Romans · Chapter 9

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.

V. 1. In Christ-This seems to imply an appeal to him.

In the Holy Ghost-Through his grace.

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.

Verses 1, 2. The apostle having insinuated, Romans 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, Genesis 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, oti luph moi esti megalh, kai adialeiptov odunh th kardia mou, 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.

Verse 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not. These forms of speech are equivalent to a solemn oath, and emanate from a heart deeply imbued with the sentiments of the Saviour, who often wept over his unhappy country. The holy apostle, having placed the church on a hill in the preseding chapter, turns his weeping eyes towards his kinsmen after the flesh, who were enraged against him, because he had denied them salvation by the works of the law, and had defended the gentiles as co-equal heirs of new- covenant blessings. On their behalf he prays, and in the fulness of his heart, that they might be saved, knowing that they might yet be grafted into the olive tree.

1. St. Paul’s great Grief at Israel’s Rejection, 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 Romans 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.

Ver. 1. The sudden change of tone and subject takes us by surprise, and introduces a new division of the epistle.

Truth: see under Romans 1:18.

Speak in Christ: so 2 Corinthians 2:17; 12:19. Paul’s words were prompted by inward union with Christ.

My conscience: as in Romans 2:15.

In the Holy Spirit: as in Romans 8:15; 1 Corinthians 12:3. Paul appeals to that faculty by which he contemplates his own inner self; and claims that in the testimony it now bears it is guided by the Holy Spirit. They who knew Paul could not resist this appeal to Christ, in union with whom they knew that he lived and spoke, and to the Spirit who evidently permeated his entire life and thought. This solemn appeal prepares us for a statement important and unlikely.

V. 2. I have great sorrow-A high degree of spiritual sorrow and of spiritual Joy may consist together, Romans 8:39. By declaring his sorrow for the unbelieving Jews, who excluded themselves from all the blessings he had enumerated, he shows that what he was now about to speak, he did not speak from any prejudice to them.

Verses 1, 2. The apostle having insinuated, Romans 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, Genesis 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, oti luph moi esti megalh, kai adialeiptov odunh th kardia mou, 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.

Ver. 2. Great sorrow to me and ceaseless pain to my heart. In Romans 8:35-39, Paul’s enemies marched, conquered and powerless, in stately procession before our eyes. At sight of them, the conqueror burst into a song of triumph, and of praise to Him who gave the victory. Suddenly the song ceases, and the minstrel, whose lips spoke forth a moment ago the exultation of his heart, now tells us that he has great and constant sadness. So unexpected is this statement that Paul appeals in proof of it to Christ, whose life and nature he shares, and to the Spirit who directs his words and actions.

V. 3. I could wish-Human words cannot fully describe the motions of souls that are full of God. As if he had said, I could wish to suffer in their stead; yea, to be an anathema from Christ in their place. In how high a sense he wished this, who can tell, unless himself had been asked and had resolved the question? Certainly he did not then consider himself at all, but only others and the glory of God. The thing could not be; yet the wish was pious and solid; though with a tacit condition, if it were right and possible.

Verse 3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ] This and the two preceding verses are thus paraphrased by Dr. Taylor: I am so far from insisting on the doctrine (of the rejection of the Jews) out of any ill-will to my countrymen, that I solemnly declare, in the sincerity of my heart, without the least fiction or dissimulation-and herein I have the testimony of my own conscience, enlightened and directed by the Spirit of God-that I am so far from taking pleasure in the rejection of the Jewish nation, that, contrariwise, it gives me continual pain and uneasiness, insomuch that, as Moses formerly (when God proposed to cut them off, and in their stead to make him a great nation, Exodus 32:10) begged that he himself should rather die than that the children of Israel should be destroyed, Exodus 32:32, so I could even wish that the exclusion from the visible Church, which will happen to the Jewish nation, might fall to my own share, if hereby they might be kept in it and to this I am inclined by natural affection, for the Jews are my dear brethren and kindred. Very few passages in the New Testament have puzzled critics and commentators more than this. Every person saw the perfect absurdity of understanding it in a literal sense, as no man in his right mind could wish himself eternally damned in order to save another, or to save even the whole world. And the supposition that such an effect could be produced by such a sacrifice, was equally absurd and monstrous. Therefore various translations have been made of the place, and different solutions offered. Mr. Wakefieid says: “I see no method of solving the difficulty in this verse, which has so exercised the learning and ingenuity of commentators, but by the eucomai einai of Homer, I profess myself to be; and he translates the passage in a parenthesis, thus: (for I also was once an alien from Christ) on account of my brethren, &c. But how it does appear that Saul of Tarsus was ever an alien from Christ on account of his kinsmen, is to me perfectly indiscernible. Let us examine the Greek text. hucomhn gar autov egw anaqema einai apo tou cristou upertwn adelfwn mou, ‘For I did wish myself to be an anathema FROM Christ (upo, BY Christ, as some ancient MSS. read) for my brethren.’ As hucomhn is the 1st per. sing. of the imperfect tense, some have been led to think that St. Paul is here mentioning what had passed through his own mind when filled with the love of God, he learned the rejection of the Jews; and that he only mentions it here as a thing which, in the effusions of his loving zeal, had been felt by him inconsiderately, and without any Divine afflatus leading him to it; but that he does not intimate that now he felt any such unreasonable and preposterous wish.” I am afraid this is but ill calculated to solve the difficulty.

The Greek word anaqema, anathema, properly signifies any thing devoted to God, so as to be destroyed: it answers to the Hebrew חרם cherem, which the Septuagint translate by it, and means either a thing or person separated from its former state or condition, and devoted to destruction. In this sense it is used, Deuteronomy 7:25, 26; Joshua 6:17, 18; 7:12.

It is certain that the word, both among the Hebrews and Greeks, was used to express a person devoted to destruction for the public safety. In Midrash hanneelam, in Sohar Chadash, fol. 15, Rabbi Chaijah the elder said: “There is no shepherd found like unto Moses, who was willing to lay down his life for the sheep; for Moses said, Exodus 32:32, If thou wilt not pardon their sin, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.” Such anathemas, or persons devoted to destruction for the public good, were common among all ancient nations. See the case of M. Curtius and Decius among the Romans. When a plague took place, or any public calamity, it was customary to take one of the lowest or most execrable of the people, and devote him to the Dii Manes or infernal gods. See proofs in Schleusner, and see the observations at the end of the chapter. This one circumstance is sufficient to explain the word in this place. Paul desired to be devoted to destruction, as the Jews then were, in order to redeem his countrymen from this most terrible excision. He was willing to become a sacrifice for the public safety, and to give his life to redeem theirs. And, as Christ may be considered as devoting them to destruction, (see Matt. 24,) Paul is willing that in their place Christ should devote him: for I could wish myself, anaqema eimai apo (or, as some excellent MSS. have it, upo) tou cristou, to be devoted BY Christ, to that temporal destruction to which he has adjudged the disobedient Jews, if by doing so I might redeem them. This, and this alone, seems to be the meaning of the apostle’s wish.

Verse 3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ ( The word anaqema, here rendered accursed, answers to the Hebrew word µrj, cherem, which signifies what is devoted to destruction. And, as the Jewish nation was now an anathema, destined to destruction, Mr. Locke supposes that Paul, to express his affection for them, here says that he could wish, provided he could thereby save them from it, to become an anathema, or to be devoted to destruction himself, in their stead. In other words, that he could be content “that Christ should give him up to such calamities as these, to which the Jewish people were doomed for rejecting him; so that if they could all be centred in one person, he would be willing they should unite in him, could he thereby be a means of saving his countrymen. This is the interpretation of Dr. Samuel Clarke, (see his Seventeen Sermons, p. 340.) To the same purpose nearly is Goodwin’s exposition of the passage: “It seems,” says he, “to mean, that he was willing to be looked upon, and in every respect dealt with in the world, as if he were accursed by Christ, and so worthy of all ignominy, punishment, tortures, and death, that could be inflicted on him: such as were wont to be inflicted on persons, who, for some hateful crime, were devoted to utter destruction. The Greek word is indifferently applied either to persons or things, and in Scripture commonly signifies such, in either kind, as were consigned, either by God himself, or men, or both, to destruction, in the nature of piacular sacrifices.” Such a sacrifice Paul was willing to become for his brethren’s sake, supposing that he could thereby “procure deliverance for them from that most heavy curse of an eternal separation from God, which he certainly knew hung over their heads, for their obstinate refusal of the gospel.” According to these interpretations, anaqema apo Cristou, must be rendered, made an anathema by, or from Christ. But Dr. Waterland observing, as apo progonwn, 2 Timothy 3:3, signifies, after the example of my forefathers, apo tou Cristou, in this passage, may signify, after the example of Christ. This exposition is adopted by Dr. Doddridge as the most probable, who thus paraphrases the verse: “I could even wish, that as Christ subjected himself to the curse, that he might deliver us from it, so I myself, likewise, were made an anathema after his example; like him exposed to all the execrations of an enraged people, and even to the infamous and accursed death of crucifixion itself, for the sake of my brethren: &c., that they might thereby be delivered from the guilt they have brought upon their own heads, and become entitled to the forfeited and rejected blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom.” Many commentators have shown how very absurd it would be to suppose the apostle meant, that he could be content to be delivered over to everlasting misery for the good of others. The apostle here mentions his near relation to the Jews, in order that what he had expressed concerning the greatness of his affection for them, might be the more easily believed by them.

Ver. 3. I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren. Like Moses, who prayed that his name might be blotted out, if Israel were destroyed, he was willing to bear the execration of the church, and to be accounted a vagabond on the earth, if his sufferings might but effectuate their conversion. He regarded them, though now his enemies, as a sacred nation, because of their high vocation; because they were favoured with the covenant, the lively oracles, and the throne of glory, from whose line the Messiah had descended, according to the promise. He regarded them as children of the fathers, the holy patriarchs, the most noble and distinguished of the human race, the morning stars of the ancient day.

3. I could wish—Not I did wish, nor I do wish; but, if it were a thing permissible, either in the fact or in the wish, then I could wish. The apostle, then, does not rally form or entertain the wish, but he comes as nigh to it as the right allows. (See note on Matthew 26:39.) Accursed—The Greek would be, I could wish myself an anathema from Christ. An anathema in the Jewish ritual was a thing consecrated to God. It was thereby God’s own property, no longer man’s. Hence it was required to be destroyed, and could not be redeemed. (Leviticus 27:28, 29.) Cities, edifices, and their inhabitants were thereby devoted to destruction, as Jericho, (Joshua 6:17, 21,) and as, also, were the cities of the Canaanites. They were “sacred to perdition.” So in the New Testament Christ is made a curse, an anathema for us.

What the apostle, therefore, in his human affections could wish is, that he might take the place of his race and suffer an equivalent of its sufferings in its stead, that the race might be saved from them. This would not be wishing to commit their sin nor contract their guilt any more than Christ so did (as Revelation Gilbert Haven in the “Methodist Quarterly” has ably shown) for the human race. It simply would have sought to be their substitute in suffering. As to the question whether he included all the sufferings of eternal death, we may say that in a human hypothetical wish of this nature we are not to suppose that all the literal results are specifically thought through. Doubtless the example of Christ was most present to his mind, whose suffering was not eternal.

Even to the present day the Arabians will say, let my soul be a ransom for thee. The whole ritual system of substitutive victims dying for the sinner kept the eastern mind in full possession of the solemn thought of substitutive suffering. And so Paul’s deep human heart would have said to Israel, Think you I predict your future woes from hatred? I would go with you through the whole mass of misery, and suffer it in your stead. From Christ—In separation from him, as the Jews were; or (as Mr. Haven strikingly develops it) separated from Christ as Christ in his hour of darkness was from God. My brethren, my kinsmen—By this tender reiteration the apostle bespeaks his deep affection.

Ver. 3. A vain sacrifice to which Paul’s sorrow prompts him, revealing its intensity; and the persons for whom he is sad.

I could wish, or was wishing or praying: same verb in 2 Corinthians 13:7, 9; Acts 26:29; 27:29.

Anathema: Galatians 1:8, 9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 16:22; Acts 23:14. So (LXX.) Deuteronomy 7:26; 13:15, 17; Joshua 6:17, 21; 7:1, 11, 15, and frequently; denoting objects irrevocably devoted to God, and if living to be put to death. Paul’s heart would prompt him to be separated from Christ and thus accursed, if this would save Israel. My brethren: the ties of blood still binding Paul’s heart, even though he is a Jew and the Jews as a nation have rejected Christ.

According to flesh: distinguishing the persons referred to from brethren in Christ.

Paul weeps for his countrymen. He who is unmoved by hunger and imminent death is so deeply moved by their position that, to save them, he would almost expose himself to the anger of God. A similar case of self-devotion in Exodus 32:32. Perhaps in these moments Paul and Moses shared most fully the mind of Him who actually did (Galatians 3:13; Matthew 27:46) what their hearts vainly prompted them to do. The greatness of Paul’s sorrow for the Jews and the sacrifice to which it prompts him attest how terrible was their position. What was it in them which caused him such sorrow? No temporal calamity. This would not suggest such sacrifice to a man before whose eyes the world itself was passing away. Nor can he refer to believing Jews who were brethren in Christ and heirs of the coming glory, but only to the mass of the nation who had rejected Christ. Since Paul does not speak of any special calamity about to befall them, we must seek, and we shall find, an explanation of his sorrow in his foregoing teaching.

Paul has taught in Romans 3:9, 19 that all men of all nations are, apart from Christ, exposed to punishment; and in Romans 1:16 etc. that the salvation announced by Christ is for those who believe. The mass of the Jews utterly rejected this offered salvation. Therefore, if Paul’s teaching be correct, they are under the anger of God and on the way to destruction. This is due, not to rejection by God, but to their own unbelief: Romans 11:1; 9:32. Nor is their case hopeless: Romans 10:1; 11:23. But most of them show no signs whatever of turning to Christ. Therefore Paul was sad for them, just as many to-day, who themselves rejoice amid the trials of life in the smile of God, are sad because some whom they love are away from Christ and are treading the path of sin and ruin. It is in moments when our joy in Christ is brightest and when we feel ourselves to be completely victorious over life with its uncertainties and death with its terrors that this sadness comes to us with greatest bitterness. Paul’s sudden sorrow in the midst of Christian exultation is true to the deepest and noblest instincts of our renewed nature.

V. 4. Whose is the adoption, &c.-He enumerates six prerogatives, of which the first pair respect God the Father, the second Christ, the third the Holy Ghost.

The adoption and the glory-That is, Israel is the first-born child of God, and the God of glory is their God, Deuteronomy 4:7; <19A620>Psalm 106:20. These are relative to each other. At once God is the Father of Israel, and Israel are the people of God. He speaks not here of the ark, or any corporeal thing. God himself is the glory of his people Israel. And the covenants, and the giving of the law-The covenant was given long before the law. It is termed covenants, in the plural, because it was so often and so variously repeated, and because there were two dispositions of it, Galatians 4:24, frequently called two covenants; the one promising, the other exhibiting the promise.

And the worship, and the promises-The true way of worshipping God; and all the promises made to the fathers.

Verse 4. Who are Israelites] Descendants of Jacob, a man so highly favoured of God, and from whom he received his name Israel-a prince of God, Genesis 32:28; from which name his descendants were called Israelites, and separated unto God for his glory and praise. Their very name of Israelites implied their very high dignity; they were a royal nation; princes of the most high God.

The adoption] The Israelites were all taken into the family of God, and were called his sons and first-born, Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1; and this adoption took place when God made the covenant with them at Horeb.

The glory] The manifestation of God among them; principally by the cloud and pillar, and the Shekinah, or Divine presence, appearing between the cherubim over the mercy-seat. These were peculiar to the Jews; no other nation was ever thus favoured.

The covenants] The covenants made with Abraham, both that which relates to the spiritual seed, and that which was peculiar to his natural descendants, Galatians 3:16, 17; which covenants were afterwards renewed by Moses, Deuteronomy 29:1. Some suppose that the singular is here put for the plural, and that by covenants we are to understand the decalogue, which is termed tyrb berith, or covenant, Deuteronomy 4:13. But it is more likely that the apostle alludes to the great covenant made with Abraham, and to its various renewals and extensions at different times afterwards, as well as to its twofold design-the grant of the land of Canaan, and the rest that remains for the people of God.

The giving of the law] The revelation of God by God himself, containing a system of moral and political precepts. This was also peculiar to the Jews; for to no other nation had he ever given a revelation of his will. The service] latreia. The particular ordinances, rites, and ceremonies of their religious worship, and especially the sacrificial system, so expressive of the sinfulness of sin and the holiness of God.

The promises] The land of Canaan, and the blessings of the Messiah and his kingdom; which promises had been made and often repeated to the patriarchs and to the prophets.

Verse 4. Who are Israelites — The seed of Jacob, that eminent patriarch, who, as a prince, had power with God and prevailed. The apostle, with great address, enumerates these privileges of the Jews, both that he might show how honourably he thought of them, and that he might awaken their solicitude, not to sacrifice that divine favour, by which they had been so eminently and so long distinguished. To whom pertaineth the adoption — That is whom God hath taken into a special covenant with himself, whereby he stands engaged ever to act the part of a God and Father to them, and to own them for his children. It is true, this adoption of the Jews was but a shadow of the heavenly adoption of believers in Christ; yet was it, simply considered, a prerogative of a very sacred import. And the glory — The visible symbol of the divine presence which rested above the ark, was called the glory, 1 Samuel 4:21, and the glory of the Lord. Hence the introduction of the ark into the temple, is called the entrance of the King of glory, Psalms 24:7Psalm 24:7; and upon the carrying away of the ark by the Philistines, the wife of Phineas, now at the point of death, said, The glory is departed from Israel. But God himself was the glory of his people Israel, and by many visible testimonies of his presence with them, shed a glory upon them, and caused their brightness to shine throughout the world. So Isaiah, The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. These two last-mentioned particulars are relative to each other: Israel is the firstborn son of God, and the God of glory is his God. And the covenants — That with Abraham, Genesis 15:8; 17:2, 7; and that with the Jewish nation by the ministry of Moses, Exodus 24:7, 8; 34:27; including the seals of these covenants, namely, circumcision, the seal of the former, Genesis 17:10; and the sprinkling of blood the seal of the latter, Exodus 24:8. He says covenants, in the plural, also, because God’s covenant with his people was often and variously repeated. And the giving of the law — The glorious promulgation of the moral law by God himself, by the mediation of his angels upon mount Horeb; not excluding the more private delivery of the various judicial and political laws appointed for the government of that commonwealth. The covenant, in the first dispensation of it, was given long before the law. And the worship of God — The way of worshipping God according to his will, prescribed in the ceremonial law for the people, till Christ should come in the flesh: and the promises — Of the Messiah, and of spiritual and eternal blessings by him.

By enumerating these privileges of the Jews, the apostle, as above observed, not only meant to show them that he respected them on account of these advantages, but to make them sensible of the loss they were about to sustain by God’s casting them off. “They were to be excluded from the better privileges of the gospel church, of which their ancient privileges were but the types. For their relation to God as his people, signified by the name Israelites, prefigured the more honourable relation which believers, the true Israel, stand in to God. Their adoption as the sons of God, and the privileges they were entitled to thereby, were types of believers being made partakers of the divine nature by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and of their title to the inheritance of heaven. The residence of the glory, first in the tabernacle and then in the temple, was a figure of the residence of God, by his Spirit, in the Christian Church, his temple on earth, and of his eternal residence in that church, brought to its perfect form in heaven. The covenant with Abraham was the new, or gospel covenant, the blessings of which were typified by the temporal blessings promised to him and to his natural seed: and the covenant of Sinai, whereby the Israelites, as the worshippers of the true God, were separated from the idolatrous nations, was an emblem of the final separation of the righteous from the wicked for ever. In the giving of the law, and the formation of the Israelites into a nation, or community, the formation of the city of the living God, and of the general assembly and church of the firstborn, was represented. Lastly, the heavenly country, the habitation of the righteous, was typified by Canaan, a country given to the Israelites by God’s promise.” — Macknight.

Ver. 4. Who are Israelites, and to whom belong by birth the eight subsequent prerogatives.

(1) Adoption. Thou shalt say to Pharaoh, Israel is “my son,” even my “firstborn.” Exodus 4:22. Ye are “the children” of the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 14:1. —

(2) The glory. I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the cherubim. Exodus 24:16. 25:22. —

(3) The covenants, often renewed and enlarged, for the new covenant was implied and included in the old. —

(4) The giving of the law in its moral glory, and ceremonial grandeur. What nation had God so nigh to them, and statutes so holy? Here the regal power and independence of the Israelites were comprised. —

(5) The service of God. Latreia, cultus; all the worship of the tabernacle and the temple, equally binding on prophets, priests and people. —

(6) The promises, of the Messiah and his kingdom. The effusion of the Holy Spirit, Joel 2:28; the conversion of the gentiles, the blessing both of the old and the new covenant. Leviticus 26. Deuteronomy 28. Jeremiah 31:2 Peter 1:4. These were given that we might be made partakers of the divine nature. —

(7) Whose are the fathers. Here is the nobility of the jews, descended from illustrious men, whose Seed was heir of the world. —

(8) The eighth and last blessing is the lineal descent of Christ, in the line of Abraham and of David.

4. Israelites—Their loftier title, derived not from Jacob, the supplanter, nor, like Jews, from a single remnant tribe (Judah) alone; but derived from their great founder, and from his name given as wrestler and overcomer with God.

Paul in these two verses enumerates the glories of Israel in the true enthusiasm of an Israelite, to show how he sympathized in Israelite greatness. The passage is parallel with Romans 3:2, and 2:17-20, where see notes.

The adoption—By which Abraham and his race were called from among the nations to be the sons of God. (See note on Matthew 2:15.) The glory—The Shekinah, upon the mercy seat between the cherubim and at other times. (See note on Acts 7:2.) Covenants—Formed with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at different times, (Genesis 15:9-21; 17:4, 7, 10; 26:24; 28:13,) and with all Israel at Sinai, (Genesis 24:2, 8, etc.) Giving of the law—The law-giving, the legislation, of which the centre was the two tables of the decalogue, and then the entire pentateuchal system. The service—The full and formal worship by which Israel, freed from idolatry, worshipped the true Jehovah. Promises—Of the Messiah and the salvation through him. Sad if Israel, to whom these promises were given, should himself fail of their fruition! (See note on verse 6.)

Ver. 4. As Paul ponders the position of his brethren, their many and great advantages pass in review before him.

Israelites: a favourite name of honour: Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5; John 1:47; Deuteronomy 5:1; 6:3, 4.

Adoption: same word in Romans 8:15, 23. Cp. Exodus 4:22f, “Israel is My firstborn son… let My son go;” and Deuteronomy 14:1, “ye are sons to Jehovah your God.” Out of all nations, God chose Israel to occupy this special relation to Himself.

The Glory: the supernatural brightness in which God manifested His presence: Exodus 19:16; 24:10, 16, 17; 40:34-38. It was proof of the adoption. The adoption and the glory recall the two Covenants made in the wilderness: Exodus 19:5; 24:7, 8; 34:27; and Deuteronomy 29:1. And these recall the earlier covenant with Abraham, on which they rested: Genesis 15:18; 17:2-14; Exodus 2:24; 6:4; Deuteronomy 6:10. The plural covenants marks off a triplet, which is followed by a second and corresponding triplet.

The Lawgiving: cognate verb in Hebrews 7:11; 8:6. By giving a law, God acted as father to His adopted children.

The Service: same word in Romans 12:1; Hebrews 9:1, 6; John 16:2: a cognate verb in Romans 1:9, 25; Matthew 4:10; Acts 7:7, 42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23. It denotes the ritual in which Israel showed reverence to God who manifested Himself in visible glory. The Promises: Romans 15:8; 4:13, 14, 16, 20; Galatians 3:14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29. They were a great feature of the covenants: so Ephesians 2:12, “covenants of promise.” These promises had been the solace and strength of Israel during ages of disaster.

V. 5. To the preceding, St. Paul now adds two more prerogatives. Theirs are the fathers-The patriarchs and holy men of old, yea, the Messiah himself.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever-The original words imply the self-existent, independent Being, who was, is, and is to come. Over all-The supreme; as being God, and consequently blessed for ever. No words can more dearly express his divine, supreme majesty, and his gracious sovereignty both over Jews and, Gentiles.

Verse 5. Whose are the fathers] Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, &c., &c., without controversy, the greatest and most eminent men that ever flourished under heaven. From these, is an uninterrupted and unpolluted line, the Jewish people had descended; and it was no small glory to be able to reckon, in their genealogy, persons of such incomparable merit and excellency. And of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came] These ancestors were the more renowned, as being the progenitors of the human nature of the MESSIAH. Christ, the Messiah, kata sarka, according to the flesh, sprang from them. But this Messiah was more than man, he is God over all; the very Being who gave them being, though he appeared to receive a being from them.

Here the apostle most distinctly points out the twofold nature of our Lord-his eternal Godhead and his humanity; and all the transpositions of particles, and alterations of points in the universe, will not explain away this doctrine. As this verse contains such an eminent proof of the deity of Christ, no wonder that the opposers of his divinity should strive with their utmost skill and cunning to destroy its force. And it must be truly painful to a mind that has nothing in view but truth, to see the mean and hypocritical methods used to elude the force of this text. Few have met it in that honest and manly way in which Dr. Taylor, who was a conscientious Arian, has considered the subject. “Christ,” says he, “is God over all, as he is by the Father appointed Lord, King, and Governor of all. The Father hath committed all judgement to the Son, John 5:22; has given all things into his hands, Matthew 28:18; he is Lord of all, Acts 10:36. God has given him a name above every name, <502609> Philippians 2:9; above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and has put all things (himself excepted, 1 Corinthians 15:27) under his feet and given him to be head over all things, Ephesians 1:21, 22. This is our Lord’s supreme Godhead. And that he is euloghtov, blessed for ever, or the object of everlasting blessing, is evident from Revelation 5:12, 13: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power-and blessing and honour be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Thus it appears the words may be justly applied to our blessed Lord.” Notes, p. 329. Yes, and when we take other scriptures into the account, where his essential Godhead is particularly expressed, such as Colossians 1:16, 17: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created BY him, and FOR him: and he is BEFORE all things, and BY him do all things consist; we shall find that he is not God by investiture or office, but properly and essentially such; for it is impossible to convey in human language, to human apprehension, a more complete and finished display of what is essential to Godhead, indivisible from it, and incommunicable to any created nature, than what is contained in the above verses. And while these words are allowed to make a part of Divine revelation, the essential Godhead of Jesus Christ will continue to be a doctrine of that revelation.

I pass by the groundless and endless conjectures about reversing some of the particles and placing points in different positions, as they have been all invented to get rid of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, which is so obviously acknowledged by the simple text; it is enough to state that there is no omission of these important words in any MS. or version yet discovered.

Verse 5. Whose, &c. — To the preceding the apostle now adds two more prerogatives: theirs are the fathers — They are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the ancient patriarchs, and other holy men, who were great in the sight of God, and to whom he made many great and precious promises, in which their children also and children’s children were interested. And of whom — Of which Israelites; as concerning the flesh — That is, in respect of his human nature; Christ — The expected Messiah; — came. This plainly supposes another nature in Christ, according to which he came not from the Israelites. And this can be none other but the divine nature; which, in the sequel of the verse, is expressly attributed to him. The apostle reserves the mention of Christ’s descent from the Jews for the last of their prerogatives, as being the greatest of them all: who is over all, God, &c. — The apostle gives this, so highly honourable a testimony to Christ, because he was so vilified by the Jews; thus making up that great breach, so to speak, which they had made on his name and honour by their unbelief, and wicked rejection of him. He is said to be over all, 1st, Because, as he was God-Man and Mediator, all power was given unto him in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18; all things delivered into his hands, and put under his feet, John 3:35; 1 Corinthians 15:27; the Father giving him a name above every name, <502609> Philippians 2:9; and constituting him his great plenipotentiary, to transact all things relating to the whole creation, especially angels and men; to settle the affairs of heaven and earth for eternity. And more especially, 2d, Because as God, possessed of true, essential deity, he was in union with his Father and the Holy Spirit, supreme over all, and consequently blessed for ever — Which words he adds to show, that a far different measure from that which the Jews had hitherto measured out unto Christ, was due to him from them, as from all other men. No words can more clearly express his divine, supreme majesty, and his gracious sovereignty over both Jews and Gentiles. The apostle closes all with the word, amen — An expression commonly used for a serious confirmation of what is said immediately before, together with an approbation of it; sometimes also importing a desire for the performance thereof. Some would persuade us that the true reading of this clause is, wn o epi pantwn qeov, whose is the God over all; because by this reading, they say, the climax is completed; and the privilege in which the Jews gloried above all others, (namely, that of having the true God for their God,) is not omitted. “But as this reading,” says Macknight, “is found in no copy whatever, it ought not to be admitted on conjecture.” Thus also Doddridge: “How ingenious soever that conjecture may be thought, by which some would read this, whose is the God over all, to answer to, whose are the fathers, I think it would be extremely dangerous to follow this reading, unsupported as it is by any critical authority of manuscripts or ancient quotations. Nor can I find any authority for rendering Qeov euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav, God be blessed for ever. I must, therefore, consider this memorable text as a proof of Christ’s proper deity, which, I think, the opposers of that doctrine have never been able, nor will ever be able to answer. Though common sense must teach, what Christians have always believed, that it is not with respect to the Father, but to the created world that this august title is given to him:” that is, that he is said to be God over all.

