would be wrong.—J. F. H.]

Footnotes:

[1]Rom_9:3.—[Lange renders: Denn ich that ja (einst) das Gelübde, I once indeed made the vow to be, &c. For the full discussion of this interpretation, see Exeg. Notes. The English text has not been altered to correspond, since the common view of ηὐχόμην is upheld in the additions.—D. K. L. read εὐχόμην, which is generally rejected.

[2]Rom_9:3.—[The Rec. has this order: αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμαε ι̇͂ ναι (C. K. L.); but the preponderant authority (א. A. B. D. E. F. G.) favors: ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ (א., however, puts εἶναι first). So Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. This order, if it has any special force, probably emphasizes the fact, that he could wish himself accursed, rather than that he himself could wish it. Hence the Amer. Bible Union is unfortunate in placing myself after the first I. Noyes: I could wish to be myself accursed.

[3]Rom_9:4.—[B. D. E. F. G., Vulgate, and most fathers, read: ἡδιαθήκη, א. A. C. K.: αἰδιαθῆκαι, now adopted by most editors. The alteration to the singular probably arose from a misunderstanding of the meaning. The plural was referred to the Old and New Testaments; and as the latter was no advantage of the Jews, the singular was substituted (so Meyer).

[4]Rom_9:5.—[Lange considers God blessed forever, Amen, a synagogical form, to be put in quotation marks. His exegesis accords better with the E. V. than with Luther’s der da ist Gott über Alles, gelobet in Ewigkeit, Amen. On the disputed punctuation, see Exeg. Notes. Noyes, naturally, puts a period after Christ.

[5]Rom_9:6.—[See Exeg. Notes.

[6]Rom_9:6.—[The antitheses in Rom_9:6-8 cannot be preserved in the exact form of the Greek, except at the sacrifice of elegance and smoothness. Literally, the whole passage would be: For not all those of Israel, these (are) Israel: neither because they are the seed of Abraham, (are) all children, but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, not the children of the flesh, (are) these the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as seed.

[7]Ver 7.—[For convenient reference, the Hebrew text is appended. Gen_21:12 : בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְןָ זָרַע. The LXX. is quoted literally here by Paul, and it is an exact translation. The only question of accuracy which can arise, is respecting the force of בְ, whether it means through or in. See Exeg. Notes. Noyes: “Thy offspring shall be reckoned from Isaac.”

[8]Rom_9:9.—[This is freely quoted from the LXX., Gen_18:10; Gen_18:14. The LXX. reads ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲκατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σάῤῥα ἡ γυνή σου (Rom_9:10); but Rom_9:14 closes, καὶ ἔσται τῇ Σάῤῥα υἱός. The choice of this latter clause was probably for reasons of emphasis, to indicate that the promise was to Sarah (Alford), which is the main thought here. The Hebrew phrase כָּצֵת חַיָּה, when the time (shall be) reviviscent, occurring in both verses clearly implies what the LXX. expresses: at this season of the year. Comp. Gesenius, Thesaurus, i. p. 470, Knobel on Gen_18:10.

[9]Rom_9:10.—[Οὐ μόνον δέ. The passage is elliptical. On what should be supplied, see Exeg. Notes. As the case to be introduced is not strictly of the same kind as that of Sarah, but stronger, this is preferable to so (Alford, Amer. Bible Union); the former seems to imply the difference more clearly than the latter.

[10]Rom_9:11.—[The subject of the participles γεννηθέντω ν…π ραξάτων (genitives absolute) is not expressed, “according to well-known classical usage” (Meyer). It is readily supplied, for allusion has been made to the twins, and the history was well known. The rendering given above seems more satisfactory than that of the E. V. It is, in the main, that of Alford.

[11]Rom_9:11.—[Instead of κακόν (Rec., D. F. K. L., Wordsworth), φαῦλον is found in א. A. B. and cursives; adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. The former is the more usual word, in contrast with ἀγαθόν; hence, likely to be inserted. Evil and ill best express the slight difference, since φαῦλος, like ill, does does not always imply something immoral, and yet has the same wide range of meaning. It must have a moral signification here, however. (See Alford in loco.)

[12]Rom_9:12.—[Quoted literally from the LXX., Gen_25:23, except that ὅτι (recitative, sign of quotation) takes the place of καἱ. Instead of ἐῤ ῥήθη (Rec.), most MSS. have ἐῤ ῥέθη.

[13] Rom_9:13.—[From the LXX., Mal_1:2-3; the only variation is, the inversion of the first clause. It reads in the LXX.: ἠγάπησα τὸν Ἰσκώβ. The Hebrew text is:

וָ‍ֽאֹחִב אֶת־יַ‍ֽלֲקֹבI loved Jacob,וְאֶת־עֵשִׂו שָׂנֵאתִיBut Esau I hated.[14]Rom_9:15.—[An exact quotation from the LXX., Exo_33:19. The Hebrew of the original passage is ο importance in the exegesis. It reads: וְהַנּתִי אֶת־אֲשֶׁי אִחֹו זֻרִחַמְתּי ת־אֲשֶׁר אֲרַחֵם. Alford thinks ἄν, inserted in LXX., refers to pure mercy; Meyer, and many others, join it with ὅν; “whomsoever, in whatever state;” thus describing not merely the mercy, but the choice of its individual objects, as the free act of God; for the emphasis in the relative clause rests on the repeated ὅν ἄν, since ἄν generally has its position after the emphatic word (Kühner ii. § 457). We are certainly justified in making the relative clauses present instead of future; for the future force of the Hebrew verbs is doubtful, while the Greek verbs (both in LXX. and the text) are present. See Exeg. Notes.

[15]Rom_9:16.—[The Rec., B2. K., read ἐλεοῦντος (from ἐλεέω); א. A. B1. D. K. L. ἐλεῶντος (from ἐλεάω). The latter is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles; the former by Meyer and Wordsworth. Meyer urges that Paul would not use two forms, one here, and the other in Rom_9:18 (where the reading ἐλεεῖ is well established, only D1. F. G. having ἐλεᾷ), and concludes that ω was substituted for ου through a mistake of the transcriber, and thus readily preserved, since it corresponded with a form in actual use.

[16]Rom_9:17.—[Very freely quoted, especially this clause, from LXX., Exo_9:16 : ἕνεκεν τούτου διετρήθης, on this account thou wert preserved. ἐξή γειράσε is merely a strengthening of the LXX.; but ἐξή γειράσε seems to be a purposed deviation. The form of the Hebrew הֶ‍ֽעֱמַדְתּיןָ (Hiphil of עָמַד, to stand), I have caused thee to stand, is better preserved by Paul’s quotation. See Exeg. Notes, for discussion of the meaning of all three passages.

[17]Rom_9:17.—[Here Paul deviates from LXX., writing δύναμιν instead of ἰσχύν.

[18]Rom_9:19.—[There is some confusion about ου̇͂ν. B. D. F. insert it in both clauses; Rec., א. A. K. L. omit it the second time. All have it in the first clause, but the position varies. Rec., D. F. K. L. put it before μοι; א. A. B., Tregelles, after. The above rendering adopts it in both clauses.

[19]Rom_9:22.—[The participle θέλων is interpreted: since, because he was willing (i. e., purposed) or: although he was willing (not yet purposing). The latter is adopted by Lange: obschon (bereits) des Willens; Meyer, and others.—After what, supply: wilt thou reply? or something to that effect. See the Exeg. Notes on both points.

[20]Rom_9:23.—[It was necessary to supply this much in the text, in order to vindicate the view taken of this difficult passage. See Exeg. Notes.

[21]Rom_9:25.—[This is a free quotation from Hosea 2:25 (Hos_2:23, LXX. E. V.). The Hebrew text is followed more closely than the LXX.; the clauses are transposed, &c. It is not necessary to insert the LXX. text here, as it differs in almost every word, though containing the same general thought: וְרִ‍ֽחַמְתִּי אֶת־לאֹ רֻחָמָה וְאָ‍ֽמַרְתִי לְלאֹ־עַמִּי עַמִּי־אַתָּה In rendering Lo-ruhamoh, Paul follows the LXX.

[22]Rom_9:26.—[From the LXX., Hos_1:10 (2:1, Hebrew), closely connected with the preceding, as if from the same place, according to the usage of the Rabbins, who thus joined citations even from different authors. The only variation from the LXX. is the strengthening of κληθήσονται καί into ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται. The E. V., Hos_1:10, supplies there.

[23]Rom_9:27.—[Isa_10:22. Paul follows the LXX., which roads: καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται. The variation from the Hebrew is slight; יָשׁוּב, shall return, is strengthened by the LXX. into σωθήσεται, which, of course, means still more as Paul uses it. א1. A. B., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, Lange, read ὑπόλειμμα; the more probable reading, as the LXX. differs. It is a stronger word, apparently.

[24] Rom_9:28.—[The variations from the Hebrew are so extensive, that it will be best to give the text entire:

כִּלָּיוֹן חָרוּץ שׁוֹטֵף צְדָקָה ׃

כִּי כָלָה וְנֶֽחֱרָצָה אֲדנָי יֱהוִֹה צִבָאוֹת עשָֹׁה ׃

בְקֶרֶב כָּל־הָאָרֶץ

“The consumption is decided, overflowing with righteousness;

For a consumption and a decree shall the Lord of Hosts make,

In the midst of all the land.”

See Exeg. Notes for other renderings, and also for text of the LXX., which Paul quotes closely; inserting γάρ at the beginning, however, as better continuing the proof, and substituting ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς for ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένη ὃλῃ.

[25]Rom_9:28.—[The E. V. is unfortunate in rendering λόγον, work. (So Amer. Bible Union.) The word has a wide range of meaning, but this is not included. Lange: Abrechnungsspruch, word of reckoning. See Exeg. Notes.

[26]Rom_9:28.—[The words: ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ· ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον, are wanting in א1. A. B., rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles; bracketted by Alford, but retained by most editors on the authority of א2. D. F. K. L. The suspicion of an addition from the text of the LXX. is outweighed by the probability of the transcriber’s confusing συντετμ. with the συντέμνων.

[27]Rom_9:29—[A verbatim citation from the LXX., Isa_1:9, where the Hebrew שָׂרִיד is rendered σπέρμα.

[28]Rom_9:31.—[The Rec. (followed by the E. V.) repeats δικαιοσύνης (א3. F. K. L.). De Wette, Tholuck, and Meyer contend that the omission would be senseless; see, to the contrary, Exeg. Notes. The omission is sustained by א1. A. B. D. G., Lachmann, Alford, Wordsworth, Lange, Tregelles. Dr. Hodge does not notice any of the variations in these verses.

[29]Rom_9:32.—[The authorities for νόμου (Rec.) are א3. D. K. L., a number of versions. It is omitted, however, in א1. A. B. F., by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Lange, Tregelles, Wordsworth. Alford prefers to omit, but does not deem the evidence sufficiently strong to decide. The word would readily be inserted as an explanation.

[30]Rom_9:32.—[Lange prefers to retain γάρ (Rec.), mainly on the ground that it must be supplied in thought, even if rejected. It is found in א3. D3. K. L., many versions and fathers; retained by Tischendorf, Wordsworth, Lange. It is omitted in א1. A. B. D1. F., some cursives, &c. Lachmann, Meyer (with decision), Alford, Tregelles, reject it. If omitted, the period also must be omitted, and the verse be rendered, as by Alford: “Because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as by works, they stumbled, &c.

[31]Rom_9:33.—[Paul here combines Isa_28:16; Isa_8:14 in one, varying, to suit his purpose, both from the Hebrew text and the LXX. There is no variation in thought, except that the Apostle gives it as his exegesis, that the “stone of stumbling” of the one passage is the “corner-stone elect,” &c., of the other. Comp. 1Pe_2:6-8.

[32]Rom_9:33.—[The Rec. inserts πᾶς, on the authority of K. L., versions and fathers. It is omitted in א. A. B. D. F., by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer (4th ed.; Lange quotes him as retaining it), Alford, Wordsworth, Lange, Tregelles. It does not occur in the LXX., but, in Rom_10:11, no MS. omits it. The probability is, that it was inserted here to conform to that passage. Lange suggests that the emphasis upon πᾶς, were it retained, would weaken that upon πιστεύων.—R.]

[33][His theme, as announced in Rom_1:16-17, necessarily led him to such an inquiry. It concludes: “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Having discussed the great truth of “the righteousness of faith,” he must justify this additional clause, which seems to be incorrect, in view of the present exclusion of the Jews. So Philippi, and others.—R.]

[34][“In Christ,” i. e., in fellowship with Christ, who is Truth itself, and transfers His members, at all events, into the element of truth and sincerity (comp. 2Co_12:19).—P. S.]

[35][Under (1) belongs an interpretation, suggested by the venerable S. H. Cox, D. D., taking the verse as a parenthetical explanation of Paul’s sorrow, in this sense: “for I myself once gloried as a persecutor to be banished from Christ.” Besides the objections against the past sense as given above, it may be added, that this puts myself in the wrong place (see Textual Note2); that, while εὔχομαι has this meaning: to boast, to glory, in Homer, yet even there it is often little more than to profess, maintain, while in the New Testament it does not occur in this sense. The probabilities, both lexical and grammatical, are very strong, therefore, against such a meaning here.—R.]

[36][“Respecting excommunication among the Jews, comp. especially Selden, De jure nat. et gent., 4, 8, De Synedr., 1:7 and 8; Gildemeister, Blendwerke des vulgären Rationalismus zur Beseitigung des paulinischen Anathema, 1841, and Beiträge zum Bremischen Magazine, 1842; Ewald, Allenthümer des Volks Israel, S. 81 ff.; respecting the Greek ἀναθεμα, Fritzsche on Rom_9:3; also Tholuck on Rom_9:3; and on the general subject, Winer,. Realwörterbuch under Bann.”—R.]

[37][“Morus even assumes a wider signification of ἀναθεμαἕστω: tangat eum malum, pœna, male ei sit, non definito nunc morte plectendus, an excommunicandus an alio modo damnandus. For this imaginary signification he appeals to Gal_5:10, where it is said of the same false teacher: judicium ferel—i. e., ‘He will soon find his reward.’ Burger, who wavers between this explanation and that of Grotius and Semler, thinks that Paul in both cases meant: talem hominem perquam esse scelestum atque adeo puniendum, non vero indicare, quanam sit pœna plectendus. We see, in the case of the ἀνάθεμα, how thoroughly the unscientific exegesis of all times and all places is dependent on all the wishes and prejudices of the individual.”—R.]

[38][The Epistle to the Romans was written but a year or two afterwards. See Introd., pp. 14, 40.—R.]

[39][“If Paul, by the ἐξάπατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐζ ὐμῶν αὐτῶν, 1Co_5:13, with which he enjoins the excommunication of the incestuous person—comp. 1Co_5:2—alludes, as is commonly assumed, to the technical expression of Deuteronomy: יִבִעַרְתָ הָרַע מִקִּרְכֵּןָ, and the translation of it in the LXX.; Deu_17:7; Deu_21:22 et. al., this term must, at the time of Paul, have been already understood among the Jews not of the death penalty, but of excommunication; comp. Winer, Bibl. Realwörterbuch, under Lebensstrafe, ii. p. 12.”—R.]

[40][So Hodge, who, while advocating the common interpretation, would make the meaning very general, and the words express not “definite ideas,” but “strong and indistinct emotions.”—R.]

[41][There seems to be some abstract ground for this distinction. The first, separation from Christ’s holy will, is opposed to love to Christ and striving after sanctification; it is godless, and, of course, excluded here. The second, separation from the enjoyment of Christ, is not in itself immoral, yet can, indeed, be distinguished from the first only abstractly and in thought, being also impossible, at least in permanency. For holiness and blessedness are inseparable, and it is the will of Christ that we become blessed through fellowship with Him.—P. S.]

[42]

[Compare Madame Guion (died 1717):

“I consent that thou depart,

Though thine absence breaks my heart,

Go, then, and forever, too;

All is right that thou wilt do.”

“My last, least offering, I present thee now—

Renounce me, leave me, and be still adored!

Slay me, my God, and I applaud the blow.”

Cowper’s Translation.

The doctrine of disinterested affection has been supported in America by Samuel Hopkins, D.D., and his system is commonly called Hopkinsianism. He holds that self-love, which cannot be distinguished from selfishness in his view, “is the root and essence of all sin;” that holiness consists in disinterested benevolence. He makes the possession of this benevolence a test of religion and religious exercises, and says, that though a benevolent person “could know that God designed, for His own glory and the general good, to cast him into endless destruction, this would not make him cease to approve of His character; he would continue to be a friend of God, and to be pleased with His moral perfections.” (System of Doctrines, 2d ed., Boston, 1811, i. p. 479.) But he puts certain limitations respecting proper personal interest, and nowhere implies that one must reach this point of experience in order to be converted. The current opinion of his view is, that he teaches: “a man must be willing to be damned, in order to be saved”—a logical sequence which he does not affirm. Nor does he quote this passage, which would seem to favor his position. It is probable that he, too, would admit the impossibility of such a wish being granted, and claim no other meaning for this passage than that which many of the most judicious commentators adopt, and which is the most literal and obvious one. It may well be held that Paul reached such a pitch of feeling as this, without insisting that this is the constant and conscious state of the Christian heart.—R.]

[43][This obviates one difficulty, urged by Dr. Hodge, against the sense I wished: “No Jew would express his hatred of Christ and his indifference to the favors which He offered, by saying he wished himself accursed from Christ.” But it makes the grammatical difficulty still greater. An imperfect is made to do service not only as an aorist, but in a sense very unusual; while what is closely joined with it—viz., the purport of the wish or vow—derives its significance from the present standpoint. Extremely doubtful, to say the least!—R.]

[44]In the discussions on this subject, a second meaning of ἀπό has not been taken into consideration: ἀπὸ πατρός, on the paternal side, &c.

[45][Comp. a learned essay by Hermann Schultz (Professor in Basle): Rom_9:5, in exegetischer und biblisch-theologiseher Beziehung, erklärt, in the Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie for 1868, pp. 462–506, and the older exegetical literature on this passage, there cited against the interpretation of the Socinians and Semler. Schultz refers the doxology to Christ, yet not to the preëxistent, but the theanthropic, glorified Christ, to what He now is. This is the highest glory of Israel, that He who is exalted above all things was born of it. This essay is exhaustive and convincing in its defence of the received punctuation. It closes, however, with some speculations, which imply a discrepancy between the simple Gospel narratives and the more profound christological positions of the Epistles (and the Gospel of John).—R.]

[46][Stuart, and others, deny the highest spiritual sense to the phrase “children of God,” limiting it to “children of promise in respect to the external privileges and blessings of the ancient covenant or dispensation.” In itself there would be no objection to this view, but Paul had already written Gal_4:22-31, where these phrases receive a deeper meaning (see Lange’s Comm. Gal., pp. 113 ff., 120 ff.). Besides, if this were all, it would not differ from the idea already suggested in Rom_9:6-7 (Hodge). We must hold then to a typical sense at least, and find, in “reckoned,” the guard against the assumption of spiritual privilege from natural descent.—R.]

[47][Stuart suggests the interpretation: “as at life-giving time.; in which case the meaning would be, that God would again address her as a mother, who gives life to—i. e., bears, children.” But there seems to be no reason for departing from the simple rendering of the LXX. quoted by Paul.—R.]

[48][It must be noticed that this expression contains an incidental argument against the Platonic and Origenistic doctrine of the preëxistence of souls, and their exile into this world in consequence of a previous fall. This theory, revived again and again, is as unsatisfactory as it is unscriptural, but must be considered one of the many attempts to solve the enigma which this chapter confronts. Clearly, then, Paul rejects this solution.—R.]