Ver. 5. Christ — who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Christ, the Angel of the covenant, the Word and Wisdom of God, in the bosom of the Father before the world was, presided over the human race from the beginning. He was with Adam in paradise, with Noah in the ark, with the patriarchs in their pilgrimage, with Moses at the bush. He gave the Hebrews the law, and the latreia, or worship, and the promises. So the christian fathers have taught by common consent. He dwelt enthroned in the sanctuary, and finally was made flesh, and dwelt among us. St. Paul enumerates these privileges, of which Christ is the consummation, that the jews might be converted to the Lord. In all the gospels and epistles this foundation is laid, the rock of ages, while, on the contrary, the enemies of his godhead try to take it away. They cannot find any copy in which the text is wanting, they would therefore transpose the words, and read, “God, who is over all, be blessed for ever.” Against these enemies of the faith, Erasmus cites Origen, as adducing this text to prove the divinity of Christ. He also quotes the words of Basil, who affirms that it cannot be otherwise understood. To which I would add, Theophylact, who in his commentary on this place rebukes the Arians for their vain attempt.

5. The fathers—Including not only Abraham and his patriarchal sons, but the whole wonderful pedigree running through Heber up to Adam. This recorded pedigree, the very pith of the human race, Israel alone had preserved. At one end (according to Luke’s list) was Adam and God, at the other Christ; so that Israel was the divine Adamic-Messianic race. The flesh—In antithesis with his being over all, God. So that we have here his double nature as human-divine. Over all—As he is humanly the descendant of all, so he is divinely the Over-all, the Supreme. God—This solemn epithet can here be no otherwise held than in apposition with Over all. It then stands indisputably as a title of Christ, as in Titus 1:3; 2:13; John 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:16.

Antitrinitarian commentators have placed a full stop after all, and rendered the last clause God be blessed forever. But, 1. This destroys the above-named antithesis, and renders the phrase according to the flesh superfluous. 2. In all cases where the doxology of the kind supposed occurs in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the word for blessed precedes the divine name—Blessed be God. In this form the phrase occurs, according to Stuart, more than thirty times in the Old Testament.

2. Israel’s downfall is no proof that the PROMISE of God has failed of fulfilment; for the PROMISE was not to the seed by birth, but to the seed by faith, 6-13.

We are guided in the interpretation of this paragraph by the parallel passage, Romans 4:1-10. In that passage Paul shows, by the case of Abraham, as we have there noted, that the faith-condition underlies the very foundation of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, essential Christianity underlies Judaism. Here he defends the same view by the case of Abraham’s and Isaac’s children. Even they were truly saved neither by birth nor works, but, as he explicitly declares in 30-33, by faith. The faith-condition underlies even the patriarchal dispensation. It strongly demonstrates the truth of our interpretation of this paragraph that we can trace through this entire ninth chapter two contrasted lines of character discriminated by faith and unbelief. The following two columns present to the eye the two contrasted characters of Faith and Unbelief in each successive verse:

Line of Unbelief Line of Faith.

Ver. 5. Whose etc.: stately repetition, introducing another class of advantages.

The Fathers: chiefly Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who received the promises for themselves and their children: John 7:22; Acts 7:32; Exodus 3:13: cp. Romans 4:13.

From whom, or from among whom. Paul cannot say, Whose is Christ. The Christ: the anointed and thus designated Monarch of the eternal kingdom of God.

According to flesh: as in Romans 9:3, limiting the foregoing assertion to the bodily origin of Christ. This limitation suggests another element in Him which did not spring from Israel. Yet even this outward nearness to the Light of the world was the greatest of the many privileges of Israel. Such were the spiritual advantages of those for whom Paul mourns. They belonged to the people whom God had adopted to be specially His own, in whose midst He had manifested Himself in visible splendour, and to whom He had bound Himself by covenant. They possessed the will of God in written form. Before their eyes, from childhood, the ritual set forth in outline the great truths now fully revealed. To them the coming of the Deliverer had been announced; and they were heirs of the promises made to the father of the faithful. And, more than all, in their midst the Anointed One had appeared, had presented the credentials of His royalty, and laid the foundation of His kingdom.

God, who is over all: solemn assertion of the existence of One who rules over and disposes all things according to His will: Ephesians 1:11; 4:6.

Blessed for ever (or for the ages).

Amen. Same words in Romans 1:25: see under Romans 11:36; 16:27.

At the mention of the name and birth of Christ, Paul cannot refrain from an outburst of praise to the great Ruler of the world who chose Israel, and gave Christ to be born in Paul’s own day and nation. His sorrow for the Jews implies that their religious advantages, which were designed to lead them to Christ, and the birth of Christ in their midst had utterly failed to profit them. Therefore, had the sentence ended here, it might have appeared that these advantages were of little worth. But they were infinitely the greatest advantages ever bestowed on any nation. And to Paul and the Jewish Christians they had actually been the means of infinite blessing. Had God chosen Britain instead of Judæa to be the birthplace of His Son, Paul might have been, not writing this epistle, but offering a human sacrifice to the god of the forest. Therefore, while he weeps for the Jews, he defends the worth of their slighted privileges by giving praise for them to the supreme Disposer of events, from whom these privileges came. He thus guards, as throughout the epistle he is so ready to do, against the error of underrating religious privileges as well as against that of trusting to them for salvation. And, that Paul was compelled to praise God, even in a moment of deepest sadness, for advantages which the Jews had trampled under foot, proves how great he felt those advantages to be. Thus his outburst of praise increases the sadness of these verses. Notice how readily and frequently, and sometimes unexpectedly, Paul turns to God in prayer or praise, even sometimes from matters in which God is not expressly mentioned: so Romans 1:25; 15:5, 13; 16:20, 25; Ephesians 3:20; Philippians 4:20; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; also 1 Peter 4:11. To do so, was natural to him because he looked upon everything in its relation to God. Observe also how constantly Paul attributes to God whatever Christ has done: so Romans 3:25; 5:8; 8:3, 32. Hence the mention of Christ calls forth praise to God. In 1 Timothy 1:17, we have a similar outburst of praise for his own conversion.

Two RENDERINGS of Romans 9:5b are grammatically admissible and worthy of consideration.

(1) o wn epi pantwn qeov may be in apposition to o cristov, asserting that He who sprang from Israel is over all God blessed forever: cp. 2 Corinthians 11:31; John 1:18; 3:13. So Irenaeus (quoted on p. 6) and Origen, (both preserved in Latin translations only,) Tertullian, Cyprian, very many early Christian writers, and a large majority of the writers of all ages.

(2) o wn epi pantwn qeov may be the subject, and euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav the predicate, of a new sentence. This exposition is not found in any early Christian writer; but is adopted in the Alex., Ephraim, and Clermont MSS., where we find stops marking off the words in question as a doxology to the Father and spaces proving that the stops are from the first hand. In the Vat. MS. is a stop apparently from a later hand. Of modern Critical Editors, Tregelles adopts the former, and Lachmann and Tischendorf the latter, exposition. Westcott and Hort here part company, preferring respectively the former and latter expositions. The Revisers place the former in their text, and the latter in their margin. A similar evenly-balanced divergence is found among modern grammarians and expositors.

The general and uncontradicted agreement of early Christian writers has much less weight in reference to exposition than to doctrine; and against it, as supporting exposition (1), must be set the punctuation of some early manuscripts. Certainly this agreement cannot be accepted as decisive. The correct interpretation of the passage before us can be determined only by the methods of modern exegesis.

I shall endeavour to show that (2) is in thorough accord with the structure of the passage, with the context, and with the thought of Paul; and that (1), though grammatically correct and making good sense, is made unlikely by the very ambiguity of the passage.

It is objected that euloghtov, in the four other doxologies of the N.T. in which it is found, and in many doxologies in the O.T., is always (except Psalms 68:19Psalm 68:19) put before the name of God. So Luke 1:68; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; Genesis 9:26; 1 Samuel 25:32, 33, 39, etc. But no one can say that grammar requires the predicate, even where the copula is suppressed, to stand first. For the contrary, see Romans 11:16; 12:9; Hebrews 13:4; Luke 10:2. Of all languages, the Greek would be the last to forbid a man to say God be blessed in deviation from the common order blessed be God. The objection is simply an appeal to the usage of Paul and of the Bible. What this is, we will consider.

As noticed above, Paul frequently turns suddenly away from the matter in hand to ascribe praise to God. In these cases, whenever the doxology takes the form of an exclamation, it begins with the name of God, and often with a solemn declaration of the divine attribute which prompted it. In this way the writer puts prominently before us the Great Being to whom our attention is suddenly directed. When a doxology occurs at the beginning of a subject, the word of praise comes first, making prominent the idea of praise. So Luke 1:68, etc. Just so, in Luke 2:14, when the angels take up their song, they put the word glory first: but when they turn from God on high to men on earth, they give emphasis to the transition by putting the words upon earth before the word peace. They thus deviate, in the latter case from the universal, in the former from the almost universal, usage of the New Testament: cp. Luke 10:5; John 20:19, 21, 26. But they deviate for a sufficient reason.

The peculiarity of the case before us is, not the position, but the presence, of the word blessed. Elsewhere it is found in the N.T. only in doxologies which begin a subject. All others, and they are frequent with Paul, take the form “to God be glory.” But surely the use here of the word blessed need not surprise us. And, if used, it must follow God over all. Otherwise Paul would deviate from his own unvarying use in doxologies at the end of a subject, which are so frequent with him, a use flowing naturally from the order of thought; and would direct our chief attention to the act of praise instead of the Object of praise.

On the other hand, although euloghmenov is used of Christ in Matthew 21:9; 23:39, etc., euloghtov never is. (For the distinction, see Genesis 14:19, 20, LXX.) And elsewhere Paul uses the word God, never of the Son, but as a distinctive title of the Father, even to distinguish Him from the Son. So Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6. But these objections to (1) are not decisive. For, as I hope to show in Diss. i., Paul looked upon Christ as sharing to the full the divine nature of the Father. There is therefore no reason why he should not deviate from his custom and speak of Christ, though it be only once, as euloghtov and qsov, terms elsewhere reserved for the Father. Cp. John 20:28; 1:1, and probably John 1:18. Interpret it as we may, this passage differs from the usage of Paul. Consequently, no argument can be based on the unusual order of the words.

According to exposition (1), the word wn is an emphatic assertion that Christ is over all, God, and blessed for ever. In (2) it asserts that over all there exists one who bears the title God and is blessed for ever. The words wn epi pantwn are, as in Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 3:7, put for emphasis between the article and its substantive, according to constant Greek usage. The words over all recall Ephesians 4:6, where they refer to the Father.

The words o wn euloghtov eiv touv aiwnav in 2 Corinthians 11:31 give no support to (1). For they cannot by themselves form a complete sentence; and must therefore be in apposition to the foregoing nominative. And the context shows plainly to whom the words refer. Of this we should have been uncertain had Paul written ov estin as in Romans 1:25. But the clause before us has in itself all the elements of a complete sentence; and therefore we cannot join it to the previous sentence, and thus change its meaning altogether, without a good reason. Had Paul wished to teach here that Christ is God, he might have done so, and put his meaning beyond doubt, by writing ov estin as in Romans 1:25.

The words according to flesh suggest another side of Christ’s nature which did not descend from Israel. But this suggestion is so clear that it does not need express assertion. And there is nothing in the form of the words following, as there was in Romans 1:4, which calls attention to it. Nor can it be said that these words were inserted only to provoke the contrast. For the insertion of them is otherwise sufficiently accounted for. Even when narrating the privileges of Israel, Paul cannot go beyond the truth: and the truth requires this limitation. His sorrow for his brethren will not let him forget that Christ belongs to them only by outward bodily descent. But even this outward nearness to Him was the greatest of their many advantages.

How fully exposition (2) accords with the whole context and with the usage and thought of Paul, I have already attempted to show. To say that an outburst of praise would be out of place in a passage so full of sadness, is to overlook the pathos of these words. That the slighted privileges of Israel call forth a song from a heart smitten with deepest sorrow on their account, reveals their greatness and the terrible position of those who trample them under foot. As little inappropriate is this song of praise as will be the Hallelujahs of the Day of Judgment: Revelation 19:1-7. And that Paul rises unexpectedly from mention of Christ to praise to God, is in complete harmony with his constant mode of thought, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:28; 11:3; 3:23.

So far then we have seen that the exposition I have adopted is not open to objection on the ground of grammar, the context, or the usage and thought of Paul. I shall now bring reasons for believing, with a confidence approaching certainty, that it conveys the actual thought and purpose of Paul.

Had Paul intended to deviate from his otherwise unvarying custom and to speak of Christ as God, he must have done so with a set and serious purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And, if so, he would have used words which no one could misunderstand. In a similar case, John 1:1, we find language which excludes all doubt. In the passage before us, the words ov estin, as in Romans 1:25, would have given equal certainty. But Paul did not use them. Again, in the passages which set forth expressly the nature of the Son, e.g. Romans 1:4; <501706> Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15, Paul does not call Him God: and in each of them the subordination of the Son to the Father is very conspicuous. But here, if we adopt the traditional exposition, there is no mention whatever of the Father, and without such mention there is given to the Son the loftiest title found in the Bible; in other words, we should have here the divinity of Christ, asserted with a definiteness not found elsewhere in the writings or addresses of Paul, and not correlated to the unique supremacy of the Father. This is altogether inconsistent with the whole thought of Paul. Moreover, Paul is not discussing here the dignity of Christ, but mentions Him casually in an exposition of the present position of the Jews. In such a passage, it is much more likely that he would deviate from his common mode of expression, and write once God be blessed instead of “To God be glory,” than that in a passage not referring specially to the nature of Christ he would assert, what he nowhere else explicitly asserts, that Christ is God, and assert it in language which may mean either this or something quite different.

In any case, the passage before us cannot be appealed to in proof of the divinity of Christ. For even those who so interpret it admit that their interpretation is open to doubt: and it is very unsafe to build important doctrine on an uncertain foundation. On the other hand, as I interpret them, these words reveal, by making them matter of praise to God, the greatness of the privileges which the Jews had trampled under foot.

V. 6. Not as if-The Jews imagined that the word of God must fail if all their nation were not saved. This St. Paul now refutes, and proves that the word itself had foretold their falling away.

The word of God-The promises of God to Israel.

Had fallen to the ground-This could not be. Even now, says the apostle, some enjoy the promises; and hereafter all Israel shall be saved. This is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters.

For-Here he enters upon the proof of it.

All are not Israel, who are of Israel-The Jews vehemently maintained the contrary; namely, that all who were born Israelites, and they only, were the people of God. The former part of this assertion is refuted here, the latter, Romans 9:24, &c. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the children of the promise, while unbelievers are rejected, though they are children after the flesh.

All are not Israel-Not in the favour of God. Who are lineally descended of Israel.

V. 7 Neither because they are lineally the seed of Abraham, will it follow that they are all children of God-This did not hold even in Abraham's own family; and much less in his remote descendants. But God then said,

In Isaac shall thy seed be called-That is, Isaac, not Ishmael, shall be called thy seed; that seed to which the promise is made.

Verse 6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.] A Jew might have objected, as in Romans 3:3: “Is not God bound by his faithfulness to continue the Jews as his peculiar Church and people, notwithstanding the infidelity of the major part of them? If they are brought to a level with the Gentiles, will it not follow that God hath failed in the performance of his promise to Abraham? Genesis 17:7, 8: I will establish my covenant between me and thee for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee.” To which it may be answered: This awful dispensation of God towards the Jews is not inconsistent with the veracity of the Divine promise; for even the whole body of natural born Jews are not the whole of the Israelites comprehended in the promise. Abraham is the father of many nations; and his seed is not only that which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, Romans 4:16, 17. The Gentiles were included in the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Jews; and therefore the Jews have no exclusive right to the blessings of God’s kingdom.

Verses 6-8. Not as though — The original expression, ouc oion de oti, is rather obscure; but Erasmus supplying, after the Greek scholiast, the words touto ou legw, seems to have given the sense of it thus; I do not say this, that the word of God hath fallen, namely, to the ground, without effect. The apostle’s meaning is, that nothing he had now said concerning the rejection of the greater part of the Jews, drew any such consequence after it, as that the word of God (that is, his promises made to Abraham and his seed) should miscarry, or fall to the ground; the Jews imagining that the word of God must fail, if all their nation were not saved. This sentiment Paul now refutes, showing, 1st, That the word itself had foretold their rejection: and, 2d, That though the body of the nation was rejected, God’s promises were already fulfilled to the true Israelites, and hereafter all Israel should be saved: which is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. For — Here he enters upon the proof of it; they are not all Israel — True spiritual Israelites, to whom the promises belong; which are of Israel — The natural posterity of Jacob, and Israelites by birth, and so visible members of the church. The Jews vehemently maintained the contrary; namely, that all who were born Israelites, and they only, were the people of God. The former part of this assertion is refuted here, the latter, verse 24, &c. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the children of the promise, while unbelievers are rejected, though they are children after the flesh. It is true the great promise, that Jehovah would be their God, was delivered to all the posterity of Israel without exception; but it was intended to be understood in a conditional sense, as what would not be fulfilled to them, unless they imitated the faith of Abraham. And in this sense it was made to the Gentiles, and to the whole world, as well as to the Jews. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham — According to the flesh; will it follow, that they are all children of God. This did not hold even in Abraham’s own family, and much less in his remote descendants. But, God then said, in Isaac shall thy seed be called — Isaac’s posterity, not Ishmael’s, shall be spoken of as thy seed, by way of eminence; that seed to which the promises are made. That is, they who are the children of the flesh — The carnal seed of Abraham; are not — Purely upon that account; the children of God — In the true sense; namely, spiritual children. But the children of the promise — Those whom God hath promised to acknowledge for his children; namely, such as are born again by the supernatural power of God’s Spirit, (as Isaac was conceived and born by a power above the course of nature,) and who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation made in Christ; these are they who are intended in the covenant with Abraham, the persons whose God Jehovah promised to be, and to whom the spiritual blessings and the inheritance belong. In quoting these words, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, and inferring therefrom that the children of the promise shall be counted for the seed, the apostle does not intend to give the literal sense of the words, but the typical only; and by his interpretation signifies that they were spoken by God in a typical and allegorical, as well as in a literal sense, and that God there declared his counsel concerning those persons whom he purposed to own as his children, and make partakers of the blessings of righteousness and salvation. As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the lineal descendants of Abraham, but they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are the true children of God.

Ver. 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel; the children of the promise are accounted for the seed: ver. 8. It was the sin of the jews to arrogate the highest notions of privileges from their patriarchal birth: “the temple of the Lord are we.” This distinction was a masterly stroke of Paul. The rabbins had taught in succession, that gross offenders should not enjoy life in the Messiah’s kingdom; that in hades there are two roads, the one for good men, and the other for the bad. Our Saviour makes the same distinction in Luke 9:60. “Let the dead bury their dead.” The Lord by the same wise and gracious sovereignty said to Rebekah when pregnant with twins,

Verse 6. Of Israel Israel.

“7. Seed of Abraham Children.

“8. Children of the flesh Children of God, children of promise. “12. The elder The younger.

“18. Esau Jacob.

“15-18. Pharaoh Moses.

“18. Hardeneth Showeth mercy.

“21. Vessel unto dishonour Vessel unto honour.

“22, 23. Vessels of wrath Vessels of mercy. Destruction Glory. “24. (Unbelieving Jews.) Even us, (Christian believers, Jew or Gentile.)

“30-32. NOT OF

FAITH

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF

FAITH

.

6. Not as though—The Jew must not imagine that Paul’s grief implies God’s unfaithfulness. The same denial as in 3:3, 4, where see our note. Word—Equivalent to promise in ver. 8. The great promise, as comprehensively embracing all the promises, is in Genesis 22:18: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” This great faith-conditioned promise underlay all the prerogatives of Israel in verses 4, 5, above, including the Messiah and all the blessings comprehended in him. Of Israel—Literally, out from Israel; that is, born from Jacob.

ROMANS

SECTION 28 — YET GOD IS NOT UNFAITHFUL

CH. 9:6-13

But not as though the word of God has fallen through. For not all they who are from Israel are these Israel. Neither because they are seed of Abraham are all children; “but in Isaac will a seed be called for thee.” That is, not the children of the flesh, not these are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. For a word of promise this word is, “At this season I will come; and for Sarah there shall be a son.”

And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conceived from one, Isaac our father:- “for they not yet having been born, nor having done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God according to election might continue, not from works but from Him that calls, it was said to her that “The greater will be servant to the less;” according as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Ver. 6. The word of God: His promises to Abraham, e.g. Genesis 12:2, 3; 13:16; 22:17, 18. Cp. Romans 4:13-17. Paul’s sorrow and the present sad position of the unbelieving Jews do not involve anything like a failure of the word of God to Abraham. He thus challenges an objection to the Gospel, viz. that if it be true God has broken the great promises on which rest the hopes of Israel. The Gospel promises infinite blessing to all who believe in Christ, and threatens destruction to those who reject Him. But with Abraham’s seed God made an eternal covenant, and promised to be their God for ever: Genesis 17:7. It might be objected that, by limiting salvation to those that believe, the Gospel implies the partial failure of the ancient promises. Paul does not hesitate to admit that these promises on which the Jews base their claims are the word of God. But he now declares, and in Romans 9:7-13 will prove, that the sad position of the Jews does not involve failure of the promises; that so long as they continue in their present unbelief, they are outside the number of those for whom the promises were given.

For not all etc.: commencement of this proof.

They from Israel: Jacob’s descendants. So Romans 1:3: “from David’s seed.”

Are Israel: sharers with their father Israel of the blessings promised to the seed of Abraham.

Verse 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, &c.] Nor can they conclude, because they are the natural descendants of Abraham, that therefore they are all of them, without exception, the children in whom the promise is to be fulfilled.

But, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.] The promise is not confined to immediate natural descent, but may be accomplished in any part of Abraham’s posterity. For Abraham had several sons besides Isaac, Genesis 25:1, 2, particularly Ishmael, who was circumcised before Isaac was born, and in whom Abraham was desirous that the promise should be fulfilled, Genesis 17:18, and in him God might have fulfilled the promise, had he so pleased; and yet he said to Abraham, Genesis 21:12: Not in Ishmael, but in Isaac, shall thy seed be called.

Verses 6-8. Not as though — The original expression, ouc oion de oti, is rather obscure; but Erasmus supplying, after the Greek scholiast, the words touto ou legw, seems to have given the sense of it thus; I do not say this, that the word of God hath fallen, namely, to the ground, without effect. The apostle’s meaning is, that nothing he had now said concerning the rejection of the greater part of the Jews, drew any such consequence after it, as that the word of God (that is, his promises made to Abraham and his seed) should miscarry, or fall to the ground; the Jews imagining that the word of God must fail, if all their nation were not saved. This sentiment Paul now refutes, showing, 1st, That the word itself had foretold their rejection: and, 2d, That though the body of the nation was rejected, God’s promises were already fulfilled to the true Israelites, and hereafter all Israel should be saved: which is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. For — Here he enters upon the proof of it; they are not all Israel — True spiritual Israelites, to whom the promises belong; which are of Israel — The natural posterity of Jacob, and Israelites by birth, and so visible members of the church. The Jews vehemently maintained the contrary; namely, that all who were born Israelites, and they only, were the people of God. The former part of this assertion is refuted here, the latter, verse 24, &c. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the children of the promise, while unbelievers are rejected, though they are children after the flesh. It is true the great promise, that Jehovah would be their God, was delivered to all the posterity of Israel without exception; but it was intended to be understood in a conditional sense, as what would not be fulfilled to them, unless they imitated the faith of Abraham. And in this sense it was made to the Gentiles, and to the whole world, as well as to the Jews. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham — According to the flesh; will it follow, that they are all children of God. This did not hold even in Abraham’s own family, and much less in his remote descendants. But, God then said, in Isaac shall thy seed be called — Isaac’s posterity, not Ishmael’s, shall be spoken of as thy seed, by way of eminence; that seed to which the promises are made. That is, they who are the children of the flesh — The carnal seed of Abraham; are not — Purely upon that account; the children of God — In the true sense; namely, spiritual children. But the children of the promise — Those whom God hath promised to acknowledge for his children; namely, such as are born again by the supernatural power of God’s Spirit, (as Isaac was conceived and born by a power above the course of nature,) and who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation made in Christ; these are they who are intended in the covenant with Abraham, the persons whose God Jehovah promised to be, and to whom the spiritual blessings and the inheritance belong. In quoting these words, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, and inferring therefrom that the children of the promise shall be counted for the seed, the apostle does not intend to give the literal sense of the words, but the typical only; and by his interpretation signifies that they were spoken by God in a typical and allegorical, as well as in a literal sense, and that God there declared his counsel concerning those persons whom he purposed to own as his children, and make partakers of the blessings of righteousness and salvation. As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the lineal descendants of Abraham, but they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are the true children of God.

7. Children—That is, children and heirs of the Abrahamic promise; for that promise includes the natural seed only as they are the faith-seed, and comprehends all the faith-seed of the earth, even though not natural seed. In Isaac—As the representative lineal personage in whose name all the faithful are called to be seed.

Verse 7. Seed of Abraham: natural descendants, corresponding to they of Israel in Romans 9:6.

Children: heirs of Abraham’s rights: cp. Romans 8:17. It corresponds with are Israel: cp. John 8:39.

But in Isaac etc.: quotation of Genesis 21:12, proving the foregoing assertion: same quotation in Hebrews 11:18. When God bid Abraham send away Ishmael, He promised that from Isaac should arise a posterity who would be called by Abraham’s name and inherit the promises made to his seed. The quoted text evidently limits the promises to Isaac and his children: cp. Genesis 17:19-21. It therefore proves that not all the natural offspring are Abraham’s children and heirs.

V. 8. That is, not the children, &c.-As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the children of the flesh, the lineal descendants of Abraham, but the children of the promise, they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are the children of God. Genesis 21:12

Verse 8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh] Whence it appears that not the children who descend from Abraham’s loins, nor those who were circumcised as he was, nor even those whom he might expect and desire, are therefore the Church and people of God; but those who are made children by the good pleasure and promise of God, as Isaac was, are alone to be accounted for the seed with whom the covenant was established.

Verses 6-8. Not as though — The original expression, ouc oion de oti, is rather obscure; but Erasmus supplying, after the Greek scholiast, the words touto ou legw, seems to have given the sense of it thus; I do not say this, that the word of God hath fallen, namely, to the ground, without effect. The apostle’s meaning is, that nothing he had now said concerning the rejection of the greater part of the Jews, drew any such consequence after it, as that the word of God (that is, his promises made to Abraham and his seed) should miscarry, or fall to the ground; the Jews imagining that the word of God must fail, if all their nation were not saved. This sentiment Paul now refutes, showing, 1st, That the word itself had foretold their rejection: and, 2d, That though the body of the nation was rejected, God’s promises were already fulfilled to the true Israelites, and hereafter all Israel should be saved: which is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. For — Here he enters upon the proof of it; they are not all Israel — True spiritual Israelites, to whom the promises belong; which are of Israel — The natural posterity of Jacob, and Israelites by birth, and so visible members of the church. The Jews vehemently maintained the contrary; namely, that all who were born Israelites, and they only, were the people of God. The former part of this assertion is refuted here, the latter, verse 24, &c. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the children of the promise, while unbelievers are rejected, though they are children after the flesh. It is true the great promise, that Jehovah would be their God, was delivered to all the posterity of Israel without exception; but it was intended to be understood in a conditional sense, as what would not be fulfilled to them, unless they imitated the faith of Abraham. And in this sense it was made to the Gentiles, and to the whole world, as well as to the Jews. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham — According to the flesh; will it follow, that they are all children of God. This did not hold even in Abraham’s own family, and much less in his remote descendants. But, God then said, in Isaac shall thy seed be called — Isaac’s posterity, not Ishmael’s, shall be spoken of as thy seed, by way of eminence; that seed to which the promises are made. That is, they who are the children of the flesh — The carnal seed of Abraham; are not — Purely upon that account; the children of God — In the true sense; namely, spiritual children. But the children of the promise — Those whom God hath promised to acknowledge for his children; namely, such as are born again by the supernatural power of God’s Spirit, (as Isaac was conceived and born by a power above the course of nature,) and who by faith lay hold on the promise of salvation made in Christ; these are they who are intended in the covenant with Abraham, the persons whose God Jehovah promised to be, and to whom the spiritual blessings and the inheritance belong. In quoting these words, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, and inferring therefrom that the children of the promise shall be counted for the seed, the apostle does not intend to give the literal sense of the words, but the typical only; and by his interpretation signifies that they were spoken by God in a typical and allegorical, as well as in a literal sense, and that God there declared his counsel concerning those persons whom he purposed to own as his children, and make partakers of the blessings of righteousness and salvation. As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the lineal descendants of Abraham, but they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are the true children of God.

8. That is—The apostle now reads into the literal words In Isaac shall thy seed be called their higher spiritual import. Children of the flesh… of God… of the promise—This threefold classification of children must be carefully analyzed. Children of the flesh does not mean, as Barnes defines it, merely “the natural descendants;” but all are children of the flesh who depend upon the flesh, that is, upon fleshy descent or circumcision (including all ritual and natural merit-works,) for justification. As all their regeneration is of the flesh, so they are children of the flesh. So our Lord says, John 3:6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; (see note;) that is, is carnal. But those here specified by Paul are not the unregenerate simply, but the falsely regenerate through fleshly lineage, and what he calls (Hebrews 9:10) fleshly ordinances. But the conclusive proof-text is, Galatians 4:29, “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born of the Spirit, even so it is now.” The now demonstrates that the Judaizers of Paul’s own day are by him held to be children of the flesh after the type of Ishmael of old, because they trusted in fleshly lineage and merit-works for justification. And so in Romans 4:1-12, (where see note,) justification by works and according to the flesh is the same thing. On the contrary, the true believers “are the circumcision, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:3.) That the phrase children of the flesh here has this meaning is made sure by its opposed phrases children of God, children of the promise. Forced by his creed, Professor Stuart would define children of God, “such children as God, according to the special promise to Abraham, would raise up for his posterity”! It is perfectly inadmissible, without some forcible reason, to make the phrase mean anything else than its ordinary sense in the New Testament, regenerate children of God, that is, by faith. That by children of the promise he means the regenerate by faith appears from Galatians 3:29: “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” And again, (Galatians 4:28,) “We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” And the whole passage (Galatians 4:21-31) affirms just this: The faith by which Abraham and Sarah so believed in God’s promise that Isaac was generated a child of the promise is typical of that faith by which every true believer is regenerated, and so becomes also an heir of the promise. (See notes on Romans 4:17-22.) Isaac was heir of the external prerogatives of the great

Abrahamic-Messianic line by physical birth, and of its internal blessings by faith; true believers, now that the external prerogatives are abolished, are, with Isaac and “in Isaac,” the “seed called” to the internal blessings by like faith. And it is this meaning that the inspired apostle reads into the words, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

Ver. 8. Exposition of the foregoing quotation, and of the principle involved in it.

Not the children of the flesh: descendants born according to the natural laws of the human body.

Children of God: recalling Romans 8:16. Since Paul is deducing a general principle applicable to the Jews of his own day, he expresses it in N.T. form. He here asserts that natural descent from Abraham does not place a man in a new relation to God. This explains the exclusion of Ishmael.

Children of the promise: born, as Isaac was, in fulfilment of a promise of God and therefore by supernatural power.

Reckoned: as in Romans 2:3; 4:3-6.

V. 9. For this is the word of the promise-By the power of which Isaac was conceived, and not by the power of nature. Not, Whosoever is born of thee shall be blessed, but,

At this time-Which I now appoint.

I will come, and Sarah shall have a son-And he shall inherit the blessing. Genesis 18:10.

Verse 9. For this is the word of promise, &c.] That is, this is evidently implied in the promise recorded Genesis 18:10: At this time I will come, saith God, and exert my Divine power, and Sarah, though fourscore and ten years old, shall have a son; which shows that it is the sovereign will and act of God alone, which singles out and constitutes the peculiar seed that was to inherit the promise made to Abraham.

It should be considered that the apostle, in this and the following quotations, does not give us the whole of the text which he intends should be taken into his argument, but only a hint or reference to the passages to which they belong; directing us to recollect or peruse the whole passage, and there view and judge of the argument.

That he is so to be understood appears from the conclusion he draws, Romans 9:16: So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. In his arguments, Romans 9:7, 8, &c., he says not one word of Abraham’s willing Ishmael to be the seed in whom the promise might be fulfilled; nor of Isaac’s willing Esau; nor of Moses’ willing and interceding that the Israelites might be spared; nor of Esau’s running for venison; but by introducing these particulars into his conclusion, he gives us to understand that his quotations are to be taken in connection with the whole story, of which they are a part; and without this the apostle’s meaning cannot be apprehended. The same may be said of his conclusion, Romans 9:18: Whom he will he hardeneth: hardeneth is not in his argument, but it is in the conclusion. Therefore hardening is understood in the argument, and he evidently refers to the case of Pharaoh. The generality of the Jews were well acquainted with the Scripture, and a hint was sufficient to revive the memory of a whole passage. -Taylor, p. 330.

Verses 9-13. For this is the word of promise — To show that Isaac was a son of promise, (and so a meet type of those that should be begotten of God by the promise of the gospel through faith,) he cites the words of the promise in substance, by which Isaac was begotten and born. See Genesis 17:20; 18:10; in which places two circumstances are mentioned, the one of God’s coming to fulfil his promise, in causing Sarah to have a son; the other of the set time when he would thus come; which plainly evince Isaac to have been a son of promise, conceived and born by virtue of that peculiar promise, which Abraham and Sarah believed, in order to his conception. At this time — As if he had said, Even now, though thy body and Sarah’s are dead, or at the time which I now appoint; I will come — Will manifest my power, and she shall conceive, and have a son — And he only shall inherit the blessing, and not whosoever is born of thee. Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God’s children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. — And that God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil — The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand — Whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works — Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that calleth — Of his own good pleasure, who calls to the enjoyment of particular privileges whom he sees good. “Nothing can be more evident,” says Mr. Sellon, “to any one that considers the beginning and end of this chapter, than that the apostle is not speaking of the election of particular persons to eternal life, but of particular nations to outward church privileges, which duly used, through Christ, should be the means of bringing men to eternal life, and to higher degrees of glory therein than others should enjoy, who were not favoured with these privileges. Nor is God, the great Governor of the world, on this account, any more to be deemed a respecter of persons, than an earthly king, who takes some of his subjects for lords of his bed- chamber, and others for lower employments; since he will make them all, that behave well in their station, completely happy.” See his Works, vol. 2. p. 134. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger — Not in person, for Esau never served Jacob; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. But though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation: as little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites, in David’s days, a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. Add to this, that the circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very properly taken notice of to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favour: but if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever. As it is written — With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees; I have loved Jacob — With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob; and I have comparatively hated Esau — That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1st, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau: 2d, Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the Scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. And his intent herein, as appears from verses 30-33, (which passage is a key to the whole chapter,) is evidently to show, that as God before chose Jacob, who represented the Jews, and admitted him and his posterity to peculiar privileges, above the Gentiles, without any merit in him or them to deserve it; so now, (the Jews through their unbelief having rejected the Messiah, and being justly therefore themselves rejected of God,) he had chosen the Gentiles, represented by Esau, to be his peculiar people; according to the prediction of Hosea, I will call them my people, &c., cited verse 25, where see the note; and that without any thing on their part to deserve this favour. It was entirely free with respect both to them and Jacob, God’s mercy and goodness preventing, not the endeavour only, but even the will of both. As, before Jacob either willed or strove for it, the blessing was designed of God for him; so, before ever the Gentiles sought after God, the blessings of Christ’s kingdom were designed for them. Yet it does not follow that all who are called Christians, and enjoy outward church privileges, shall be finally saved, any more than it is to be concluded that all the Jews were saved before Christ came in the flesh, on account of their privileges.

Ver. 9. Proof that Isaac is a child of promise. It therefore supports, from his case, the general principle asserted in Romans 9:8. Paul quotes from Genesis 18:10 a definite

promise of a son for Sarah.

The objection challenged in Romans 9:6 assumes that the Jews claim the blessings promised to Abraham on the ground that they are descendants of Israel and that if these blessings be denied them the promises of God have failed. Paul reminds us that this claim is not admitted in the case of Abraham’s children: for no Jew asserts that both his sons were included in God’s covenant with their father. Nay more. The claim of the unbelieving Jews is precisely the same as that of Ishmael; whereas they who believe in Christ hold a position analogous to that of Isaac. For they, like him, have been born, not by natural generation, but in fulfilment of a special promise of God. If the Gospel be true, even though some Israelites be excluded from the blessings promised to their nation, God is only acting in reference to Israel’s sons as He acted of old to the sons of Abraham.

V. 10. And that God's blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, who was chosen to inherit the blessing, before either of them had done good or evil. The apostle mentions this to show that neither were their ancestors accepted through any merit of their own.

That the purpose of God according to election might stand-Whose purpose was, to elect or choose the promised seed.

Not of works-Not for any preceding merit in him he chose. But of him that called-Of his own good pleasure who called to that privilege whom he saw good.

Verse 10. And not only this] A Jew might object: “Ishmael was rejected, not by the sovereign will of God, but because he was the son of the handmaid, or bond-woman, and therefore unworthy to be the peculiar seed; but observe, this was not the only limitation of the seed of Abraham with regard to inheriting the promise, for when Rebecca was with child by that one person of Abraham’s issue to whom the promise was made, namely, our father Isaac, she went to inquire of the Lord, Genesis 25:22, 23: And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of PEOPLE shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one PEOPLE shall be stronger than the other PEOPLE; and the elder shall serve the younger. That is, the posterity of the younger shall be a nation much more prosperous and happy than the posterity of the elder.

Verses 9-13. For this is the word of promise — To show that Isaac was a son of promise, (and so a meet type of those that should be begotten of God by the promise of the gospel through faith,) he cites the words of the promise in substance, by which Isaac was begotten and born. See Genesis 17:20; 18:10; in which places two circumstances are mentioned, the one of God’s coming to fulfil his promise, in causing Sarah to have a son; the other of the set time when he would thus come; which plainly evince Isaac to have been a son of promise, conceived and born by virtue of that peculiar promise, which Abraham and Sarah believed, in order to his conception. At this time — As if he had said, Even now, though thy body and Sarah’s are dead, or at the time which I now appoint; I will come — Will manifest my power, and she shall conceive, and have a son — And he only shall inherit the blessing, and not whosoever is born of thee. Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God’s children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. — And that God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil — The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand — Whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works — Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that calleth — Of his own good pleasure, who calls to the enjoyment of particular privileges whom he sees good. “Nothing can be more evident,” says Mr. Sellon, “to any one that considers the beginning and end of this chapter, than that the apostle is not speaking of the election of particular persons to eternal life, but of particular nations to outward church privileges, which duly used, through Christ, should be the means of bringing men to eternal life, and to higher degrees of glory therein than others should enjoy, who were not favoured with these privileges. Nor is God, the great Governor of the world, on this account, any more to be deemed a respecter of persons, than an earthly king, who takes some of his subjects for lords of his bed- chamber, and others for lower employments; since he will make them all, that behave well in their station, completely happy.” See his Works, vol. 2. p. 134. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger — Not in person, for Esau never served Jacob; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. But though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation: as little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites, in David’s days, a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. Add to this, that the circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very properly taken notice of to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favour: but if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever. As it is written — With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees; I have loved Jacob — With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob; and I have comparatively hated Esau — That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1st, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau: 2d, Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the Scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. And his intent herein, as appears from verses 30-33, (which passage is a key to the whole chapter,) is evidently to show, that as God before chose Jacob, who represented the Jews, and admitted him and his posterity to peculiar privileges, above the Gentiles, without any merit in him or them to deserve it; so now, (the Jews through their unbelief having rejected the Messiah, and being justly therefore themselves rejected of God,) he had chosen the Gentiles, represented by Esau, to be his peculiar people; according to the prediction of Hosea, I will call them my people, &c., cited verse 25, where see the note; and that without any thing on their part to deserve this favour. It was entirely free with respect both to them and Jacob, God’s mercy and goodness preventing, not the endeavour only, but even the will of both. As, before Jacob either willed or strove for it, the blessing was designed of God for him; so, before ever the Gentiles sought after God, the blessings of Christ’s kingdom were designed for them. Yet it does not follow that all who are called Christians, and enjoy outward church privileges, shall be finally saved, any more than it is to be concluded that all the Jews were saved before Christ came in the flesh, on account of their privileges.

10. So then—In more modern style this verse might be thus worded: So then the showing of mercy is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God. On which note, 1. The showing mercy includes not only the particular act of mercy-showing, but the establishing the underlying rule, condition, or law of mercy-showing; 2. Commentators on both sides seem to us to have overlooked the fact that the him that willeth and him that runneth signify not the suppliant or candidate before Jehovah for his mercy, but an intermediate third person (like Moses) between Jehovah and the suppliant. Moses willed, and Moses eagerly ran to Jehovah, to induce him to waver. So Paul’s Jew is pleading and cavilling and menacing in behalf of God’s favour to Jewish unbelief. But divine wisdom will admit no foolish interferers. It will maintain the invariable laws of a just free-agency.

Ver. 10. Another proof of the same, from the family of Isaac. Not only was a distinction made between the sons of Sarah and Hagar, but between the sons of Rebecca and Isaac, both parents being the same. Paul thus evades a possible objection that Ishmael was a bondwoman’s child.

Verse 11. For the children being not yet born] As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.

Neither having done any good] To merit the distinction of being made the peculiar people of God; nor evil, to deserve to be left out of this covenant, and the distinguishing national blessings which it conferred; that the purpose of God according to election might stand-that such distinctions might appear to depend on nothing but God’s free choice, not of works, or any desert in the people or nations thus chosen; but of the mere purpose of him who calleth any people he pleases, to make them the depositories of his especial blessings, and thus to distinguish them from all others.

Verses 9-13. For this is the word of promise — To show that Isaac was a son of promise, (and so a meet type of those that should be begotten of God by the promise of the gospel through faith,) he cites the words of the promise in substance, by which Isaac was begotten and born. See Genesis 17:20; 18:10; in which places two circumstances are mentioned, the one of God’s coming to fulfil his promise, in causing Sarah to have a son; the other of the set time when he would thus come; which plainly evince Isaac to have been a son of promise, conceived and born by virtue of that peculiar promise, which Abraham and Sarah believed, in order to his conception. At this time — As if he had said, Even now, though thy body and Sarah’s are dead, or at the time which I now appoint; I will come — Will manifest my power, and she shall conceive, and have a son — And he only shall inherit the blessing, and not whosoever is born of thee. Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God’s children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. — And that God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil — The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand — Whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works — Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that calleth — Of his own good pleasure, who calls to the enjoyment of particular privileges whom he sees good. “Nothing can be more evident,” says Mr. Sellon, “to any one that considers the beginning and end of this chapter, than that the apostle is not speaking of the election of particular persons to eternal life, but of particular nations to outward church privileges, which duly used, through Christ, should be the means of bringing men to eternal life, and to higher degrees of glory therein than others should enjoy, who were not favoured with these privileges. Nor is God, the great Governor of the world, on this account, any more to be deemed a respecter of persons, than an earthly king, who takes some of his subjects for lords of his bed- chamber, and others for lower employments; since he will make them all, that behave well in their station, completely happy.” See his Works, vol. 2. p. 134. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger — Not in person, for Esau never served Jacob; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. But though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation: as little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites, in David’s days, a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. Add to this, that the circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very properly taken notice of to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favour: but if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever. As it is written — With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees; I have loved Jacob — With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob; and I have comparatively hated Esau — That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1st, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau: 2d, Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the Scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. And his intent herein, as appears from verses 30-33, (which passage is a key to the whole chapter,) is evidently to show, that as God before chose Jacob, who represented the Jews, and admitted him and his posterity to peculiar privileges, above the Gentiles, without any merit in him or them to deserve it; so now, (the Jews through their unbelief having rejected the Messiah, and being justly therefore themselves rejected of God,) he had chosen the Gentiles, represented by Esau, to be his peculiar people; according to the prediction of Hosea, I will call them my people, &c., cited verse 25, where see the note; and that without any thing on their part to deserve this favour. It was entirely free with respect both to them and Jacob, God’s mercy and goodness preventing, not the endeavour only, but even the will of both. As, before Jacob either willed or strove for it, the blessing was designed of God for him; so, before ever the Gentiles sought after God, the blessings of Christ’s kingdom were designed for them. Yet it does not follow that all who are called Christians, and enjoy outward church privileges, shall be finally saved, any more than it is to be concluded that all the Jews were saved before Christ came in the flesh, on account of their privileges.

11. Neither… done… good or evil—The apostle assumes here, 1. That no child can be responsible for its impulsive acts or emotions before its birth. 2. That no responsibility exists upon man for any thing done in any supposed state of preexistence. Purpose… according to election— Purpose in regard to election. The purpose of electing is antecedent and eternal, (Ephesians 1:11;) the act of election under the purpose is in time. Him that calleth—To works the apostle does not here oppose faith, as we might expect from his usual antithesis, but God himself. Rightly, because faith does, of itself, deny itself to be the cause of salvation, and ascribes all to God. (See note on Romans 3:24.) To be justified by works is to justify ourselves; to be justified by faith is to be justified gratuitously by God—by him that calleth us to that very faith. As condition by us performed, and a means and method by God used, it is right to say in a subordinate sense that faith saves us. But the true, sole, original, and efficient Agent in our salvation is God. So that, as the apostle here maintains, our election is not of works, but of God.

Ver. 11.-12. Further exposition of this second case.

Not yet having been born etc.: excluding all possibility of human merit as influencing God’s selection. This is emphasised by the words not having done anything good or bad.

The purpose of God: the eternal purpose revealed in God’s action in the families of Abraham and Isaac.

Election: cognate to elect in Romans 8:33: the selection of a smaller out of a larger number. God acted on this principle, i.e. according to election, when, instead of receiving into this covenant both Isaac and Ishmael, he took Isaac only. He acted on the same principle when he took Jacob and left Esau. Inasmuch as whatever God does in time He purposed from eternity, Paul speaks of God’s action as resulting from a purpose according to election. And, inasmuch as, in both patriarchal families, He acted on the same principle of selection, Paul says that He did so in the second case

in order that the purpose according to election might continue, i.e. in order to act in the family of Isaac as He had already acted in the family of Abraham. The word continue calls attention to a permanent element in the divine action.

Not from works, but from Him that calls: source of this elective purpose. It was not prompted by any works of man, past or foreseen, but had its origin simply in God, who calls to Himself whom He will: cp. 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5.

It was said to her: as recorded in Genesis 25:23. Greater… less: perhaps equivalent to older and younger; cp. Genesis 29:16; 10:21: probably designed to be an enigma to Rebecca, to be explained only by fulfilment. It evidently means that the one least likely should have the pre-eminence. So important in Paul’s thought, as a permanent element in divine administration, was the principle of selection as contrasted with indiscriminate blessing that he represents the maintenance of this principle as a purpose of the famous words spoken to Rebecca before her children were born. Subsequent history proves that these words were a limitation of the covenant to Jacob and his children. Had God bestowed the promised blessings on both sons of Isaac, He would have cast aside the elective purpose adopted in His dealings with the family of Abraham.

V. 12. The elder-Esau.

Shall serve the younger-Not in person, for he never did; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. Genesis 25:23.

Verse 12. The elder shall serve the younger] These words, with those of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, are cited by the apostle to prove, according to their typical signification, that the purpose of God, according to election, does and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; that is, that the purpose of God, which is the ground of that election which he makes among men, unto the honour of being Abraham’s seed, might appear to remain unchangeable in him; and to be even the same which he had declared unto Abraham. That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Genesis 32:4; 33:8, 13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacob’s posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esau’s posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Malachi 1:2, 3, fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Moses concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachi’s time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Malachi 1:2-5. To this the Lord answers: Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

1. It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste. Now, if the prophet speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle speaks of them in the same way.

2. If neither the prophet nor the apostle speaks of the persons of Jacob or Esau, but of their posterity, then it is evident that neither the love of God to Jacob, nor the hatred of God to Esau, were such, according to which the eternal states of men, either in happiness or misery, are to be determined; nor is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavoured to build on these scriptures. For, 1. It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity. 2. The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esau’s posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacob’s posterity elected. 3. Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation. 4. Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob. 5. Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity. 6. The scope of the apostle’s reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness. Therefore, 1. He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate. 2. When the fulness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.

3. He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained ONLY by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are NOW laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction. 7. That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses, was no mean proof that God had forgiven him. See our Lord’s words, Matthew 6:14. Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity. 8. And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favour, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; two manner of nations are in thy womb-and the elder shall serve the younger. 9. There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands. See Goodwin’s Exposition: and see my notes on Gen. 27.

Verses 9-13. For this is the word of promise — To show that Isaac was a son of promise, (and so a meet type of those that should be begotten of God by the promise of the gospel through faith,) he cites the words of the promise in substance, by which Isaac was begotten and born. See Genesis 17:20; 18:10; in which places two circumstances are mentioned, the one of God’s coming to fulfil his promise, in causing Sarah to have a son; the other of the set time when he would thus come; which plainly evince Isaac to have been a son of promise, conceived and born by virtue of that peculiar promise, which Abraham and Sarah believed, in order to his conception. At this time — As if he had said, Even now, though thy body and Sarah’s are dead, or at the time which I now appoint; I will come — Will manifest my power, and she shall conceive, and have a son — And he only shall inherit the blessing, and not whosoever is born of thee. Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God’s children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. — And that God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil — The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand — Whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works — Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that calleth — Of his own good pleasure, who calls to the enjoyment of particular privileges whom he sees good. “Nothing can be more evident,” says Mr. Sellon, “to any one that considers the beginning and end of this chapter, than that the apostle is not speaking of the election of particular persons to eternal life, but of particular nations to outward church privileges, which duly used, through Christ, should be the means of bringing men to eternal life, and to higher degrees of glory therein than others should enjoy, who were not favoured with these privileges. Nor is God, the great Governor of the world, on this account, any more to be deemed a respecter of persons, than an earthly king, who takes some of his subjects for lords of his bed- chamber, and others for lower employments; since he will make them all, that behave well in their station, completely happy.” See his Works, vol. 2. p. 134. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger — Not in person, for Esau never served Jacob; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. But though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation: as little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites, in David’s days, a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. Add to this, that the circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very properly taken notice of to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favour: but if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever. As it is written — With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees; I have loved Jacob — With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob; and I have comparatively hated Esau — That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1st, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau: 2d, Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the Scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. And his intent herein, as appears from verses 30-33, (which passage is a key to the whole chapter,) is evidently to show, that as God before chose Jacob, who represented the Jews, and admitted him and his posterity to peculiar privileges, above the Gentiles, without any merit in him or them to deserve it; so now, (the Jews through their unbelief having rejected the Messiah, and being justly therefore themselves rejected of God,) he had chosen the Gentiles, represented by Esau, to be his peculiar people; according to the prediction of Hosea, I will call them my people, &c., cited verse 25, where see the note; and that without any thing on their part to deserve this favour. It was entirely free with respect both to them and Jacob, God’s mercy and goodness preventing, not the endeavour only, but even the will of both. As, before Jacob either willed or strove for it, the blessing was designed of God for him; so, before ever the Gentiles sought after God, the blessings of Christ’s kingdom were designed for them. Yet it does not follow that all who are called Christians, and enjoy outward church privileges, shall be finally saved, any more than it is to be concluded that all the Jews were saved before Christ came in the flesh, on account of their privileges.

Ver. 12. The elder shall serve the younger. Such was the pleasure of God, irrespective of any moral excellence in either of the twins, Jacob and Esau, who at the time of the promise were unborn. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated, according to the Hebrew adage, that the eldest son was hated when superseded in his father’s estate. The Lord did the same in the case of Reuben, by giving the sceptre to Judah. The same in Jesse’s house, by anointing David, the youngest of his eight sons. What then has this to do with the notion of men’s personal and eternal election, or reprobation to life and death? The Lord is good to all, though he does what he pleases among the kingdoms of the world.

12. Said unto her—(Genesis 25:23.) Disquieted by the commotion of her unborn twins, Rebecca makes inquiry of Jehovah as to the reason, who replies: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manners of people; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger.” By these impressive words the two entire races are figured as being embodied in the little persons of the unborn infants: Edomites in Esau, Israelites in Jacob.

The elder… younger—Reversing the law of primogeniture, by which the younger was the inferior. Shall—Will; the simple future tense. The sentence is a prediction, not a decree. (Note on Acts 28:26.) It was fulfilled, not in the persons of the twin brothers, but in their descendants, the Edomites being finally destroyed.

Ver. 11.-12. Further exposition of this second case.

Not yet having been born etc.: excluding all possibility of human merit as influencing God’s selection. This is emphasised by the words not having done anything good or bad.

The purpose of God: the eternal purpose revealed in God’s action in the families of Abraham and Isaac.

Election: cognate to elect in Romans 8:33: the selection of a smaller out of a larger number. God acted on this principle, i.e. according to election, when, instead of receiving into this covenant both Isaac and Ishmael, he took Isaac only. He acted on the same principle when he took Jacob and left Esau. Inasmuch as whatever God does in time He purposed from eternity, Paul speaks of God’s action as resulting from a purpose according to election. And, inasmuch as, in both patriarchal families, He acted on the same principle of selection, Paul says that He did so in the second case

in order that the purpose according to election might continue, i.e. in order to act in the family of Isaac as He had already acted in the family of Abraham. The word continue calls attention to a permanent element in the divine action.

Not from works, but from Him that calls: source of this elective purpose. It was not prompted by any works of man, past or foreseen, but had its origin simply in God, who calls to Himself whom He will: cp. 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5.

It was said to her: as recorded in Genesis 25:23. Greater… less: perhaps equivalent to older and younger; cp. Genesis 29:16; 10:21: probably designed to be an enigma to Rebecca, to be explained only by fulfilment. It evidently means that the one least likely should have the pre-eminence. So important in Paul’s thought, as a permanent element in divine administration, was the principle of selection as contrasted with indiscriminate blessing that he represents the maintenance of this principle as a purpose of the famous words spoken to Rebecca before her children were born. Subsequent history proves that these words were a limitation of the covenant to Jacob and his children. Had God bestowed the promised blessings on both sons of Isaac, He would have cast aside the elective purpose adopted in His dealings with the family of Abraham.

V. 13. As it is written-With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees.

I have loved Jacob-With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob.

And I have, comparatively, hated Esau-That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe,

1. This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau 2. Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. He now introduces and refutes an objection. Malachi 1:2, 3.

Verses 9-13. For this is the word of promise — To show that Isaac was a son of promise, (and so a meet type of those that should be begotten of God by the promise of the gospel through faith,) he cites the words of the promise in substance, by which Isaac was begotten and born. See Genesis 17:20; 18:10; in which places two circumstances are mentioned, the one of God’s coming to fulfil his promise, in causing Sarah to have a son; the other of the set time when he would thus come; which plainly evince Isaac to have been a son of promise, conceived and born by virtue of that peculiar promise, which Abraham and Sarah believed, in order to his conception. At this time — As if he had said, Even now, though thy body and Sarah’s are dead, or at the time which I now appoint; I will come — Will manifest my power, and she shall conceive, and have a son — And he only shall inherit the blessing, and not whosoever is born of thee. Observe, reader, Isaac is not brought forward in this chapter as a type, or example, of persons personally elected by God from eternity, but as a type of those, how few or how many soever they may be, that shall be counted God’s children, and judged meet to inherit his kingdom. And not only this, &c. — And that God’s blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, the latter of whom was chosen to inherit the blessing of being the progenitor of the Messiah, and other blessings connected therewith, before either of them had done good or evil — The apostle mentions this to show, that neither did their ancestors receive their advantages through any merit of their own; that the purpose of God according to election might stand — Whose purpose was to elect to superior blessings, particularly to church privileges; not of works — Not for any preceding merit in him he chose; but of him that calleth — Of his own good pleasure, who calls to the enjoyment of particular privileges whom he sees good. “Nothing can be more evident,” says Mr. Sellon, “to any one that considers the beginning and end of this chapter, than that the apostle is not speaking of the election of particular persons to eternal life, but of particular nations to outward church privileges, which duly used, through Christ, should be the means of bringing men to eternal life, and to higher degrees of glory therein than others should enjoy, who were not favoured with these privileges. Nor is God, the great Governor of the world, on this account, any more to be deemed a respecter of persons, than an earthly king, who takes some of his subjects for lords of his bed- chamber, and others for lower employments; since he will make them all, that behave well in their station, completely happy.” See his Works, vol. 2. p. 134. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger — Not in person, for Esau never served Jacob; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. But though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been inferior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation: as little was the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites, in David’s days, a proof of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. Add to this, that the circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was very properly taken notice of to show that Jacob’s election was contrary to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be from pure favour: but if his election had been to eternal life, the circumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had no relation to that matter whatever. As it is written — With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees; I have loved Jacob — With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob; and I have comparatively hated Esau — That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1st, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau: 2d, Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the Scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. And his intent herein, as appears from verses 30-33, (which passage is a key to the whole chapter,) is evidently to show, that as God before chose Jacob, who represented the Jews, and admitted him and his posterity to peculiar privileges, above the Gentiles, without any merit in him or them to deserve it; so now, (the Jews through their unbelief having rejected the Messiah, and being justly therefore themselves rejected of God,) he had chosen the Gentiles, represented by Esau, to be his peculiar people; according to the prediction of Hosea, I will call them my people, &c., cited verse 25, where see the note; and that without any thing on their part to deserve this favour. It was entirely free with respect both to them and Jacob, God’s mercy and goodness preventing, not the endeavour only, but even the will of both. As, before Jacob either willed or strove for it, the blessing was designed of God for him; so, before ever the Gentiles sought after God, the blessings of Christ’s kingdom were designed for them. Yet it does not follow that all who are called Christians, and enjoy outward church privileges, shall be finally saved, any more than it is to be concluded that all the Jews were saved before Christ came in the flesh, on account of their privileges.

13. Esau… hated—Paul quotes the words of Malachi, uttered centuries afterward, concerning the Edomites, (under the name of Esau,) showing how the divine prediction is verified. The strong word hated needs no softening, as appears from the proof given of the hatred, namely, the positive devastation of his “heritage.” (Malachi 1:3.) The meaning ascribed by some commentators to the word, to love less, is hardly sustainable. Edom, as a prospective people, was foreseen as persistently Godless, and so divinely hated. And then, just as Israel personally represents, first, his natural seed, the Jews; and, second, the visible Jewish Church; and, third, his spiritual seed, by faith, Jew or Gentile, so does Esau represent, not only Edom external, but also the Edom spiritual, and reprobate by unfaith, whether descended from Esau or not, who, as such, are the just objects of divine hate. All this implies not that the evil of the Edomites or of Esau was decreed or necessitated, or that it secured the personal damnation of Esau or of any particular Edomite. Esau may have been saved; salvation was in reach of every Edomite.