[49][Meyer: “Not οὕπω, because the negative relation is to be expressed subjectively—i. e., as presented and considered by God in the giving of His sentence.” See Winer, p. 441.—R.]

[50][Subsequent conquests of the Edomites are mentioned; 2Ki_8:21; 2Ki_14:7; 2Ki_14:22; 2Ch_25:11; 2Ch_26:2. They were finally conquered by John Hyrcanus, and incorporated into the Jewish nation.—R.]

[51][It cannot be denied that hate, in the Scripture, does not always describe positive abhorrence, but occasionally a less degree, or, more accurately, the absence of love; e. g., Gen_29:31 (where the original text says: “Leah was hated” by Jacob—i. e., less loved than Rachel; comp. Rom_9:30); Mat_6:24, and especially Luk_14:24; compared with Mat_10:37, where one evangelist says hateth no, and the other, loveth more. The word undoubtedly, even in these passages, taken exactly, describes not merely an absence of love, but a formal putting into the background.—P. S.]

[52][This is an allusion to the strictly literal and grammatical method of exegesis adopted by Meyer. But if we depart from the letter, who is to be the discerner of the spirit? There are but two answers: that of Rome (ecclesiastical authority), and that of Rationalism (individual human consciousness). The strict interpretation of Meyer is adopted by Fritzsche, De Wette, and others. Unquestionably the dealings of God with Esau indicate something positive, though, were it but the deprivation of love, the results of evil-doing would still account for the historical facts.—R.]

[53][Dr. Hodge considers this paragraph the statement and answer of the first objection arising against the doctrine that God is sovereign in the distribution of His favors, and that the ground of His selecting one and rejecting another is not their works, but His own good pleasure. A second objection, he thinks, is stated in Rom_9:19. So Meyer, Schaff, and most.—R.]

[54][Hodge: “It will be remarked that these arguments of the Apostle are founded on two assumptions. The first is, that the Scriptures are the Word of God; and the second, that what God actually does cannot be unrighteous.”—R.]

[55][On the distinction between ἐλεῶ and οἰκείρω, Meyer remarks: “The distinction between these two words is not to be thus denned, with Tittmann, Synon., p. 69 f., that ἐλ. describes the active mercy, and οἰκτ. the sympathetic compassion; but rather, that the same notion of misereri is expressed more strongly by οἰκκτ. The latter is originally the bewailing sympathy, contrasted with μακαριζειν (Xen. Anab., 3, 1, 19).”—R.]

[56][This is the interpretation of Watson, and many Arminian commentators. But it is not necessary to oppose a view so far-fetched, and forming such an anti-climax!—R.]

[57][Olshausen: “The Apostle now introduces anew the unwise inquirer of Rom_9:14, in order to find an apology for himself in this operation of God, even in the forms of evil. St. Paul abashes this arrogance with an appeal to the absolute character of God, with respect to whose ways the creature must render an unconditioned submission, even where he is not able to comprehend them.”—R.]

[58][This avoids, but does not meet, the difficulty. For it simply transfers to God’s doings a distinction which in reality belongs only to our state of partial knowledge. With us, dealing with classes is often a mere convenience for avoiding the dealing with individuals. God’s dealing with men always implies His thorough and minute as, well as His comprehensive mode of action.—R.]

[59][It is more of an echo than a citation; hence there cannot be much stress laid upon the context in Isaiah 39 Certainly Paul, who is one of the freest generalizers from the Scripture texts he refers to, must not be limited here, where he has introduced such a variety of persons into his discussion.—R.]

[60]Rom_9:22.—[The participle θέλων is interpreted: since, because he was willing (i. e., purposed) or: although he was willing (not yet purposing). The latter is adopted by Lange: obschon (bereits) des Willens; Meyer, and others.—After what, supply: wilt thou reply? or something to that effect. See the Exeg. Notes on both points.

[61][τὸ δυβατὸ ναὐτοῦ, what was possible for Him, what He was in a condition to do. Comp. Rom_8:3; Meyer.—R.]

[62][The more general reference is to be preferred, and, in any case, it is implied; for all ante-Christian history must be viewed as long-suffering forbearance in preparation for the great revelation of mercy. Comp. all the more modern conceptions of ancient history.—R.]

[63] [Alford agrees substantially with this view, but prefers to supply: “what if this took place,” this δν θέλελ ἐλεεῖ. So Ewald. Dr. Hodge joins the clause with θελων, or rather supplies θέλων, which is not only objectionable on the grounds he states himself, but untenable, if the sense be: although willing. Stuart takes a somewhat different view of the syntax of the passage, and paraphrases the whole: “If God, in order that He might exhibit His primitive justice and sovereign power, endures with much long-suffering the wickedness of the impenitent and rebellious who are worthy of His divine indignation; and if He has determined to exhibit His rich grace toward the subjects of His mercy whom He has prepared for glory, even toward us whom He has called, Gentiles as well as Jews; who art thou,” &c. This gives too strong a meaning to θέλων, and is not so justifiable grammatically as the view of Meyer and Lange.—R.]

[64][Stuart and Alford adop the stronger view as inherent “in any consistent belief of an omnipotent and omniscient God;” Dr. Hodge gives both, without definitely accepting either. Schaff deems the stronger view the more natural one, but guards it, as must be done, against supra-lapsarianism, &c. But the differences noted by Dr. Lange must be carefully kept in view, as themselves, guarding against erroneous inferences.—R.]

[65]

[“Das eben ist der Fiuch der bosen That

Das sie, fortzeugend, immer Böses muss gebären.”

This quotation, almost a proverb in German literature, is from Schiller, Die, Piccolomini. V. Aufg., 1 Auftr. Coleridge, who has taken some liberties in arrangement, puts it in Act iii. Scene 1.—R.]

[66][The advantage of a general reference throughout the passage is apparent here. The making known is something which occurs not once, but throughout the whole gospel dispensation, as Rom_9:24 requires.—R.]

[67]The reference is undoubtedly to the symbolical names given by the prophet to a son and daughter (Rom_1:6; Rom_1:9): Lo-Ammi (not my people) and Lo-Ruhamah (not having obtained mercy). In order of birth the latter stands first, as well as in the passage cited. This is natural, as visible deprivation of mercy precedes visible rejection as a people. The Apostle inverts the order, however, perhaps because the prominent thought for his purpose was: not my people, &c.—R.]

[68]Rom_9:25.—[This is a free quotation from Hosea 2:25 (Hos_2:23, LXX. E. V.). The Hebrew text is followed more closely than the LXX.; the clauses are transposed, &c. It is not necessary to insert the LXX. text here, as it differs in almost every word, though containing the same general thought: וְרִ‍ֽחַמְתִּי אֶת־לאֹ רֻחָמָה וְאָ‍ֽמַרְתִי לְלאֹ־עַמִּי עַמִּי־אַתָּה In rendering Lo-ruhamoh, Paul follows the LXX.

[69][Dr. Hodge makes of Rom_9:25-33 a distinct section, in which the Apostle confirms the position of the preceding section (the freedom of God in selecting the objects of His mercy) by declarations of the Old Testament (1) Rom_9:25-26. Aliens were to be included in the kingdom of God; (2) Only a small portion of the Israelites should attain to those blessings; Rom_9:27-29; hence the Gentiles are called, and the Jews as Jews rejected; Rom_9:30-31. The reason of their rejection was refusal to submit to gospel terms of salvation; Rom_9:32. As predicted, they were offended at their Messiah; Rom_9:33.—R.]

[70]Rom_9:3.—[The Rec. has this order: αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμαε ι̇͂ ναι (C. K. L.); but the preponderant authority (א. A. B. D. E. F. G.) favors: ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ (א., however, puts εἶναι first). So Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. This order, if it has any special force, probably emphasizes the fact, that he could wish himself accursed, rather than that he himself could wish it. Hence the Amer. Bible Union is unfortunate in placing myself after the first I. Noyes: I could wish to be myself accursed.

[71][So Hodge, Stuart, substantially. For a discussion of Paul’s analogical use of Old Testament events and citations, the reader is referred to Lange’s Comm. Gal. pp. 113 ff., 120 ff.—R.]

[72][Yet the emphasis, as will appear from the notes on Rom_9:27, is not upon the salvation of the remnant, but upon the fact that only a remnant will be saved. Nor does the remoter context favor such a mitigated view. It is not in accordance with the passage cited from Hosea, nor with Rom_9:24, still less with Rom_9:30-33.—R.]

[73] [Alford seems to include both promise and threatening in λόγος, and makes the object of the citation a confirmation of “the certainty of the salvation of the remnant of Israel, seeing that now, as then, He, with whom a thousand years are as a day, will swiftly accomplish His prophetic word in righteousness.”

As a curious specimen of interpretation, that of Wordsworth is appended: “There seems to be here in the mind of the prophet a contrast between the paucity of the numbers to which the Israelites are to be reduced, and the abundance of righteousness vouchsafed to them. The quantity will be small, but the quality will be good. The LXX. gives a paraphrase (not a literal translation) which embodies this sense, and which is adopted by the Apostle.

“The word λόγος, as used by them, appears to signify an account or reckoning, and, derivatively, a sum or catalogue of people. The sense, therefore, is: ‘Summing up and cutting short the reckoning.’ The λογος is the ac count or muster-roll of the people. The census of the Israelites will be cut short to a small number, but the smallness of the number will be amply compensated by the righteousness with which God will endue it by virtue of its faith in Christ.” A method of exegesis like this compensates for the discovery of so many things not in the text, by omitting so much that is there.—R.]

[74][“Denn es wird ein Verderben und Steuren geschehen zur Gerechtigkeit, und der Herr wird dasselbige Sleuren thun auf Erden.”—R.]

[75]Rom_9:28.—[The words: ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ· ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον, are wanting in א1. A. B., rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles; bracketted by Alford, but retained by most editors on the authority of א2. D. F. K. L. The suspicion of an addition from the text of the LXX. is outweighed by the probability of the transcriber’s confusing συντετμ. with the συντέμνων.

[76][Dr. Dreschler remarks on Isa_1:9 (Der Prophet Jesaja, i. p. 84): “The prophet with a few ground-strokes gathers up the whole future of the people of Israel. He announces a period of judgment as an unavoidable passage-way; then, again, a time of salvation. But the period of judgment comprehends in itself all the judgments then standing without as yet: every visitation, of which history from that time on knows aught, is a proof of this word of prophecy, a fulfilment of it. … Just so is the period of salvation conceived as the sum-total of all fulfilment in general, since the complete realization of all God’s promises will bring what will still all the longing and the thirsting of the human heart from thenceforth and forever.”—P. S.]

[77][The rescued Israelites are called, Isa_6:13 (comp. Ezr_9:2), “a holy seed,” because out of them, as a small beginning, at the same time the nation shall rejuvenate itself, and the true spiritual Israel shall proceed. The Jewish Christians, who escaped the terrible judgment of God upon the mass of the unhappy nation at the destruction of Jerusalem, formed the pith of the Christian Church.—P. S.]

[78][Alford answers thus: “This question, when followed by a question, implies, of course, a rejection of the thought thus suggested; bat when, as here, by an assertion, introduces a further unfolding of the argument from what has preceded.” What follows is not a question. See below.—R.]

[79][It seems best (with Meyer) to consider righteousness as used, in this part of our verse, without special reference to the Christian standpoint. Dr. Hodge really advocates this view, but is hampered in reaching it by the limited meaning he places upon the word as used by Paul. Stuart renders δικ., justification in each case, which is altogether untenable. See p. 74 ff., &c.—R.]

[80][See Rom_9:23. It is doubtful whether such preparation as is there referred to, includes, in any sense, the propædeulic relation of the Gentile world to Christianity, however extensive that relation was.—R.]

[81][On this thought, see especially Griechenthum und Christenthum, by Dr. G. C. Seibert, 1857, referred to in the General Introd. Matthew, p. 6. The author is now a pastor in Newark, N. J.—R.]

[82]Rom_9:31.—[The Rec. (followed by the E. V.) repeats δικαιοσύνης (א3. F. K. L.). De Wette, Tholuck, and Meyer contend that the omission would be senseless; see, to the contrary, Exeg. Notes. The omission is sustained by א1. A. B. D. G., Lachmann, Alford, Wordsworth, Lange, Tregelles. Dr. Hodge does not notice any of the variations in these verses.

[83][Dr. Hodge seems to prefer the following view: “The word law may be redundant, and Paul may mean to say nothing more than that ‘the Jews sought righteousness, or justification, but did not attain it.’ This, no doubt, is the substance, though it may not be the precise form of the thought.” This is but avoiding an interpretation, and in a way which the learned commentator would deem unjustifiable if applied to less sacred forms than those written by an Apostle.—R.]

[84][Alford agrees substantially with this view. In the case of the Jews, “there was a prescribed norm of apparent righteousness, viz., the law, in which rule and way they, as matter of fact, followed after it.”—R.]

[85]Rom_9:32.—[The authorities for νόμου (Rec.) are א3. D. K. L., a number of versions. It is omitted, however, in א1. A. B. F., by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Lange, Tregelles, Wordsworth. Alford prefers to omit, but does not deem the evidence sufficiently strong to decide. The word would readily be inserted as an explanation.

[86][The word as transfers the matter to the sphere of subjective fancy, and expresses this: that the Jews imagined they were doing the works of the law, but did not really-do them, according to the deeper sense and spirit in which the law should be apprehended. Comp. Isa_58:2; Php_3:9.—P. S.]

[87]Rom_9:23.—[It was necessary to supply this much in the text, in order to vindicate the view taken of this difficult passage. See Exeg. Notes.

[88] [Forbes thus lays down the fundamental truths on this difficult subject:

“All good originates from God.

All evil originates from the creature.

Election originates in the free grace of God.

Reprobation originates in the free-will of man.

To God belongs the whole glory of the salvation of the Elect.

To man belongs the whole responsibility of the ruin of the Reprobate.”

See his Dissertation, pp. 380–475.

That these positions are not reconcilable by human logic, is evident from the discussions on the subject; but this cannot, of itself, disprove their truth. It is the old and ever-recurring mystery of the origin of evil. Forbes seeks to prove that these positions are compatible with the doctrine] statements of the Westminster Assembly. Those who wish the sharpest predestinarian views, may find them in Haldane’s notes on this chapter. The Synod of Dort, which is considered by many the representative of hyper-Calvinism, only goes thus far in speaking of the reprobates: “Whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but permitting them, in His just judgment, to follow their own way, at last for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger” (Canon i., Art. xv.). This is as far as any ought to go, but it is by no means a reconciliation of the two sides of revealed truth, or an attempt at it.—R.]

[89][A few scholia may be added here: 1. The relation of scientific theology to revealed truth, is that of science in general to the truth it seeks to systematize. Hence theology has unsolved problems, and these furnish the stimulus to further investigation. 2. Theology is not to be considered untrustworthy in its settlement of great questions, because some remain unsolved, nor can the failure of its attempts at solution invalidate either the positions already won, or the separate truths which it has not yet reduced to a system. 3. The modesty of true science has a place in theological discussion. If theologians claim that their attempt at the solution of such a problem as that presented in this chapter is the only one that should be made, the objector may feel that, in successfully opposing that view, he has overthrown the truth itself. 4. This problem is one that is ontological as well as theological, and hence cannot be escaped by rejecting revelation. Atheism avoids it solely by negation, pantheism by opposing the testimony of our own consciousness. Whoever believes in a personal God and his own personality, is confronted with it. The safer position for a child of God to take is that which leaves the difficulty where the greatest glory is ascribed to God. History shows that those who thus once were not the least concerned to live under the fullest sense of their accountability. The Christian life is thus far the only solution of this great problem; a mystery which is practically reconciled only by one yet greater, the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh.—R.]

[90][Fritzsche, ii. p. 550: “Melius sibi Paulus consensisset, si Aristotelis, non Gamalielis alumnus fuisset.’“ (!!)—R.]

[91][Still less in modern materialism, where what is (probably from habit) called free civilization is attributed mainly to climate and food, especially fish. Compare current literature ad nauseam.—R.]

[92][A reference to the Exeg. Notes will show how Dr. Lange finds this mitigating idea of long-suffering throughout the chapter. Admitting the correctness of his exegesis (which many will not be prepared to do), it is still doubtful, whether his explanation of the enigmatical question in hand is any more satisfactory than that of Meyer.—R.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

II. DISPENSATIONAL.

GOD’S DEALINGS WITH ISRAEL.

Chapters 9-11.

1. Israel and God’s Sovereignty.

CHAPTER 9

1. Paul’s Yearning over Israel. (Rom 9:1-3.)

2. What Israel Possesseth. (Rom 9:4-5.)

3. God’s Unconditional Election. (Rom 9:6-13.)

4. God’s Sovereignty. The Vindication of His Justice and Mercy. (Rom 9:14-26.)

5. Mercy for the Remnant. (Rom 9:27-29.)

6. Israel’s Rejection of God’s Righteousness. (Rom 9:30-33.)

This second division brings before us Israel and shows that the principles of the Gospel, as unfolded in the first eight chapters are in harmony with God’s ways with Israel. Jews and Gentiles, those who have the law and those who had no law, were proved guilty before God. All have sinned and are equally lost. Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. The same God justifies the circumcision by faith, and also the uncircumcision. Jews were thus brought upon the same level with the Gentiles. There is no difference. Grace goes forth alike to Jews and Gentiles who believe. But this fact raises a most important question. How can all this be reconciled with the promises made in a special manner to the Jews? How can the principles be harmonized with God’s faithfulness? Has God gone back on His Word and covenants? Hath God cast away His people? The answer to these questions and the demonstration that God is just and faithful in all His dealings with Jews and Gentiles is given in these three chapters.

Godet states that the problem “how can God set aside those He elected,” is answered in three ways:

1. God preserves His entire liberty (9).

2. He shows that Israel’s sin is the true explanation (10).

3. God vindicates His action by foretelling future consequences (11).

Rom 9:1-3

Paul speaks of himself in each of these three chapters. Knowing that they rejected the salvation of God, he yearns and sorrows over his kinsmen. In the next chapter he expresses his heart’s desire and prayer for their salvation, and in the eleventh chapter he mentions himself as an evidence that God has not cast away His people. The Jews, because he preached salvation to the Gentiles, looked upon him as an enemy of their nation and as a traitor. “Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always, for the wrath is come upon them to the uppermost.” Thus he wrote to the Thessalonians (1Th 2:16). In Jerusalem the Jewish mob cried, “Away with such a fellow from the earth.” They hated him, but he loved his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh. It was this mighty love which burned in his soul, which constrained him to go up to Jerusalem, in spite of the warnings given by the Holy Spirit. So intense was his yearnings for them that he had wished to be cut off from Christ for them, if that were possible. He was like Moses, when he prayed, “If Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book, which thou hast written” (Exo 32:32).

Rom 9:4-5

And what is this people in the purpose of God? What are their possessions and privileges? It is the most favored nation on the earth. “What nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon Him for?” (Deu 4:7). The adoption is theirs, as His family on earth, destined for earthly blessings (Amo 3:2). And God had said, “I am a Father to Israel “ and “ Israel is my son, my Firstborn.” They had the Glory. In visible glory Jehovah dwelt in their midst. While absent now, the promise is, that in the future day of their restoration, that glory will return with the coming of the Lord (Isa 4:1-6; Eze 43:4). Theirs are also the covenants; they were made with the nation; and the giving of the law. Furthermore, theirs is the service of God, that divinely instituted levitical ritual, so full of blessed and prophetic meaning. All other rituals are unauthorized counterfeits. They also have the promises. “Whose are the fathers, and of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ came, He, who is God over all blessed forever. Amen.” (More than once the attempt has been made to change those wonderful words, bearing testimony to the Deity of our Lord. The revised version, in its marginal reading, is one of the latest attempts to rob our Lord of this great and true tribute.) And all these great things belong to Israel. They still belong to them. When the time of their national conversion and restoration comes, all these things will be manifested in their fulness, even to a restored, glorious service in the millennial temple (Eze 40:1-49; Eze 41:1-26; Eze 42:1-20; Eze 43:1-27; Eze 44:1-31; Eze 45:1-25; Eze 46:1-24; Eze 47:1-23). And these statements show that the Apostle to the Gentiles did not despise the nation Israel and its privileges.