On the above paragraph we may note: 1. The apostle sustains from beginning to end the doctrine that, even in patriarchal times, faith was the underlying condition of acceptance with God, and that, therefore, the promise of God in its true import, amid its various forms, has been completely fulfilled in the Christian Church notwithstanding the rejection of unbelieving Judaism. The train of thought in the paragraph thus lies in line with the train of thought through the entire epistle. 2. We are thus delivered from the absurdity of denying, as Barnes, that “God sees any thing in the individuals as ground for his choice” If a particular choice, or, what is the same thing, a choice of a particular object, presents in itself no ground of preference differencing it from millions of others, then it is a choice without a motive; and so (as Calvinistic writers themselves strenuously maintain) is no choice or election at all, but a mere chance stumbling upon the object. 3. On the words not of works, in verse 11, Mr. Barnes says: “What the reasons are for choosing to eternal life he has not revealed, but he has revealed that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.” And has he not as plainly revealed that it is on account of our faith as that it is not on account of our works? The very purpose of 30-33 (besides hundreds of other texts) is to declare that it is on account of faith the Christian is accepted, and of unfaith that the unbelieving Jew is rejected. 4. That God’s choice of his elect is not “from nothing in them,” or for any mysterious unsearchable reason, is clear from God’s own word touching Abraham, the typical specimen, according to Paul, of all the elect. The reason God assigns for electing Abraham is given in Genesis 18:18, 19: “I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they will keep the way of Jehovah, to do justice and judgment,” etc. Abraham was elected, therefore, for foreseen faith, evidenced by works. 5. The maxim of Augustine, “God does not choose us because we believe, but that we may believe,” is but half the truth. God does choose us, both because we believe and that we may believe. He chooses us from antecedent justifying faith unto a future persevering, fructifying, and glorifying faith. Our eternal election is based upon the antecedent eternal foresight of our free, excellent, yet non-meritorious faith, (see note on Romans 8:29,)—non-meritorious in the sense of not meriting so great an election. (See note on Romans 3:24.)

3. Nor is God’s Rectitude impeached by Israel’s Downfall; for God’s Will (as he told Moses) will, in spite of Jewish dictation, extend mercy to faith, and (as He told Pharaoh) will execute wrath on persistent unbelief, 14-18.

Ver. 13. That Paul stated correctly in Romans 9:12 Gods purpose in speaking to Rebecca, he now proves by quoting Malachi 1:2. The words Esau I hated are expounded by those following, “they shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them Border of wickedness, and The people with whom God is angry for ever.” Cp. Psalms 5:5Psalm 5:5, 6: “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” Human passions are attributed to God in order to teach that He acts as men do when influenced by such passions: and only thus can men understand God. So Genesis 6:6; 1 Samuel 15:11, where God acts as a man does who has changed his mind. similarly Proverbs 13:24: “he that spares his rod hates his son,” i.e. he is practically his son’s enemy. God acted as a friend to Jacob’s descendants and as an adversary to those of Esau: and His words in Malachi 1:2 imply that His different treatment of the two nations was due not to anything they or their respective fathers had done but simply to His undeserved favour to Israel. This is also confirmed by the history of Israel and of Edom. Therefore, looking back on God’s words to Rebecca, Paul may justly say that they were spoken in order to declare the great principle that the promised blessings were given apart from human merit.

Notice that in Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2, and in the O.T. frequently, the fathers and their descendants are identified. In the children the fathers seem to live on: and blessings or curses pronounced on the fathers go down to the children. And the sins of one generation are punished in another: Exodus 17:16; 1 Samuel 15:2. God’s treatment of the sons of Isaac, as of those of Abraham, supports Paul’s assertion in Romans 9:6 that not all the descendants of Israel are heirs of the promises. By acting on the principle of selection, first in the family of Abraham and then in that of Isaac, God affords a strong presumption that He will do so in the third patriarchal family, that He will accept not all, but a part of, the descendants of Israel. The Gospel proclaims that He does so, that He gives the inheritance only to those who believe in Christ. This seemed to some a failure of the ancient promises. But Paul has now shown that the unbelieving Jews have no better claim than have the descendants of Ishmael, whose claim no Jew would admit. Again, Paul uses the early date of the prophecy about Isaac’s sons, in connection with God’s comment in Malachi 1:2 on His treatment of them, to meet another objection to the Gospel. He asserts, in Romans 3:27, that justification through faith shuts out all boasting on the ground of works, by bringing down all men, Jews or Gentiles, moral or immoral, to the level of sinners. He now points to a similar disregard of works, as a ground of God’s favour, in His treatment of the family of Isaac. If to-day God receives into His family, on the same terms of repentance and faith, the Pharisee and the publican, and rejects all unbelievers, moral or immoral, He only acts as He did when He chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they had done anything good or bad.

This argument however suggests an objection to the Gospel as serious as that which it removes, viz. that if God receive men without reference to previous morality, He is, if not unfaithful, yet unjust. This objection will be stated and answered in Romans 9:14-18. To provoke it, Paul quotes the mysterious words of Malachi 1:2. They teach that even the children of Abraham may be objects of God’s fiercest wrath. The above argument is simply a reply to an objection. Paul shows that this objection to the divine origin of the Gospel tells with equal force against that which all admit to be a revelation from God. As a positive argument, this only raises a presumption, based on the similarity of God’s previous action, that He will do what the Gospel announces. But as a reply to the objection that the threatenings of the Gospel are inconsistent with the promises of God, the argument is irresistible.

On the doctrine of Election, see further in the note at the end of this chapter.

V. 14. Is there injustice with God-Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only. God forbid-In no wise. This is well consistent with justice; for he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy, according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had committed idolatry with the golden calf.

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy-According to the terms I myself have fixed.

And I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion-Namely, on those only who submit to my terms, who accept of it in the way that I have appointed.

Verse 14. What shall we say then?] To what conclusion shall we come on the facts before us? Shall we suggest that God’s bestowing peculiar privileges in this unequal manner, on those who otherwise are in equal circumstances, is inconsistent with justice and equity? By no means. Whatever God does is right, and he may dispense his blessings to whom and or what terms he pleases.

Verses 14-16. What shall we say then? — To this. The apostle now introduces and refutes an objection. Is there unrighteousness, or injustice, with God? — In the distribution of his providential blessings, in this or any other instance that can be produced? Was it unjust in God to choose Jacob and his posterity to be the members of his visible church on earth, and to inherit the promises in their literal meaning, rather than Esau and his posterity? Or to accept believers who imitate the faith of Jacob, and them only? God forbid — In no wise: this is well consistent with justice. For he saith to Moses, &c. — For he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy; according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had been guilty of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf; I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy — According to the terms I myself have fixed; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion — Namely, on those only who submit to my terms; who accept of it in the way that I have appointed. So then — The inference to be drawn is; It — The blessing; therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth — It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and man’s running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.

Ver. 14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? In giving the staff to Jacob without merit, or in denying it to Esau without demerit, was there any injustice? God forbid. He does the same in the church which he does in the state. When Moses had obtained life for the people, after worshipping the calf; when he had prevailed with God to revoke his word of sending his angel; and when he added, “My presence shall go with thee,” Moses, encouraged by these double disclosures of grace and mercy, ventured to ask what no mortal had asked before. “I beseech thee, show me thy glory.” And the Lord said, “I will make my goodness to pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.” Exodus 33:19. He added the like gracious words on the sedition of Miriam and Aaron. Is there a prophet among you? To him will I make myself known in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream. But my servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house: with him will I speak mouth to mouth. Numbers 12:6. Certainly this peculiar grace conferred on Moses did not obstruct the salvation of other prophets. Why then should the jews feel aggrieved, that the converted gentiles should receive the grace promised by a succession of prophets, before they had done either good or evil? The next example, the case of Pharaoh, demonstrates that his justice is administered on the same principle of equity on which grace is conferred. In all these procedures, oh jews, I boldly ask, is there unrighteousness with God?

14. Unrighteousness with God—Unrighteousness in what respect? Plainly in disregarding the law of lineage and substituting the law of faith as the basis of acceptance, thus endangering unbelieving Israel’s salvation. The last previous paragraph defends the divine veracity; this the divine righteousness. Neither paragraph, be it noted, discusses the “Divine Sovereignty.” God forbid—(See note on Romans 3:4.) As the insolent Jew truly enslaves the Divine Will to the law of lineage—making the pedigree the god of God—so the apostle most austerely and indignantly declares the independence of God’s will over all such Jewish dictation in selecting the basis (faith) of acceptance.

ROMANS

SECTION 29 — NOR IS GOD UNJUST CH. 9:14-18

What then shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with God? Be it not so. For to Moses He says, “I will have mercy on whomsoever I have mercy, and will have compassion on whomsoever I have compassion.” Therefore it is not of him that desires nor of him that runs, but of God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very end I raised thee up, in order that I may show forth in thee My power, and in order that My name may be announced in all the earth.” Therefore on whom He will He has mercy; and whom He will He hardens.

Ver. 14. What then etc.? what shall we infer? as in Romans 4:1, etc. The objection is based, not on God’s hatred to Esau, but on the words not of works. For no Jew would say that God’s treatment of Esau was unjust. Unrighteousness: as in Romans 1:18, deviation from the standard of right. In a ruler, we call it injustice. While overturning an objection that the Gospel is contrary to the faithfulness of God, Paul has suggested another based on His justice. The unbelieving Jew may say that his own case differs altogether from that of Esau, that, whereas God’s words to Rebecca determined only the temporal lot of her sons and left them and their children to be judged at the great day according to their works, the Gospel announces eternal life for those who a few days ago were publicans and harlots, and shuts out from the promises of God some who have lived strictly moral lives. The teaching of Christ put Saul of Tarsus on the same level in reference to salvation as the outcasts around; and offers salvation to all on the same terms. Such teaching seemed to slap in the face morality itself. The Pharisee declares that the justice of God makes inconceivable that such teaching is divine. If the moral unbeliever cannot appeal to the ancient promises, he will appeal to something older than they, to the eternal justice of God. This objection, Paul meets with a direct denial: Be it not so.

V. 15. Exodus 33:19.

Verse 15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy, &c.] The words of God to Moses, Exodus 33:19, show that God has a right to dispense his blessings as he pleases; for, after he had declared that he would spare the Jews of old, and continue them in the relation of his peculiar people, when they had deserved to have been cut off for their idolatry, he said: I will make all my goodness pass before thee; and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. As if he had said: I will make such a display of my perfections as shall convince you that my nature is kind and beneficent; but know, that I am a debtor to none of my creatures. My benefits and blessings are merely from my own good will: nor can any people, much less a rebellious people, challenge them as their due in justice or equity. And therefore I now spare the Jews; not because either you, who intercede for them or they themselves have any claim upon my favour, but of my own free and sovereign grace I choose to show them mercy and compassion. I will give my salvation in my own way and on my own terms. He that believeth on my Son Jesus shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned. This is God’s ultimate design; this purpose he will never change; and this he has fully declared in the everlasting Gospel. This is the grand DECREE of reprobation and election.

Verses 14-16. What shall we say then? — To this. The apostle now introduces and refutes an objection. Is there unrighteousness, or injustice, with God? — In the distribution of his providential blessings, in this or any other instance that can be produced? Was it unjust in God to choose Jacob and his posterity to be the members of his visible church on earth, and to inherit the promises in their literal meaning, rather than Esau and his posterity? Or to accept believers who imitate the faith of Jacob, and them only? God forbid — In no wise: this is well consistent with justice. For he saith to Moses, &c. — For he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy; according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had been guilty of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf; I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy — According to the terms I myself have fixed; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion — Namely, on those only who submit to my terms; who accept of it in the way that I have appointed. So then — The inference to be drawn is; It — The blessing; therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth — It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and man’s running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.

15. For—The two fors in this and the seventeenth verse show that Paul gives a reason in each case for maintaining God’s rectitude; first for the bright side, and next for the dark side of the divine dealings in his system of free-agency.

The predestinarian view makes Paul’s answer to the question, Is God unrighteous? be simply this: God is an absolute sovereign, and can do as he pleases, and will as he will, and therefore what he does is right. He can choose men to sin and death “for nothing in them,” and for no fault of theirs; and, because He is almighty, it is right. But, 1. Such a reply is not Pauline, as we have shown, (see note on Romans 3:4, 5.) Paul’s doctrine is not that a thing is right because the Absolute One does it; but the Absolute does that which is intrinsically right. 2. The supposed answer is no answer at all. When I ask, Is a given act right? it is no reply to say the actor could do what he pleased, and could will as he willed, and therefore it was right. Power increased infinitely cannot change right. A creature can be supposably wronged by even an infinite being. 3. The predestinarian interpretation makes Paul pretend to give a reason, but really resort to force, and seek to frighten his opponent out of reasoning. Now even if thus silencing instead of convincing were not very mean, the pretending to give a reason when he gives no reason at all would be very mendacious. 4. Mr. Barnes (on Romans 9:15) argues that where all are guilty and worthy of death an executive may pardon a definite number without any just complaint from the unpardoned. Not, we reply, where his own previous decree has plunged the unpardoned into the sin and misery for which he condemns them. 5. Mr. Barnes argues that to predestinate unconditionally a man to sin and damnation is no more unjust than to make him inferior to his fellow “in regard to talents, health, beauty, prosperity, and rank.” It is just as right for God to make me a sinner, and send me to hell for being what he has decretively made me, as it is for him to make me less than a Solomon. (See his notes on Romans 9:12 and 21.) But,

(1.) These temporal inferiorities are compensated by a large surplus of happiness that renders life desirable in spite of them; but for eternal damnation there is no compensation. Defenders of God’s benevolence, like Paley, point us to the great surplus of happiness over misery diffused by God among all living beings. Life itself is a happiness; and its cessation, death, is dreaded and avoided as the greatest of evils. Thus do all living beings, however inferior, consent, agree, and covenant with God gladly to accept life as long as he will graciously bestow it upon them. But who ever consents to be brought into existence a necessary sinner—just as necessarily as a sparrow is not an eagle, or a zany is not a sage—and for that necessity be sent to an eternal hell?

(2.) These varieties of rank and advantage, of superiority and inferiority, are necessary to a grand system of creation. The result is that, while there is disadvantage in the various parts, the highest advantage is attained for the whole, and such a degree of happiness is secured for every part as that part is glad to accept. But to produce one class of beings upon whom sin and damnation are resistlessly fixed ages before they are born, predetermining their wills to sin, and their souls to hell for that sin, is an awful crime to charge upon God. It is only when by wilful, persistent, undecreed, and unnecessary sin, a free agent violates the divine order, and thus deserves eternal expulsion and reprobation, that such a destiny can be justifiable.

(3.) Omnipotently to create an innocent being supremely miserable would be an act of unspeakable despotism; but there may be discerned in it a certain infernal frankness and magnanimity. But to take an innocent nature, such as man is before he is decreed a sinner, and decretively smear sin upon him as a ground of justly damning him to an eternal hell, is as mean and mendacious as it is despotic. The calling such dealings righteousness, justice, is what our moral nature, with all its intensity, pronounces a truly execrable falsity.

(4.) We offer no solution to the problem that amiable and clear intellects, like Albert Barnes, can not only advocate doctrines which are morally so abominable, but can advocate them with reasonings so futile. But we are almost compelled to believe, from such specimens of logic, that the divine penalty imposed upon the ablest intellects for holding the abhorrent dogma, is to be smitten with collapse in defending it.

Saith unto Moses—(Exodus 33:19.) Moses coming down from Sinai, where he had received the law, finding the people immersed in idolatry, exclaims, Who is on Jehovah’s side? Forthwith the tribe of Levi step forth, draw swords, and execute upon the spot three thousand transgressors. Next day (Exodus 22:22) Moses prays that if Jehovah will not spare the people, his own name may be blotted out from God’s book. Jehovah respects the profound unselfishness of the mistaken prayer, but sternly replies,” Whosoever hath sinned against me, HIM will I blot out of my book.” Such was the conditional rule and reason of the Divine will in inflicting wrath, (Exodus 32:15-33.) And this explains the dark side of the antithesis in verse 18.

Moses again stands to intercede with God, (xxxiii, 12-19,) and, meeting a gracious reception, beseeches God, Show me thy glory. God consents, declaring, (the words quoted by Paul,) “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,” etc. And this explains the bright side of the antithesis in verse 18.

God thus willed, in spite of Moses’ wish, to punish the guilty, and THE GUILTY ONLY; and he willed, in accordance with Moses’ wish, to show him his glory. Thus did God will as he was supremely pleased to will. Yet let four things be noted: First, this willing as he will does not mean willing without a reason, motive, or rule, but willing with a perfect right, reason, motive, and rule. Second. It does not mean that the reason, motive, or rule is an incomprehensible, mysterious, unrevealed, unknown one, but the fully revealed and perfectly just rule of impartially dealing with men as free agents. Third. The peremptoriness of this willing as he will, while it does not exclude either reason, rule, or a publication of reason or rule, does override the small caprice of the man who (as Moses) would doubt, cavil, or rebel against the infinite reason; and, Fourth, This willing as he will is a willing to deal with men, not “for nothing in them,” but according to their faith, and subsequently to their faith, and conditionally upon their faith. The wrongly praying Moses is the type of the weeping Paul, or even of the cavilling Jew, humanely wishing that God would spare the unfaithful people; yet God will inflexibly act on the known and universally published rules of righteous judgment. He will disregard human dictation, whether in form of prayer, weeping, or cavil, and so will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. And human reason, being finitely in the type of divine reason, when it comes to an understanding of the divine rules and reasons, does in its highest exertions profoundly approve the principles on which they are based. So that Paul’s logic is a full reply to his Jewish opponent. In this interpretation we make no mistake. We have rightly interpreted God’s words to Moses as they are in the Old Testament. And on the perfectly just rule that, where possible, a quotation in the New from the Old Testament must be taken in its original sense, the passage means from the pen of Paul just what it means from the mouth of Jehovah. Alford makes the apostle here teach “Divine sovereignty” solely and regardless of human freedom, (freedom, he says, is fully taught in other places,) from Paul’s habit of “insulating the one subject under consideration.” But, 1. Alford entirely mistakes the “subject” which the apostle here “insulates.” “Divine sovereignty” is not the “subject,” nor the question, in any part of the chapter. It is God’s “unrighteousness,” (verse 14, as there said in our note,) namely, Has not God the right, overruling the Jews, to sink the old narrow Judaic particularism in a new broad conditional universality? Has not God the right to do right? And, 2, Alford’s exposition not only makes the apostle leave human freedom out of view, but forces it out of existence by completely contradicting it, and making any assertion of freedom elsewhere to be false. 3. Alford forgets that in this very chapter the apostle takes care to assert human freedom, and so to assert it as to run it through all these instances, and so deny the absolutist interpretation in each and every case. (See notes on 30-33.) I will… on whom I will—This simple assertion, that God will accept whom he pleases, decides not the question, Whom does he please or will to accept? But, taken in its connexions, it plainly means that whereas the Jew wills that God should accept all Jews, God wills—and will do as he wills—to accept all true believers. Paul thus peremptorily asserts not the divine Will in disregard of reason, or in disregard of “anything in the individual,” or in regard to some unknown reason, or in absolute “divine sovereignty” over all things, but in entire independence of Jewish pedigree, merit, or dictation. The Jew prefers a system of predestinated birth-salvation; God prefers an equalized system of free-agency—and will have his way. He will have his way in spite of the cavils of predestinarians, whether Judaistic or Calvinistic.

The rules by which God thus wills, and absolutely pleases, to have mercy, are abundantly revealed in Scripture. To reveal and publish them is, indeed, the great object of Scripture. The decalogue proclaims him a God “showing mercy to thousands that love me and keep my commandments.” “Let the wicked forsake his way, and return to the Lord, and he will have mercy. (Isaiah 55:7.) The pretence, therefore, that this verse presupposes some no-reason, or some unknowable reason, for his gracious preferences, is a figment and a folly.

Ver. 15.-16. In proof of this denial, Paul appeals to words spoken to Moses at one of the most solemn moments of his life: Exodus 33:19. Mercy: kindness to the unfortunate and helpless: so Romans 11:30-32.

Compassion: a stronger form of the same: so Romans 12:1. I-shall-have-mercy refers to practical manifestation of mercy; I-have-mercy, to the inward disposition. While granting Moses’ prayer to see His glory, God asserts the great principle that His gifts are acts of mercy; and that therefore the objects of them are chosen not because of their merit but because of their helplessness and God’s pity. God revealed His glory to Moses, not because he deserved it, but because God had compassion on him. Verse 16 is Paul’s inference from God’s words. Runs: intense effort like that of a racer: so 1 Corinthians 9:24. The blessings of the Gospel cannot be obtained by man’s desire or effort, however intense, but are gifts of God’s mercy. Therefore no work of man gives a claim to them.

A ruler is unjust if in administration he deviates from the proclaimed principles of his government; or if he makes laws contrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong. By proclaiming in the Gospel that He will bestow His favour on believers without consideration of previous morality, God acts on a principle of government announced at Sinai, at the foundation of the Jewish state, a principle which none can call unjust. Its justice is evident from the case of Moses. He had certainly no claim to a revelation of God’s glory. God might justly have refused it; and therefore might justly give it to whom He would. Now in the Gospel God proclaims to all believers, of whatever previous character, a still grander revelation of His glory. He thus exercises the prerogative asserted at Sinai. He might justly have delayed for a century the manifestation of Himself in Christ. If so, Paul and his compeers would never have seen it. Was it then unjust in God to choose, apart from all thought of merit, the objects of this revelation? Was it unjust to refuse it to Saul of Tarsus who had desired it so long and sought it so earnestly, and to grant it to Zacchaeus and Mary of Magdala?

This quotation is the more suitable because of the argument lying in the word mercy. Mercy is not matter of justice, but is better than justice. It is evoked, not by merit, but by helplessness. If God’s kindness to a man like Moses, in the noblest moment of his life, was an act of mercy, prompted, not by what Moses had done, but by divine compassion, then the most moral man has no claim whatever to any gift from God: and God may justly bestow His gifts without reference to human conduct.

V. 16. It-The blessing.

Therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth-It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and man's running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.

Verse 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, &c.] I conclude, therefore, from these several instances, that the making or continuing any body of men the peculiar people of God, is righteously determined; not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by the will and wisdom of God alone. For Abraham judged that the blessing ought, and he willed, desired, that it might be given to Ishmael; and Isaac also willed, designed, it for his first-born, Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping that it might be his, readily went, ran a hunting for venison, that he might have the blessing regularly conveyed to him: but they were all disappointed-Abraham and Isaac, who willed, and Esau who ran: for God had originally intended that the blessing of being a great nation and distinguished people should, of his mere good pleasure, be given to Isaac and Jacob, and be confirmed in their posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostasy they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses’ willing, nor any prior obligation God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued it to them.

Verses 14-16. What shall we say then? — To this. The apostle now introduces and refutes an objection. Is there unrighteousness, or injustice, with God? — In the distribution of his providential blessings, in this or any other instance that can be produced? Was it unjust in God to choose Jacob and his posterity to be the members of his visible church on earth, and to inherit the promises in their literal meaning, rather than Esau and his posterity? Or to accept believers who imitate the faith of Jacob, and them only? God forbid — In no wise: this is well consistent with justice. For he saith to Moses, &c. — For he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy; according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had been guilty of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf; I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy — According to the terms I myself have fixed; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion — Namely, on those only who submit to my terms; who accept of it in the way that I have appointed. So then — The inference to be drawn is; It — The blessing; therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth — It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and man’s running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.

Ver. 15.-16. In proof of this denial, Paul appeals to words spoken to Moses at one of the most solemn moments of his life: Exodus 33:19. Mercy: kindness to the unfortunate and helpless: so Romans 11:30-32.

Compassion: a stronger form of the same: so Romans 12:1. I-shall-have-mercy refers to practical manifestation of mercy; I-have-mercy, to the inward disposition. While granting Moses’ prayer to see His glory, God asserts the great principle that His gifts are acts of mercy; and that therefore the objects of them are chosen not because of their merit but because of their helplessness and God’s pity. God revealed His glory to Moses, not because he deserved it, but because God had compassion on him. Verse 16 is Paul’s inference from God’s words. Runs: intense effort like that of a racer: so 1 Corinthians 9:24. The blessings of the Gospel cannot be obtained by man’s desire or effort, however intense, but are gifts of God’s mercy. Therefore no work of man gives a claim to them.

A ruler is unjust if in administration he deviates from the proclaimed principles of his government; or if he makes laws contrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong. By proclaiming in the Gospel that He will bestow His favour on believers without consideration of previous morality, God acts on a principle of government announced at Sinai, at the foundation of the Jewish state, a principle which none can call unjust. Its justice is evident from the case of Moses. He had certainly no claim to a revelation of God’s glory. God might justly have refused it; and therefore might justly give it to whom He would. Now in the Gospel God proclaims to all believers, of whatever previous character, a still grander revelation of His glory. He thus exercises the prerogative asserted at Sinai. He might justly have delayed for a century the manifestation of Himself in Christ. If so, Paul and his compeers would never have seen it. Was it then unjust in God to choose, apart from all thought of merit, the objects of this revelation? Was it unjust to refuse it to Saul of Tarsus who had desired it so long and sought it so earnestly, and to grant it to Zacchaeus and Mary of Magdala?

This quotation is the more suitable because of the argument lying in the word mercy. Mercy is not matter of justice, but is better than justice. It is evoked, not by merit, but by helplessness. If God’s kindness to a man like Moses, in the noblest moment of his life, was an act of mercy, prompted, not by what Moses had done, but by divine compassion, then the most moral man has no claim whatever to any gift from God: and God may justly bestow His gifts without reference to human conduct.

V. 17. Moreover-God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in scripture,

For this very thing have I raised thee up-That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, (as indeed it was, by overwhelming him and his army in the sea,) and my name declared through all the earth-As it is at this day. Perhaps this may have a still farther meaning. It seems that God was resolved to show his power over the river, the insects, other animals, (with the natural causes of their health, diseases, life, and death,) over the meteors, the air, the sun, (all of which were worshipped by the Egyptians, from whom other nations learned their idolatry,) and at once over all their gods, by that terrible stroke of slaying all their priests, and their choicest victims, the firstborn of man and beast; and all this with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest. Exodus 9:16.

Verse 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh] Instead of showing the Israelites mercy he might justly have suffered them to have gone on in sin, till he should have signalized his wisdom and justice in their destruction; as appears from what God in his word declares concerning his dealings with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Exodus 9:15, 16: For now, saith the Lord, I had stretched forth my hand, (in the plague of boils and blains,) and I had smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence; and thou hadst (by this plague) been cut off from the earth; (as thy cattle were by the murrain;) but in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up-I have restored thee to health by removing the boils and blains, and by respiting thy deserved destruction to a longer day, that I may, in thy instance, give such a demonstration of my power in thy final overthrow, that all mankind may learn that I am God, the righteous Judge of all the earth, the avenger of wickedness. See this translation of the original vindicated in my notes on Exodus 9:15, 16; and, about the hardening of Pharaoh, see the notes on those places where the words occur in the same book.

Verses 17, 18. For — Or, moreover, rather, as it seems gar ought to be translated, (the passage here quoted being no proof of what immediately goes before,) God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept his blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in Scripture; For this very thing have I raised thee up — That is, unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king; that my power will be shown upon thee — As, indeed, it was, by the terrible judgments brought on Egypt, and overwhelming him and his army in the sea; and my name declared through all the earth — As it is at this day. Perhaps this may have a still further meaning. It seems that God was resolved to show his power over the river, the insects, other animals, (with the natural causes of their health, diseases, life, and death,) over meteors, the air, the sun, (all of which were worshipped by the Egyptians, from whom other nations learned their idolatry,) and, at once, over all their gods, by that terrible stroke, of slaying all their priests and their choicest victims, the firstborn of man and beast: and all this with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power; and to draw them and the neighbouring nations who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in a variety of wonderful acts, which were, at the same time, just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring, and obstinate, of all the Egyptian princes: and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest. Therefore — Or, so then, upon the whole, we may conclude; he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy — Namely, on those that comply with his terms, on them that repent and believe in Christ; and whom he will — Namely, them that remain in impenitence and unbelief, and who reject his counsel against themselves; he hardeneth — Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Ver. 17. Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up. Exodus 9:16. Ëytdm[ h he-êmadtica. Stare te feci, have I made thee to stand, to subsist, and kept thee alive. The LXX, diethrhqhv, thou art preserved from the pestilence and destruction. Pharaoh was often admonished of God that he should let the Hebrews go, and while the scourge was heavy on the land he yielded for the time; but as soon as the hail and thunder ceased, he again hardened his heart. He sinned on till the period of patience was past. Therefore there is no unrighteousness with God. When Pharaoh, after six judgments, had hardened his own heart, and when he had despised the special admonitions of Moses, Exodus 8:29, he was evidently abandoned to a reprobate mind. God bade him fill up his measure, that he might visit the blood of the Hebrews on him, and on his cruel court. But Pharaoh’s case, though aptly named here, is not the main case in the apostle’s eye. The real case was the jewish nation, who after hardening their hearts against the doctrine and miracles of Christ, had dreadfully destroyed the christians, and still persisted in impenitency and unbelief. Therefore their ruin is laid on their own heads. Acts 28:25. In the destruction of Pharaoh and his host he warned all princes from repeating the like crimes, and he dispersed the jews by such tremendous judgments, as to caution future ages against resisting the goodness of God, which would lead them to repentance. Is there then any unrighteousness with God in punishing the jews, and in conferring evangelical grace on the gentiles?

17. Scripture saith—In the words of Jehovah, (Exodus 9:16.) Pharaoh—Who claimed, like Paul’s Jew, to overrule God; and who, if human power could have overruled God, was the man of his age to do it; yet who was most peremptorily overruled by God, and reduced, like our Jew, to the level of a just probationary free-agency, under the most equitable divine administration. Raised thee up—Hebrew, Made thee to stand. The context in the Old Testament would seem to imply the causing thee to stand or survive amid the past destroying plagues. Though the greatest criminal in Egypt, he had been preserved alive, amid repeated plagues, for the purpose here announced. He had attained the acme of sin; he had forfeited life, and passed the day of grace. Hence it is that Paul selects him as a specimen and monument of wrath. Show my power— Years there had been in which God was earnest to show his mercy in Pharaoh; those years are past; the hour now is when he is made to live on earth, when he should be in hell, that God may reveal his true omnipotence in the land, and over the rulers, and over the gods of Egypt.

Ver. 17. Proof of the above inference. From the case of Pharaoh, Paul will prove that God hardens whom He will, and thus put beyond doubt that He has mercy on whom He will.

The Scripture says: as in Romans 4:3. For the solemn and express words of God, Paul claims no higher authority than that they are the voice of the Scripture: so Romans 11:2; Galatians 4:30; cp. Galatians 3:8, 22. See Diss. iii. The quoted passage is Exodus 9:15, 16: “For now had I stretched out My hand and smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence, then hadst thou been cut off from the earth. And indeed for this end I have made thee to continue, to the end that I may show thee My power, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Instead of destroying the king at once, God permitted him to continue his resistance; and thus reserved him for a more conspicuous overthrow, which would spread to all nations the name and fame of the God of Israel. This purpose was attained: see Joshua 2:10. Instead of made to continue, Paul writes

I raised thee up. A cognate but less strong word in Acts 13:22, 23. Those whom God lifts out of the mass of mankind and puts into a conspicuous position, He is said to raise-up. This alteration embodies a correct inference. They who occupy thrones are placed on them by God, to work out His purposes: Daniel 4:25; Isaiah 37:26. God here says that He had formed a purpose that through Pharaoh His name should be made known. Therefore we cannot doubt that for this end He not only spared his life but placed on the throne of Egypt at that time a man of Pharaoh’s character. In later days, to accomplish a different purpose, He put on the throne of Persia (Ezra 1:2) a man of different character. God’s perfect foreknowledge (Romans 8:29) enabled Him to do all this without interfering with human freedom. He knew beforehand the men to whom He gave the sceptre, and knew that their character would serve His purpose. We therefore infer from Exodus 9:16 that God placed Pharaoh on the throne in order that his obstinacy and overthrow might be a means of making known to nations around the greatness of God.

V. 18. So then-That is, accordingly he does show mercy on his own terms, namely, on them that believe.

And whom he willeth-Namely, them that believe not. He hardeneth-Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Verse 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will] This is the apostle’s conclusion from the facts already laid down: that God, according to his own will and wisdom, in perfect righteousness, bestows mercy; that is to say, his blessings upon one part of mankind, (the Jews of old, and the Gentiles of the present time,) while he suffers another part (the Egyptians of old, and the Jews of the present day) to go on in the abuse of his goodness and forbearance, hardening themselves in sin, till he brings upon them a most just and exemplary punishment, unless this be prevented by their deep repentance and general return to God through Jesus the promised, the real Messiah.

Verses 17, 18. For — Or, moreover, rather, as it seems gar ought to be translated, (the passage here quoted being no proof of what immediately goes before,) God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept his blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in Scripture; For this very thing have I raised thee up — That is, unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king; that my power will be shown upon thee — As, indeed, it was, by the terrible judgments brought on Egypt, and overwhelming him and his army in the sea; and my name declared through all the earth — As it is at this day. Perhaps this may have a still further meaning. It seems that God was resolved to show his power over the river, the insects, other animals, (with the natural causes of their health, diseases, life, and death,) over meteors, the air, the sun, (all of which were worshipped by the Egyptians, from whom other nations learned their idolatry,) and, at once, over all their gods, by that terrible stroke, of slaying all their priests and their choicest victims, the firstborn of man and beast: and all this with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power; and to draw them and the neighbouring nations who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in a variety of wonderful acts, which were, at the same time, just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring, and obstinate, of all the Egyptian princes: and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest. Therefore — Or, so then, upon the whole, we may conclude; he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy — Namely, on those that comply with his terms, on them that repent and believe in Christ; and whom he will — Namely, them that remain in impenitence and unbelief, and who reject his counsel against themselves; he hardeneth — Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Ver. 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. The Judge of all the earth does right. He has reasons for showing mercy to the contrite, and for sending the finally impenitent to perdition, though he does not always condescend to assign them. God saw the affliction of his people, and after much longsuffering, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, not by prompting him to oppression and murder, but as the sun hardens the clay, to use the words of the chaste Theophylact, whereas grace softens the hearts of others under paternal correction.

18. Hardeneth—It is surprising how anxiously the very commentators who teach that from all eternity God decreed the sin and hardening of Pharaoh endeavour to soften this word, and maintain that the hardening is by no direct act of God, but by indirect effect. Surely, if God may predestinate Pharaoh’s hardness, then he may as well produce it by a direct touch of his hand. A true view, in its proper place, of God’s clearness from the sin of the creature enables us to assert, in its proper place, the full force of the divine sentence upon the sinner. And when we consider that this hardening, being the opposite of showing mercy, is a judicial act, performed upon one already past probation, it impeaches not God’s perfect rectitude to suppose that he executes it, according to the words, by direct act. It may have been God’s turning the key of mercy’s door upon him who had, without God’s decree or concurrence, forever closed it against himself. It may have been confirmatorily glazing with God’s own finger the surface of that heart already callous by its own act. This is just as righteous as it is for God to bar the gates of hell upon the finally damned, or for Jesus to say, Depart, ye cursed, etc.

The Jew now understands of Paul that the hardened Pharaoh is but a type of his own hardening self. The condemnation of Israel, for whom Moses prayed in vain, the overthrow of Pharaoh, whom Moses warned in vain, are figures of his own downfall, for whom Paul weeps in vain. And all because Supreme Righteousness will have its own way. It next follows that,

4. No reply can be made against God for all this; for it accords with the universal principle of an equitable Free Probation, (19-23.) For it accords with the law of a responsible probationary free-agency that, as a potter may, according to the temper shown by the clay, prepare the vessel for honour or for dishonour, so God, according to the temper and showing of a free-agent, may assign him to mercy or wrath.

Ver. 18. Inference from God’s words to Pharaoh, including, and supplementing, and supporting, the inference in Romans 9:16. Hardens: so Exodus 4:21, “I will harden his heart;” also Romans 7:3. Same or cognate word in Hebrews 3:8; 4:7; Acts 19:9; Romans 2:5. The heart is hard when it is incapable of receiving divine impressions. To harden, is to make less susceptible of such impressions. We may well believe that each refusal made Pharaoh less open to divine influences. Moreover, this progressive hardening was a part of the order of human life, and therefore a divinely-ordained consequence of his refusal to obey, a divinely-ordained punishment of his disobedience. In this real and awful sense it was an act of God. For He ordained that they who reject His influences leading men towards obedience shall by their rejection become less susceptible to such influences. It is also the sinner’s own act. For, had he not resisted God, his heart would not have been hardened. This hardening is no more inconsistent with the character of God than is any other kind of punishment. This verse asserts God’s right to inflict this punishment on whomever He will. In Exodus 4:21; 7:3, God announced that He would inflict it on Pharaoh: and no Jew would deny the justice of the punishment.

Pharaoh was an exact parallel to Paul’s opponents: for what he did, they are doing. The only bad thing recorded of him is a repeated rejection of an embassy from God: and they have rejected a more solemn embassy: 2 Corinthians 5:20; Hebrews 2:3. Therefore, it God make them, in spite of their morality, a monument of wrath, He will only treat them as He treated Pharaoh. By condemning him, the Jews admitted the justice of their own condemnation.

That God bestows blessing on grounds, not of merit, but of mercy, and that He selects, from men equally guilty, objects of special and conspicuous punishment, does not make in the least uncertain who are the objects of the blessing and the curse. For God’s purposes flow from His moral character, and are therefore in harmony with His love and wisdom. Moreover, while reserving to Himself the right to choose the objects of His favour and His anger, He has made known to us His choice. In the Gospel He proclaims mercy for all who believe, of whatever previous character; and destruction for all who reject the offered mercy. We never read of a purpose of God still kept secret. In Christ, the purpose once hidden is now made manifest: Romans 16:26; Ephesians 3:5.

Verses 15-18 are full of comfort. When we ask blessing from God, we look, not at our efforts to obtain it or at our merit, but at our helplessness and God’s compassion. For His gifts are acts of pure mercy: and He has promised them to all who ask in faith. We therefore ask for them in humble and joyful confidence that God will fulfil His promise.

These verses are also a solemn warning to some who think that because of their morality God cannot justly condemn them to final destruction. He will harden and punish and raise into a monument of anger whom He will. And we read in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 that He will destroy those who obey not the Gospel. The justice of this punishment will appear in the great day: Romans 2:5.

Nearly all the difficulties of these verses vanish when we remember that they are a reply to one who objects that it would be unjust for God to destroy those who reject the Gospel. To such objectors, the case of Pharaoh, whose only recorded sin is a rejection of an embassy from God, is a triumphant answer.

V. 19. Why doth he still find fault-The particle still is strongly expressive of the objector's sour, morose murmuring.

For who hath resisted his will-The word his likewise expresses his surliness and aversion to God, whom he does not even deign to name.

Verse 19. Why doth he yet find fault?] The apostle here introduces the Jew making an objection similar to that in Romans 3:7: If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, that is, if God’s faithfulness is glorified by my wickedness, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? Why am I condemned for that which brings so much glory to him? The question here is: If God’s glory be so highly promoted and manifested by our obstinacy, and he suffers us to proceed in our hardness and infidelity, why does he find fault with us, or punish us for that which is according to his good pleasure?

Verse 19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault — As if he had said, Because I affirm concerning God, that whom he will he hardeneth, thou wilt say, Why then doth he yet find fault with, or complain of, such persons, that they continue disobedient! For who hath resisted his will — Who hath been, is, or ever will be, able to hinder that from coming to pass which God willeth shall come to pass? Here it must be observed, that when the apostle saith, Whom he will he hardeneth, he doth not suppose any purpose or decree to be formed by God to harden any man, without his having previously committed those sins which he might not have committed: and having resisted the strivings of God’s Spirit, and abused the light and grace whereby he might both have known and complied with the divine will; but, at the most, only a purpose to harden those who first voluntarily harden themselves. Nor do his words suppose that they, who are actually hardened by God, have no capacity or possibility left them, by means of that grace which is yet vouchsafed to them, of recovering themselves from the state of hardness in which they are, and yet of turning to God in true repentance and reformation of life. Although then the will of God be, in a sense, irresistible, yet if this will be, 1st, To harden none but those who first voluntarily harden themselves, by known and wilful sin; and, 2d, To leave those whom he doth harden in a capacity of relenting and returning to him, being furnished with sufficient helps for that purpose, so that if they do it not, it becomes a high aggravation of their former sins; certainly he hath reason to reprove and complain of those who are, at any time, thus hardened by it.

Ver. 19. Thou wilt say then, why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will? Had the three Lambeth articles, given in chap. 8., been true, that God has reprobated a world of men to eternal perdition, “merely for his own good pleasure,” then this objection had been what men ever did and ever will make: the wicked might say, ‘Why does he find fault; we live as we were made.’ This however is wide of the apostle’s aim; he abhorred the idea of such a dreadful fate, and disputed against stoicism at Athens. Acts 17:18. The spirit of his reply is astonishment, that thou, oh man, a worm of the dust, shouldst dispute the equity of a God, a father full of longsuffering even to the vessels of wrath. He did not leave Pharaoh to the hardness of his heart, till after the failure of the sixth judgment; and under the strokes, like many other Pharaohs, he often solicited the prayers of Moses, and promised the people manumission. Exodus 8:8. 9:27, 28. What then could the Lord do with him, but send him to his own place? Man must not arraign his Maker, but wait till he shall demonstrate his equity by the completion of his plans.

19. Thou… me—The Jew and the apostle are now face to face. Why… find fault?—The Jew’s question, divested of its petulant words, is this: Since in our downfall, typified thus by Pharaoh’s overthrow, God, as you say, has it all his own way, why does he hold us Jews responsible? Calvinists often tell us (as Barnes on the passage) that this is the very objection that Arminians make against Calvinism. Very true, we reply, and it is to a false Calvinistic view of the matter that the Jew objects. He understands that Paul is a predestinarian in his putting of the case, and against that putting his query is perfectly just. And Paul will reply, not by denying the validity of the objection to the fatalistic view, but by denying that the fatalistic view is the one he puts. So, after reproving the petulance of the phrase and spirit of the Jew, he proceeds to show that he himself maintains a doctrine of true equitable free-agency.

Really, the Jew assumes that by Paul’s view his own rejection was willed by God, and his sins as condition to his rejection. Had the apostle, indeed, said, “God has decreed your downfall, and foreordained your sins as the means to it,” the Jew’s question would have been just. But Paul, quite the reverse, maintained the non-necessity of any fall at all. He defends God’s right to establish a system of broad unlineal free-agency and of salvation conditioned upon faith in Christ, in which, as Israel himself is potentially included, there is no necessity for Israel to fall. Apostacy is Israel’s own free, undecreed, unforeordained, unwilled act; and Paul is writing this epistle to prevent that act. Who… resisted… will?—The Jew’s premises are, God willed my sin and downfall; my sin and downfall fulfil his will; the question then is, How I am to blame? If the premises are true, his question is irresistible.

ROMANS

SECTION 30 — YET GOD HAS REASON TO FIND

FAULT CH. 9:19-23

Thou wilt say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who is resisting His will? O man, at any rate, who art thou that answerest again to God? Shall the moulded vessel say to him that moulded it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or has not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one part a vessel for honour, and another for dishonour? Moreover, if God, desiring to show forth His anger and to make known His power, has borne, in much longsuffering, vessels of anger made ready for destruction, in order that He may also make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which He before-prepared for glory—

Ver. 19. A last objection, suggested by Romans 9:18. The mention of Pharaoh implies that his case is parallel to that of the unbelieving Jews; and suggests that God will harden them and through their hardness accomplish His purposes. The Jew replies,

Why then does God, after hardening me, still (cp. Romans 3:7; 6:2) find fault, i.e. continue to blame me for sins resulting from hardness inflicted by God? The force of this objection lies in the second question, which suggests that no one is resisting His will. If this suggestion can be made good, if it can be proved that sinners are altogether passive in the hands of God, it will be difficult to understand how He can blame or punish them.

V. 20. Nay, but who art thou, O man-Little, impotent, ignorant man. That repliest against God-That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy?

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus-Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only by believing?

Verse 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou] As if he had said: Weak, ignorant man, darest thou retort on the infinitely good and righteous GOD? Reflect on thyself; and tell me, after thou hast abused the grace of God, and transgressed his laws, wilt thou cavil at his dispensations? God hath made, created, formed the Jewish nation; and shall the thing formed, when it hath corrupted itself, pretend to correct the wise and gracious Author of its being, and say, Why hast thou made me thus? Why hast thou constituted me in this manner? Thou hast done me wrong in giving me my being under such and such conditions.

Old John Goodwin’s note on this passage is at least curious: “I scarce (says he) know any passage of the Scripture more frequently abused than this. When men, in the great questions of predestination and reprobation, bring forth any text of Scripture which they conceive makes for their notion, though the sense which they put upon it be ever so uncouth and dissonant from the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, yet, if any man contradict, they frequently fall upon him with-Nay but, O man; who art thou? As if St. Paul had left them his heirs and successors in the infallibility of his spirit! But when men shall call a solid answer to their groundless conceits about the meaning of the Scriptures, a replying against God, it savours more of the spirit who was seen falling like lightning from heaven, than of His, who saw him in this his fall.”

Verses 20, 21. Nay but, O man — Little, impotent, ignorant man; Who art thou — In all thy boasted wisdom and penetration; that repliest against God? — That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy? or for leaving those to the hardness of their hearts who obstinately and perseveringly refuse or neglect to comply with those terms? Or, (which may be rather intended,) who impiously formest arguments against God, on account of his distributing to some nations, or some individuals, favours which he denies to others; not considering that privileges which God is obliged to give to none, he may, without injustice, withhold from whom he will? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? — Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only on the terms of repentance and faith? Or, Why was I not entitled by birth, to advantages which others were born to? The apostle alludes here to Isaiah 45:9, where, in answer to the objections and cavils of the unbelieving Jews, disposed to murmur against God, and arraign the wisdom and justice of his dispensations, in regard to them, the prophet asks similar questions; implying that “nations, who derive their existence and continuance merely from the power and goodness of God, have no right to find fault with him, because he hath denied them this or that advantage, or because he bears with the wickedness of some nations for a long time, while he instantly punishes others.” Hath not the potter power over the clay — And, much more, hath not God power over his creatures; to appoint one vessel — Namely, the believer; to honour, and another — Namely, the unbeliever; to dishonour? — The power of the potter over the clay is the similitude which God himself used by Jeremiah for illustrating that power and sovereignty whereby he is entitled to make some nations great and happy, and to punish and destroy others. See Jeremiah 18:6, 7; where “every reader must be sensible that nothing is said concerning individuals, some to be saved, and some to be damned, by an exercise of absolute sovereignty. It is his power and sovereignty in the disposal of nations only, that is described by the figure of the potter.” To make of the same lump one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour — “The same lump signifies the mass of mankind, out of which particular nations are formed; consequently the one vessel means, not any particular person, but a nation or community. And a vessel to honour, or an honourable use, means a nation made great and happy by the favour and protection of God, and by the advantages which he confers on them. On the other hand, a vessel to dishonour, signifies a nation which God depresses, by denying it the advantages bestowed on others, or by depriving it of the advantages which it formerly enjoyed, Acts 13:17. The meaning of this question is, May not God, without injustice, exalt one nation, by bestowing privileges upon it, and depress another, by taking away the privileges which it has long enjoyed.” — Macknight. If we survey, says an eminent writer, the right which God has over us in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views; as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all, or as their moral Governor and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind: these, and numberless other circumstances, are, doubtless, ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God’s methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are clearly revealed, and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works; he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. Therefore, though he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, (that is, suffers to be hardened, in consequence of their obstinate wickedness,) yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy.

Ver. 20. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Paul does not here arraign the supreme Being for doing all his pleasure; but he denies that God can do any thing wrong. In a natural view we are all but worms of the dust, and like the plastic clay; and in a moral view we are all sinners. Who then will dare to arraign his Maker in putting down the Egyptians, and raising up the Hebrews to national glory? Is he unjust in raising the house of Eli, and then causing it to decline? St. Paul was himself a prophet, and a prophet of superior discernment; he foresaw all that would happen to the jews in the course of ten or twelve years, and the glory that would follow on the christian church. He therefore persists in vindicating providence in those awful visitations on the jews, and of what he calls the riches of his glory or righteousness manifested towards the gentiles.

20. Nay—Stemming the tide of Jewish cavil, the apostle first, in this verse, rebukes his spirit, and in the verses following refutes his assumptions. Repliest against God—We are guided at this point by the parallel passage Romans 3:4, 5 where see notes. We there learn that the man does not reply against God, who (as the Arminian) maintains that “God is surely true, holy, and just, and therefore a course of injustice cannot be truly affirmed of him; and, when affirmed, is false.” Such is the apostle’s own course. To reply against God is to assume a false course as pursued by him, and to reproach him for it. This is the course of the predestinarian and the Jew. The thing formed—Extreme cases may be conceived in which the thing formed might complain of its maker. A child has fair claims upon the parent that beget him. There are many conceivable cases of treatment toward a creature which would be intensely unjust in a creator. (See note on Romans 3:4, 5.) But the apostle, reasoning with a believer in the Jehovah of the Bible, has a right to exclude such extreme cases from the argument. The thing formed by such a Creator may be promptly arraigned for a query audaciously imputing unconditional predestination to God.

Ver. 20. Paul indignantly cuts off both questions by reminding the objector that in asking them he sets himself up against God, and by bidding him look at himself and consider who it is that does this. For God has declared that He does find fault with and will punish, for their sins, all unbelievers: and Paul will show that the man before us ought to be the last in the world to call in question God’s right to do this.

Shall the moulded vessel say to him that moulded it? word for word from Isaiah 29:16, LXX. In Romans 9:19, the moulded vessel of clay is calling the potter to account.

V. 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay-And much more hath not God power over his creatures, to appoint one vessel, namely, the believer, to honour, and another, the unbeliever, to dishonour?

If we survey the right which God has over us, in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views, as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all; or, as their moral Governor, and Judge.

God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.

Therefore, though He hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth, that is, suffers to be hardened in consequence of their obstinate wickedness; yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy. Jeremiah 18:6, 7

Verse 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay] The apostle continues his answer to the Jew. Hath not God shown, by the parable of the potter, Jeremiah 18:1, &c., that he may justly dispose of nations, and of the Jews in particular, according as he in his infinite wisdom may judge most right and fitting; even as the potter has a right, out of the same lump of clay, to make one vessel to a more honourable and another to a less honourable use, as his own judgment and skill may direct; for no potter will take pains to make a vessel merely that he may show that he has power to dash it to pieces? For the word came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work upon the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. It was not fit for the more honourable place in the mansion, and therefore he made it for a less honourable place, but as necessary for the master’s use there, as it could have been in a more honourable situation. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation-to build and to plant it; is it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. The reference to this parable shows most positively that the apostle is speaking of men, not individually, but nationally; and it is strange that men should have given his words any other application with this scripture before their eyes.

Verses 20, 21. Nay but, O man — Little, impotent, ignorant man; Who art thou — In all thy boasted wisdom and penetration; that repliest against God? — That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy? or for leaving those to the hardness of their hearts who obstinately and perseveringly refuse or neglect to comply with those terms? Or, (which may be rather intended,) who impiously formest arguments against God, on account of his distributing to some nations, or some individuals, favours which he denies to others; not considering that privileges which God is obliged to give to none, he may, without injustice, withhold from whom he will? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? — Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only on the terms of repentance and faith? Or, Why was I not entitled by birth, to advantages which others were born to? The apostle alludes here to Isaiah 45:9, where, in answer to the objections and cavils of the unbelieving Jews, disposed to murmur against God, and arraign the wisdom and justice of his dispensations, in regard to them, the prophet asks similar questions; implying that “nations, who derive their existence and continuance merely from the power and goodness of God, have no right to find fault with him, because he hath denied them this or that advantage, or because he bears with the wickedness of some nations for a long time, while he instantly punishes others.” Hath not the potter power over the clay — And, much more, hath not God power over his creatures; to appoint one vessel — Namely, the believer; to honour, and another — Namely, the unbeliever; to dishonour? — The power of the potter over the clay is the similitude which God himself used by Jeremiah for illustrating that power and sovereignty whereby he is entitled to make some nations great and happy, and to punish and destroy others. See Jeremiah 18:6, 7; where “every reader must be sensible that nothing is said concerning individuals, some to be saved, and some to be damned, by an exercise of absolute sovereignty. It is his power and sovereignty in the disposal of nations only, that is described by the figure of the potter.” To make of the same lump one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour — “The same lump signifies the mass of mankind, out of which particular nations are formed; consequently the one vessel means, not any particular person, but a nation or community. And a vessel to honour, or an honourable use, means a nation made great and happy by the favour and protection of God, and by the advantages which he confers on them. On the other hand, a vessel to dishonour, signifies a nation which God depresses, by denying it the advantages bestowed on others, or by depriving it of the advantages which it formerly enjoyed, Acts 13:17. The meaning of this question is, May not God, without injustice, exalt one nation, by bestowing privileges upon it, and depress another, by taking away the privileges which it has long enjoyed.” — Macknight. If we survey, says an eminent writer, the right which God has over us in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views; as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all, or as their moral Governor and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind: these, and numberless other circumstances, are, doubtless, ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God’s methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are clearly revealed, and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works; he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. Therefore, though he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, (that is, suffers to be hardened, in consequence of their obstinate wickedness,) yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy.

Ver. 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay? In a great house there are vessels of gold and silver, of wood, earth, and stone; some to honour and stone to dishonour, 2 Timothy 2:20, ad usum vilem et abjectum, to a low and abject use. The potter makes all his vases, the elegant and the mean, for real utility; and the God of order does not shiver the vessels of wrath with his rod of iron, though they be high in power like the king of Egypt, till after they have fitted themselves for destruction. Why then deny the sovereign potter the right of making wise distinctions between the plebeian and the prince, and of judging each with equity? What wrong have the jews sustained by the grace conferred on the gentiles?

21. Clay—May be an image of perfect passivity. It may also, as possessed of alternative possibilities and pliabilities, be, as here, an emblem of free-agency. And the apostle’s question is, Has not God a right to create a free-agent, or to establish a system of equitable free-agency? Has not God the right to do right? Power—The Greek word implies just authority. Same lump—Inasmuch as the same free-agent has an alternative capacity for either course and for either result. Unto honour—In view of his faith and obedience. Dishonour—In view of his unbelief and sin. Our reader will find the perfect demonstration of our exposition of this verse if he will turn to Jeremiah 18:1-10, and carefully study there the original of Paul’s figure.

Jeremiah, by divine command, goes “down to the potter’s house” to see the potter’s “work on the wheels.” “And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make it.” It is inferable from verses 6-10 that the first intended vessel was a vessel of honour, perhaps a drinking cup or ornamental vase; but the other vessel, consequent upon the mar, was a “vessel of dishonour,” for the wash-room or bedchamber. And now comes the clear exposition of its symbolism of free-agency and divine impartiality. “Behold, as the clay in the hands of the potter, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel! At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: if that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them… If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Thus the clay was the house of Israel; according as were their temper and conduct would they be moulded into a vessel of honour or of dishonour. So that the very clay is a living free-agent, the Potter is a wise impartial divine Reason, and the being made a vessel of honour or dishonour is conditioned upon the voluntary temper and doing of the agent. Salvation and damnation depended upon a momentous pivotal IF; the two alternatives of that IF were “turn from evil” and salvation, or “do evil” and destruction. And this, the immutable law of God’s free government, enacted before the foundations of the earth were laid, is that eternal purpose of God according to election which is so unrevealed and so mysterious to Barnes, Stuart, Hodge, and the great mass of predestinarians, but perfectly transparent upon the whole surface of God’s word. And this passage is absolutely conclusive against Paul’s predestinarian Jew. The insolent predestinarian Jew flouts the idea that the house of Israel should be subject to the law of—not predestined lineal salvation, but—a fearfully precarious free-agency, and Paul shows him from Jeremiah’s potter and clay that it had always been so!

Ver. 21. Further development of the argument underlying this last question.

The potter: same word in Jeremiah 18:2, 3, 6, LXX.: in Hebrew it is cognate to the word rendered moulded in Romans 9:20. The clay: same metaphor in Isaiah 64:8. The potter is under no obligation to the clay; and therefore may justly make, even out of the same lump, vessels for honour and for dishonour.

Vessel: same word in 2 Timothy 2:20, 21; John 19:29; Revelation 2:27; 18:12; Acts 9:15; 2 Corinthians 4:7. In the Gospel, God declares that from the common mass of mankind He will, by sovereign election, take a part, viz. believers, and cover them with glory: and this verse implies that He will use another part, viz. those who reject the Gospel, to advance by their deep debasement His sovereign purposes. To object to this, is to deny the potter’s right over his own clay. Paul has shown that we have no right to ask the questions in Romans 9:19; but he has not answered them. He has not explained why God still finds fault; nor disproved the implied assertion that no one resists His will. But he has suggested a complete explanation and disproof. For Romans 9:21 recalls at once Jeremiah 18:6, 7: “cannot I do with you as this potter does… as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in My hand.” Just as Moses and Pharaoh were parallels to men in Paul’s day, so were the men of Jeremiah’s day. Because of old God resolved to bless Israel, they thought it impossible for Him to punish them. God asks, Do you deny Me the right of doing what this potter does? He changed his purpose when the clay resisted; cannot I do the same? Now evidently, although the potter’s second and lower purpose has been accomplished in the clay, He can still find fault: for the clay has resisted his original purpose. God’s primary purpose for Israel was that they should be saved through Christ. This purpose they resisted. And God formed a second purpose, viz. that through their unbelief and destruction His name may be glorified. The accomplishment of the secondary purpose does not free them from blame for resisting His primary purpose of mercy. Again, in Jeremiah 18:8, 11 God says that even now He will revert to His first purpose of blessing, if Israel will repent. And, as we read in Romans 11:23, God is ready to pardon and bless the Jews of Paul’s day. Consequently, it is not only their fault, and a result of their resistance to God’s purpose, that He formed the purpose of dishonour, but it will be their own further fault if this second purpose is accomplished. Notice that to Jeremiah God speaks of the clay as a whole: for He refers to the destiny of the nation as a whole. But Paul refers to the salvation of individuals; and therefore speaks of different kinds of vessels from the same lump.

We see now that, while apparently cutting off the objection as one which we have no right to make and one to which he will not condescend to reply, Paul has really, by pointing to the potter and his clay, suggested a complete reply. The parallel is so exact and the reply so complete that we cannot doubt that Paul intended to suggest them. He holds up a mirror in which the Jews may see with their own eyes that they are resisting God’s purposes, and are justly exposed to blame and punishment. God’s words to Jeremiah prove that the accomplishment of purposes which are entirely God’s may yet in God’s sovereign wisdom depend entirely on the conduct of man. They also justify us in thinking of His purposes as successive; although in themselves they are eternal and therefore simultaneous. Only by looking on them as successive can we in any measure comprehend the primary and secondary purposes of God.