Rom 9:6-13

Now if the nation as such had failed, as we find later, on account of unbelief, and they were rejected for the present, the Word of God had not failed on that account. If God had called the Gentiles and they received now the blessing of righteousness, it does not mean that the Word of God has come to naught. God’s purpose concerning Israel cannot fail. But they prided themselves that they were of the seed of Abraham and therefore exclusively entitled to the promises. “We have Abraham to our father” (Luk 3:8), was their boast, and the Lord had told them “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (Joh 8:39). They forgot in their blind antagonism to the Gospel that the Scriptures showed that blessing had its source with the choice of God, that blessing is the result of elective mercy and the title to it must be of faith. Divine election is the only ground of blessing. They are not all Israel, which are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. If such were the case, then the children of the flesh, Ishmael and his offspring, were on the same ground with them. There was a promise made “At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.” In that promised son, in Isaac alone, the seed was called, therefore the children of the promise are counted for the seed. This showed that they had no right to expect Divine blessing simply on the ground of natural descent. And in the choice of Isaac, God’s sovereignty and election is seen. They might therefore be Abraham’s seed and yet not be Abraham’s children; only those that are of faith are the children of Abraham (Gal 3:7). The case of Jacob and Esau is next cited. Rebecca was their mother. Before the children were even born, and therefore had done neither good nor evil, to merit anything, it was said unto her, “the elder shall serve the younger.” It was so ordered “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.” If they claim and expect blessing merely on the ground of natural descent, then the descendants of Esau, the Edomites, must be admitted to the same blessings with them.* This they would not admit. Inasmuch as all rests upon God’s unconditional election, their objections to the blessing of the Gentiles through the Gospel, God dealing with them in grace, were disproved by their own history. (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” The love for Jacob was unmerited. “Esau have I hated” stands written at the close of the Old Testament, after the continued wickedness of Edom had been fully demonstrated and merited God’s indignation.)

Rom 9:14-26

God can choose whom He will. This is His sovereignty. Is then God unrighteous in doing this? God forbid. Two examples of God’s sovereignty in mercy and in judgment are given. Had God dealt with Israel according to His righteousness, they would have been cut off. Then the sovereignty of God was displayed and Israel was spared. All rests upon that sovereign mercy--”So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” And Pharaoh illustrates God’s sovereignty in judgment. Pharaoh was a wicked, God-hating man. God had shown him mercy, but he hardened his heart and defied the Lord. In arrogant pride he said, “Who is Jehovah that I should obey Him? I know not Jehovah.” Then He hardened his heart and made him a monument of His wrath. “Both were wicked-- Israel and Pharaoh. Righteousness would have condemned both. He has mercy on one, and hardens the other. He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens, when simple righteousness would have condemned both. This is sovereignty. He proves Himself not merely righteous (the day of judgment will prove that), but proves Himself God.” But man, the creature of the dust, replies to God and brings his finite thoughts to judge God. The questions in Rom 9:19 are severely rebuked. What is man that he should speak to his Creator! The thing formed speaks to Him that formed it. “Why hast Thou made us thus?” The potter can take a lump of clay and form out of it two vessels, one unto honor and another unto dishonor. It is his right. God can do this according to His sovereign will, and none can say, What doest Thou? However, while this is God’s right, that He can do so, if He chooses to do it, there is nothing said, that He has done so. “God’s sovereignty is the first of all rights, the foundation of all rights, the foundation of all morality. If God is not God, what will He be? The root of the question is this; is God to judge man, or man God? God can do whatsoever He pleases. He is not the object for judgment. Such is His title: but when in fact the apostle presents the two cases, wrath and grace, he puts the case of God showing long suffering towards one already fitted for wrath, in order to give at last an example to men of His wrath in the execution of His justice; and then of God displaying His glory in vessels of mercy whom He has prepared for glory. There are then these three points established with marvelous exactitude; the power to do all things, no one having the right to say a word; wonderful endurance with the wicked, in whom at length His wrath is manifested; demonstration of His glory in vessels, whom He has Himself prepared by mercy for glory, and whom He has called, whether from among the Jews or Gentiles, according to the declaration of Hosea.” (Synopsis by J.N.D.) The objections which were raised against God’s dealings in race with Gentiles are completely met and answered. He calls whom He will and calling the Gentiles and showing them mercy has not cancelled the promises made to Israel.

Rom 9:27-29

Now while Grace goes forth to the Gentiles, mercy is also in store for Israel. Ultimately a remnant will be saved--not the whole nation, but a remnant. It refers us to a specific time, “When He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness, because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth” (Isa 10:22-23). It is a prediction concerning the future. They will, when this age closes, pass through a time of judgment; in that period God in sovereign power and mercy will call a remnant of His people, the remnant so often seen in the prophetic Word and in the Book of Revelation. That remnant will be saved and will become the nucleus of the coming Kingdom; the unbelieving apostate Israel will be swept away in judgment.

Rom 9:30-33

The conclusion of this intensely interesting and often misunderstood chapter puts before us the fact of God’s merciful dealings with Gentiles and Israel’s failure. The Gentiles, who did not follow after righteousness, have attained to the righteousness, which is of faith. They believe the Gospel and enjoy the blessings of the Gospel. Israel failed. Why? They sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, the way of failure and death. They rejected the principle of faith, even declared in their own Scriptures, “the just shall live by faith.” They stumbled at the stumbling stone (1Pe 2:8).

2. Israel’s Failure and Unbelief.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Distinction between the True and the False Israel. 9:1-13

The rejection of the Jews a matter of sorrow:

v. 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

v. 2. that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

v. 3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

v. 4. who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises;

v. 5. whose are the fathers, and of whom, as Concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is Over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

The apostle has closed the first part of his letter the positive exposition of his Gospel. He now opens up an entirely new section, devoting himself to some practical problems which are connected with the teaching of the Gospel of salvation through Christ Jesus. The truth I speak in Christ, I lie not. It is a most solemn and emphatic protestation in a matter which is very near to his heart. He is speaking the truth in Him whose rule and government he has accepted in all conditions of life, thus putting into practice his communion with Christ: not merely as an honest man, but as a Christian and as a servant of Jesus Christ he says the truth, he gives proof of the faith of his heart. And to emphasize the truth of his statement still more he affirms that his conscience bears witness with his words in the Holy Ghost. Paul is fully conscious and certain of the fact that his conscience is not in error in this case, that the Holy Spirit Himself is his guide in this matter, and that the testimony of his conscience is thus altogether reliable. The content of his solemn assertion is, first of all: Great heaviness I have and continual sorrow in my heart. He is bearing a heavy load of sorrow and pain, which causes his heart great distress. He could hardly find words strong enough to convey his feeling. For he was anything but an indifferent spectator of the sorrows, temporal and spiritual, which were about to come upon his countrymen. He now employs the very strongest terms to express his boundless love for his Jewish brethren: I could wish that I myself might be a curse away from Christ for my brethren, instead of my brethren, my relatives according to the flesh. To this extreme Paul would be ready to go, if it were in accordance with the will of God, if the matter were allowable, possible, proper. His own soul’s salvation Paul is willing to place into jeopardy, to give in exchange for the curse and doom of destruction which is threatening the Jews; his kinsmen according to the flesh. Paul here, like Moses before him. Exo 32:32, is ready to place his soul as a ransom for the souls of his people, thus exhibiting an almost unbelievable power, depth, and ardor of love, far surpassing ordinary sympathy. The innermost recesses of his being were shaken by his loving affection for the people of his own race.

Paul now enumerates some of the advantages of his people which enable us to appreciate the ardor of his love for them and the depth of his grief on account of their exclusion from salvation in Christ: Being such persons as are Israelites, distinguished and honored by the name given to the patriarch Jacob by the Angel of the Lord, Gen 32:20, of which they were very proud. Theirs was the sonship: they were chosen by God to be His people in a peculiar sense, Hos 11:1; Exo 4:22-23; Exo 19:5, "selected to be the recipients of peculiar blessings, and to stand in a peculiar relation to God. " To them belonged the glory of the Lord, that singular manifestation of the presence of God according to which God lived in the midst of His people with His merciful presence, Exo 40:34; Exo 29:43; Lev 16:2; 1Ki 8:11. They had the covenants, or testaments. God had repeatedly made a formal covenant with the patriarchs, giving them the express assurance that He would be their God and the God of their seed after them. Their privilege had been the giving of the Law, the solemn and impressive declaration of the divine will from Mount Sinai, this being a distinction of which the Jews were inordinately proud. Theirs had also been the service, the whole ritual, the beautiful and impressive form of worship in use in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. To them belonged the promises of the Messiah and His redemption; they had been received in their midst by their own prophets. To the Jewish people belonged also the fathers, the progenitors of the Messiah, from whom Jesus, in being born of the Virgin Mary herself truly a Jewess, took His human nature. This was truly the greatest privilege and distinction of all, as St. Paul brings out in his doxology: Who is over all God, blessed into eternity Amen. Jesus Christ, true man, born as a member of the Jewish race: is at the same time God over all, true God from eternity, with His almighty power extending over all the world, over all creatures. And as such the honor given to God is due to Him, blessing and glory into eternity, forever and ever. To this declaration we say Amen, for it is true. Note that the deity of Christ is here most emphatically affirmed and brought out, just as in the entire Gospel of John and in other passages of Scriptures, Php 2:6; Col 2:9: Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12: Tit 2:13. Mark also that the great privileges and advantages which St. Paul here enumerates, offer a sufficient explanation for the fervency of his love. He was anything but an enemy of his people: his solicitude was prompted by the most sincere affection.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 1. (Rom 9:1-33.)

The election of Grace.

The first part of that which we find here shows us Israel as the elect of God, but election necessarily means grace. It is God acting in grace from Himself and without claim on man’s part. Thus, in the very way in which it is carried out, we may be sure that we shall have the manifestation of this. Man will never be able to use the fact of God’s election in order to get credit for himself or to establish a fleshly claim.

1. But, in the first place, before the apostle proceeds to this, he affirms, in the strongest way, his sorrow over and devoted love towards Israel. He had not been behind Moses in his desire, if it were possible, to sacrifice himself for the blessing of the people. "He had wished" (it is not as if it were indeed something that could be deliberately entertained or something which was thought possible in itself to be realized) that he himself "were accursed from Christ on account of his brethren, his kindred after the flesh." He does not say: "I could wish." It was simply an uncalculating, unreasoning longing, if you please, for their blessing. It was the agony of a soul beside itself with the thought of their loss of all that God had made their own. He shows us, thereupon, the ground of their endearment to him, a people connected with the whole history of God’s dealing with man hitherto. To them, as he says, belong, the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of law and the service of God and the promises. To them belong the fathers, and Christ too, as concerning the flesh, but He is much more than what this implies: He is "over all, God blessed for ever."

Let us look at these separately. First of all we must not confound the adoption of Israel with that which we know in Christianity. It is the peculiar privilege of the Christian dispensation, as we call it, that we both have the adoption, the open acknowledgment that we are sons of God, and the Spirit of adoption to seal and manifest this. Israel had nothing of this kind. Nationally Israel indeed could be called God’s son, and, as in relation to the nations of the earth, His first-born, for the blessing of Israel implies the blessing of the nations of the earth also, -the first-born implies the later born. Nevertheless, the character of this is entirely different from Christian adoption. "You only have I known," says the Lord, "of all the families of the earth." They were still a family of the earth and never ceased to be that. Their adoption does not in the least certify the salvation of one single soul among them, nor the spiritual relationship to God on the part of any one. Nationally, they might call God, Father, and He says: "I am a Father to Israel," but the very fact of His saying that implies, as the apostle tells us, that at the time He says it, the true children of God are scattered abroad. God is not owning His children as such. The owning of the nation is in distinct contrast with this. In the time to come, as we know, Israel will be a nation all holy, but up to the time in which the apostle writes, up to the time in which we are now, the condition of the nation has been a very different one from this. The adoption, as we have seen, is an adoption of a family of earth and for earthly privilege and blessing.

Next, we have the glory; and here it is manifest that we have to think of that which dwelt in the midst of them, their peculiar privilege, the presence of God, whether in the tabernacle or in the temple, a presence manifested amongst no other people.

Thirdly, the covenants all belonged to Israel. There was no covenant with the Gentiles, except indeed, that Abraham was to be a blessing finally to all the families of the earth. Indirectly they come in there; but, as expressly made to them, there was no covenant, and with regard to ourselves also, Christians as we are, and in the fulness of a blessing which Israel could know nothing of, the new covenant is still not made with us, but ministered to us, -a very different thing. The foundation has been laid, as the Lord refers to it when He institutes His memorial feast. The cup was the cup of the new covenant in His blood. The foundation of all blessing, as we know, was in the cross, and thus if Israel for the time, or, as to the mass of them, have rejected God’s grace, the provisions of the covenant can, nevertheless, be ministered far and wide, and that is what we have distinctly in the New Testament. The covenants then belonged to Israel alone.

Then we have the giving of the law; and here the "ten words," as they are called, the ten commandments, are expressly declared to be a covenant with Israel. The lesson of the law was for all, the conviction of human unrighteousness was the conviction of all the world; but the law itself, which was, in fact, one of Israel’s covenants, was expressly and exclusively their own.

Next, we have the service, the ritual service which God instituted in Israel. He has never instituted another yet. He has brought us indeed into the place of worshipers and given us the Spirit, that we might worship acceptably and in the nearness which divine grace has given to us; but just on that very account a ritual is not that which God has provided for us. We have nothing that answers even to the book of Psalms. The joy with which God has filled our heart and the truth which He has made our own, enable us to use all the assurances of blessing which we find there or elsewhere. We are "blessed with all spiritual blessings" in Christ, and therefore we can freely claim as ours anything that can be called a "spiritual blessing." If God says to Joshua: "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee," the apostle assures us we can claim that; although if there were any promise which could be thought of, perhaps, as special to the individual, it would be that. But all spiritual blessings are ours. That does not in the least take them from those to whom they were made. It does not deprive Israel of any part of her inheritance or of her privileges. God simply is the same God to us, only more fully known, and therefore in greater fulness of blessing for us. The greater includes the less, and the blessings spoken, of throughout the Old Testament, so far as they are spiritual blessings, are, therefore, fully ours.

We would need a large service book to be able to put them into voice aright, but in fact anything of this kind would be contrary to that which we have as our peculiar blessing, the presence of the Spirit of God amongst us. Are we to put words into His mouth? He is with us, as we have seen, to give full expression to those prayers even, which may be expressed only by a groan, but it is a groan intelligent in the ears of God; but the service of God, the ritual service, was Israel’s alone.

Then we have the promises; and these are in the same absolute way claimed for Israel. It is plain, of course, that the Old Testament promises are meant, those which any one in the apostle’s time would recognize to be the promises. The Christian ones were still a mystery, -and the apostle shows us what is meant by this, namely, that they were things hidden from ages and generations and now made manifest to the saints. Thus the new covenant itself, as ought to be most plain, if we consider the terms of it, does not and cannot cover the fulness of our blessing. The ministers of Christ are "stewards of the mysteries of God" (1Co 4:1). What is characteristic of Christianity is just that which is beyond even the new covenant itself, -the opened sanctuary even is no but it is not here the place to look further.

"The fathers" present to us the venerable forms that we are familiar with in Old Testament history; but Christ, again, as concerning the flesh, belongs to Israel also; that is, He came of them; while at the same time it is carefully guarded here that there was in Him that which of necessity made His manhood of much deeper significance than could be implied in the fact of His coming of Israel. The title which He constantly uses with regard to Himself in this connection is that of the Son of Man. Israel could have, in this sense, no exclusive title to Him, and, in fact, not even a special title. He is, of course, much more than Man, One over all, "God blessed forever." The distinct force of this has been attempted to be set aside by many, and in different ways, which it does not need to consider here. The words as we have them in our version perfectly express the original, and affirm in the strongest way that Christ is God in the highest sense, the God who is over all. That does not conflict in the slightest with the supreme title of the Father, but assures us that Christ is one with the Father Himself, in the same way, supreme.

All this belongs, says the apostle, to that Israel, his kindred according to the flesh: expressly cutting off in this way any spiritual application, so-called, as to the Christian Church. It still belongs to, and cannot be taken from them, notwithstanding their present condition, so long existent. God is strong and patient.

This, then, is the people over whom the apostle mourns, and no wonder. How is it possible for us to forget Israel’s claim to the most affectionate remembrance? But if they have failed and, as to the mass, been for the present set aside, the word of God has not failed on that account. "All that are of Israel," says the apostle, "are not" therefore "Israel." A nation in the flesh, there were amongst them (scattered by the system, as already said,) the true children of God; but outside also of Israel were children of God, as we know. To belong to the nation could not deprive any one who sought God, of the blessing of that; and on the other hand, the belonging to Israel could not confer blessing upon those whose backs were really towards Him. But God had taken care expressly to show, in the very history which they had in their hands, that the seed of Abraham were not, as they constantly assumed, the mere seed after the flesh. These were not necessarily the children of Abraham in any proper sense. Thus, the history itself marks out, and from the beginning, that in Isaac the seed shall be called. Ishmael was, as to that, as much a child of Abraham as Isaac, but Ishmael is not reckoned as of the seed, as Isaac is. His being the child of the bondwoman might seem, perhaps, to account for that; therefore we have another case, and a plainer one, which God has taken abundant pains to make plain to us. Jacob, the younger, was in this the one chosen of God, and not Esau. Yet they were both children of Rebecca; according to the flesh they had both an equal title, if indeed the fullest were not Esau’s, but here God Himself speaks out in the fullest way. Before the children were born, before anything had been done by either of them, either good or bad, God says: "The elder shall serve the younger." He does not base this upon any conduct of theirs. He simply affirms it to be His will, and thus if Israel will maintain that the seed of Abraham according to the flesh have rights based upon the flesh, they must admit to these rights the Ishmaelites on the one hand and the Edomites on the other; that election is of grace, therefore, that is of God’s will alone, is settled by history. But let us remember here that the moment we speak of God’s will, it is not merely, as we say, an arbitrary thing. In God’s will, His whole nature speaks. You cannot find anywhere the will of God expressed in which you will not find His character expressed also. In fact, where this is manifested in the fullest way, just there we may expect the fullest and sweetest manifestation of what God is. We must never lose sight of this when we speak of the absolute will of God.

God’s love is free: when He pleads with His people in Malachi the love He had shown to Jacob, He uses the name which reminds them of the natural character of their father, stamped so upon his descendants also, before divine grace had made him Israel. These names are used according to their different significance, in application to his seed, as one may see conspicuously in Balaam’s prophecy. Here it suitably points out how little the "worm Jacob" had merited divine love. On the other hand, if He has to say in contrast, "I hated Esau," He carefully marks the wickedness on their part which had called forth His anger against them. "They shall call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord has indignation for ever." This was not, as in the former case, before the children were born, or had done good or evil; and the free love of divine grace has no corresponding free hate, but longsuffering patience toward the creatures He had made. "Esau have I hated" was said at the close of the Old Testament, after long trial extending over many centuries.

2. But here immediately a question is raised by men. Is this righteousness? It was the very question which the law that they had was meant to settle for them and which it does effectually settle, that on man’s part he has none; that therefore he cannot claim anything from God on that score. If God set him aside wholly from blessing, it is no question of righteousness in God. If we speak of righteousness in that way, we ignore our own condition. The apostle appeals to the history with regard to this. When they made the golden calf at Horeb, all was gone as far as that generation was concerned. God retreats into Himself. He says: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion." It is upon this ground alone that He can take them up again. The Israel of Paul’s time owed thus, in fact, their very existence to this compassionate will of God.

The case of Pharaoh is another which men speak of much. God says of Pharaoh: "For this same purpose I have raised thee up, that I might show in thee My power and that My Name might be declared in all the earth." But what does He mean by this? If God is going to declare His Name, for what purpose is it? In fact, when God did thus raise up Pharaoh, the world at large was sunk in idolatry. Pharaoh was the head of the most idolatrous nation, probably, upon the face of the earth. He was also in a place in which that which was done to him, the manifestation of God’s sovereign power in his case, would go far and wide amongst the nations. Was there no goodness manifest in that very fact, that "against all the gods of Egypt" He was executing judgment? We find that it did indeed speak, and the song of Israel at the Red. Sea shows what was the effect amongst the nations. Not indeed, that they were brought to God by it; not necessarily that any were. Of this we have no knowledge. Yet in the case of Rahab, supplemented, no doubt, by other testimonies, we see how much it wrought. Thus, if God raised up Pharaoh and made him a monument of His judgment, it was mercy, nevertheless, that made him so, and that mercy had been displayed with regard to Pharaoh himself, as it is very easy to see. Nay, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was largely wrought by the very mercy shown him. "Because judgment is not speedily executed against an evil work, therefore the heart of the sons of men is thoroughly set in them to do evil." But shall not God show mercy then? He does show it, again and again, removing the judgment threatened or brought about in the ease of Pharaoh, and when the king finds relief from that which had for the moment terrified him, his heart hardens itself against God. One may say that we are told that it was God who hardened it; certainly not by any putting forth of His power to do this. It was rather the very mercy that was displayed, by which the hardening was effected, and thus God’s goodness remains all the way through, whatever might be the effect upon a human heart in opposition to Him.* The sun which melts the ice may harden the clay. It is the same sun that does both. Thus, while it is true that "on whom He will He showeth mercy, and whom He will He hardened)," and although we may be little able to follow out in detail the mystery of God’s ways in this, we are not in the least called to justify Him. The day will come when everything will be fully manifest; and then He will be "justified in judgment and clear when He is judged."

{*Three expressions are used to describe the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart: "Pharaoh hardened his heart"; "God hardened Pharaoh’s heart"; "Pharaoh’s heart was hardened." We have in these the responsible person, Pharaoh, steeling his heart against the mercy and judgment of God; then, God’s acts of mercy and judgment were His own, and by these, in divine forbearance, the heart of the stubborn king was fully manifested. It was the judicial hardening which can thus be regarded as a divine infliction, as with Israel in Isa 6:1-13. Lastly, the circumstances are looked at as having the effect; the result is simply mentioned. -S.R.}

3. We are next told that in all these things, in the judgment, as well as in the grace, God is manifesting Himself. The apostle first of all indeed, rebukes the thought of a man replying against God, whatever God may be pleased to do. Such replying must necessarily be in vain. Could one succeed in establishing his cause against Him, what could it be? It would be the ruin of everything. Think of being able to show that God was not the righteous, holy, gracious God He is! Think of the disaster everywhere which would result from such a thing. The moment we speak of God, we must be still and know that He is God; and the apostle insists upon this in the first place. If Be be the potter, He has power over the vessels to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. Who shall deny Him that? How He will use His power is another matter. He never says that He makes vessels to dishonor, but as a mere question of power and wisdom, as merely the question of His Godhead, are we going to dethrone God? As a fact, when the apostle comes to the different character of vessels, be shows us that if God was minded to show His wrath and make His power known, He did it, as in Pharaoh’s case, while He "endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." That was exactly Pharaoh’s case; but he never says that God fitted the vessels for destruction. On the other hand, if He would make known the riches of His glory upon the vessels of mercy, He carefully adds: "Which He had afore prepared for glory."* God’s intervention in the one case is as carefully noted as it is positively absent in the other, and this is the character of all His ways; His wrath needs to be made known, and His power. The necessity of that in such a world as is around us ought surely to be manifest. God’s judgments thus have a character of mercy which we must never forget in relation to them, but if He comes out in that which most fully expresses His will, as election does, for instance, here we find all His heart conveyed in it. If election be of grace, then grace is that which we must in the fullest way ascribe to God. "We," says the apostle, are a sample of this: "We, whom He hath called not only from amongst the Jews, but also from amongst the Gentiles." We are upon the same ground, and thus it is that the apostle quotes Hosea here in two passages which manifestly apply directly to Israel only: "I will call them My people which were not My people, and her beloved which was not beloved;" and again: "It shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there shall they be called the sons of the living God." Both passages, as I have said, refer to God’s purposes with regard to Israel in the time to come, but as a principle they equally show how He is acting and how He has title to act in His present grace. The men of the Gentiles, who were not His people, He is calling His people; and where He had said unto them, "Ye are not My people," there they are now called of Him His children. The apostle does not say that this is an exact fulfilment of Hosea’s words. It is a fulfilment in principle, and that is all that is implied in his quotation.

{*Similarly, in the judgment of the nations in Mat 25:1-46, our Lord speaks to those on the right of "the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world," but those on the left He sends to "everlasting fire prepared" -not for them but, "for the devil and his angels." That any are saved is due alone to grace, but men cannot blame God for those who are lost. -S.R.}

4. Mercy then, in fact, is Israel’s only hope, and here everything has been declared already and her own sins by the prophets. Isaiah crieth concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sands of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." It will be a remnant only out of many, and this applies to the time not yet come, when "He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness," when He is making a short work upon the earth. In the fourth chapter of his prophecy, Isaiah has shown us how this will be carried out and how the nation will become at last a holy nation, when "it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning." It is the time of which He says again that, "When God’s judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness"; and this principle applies to Israel also. Judgment must do its work, but in order that at last grace may be able to be manifested. But thus, in contrast with the proud expectation of blessing from God as a whole, a remnant only will remain to enjoy it. The remnant of that time will become the nation for God. He quotes another witness from the same prophet, that "Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom and been made like unto Gomorrah." The judgment of the cities of the plain would be their judgment, except divine grace had made a difference.

5. But if there were no escape, except in God’s mere mercy, from such an issue as to Israel, a plain reason can be given for the rejection of the many which was now taking place, although it was at that very time that Israel manifested, as we know, their zeal for the law, in a certain sense therefore, for righteousness. How strange a fact that while the Gentiles, largely men who had never followed after righteousness, who were mere sinners of the Gentiles, attained righteousness as believers in Christ, Israel, pursuing after the law of righteousness, did not attain to it; but why? Because it was by law that they sought it, in the way in which there was utter impossibility of ever finding what they sought. This has been shown us already, again and again. They rejected distinctly God’s principle of faith, and thus they stumbled at the Stumbling Stone, -Christ in His grace come low enough to be stumbled over, in that humiliation which was the expression of His perfect grace, as well of the need which that grace was to meet. It was the very thing which in their condition became a stumbling block to them, and God had declared that this would be so. He was to place in Zion a "stone of stumbling and rock of offence." The fulness of God’s love exhibited in Him could be no other to men filled with the Pharisaic self-righteousness which characterized the nation. They knew not their need and therefore the very goodness which ministered to that need -grace, was rejected because it was grace: the lower it had come to minister to men, the more ground had they in their thought for rejecting it.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 20

THE SORROWFUL PROBLEM: JEWISH UNBELIEF; DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY

Rom_9:1-33

WE may well think that again there was silence awhile in that Corinthian chamber, when Tertius had duly inscribed the last words we have studied. A "silence in heaven" follows, in the Apocalypse, {Rev_8:1} the vision of the white hosts of the redeemed, gathered at last, in their eternal jubilation, before the throne of the Lamb. A silence in the soul is the fittest immediate sequel to such a revelation of grace and glory as has passed before us here. And did not the man whose work it was to utter it, and whose personal experience was as it were the informing soul of the whole argument of the Epistle from the first, and not least in this last sacred paean of faith, keep silence when he had done, hushed and tired by this "exceeding weight" of grace and glory?

But he has a great deal more to say to the Romans, and in due time the pen obeys the voice again. What will the next theme be? It will be a pathetic and significant contrast to the last; a lament, a discussion, an instruction, and then a prophecy, about not himself and his happy fellow saints, but poor self-blinded unbelieving Israel.

The occurrence of that subject exactly, here is true to the inmost nature of the Gospel. The Apostle has just been counting up the wealth of salvation, and claiming it all, as present and eternal property, for himself and his brethren in the Lord. Justifying Righteousness, Liberty from sin in Christ, the Indwelling Spirit, electing Love, coming and certain Glory, all have been recounted, and asserted, and embraced. "Is it selfish," this great joy of possession and prospect? Let those say so who see these things only from outside. Make proof of what they are in their interior, enter into them, learn yourself what it is to have peace with God, to receive the Spirit, to expect the eternal glory; and you will find that nothing is so sure to expand the heart towards other men as the personal reception into it of the Truth and Life of God in Christ. It is possible to hold a true creed-and to be spiritually hard anal selfish. But is it possible so to be-when not only the creed is held, but the Lord of it, its Heart and Life, is received with wonder and great joy? The man whose certainties, whose riches, whose freedom, are all consciously "in Him," cannot but love his neighbour, and long that he too should come into "the secret of the Lord."

So St. Paul, just at this point of the Epistle, turns with a peculiar intensity of grief and yearning towards the Israel which he had once led, and now had left, because they would not come with him to Christ. His natural and his spiritual sympathies all alike go out to this self-afflicting people, so privileged, so divinely loved, and now so blind. Oh, that he could offer any sacrifice that would bring them reconciled, humbled, happy, to the feet of the true Christ! Oh, that they might see the fallacy of their own way of salvation, and submit to the way of Christ, taking His yoke, and finding rest to their souls! Why do they not do it? Why does not the light which convinced him shine on them! Why should not the whole Sanhedrin say, "Lord, what wouldst Thou have us to do?" Why does not the fair beauty of the Son of God make them too "count all things but loss" for Him? Why do not the voices of the Prophets prove to them, as they do now to Paul, absolutely convincing of the historical as well as spiritual claims of the Man of Calvary? Has the promise failed? Has God done with the race to which He guaranteed such a perpetuity of blessing? No, that cannot be. He looks again, and he sees in the whole past a long warning that, while an outer circle of benefits might affect the nation, the inner circle, the light and life of God indeed, embraced "a remnant" only; even from the day when Isaac and not Ishmael was made heir of Abraham. And then he ponders the impenetrable mystery of the relation of the Infinite Will to human wills; he remembers how, in a way whose full reasons are unknowable, (but they are good, for they are in God,) the Infinite Will has to do with our willing; genuine and responsible though our willing is. And before that opaque veil he rests. He knows that only righteousness and love are behind it; but he knows that it is a veil, and that in front of it mans thought must cease and be silent. Sin is altogether mans fault. But when man turns from sin it is all Gods mercy, free, special, distinguishing. Be silent, and trust Him, O man whom He has made. Remember, He has made thee. It is not only that He is greater than thou, or stronger; but He has made thee. Be reasonably willing to trust, out of sight, the reasons of thy Maker.

Then he turns again with new regrets and yearnings to the thought of that wonderful Gospel which was meant for Israel and for the world, but which Israel rejected, and now would fain check on its way to the world. Lastly, he recalls the future, still full of eternal promises for the chosen race, and through them full of blessings for the world; till he rises at length from perplexity and anguish, and the wreck of once eager expectations, into that great Doxology in which he blesses the Eternal Sovereign for the very mystery of His ways, and adores Him because He is His own eternal End.

Truth I speak in Christ, speaking as the member of the All-Truthful; I do not lie, my conscience, in the Holy Ghost, informed and governed by Him, bearing me concurrent witness-the soul within affirming to itself the word spoken without to others-that I have great grief, and my heart has incessant pain, yes, the heart in which {Rom_5:5} the Spirit has "poured out" Gods love and joy; there is room for both experiences in its human depths. For I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from Christ, to be devoted to eternal separation from Him; awful dream of uttermost sacrifice, made impossible only because it would mean self-robbery from the Lord who had bought him; a spiritual suicide by sin-for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen flesh-wise. For they are (οιτινες εισιν) Israelites, bearers of the glorious theocratic name, sons of the "Prince with" Gen_32:28; theirs is the adoption, the call to be Jehovahs own filial race, "His son, His firstborn" {Exo_4:22} of the peoples; and the glory, the Shechinah of the Eternal Presence, sacramentally seen in Tabernacle and Temple, spiritually spread over the race; and the covenants, with Abraham, and Isaac, and Levi, and Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and David; and the Legislation, the Holy Moral Code, and the Ritual, with its divinely ordered symbolism, that vast Parable of Christ, and the Promises, of "the pleasant land," and the perpetual favour, and the coming Lord; theirs are the Fathers, patriarchs, and priests, and kings; and out of them, as to what is flesh-wise, is the Christ, -He who is over all things, God, blessed to all eternity. Amen.

It is indeed a splendid roll of honours, recited over this race "separate among the nations," a race which today as much as ever remains the enigma of history, to be solved only by Revelation. "The Jews, your Majesty," was the reply of Frederick the Greats old believing courtier, when asked with a smile for the credentials of the Bible; the short answer silenced the Encyclopaedist King. It is indeed a riddle, made of indissoluble facts, this people everywhere dispersed, yet everywhere individual; scribes of a Book which has profoundly influenced mankind, and which is recognised by the most various races as an august and lawful claimant to be divine, yet themselves, in so many aspects, provincial to the heart; historians of their own glories, but at least equally of their own unworthiness and disgrace; transmitters of predictions which may be slighted, but can never, as a whole, be explained away, yet obstinate deniers of their majestic fulfilment in the Lord of Christendom; human in every fault and imperfection, yet so concerned in bringing to man the message of the Divine that Jesus Himself said of them, "Salvation {Joh_4:22} comes from the Jews." On this wonderful race this its most illustrious member (after his Lord) here fixes his eyes, full of tears. He sees their glories pass before him-and then realises the spiritual squalor and misery of their rejection of the Christ of God. He groans, and in real agony asks how it can be. One thing only cannot be; the promises have not failed; there has been no failure in the Promiser. What may seem such is rather mans misreading of the promise.

But it is not as though the word of God has been thrown out, that "word" whose divine honour was dearer to him than even that of his people. For not all who come from Israel constitute Israel; nor, because they are seed of Abraham, are they all his children, in the sense of family life and rights; but "In Isaac shall a seed be called thee"; {Gen_21:12} Isaac, and not any son of thy body begotten, is father of those whom thou shalt claim as thy covenant race. That is to say, not the children of his flesh are the children of his (του) God; no, the children of the promise, indicated and limited by its developed terms, are reckoned as seed. For of the promise this was the word. {Gen_18:10; Gen_18:14} "According to this time I will come, and Sarah, she and not any spouse of thine; no Hagar, no Keturah, but Sarah, shall have a son." And the law of limitations did not stop there, but contracted yet again the stream of even physical filiation: Nor only so, but Rebecca too-being with child, with twin children, of one husband-no problem of complex parentage, as with Abraham, occurring here-even of Isaac our father, just named as the selected heir-(for it was while they were not yet born, while they had not yet shown any conduct good or bad, that the choice-wise purpose of God might remain, sole and sovereign, not based on works, but wholly on the Caller)-it was said to her, {Gen_25:23} "The greater shall be bondman to the less." As it stands written, in the prophets message a millennium later, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," I repudiated him as heir.

So the limit has run always along with the promise. Ishmael is Abrahams son, yet not his son. Esau is Isaacs son, yet not his son. And though we trace in Ishmael and in Esau, as they grow, characteristics which may seem to explain the limitation, this will not really do. For the chosen one in each case has his conspicuous unfavourable characteristics too. And the whole tone of the record (not to speak of this its apostolic interpretation) looks towards mystery, not explanation. Esaus "profanity" was the concurrent occasion, not the cause, of the choice of Jacob. The reason of the choice lay in the depths of God, that World "dark with excess of bright." All is well there, but not the less all is unknown.

So we are led up to the shut door of the sanctuary of Gods Choice. Touch it; it is adamantine, and it is fast locked. No blind Destiny has turned the key, and lost it. No inaccessible Tyrant sits within, playing to himself both sides of a game of fate, and indifferent to the cry of the soul. The Key Bearer, whose Name is engraved on the portal, is "He that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore". {Rev_1:18} And if you listen you will hear words within, like the soft deep voice of many waters, yet of an eternal Heart; "I am that I am; I will that I will; trust Me." But the door is locked; and the Voice is mystery.

Ah, what agonies have been felt in human souls, as men have looked at that gate, and pondered the unknown interior! The Eternal knows, with infinite kindness and sympathy, the pain unspeakable which can beset the creature when it wrestles with His Eternity, and tries to clasp it with both hands, and to say that "that is all!" We do not find in Scripture, surely, anything like an anthema for that awful sense of the unknown which can gather on the soul drawn-irresistibly as it sometimes seems to be-into the problems of the Choice of God, and oppressed as with "the weight of all the seas upon it," by the very questions stated presently here by the Apostle. The Lord knoweth, not only His will, but our heart, in these matters. And where He entirely declines to explain (surely because we are not yet of age to understand Him if He did) He yet shows us Jesus, and bids us meet the silence of the mystery with the silence of a personal trust in the personal Character revealed in Him.

In something of such stillness shall we approach the paragraph now to follow? Shall we listen, not to explain away, not even over much to explain, but to submit, with a submission which is not a suppressed resentment but an entire reliance? We shall find that the whole matter, in its practical aspect, has a voice articulate enough for the soul which sees Christ, and believes on Him. It says to that soul, "Who maketh thee to differ? Who hath fashioned thee to honour? Why art thou not now, as once, guiltily rejecting Christ, or, what is the same, postponing Him? Thank Him who has compelled thee, yet without violation of thyself, to come in. See in thy choice of Him His mercy on thee. And now, fall at His feet, to bless Him, to serve Him, and to trust Him. Think ill of thyself. Think reverently of others. And remember (the Infinite, who has chosen thee, says it), He willeth not the death of a sinner, He loved the world, He bids thee to tell it that He loves it, to tell it that He is Love."

Now we listen. With a look which speaks awe, but not misgiving, disclosing past tempests of doubt, but now a rest of faith, the Apostle dictates again:

What therefore shall we say? Is there injustice at Gods bar? Away with the thought. The thing is, in the deepest sense, unthinkable. God, the God of Revelation, the God of Christ, is a Being who, if unjust-"ceases to be," "denies Himself." But the thought that His reasons for some given action should be, at least to us now, absolute mystery, He being the Infinite Personality, is not unthinkable at all. And in such a case it is not unreasonable, but the deepest reason, to ask for no more than His articulate guarantee, so to speak, that the mystery is fact; that He is conscious of it, alive to it (speaking humanly); and that He avows it as His will. For when God, the God of Christ, bids us "take His will for it," it is a different thing from an attempt, however powerful, to frighten us into silence. It is a reminder Who He is who speaks; the Being who is kindred to us, who is in relations with us, who loved us, but who also has absolutely made us, and cannot (because we are sheer products of His will) make us so much His equals as to tell us all. So the Apostle proceeds with a "for" whose bearing we have thus already indicated: For to Moses he says, {Exo_34:19} in the dark sanctuary of Sinai, "I shall pity whomsoever I do pity, and compassionate whomsoever I do compassionate"; My account of My saving action shall stop there: It appears therefore that it, the ultimate account of salvation, is not of (as the effect is "of" the first cause) the wilier, nor of the runner, the carrier of willing into work, but of the Pitier - God. For the Scripture says {Exo_10:16} to Pharaoh, that large example of defiant human sin, real and guilty, but also, concurrently, of the sovereign Choice which sentenced him to go his own way, and used him as a beacon at its end, "For this very purpose I raised thee up, made thee stand, even beneath the Plagues, that I might display in thee My power, and that My Name, as of the just God who strikes down the proud, might be told far and wide in all the earth."