V. 22. What if God, being willing-Referring to Romans 9:18, 19. That is, although it was now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief, To show his wrath-Which necessarily presupposes sin.

And to make his power known-This is repeated from the seventeenth verse.

Yet endured-As he did Pharaoh.

With much longsuffering-Which should have led them to repentance. The vessels of wrath-Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy.

Fitted for destruction-By their own wilful and final impenitence. Is there any injustice in this?

Verse 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath] The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah’s parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath-persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows. As the Jews of the apostle’s time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation. But even in this case there is not a word of their final damnation; much less that either they or any others were, by a sovereign decree, reprobated from all eternity; and that their very sins, the proximate cause of their punishment, were the necessary effect of that decree which had from all eternity doomed them to endless torments. As such a doctrine could never come from God, so it never can be found in the words of his apostle.

Verses 22, 23. What if God, willing, &c. — Referring to verses 18, 19. That is, Although it were now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief; to show his wrath — Which necessarily presupposes sin; and to make his power known — This is repeated from verse 17; yet endured — As he did Pharaoh — With much long-suffering — Which should have led them to repentance; the vessels of wrath — Those who had moved his wrath, by still rejecting his mercy; fitted for destruction — By their own wilful and final impenitence: is there any injustice in this? And that he might make known — What if, by showing such long-suffering even to the vessels of his wrath, he did the more abundantly show the greatness of his glorious goodness, wisdom, and power; on the vessels of mercy — On those whom he had himself, by his grace; prepared for glory — Is this injustice? By vessels of mercy he means such persons as were formerly miserable by being dead in trespasses and sins, but had afterward, through believing the gospel, obtained mercy, even the great mercy of the forgiveness of sins, with the fruits and consequences of it; and by the term prohtoimasen, he means, God’s fitting them for glory, by working in them true repentance and living faith, by justifying and sanctifying them, and giving them all those qualifications necessary for the attainment of it.

22. God—The Almighty Potter. Willing—That is, will-ing, determining. Show—Not merely to feel, but to reveal in action, and in conspicuous cases, like Pharaoh, to make it memorable in history. Wrath—Of a perfectly just Being the wrath must be perfect justice, exerted in executive action. The Almighty Potter determines to show his wrath consequently upon the vessel’s determining persistently to show his perversity. So in Jeremiah 18, 19, the potter’s vessel is broken after its living impersonations had persevered in final hardness.

Power known—In penalty like a God. Endured… longsuffering—Both these expressions contradict the dogma that God predestinates the obduracy of the vessel of wrath. The apostle’s theory is not predetermination, but non-prevention of the sin. God endured, not decreed, with much longsuffering, not with a hypocritical “secret will” in its favour. The words endured, and in the next verse prepared, are instances of Paul’s aoristic tenses as explained in our notes on Romans 3:23; 4:12; 8:29.

Vessels of wrath—Because persistent vessels of perversity. Fitted—Alike by their own obduracy and God’s forbearance. Mark St. Paul’s caution in saying that God himself prepared the obedient vessel for glory, (verse 23.) He does not say that God prepared the vessel of wrath. As Fletcher of Madeley says, “Our salvation is of God; our damnation is of ourselves.”

Ver. 22. Further description of the man who replies to God, making still more evident the folly of his reply.

To show-forth: recalling the same word in Romans 9:17. Desiring etc.: a definite purpose of God. For His anger is an essential element of His nature; and its manifestation is for the good of His creatures. And, along with His anger against sin, punishment makes-known His power to crush all opposition.

Has borne: as men bear a burden, i.e. refrained from at once destroying something unpleasant to Him.

In much longsuffering: recalling Romans 2:4. God not only delays punishment but takes active means to lead sinners to repentance. Vessels: as in Romans 9:21.

Of anger… of mercy: whom God views with anger or mercy: so Ephesians 2:3, “children of anger.”

Made-ready: elsewhere, e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:10, in a good sense. Their preparation for their destiny was complete. By whom they were made ready, Paul leaves us to infer. Since they were hardened by God, they were by Him made ready for destruction: and since their hardening was a punishment of their own resistance, they had, by rejecting the Gospel, made themselves ready. Every act of sin makes the sinner more fit for perdition.

Destruction: see note on p. 87. {Romans 2:24}

We have here a second answer to the question in Romans 9:20, Who art thou? The objectors are not only “clay marred in the hand of the potter” but are already objects of God’s anger, made ready, by their own sins and by the hardness which follows sin, for destruction. If Romans 9:21 recalls Jeremiah 18:1-12; Romans 9:22 recalls Jeremiah 19:1-13. Now God’s nature moves Him to punish all sin and to crush all resistance, and thus to make known His anger and power. But He holds back His righteous anger, in order that the wicked may repent and live. Yet while refusing to repent, they complain that He finds fault with them.

V. 23. That he might make known-What if by showing such longsuffering even to the vessels of wrath, he did the more abundantly show the greatness of his glorious goodness, wisdom, and power, on the vessels of mercy; on those whom he had himself, by his grace, prepared for glory. Is this any injustice?

Verse 23. And that he might make known] God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath: 1. To show his wrath, and to make his power known. And also, 2. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.

Which he had afore prepared unto glory] The Jews were fitted for destruction long before; but the fittest time to destroy them was after he had prepared the believing Gentiles unto glory. For the rod of the Messiah’s strength was to be sent out of Zion, <19B002>Psalm 110:2. The Jewish nation was to supply the first preachers of the Gospel, and from Jerusalem their sound was to go forth into all the earth. Therefore the Jewish state, notwithstanding its corruptions, was to be preserved till the Messiah came, and even till the Gospel preached by the apostles had taken deep root in the Gentile world. Another thing which rendered the time when the Jewish polity was overthrown the most proper, was this, because then the immediate occasion of it was the extensiveness of the Divine grace. They would not have the Gentiles admitted into the Church of God; but contradicted, and blasphemed, and rejected the Lord that bought them: thus, then, the extensiveness of the Divine grace occasioned their infidelity, Romans 9:33; 10:3; 11:11, 12, 15, 28, 30. Thus the Jews were diminished by that abundance of grace which has enriched the Gentiles. And so the grace of God was illustrated; or, so God made known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy-the apostles and primitive believers among the Jews, and the Gentile world, which received the Gospel by the preaching of the apostles and their successors.

Verses 22, 23. What if God, willing, &c. — Referring to verses 18, 19. That is, Although it were now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief; to show his wrath — Which necessarily presupposes sin; and to make his power known — This is repeated from verse 17; yet endured — As he did Pharaoh — With much long-suffering — Which should have led them to repentance; the vessels of wrath — Those who had moved his wrath, by still rejecting his mercy; fitted for destruction — By their own wilful and final impenitence: is there any injustice in this? And that he might make known — What if, by showing such long-suffering even to the vessels of his wrath, he did the more abundantly show the greatness of his glorious goodness, wisdom, and power; on the vessels of mercy — On those whom he had himself, by his grace; prepared for glory — Is this injustice? By vessels of mercy he means such persons as were formerly miserable by being dead in trespasses and sins, but had afterward, through believing the gospel, obtained mercy, even the great mercy of the forgiveness of sins, with the fruits and consequences of it; and by the term prohtoimasen, he means, God’s fitting them for glory, by working in them true repentance and living faith, by justifying and sanctifying them, and giving them all those qualifications necessary for the attainment of it.

Ver. 23, 24. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy — even on us. We have here the disclosure of St. Paul’s argument, that the rejection of the gospel by the jews opened an early way for the gentiles to enjoy the equal privileges of the covenant. “In thy Seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed;” yea, blessed with the shekinah, or glory to dwell with them, even as Hosea and all the prophets had foretold. Where then was there unrighteousness with God?

23. Make known—Reveal in living instances. Riches—A beautiful term. These obedient vessels of mercy are filled up and laden with the very affluence of glory. He had afore—God had prepared them by glory for future glory beforehand. By the us of the next verse the apostle will show who these obedient vessels are, and so imply who the disobedient are.

5. God’s right to establish this enlarged system of free-agency shown by predictions of the call of the Gentiles, (24-29.)

This presupposes the identity of the Church of Jesus with the spiritual side of the two lines above given, and the unbelieving Jews with the vessels of wrath, verse 22.

Ver. 23. Another purpose of God’s forbearance.

Riches: recalling Romans 2:4.

Of His glory: as in Ephesians 1:18; 3:16. It is the valuable abundance of the manifested splendour which belongs to God. His forbearance is prompted by a desire to show mercy to men, to prepare them in the present life for a splendour to be bestowed in the life to come, and thus to make known the infinite resources and the grandeur of His own nature. Before-prepared: so Ephesians 2:10: in contrast to made ready for destruction. Throughout life everyone is preparing for destruction or for glory. The preparation for glory, being entirely a work of God, is expressly attributed to Him: whom He before-prepared.

The sentence occupying Romans 9:22, 23 is broken off at the word glory, to make way for a further account of God’s treatment of the vessels of mercy: cp. Romans 5:12; 7:12. We may supply from the foregoing, “Shall the objects of such forbearance call Him to account?” The men who ask why God finds fault with them are men justly condemned, as Paul proved in Romans 1:18; 3:20, for their own sins, whom God might justly destroy at once. To do so, would manifest His righteous anger and great power. But so great is His longsuffering that He permits them to live, and uses means for their salvation. He spares them because He has purposes of mercy, because He wishes to prepare men whom He will cover with His own abundant glory. Therefore He prolongs the world’s probation. Can men whose life is spared only because God forbears to act on principles of mere justice, and forbears because of His purpose of mercy to mankind at large, can such men reply to God when He declares what He will do with them? With more justice might a prisoner who but for the king’s respite had been put to death complain of prison fare.

How appropriate was Paul’s reference to Pharaoh and to the men of Jeremiah’s day will appear when we remember the fearful storm which, as Paul wrote these words, was already gathering, soon to burst in overwhelming fury on the house of Israel.

V. 24. Even us-Here the apostle comes to the other proposition, of grace free for all, whether Jew or Gentile.

Of the Jews-This he treats of, Romans 9:25. Of the Gentiles-Treated of in the same verse.

Verse 24. Even us, whom he hath called] All the Jews and Gentiles who have been invited by the preaching of the Gospel to receive justification by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have come to the Gospel feast on this invitation.

Verses 24-26. Even us, whom he hath called — By his gospel and his grace, to repentance, faith, and holiness, and hath enabled us to obey the call; we are these vessels of mercy, of what nation soever we may be; not of the Jews only — Who have hitherto been the peculiar people of God; but also of the Gentiles — Who are now taken for God’s people, as well as the Jews. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, &c. — These words are quoted from two places of the prophecy of Hosea; (namely, chap. 1:10; 2:23;) and according to the connection in which they there stand, they seem very evidently to refer primarily to God’s purpose of restoring the Jews to the privileges of his people, after they had been a while rejected of him; but nevertheless they are here applied by the apostle to the calling of the Gentiles, which they doubtless were also intended to include. (See the notes on those passages of Hosea.) Indeed, as Dr. Doddridge justly observes, that great event might, with some probability, be inferred, partly from the temporary rejection of the Jews, of which this text also speaks; (for it was not to be imagined that God would have no people in the world;) and partly as it was in the nature of things more probable that he should call the heathen, than that he should restore the Jews, when he had cast them off for such ingratitude, as rendered them less worthy of his favour than the most idolatrous nations. And her beloved — As a spouse; who once was not beloved — Consequently not

unconditionally elected. In these words the apostle, nearly following the Septuagint version, rather interprets than quotes Hosea’s words, which are, I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy. The expressions of the apostle are different from those of the prophet, but their meaning is the same. “In the beginning of the chapter, Hosea, having described the idolatry of the Jews under the figure of whoredom, and their chastisement by hedging up their way with thorns, foretels their return to their first husband, who would speak comfortably to them, and betroth them a second time. He then adds the words above quoted, which the apostle very properly expresses by, I will call her beloved who was not beloved — That is, I will pardon her, and restore her to her former place in my affection, and to her ancient relation to me, by introducing her into the gospel church. In quoting this passage from Hosea, the apostle begins with the conversion of the Gentiles, because it was to happen first; but the prophet speaks first of the conversion of the Jews.” — Macknight. And it shall come to pass, &c. — Here the apostle quotes Hosea’s words exactly, (see Hosea 1:10,) and that with a view still more fully to show that the conversion of the Gentiles had been foretold, to which this passage more plainly refers than those cited above: that in the place — In the countries; where it was said — To the idolatrous Gentiles; Ye are not my people — Where there was no church formerly, namely, in the times of the Old Testament; there they shall be called — Not only the people, but the children — The sons and daughters; of the living God — For, as the living God, he can easily bring it to pass, however incredible it may appear.

Ver. 23, 24. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy — even on us. We have here the disclosure of St. Paul’s argument, that the rejection of the gospel by the jews opened an early way for the gentiles to enjoy the equal privileges of the covenant. “In thy Seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed;” yea, blessed with the shekinah, or glory to dwell with them, even as Hosea and all the prophets had foretold. Where then was there unrighteousness with God?

24. Even us—By a sudden turn the whole weight of the climax of the above argument comes down with a forcible emphasis upon the present company. Of the bright side and dark side of the above antithesis between vessels of glory and of wrath, between Moses and Pharaoh, between the elect and reprobate of entire history, the bright side belongs to us, the new living Church. And that by no birth, necessity, or accident; for (including Romans 10:18-21) it includes Jews and Gentiles. And this blessed dispensation he illustrates with touches of prediction from the old prophets. But this paragraph, reserving the case of Gentile believers to Romans 10:18-21, describes believing Jews only. It parallels them with the old Jews restored from the Assyrian captivity, who, like the Jews gathered into the Christian Church, were but a remnant.

ROMANS

SECTION 31 — THE PRESENT POSITION OF

GENTILES AND JEWS ACCORDS WITH

PROPHECY CH. 9:24-29

Vessels of mercy which He before-prepared for glory, whom He also called, even us, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles. As also in Hosea He says, “I will call Not My people, My people; and Not beloved, Beloved. And it shall be in the place where it was said to them, No people of Mine are ye, there they shall be called sons of the living God.” Moreover, Isaiah cries on behalf of Israel, “If the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved: for, accomplishing and cutting short His word, the Lord will perform it on the earth.” And according as Isaiah has said before, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had become as Sodom, and we had been made like as Gomorrah.”

Chapter 9 began with an expression of sorrow that many of the Jews were, if the teaching of Rom. 1-8. be correct, outside the family of God. In reply to the objection that, if so, God’s promise has failed, Paul pointed to the cases of Ishmael and Esau. But it was further objected that it would be, if not unfaithful, yet unjust, for God to receive on the same terms, as the Gospel says He will, men good and bad. To this, Paul replied that God’s gifts are acts not of justice but of mercy; and that He not only bestows them on whom He will, but also inflicts on whom He will, for His own purposes, special punishment. To the objection that, if so, God has no reason to find fault, he refused to give a reply, and reminded the objector that he was but a vessel of clay, a vessel spared only by the longsuffering of its maker. Paul will now show that the present position of Gentiles and Jews agrees with prophecy.

Ver. 24. Called: the Gospel summons, as in Romans 9:12; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 7:15-24; 2 Thessalonians 2:14, etc.; cognate to the word called in Romans 1:1, 6, 7. That God has spoken to us, and called us to Himself, is the ground of all our hopes.

Jews… Gentiles: whose respective relation to the Kingdom of God is a chief matter of this chapter.

V. 25. Beloved-As a spouse.

Who once was not beloved-Consequently, not unconditionally elected. This relates directly to the final restoration of the Jews. Hosea 2:23

Verse 25. As he saith also in Osee] It is a cause of not a little confusion, that a uniformity in the orthography of the proper names of the Old and New Testaments has not been preserved. What stranger to our sacred books would suppose that the Osee above meant the Prophet Hosea, from whom, Hosea 2:23, this quotation is taken: I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people. The apostle shows that this calling of the Gentiles was no fortuitous thing, but a firm purpose in the Divine mind, which he had largely revealed to the prophets; and by opposing the calling of the Gentiles, the Jews in effect renounced their prophets, and fought against God.

Verses 24-26. Even us, whom he hath called — By his gospel and his grace, to repentance, faith, and holiness, and hath enabled us to obey the call; we are these vessels of mercy, of what nation soever we may be; not of the Jews only — Who have hitherto been the peculiar people of God; but also of the Gentiles — Who are now taken for God’s people, as well as the Jews. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, &c. — These words are quoted from two places of the prophecy of Hosea; (namely, chap. 1:10; 2:23;) and according to the connection in which they there stand, they seem very evidently to refer primarily to God’s purpose of restoring the Jews to the privileges of his people, after they had been a while rejected of him; but nevertheless they are here applied by the apostle to the calling of the Gentiles, which they doubtless were also intended to include. (See the notes on those passages of Hosea.) Indeed, as Dr. Doddridge justly observes, that great event might, with some probability, be inferred, partly from the temporary rejection of the Jews, of which this text also speaks; (for it was not to be imagined that God would have no people in the world;) and partly as it was in the nature of things more probable that he should call the heathen, than that he should restore the Jews, when he had cast them off for such ingratitude, as rendered them less worthy of his favour than the most idolatrous nations. And her beloved — As a spouse; who once was not beloved — Consequently not

unconditionally elected. In these words the apostle, nearly following the Septuagint version, rather interprets than quotes Hosea’s words, which are, I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy. The expressions of the apostle are different from those of the prophet, but their meaning is the same. “In the beginning of the chapter, Hosea, having described the idolatry of the Jews under the figure of whoredom, and their chastisement by hedging up their way with thorns, foretels their return to their first husband, who would speak comfortably to them, and betroth them a second time. He then adds the words above quoted, which the apostle very properly expresses by, I will call her beloved who was not beloved — That is, I will pardon her, and restore her to her former place in my affection, and to her ancient relation to me, by introducing her into the gospel church. In quoting this passage from Hosea, the apostle begins with the conversion of the Gentiles, because it was to happen first; but the prophet speaks first of the conversion of the Jews.” — Macknight. And it shall come to pass, &c. — Here the apostle quotes Hosea’s words exactly, (see Hosea 1:10,) and that with a view still more fully to show that the conversion of the Gentiles had been foretold, to which this passage more plainly refers than those cited above: that in the place — In the countries; where it was said — To the idolatrous Gentiles; Ye are not my people — Where there was no church formerly, namely, in the times of the Old Testament; there they shall be called — Not only the people, but the children — The sons and daughters; of the living God — For, as the living God, he can easily bring it to pass, however incredible it may appear.

Ver. 25. He saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people which were not my people. The nations living in idolatry, the servants of Satan, were not his people. God said to Moses, after the worship of the calf, “THY people whom THOU broughtest out of Egypt.” A luminous prophecy, that the gentiles should become the new Israelites, or peculiar people of God. Hence Peter calls the saints of Roman Asia, (as in the map of Paul’s travels) “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, to show forth the praises of Him who had called them out of darkness into marvellous light.”

25. Osee—Hosea 2:23, quoted not verbally but in general sense. The Hebrew is: 1 will love her who was not beloved; I will say to her who was not my people, My people art thou. The apostle changes the order of the two clauses.

Ver. 25.-26. Quotations from Hosea 2:23, 1; respectively. Call: to give a name; not to summon as in Romans 9:24. The two meanings embody one idea, to cry out a person’s name. The word is not found in the text quoted: but it expresses fairly the prophet’s meaning. It was probably prompted by the same word, in another sense, in Romans 9:24. God bid Hosea, in Hosea 1:6, 9, give to two of his children the names No-mercy and No-people-of-mine, in token that the ten tribes were no longer God’s people or objects of His mercy; and made this more conspicuous by saying that He will have mercy upon and save the house of Judah. Afterwards, in Hosea 2:23, He says, “I will have mercy on No-mercy, and I will say to No-people-of-mine, My-people thou art.” Still earlier, in Hosea 1:10, God says, “in the place where it shall be said to them, No-people-of-mine are ye, it shall be said to them, Sons of the living God are ye.” Paul reverses the order of the quotations in order to give concluding prominence to the remarkable phrase sons of the living God, so wonderfully anticipating the Gospel of Christ.

Not-beloved: the LXX. rendering of No-mercy.

In the place where: either Palestine or the land of bondage. The very hills and plains which were witnesses of the one declaration will be witnesses of the other.

Paul quotes these words, which refer primarily to the ten tribes, in proof that God, when He called men from the midst of the Gentiles to be vessels of mercy, acted on principles announced by the prophet Hosea. Gentiles could not be more completely aliens than those whom God declared to be neither His people nor objects of His mercy. But Hosea foretold that in days to come God will speak again to the outcasts and call them His sons. In the Gospel, this prophecy finds unexpected and marvellous fulfilment, a fulfilment wider than the promise but in full agreement with its spirit. The glad tidings of salvation and of reception into the family of God, even for outcasts, which through Hosea God promised to announce in days then future, He had actually announced in the Gospel preached by Paul.

V. 26. There shall they be called the sons of God-So that they need not leave their own country and come to Judea. Hosea 1:10

Verse 26. And it shall come to pass, &c.] These quotations are taken out of Hosea, Hosea 1:10, where (immediately after God had rejected the ten tribes, or kingdom of Israel, Hosea 1:9, then saith God, Call his name Lo-ammi; for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God,) he adds, yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered: and it shall come to pass, that in the place in which it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. As if he had said: The decrease of numbers in the Church, by God’s utterly taking away the ten tribes, (Hosea 1:6,) shall be well supplied by what shall afterwards come to pass, by calling the Gentiles into it. They, the rejected Jews, which had been the people of God, should become a Lo-ammi-not my people. On the contrary, they, the Gentiles, who had been a Lo-ammi-not my people, should become the children of the living God. Again, Hosea 2:23: I will sow her (the Jewish Church) unto me in the earth, (alluding probably to the dispersion of the Jews over all the Roman empire; which proved a fruitful cause of preparing the Gentiles for the reception of the Gospel,) and, or moreover, I will have mercy upon her, the body of the believing Gentiles, that had not obtained mercy. See Taylor.

Verses 24-26. Even us, whom he hath called — By his gospel and his grace, to repentance, faith, and holiness, and hath enabled us to obey the call; we are these vessels of mercy, of what nation soever we may be; not of the Jews only — Who have hitherto been the peculiar people of God; but also of the Gentiles — Who are now taken for God’s people, as well as the Jews. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, &c. — These words are quoted from two places of the prophecy of Hosea; (namely, chap. 1:10; 2:23;) and according to the connection in which they there stand, they seem very evidently to refer primarily to God’s purpose of restoring the Jews to the privileges of his people, after they had been a while rejected of him; but nevertheless they are here applied by the apostle to the calling of the Gentiles, which they doubtless were also intended to include. (See the notes on those passages of Hosea.) Indeed, as Dr. Doddridge justly observes, that great event might, with some probability, be inferred, partly from the temporary rejection of the Jews, of which this text also speaks; (for it was not to be imagined that God would have no people in the world;) and partly as it was in the nature of things more probable that he should call the heathen, than that he should restore the Jews, when he had cast them off for such ingratitude, as rendered them less worthy of his favour than the most idolatrous nations. And her beloved — As a spouse; who once was not beloved — Consequently not

unconditionally elected. In these words the apostle, nearly following the Septuagint version, rather interprets than quotes Hosea’s words, which are, I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy. The expressions of the apostle are different from those of the prophet, but their meaning is the same. “In the beginning of the chapter, Hosea, having described the idolatry of the Jews under the figure of whoredom, and their chastisement by hedging up their way with thorns, foretels their return to their first husband, who would speak comfortably to them, and betroth them a second time. He then adds the words above quoted, which the apostle very properly expresses by, I will call her beloved who was not beloved — That is, I will pardon her, and restore her to her former place in my affection, and to her ancient relation to me, by introducing her into the gospel church. In quoting this passage from Hosea, the apostle begins with the conversion of the Gentiles, because it was to happen first; but the prophet speaks first of the conversion of the Jews.” — Macknight. And it shall come to pass, &c. — Here the apostle quotes Hosea’s words exactly, (see Hosea 1:10,) and that with a view still more fully to show that the conversion of the Gentiles had been foretold, to which this passage more plainly refers than those cited above: that in the place — In the countries; where it was said — To the idolatrous Gentiles; Ye are not my people — Where there was no church formerly, namely, in the times of the Old Testament; there they shall be called — Not only the people, but the children — The sons and daughters; of the living God — For, as the living God, he can easily bring it to pass, however incredible it may appear.

26. Come to pass—Hosea 1:10. Both these passages describe the recovery of the Jews from their apostasy and from the Assyrian captivity.

Ver. 25.-26. Quotations from Hosea 2:23, 1; respectively. Call: to give a name; not to summon as in Romans 9:24. The two meanings embody one idea, to cry out a person’s name. The word is not found in the text quoted: but it expresses fairly the prophet’s meaning. It was probably prompted by the same word, in another sense, in Romans 9:24. God bid Hosea, in Hosea 1:6, 9, give to two of his children the names No-mercy and No-people-of-mine, in token that the ten tribes were no longer God’s people or objects of His mercy; and made this more conspicuous by saying that He will have mercy upon and save the house of Judah. Afterwards, in Hosea 2:23, He says, “I will have mercy on No-mercy, and I will say to No-people-of-mine, My-people thou art.” Still earlier, in Hosea 1:10, God says, “in the place where it shall be said to them, No-people-of-mine are ye, it shall be said to them, Sons of the living God are ye.” Paul reverses the order of the quotations in order to give concluding prominence to the remarkable phrase sons of the living God, so wonderfully anticipating the Gospel of Christ.

Not-beloved: the LXX. rendering of No-mercy.

In the place where: either Palestine or the land of bondage. The very hills and plains which were witnesses of the one declaration will be witnesses of the other.

Paul quotes these words, which refer primarily to the ten tribes, in proof that God, when He called men from the midst of the Gentiles to be vessels of mercy, acted on principles announced by the prophet Hosea. Gentiles could not be more completely aliens than those whom God declared to be neither His people nor objects of His mercy. But Hosea foretold that in days to come God will speak again to the outcasts and call them His sons. In the Gospel, this prophecy finds unexpected and marvellous fulfilment, a fulfilment wider than the promise but in full agreement with its spirit. The glad tidings of salvation and of reception into the family of God, even for outcasts, which through Hosea God promised to announce in days then future, He had actually announced in the Gospel preached by Paul.

V. 27. But Isaiah testifies, that (as many Gentiles will be accepted, so) many Jews will be rejected; that out of all the thousands of Israel, a remnant only shall be saved. This was spoken originally of the few that were saved from the ravage of Sennacherib's army. Isaiah 10:22, 23

Verse 27. Esaias also crieth] The apostle pursues his argument, which had for its object the proof that God, for their infidelity, had rejected the great body of the Jews, and that but a few of them would embrace the Gospel, and be saved from that besom of destruction which was now coming to sweep them and their state away. Dr. Taylor paraphrases this and the following verses thus: And that but a small remnant of the Jews shall now be taken into the Church, is agreeable to former dispensations; for the Prophet Isaiah expressly declares concerning the Israelites, Isaiah 10:22, 23: Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, (for the promise to Abraham has been amply fulfilled,) only a remnant shall be saved; the consumption decreed shall overflow in righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined in the midst of all the land.

Verses 27-29. Esaias also — And, as the calling of the Gentiles, so the rejection of the Jews also is foretold by the prophets, particularly by Isaiah — who crieth — Krazei, calleth aloud — Speaks with great earnestness, as to a people unwilling to hear; concerning Israel — That is, both the ten tribes about to be carried captive into Assyria, which was almost a total rejection, and Judah and Benjamin, which were to be wasted by the Assyrian invasion under Sennacherib, and afterward to be partly destroyed and partly carried into captivity by the king of Babylon: though the children of Israel be as the sand, a remnant — Only, out of the many myriads of them; shall be saved — Shall escape destruction. But few escaped the ravages of Sennacherib’s army, and only a small number returned from Babylon after the Babylonish captivity. These, however, that were preserved, were a type or figure of that small number of converts under the gospel, who escaped the vengeance which fell upon the main body of the Jewish nation from the Romans, and that still greater vengeance which awaits all that obey not the gospel, in the eternal world. See the note on Isaiah 10:21-23. For, as the same prophet adds, (the apostle quotes the Septuagint translation,) he will finish, &c. — Greek, suntelwn kai suntemnwn, he is finishing and cutting short the work, logon, the account, or matter, in righteousness — In justice, and will leave but a small remnant. There will be so general a destruction, that but a small number will escape. Because a short work — A quick despatch in executing judgment; will the Lord make upon the earth — Or, upon the land of Judea. For though in the LXX. it is oikoumenh olh, the whole world, the scope of the passage seems to restrict the sense to the land of Judea, in which restricted sense the same word is used Luke 2:1. And as Esaias said before — Namely, chap. 1:9, concerning those who were besieged in Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah; Except the Lord of Sabaoth — So it is in the Hebrew, in which language the word Sabaoth signifies hosts, and is sometimes used to denote the sun, moon, and stars, as also the angels. The Lord of Sabaoth, or of hosts, therefore, as one of the titles of Jehovah, marks his supreme dominion over the universe, and particularly over the different orders of angels, who, on account of their multitude, and of their serving under the command of God, are named hosts, 1 Kings 22:19. The LXX., in the passages where this Hebrew word occurs, commonly express it in Greek letters, in which St. Paul has followed them. So also James, chap. 5:4, supposing that it would be agreeable to the ears of the Jews. The sense here is, Except the Lord, who is the powerful and sovereign Ruler of all the creatures in heaven and earth, which are his hosts, ready to do him service; had left us a seed — Reserved from the common calamity, a small company, out of which, as a seed, God would cause his church to spring up again; we had been as Sodoma — Utterly destroyed. So that, (as if he had said,) it is no unexampled thing for the main body of the Jewish nation to revolt from God, and perish in their sins.