Pharaohs was a case of concurrent phenomena. A man was there on the one hand, willingly, deliberately, and most guiltily, battling with right, and rightly bringing ruin on his own head, wholly of himself. God was there on the other hand, making that man a monument not of grace but of judgment. And that side, that line, is isolated here, and treated as if it were all.

It appears then that whom He pleases, He pities, and whom He pleases, He hardens, in that sense in which He "hardened Pharaohs heart," "made it stiff," "made it heavy," "made it harsh"-by sentencing it to have its own way. Yes, thus "it appears." And beyond that inference we can take no step of thought but this-that the Subject of that mysterious "will," He who thus "pleases," and "pities," and "hardens," is no other than the God of Jesus Christ. He may be, not only submitted to, but trusted, in that unknowable sovereignty of His will. Yet listen to the question which speaks out the problem of all hearts: "You will say to Me therefore, Why does He still, after such an avowal of His sovereignty, softening this heart, hardening that, why does He still find fault?" Ah, why? For His act of will who has withstood? (Nay, you have withstood His will, and so have I Not one word of the argument has contradicted the primary fact of our will, nor therefore our responsibility. But this he does not bring in here.) Nay, rather, rather than take such an attitude of narrow and helpless logic, think deeper; nay, rather, O man, O mere human being, you-who are you, who are answering back to your God? Shall the thing formed say to its Former, Why did you make me like this? Has not the potter authority over his clay, out of the same kneaded mass to make this vessel for honour, but that for dishonour? But if God, being pleased to demonstrate His wrath, and to evidence what He can do-what will St. Paul go on to say? That the Eternal, being thus "pleased," created responsible beings on purpose to destroy them, gave them personality, and then compelled them to transgress? No, he does not say so. The sternly simple illustration, in itself one of the least relieved utterances in the whole Scripture-that dread Potter and his kneaded Clay!-gives way, in its application, to a statement of the work of God on man full of significance in its variation. Here are indeed the "vessels" still; and the vessels "for honour" are such because of "mercy," and His own hand has "prepared them for glory." And there are the vessels "for dishonour," and in a sense of awful mystery they are such because of "wrath." But the "wrath" of the Holy One can fall only upon demerit; so these "vessels" have merited His displeasure of themselves. And they are "prepared for ruin"; but where is any mention of His hand preparing them? And meanwhile He "bears them in much longsuffering." The mystery is there, impenetrable as ever, when we try to pierce behind "His will." But on every side it is limited and qualified by facts which witness to the compassions of the Infinite Sovereign even in His judgments, and remind us that sin is altogether "of" the creature. So we take up the words where we dropped them above: What if He bore, (the tense throws us forward into eternity, to look back thence on His ways in time,) in much longsuffering, vessels of wrath, adjusted for ruin? And acted otherwise with others, that He might evidence the wealth of His glory, the resources of His inmost Character, poured upon vessels of pity, which He prepared in advance for glory, by the processes of justifying and hallowing grace-whom in fact He called, effectually, in their conversion, even us, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? For while the lineal Israel, with its privilege and its apparent failure, is here first in view, there lies behind it the phenomenon of "the Israel of God," the heaven-born heirs of the Fathers, a race not of blood, but of the Spirit. The great Promise, all the while, had set towards that Israel as its final scope; and now he gives proof from the Prophets that this intention was at least half revealed all along the line of revelation.

As actually in our Hosea {Hos_2:23, Heb_2:5} in the book we know as such, He says, "I will call what was not My people, My people; and the not-beloved one, beloved. And [another Hosean oracle, in line with the first] it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, Not My people are ye, there they shall be called sons of the living God." In both places the first incidence of the words is on the restoration of the Ten Tribes to covenant blessings. But the Apostle, in the Spirit, sees an ultimate and satisfying reference to a vaster application of the same principle; the bringing of the rebelling and banished ones of all mankind into covenant and blessing.

Meanwhile the Prophets who foretell that great ingathering indicate with equal solemnity the spiritual failure of all but a fraction of the lineal heirs of promise. But Isaiah cries over Israel, "If the number of the sons of Israel should be as the sand of the sea, the remnant only shall be saved; for as one who completes and cuts short will the Lord do His work upon the earth." Here again is a first and second incidence of the prophecy. In every stage of the history of Sin and Redemption the Apostle, in the Spirit, sees an embryo of the great Development. So, in the woefully limited numbers of the Exiles who returned from the old captivity he sees an embodied prophecy of the fewness of the sons of Israel who shall return from the exile of incredulity to their, true Messiah. And as Isaiah {Isa_1:9} hasforetold, so it is; "Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us a seed, like Sodom we had become, and to Gomorrah we had been resembled."

Such was the mystery of the facts, alike in the older and in the later story of Israel. A remnant, still a remnant, not the masses, entered upon an inheritance of such ample provision, and so sincerely offered. And behind this lay the insoluble shadow within which is concealed the relation of the Infinite Will to the wills of men. But also, in front of the phenomenon, concealed by no shadow save that which is cast by human sin, the Apostle sees and records the reasons, as they reside in the human will, of this "salvation of a remnant." The promises of God, all along, and supremely now in Christ, had been conditioned (it was in the nature of spiritual things that it should be so) by submission to His way of fulfilment. The golden gift was there, in the most generous of hands, stretched out to give. But it could be put only into a recipient hand open and empty. It could be taken only by submissive and self-forgetting faith. And man, in his fall, had twisted his will out of gear for such an action. Was it wonderful that, by his own fault, he failed to receive? What therefore shall we say? Why, that the Gentiles, though they did not pursue righteousness, though no Oracle had set them on the track of a true divine acceptance and salvation, achieved righteousness, grasped it when once revealed, but the righteousness that results on faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, aiming at what is, for fallen man, the impossible goal, a perfect meeting of the Laws one principle of acceptance, "This do and thou shalt live," did not attain that law; that is to say, practically, as we now review their story of vain efforts in the line of self, did not attain the acceptance to which that law was to be the avenue. The Pharisee as such, the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus for example, neither had peace with God, nor dared to think he had, in the depth of his soul. He knew enough of the divine ideal to be hopelessly uneasy about his realisation of it. He could say, stiffly enough, "God, I thank Thee"; {Luk_18:11; Luk_18:14} but he "went down to his house" unhappy, unsatisfied, unjustified. On what account? Because it was not of faith, but as of works; in the unquiet dream that man must, and could, work up the score of merit to a valid claim. They stumbled on the Stone of their stumbling; as it stands written, {Isa_8:14; Isa_28:16} in a passage where the great perpetual Promise is in view, and where the blind people are seen rejecting it as their foothold in favour of policy, or of formalism, Behold, I place in Sion, in the very centre of light and privilege, a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of upsetting; and he who confides in Him, (or, perhaps, in it,) he who rests on it, on Him, shall not be put to shame.

One great Rabbi at least, Rashi, of the twelfth century, bears witness to the mind of the Jewish Church upon the significance of that mystic Rock. "Behold," so runs his interpretation, "I have established a King, a Messiah, who shall be in Zion a stone of proving."

Was ever prophecy more profoundly verified in event? Not for the lineal Israel only, but for Man, the King Messiah is, as ever, the Stone of either stumbling or foundation. He is, as ever, "a Sign spoken against." He is, as ever, the Rock of Ages, where the believing sinner hides, and rests, and builds,

"Below the storm-mark of the sky, Above the flood-mark of the deep."

Have we known what it is to stumble over Him? "We will not have this Man to reign over us"; "We were never in bondage to any man; who is He that He should set us free?" And are we now lifted by a Hand of omnipotent kindness to a place deep in His clefts, safe on His summit, "knowing nothing" for the peace of conscience, the satisfaction of thought, the liberation of the will, the abolition of death, "but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"? Then let us think with always humbled sympathy of those who, for whatever reason, still "forsake their, own mercy". {Jon_2:8} And let us inform them where we are, and how we are here, and that "the ground is good." And for ourselves, that we may do this the better, let us often read again the simple, strong assurance which closes this chapter of mysteries; "He who confides in Him shall not be put to shame"; "shall not be disappointed"; "shall not," in the vivid phrase of the Hebrew itself, "make haste." No, we shall not "make haste." From that safe Place no hurried retreat shall ever need to be beaten. That Fortress cannot be stormed; it cannot be surprised; it cannot crumble. For "IT is HE"; the Son, the Lamb, of God; the sinners everlasting Righteousness, the believers unfailing Source of peace, of purity, and of power.

DETACHED NOTE TO Rom_9:5

THE following is transcribed, with a few modifications, from the writers Commentary on the Epistle in "The Cambridge Bible":

"[Who is over all, God blessed forever.] The Greek may, with more or less facility, be translated (1) as in A.V; or (2) who is God over all, etc.; or (3) blessed forever be He who is God over all (i.e., the Eternal Father) If we adopt (3) we take the Apostle to be led, by the mention of the Incarnation, to utter a sudden and solemn doxology to the God who gave that crowning mercy. In favour of this it is urged (by some entirely orthodox commentators, as H.A.W. Meyer) that St. Paul nowhere else styles the Lord simply God, but rather the Son of God, etc. By this they do not mean to detract from the Lords Deity; but they maintain that St. Paul always so states that Deity, under Divine guidance, as to mark the Subordination of the Son-that Subordination which is not a difference of Nature, Power, or Eternity, but of Order; just such as is marked by the simple but profound words Father and Son."

"But on the other hand there is Tit_2:13, where the Greek is (at least) perfectly capable of the rendering, our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. There is Act_20:28, where the evidence is very strong for the reading, retained by the R.V (text) the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood. And if St. John is to be taken to report words exactly, in his narrative of the Resurrection, in an incident whose point is deeply connected with verbal precision, we have one of the first Apostles, within eight days of the Resurrection, addressing the Risen Lord {Joh_20:28} as my God. (We call attention to this as against the contention that only the latest developments of inspiration, represented in, e.g., St. Johns Preamble to his Gospel, show us Christ called explicitly God.)"

"If it is divinely true that the Word is God, it is surely far from wonderful if here and there, in peculiar connections, [St. Paul] should so speak of Christ, even though guided to keep another phase of the truth habitually in view."

"Now, beyond all fair question, the Greek here is quite naturally rendered as in the A.V; had it not been for historical controversy, probably, no other rendering would have been suggested. And lastly, and what is important, the context far rather suggests a lament (over the fall of Israel) than an ascription of praise. And what is most significant of all, it pointedly suggests some explicit allusion to the super-human Nature of Christ, by the words, according to the flesh. But if there is such an allusion, then it must lie in the words, over all, God."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

9:1–11:36 In this section, Paul takes up the problem raised by the unbelief of so many Jews. If God had promised salvation to Israel yet so few Jews were being saved, how could Jesus truly be the fulfillment of God’s plan (9:1-5)? In his response to this objection, Paul cites the Old Testament as evidence that God had always intended to save only a remnant of Israel (9:6-29), and he faults the Jews for refusing to embrace Christ (9:30–10:21). Paul then shows that God has not discarded Israel from his plan of salvation. Many Jews have already believed in Christ (11:1-10), and many more will believe in the future (11:12-26).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 9:1. Ἀλήθειαν, truth) Concerning the connexion, see on ch. Rom 1:16; note. The article is not added here; comp. 2Co 7:14; 2Co 11:10, because his reference is not to the whole truth, but to something true in particular [a particular truth], and in this sense also ἀλήθειαι in the plural is used in Psa 12:2, LXX.; 2Ma 7:6. This asseveration chiefly relates to Rom 9:3, where for is put as in Mat 1:18. Therefore in Rom 9:2 ὅτι denotes because [not as Engl. Vers. that], and indicates the cause of the prayer. For verse 2 was likely to obtain belief of itself without so great an asseveration [being needed; therefore ὅτι is not = that in Rom 9:2.]—λέγω, I speak) The apostle speaks deliberately.—ἐν Χριστῷ) á, ἐν, has sometimes the same force as an oath.—οὐ ψεύδομαι, I lie not) This is equivalent to that clause, I speak the truth. Its own confirmation is added to each [both to, I lie not, and to, I speak the truth]. This chapter throughout in its phrases and figures comes near to the Hebrew idiom.—συνειδήσεως, conscience) The criterion of truth lies in the conscience and in the heart, which the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit enlightens and confirms.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:1-3.] The new section is introduced without connection with the foregoing, but in a fervent outburst of Israelitish patriotism, the more sorrowful by contrast with the blessedness of the Christian previously extolled and so deeply experienced by the apostle himself. This sorrow might be deemed incredible, after the joyous triumph which had just been exhibited. Hence the extremely urgent asseveration with which he begins: truth I speak in Christ, that is, in my fellowship with Christ; ἐν Χ. is the element, in which his soul moves. Just so Eph_4:17; 1Th_4:1; 2Co_2:17; 2Co_12:19. The explanation adopted by most of the older commentators (especially Joh. Capellus, Clericus, Locke), and by Nösselt, Koppe, Böhme, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, and others, of ἐν in the sense of adjuration, is a perfectly arbitrary departure both from the manner of the apostle, who never swears by Christ, and also from Greek usage, which would have required πρός with the genitive (Kühner, II. 1, p. 448; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 647); and cannot at all be justified from Mat_5:34, LXX. Jer_5:7, Dan_12:7, Rev_10:6, because in these passages ὁμνύειν expressly stands beside it.

Οὐ ΨΕΎΔΟΜΑΙ] ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ ΔῈ ΔΙΑΒΕΒΑΙΟῦΤΑΙ ΠΕΡῚ ὯΝ ΜΈΛΛΕΙ ΛΈΓΕΙΝ· ὍΠΕΡ ΠΟΛΛΟῖς ἜΘΟς ΠΟΙΕῖΝ, ὍΤΑΝ ΜΈΛΛΩΣΊ ΤΙ ΛΈΓΕΙΝ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤΟῖς ΠΟΛΛΟῖς ἈΠΙΣΤΟΎΜΕΝΟΝ (comp. e.g. Act_21:21), καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ σφόδρα ἑαυτούς εἰσι πεπεικότες, Chrys. Compare 1Ti_2:7. Conversely, Lys. Rom_4:12 : ΨΕΎΔΕΤΑΙ Κ. ΟὐΚ ἈΛΗΘῆ ΛΈΓΕΙ.

ΣΥΜΜΑΡΤ. ΜΟΙ Τῆς ΣΥΝΕΙΔ. ΜΟΥ] ground assigned for the Οὐ ΨΕΎΔ.: since with me (agreeing with my express assurance) my conscience gives testimony. Compare Rom_2:15, Rom_8:16.

ἐν πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ] is by no means to be connected with Τῆς ΣΥΝΕΙΔ. ΜΟΥ (Grotius and several others, Semler, Ammon, Vater: conscientia a Spiritu sancto gubernata), because otherwise Τῆς would not be wanting; but either with Οὐ ΨΕΎΔΟΜΑΙ (Cramer, Morus, Nösselt, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Winzer, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche; of whom, however, only Winzer and Fritzsche take it not as an oath, but as equivalent to Ὡς ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ ἉΓΊῼ ὬΝ), orwhich is the nearest and simplestwith ΣΥΜΜΑΡΤ. (Beza, Böhme, Tholuck, Rückert, de Wette, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, and others). Compare Mat_22:43; Luk_2:27; Mar_12:36; 1Co_12:3. The testimony of his conscience, Paul knows, is not apart from the πνεῦμα that fills him, but Spiritu sancto duce et moderatore (Beza), in that πνεῦμα. And thus the negative Οὐ ΨΕΎΔ. receives its sacred guarantee through a concurrent testimony of the conscience ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ ἉΓΊῼ, as the positive ἈΛΉΘ· ΛΈΓΩ had received it through ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ. This very appropriate symmetry dissuades us from joining ΣΥΜΜΑΡΤ. ΜΟΙ Κ.Τ.Λ to ἈΛΉΘ. ΛΈΓΩ, so that Οὐ ΨΕΎΔ. would be only thrown in between (Hofmann).

ὅτι λύπη κ.τ.λ.] that, etc. A comma only preceding. Over what is this sorrow? Over the exclusion of a great part of the Jews from the Messianic salvation. With tender forbearance Paul does not express this, but leaves it to be gathered by the reader from what follows, in which he immediately, by γάρ, assigns the ground for the greatness and continuance of his sorrow.

ηὐχόμην] I would wish, namely, if the purport of the wish could be realized to the advantage of the Israelites. Comp. on Gal_4:20, where also no ἄν is annexed. But van Hengel takes it of a wish which had actually arisen in the mind of Paul amidst his continual sorrowfulness. So also Hofmann: the wish had entered his mind, though but momentarily. But a thing so incapable of being fulfilled he can scarce have actually wished; he would only wish it, if it were capable of being fulfilled; this is expressed by ηὐχόμην, and that without ἌΝ, as a definite assurance; comp. on Act_25:22; Gal_4:20; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 187; Kühner, II. 1, p. 178. On the wish itself, comp. Exo_32:32.

ἀνάθεμα] or, in the Attic form, ἈΝΆΘΗΜΑ (Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 249, 445, and Paralip. p. 391 ff.), in Greek writers (also Luk_21:5; 2Ma_2:13, et al.) a votive offering, corresponds frequently in the LXX. to the Hebrew חֶרֶם, and means something devoted to God without redemption (Lev_27:28); thenin so far as such a thing was devoted to the divine wrath, and destined to destruction (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 101 ff.)something abandoned to destruction; a curse-offering. So in the N. T. See Gal_1:8-9, 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22, which passages at the same time prove that the (later) special sense of חרם, as denoting the Jewish curse of excommunication, is not to be here introduced. The destruction, to which Paul would fain yield himself on behalf of his brethren, is not to be understood of a violent death (Jerome, Limborch, Elsner, and others, also Michaelis, Nösselt, Flatt), but, as ἈΠῸ Τ. Χ. renders necessary, of the everlasting ἀπώλεια. It has been objected that the wish must thus be irrational (Michaelis: a frantic prayer); but the standard of selfish reflection is not suited to the emotion of unmeasured devotedness and love out of which the apostle speaks. Groundlessly, and contrary to Pauls usage elsewhere, Hofmann weakens the positive notion of the expression into the negative one of the being excluded from Christ. This element is implied in ἀπὸ τοῦ Χ. as the specific accompanying relation of the ἈΝΆΘΕΜΑ. Bengel well remarks that the modulus ratiocinationum nostrarum as little comprehends the love of the apostle, as does a little boy the animos heroum bellicorum.

ΑὐΤῸς ἘΓΏ] belonging to ΕἾΝΑΙ by attraction (Kühner, II. 2, p. 596): I myself, I, as far as my own person is concerned. Comp. on Rom_7:25. Paul sees those who belong to the fellowship of his people advancing to ruin through their unbelief; therefore he would fain wish that he himself were a curse-offering, if by means of this sacrifice of his own self he could only save the beloved brethren. The contrast, with reference to which ΑὐΤῸς ἘΓΏ is here conceived, lies therefore in ὙΠῈΡ ΤῶΝ ἈΔΕΛΦ. ΜΟΥ, whose unhappy state appears already in Rom_9:1-2 so sad in the eyes of the apostle; not in the duty of the apostles calling (Th. Schott); and least of all in a nescio quis alius (Fritzsche). Theodoret and Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom) refer back to Rom_8:39 (I myself, whom nevertheless nothing can separate, etc.); but this lies too far off. Van Hengel (after Krehl): Ipse ego, qui me in Christi communione esse dixi. But ἘΝ Χ. in the previous instance was merely an accessory definition.

ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ Χ.] away from Christ, separated from Him. Comp. 2Th_1:9; Gal_5:4; 2Co_5:6; 2Co_11:3; Lev_27:29; and see generally, Nägelsbach on Ilias, p. 188, ed. 3; Ameis on Hom. Od. Anh. ξ, 525; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 277. Christ is not conceived as author of the ἀνάθ. (Nösselt, Morus, Flatt, and others); for ἀπὸ (comp. Lev_27:29) does not stand for ὑπό, which latter D E G actually read in consequence of this erroneous view.

ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφ. μοῦ] ὑπέρ is here also not instead of (Rückert, Tholuck, Olshausen, and many others), but for the advantage of, for their deliverance. Grotius aptly paraphrases: Si ea ratione illos ad justitiam veram et ad aeternam salutem possem perducere.

κατὰ ς.] subjoined, without the connective of the article, as a familiar accessory definition, which blends with the principal word into a single notion. Comp. 1Co_10:18; Eph_2:11; Eph_6:5. Moreover, there lies in the addition τ. συγγ. μ. κ. ς. already something conveying with it the wish of love, and that from the natural side; the theocratic grounds for it follow, Rom_9:4 ff.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:1-5 . The intense pain with which Paul contemplates the unbelief of his countrymen.

Rom 9:1 . ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ , οὐ ψεύδομαι . The solemn asseveration is meant to clear him of the suspicion that in preaching to the Gentiles he is animated by hostility or even indifference to the Jews. Yet cf. 2Co 11:31 , Gal 1:20 . ἐν Χριστῷ means that he speaks in fellowship with Christ, so that false-hood is impossible. For συμμαρτ . cf. Rom 2:15 , Rom 8:16 . The μοι is governed by συν : conscience attests what he says, and that ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ the spirit of God, in which all the functions of the Christian life are carried on: so that assurance is made doubly and trebly sure.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

E. Rom 9:1 to Rom 11:36. THE REJECTION OF THE GOSPEL BY ISRAEL

The theme of Rom 1:16-17 has been worked out; it has been shown that the Gospel is a power of GOD unto salvation for them that believe, a power needed by Gentile and Jew alike, guaranteed on condition of faith and in response to faith by the love of GOD, and adequate to man’s needs as shown in history and in individual experience; and a brief description has been given of the actual state of the Christian in Christ and of the certainty and splendour of his hope, resting upon the love of GOD. Naturally at this point the question of the Jews arises: they were the typical instance of a people brought into close and peculiar relation to GOD, and they therefore afford a crucial case of GOD’S dealings with such. How then did it come to pass that they rejected the Gospel? What is their present state? their future destiny? and how does this affect Christians? The answer is found in the conditions under which GOD selects men for the execution of His purposes. It is important to bear in mind that the selection throughout is regarded as having reference not to the final salvation of persons but to the execution of the purpose of GOD. Underlying the whole section is the special object of S. Paul to justify himself in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles.

1. ἀλήθειαν, κ.τ.λ. Cf. 1Ti 2:7; 2Co 11:31; 2Co 7:14; 2Co 12:6; Gal 1:20: in all cases a strong assertion of his personal truthfulness, in a statement which would be challenged. Here his deep personal interest in Israel is asserted; his championship of the Gentiles had no doubt been interpreted as hostility to Jews.

ἐν Χριστῷ = as a Christian; cf. 2Co 2:17; 2Co 12:19; Phm 1:8. In this anarthrous and simple form the phrase is confined to S. Paul (all except 2 Thes. and Pastorals) and 1 Pet.; and seems simply to mark the Christian position.

συνμαρτυρούσης. Rom 2:15, Rom 8:16 only. In Rom 2:15 and here the συν is perhaps simply perfective; cf. Moulton, p. 113. Otherwise the conscious reflection is cited as a confirming witness to the uttered statement.

τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου. Cf. 2Co 1:12; 2Co 5:11. = all that I know of myself; cf. Rom 2:15 n.

ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Cf. 1Co 2:11-12; 1Co 12:3. Not merely ‘in my spirit as consecrated,’ but ‘in the light of or under the control of the Holy Spirit.’ |[172] ἐν Χριστῷ. 1Co 12:3 is decisive for this meaning.

[172] | parallel to

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap. 9-11] The Gospel being now established, in its fulness and freeness, as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,—a question naturally arises, not unaccompanied with painful difficulty, respecting the exclusion of that people, as a people, to whom God’s ancient promises were made. With this national rejection of Israel the Apostle now deals: first (9:1-5) expressing his deep sympathy with his own people: then (vv. 6-29) justifying Good, Who has not (vv. 6-13) broken His promise, but from the first chose a portion only of Abraham’s seed, and that (vv. 14-29) by His undoubted elective right, not to be murmured at nor disputed by us His creatures: according to which election a remnant shall now also be saved. Then, as to the rejection of so large a portion of Israel, their own self-righteousness (vv. 30-33) has been the cause of it, and (10:1-12) their ignorance of God’s righteousness,—notwithstanding that (vv. 13-21) their Scriptures plainly declared to them the nature of the Gospel, and its results with regard to themselves and the Gentiles, with which declarations Paul’s preaching was in perfect accordance. Has God then cast off his people (11:1-10)? No—for a remnant shall be saved according to the election of grace, but the rest hardened, not however for the purpose of their destruction, but (11:11-24) of mercy to the Gentiles: which purpose of mercy being fulfilled, Israel shall be brought in again to its proper place of blessing (11:25-32). He concludes the whole with a humble admiration of the unsearchable depth of God’s ways, and the riches of His Wisdom (11:33-36).

In no part of the Epistles of Paul is it more requisite than in this portion, to bear in mind his habit of insulating the one view of the subject under consideration, with which he is at the time dealing. The divine side of the history of Israel and the world is in the greater part of this portion thus insulated: the facts of the divine dealings and the divine decrees insisted on, and the mundane or human side of that history kept for the most part out of sight, and only so much shewn, as to make it manifest that the Jews, on their part, failed of attaining God’s righteousness, and so lost their share in the Gospel.

It must also be remembered, that, whatever inferences, with regard to God’s disposal of individuals, may justly lie from the Apostle’s arguments, the assertions here made by him are universally spoken with a national reference. Of the eternal salvation or rejection of any individual Jew there is here no question: and however logically true of any individual the same conclusion may be shewn to be, we know as matter of fact, that in such cases not the divine, but the human side, is that ever held up by the Apostle—the universality of free grace for all—the riches of God’s mercy to all who call on Him, and consequent exhortations to all, to look to Him and be saved.

De Wette has well shewn, against Reiche and others, that the apparent inconsistencies of the Apostle, at one time speaking of absolute decrees of God, and at another of culpability in man,—at one time of the election of some, at another of a hope of the conversion of all,—resolve themselves into the necessary conditions of thought under which we all are placed, being compelled to acknowledge the divine Sovereignty on the one hand, and human free will on the other, and alternately appearing to lose sight of one of these, as often as for the time we confine our view to the other.

9:1-5.] The Apostle’s deep sympathy with his own people Israel. The subject on which he is about to enter, so unwelcome to Jews in general, coupled with their hostility to himself, and designation of him as a πλάνος (2Co 6:8: compare also 2Co 1:17; 2Co 2:17; 2Co 4:1, 2Co 4:2; 2Co 7:2 al.), causes him to begin with a προπαραίτησις or deprecation, bespeaking credit for simplicity and earnestness in the assertion which is to follow. This deprecation and assertion of sympathy he puts in the forefront of the section, to take at once the ground from those who might charge him, in the conduct of his argument, with hostility to his own alienated people.

I say (the) truth in Christ (as a Christian,—as united to Christ; the ordinary sense of the expression ἐν χριστῷ, so frequent with the Apostle.

It is not an oath, ‘by Christ,’—for though ἐν with ὄμνυμι bears this meaning, we have no instance of it where the verb is not expressed),—I lie not (confirmation of the preceding, by shewing that he was aware of what would be laid to his charge, and distinctly repudiating it),—my conscience bearing me witness of the same (the σύν in composition, as in reff., denoting accordance with the fact, not joint testimony) in the Holy Spirit (much as ἐν χριστῷ above:—a conscience not left to itself but informed and enlightened by the Spirit of God. Strangely enough, Griesb., Knapp, and Koppe take these words also for a formula jurandi, and connect them with οὐ ψεύδομαι), that (not because, or for, as Bengel: ὅτι, as in 2Co 11:10, introducing the matter to which the asseveration was directed,—I say the truth, when I say, that.…) I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. The reason of this grief is reserved for a yet stronger description of his sympathy in the next verse.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE APOSTLE’S SORROW OVER ISRAEL’S UNBELIEF

9:1-5. The thought of this magnificent prospect fills me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it—my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice my dearest hopes—excluded too in spite of all their special privileges and their high destiny.

1How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ! How mournful the thought of those who are cut off from it! There is no shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth; and my conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God’s Holy Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. 2 There is one grief that I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my heart. 3 Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer has been in my mind: Could I by the personal sacrifice of my own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen? Are they not my own brethren, my kinsmen as far as earthly relationship is concerned? 4 Are they not God’s own privileged people? They bear the sacred name of Israel with all that it implies; it is they whom He declared to be His ‘son,’ His ‘firstborn’ (Exo 4:22); their temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine presence; they are bound to Him by a series of covenants repeatedly renewed; to them He gave a system of law on Mount Sinai; year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of the temple; they have been the depositories of the Divine promises; 5 their ancestors are the patriarchs, who were accounted righteous before God; from them in these last days has come the Messiah as regards his natural descent—that Messiah who although sprung from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than God, the eternal object of human praise!

1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Epistle, the amanuensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the beginning of chap. 3), but allows it gradually to become evident. He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is to him so full of sadness. It will be only too apparent to what he refers; and tact and delicacy both forbid him to define it more exactly.

ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ: ‘I speak the truth in Christ, as one united with Christ’; cf. 2Co 2:17 ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ, κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦεν: 12:19. St. Paul has just described that union with Christ which will make any form of sin impossible; cf. 8:1, 10; and the reference to this union gives solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full credence.

οὐ ψεύδομαι. A Pauline expression. 1Ti 2:7 ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ ψεύδομαι: 2Co 11:31; Gal 1:20.

συμμαρτυρούσης: cf. 2:15; 8:16. The conscience is personified so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. Oecumenius ad loc. μέγα θέλει εἰπεῖν, διὸ προοδοποιεῖ τῷ πιστευθῆναι, τρεῖς ἐπιφερόμενος μάρτυρας, τὸν Χριστόν, τὸἍγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ συνείδησιν.

ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ with συμμαρτυρούσης. St. Paul adds further solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous chapter. Cf. 8:16 αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν.

St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his statement as a man does who is about to say something of the truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against him. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. πρότερον δὲ διαβεβαιοῦται περὶ ὦν μελλει λέγειν· ὅπερ πολλοῖς ἔθος ποιεῖν ὅταν μέλλωσί τι λέγειν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀπιστούμενον καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ σφόδρα ἑαυτούς εἰσι πεπεικότες.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Twenty-first Passage (9:1-29). The Liberty of God in regard to the Election of Israel.

The apostle opens this passage with a preface expressing the profound grief he feels in view of the mysterious fact which is about to occupy him (Rom 9:1-5); then he shows how the liberty of God is set in its full light by the theocratical antecedents (Rom 9:6-13), and by the most unequivocal scriptural declarations (Rom 9:14-24); and finally, he calls to mind that the use which God is now making of this liberty in relation to the Jews, was clearly foretold (Rom 9:25-29). This last idea forms the transition to the following passage, which refers to the legitimacy of the application which God has made to the Jews of His sovereign right (chap. 10). Chap. 10 ought strictly to begin at Rom 9:30 of chap. 9.

Vv. 1-5.

Paul expresses all the intensity of his grief on account of his people (Rom 9:1-3), and he justifies it by the magnificent prerogatives wherewith this unique people had been honored (Rom 9:4-5).

Vv. 1, 2. “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have a great grief and a continual lamentation in my heart.”

No connecting particle joins this part to the preceding. The asyndeton is here, as always, the evidence of a lively emotion which breaks, so to speak, the logical bond; but this form attests at the same time with all the more energy the profound relation of feeling which unites this piece to the preceding. And is it not in fact one and the same feeling in the two contrasted aspects, that emotion of triumphant joy expressed at the end of the previous chapter, when, after conducting poor condemned and lost creatures through the righteousness of faith and sanctification by the Spirit, he has brought them to the threshold of glory—and the grief which he feels at seeing his Israel loved above all, yet deprived of such blessings? He has just been following a people of elect and glorified ones rising from the midst of fallen humanity, and Israel is wanting from among the number! There is between these two parts a bitter contemplation in which the misery of rejected Israel appears to him like the sombre reverse of the incomparable blessedness of the faithful who are adopted in Jesus Christ.

The apostle does not pronounce the word which expresses the cause of his grief. It is not an oversight, as Reuss thinks; but it costs him too much to pronounce the fatal word; every reader will divine it from his very silence.

The words: in Christ, must be joined to the preceding: I speak the truth, and not to what follows: I lie not. To make Paul say: “in Christ I lie not,” would be to put into his mouth a poor commonplace. Rom 9:2, and especially Rom 9:3, will tell what the fact is which he is concerned to affirm so solemnly.

A man, even a truthful man, may exaggerate his own feelings; but in the eyes of Paul there is something so holy in Christ, that in the pure and luminous atmosphere of His felt presence no lie, and not even any exaggeration, is possible. The parenthesis following: “I lie not”..., might be taken as a second declaration in a negative form, parallel to the affirmation which precedes. But it is difficult in this case to understand what the testimony of his conscience and of the Holy Spirit can add to the security already given by the words in Christ. It seems to me, then, that this parenthesis should be regarded as a confirmation of those first words themselves: “I do not lie in affirming that it is under the view of Christ that I declare what I there say.” It is therefore on this declaration: “I speak in the communion of Christ,” that the testimony of his conscience bears; and even this testimony, as too human, does not suffice. Paul declares that he feels at the same instant, through the Holy Spirit, the whole intimacy of this communion. The σύν, with, in the verb συμμαρτυρεῖν, to testify with, signifies: in concert with my own declaration. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established;” it seems as if Paul wished to confirm his affirmation by a double testimony, that of his conscience and that of the Holy Spirit. Why so much solemnity in entering on his subject? We understand the reason when we think what he has in view: the rejection of Israel. Was he not the man whom the Jews accused of being moved in his whole work by a spirit of hostility to his people? But here is the expression of his real feelings attested by all he counts sacred, however extraordinary what he is about to say (Rom 9:3) may appear.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter IX

With the eighth chapter, the discussion of the plan of salvation, and of its immediate consequences, was brought to a close. The consideration of the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, commences with the ninth, and extends to the end of the eleventh. Paul, in the first place, shows that God may consistently reject the Jews, and extend the blessings of the Messiahs reign to the Gentiles, 9:1-24; and in the second place, that he has already declared that such was his purpose, Rom_9:25-29. Agreeably to these prophetic declarations, the apostle announces that the Jews were cast off and the Gentiles called; the former having refused submission to the righteousness of faith, and the latter having been obedient, Rom_9:30-33. In the tenth chapter, Paul shows the necessity of this rejection of the ancient people of God, and vindicates the propriety of extending the invitation of the gospel to the heathen, in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. In the eleventh, he teaches that this rejection of the Jews was neither total nor final. It was not total, inasmuch as many of the Jews of that generation believed; and it was not final, as the period approached when the great body of that nation should acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, and be reingrafted into their own olive tree. So that we have in this and the following chapters,

1st, Pauls lamentation over the rejection of the Jews, is. Rom_9:1-5.

2nd, The proof that God had the right to deal thus with his ancient people, 9:6-29.

3rd, The proof that the guilt of this rejection was on the Jews themselves, Rom_9:30-33, 10:1-21.

4th, The consolation which the promises and revealed purposes of God afford in view of this sad event.

Contents

In entering on the discussion of the question of the rejection of the jews, and the calling of the gentiles, the apostle assures his brethren of his love for them, and of his respect for their national privileges, Rom_9:1-5. That his doctrine on this subject was true, he argues,

First, because it was not inconsistent with the promises of god, who is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favors, vv. 6-24. And

Secondly, because it was distinctly predicted in their own scriptures, Rom_9:25-29. The conclusion from this reasoning is stated in Rom_9:20-33. The jews are rejected for their unbelief, and the gentiles admitted to the messiahs kingdom.

Rom_9:1-5

Analysis

As the subject about to be discussed was of all others the most painful and offensive to his Jewish brethren, the apostle approaches it with the greatest caution. He solemnly assures them that he was grieved at heart on their account; and that his love for them was ardent and disinterested, Rom_9:1-3. Their peculiar privileges he acknowledged and respected. They were highly distinguished by all the advantages connected with the Old Testament dispensation, and, above all, by the fact that the Messiah was, according to the flesh, a Jew, Rom_9:4, Rom_9:5.

Commentary

Rom_9:1

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, etc. There are three ways in which the words in Christ, or by Christ, may here be understood.

1. They may be considered as part of the formula of an oath, I (swear) by Christ, I speak the truth. But in oaths the preposition πρός, and not ἐν, is used. In a few cases, indeed, where a verb of swearing is used, the latter preposition occurs but not otherwise. In addition to this objection, it may be urged that no instance occurs of Pauls appealing to Christ in the form of an oath. The case which looks most like such an appeal is 1Ti_5:21, I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, etc. But it is evident from the mention of the angels, that this is not of the nature of an oath. Paul merely wishes to urge Timothy to act as in the presence of God, Christ, and angels. This interpretation, therefore, is not to be approved.

2. The words in Christ may be connected with the pronoun I. I in Christ, i.e., as a Christian, or, In the consciousness of my union with Christ, I declare, etc. So the words are used in a multitude of cases, You in Christ, I in Christ, We in Christ, being equivalent to you, I, or we, as Christians, i.e. considered as united to Christ. See 1Co_1:30, Of him are ye in Christ, i.e. By him ye are Christians, or united to Christ; Rom_16:3, Rom_16:7, Rom_16:9; 1Co_3:1, and frequently elsewhere.

3. The words may be used adverbially, and be translated after a Christian manner. This also is a frequent use of this and analogous phrases. See 1Co_7:39, Only in the Lord, i.e. only after a religious manner, in the Lord being equivalent with in a manner becoming or suited to the Lord. Rom_16:22, I salute you in the Lord. Phi_2:29, Receive him, therefore, in the Lord; Eph_6:1; Col_3:18.

The sense of the passage is much the same, whether we adopt the one or the other of the last two modes of explanation. Paul means to say that he speaks in a solemn and religious manner, as a Christian, conscious of his intimate relation to Christ.