27. Esaias—Isaiah 10:22. The thought is: Innumerable though Israel be, but a remnant will be saved by faith in the Messiah. Thus Paul and the Jewish Christians had the consolation that the fewness of the number of Jews who embraced Christ was not unforeseen of God.

Ver. 27.-28. Another prophecy, from Isaiah: Isaiah 10:22. His words are, “If thy people Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, a remnant among them shall return. Consumption is determined, overflowing with righteousness. For consumption and a determined purpose the Lord Jehovah of armies is working out in the midst of all the earth.” The variations in the quotation do not touch the sense.

The number of the sons of Israel: not found in Isaiah 10:22 but taken from Hosea 1:10.

As the sand of the sea: found in both passages.

Will be saved: implied in Isaiah’s words “shall return.” Why only a remnant will be saved, Romans 9:28 explains.

Accomplishing His word: achieving its purpose: cp. Romans 2:27. Cutting-short: a sudden and complete accomplishment.

His word: God’s many threatenings to Israel. Amid the terror inspired by Assyria, the prophet foretells Assyria’s coming fall; and looks forward to the day of Israel’s deliverance. He sees fulfilled the promise recorded in Genesis 22:17, and Israel numerous as the sand of the sea. But he declares emphatically and repeatedly that only a part of the nation will experience the great salvation, and that this part will return to and trust in God. Upon the rest of the nation, God has determined to inflict punishment. He has resolved that a wave of justice shall overflow the land: and, what He has determined, He will do.

The Lord: see under Romans 9:29.

The force of these quotations is evident. If the Gospel be true, many Gentiles are members of the family of God, and many Jews are, and apparently for ever will be, shut out from that family and from the salvation announced by the Messiah. This latter thought gave Paul deep sorrow. But he has shown that it involves neither unfaithfulness nor injustice in God. And the quotations from Hosea and Isaiah prove that the reception of Gentiles and the limitation of salvation to a part of Israel accord with prophecy.

V. 28. For he is finishing or cutting short his account-In rigorous justice, will leave but a small remnant. There will be so general a destruction, that but a small number will escape.

Verse 28. For he will finish the work, and cut it short, &c.] These appear to be forensic terms, and refer to the conclusion of a judicial proceeding; the Lord has tried and found them guilty, and will immediately execute upon them the punishment due to their transgressions.

Verses 27-29. Esaias also — And, as the calling of the Gentiles, so the rejection of the Jews also is foretold by the prophets, particularly by Isaiah — who crieth — Krazei, calleth aloud — Speaks with great earnestness, as to a people unwilling to hear; concerning Israel — That is, both the ten tribes about to be carried captive into Assyria, which was almost a total rejection, and Judah and Benjamin, which were to be wasted by the Assyrian invasion under Sennacherib, and afterward to be partly destroyed and partly carried into captivity by the king of Babylon: though the children of Israel be as the sand, a remnant — Only, out of the many myriads of them; shall be saved — Shall escape destruction. But few escaped the ravages of Sennacherib’s army, and only a small number returned from Babylon after the Babylonish captivity. These, however, that were preserved, were a type or figure of that small number of converts under the gospel, who escaped the vengeance which fell upon the main body of the Jewish nation from the Romans, and that still greater vengeance which awaits all that obey not the gospel, in the eternal world. See the note on Isaiah 10:21-23. For, as the same prophet adds, (the apostle quotes the Septuagint translation,) he will finish, &c. — Greek, suntelwn kai suntemnwn, he is finishing and cutting short the work, logon, the account, or matter, in righteousness — In justice, and will leave but a small remnant. There will be so general a destruction, that but a small number will escape. Because a short work — A quick despatch in executing judgment; will the Lord make upon the earth — Or, upon the land of Judea. For though in the LXX. it is oikoumenh olh, the whole world, the scope of the passage seems to restrict the sense to the land of Judea, in which restricted sense the same word is used Luke 2:1. And as Esaias said before — Namely, chap. 1:9, concerning those who were besieged in Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah; Except the Lord of Sabaoth — So it is in the Hebrew, in which language the word Sabaoth signifies hosts, and is sometimes used to denote the sun, moon, and stars, as also the angels. The Lord of Sabaoth, or of hosts, therefore, as one of the titles of Jehovah, marks his supreme dominion over the universe, and particularly over the different orders of angels, who, on account of their multitude, and of their serving under the command of God, are named hosts, 1 Kings 22:19. The LXX., in the passages where this Hebrew word occurs, commonly express it in Greek letters, in which St. Paul has followed them. So also James, chap. 5:4, supposing that it would be agreeable to the ears of the Jews. The sense here is, Except the Lord, who is the powerful and sovereign Ruler of all the creatures in heaven and earth, which are his hosts, ready to do him service; had left us a seed — Reserved from the common calamity, a small company, out of which, as a seed, God would cause his church to spring up again; we had been as Sodoma — Utterly destroyed. So that, (as if he had said,) it is no unexampled thing for the main body of the Jewish nation to revolt from God, and perish in their sins.

Ver. 28. He will finish his work: logon, his word, which he hath spoken, and cut it short in righteousness. He will call in the gentiles to be one with the remnant of the Hebrew converts, and will quickly send the Roman armies to inflict his wrath on that obdurate nation. Such is the sense of the Mons testament. Car Dieu dans sa justice consumera et retranchera son peuple. Le Seigneur fera un grand retranchement sur la terre.

28. For—The apostle’s words are nearly a verbatim quotation from the Septuagint, and so quite different from the English translation.

Ver. 27.-28. Another prophecy, from Isaiah: Isaiah 10:22. His words are, “If thy people Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, a remnant among them shall return. Consumption is determined, overflowing with righteousness. For consumption and a determined purpose the Lord Jehovah of armies is working out in the midst of all the earth.” The variations in the quotation do not touch the sense.

The number of the sons of Israel: not found in Isaiah 10:22 but taken from Hosea 1:10.

As the sand of the sea: found in both passages.

Will be saved: implied in Isaiah’s words “shall return.” Why only a remnant will be saved, Romans 9:28 explains.

Accomplishing His word: achieving its purpose: cp. Romans 2:27. Cutting-short: a sudden and complete accomplishment.

His word: God’s many threatenings to Israel. Amid the terror inspired by Assyria, the prophet foretells Assyria’s coming fall; and looks forward to the day of Israel’s deliverance. He sees fulfilled the promise recorded in Genesis 22:17, and Israel numerous as the sand of the sea. But he declares emphatically and repeatedly that only a part of the nation will experience the great salvation, and that this part will return to and trust in God. Upon the rest of the nation, God has determined to inflict punishment. He has resolved that a wave of justice shall overflow the land: and, what He has determined, He will do.

The Lord: see under Romans 9:29.

The force of these quotations is evident. If the Gospel be true, many Gentiles are members of the family of God, and many Jews are, and apparently for ever will be, shut out from that family and from the salvation announced by the Messiah. This latter thought gave Paul deep sorrow. But he has shown that it involves neither unfaithfulness nor injustice in God. And the quotations from Hosea and Isaiah prove that the reception of Gentiles and the limitation of salvation to a part of Israel accord with prophecy.

V. 29. As Isaiah had said before-Namely, Isaiah 1:9, concerning those who were besieged in Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah. Unless the Lord had left us a seed-Which denotes,

1. The present paucity:

2. The future abundance.

We had been as Sodom-So that it is no unexampled thing for the main body of the Jewish nation to revolt from God, and perish in their sin.

Verse 29. And as Esaias said before] What God designs to do with the Jews at present, because of their obstinacy and rebellion, is similar to what he has done before, to which the same prophet refers, Isaiah 1:9: Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah: i.e. had not God, who commands and overrules all the powers in heaven and earth, in mercy preserved a very small remnant, to keep up the name and being of the nation, it had been quite cut off and extinct, as Sodom and Gomorrah were. Thus we learn that it is no new thing with God to abandon the greatest part of the Jewish nation, when corrupt, and to confine his favour and blessing to a righteous, believing few. Instead of remnant, dyrc sarid, both the Septuagint and the apostle have sperma, a seed, intimating that there were left just enough of the righteous to be a seed for a future harvest of true believers. So the godly were not destroyed from the land; some remained, and the harvest was in the days of the apostles.

Verses 27-29. Esaias also — And, as the calling of the Gentiles, so the rejection of the Jews also is foretold by the prophets, particularly by Isaiah — who crieth — Krazei, calleth aloud — Speaks with great earnestness, as to a people unwilling to hear; concerning Israel — That is, both the ten tribes about to be carried captive into Assyria, which was almost a total rejection, and Judah and Benjamin, which were to be wasted by the Assyrian invasion under Sennacherib, and afterward to be partly destroyed and partly carried into captivity by the king of Babylon: though the children of Israel be as the sand, a remnant — Only, out of the many myriads of them; shall be saved — Shall escape destruction. But few escaped the ravages of Sennacherib’s army, and only a small number returned from Babylon after the Babylonish captivity. These, however, that were preserved, were a type or figure of that small number of converts under the gospel, who escaped the vengeance which fell upon the main body of the Jewish nation from the Romans, and that still greater vengeance which awaits all that obey not the gospel, in the eternal world. See the note on Isaiah 10:21-23. For, as the same prophet adds, (the apostle quotes the Septuagint translation,) he will finish, &c. — Greek, suntelwn kai suntemnwn, he is finishing and cutting short the work, logon, the account, or matter, in righteousness — In justice, and will leave but a small remnant. There will be so general a destruction, that but a small number will escape. Because a short work — A quick despatch in executing judgment; will the Lord make upon the earth — Or, upon the land of Judea. For though in the LXX. it is oikoumenh olh, the whole world, the scope of the passage seems to restrict the sense to the land of Judea, in which restricted sense the same word is used Luke 2:1. And as Esaias said before — Namely, chap. 1:9, concerning those who were besieged in Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah; Except the Lord of Sabaoth — So it is in the Hebrew, in which language the word Sabaoth signifies hosts, and is sometimes used to denote the sun, moon, and stars, as also the angels. The Lord of Sabaoth, or of hosts, therefore, as one of the titles of Jehovah, marks his supreme dominion over the universe, and particularly over the different orders of angels, who, on account of their multitude, and of their serving under the command of God, are named hosts, 1 Kings 22:19. The LXX., in the passages where this Hebrew word occurs, commonly express it in Greek letters, in which St. Paul has followed them. So also James, chap. 5:4, supposing that it would be agreeable to the ears of the Jews. The sense here is, Except the Lord, who is the powerful and sovereign Ruler of all the creatures in heaven and earth, which are his hosts, ready to do him service; had left us a seed — Reserved from the common calamity, a small company, out of which, as a seed, God would cause his church to spring up again; we had been as Sodoma — Utterly destroyed. So that, (as if he had said,) it is no unexampled thing for the main body of the Jewish nation to revolt from God, and perish in their sins.

29. Esaias said before—That is, he said this (Isaiah 1:9) before, or earlier in time than (10:20, 21) the above quoted. The present passage corroborates the doctrine of the former, that the fewness of faithful Jews accords with divine foresight.

6. So that the faith condition reverts back through the whole chapter, and underlies God’s whole system of election and rejection, whether of Jew or of Gentile, 30-33.

Paul explicitly furnishes now the KEY, the secret of the Divine preference of a special Israel in Israel, (6-13,) of a mercy to Moses and a hardening upon Pharaoh, (14-23,) and, by special inference, of the prophesied reservation of a gracious remnant of fallen Judaism over the main mass, (24-29.) The key runs its solution through both columns of character given at our introduction to notes on 6-13. The entire secret is the faith-condition. The Gentiles attained to righteousness BY FAITH, verse 30. But Israel hath not attained it, because they sought it not by faith, but, as it were, by the works of the law. (Verses 31, 32.) It is by ignoring this, the apostle’s own solution of the whole chapter, that the predestinarian interpretation maintains itself.

Ver. 29. Another quotation from Isaiah: Isaiah 1:9. Things are now according as he foretold.

Said-before: either in an earlier part of his prophecy, or before it took place. Probably the latter: for the mere order of Isaiah’s prophecies is unimportant. Same word in 2 Corinthians 7:3; 13:2; Galatians 1:9; Hebrews 4:7; Matthew 24:25. Paul says that Isaiah’s description of things around him was a prophecy of the days of Christ. God treated the covenant people on definite principles. Consequently, His dealings with them at one time were prophetic of times to come. The Lord: constant rendering in LXX. for the Hebrew word JEHOVAH, the distinctive name of the God of Israel, never given to others as the name god frequently is. Cp. 1 Kings 18:39, “Jehovah, He is the God.” So sacred was this name that in reading the Jews replaced it by the secular title lord: same word in Genesis 18:12; 42:30, 33, etc. And it is so rendered in the Greek, Latin, and some other versions. This rendering causes great confusion in the N.T.: for the same word is both a secular title, as in Acts 16:16, 19, 30, and the distinctive title of Christ, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and a rendering of the distinctive O.T. name of God. Sometimes, e.g. Romans 10:12, it is difficult to determine whether the word refers to the Son or the Father.

Sabaoth: a Hebrew word for armies. Same transliteration is very common in (LXX.) the Book of Isaiah, e.g. Isaiah 5:7, 9, 16, 24. The bidding of Jehovah of armies is done by the powers of heaven and earth: cp. Daniel 4:35; <19A320>Psalm 103:20, 21; 148:2.

Seed: from the LXX., instead of remnant. The remnant of Judah in the days of Isaiah was a seed in which the life of the sacred people was preserved for future generations.

It might be objected to the Gospel that, by making faith the condition of salvation, it practically reduced the covenant people to a small remnant, viz. the believing Jews. But Paul reminds us that in Isaiah’s day, by death and captivity, the nation was reduced to a small remnant; and that, but for the help of God, it would then have been as completely destroyed as were Sodom and Gomorrah. Consequently, God is doing now only what Isaiah says He did then.

V. 30. What shall we say then-What is to be concluded from all that has been said but this,

That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness-Who a while ago had no knowledge of, no care or thought about, it. Have attained to righteousness-Or justification. Even the righteousness which is by faith. This is the first conclusion we may draw from the preceding observations. The second is, that

Israel-The Jews Although following after the law of righteousness-That law which, duly used, would have led them to faith, and thereby to righteousness.

Have not attained to the law of righteousness-To that righteousness or justification which is one great end of the law.

Verse 30. What shall we say then?] What is the final conclusion to be drawn from all these prophecies, facts, and reasonings? This: That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, &c. This, with the succeeding verses, together with what belongs to the same subject in the beginning of the following chapter, I have explained at large in the notes on Romans 1:17, to which I must refer the reader; and shall content myself in this place with Dr. Taylor’s general paraphrase. We may suppose the apostle to express himself to the following effect. Thus I have vindicated the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, with regard to the Divine veracity and justice. Now let us turn our thoughts to the true reason and state of the affair considered in itself. And, in the first place, what just notion ought we to have of the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews? I answer: The true notion of the calling or inviting of the Gentiles is this: whereas they had no apprehension of being reinstated in the privileges of God’s peculiar kingdom, and consequently used no endeavours to obtain that blessing, yet, notwithstanding, they have attained to justification, to the remission of sins, and the privileges of God’s people: not on account of their prior worthiness and obedience, but purely by the grace and mercy of God, received by faith on their part. And so, by embracing the scheme of life published by the Gospel, they are adopted into the family and Church of God. Thus the Gentiles are called or invited.

Verses 30-33. What shall we say then — What is to be concluded from all that has been said, but this, that the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness — Who a while ago had no knowledge of, no care or thought about it; have attained to righteousness — Or justification; even the righteousness which is of faith — Which is by faith in Christ and in his gospel, Philippians 3:9. This is the first conclusion we may draw from the preceding observations. The second is, that Israel, (the Jews,) which followed after the law of righteousness — The law which, duly used, would have led them to faith, and thereby to righteousness; hath not attained to the law of righteousness — To that righteousness, or justification, which is one great end of the law. Or, as Estius and Beza think, the law of righteousness is put for the righteousness of the law; as Hebrews 7:16, the law of a carnal commandment, signifies the carnal commandment of the law. According to this interpretation, the apostle’s meaning is, Israel, who pursued the righteousness of the law, have not attained it. Wherefore? Is it because God eternally decreed they should not? No: there is nothing like this to be met with in the apostle’s reasoning; but, agreeably to his argument, he gives us this grand reason for it: because they sought it not by faith, whereby alone it could be attained; but, as it were — In effect, if not professedly; by the works of the law — The works required by it, which they were not able perfectly to perform. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone — Which lay in their way. This is an allusion to one who, running in a race, stumbles on a stone in his way, and, falling, loses the race. As it is written — Foretold by their own prophet; Behold, I lay in Sion — I exhibit in my church what, though in truth the only sure foundation of religion and happiness, yet will be, in fact, a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence — An occasion of ruin to many through their obstinate unbelief. And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed — Or, as the original expression may be more literally translated, No one who believeth on him shall be ashamed. The reader will observe two passages of Isaiah are here joined in one quotation, because they relate to the same subject; namely, Isaiah 28:16, and 8:14. See note on 1 Peter 2:8. Accordingly, those in Israel who expected the Messiah to be a great temporal prince, stumbled at Jesus on account of the poverty, meanness, and state of suffering in which he appeared among them. Hence they fell short of righteousness and salvation, and lost all their privileges as the people of God.

30. What… say then—A reiteration of the first query of verse 14, introducing the final answer to the query of that verse. Followed not after—A metaphor taken, not as Lange suggests, from a race, but rather from a hunt. The Gentiles did not even pursue the game, and yet attained it; the Jews pursued, but, wilfully and wickedly, in the wrong direction, and lost it. Yet, in a sense, the individual Gentiles who attained did seek by faith, though historically the mass of Gentiles had not sought. Faith—By this very false pursuit and failure of the Jews the faith was brought before the acceptance of the Gentiles, who heretofore had followed not after righteousness. Thereby they became the elect Israel and the vessels of mercy.

Verses 30-33 help us to understand CHAPTER 9, of which it is a summing up. Paul does not introduce his new matter by laying down, as in Romans 1:16; 3:21, 22; 6:3, 4; 8:3, 4, a foundation-stone of explicit doctrinal statement. Therefore, only from the argument can we learn the exact purpose of the chapter. Paul’s aim, as I understand it, is to defend the Gospel expounded in Rom. 1-8. against Jewish objections, and especially against the great objection that if the Gospel be true the mass of the Jewish nation are outside the blessings promised to their fathers, or in other words to defend the Gospel in view of the fact that many Jews have rejected and many Gentiles have accepted it. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul expresses his sorrow for this fact. But, in Romans 9:6-13, he shows that, painful as it is to himself, it is not inconsistent with the promises of God; nor (Romans 9:14-18) with the declared principles of His government. The reply to Objection 1 is put in a form which provokes Objection 2: the reply to this last suggests Objection 3, viz. that such principles of government destroy human accountability. This objection, Romans 9:19-23 meet. Paul then states in Romans 9:24, from the point of view of the Gospel call, what he afterwards, in Romans 9:30, 31, states from the point of view of actual results. In Romans 9:25-29, the statement of Romans 9:24 is shown to be in harmony with O.T. prophecy. This is followed in Romans 9:30, 31 by a plain assertion of the fact which in Romans 9:1-5 caused Paul so much sorrow and which throughout Rom. 9, he has been harmonizing with the character of God. This fact is in Romans 9:32 traced to its cause; and even this cause is in Romans 9:33 found to be in harmony with the Old Testament. Thus the whole chapter is a proof that the Gospel expounded in this epistle is in harmony with the earlier revelation.

ELECTION, PREDESTINATION: associated in Ephesians 1:4, 5. In Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28, we find the words elect, ELECTION; and in 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28; Ephesians 1:4; James 2:5; Mark 13:20; Luke 6:13; 9:35; 10:42; 14:7; John 6:70; Acts 1:24; 15:22, we have the cognate verb choose, chosen. They denote a mental act by which we take for ourselves a smaller out of a larger number of objects. Choice implies freedom in him who makes it, but is generally determined by the difference between the objects chosen and rejected.

A divine election is prominent in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7; Psalms 33:12Psalm 33:12; Isaiah 41:8, 9; 43:20; 44:1; 65:9, 22. Out of all nations, God chose Israel to be specially His own. From this divine choice resulted all the religious advantages of the Jews. Hence the nation could never forget that it was the chosen people of God. Since the foretold glory was destined only for the faithful ones in Israel, the word was sometimes used specially for them: so Isaiah 65:9, 15, 22, a stepping-stone to its N.T. use. We have a connecting link, amid O.T. phraseology, in 1 Peter 2:9: “a chosen race:” so Romans 1:1. Our Lord, in Matthew 22:14; 24:22, 31; Luke 18:7, and Paul in Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1, speak of believers as elect: so Revelation 17:14. In Romans 11:5; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that his readers were chosen by God, before the world was, for a salvation to be realised in holiness and faith; and that God’s choice arose, not from their works, but altogether from God’s favour.

The N.T. doctrine of election may be thus stated: From eternity, moved only by pity for our lost state and not at all by any foreseen good in us, and as irresponsible sovereign of the world, God resolved to save, not all men promiscuously, but only those who should believe the Gospel. This doctrine is a restatement of the fundamental doctrine of salvation through faith, from the point of view of the eternal forethought of God. Whatever God does in time, He purposed from eternity: and, whatever He does, He does unmoved by any good external to Himself. For apart from Him no good exists. God proclaimed that He will save all who believe the good news, and destroy those who reject it. We infer then that from eternity He resolved so to do. He saw man in sin and misery, and resolved to save. He was moved to save, by His love to the entire race: John 3:16, 17; 1 Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11. To reconcile the salvation of sinners with divine justice, God gave His Son to die: Romans 3:25, 26. He chose the Gospel to be the instrument, and faith the condition, of salvation to each individual: Romans 1:16, 17; 3:22, 28, 30. He exerts on all men influences leading towards repentance, influences without which none can come to Christ: Romans 2:4; John 6:44. God thought fit, in infinite wisdom and universal love, to permit men either to yield to, or resist, these influences; and made the effect of the Gospel contingent on man’s surrender to them. From the beginning, He foresaw who would believe and how many would continue in faith. But He was moved to save, not by their foreseen faith and perseverance, but only by His love and by man’s misery and helplessness. Our faith is God’s work in us and gift to us: and the good works which follow faith are not its necessary result, but are attached to it by the grace of God and wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Our faith and good works, so far from being the motive, are results, of God’s eternal purpose.

This doctrine, thus stated, contains all that Paul says about election. The resolution to save, not all men indiscriminately, but only believers, is a purpose according to election. For, by fixing, of His own free-will, and without reference to man’s conduct, the condition of salvation, He chose the objects of salvation. We thus owe His favour to-day entirely to the sovereign election of God.

Closely related to this doctrine of Election, is Paul’s teaching about PREDESTINATION, already in some measure expounded under Romans 8:29, 30. It is the eternal purpose in which before the world was God marked out the path along which, and the goal towards which, He would lead His chosen ones, viz. to adoption into His family and to likeness to the glory of His Firstborn. It is a logical development of Doctrine 3, viz. that we are to be dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus, just as Election is a development of Doctrine 1, Justification through Faith, each of these fundamental doctrines being viewed in the light of the eternal forethought of God.

Like election, predestination is simply a purpose; and by no means implies its inevitable accomplishment. Hence in Romans 11:21, 22 Paul solemnly warns his readers that, unless they continue in faith, they will, although predestined to glory, be cut off and perish.

This chapter has frequently been appealed to in support of Calvin’s teaching that God brings to bear, in pursuance of an eternal purpose, upon some of those who hear the Gospel and not on others, influences which necessarily and always lead to repentance, faith, justification, and eternal life; and that the reason why these influences, without which none can be saved, are not exerted on some men while they are on others is entirely in God and not at all in man. See my New Life in Christ pp. 270-276. And it must be admitted that some serious objections brought against this teaching of Calvin are in Rom. 9, brought against the teaching of Paul. But very different doctrines may lie open to the same objection. And Paul’s replies, which are irresistible against those who object to the doctrine of Justification through Faith, are powerless to meet the same objections when brought against the teaching of Calvin. It is true that, if Calvin’s teaching were that of Paul, a Jew might object that it was inconsistent with the promise of God: and, if so, the objection would, I admit, be fairly met in Romans 9:6-13. Again, on the ground of justice, objection has frequently been made to Calvin’s teaching. But was anyone who brought this objection ever convinced, by reading Romans 9:14-18, that this teaching is in harmony with God’s justice? Certainly the story of Pharaoh does nothing whatever to harmonize it with the character of God. But we have seen how decisively the case of Pharaoh overturns objections to the teaching of Romans 3:22; 9:31 based on the justice of God. To the teaching of Calvin we might fairly bring the objection in Romans 9:19. But how irrelevant would then be Paul’s answer! We should reply back that it was not our fault that we were born in sin; and that being born in sin we could not, apart from justifying grace, avoid resisting God. Therefore God would have no more reason to find fault with us than with a lion tearing its prey. The mention of the potter’s clay puts to silence the man who objects to Romans 3:22; 9:31: but, as a defence of Calvin’s scheme, it provokes bitterest reply. We cannot accept doctrines never explicitly asserted in the Bible simply because objections now brought against them were also brought against other teaching of Paul. See further in my New Life in Christ pp. 263-277.

Verse 31. But Israel, which followed after] But the Jews, who have hitherto been the people of God, though they have been industrious in observing a rule by which they supposed they could secure the blessings of God’s peculiar kingdom, yet have not come up to the true and only rule by which those blessings can be secured.

Verses 30-33. What shall we say then — What is to be concluded from all that has been said, but this, that the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness — Who a while ago had no knowledge of, no care or thought about it; have attained to righteousness — Or justification; even the righteousness which is of faith — Which is by faith in Christ and in his gospel, Philippians 3:9. This is the first conclusion we may draw from the preceding observations. The second is, that Israel, (the Jews,) which followed after the law of righteousness — The law which, duly used, would have led them to faith, and thereby to righteousness; hath not attained to the law of righteousness — To that righteousness, or justification, which is one great end of the law. Or, as Estius and Beza think, the law of righteousness is put for the righteousness of the law; as Hebrews 7:16, the law of a carnal commandment, signifies the carnal commandment of the law. According to this interpretation, the apostle’s meaning is, Israel, who pursued the righteousness of the law, have not attained it. Wherefore? Is it because God eternally decreed they should not? No: there is nothing like this to be met with in the apostle’s reasoning; but, agreeably to his argument, he gives us this grand reason for it: because they sought it not by faith, whereby alone it could be attained; but, as it were — In effect, if not professedly; by the works of the law — The works required by it, which they were not able perfectly to perform. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone — Which lay in their way. This is an allusion to one who, running in a race, stumbles on a stone in his way, and, falling, loses the race. As it is written — Foretold by their own prophet; Behold, I lay in Sion — I exhibit in my church what, though in truth the only sure foundation of religion and happiness, yet will be, in fact, a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence — An occasion of ruin to many through their obstinate unbelief. And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed — Or, as the original expression may be more literally translated, No one who believeth on him shall be ashamed. The reader will observe two passages of Isaiah are here joined in one quotation, because they relate to the same subject; namely, Isaiah 28:16, and 8:14. See note on 1 Peter 2:8. Accordingly, those in Israel who expected the Messiah to be a great temporal prince, stumbled at Jesus on account of the poverty, meanness, and state of suffering in which he appeared among them. Hence they fell short of righteousness and salvation, and lost all their privileges as the people of God.

Ver. 31, 32. But Israel — hath not attained to the law of righteousness — because they sought it not by faith. They stumbled at the stumbling stone; and because the Lord called, and stretched out his hands all the day long to a gainsaying people, he would in the day of visitation laugh at their calamity, and mock when their fear cometh. Then the departure of the glory from Israel to the gentile church, was not the effect of eternal reprobation for “his mere pleasure,” but for their unbelief. Thus all the prophets glorify God, and lay the whole blame, with many tears, on their infidel country. Their case was deplorable, but not finally so, as the sequel will prove.

31. The law of righteousness—Without the definite article, and meaning a law of righteousness which proved not to be the true law of righteousness, and so resulted in failure.

Verses 30-33 help us to understand CHAPTER 9, of which it is a summing up. Paul does not introduce his new matter by laying down, as in Romans 1:16; 3:21, 22; 6:3, 4; 8:3, 4, a foundation-stone of explicit doctrinal statement. Therefore, only from the argument can we learn the exact purpose of the chapter. Paul’s aim, as I understand it, is to defend the Gospel expounded in Rom. 1-8. against Jewish objections, and especially against the great objection that if the Gospel be true the mass of the Jewish nation are outside the blessings promised to their fathers, or in other words to defend the Gospel in view of the fact that many Jews have rejected and many Gentiles have accepted it. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul expresses his sorrow for this fact. But, in Romans 9:6-13, he shows that, painful as it is to himself, it is not inconsistent with the promises of God; nor (Romans 9:14-18) with the declared principles of His government. The reply to Objection 1 is put in a form which provokes Objection 2: the reply to this last suggests Objection 3, viz. that such principles of government destroy human accountability. This objection, Romans 9:19-23 meet. Paul then states in Romans 9:24, from the point of view of the Gospel call, what he afterwards, in Romans 9:30, 31, states from the point of view of actual results. In Romans 9:25-29, the statement of Romans 9:24 is shown to be in harmony with O.T. prophecy. This is followed in Romans 9:30, 31 by a plain assertion of the fact which in Romans 9:1-5 caused Paul so much sorrow and which throughout Rom. 9, he has been harmonizing with the character of God. This fact is in Romans 9:32 traced to its cause; and even this cause is in Romans 9:33 found to be in harmony with the Old Testament. Thus the whole chapter is a proof that the Gospel expounded in this epistle is in harmony with the earlier revelation.