I say the truth, and lie not. This mode of assertion, first affirmatively, and then negatively, is common in the Scriptures. Thou shalt die and not live, Isa_38:1. He confessed, and denied not, Joh_1:20. There is generally something emphatic in this mode of speaking. It was a solemn and formal assertion of his integrity which Paul here designed to make. My conscience also bearing me witness; συμμαρτυρούσης, my conscience bearing witness with my words. In the Holy Ghost. These words are not to be taken as an oath, nor are they to be connected with the subject of οὐ ψεύδομαι, I, instructed, or influenced by the Holy Ghost, lie not; but rather with συμμαρτυρούσης, his conscience bore this testimony guided by the Holy Spirit, Spiritu Sancto duce et moderatore, as Beza expresses it.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The third part of this Epistle, even to the twelfth Chapter, wherein Paul ascendeth to the higher causes of faith: and first of all because he purposed to speak much of the casting off of the Jews, he useth an insinuation, declaring by a double or triple oath, and by witnessing of his great desire towards their salvation, his singular love towards them, and therewithall granting unto them all their prerogatives.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

In this chapter he begins to remove the offences which might have diverted the minds of men from Christ: for the Jews, for whom he was appointed according to the covenant of the law, not only rejected him, but regarded him with contempt, and for the most part hated him. Hence one of two things seemed to follow, — either that there was no truth in the Divine promise, — or that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was not the Lord’s anointed, who had been especially promised to the Jews. This twofold knot Paul fully unties in what follows. He, however, so handles this subject, as to abstain from all bitterness against the Jews, that he might not exasperate their minds; and yet he concedes to them nothing to the injury of the gospel; for he allows to them their privileges in such a way, as not to detract anything from Christ. But he passes, as it were abruptly, to the mention of this subject, so that there appears to be no connection in the discourse. He, however, so enters on this new subject, as though he had before referred to it. It so happened in this way, — Having finished the doctrine he discussed, he turned his attention to the Jews, and being astonished at their unbelief as at something monstrous, he burst forth into this sudden protestation, in the same way as though it was a subject which he had previously handled; for there was no one to whom this thought would not of itself immediately occur, — “If this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets, how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?” And further, it was everywhere known, that all that he had hitherto spoken of the law of Moses, and of the grace of Christ, was more disliked by the Jews, than that the faith of the Gentiles should be assisted by their consent. It was therefore necessary to remove this obstacle, lest it should impede the course of the gospel.

1. The truth I say in Christ, etc. As it was an opinion entertained by most that Paul was, as it were, a sworn enemy to his own nation, and as it was suspected somewhat even by the household of faith, as though he had taught them to forsake Moses, he adopts a preface to prepare the minds of his readers, before he proceeds to his subject, and in this preface he frees himself from the false suspicion of evil will towards the Jews. And as the matter was not unworthy of an oath, and as he perceived that his affirmation would hardly be otherwise believed against a prejudice already entertained, he declares by an oath that he speaks the truth. By this example and the like, (as I reminded you in the first chapter,) we ought to learn that oaths are lawful, that is, when they render that truth credible which is necessary to be known, and which would not be otherwise believed.

The expression, In Christ, means “according to Christ.” By adding I lie not, he signifies that he speaks without fiction or disguise. My conscience testifying to me, etc. By these words he calls his own conscience before the tribunal of God, for he brings in the Spirit as a witness to his feeling. He adduced the Spirit for this end, that he might more fully testify that he was free and pure from an evil disposition, and that he pleaded the cause of Christ under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of God. It often happens that a person, blinded by the passions of the flesh, (though not purposing to deceive,) knowingly and wilfully obscures the light of truth. But to swear by the name of God, in a proper sense of the word, is to call him as a witness for the purpose of confirming what is doubtful, and at the same time to bind ourselves over to his judgment, in case we say what is false.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) I say the truth in Christ.—The meaning of this expression seems to be, “From the bottom of my soul, in the most sacred part of my being, as a Christian man united to Christ, I make this solemn asseveration.”

My conscience.—Here, as in Rom_2:15, very much in the modern sense of the word, the introspective faculty which sits in judgment upon actions, and assigns to them their moral qualities of praise or blame. “This conscience of mine being also overshadowed with the Holy Spirit, and therefore incapable of falsehood or self-deception.”

(1-5) My heart bleeds for Israel, my country, that highly-privileged people. I could fain have changed places with them, and been myself cut off from Christ, if only they might have been saved.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,.... The apostle being about to discourse concerning predestination, which he had mentioned in the preceding chapter, and to open the springs and causes of it, and also concerning the induration and rejection of the Jewish nation; he thought it necessary to preface his account of these things with some strong assurances of his great attachment to that people, and his affection for them, lest it should be thought he spoke out of prejudice to them; and well knowing in what situation he stood in with them, on account of his preaching up the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and how difficult it might be for him to obtain their belief in what he should say, he introduces it with a solemn oath, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not": which refers not to what he had said in the foregoing chapter, but to what he was going to say; and is all one as if he had said, as I am in Christ, a converted person, one born again, and renewed in the spirit of my mind, what I am about to speak is truth, and no lie; or I swear by Christ the God of truth, who is truth itself, and I appeal to him as the true God, the searcher of hearts, that what I now deliver is truth, and nothing but truth, and has no falsehood in it. This both shows that the taking of an oath is lawful, and that Christ is truly God, by whom only persons ought to swear:

my conscience bearing me witness. The apostle, besides his appeal to Christ, calls his conscience to witness to the truth of his words; and this is as a thousand witnesses; there is in every man a conscience, which unless seared as with a red hot iron, will accuse or excuse, and bear a faithful testimony to words and actions; and especially a conscience enlightened, cleansed, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, as was the apostle's: hence he adds,

in the Holy Ghost; meaning either that his conscience was influenced and directed by the Holy Ghost in what he was about to say; or it bore witness in and with the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost with that; so that here are three witnesses called in, Christ, conscience, and the Holy Ghost; and by three such witnesses, his words must be thought to be well established.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

Ver. 1. I say the truth, &c.] As any one is more assured of his own salvation, the more he desireth the salvation of others. Charity is no churl; as we see here in Paul.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I say the truth - In what I am about to affirm respecting my attachment to the nation and people.

In Christ - Most interpreters regard this as a form of an oath, as equivalent to calling Christ to witness. It is certainly to be regarded, in its obvious sense, as an appeal to Christ as the searcher of the heart, and as the judge of falsehood. Thus, the word translated “in” ἐν en is used in the form of an oath in Mat 5:34-36; Rev 10:6, Greek. We are to remember that the apostle was addressing those who had been Jews; and the expression has all the force of an oath “by the Messiah.” This shows that it is right on great and solemn occasions, and in a solemn manner, and thus only, to appeal to Christ for the sincerity of our motives, and for the truth of what we say. And it shows further, that it is right to regard the Lord Jesus Christ as present with us, as searching the heart, as capable of detecting insincerity, hypocrisy, and perjury, and as therefore divine.

My conscience - Conscience is that act or judgment of the mind by which we decide on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our actions, and by which we instantly approve or condemn them. It exists in every man, and is a strong witness to our integrity or to our guilt.

Bearing me witness - Testifying to the truth of what I say.

In the Holy Ghost - He does not say that he speaks the truth by or in the Holy Spirit, as he had said of Christ; but that the conscience pronounced its concurring testimony by the Holy Spirit; that is, conscience as enlightened and influenced by the Holy Spirit. It was not simply natural conscience, but it was conscience under the full influence of the Enlightener of the mind and Sanctifier of the heart. The reasons of this solemn asseveration are probably the following:

(1) His conduct and his doctrines had led some to believe that he was an apostate, and had lost his love for his countrymen. He had forsaken their institutions, and devoted himself to the salvation of the Gentiles. He here shows them that it was from no lack of love to them.

(2) The doctrines which he was about to state and defend were of a similar character; he was about to maintain that no small part of his own countrymen, notwithstanding their privileges, would be rejected and lost. In this solemn manner, therefore, he assures them that this doctrine had not been embraced because he did not love them, but because it was solemn, though most painful truth. He proceeds to enumerate their privileges as a people, and to show to them the strength and tenderness of his love.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The apostle being about to treat of the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, before he enters upon it, he premiseth a preface, to prepare the minds of the Jews to a patient reading or hearing the same; and in this preface, he solemnly protesteth his love to his nation, and his hearty grief for their rejection, that so it might the better appear, that these things were not written out of any spleen or malice, but out of conscience towards God and the truth.

I say truth in Christ; or, by Christ: so the word in is taken, Mat 5:34-36. This is the form of an oath, which the Scripture elsewhere useth in matters of importance: see Gen 22:16; Dan 12:7; Eph 4:17.

I lie not; this is added for confirmation, or to gain the greater credit to what he said or swore. It was the manner of the Hebrews, to an affirmative to add a negative: see 1Sa 3:18; Joh 1:20.

My conscience also bearing me witness; as being for this purpose placed in man by God, and is instead of a thousand witnesses.

In the Holy Ghost; i.e. in the presence of the Holy Ghost, who is privy to what I say, and who is a witness also to the truth thereof: or, as some, by the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who cannot lie.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 1. Rom_11:362. The present position and prospects of the Jewish nation con-sidereal.

Vers. 1-5. (1) Deep regret expressed for the present exclusion of the Jewish nation from inheritance of the promises. This section is not necessary for the main argument of the Epistle, which would have been complete without it for an exposition of God"s righteousness, Ro 12 following naturally the conclusion of Ro 8, and these intervening chapters having no immediate connection with the preceding or succeeding context. But it was a subject too deeply fixed in St. Paul"s mind to be left unnoticed. And besides, what he had said at the beginning of his treatise, and afterwards implied, seemed to call for some explanation in the face of existing facts. For he had said, (Rom_1:16) that the gospel "was the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile;" and throughout he has regarded it as the fulfilment of the peculiar promises made to the Jews themselves, who were to have precedence, though not monopoly, in the inheritance of its blessings. How, then, was this view consistent with the fact that the Jews in general, even more than any others, were now excluded from this inheritance? The apostle has already, even in the course of his argument, paused to meet certain supposed difficulties of this kind in the short section, Rom_3:1-8; but now he takes up the whole subject formally, and considers it in all its bearings.

First, in Ro 9, he expresses his deep sorrow for the fact; but shows it to be not inconsistent either with God"s faithfulness to his promise, or with his justice, or with the Word of prophecy.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing witness with me in the Holy Ghost. For similar solemn asseverations by St. Paul of the truth of what was known to himself alone, cf. Rom_1:9 2Co_11:31 Php_1:8 1Ti_2:7. The peculiar solemnity of this may be due to the peculiar depth of his feelings on the subject. It is not necessary to suppose him to be moved by a fear of his patriotic enthusiasm being doubted, now that he had turned Christian, and argued so strongly against Jewish monopoly of privilege But it may have been so. For the force of en Cristw , cf. 2Co_2:17 Rom_12:19 Eph_4:17 1Th_4:1. It is not an adjuration, but denotes the element in which he moves and speaks. Similarly, en Pneumati agiw following, (cf. 1Co_12:3) which, of course, could not be on oath.

HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN. Vers. 1-5. The sympathy of a Christian patriot.

If our Christianity is genuine, it will not destroy our natural affections, but will purify and ennoble them. Domestic affection is all the stronger and the brighter under the influence of Christianity. The Christian patriot is the truest patriot. So it was with St. Paul. Because he had embraced, so to speak, a new religion, he does not turn in bitterness against his former coreligionists. Because he has become wiser than they, he does not look down upon them with scorn and contempt.

I HIS SORROW FOR THE LOST. He says that he has "great heaviness and continual sorrow" for Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. This sorrow is intensified by many considerations.

1. He thinks of their great privileges. "To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came" (vers. 4, 5). It was indeed a saddening reflection to think that a people so highly honoured by God should depart from him. They had the Law for their guidance; the fathers for their example; Christ Jesus, God"s own Son, for their Messiah and Deliverer; and the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the promises for their encouragement and inspiration. Yet they crucified their King, and hardened their hearts against God"s messages of mercy. Great privileges make our guilt the greater if we reject Christ.

2. He thinks of the world"s obligation to them. The Jewish people have been the benefactors of the whole world. They have been the channel through which blessings have come to other nations. How sad that they themselves should forfeit the Divine blessing by their impenitence and unbelief! So also it would be sad if our British nation, which by its missionary enterprise has brought so many blessings to other nations, should itself depart from the truth as it is in Jesus, and fall into the depths of materialism and infidelity.

3. He thinks of his own relation to them. "My brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." Those who are connected with us by ties of blood or common nationality should be the objects of our special solicitude and sympathy. Many Christian people are full of sympathy for the heathen in India, or China, or Africa, who never think except, perhaps, with indifference or contempt of the poor and ignorant and oppressed among their own countrymen at home. The strikes among working men in England, the discontent among the crofters of Scotland, disaffection and outrage in Ireland, does not much of the responsibility for these things lie at the door of the Christian people of these nations? Thoughtlessness and indifference with regard to those around us bring their own retribution.

II HIS SELF-SACRIFICING SPIRIT. St. Paul did not confine himself to mere sentiments or words. "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (ver. 3). He had already given proof, in a very practical way, of his desire for the salvation of Israel. Wherever he went, "he preached Christ in the synagogues" (Act_9:20) as he had opportunity, thereby subjecting himself more than once to bitter persecution and attack. The true Christian patriot will sacrifice himself for the good of his country and fellow-countrymen. He will sacrifice his prejudices of class and creed, he will sacrifice even the favour and friendship of those of his own rank, if by so doing he may better reach the poor and degraded and ignorant. Have we ever known what it is to have heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for our fellow-countrymen, and to bear reproach and opposition in our efforts to do them good? C.H.I.

HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER Vers. 1-5. The honour of Israel.

These verses open up to us the great problem discussed in the three following chapters, "the rejection of the elect people" (Godet). God had chosen his people; he now repudiates them. And as the apostle in the previous chapter has been transported into an ecstasy of exultation in contemplating the final victory of God"s true people, he is now brought back to sorrow and pain of heart by a thought of the contrasted lot of Israel. "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" he had asked. But they have not known this love! He could well-nigh wish himself deprived of these high blessings that his people might possess them. For they are his beloved brethren, and the new spiritual endowments on his part do but intensify the claims of natural affinity. But in themselves, who are they, this people? In vers. 4 and 5 he sets forth their lofty claims; and we have in this shining catalogue their ancestry; their dignities; and their boon to the world.

I THEIR ANCESTRY. "Whose are the fathers;" "Who are Israelites." Nations pride themselves most on the heroes of their history, and they delight to trace their descent from men of renown. How is it with this nation? They are sprung from the patriarchs, of more than heroic fame. Abraham, God"s friend, the man of whom in his communings with God amidst the corruptions of the world it might be said, "His soul was like a star, and dwelt apart;" Isaac, the quiet, meditative man, whose deeds made no blaze of excitement among men, but with whom was "the secret of the Lord;" and Jacob, whose day rose so murky and dark, but whose sunset was of the most glorious so mean, yet afterwards so strong; a supplanter and deceiver among men, who yet became a prince of God, one around whom the heavens opened, and whom God touched: these were the fathers of the race! They, then, themselves were Israelites, princely ones with God.

II THEIR DIGNITIES.

1. The adoption. According to God"s message to Pharaoh, (Exo_4:22) "Israel is my son, even my firstborn." God is dealing with nationalities as with individual men, and in calling the nations to himself he summons Israel as the firstfruits from among the peoples.

2. The glory. To Jacob in his dream the glory of the opened heavens had appeared; the Israelites in their journeyings were led by a cloud that from its dark depths shot radiance; the same glory, as of God, shone in the Shechinah of the holiest place. Theirs was this symbol of an ever-present Deity.

3. The covenants. How many times had God said to the patriarchs, "Surely blessing I will bless thee"! And these covenants were perpetuated in the abiding covenant with the chosen people.

4. The giving of the Law. Having adopted them as his firstborn son, and shown them his glory, and made with them a covenant, he had trained them, in fatherly wisdom, by the Law, which was designed to be their schoolmaster in all high and holy things.

5. The service. And trained in righteousness, they were trained likewise in godliness priests of the most high God.

6. The promises. They were emphatically a people of hope; their whole history pointed towards better things to come.

III THEIR BOON TO THE WORLD. "Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." The patriarchs, from whom the people sprang, are as it were its root; the Messiah, who sprang from the people, is as it were its flower" (Godet). But let us notice two antitheses.

1. Of whom is Christ. " This people was called and trained that it might give birth, humanly, to the world"s Deliverer. A high calling! But though from them, he is not to be their exclusive possession: "Over all? From them springs the world"s Christ. Oh that they had known their high destiny! why it was that they were a nation of priests!

2. As concerning the flesh. " Humanly his origin was from them. Not a Jew, but a true, perfect Man, fashioned from Jewish human nature. All tender human sympathies of soul, as well as faculties of human body, were his to link him to his brethren among men. But in him, the Man, was an inhabitation, an incarnation of the Divine: "God blessed for ever. " Oh, wondrous truth! Here was the truest Shechinah, tabernacling in the world and for the world! the "Word made flesh"! Here the truest fulfilment of Israel"s dream the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on man. Such the world"s heritage: God is ours!

But this inheritance the ancient Israelites have given to the world. May he not well grieve that they have despised their own boon? And may he not well set himself to grapple with the problem How can such an elect people be rejected of God? T.F.L.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 1-5. Christian patriotism.

We saw in last chapter how a "Paradise" may really be experimentally regained," and how Christian experience culminates in a triumphant assurance. But the apostle could not contemplate this as a mere personal matter. He could not rejoice in personal salvation and be indifferent to the salvation of his brethren. The case of his countrymen accordingly comes forward for review, and in the review of it the apostle is seen as the Christian patriot. Though the "apostle of the Gentiles," he has lost no interest in his Jewish countrymen. The subject raised in this section is, consequently, the important one of Christian patriotism. Now, there are some who imagine that we have in these terms a real contradiction. Their notion is that the true Christian is so occupied with a future world as to have little interest in a present one. Is not heaven the fatherland of the believer? is he not taught to regard himself as a citizen of the better country? is he not to live as if already within its pearly gates? and gill he not in consequence lose real interest in the world that now is, and pass through it as a mere "pilgrim and stranger"? While this is perfectly true, it is also true that the Christian may and ought to be the very best of patriots, and Christian patriotism the very best form of patriotism. St. Paul"s case is one in point. He was the very finest specimen of a Christian which our era has produced. He laid the emphasis on the future world as few have ever done. He lived as if within the gates of the eternal city. And yet, in his relations to his fellow-countrymen, he was the truest and wisest of patriots. Up to a certain period Saul of Tarsus had been a trusted national leader. It was to him the chief priests committed their policy of persecution; and right zealously had he carried it out. Under the notion that the Christians were the enemies of their country and religion, the Jews, and Saul as their chosen instrument, thought that they did God service when they imprisoned and murdered them. Had it been asked who was the greatest patriot among all the Jews, the reply would have been unanimous Saul of Tarsus. His patriotism was thoroughly unscrupulous; it stuck at nothing. But when the risen Saviour meets and conquers him on the road to Damascus, the arch-persecutor becomes a meek and lowly Christian. And now he seeks out Jews instead of Christians, not to persecute them, however, but if possible to persuade them to become Christians too. The result is he is persecuted, and has to flee; yet the process is repeated in the missionary tours which characterize his life. To the Jews first, and then, when they reject his message, he turns to the Gentiles. He might, indeed, have given up the Jews with good reason. "Surely," says Colani, "if the Christian was held to break the chains which bound him naturally to a nation, never, to a certainty, had any man been so completely delivered therefrom as the apostle." He might have said, moreover, that he was set apart for the mission to the Gentiles. Yet, in spite of all their persecutions, he will give them the first place in his affections and in his evangelistic work. Indeed, he seems to gravitate instinctively and at all hazards to Jerusalem, prepared to sacrifice life and, as it would seem, everlasting happiness, if it would save them. And indeed, when we look into Paul"s life we see at once a cosmopolitanism and a patriotism a cosmopolitanism which embraced all Gentile nations, and a patriotism which would have made any sacrifice for his own beloved Jews. In contrast with this, pagan patriotism will be found to be politic rather than patriotic. Cities, not broad fatherlands, were the tiny footholds for which the citizens were ready to make sacrifices. They had not under paganism any broad or liberal views such as Christianity produced. Christianity transformed selfish citizenship into disinterested patriotism.

I THE CHRISTIAN PATRIOT WILL EMPHASIZE THE GOOD QUALITIES OF HIS COUNTRYMEN. (Vers. 4, 5) Paul is particular in bringing out the good qualities of the Jews. Though they had persecuted him, his only revenge was in doing them service by preaching to them Christ as their true Messiah. And when he found them unwilling to receive his message, "great heaviness and continual sorrow" seem to have settled in his heart. This consuming interest, moreover, was kept alive by the consideration of the good qualities of his countrymen. To them, as he rejoiced to think, pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." He looked into Jewish history and noted with satisfaction how his nation had been acknowledged and honoured in connection with God"s revelation of himself. The Jewish genius was in the sphere of religion. He studied also the great capacities of his countrymen, and it was his downright conviction that if they were once won to Christ, their advent to the Christian cause would be as "life from the dead." His fellow-countrymen seemed to him the most magnificent of latent possibilities, embodiments of great and noble qualities which simply were waiting to be consecrated to Christ. And it is here that enlightened Christian patriotism must begin. Let us take the good points, not the bad, in our fellow-countrymen. Let us consider what splendid possibilities they are, and then let us try, by God"s blessing, to have these qualities consecrated to our Lord and Master.

II THE CHRISTIAN PATRIOT WILL NOT EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM SERVING HIS COUNTRYMEN UNDER THE PRETENCE OF SOME SPECIAL MISSION. There are some people who are so occupied with special work as to have no time, as they certainly show little taste, for what is patriotic. They imagine they have got a dispensation from all patriotic service. But if any one ever had such a dispensation, it was assuredly the Apostle Paul. As soon as he was converted, he was told he was to be the apostle of the Gentiles. Immediately he blooms into a man of cosmopolitan aims and desires. The whole world becomes his parish, and all men his charge, Might he not, in such circumstances, plead for a division of labour, and leave the Jews to the care of Peter and of the eleven? Especially when he had tasted the bitterness of their persecution against him, might he not have well excused himself on the plea of his special mission? He might but, blessed be God, he did not. Though the apostle of the Gentiles, he was so patriotic as to have the Jews and their interests always on his heart. It pained him evermore to think that these splendid possibilities were being wasted in a vain endeavour to stem the tide of Christianity that he knew was on the flood, and would reach, in spite of all opposition, its fulness. And so we see this Christian patriot laying siege of set purpose to the Jewish synagogues on his way; preaching the gospel to the Jews until they would hear no longer; praying for them, writing Epistles about them, and perhaps one to them; in short, doing anything that a patient, pertinacious, persevering, converted Jew could do for his kinsmen according to the flesh. In view of Paul"s special mission, then, no man has any right to excuse himself, as some indeed do, from patriotic service.

III THE CHRISTIAN PATRIOT WILL RECOGNIZE THE SALVATION OF HIS COUNTRYMEN AS THE MOST IMPORTANT BENEFIT THEY CAN RECEIVE. It is certainly remarkable that St. Paul, in all his work among the Jews and references in his writings to them, keeps steadily before his mind and theirs that their conversion to Christ would be the greatest boon they could possibly receive. He gets involved in no controversy about patriotic politics, but devotes himself to the promulgation of what he believes to be the best religion for the Jews and for any man. He tried, accordingly, to bring them into sympathy with Christ. He preached the Messiahship of Jesus on the ground of the Jewish Scriptures. He showed that there was promised first a suffering and then a glorified Messiah; and that Jesus, now risen and reigning, embodied all their hopes. He understood their prejudices, for he had himself shared them; he met them manfully, and tried to carry conviction to their hearts. The result may have been and often was disappointing. The patriot was misunderstood, was despised, was rejected, was forced to flee from city to city, was mobbed, stoned, imprisoned, and at last martyred, all because bright as a star above him all the time shone the single purpose of getting his countrymen converted to Christ. Now, the same duty lies before all of us. The most patriotic effort any one can put forth is to get all one"s fellow-countrymen brought into fellowship with Christ. Other policies may be questioned and questionable, but the one about which there can be no question is the patriotic one of getting all we can influence in our country converted to the faith in Christ. Let us be his "living epistles," and we shall be "known and read of all men.

IV THE CHRISTIAN PATRIOT WILL RE READY FOR ANY SACRIFICE TO SECURE HIS KINSMEN"S SALVATION. We have seen how Paul exposed himself for his Jewish countrymen. He was prepared for risks. His poor body might be battered, stoned, killed, but Paul was quite ready for such eventualities. Nay, the passage before us shows that he was ready for a still greater sacrifice. If it had been possible for him to secure their salvation by becoming "anathema," that is, separated from Christ, he was patriotic enough for this. In other words, Paul was ready to forego his own heaven if by doing so he could bring his brethren to it. How many Christians have risen to such a patriotism? Self-sacrifice for their country may have been faced but self-sacrifice only for a time. Glory beyond the shadows makes compensation for the pain and the parting here. But self-sacrifice for eternity this is no less than Paul"s idea. Let us be patriotic as Paul was, and our country shall be every way the better for our being reckoned among her sons. R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In this chapter St. Paul, after strongly declaring his love and esteem for them, sets himself to answer the grand objection of his countrymen; namely, that the rejection of the Jews and reception of the gentiles was contrary to the word of God. That he had not here the least thought of personal election or reprobation is manifest,

1. Because it lay quite wide of his design, which was this, to show that God's rejecting the Jews and receiving the gentiles was consistent with his word

2. Because such a doctrine would not only have had no tendency to convince, but would have evidently tended to harden, the Jews;

3. Because when he sums up his argument in the close of the chapter, he has not one word, or the least intimation, about it.

In Christ - This seems to imply an appeal to him. In the Holy Ghost - Through his grace.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

creature Or, created thing.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 9:3-4

Christian Patriotism.

I. It is a noble paradox. The sacrifice which is offered is impossible. There is something of sadness in the passion which suggests it. Great as is the offering, how could it possibly save a nation which trampled under foot a sacrifice far greater? It cost more to redeem souls; that more had been paid in vain: how should the less now suffice? St. Paul speaks as a man speaks—the language of feeling, not of logic. Only let us recognise that it is his genuine feeling that he speaks. It is not a mere figure consciously used and to be explained away before we can get at his meaning. He would give anything to save his brethren—life and everything in life and beyond life that is dearest and best to him.

II. The words are a Christian reading of that virtue of which ancient life and the Old Testament are so full—of the love of country, of patriotism. We feel that Paul at least is seeing all the facts of life. He is looking full in the face the realities of the spiritual world; yet this has not extinguished in him the yearning, the pride, the patriotic fervour of his race; it has only given it a deeper, more personal, more practical meaning. There is the tie of common blood; there is the pride of historic name; there is the fond memory of all that the race has been—its responsibilities, its glories, the marks of God’s favour to it, the thought of its yet unfulfilled promise; there is all that we feel with respect to our own native country.

III. Two things, let us note, Christianity does for patriotism. (1) It gives the sentiment a truer basis in reason. (2) It teaches us how much deeper and wider a thing is the welfare of the community than men have dreamed before. Politics cannot be separated from morals. The law of God, the law of justice, mercy, unselfishness, rules the actions of a nation as well as every member of it.

E. C. Wickham, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxi., p. 409.

References: Rom 9:3-5.—E. M. Goulburn, Occasional Sermons, p. 207. Rom 9:5.—Homilist, vol. v., p. 270. Rom 9:11-13.—S. A. Tipple, Sunday Mornings at Norwood, p. 90. Rom 9:13, Rom 9:14.—J. Vaughan, Sermons, 12th series, p. 69. Rom 9:15.—Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 332. Rom 9:16.—Homilist, new series, vol. i., p. 627. Rom 9:17, Rom 9:18.—Ibid., vol. ii., p. 322. Rom 9:21.—Church of England Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 61. Rom 9:21-23—Homilist, vol. ii., p. 23. Rom 9:30, Rom 9:31.—J. Salmon, The Anglican Pulpit of Today, p. 295. Rom 10:1.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 80; vol. v., p. 285. Rom 10:1-11.—Homilist, 3rd series, vol. iv., p. 61. Rom 10:2.—J. Foster, Lectures, 1st series, p. 271.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. The apostle’s solemn asseveration or oath; he calls Christ and the Holy Ghost to witness for the truth of what he says, which is the very formality of an oath.

Learn thence, That it is not barely lawful, but in some cases expedient and necessary to assert and confirm by oath the truth and certainty of what we speak; in cases of great moment, which cannot otherwise be sufficiently confirmed a Christian may establish his saying by an oath.

Observe, 2. The persons whom the apostle swears by, Christ and the Holy Ghost; he calls them to be witness of the sincerity of his conscience in what he doth assert: I say the truth in Christ, &c.

But why doth the apostle swear by the name of Christ, and not rather by the name of God, seeing the Jews did not believe his divinity, and so were not like to give any whit the more credit to what was attested by him?

I answer, Probably to assert the Godhead of Christ, which the Jews generally denied, and therefore wanted that honour which was and is due unto it. None but God was to be sworn by; the apostle swearing by Christ, proves him to be truly and really God; as also the Holy Ghost; for an oath being an act of religious worship, and the apostle swearing by divinity, according to the words of Moses in Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Deu 6:13

Observe, 3. As the apostle appeals to Christ and the Holy Ghost, so also to his own conscience, as the avoucher and witness of the truth of what he says, My conscience also bearing me witness.

Learn thence, That God has placed a conscience in every man, whose office it is to bear witness of all his words and actions; yea, of all his thoughts and inward affections. Conscience is God’s register, to record whatever we think, speak, or act; and happy he whose conscience bears witness for him, and doth not testify against him; who can say with the apostle here, My conscience beareth me witness, that I lie not, but say the truth in Christ.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. “I speak the truth, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness in the Holy Ghost.” Paul had the approval of his conscience while, unconverted, he persecuted the saints. Then his conscience bore him witness, but not in the Holy Ghost. Though the conscience survived the Fall, God’s telephone to speak to the soul, without which man never could be saved, but must go like the fallen angels; yet it is not a safe guide unless regenerated by the Holy Ghost, but is very likely to be usurped by Satan, who is fond of speaking through God’s telephone and thus passing himself for God. For that reason the leading preachers in the Jewish Church murdered Jesus, and have martyred the saints in the fallen churches of all ages. They follow their consciences, which are manipulated by the devil and an unsafe guide. It bears them witness, but not in the Holy Ghost, as they are strangers to Him.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

[In Part I. of his Epistle (chaps. 1-8) Paul presented the great doctrine that righteousness and salvation are obtained through faith in Jesus Christ. But the unbelief of the Jews excluded them Generally from this salvation, yet "salvation is from the Jews" ( Joh_4:22 ). The doctrine, and the situation engendered by it, raised before the minds of Paul's readers several great questions, such as these: How could Scripture, which promised blessings to the Jews, be fulfilled in a gospel which gave blessings to Gentiles to the exclusion of Jews? The covenants to Abraham guaranteed blessings to his seed, how, then, could the gospel be the fulfillment of these covenants when it brought blessing and salvation to the Gentiles, and rejection and damnation to the Jews, the seed of Abraham? It is for the purpose of answering these and kindred questions which naturally arose out of the doctrine of the first part of his work, that this second part was written. As these questions arose out of the history of Israel, Paul naturally reviews that history, so Tholuck calls this second part of his work "a historical corollary." The apostle's effort is to show that the gospel of Christ, while it conflicts with the false doctrinal deductions which the Jews drew from their history, agrees perfectly with all correct deductions from that history.] I say the truth in Christ [This is not an oath. Some modern, and most of the earlier, commentators suppose it is; but they forget that Deu_6:13 is repealed at Mat_5:33-37 . If it were an oath, we would, in the absence of any verb of swearing, have the Greek preposition pros ("by") with the genitive, but instead we have en ("in") with the dative. His asseveration is, however, as solemn and binding as an oath, and is designed to give vehement emphasis to his words--comp. 2Co_2:17 : as though he said, "I speak the truth, for Christ is true, and I am a member in Christ, and he himself, therefore, speaks through me"--comp. Gal_2:20 ; Phi_1:21 ], I lie not [Such a coupling of the positive and negative for purposes of emphasis is common to Scripture. See Deu_33:6 ; Isa_38:1 ; Joh_1:20 ], my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit [my conscience, though enlightened, guided and made more than literally sensitive and accurate by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, still testifies that in this I am wholly and unequivocally truthful],

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Romans Chapter 9

There remained one important question to be considered, namely, how this salvation, common to Jew and Gentile, both alienated from God-this doctrine that there was no difference-was to be reconciled with the special promises made to the Jews. The proof of their guilt and ruin under the law did not touch the promises of a faithful God. Was the apostle going to do away with these to place the Gentiles on the same footing? They did not fail also to accuse the apostle of having despised his nation and its privileges. Chapters 9, 10 and 11 reply to this question; and, with rare and admirable perfection, set forth the position of Israel with respect to God and to the gospel. This reply opens, in itself, a wide door to intelligence in the ways of God.

The apostle begins by affirming his deep interest in the blessing of Israel. Their condition was a source of constant grief to him. Far from despising them, he loved them as much as Moses had done. He had wished to be anathema from Christ for them. [51] He acknowledged that all the privileges granted by God until then, belonged to them. But he does not allow that the word of God had failed; and he develops proof of the free sovereignty of God, conformably to which, without trenching upon the promises made to the Jews, He could admit the Gentiles according to His election.

In the first place, this truth displayed itself in the bosom of Abraham’s own family. The Jews alleged their exclusive right to the promises in virtue of their descent from him, and to have their promises by right, and exclusively, because they were descended from him. But they are not all Israel which are of Israel. Neither because they were of the seed of Abraham were they therefore all children. For in that case Ishmael must have been received; and the Jews would by no means hear of that. God then was sovereign. But it might be alleged that Hagar was a slave. But Esau’s case excluded even this saving thought. The same mother bore both sons of one father, and God had chosen Jacob and rejected Esau. It was thus on the principle of sovereignty and election, that God had decided that the seed should be called in the family of Isaac. And before Esau and Jacob were born, God declared that the elder should serve the younger. The Jews must then admit God’s sovereignty on this point.

Was God then unrighteous? He plainly declared His sovereignty for good to Moses as a principle. It is the first of all rights. But in what case had He exercised this right? In a case that concerned that right of Israel to blessing, of which the Jews sought to avail themselves. All Israel would have been cut off, if God had dealt in righteousness; there was nothing but the sovereignty of God which could be a door of escape. God retreated into His sovereignty in order to spare whom He would, and so had spared Israel (justice would have condemned them all alike, gathered round the golden calf which they set up to worship)-this, on the side of mercy; on that of judgment, Pharaoh served for an example. The enemy of God, and of His people, he had treated the claims of God with contempt, exalting himself proudly against Him-”Who is Jehovah, that I should obey him? I will not let his people go.” Pharaoh being in this state, Jehovah uses him to give an example of His wrath and judgment. So that He shews mercy to whom He will, and hardens whom He will. Man complains of it, as he does of the grace that justifies freely.

As to rights, compare those of God and those of the creature who has sinned against Him. How can man, who is made of clay, dare to reply against God? The potter has power to do as he will with the lump. No one can say to God, What doest Thou? God’s sovereignty is the first of all rights, the foundation of all rights, the foundation of all morality. If God is not God, what will He be? The root of the question is this; is God to judge man, or man God? God can do whatsoever He pleases. He is not the object for judgment. Such is His title: but when in fact the apostle presents the two cases, wrath and grace, He puts the case of God shewing long suffering towards one already fitted for wrath, in order to give at last an example to men of His wrath in the execution of His justice; and then of God displaying His glory in vessels of mercy whom He has prepared for glory. There are then these three points established with marvellous exactitude; the power to do all things, no one having the right to say a word; wonderful endurance with the wicked, in whom at length His wrath is manifested; demonstration of His glory in vessels, whom He has Himself prepared by mercy for glory, and whom He has called, whether from among the Jews or Gentiles, according to the declaration of Hosea.

The doctrine established, then, is the sovereignty of God in derogation of the pretensions of the Jews to the exclusive enjoyment of all the promises, as being descended from Abraham; for, among his descendants, more than one had been excluded by the exercise of this sovereignty; and it was nothing less than its exercise which, on the occasion of the golden calf, had spared those who pretended to the right of descent. It was necessary therefore that the Jew should recognise it, or else that he should admit the Idumeans in full right, as well as the Ishmaelites, and renounce it himself, the families of Moses and Joshua alone perhaps excepted. But if such was the sovereignty of God, He would now exercise it in favour of the Gentiles, as well as Jews. He called whom He would.

If we look closely into these quotations from Hosea, we shall find that Peter, who writes to converted Jews alone, takes only the passage at the end of chapter 2, where Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah become Ammi and Ruhamah. Paul quotes that also, which is at the end of chapter 1, where it is written, “In the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called-not ‘my people,’ but-’ the children of the living God.’”It is this last passage which he applies to the Gentiles called by grace.

But further passages from the prophets amply confirm the judgment which the apostle pronounces by the Spirit on the Jews. Isaiah declared formally that, if God had not left them a little remnant, they would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah;numerous as the people were, a little remnant only should be saved; for God was cutting the work short in judgment on the earth. And here was the state of things morally: the Gentiles had obtained the righteousness which they had not sought, had obtained it by faith; and Israel, seeking to obtain it by the fulfilment of a law, had not attained to righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but by works of law. For they had stumbled at the stumbling-stone (that is, at Christ), as it is written, “I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth in him shall not be ashamed.”

Footnotes for Romans Chapter 9

51: Read, “I have wished.” Moses, in his anguish, had said, “Blot me out of thy book.” Paul had not been behind him in his love.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–5. I say the truth in Christ. This affirmation is made so solemn because the Jews charged Paul with having forsaken his race. He speaks as in the presence of Christ, with a conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul tells of his personal desire that the people of the nation of Israel will be saved. Then he emphasizes the different ways in which God has prepared them to believe.

I tell the truth in Christ. I do not lie

These two expressions mean basically the same thing. Paul uses them to emphasize that he is telling the truth. (See: Doublet)

my conscience bears witness with me in the Holy Spirit

"the Holy Spirit controls my conscience and confirms what I say"

that for me there is great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart

Here "unceasing pain in my heart" is an idiom that Paul uses to share his emotional distress. AT: "I tell you that I grieve very greatly and deeply" (See: Idiom)

great sorrow and unceasing pain

These two expressions mean basically the same thing. Paul uses them together to emphasize how great his emotions are. (See: Doublet)

translationWords

true

in Christ

conscience

testimony

Holy Spirit

heart

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

In Christ. Not by Christ, as the formula of an oath, Christ being never used by the apostles in such a formula, but God. Rom 1:9; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:31; Phi 1:8. For this favorite expression of Paul, see Gal 2:17; 1Co 1:2; 2Co 2:14, 17; 2Co 12:19, etc.

Conscience. See on 1Pe 3:16.

Bearing me witness. Rev., bearing witness with me. See on ch. Rom 8:16. Concurring with my testimony. Morison remarks that Paul speaks of conscience as if it were something distinct from himself, and he cites Adam Smith's phrase, "the man within the breast."

In the Holy Ghost. So Rev. The concurrent testimony of his declaration and of conscience was "the echo of the voice of God 's Holy Spirit" (Morison). 49

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.