ELECTION, PREDESTINATION: associated in Ephesians 1:4, 5. In Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28, we find the words elect, ELECTION; and in 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28; Ephesians 1:4; James 2:5; Mark 13:20; Luke 6:13; 9:35; 10:42; 14:7; John 6:70; Acts 1:24; 15:22, we have the cognate verb choose, chosen. They denote a mental act by which we take for ourselves a smaller out of a larger number of objects. Choice implies freedom in him who makes it, but is generally determined by the difference between the objects chosen and rejected.

A divine election is prominent in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7; Psalms 33:12Psalm 33:12; Isaiah 41:8, 9; 43:20; 44:1; 65:9, 22. Out of all nations, God chose Israel to be specially His own. From this divine choice resulted all the religious advantages of the Jews. Hence the nation could never forget that it was the chosen people of God. Since the foretold glory was destined only for the faithful ones in Israel, the word was sometimes used specially for them: so Isaiah 65:9, 15, 22, a stepping-stone to its N.T. use. We have a connecting link, amid O.T. phraseology, in 1 Peter 2:9: “a chosen race:” so Romans 1:1. Our Lord, in Matthew 22:14; 24:22, 31; Luke 18:7, and Paul in Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1, speak of believers as elect: so Revelation 17:14. In Romans 11:5; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that his readers were chosen by God, before the world was, for a salvation to be realised in holiness and faith; and that God’s choice arose, not from their works, but altogether from God’s favour.

The N.T. doctrine of election may be thus stated: From eternity, moved only by pity for our lost state and not at all by any foreseen good in us, and as irresponsible sovereign of the world, God resolved to save, not all men promiscuously, but only those who should believe the Gospel. This doctrine is a restatement of the fundamental doctrine of salvation through faith, from the point of view of the eternal forethought of God. Whatever God does in time, He purposed from eternity: and, whatever He does, He does unmoved by any good external to Himself. For apart from Him no good exists. God proclaimed that He will save all who believe the good news, and destroy those who reject it. We infer then that from eternity He resolved so to do. He saw man in sin and misery, and resolved to save. He was moved to save, by His love to the entire race: John 3:16, 17; 1 Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11. To reconcile the salvation of sinners with divine justice, God gave His Son to die: Romans 3:25, 26. He chose the Gospel to be the instrument, and faith the condition, of salvation to each individual: Romans 1:16, 17; 3:22, 28, 30. He exerts on all men influences leading towards repentance, influences without which none can come to Christ: Romans 2:4; John 6:44. God thought fit, in infinite wisdom and universal love, to permit men either to yield to, or resist, these influences; and made the effect of the Gospel contingent on man’s surrender to them. From the beginning, He foresaw who would believe and how many would continue in faith. But He was moved to save, not by their foreseen faith and perseverance, but only by His love and by man’s misery and helplessness. Our faith is God’s work in us and gift to us: and the good works which follow faith are not its necessary result, but are attached to it by the grace of God and wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Our faith and good works, so far from being the motive, are results, of God’s eternal purpose.

This doctrine, thus stated, contains all that Paul says about election. The resolution to save, not all men indiscriminately, but only believers, is a purpose according to election. For, by fixing, of His own free-will, and without reference to man’s conduct, the condition of salvation, He chose the objects of salvation. We thus owe His favour to-day entirely to the sovereign election of God.

Closely related to this doctrine of Election, is Paul’s teaching about PREDESTINATION, already in some measure expounded under Romans 8:29, 30. It is the eternal purpose in which before the world was God marked out the path along which, and the goal towards which, He would lead His chosen ones, viz. to adoption into His family and to likeness to the glory of His Firstborn. It is a logical development of Doctrine 3, viz. that we are to be dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus, just as Election is a development of Doctrine 1, Justification through Faith, each of these fundamental doctrines being viewed in the light of the eternal forethought of God.

Like election, predestination is simply a purpose; and by no means implies its inevitable accomplishment. Hence in Romans 11:21, 22 Paul solemnly warns his readers that, unless they continue in faith, they will, although predestined to glory, be cut off and perish.

This chapter has frequently been appealed to in support of Calvin’s teaching that God brings to bear, in pursuance of an eternal purpose, upon some of those who hear the Gospel and not on others, influences which necessarily and always lead to repentance, faith, justification, and eternal life; and that the reason why these influences, without which none can be saved, are not exerted on some men while they are on others is entirely in God and not at all in man. See my New Life in Christ pp. 270-276. And it must be admitted that some serious objections brought against this teaching of Calvin are in Rom. 9, brought against the teaching of Paul. But very different doctrines may lie open to the same objection. And Paul’s replies, which are irresistible against those who object to the doctrine of Justification through Faith, are powerless to meet the same objections when brought against the teaching of Calvin. It is true that, if Calvin’s teaching were that of Paul, a Jew might object that it was inconsistent with the promise of God: and, if so, the objection would, I admit, be fairly met in Romans 9:6-13. Again, on the ground of justice, objection has frequently been made to Calvin’s teaching. But was anyone who brought this objection ever convinced, by reading Romans 9:14-18, that this teaching is in harmony with God’s justice? Certainly the story of Pharaoh does nothing whatever to harmonize it with the character of God. But we have seen how decisively the case of Pharaoh overturns objections to the teaching of Romans 3:22; 9:31 based on the justice of God. To the teaching of Calvin we might fairly bring the objection in Romans 9:19. But how irrelevant would then be Paul’s answer! We should reply back that it was not our fault that we were born in sin; and that being born in sin we could not, apart from justifying grace, avoid resisting God. Therefore God would have no more reason to find fault with us than with a lion tearing its prey. The mention of the potter’s clay puts to silence the man who objects to Romans 3:22; 9:31: but, as a defence of Calvin’s scheme, it provokes bitterest reply. We cannot accept doctrines never explicitly asserted in the Bible simply because objections now brought against them were also brought against other teaching of Paul. See further in my New Life in Christ pp. 263-277.

V. 32. And wherefore have they not? Is it because God eternally decreed they should not? There is nothing like this to be met with but agreeable to his argument the apostle gives us this good reason for it, Because they sought it not by faith-Whereby alone it could be attained. But as it were-In effect, if not professsedly, by works. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone-Christ crucified.

Verse 32. Wherefore?] And where lies their mistake? Being ignorant of God’s righteousness-of his method of saving sinners by faith in Christ, they went about to establish their own righteousness-their own method of obtaining everlasting salvation. They attend not to the Abrahamic covenant, which stands on the extensive principles of grace and faith; but they turn all their regards to the law of Moses. They imagine that their obedience to that law gives them a right to the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom. But, finding that the Gospel sets our special interest in God and the privileges of his Church on a different footing, they are offended, and refuse to come into it.

Verses 30-33. What shall we say then — What is to be concluded from all that has been said, but this, that the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness — Who a while ago had no knowledge of, no care or thought about it; have attained to righteousness — Or justification; even the righteousness which is of faith — Which is by faith in Christ and in his gospel, Philippians 3:9. This is the first conclusion we may draw from the preceding observations. The second is, that Israel, (the Jews,) which followed after the law of righteousness — The law which, duly used, would have led them to faith, and thereby to righteousness; hath not attained to the law of righteousness — To that righteousness, or justification, which is one great end of the law. Or, as Estius and Beza think, the law of righteousness is put for the righteousness of the law; as Hebrews 7:16, the law of a carnal commandment, signifies the carnal commandment of the law. According to this interpretation, the apostle’s meaning is, Israel, who pursued the righteousness of the law, have not attained it. Wherefore? Is it because God eternally decreed they should not? No: there is nothing like this to be met with in the apostle’s reasoning; but, agreeably to his argument, he gives us this grand reason for it: because they sought it not by faith, whereby alone it could be attained; but, as it were — In effect, if not professedly; by the works of the law — The works required by it, which they were not able perfectly to perform. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone — Which lay in their way. This is an allusion to one who, running in a race, stumbles on a stone in his way, and, falling, loses the race. As it is written — Foretold by their own prophet; Behold, I lay in Sion — I exhibit in my church what, though in truth the only sure foundation of religion and happiness, yet will be, in fact, a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence — An occasion of ruin to many through their obstinate unbelief. And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed — Or, as the original expression may be more literally translated, No one who believeth on him shall be ashamed. The reader will observe two passages of Isaiah are here joined in one quotation, because they relate to the same subject; namely, Isaiah 28:16, and 8:14. See note on 1 Peter 2:8. Accordingly, those in Israel who expected the Messiah to be a great temporal prince, stumbled at Jesus on account of the poverty, meanness, and state of suffering in which he appeared among them. Hence they fell short of righteousness and salvation, and lost all their privileges as the people of God.

Ver. 31, 32. But Israel — hath not attained to the law of righteousness — because they sought it not by faith. They stumbled at the stumbling stone; and because the Lord called, and stretched out his hands all the day long to a gainsaying people, he would in the day of visitation laugh at their calamity, and mock when their fear cometh. Then the departure of the glory from Israel to the gentile church, was not the effect of eternal reprobation for “his mere pleasure,” but for their unbelief. Thus all the prophets glorify God, and lay the whole blame, with many tears, on their infidel country. Their case was deplorable, but not finally so, as the sequel will prove.

32. Wherefore?—This wherefore really asks what was the solution of the election and rejection of verses 6-19, and the answer furnishes the solution. Reprobation is not antecedent to but consequent upon want of faith. Works of the law—Works unenlivened by the spirit of faith and love, and performed as if the drudgery entitled the performers to heaven. Hence the heart was regenerate and the soul unsaved.

Stumbled—An image of mistake and failure. Yet the apostle will avail himself of its gentler meaning to distinguish the failure from a total irrevocable fall, (Romans 11:11.) That stumbling-stone—That famous one described by the prophets.

Verses 30-33 help us to understand CHAPTER 9, of which it is a summing up. Paul does not introduce his new matter by laying down, as in Romans 1:16; 3:21, 22; 6:3, 4; 8:3, 4, a foundation-stone of explicit doctrinal statement. Therefore, only from the argument can we learn the exact purpose of the chapter. Paul’s aim, as I understand it, is to defend the Gospel expounded in Rom. 1-8. against Jewish objections, and especially against the great objection that if the Gospel be true the mass of the Jewish nation are outside the blessings promised to their fathers, or in other words to defend the Gospel in view of the fact that many Jews have rejected and many Gentiles have accepted it. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul expresses his sorrow for this fact. But, in Romans 9:6-13, he shows that, painful as it is to himself, it is not inconsistent with the promises of God; nor (Romans 9:14-18) with the declared principles of His government. The reply to Objection 1 is put in a form which provokes Objection 2: the reply to this last suggests Objection 3, viz. that such principles of government destroy human accountability. This objection, Romans 9:19-23 meet. Paul then states in Romans 9:24, from the point of view of the Gospel call, what he afterwards, in Romans 9:30, 31, states from the point of view of actual results. In Romans 9:25-29, the statement of Romans 9:24 is shown to be in harmony with O.T. prophecy. This is followed in Romans 9:30, 31 by a plain assertion of the fact which in Romans 9:1-5 caused Paul so much sorrow and which throughout Rom. 9, he has been harmonizing with the character of God. This fact is in Romans 9:32 traced to its cause; and even this cause is in Romans 9:33 found to be in harmony with the Old Testament. Thus the whole chapter is a proof that the Gospel expounded in this epistle is in harmony with the earlier revelation.

ELECTION, PREDESTINATION: associated in Ephesians 1:4, 5. In Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28, we find the words elect, ELECTION; and in 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28; Ephesians 1:4; James 2:5; Mark 13:20; Luke 6:13; 9:35; 10:42; 14:7; John 6:70; Acts 1:24; 15:22, we have the cognate verb choose, chosen. They denote a mental act by which we take for ourselves a smaller out of a larger number of objects. Choice implies freedom in him who makes it, but is generally determined by the difference between the objects chosen and rejected.

A divine election is prominent in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7; Psalms 33:12Psalm 33:12; Isaiah 41:8, 9; 43:20; 44:1; 65:9, 22. Out of all nations, God chose Israel to be specially His own. From this divine choice resulted all the religious advantages of the Jews. Hence the nation could never forget that it was the chosen people of God. Since the foretold glory was destined only for the faithful ones in Israel, the word was sometimes used specially for them: so Isaiah 65:9, 15, 22, a stepping-stone to its N.T. use. We have a connecting link, amid O.T. phraseology, in 1 Peter 2:9: “a chosen race:” so Romans 1:1. Our Lord, in Matthew 22:14; 24:22, 31; Luke 18:7, and Paul in Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1, speak of believers as elect: so Revelation 17:14. In Romans 11:5; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that his readers were chosen by God, before the world was, for a salvation to be realised in holiness and faith; and that God’s choice arose, not from their works, but altogether from God’s favour.

The N.T. doctrine of election may be thus stated: From eternity, moved only by pity for our lost state and not at all by any foreseen good in us, and as irresponsible sovereign of the world, God resolved to save, not all men promiscuously, but only those who should believe the Gospel. This doctrine is a restatement of the fundamental doctrine of salvation through faith, from the point of view of the eternal forethought of God. Whatever God does in time, He purposed from eternity: and, whatever He does, He does unmoved by any good external to Himself. For apart from Him no good exists. God proclaimed that He will save all who believe the good news, and destroy those who reject it. We infer then that from eternity He resolved so to do. He saw man in sin and misery, and resolved to save. He was moved to save, by His love to the entire race: John 3:16, 17; 1 Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11. To reconcile the salvation of sinners with divine justice, God gave His Son to die: Romans 3:25, 26. He chose the Gospel to be the instrument, and faith the condition, of salvation to each individual: Romans 1:16, 17; 3:22, 28, 30. He exerts on all men influences leading towards repentance, influences without which none can come to Christ: Romans 2:4; John 6:44. God thought fit, in infinite wisdom and universal love, to permit men either to yield to, or resist, these influences; and made the effect of the Gospel contingent on man’s surrender to them. From the beginning, He foresaw who would believe and how many would continue in faith. But He was moved to save, not by their foreseen faith and perseverance, but only by His love and by man’s misery and helplessness. Our faith is God’s work in us and gift to us: and the good works which follow faith are not its necessary result, but are attached to it by the grace of God and wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Our faith and good works, so far from being the motive, are results, of God’s eternal purpose.

This doctrine, thus stated, contains all that Paul says about election. The resolution to save, not all men indiscriminately, but only believers, is a purpose according to election. For, by fixing, of His own free-will, and without reference to man’s conduct, the condition of salvation, He chose the objects of salvation. We thus owe His favour to-day entirely to the sovereign election of God.

Closely related to this doctrine of Election, is Paul’s teaching about PREDESTINATION, already in some measure expounded under Romans 8:29, 30. It is the eternal purpose in which before the world was God marked out the path along which, and the goal towards which, He would lead His chosen ones, viz. to adoption into His family and to likeness to the glory of His Firstborn. It is a logical development of Doctrine 3, viz. that we are to be dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus, just as Election is a development of Doctrine 1, Justification through Faith, each of these fundamental doctrines being viewed in the light of the eternal forethought of God.

Like election, predestination is simply a purpose; and by no means implies its inevitable accomplishment. Hence in Romans 11:21, 22 Paul solemnly warns his readers that, unless they continue in faith, they will, although predestined to glory, be cut off and perish.

This chapter has frequently been appealed to in support of Calvin’s teaching that God brings to bear, in pursuance of an eternal purpose, upon some of those who hear the Gospel and not on others, influences which necessarily and always lead to repentance, faith, justification, and eternal life; and that the reason why these influences, without which none can be saved, are not exerted on some men while they are on others is entirely in God and not at all in man. See my New Life in Christ pp. 270-276. And it must be admitted that some serious objections brought against this teaching of Calvin are in Rom. 9, brought against the teaching of Paul. But very different doctrines may lie open to the same objection. And Paul’s replies, which are irresistible against those who object to the doctrine of Justification through Faith, are powerless to meet the same objections when brought against the teaching of Calvin. It is true that, if Calvin’s teaching were that of Paul, a Jew might object that it was inconsistent with the promise of God: and, if so, the objection would, I admit, be fairly met in Romans 9:6-13. Again, on the ground of justice, objection has frequently been made to Calvin’s teaching. But was anyone who brought this objection ever convinced, by reading Romans 9:14-18, that this teaching is in harmony with God’s justice? Certainly the story of Pharaoh does nothing whatever to harmonize it with the character of God. But we have seen how decisively the case of Pharaoh overturns objections to the teaching of Romans 3:22; 9:31 based on the justice of God. To the teaching of Calvin we might fairly bring the objection in Romans 9:19. But how irrelevant would then be Paul’s answer! We should reply back that it was not our fault that we were born in sin; and that being born in sin we could not, apart from justifying grace, avoid resisting God. Therefore God would have no more reason to find fault with us than with a lion tearing its prey. The mention of the potter’s clay puts to silence the man who objects to Romans 3:22; 9:31: but, as a defence of Calvin’s scheme, it provokes bitterest reply. We cannot accept doctrines never explicitly asserted in the Bible simply because objections now brought against them were also brought against other teaching of Paul. See further in my New Life in Christ pp. 263-277.

V. 33. As it is written-Foretold by their own prophet.

Behold, I lay in Sion-I exhibit in my church, what, though it is in truth the only sure foundation of happiness, yet will be in fact a stumblingstone and rock of offence-An occasion of ruin to many, through their obstinate unbelief. Isaiah 8:14; 28:16

Verse 33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion] Christ, the Messiah, is become a stone of stumbling to them: and thus what is written in the prophecy of Isaiah is verified in their case, Isaiah 8:14; 28:16: Behold, I lay in Sion, i.e. I shall bring in my Messiah; but he shall be a widely different person from him whom the Jews expect; for, whereas they expect the Messiah to be a mighty secular prince, and to set up a secular kingdom, he shall appear a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs; and redeem mankind, not by his sword or secular power, but by his humiliation, passion, and death. Therefore they will be offended at him and reject him, and think it would be reproachful to trust in such a person for salvation.

And whosoever believeth on him] But so far shall any be from confusion or disappointment who believes in Christ; that on the contrary, every genuine believer shall find salvation-the remission of sins here, and eternal glory hereafter. See the notes on Romans 1:16, 17, and Dr. Taylor’s paraphrase and notes.

1. ON the subject of vicarious punishment, or rather the case of one becoming an anathema or sacrifice for the public good, in illustration of Romans 9:3, I shall make no apology for the following extracts, taken from an author whose learning is vast, and whose piety is unblemished. “When mankind lost sight of a beneficent Creator, the God of purity, and consecrated altars to the sun, the moon, the stars; to demons; and to hero gods, under the names of Moloch, Ashtaroth and Baalim; these objects of their worship led them to the most horrid acts of cruelty, and to every species of obscenity; even their sons and their daughters they burnt in the fire to their gods, more especially in seasons of distress. Such was the conduct of the king of Moab; for, when he was besieged in his capital, and expected he should fall into the hands of his enemies, he took his eldest son, who should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall.

With these facts thus related from the Scriptures, all accounts, ancient and modern, exactly correspond. Homer, who it must be recollected wrote more than nine hundred years before the Christian era, although he describes chiefly the common sacrifices of quadrupeds, yet gives one account of human victims. But in succeeding generations, when it was conceived that one great and most malignant spirit was the proper object of their fear, or that subordinate provincial gods, equally malignant, nesciaque humanis precibus mansuescere corda, disposed of all things in our world, men bound their own species to the altar, and in circumstances of national distress presented such as they valued most, either their children or themselves. Herodotus informs us that, when the army of Xerxes came to the Strymon, the magi offered a sacrifice of white horses to that river. On his arrival at the Scamander, the king ascended the citadel of Priam; and having surveyed it, he ordered a thousand oxen to be sacrificed to the Trojan Minerva. But on other occasions he chose human victims; for we are informed that, when, having passed the Strymon, he reached the nine ways, he buried alive nine young men and as many virgins, natives of the country. In this he followed the example of his wife, for she commanded fourteen Persian children, of illustrious birth, to be offered in that manner to the deity who reigns beneath the earth. Thus, in the infancy of Rome we see Curtius, for the salvation of his country, devoting himself to the infernal gods, when, as it appears, an earthquake occasioned a deep and extensive chasm in the forum, and the augurs had declared that the portentous opening would never close until what contributed most to the strength and power of the Romans should be cast into it; but that by such a sacrifice they would obtain immortality for their republic. When all men were at a loss how to understand this oracle, M. Curtius, armed as for battle, presented himself in the forum, and explained it thus: ‘What is more valuable to Rome than her courage and her arms?’ So saying, he urged forward his impetuous steed, and buried himself in the abyss. His grateful countrymen admired his fortitude, and attributed the increasing splendour of their state to the sacrifice he made. Animated by this example, Decius, in the war between Rome and Latium, having solemnly offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice, rushed single into the thickest ranks of the astonished Latins, that by his death he might appease the anger of the gods, transfer their indignation to the enemy, and secure the victory to Rome. Conspectus ab utroque acie aliquanto augustior humano visu, sicut Cælo missus, piaculum omnis deorum iræ, qui pestem ab suis aversam in hostes ferret. Here we see distinctly marked the notion of vicarious suffering, and the opinion that the punishment of guilt may be transferred from the guilty to the innocent. The gods call for sacrifice-the victim bleeds-atonement is made-and the wrath of the infernal powers falls in its full force upon the enemy. Thus, while Themistocles at Salamine was offering sacrifice, three captives, the sons of Sandance, and nephews to Xerxes, all distinguished for their beauty, elegantly dressed and decked, as became their birth, with ornaments of gold, being brought on board his galley, the augur, Euphrantides, observing at the very instant a bright flame ascending from the altar, whilst one was sneezing on the right, which he regarded as a propitious omen, he seized the hand of Themistocles, and commanded that they should all be sacrificed to Bacchus, (wmhsth dionusw-cruel and relentless Bacchus! Homer has the same expression,) predicting, on this occasion, safety and conquests to the Greeks. Immediately the multitude with united voices called on the god, and led the captive princes to the altar, and compelled Themistocles to sacrifice them.

So when Æneas was to perform the last kind office for his friend Pallas, he sacrificed (besides numerous oxen, sheep, and swine) eight captives to the infernal gods. In this he followed the example of Achilles, who had caused twelve Trojans of high birth to bleed by the sacerdotal knife, over the ashes of his friend Patroclus.

A hundred feet in length, a hundred wide,

The glowing structure spreads on every side,

High on the top the manly course they lay,

And well-fed sheep and sable oxen slay;

Achilles covered with their fat the dead,

And the piled victims round the body spread;

Then jars of honey and of fragrant oil

Suspends around, low bending o’er the pile.

Four sprightly coursers with a deadly groan

Pour forth their lives, and on the pyre are thrown

Of nine large dogs, domestic at his board,

Fell two, selected to attend their lord:

The last of all, and horrible to tell,

Sad sacrifice! twelve Trojan captives fell;

On these the rage of fire victorious preys,

Involves and joins them in one common blaze.

Smeared with the bloody rites, he stands on high,

And calls the spirit with a cheerful cry,

All hail, Patroclus! let thy vengeful ghost

Hear, and exult on Pluto’s dreary coast.

POPE’S Homer, IL. xxiii. ver. 203

How much was it to be lamented, that even civilized natures should forget the intention for which sacrifices were originally instituted! The bad effects, however, would not have been either so extensive or so great, had they not wholly lost the knowledge of Jehovah; and taken, as the object of their fear, that evil and apostate spirit whose name, with the utmost propriety is called Apollyon, or the destroyer, and whose worship has been universally diffused at different periods among all the nations of the earth. The practice of shedding human blood before the altars of their gods was not peculiar to the Trojans and the Greeks; the Romans followed their example. In the first ages of their republic they sacrificed children to the goddess Mania; in later periods, numerous gladiators bled at the tombs of the patricians, to appease the manes of the deceased. And it is particularly noticed of Augustus, that, after the taking of Perusia, he sacrificed on the ides of March, three hundred senators and knights to the divinity of Julius Cæsar.

The Carthaginians, as Diodorus Siculus informs us, bound themselves by a solemn vow to Chronus that they would sacrifice to him children selected from the offspring of their nobles; but in process of time they substituted for these the children of their slaves, which practice they continued, till, being defeated by Agathocles, tyrant of Sicily, and attributing their disgrace to the anger of the god, they offered two hundred children, taken from the most distinguished families in Carthage; besides which, three hundred citizens presented themselves, that by their voluntary death they might render the deity propitious to their country. The mode of sacrificing these children was horrid in the extreme, for they were cast into the arms of a brazen statue, and from thence dropped into a furnace, as was practised among the first inhabitants of Latium. It was probably in this manner the Ammonites offered up their children to Moloch. The Pelasgi at one time sacrificed a tenth part of all their children, in obedience to an oracle. The Egyptians, in Heliopolis, sacrificed three men every day to Juno. The Spartans and Arcadians scourged to death young women; the latter to appease the wrath of Bacchus, the former to gratify Diana. The Sabian idolaters in Persia offered human victims to Mithras, the Cretans to Jupiter, the Lacedemonians and Lusitanians to Mars, the Lesbians to Bacchus, the Phocians to Diana, the Thessalians to Chiron. The Gauls, equally cruel in their worship, sacrificed men, originally to Eso and Teutate, but latterly to Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva. Cæsar informs us that, whenever they thought themselves in danger, whether from sickness, or after any considerable defeat in war, being persuaded that unless life be given for life the anger of the gods can never be appeased, they constructed wicker images of enormous hulk, which they filled with men, who were first suffocated with smoke, and then consumed by fire. For this purpose they preferred criminals; but when a sufficient number of these could not be found, they supplied the deficiency from the community at large.

The Germans are said to have differed from the Gauls in having no druids, and in being little addicted to the service of the altar. Their only gods were the sun, Vulcan, and the moon; yet, among the objects of their worship was Tuisco their progenitor and Woden the hero of the north. It is true that neither Cæsar nor Tacitus say any thing of their shedding blood in sacrifice; yet the probability is, that, like the Saxons and other northern nations, they not only offered blood, but took their choicest victims from the human race.

In Sweden the altars of Woden smoked incessantly with blood: this flowed most abundantly at the solemn festivals celebrated every ninth year at Upsal. Then the king, attended by the senate and by all the great officers about his court, entered the temple, which glittered on all sides with gold, and conducted to the altar nine slaves, or in time of war nine captives. These met the caresses of the multitude, as being about to avert from them the displeasure of the gods, and then submitted to their fate: but in times of distress more noble victims bled; and it stands upon record that when Aune their king was ill, he offered up to Woden his nine sons, to obtain the prolongation of his life.

The Danes had precisely the same abominable customs. Every ninth year, in the month of January, they sacrificed ninety-nine men, with as many horses, dogs, and cocks; and Hacon, king of Norway, offered his own son to obtain from Woden the victory over Harold, with whom he was at war. In Russia the Slavi worshipped a multitude of gods, and erected to them innumerable altars. Of these deities Peroun, that is, the thunderer, was the supreme, and before his image many of their prisoners bled. Their god of physic, who also presided over the sacred fires, shared with him; and the great rivers, considered as gods, had their portion of human victims, whom they covered with their inexorable waves. But Suetovid, the god of war, was the god in whom they most delighted; to him they presented annually, as a burnt offering, three hundred prisoners, each on his horse; and when the whole was consumed by fire, the priests and people sat down to eat and drink till they were drunk. It is worthy of remark, that the residence of Suetovid was supposed to be in the sun.

To this luminary the Peruvians, before they were restrained by their Incas, sacrificed their children.

Among the sacred books of the Hindoos, the Ramayuna demands particular attention, because of its antiquity, the extent of country through which it is revered, and the view which it exhibits of the religion, doctrine, mythology, customs, and manners of their remote progenitors. In this we have a golden age of short duration, succeeded by a state of universal wickedness and violence, which continued till the deity, incarnate, slew the oppressors of the human race, and thus restored the reign of piety and virtue.

This poem contains a description of the Ushwamedha, or most solemn sacrifice of the white horse, instituted by Swuymbhoo, that is, by the self-existent. At the celebration of this festival, the monarch, as the representative of the whole nation, acknowledged his transgressions; and when the offerings were consumed by the sacrificial fire, he was considered as perfectly absolved from his offences. Then follows a particular account of a human sacrifice, in which the victim, distinguished for filial piety, for resignation to his father’s will, and for purity of heart, was bound by the king himself and delivered to the priest; but at the very instant when his blood was to have been shed, this illustrious youth was by miracle delivered; and the monarch, as the reward of his intended sacrifice, received virtue, prosperity, and fame.

It is well known that the Brahmins have in all ages had their human victims, and that even in our days thousands have voluntarily perished under the wheels of their god Jaghernaut.”-Townsend’s character of Moses, p. 76. Though in the preceding notes I have endeavoured to make every point as clear and plain as possible; yet it may be necessary, in order to see the scope of the apostle’s design more distinctly, to take a general survey of the whole. No man has written with more judgment on this epistle than Dr. Taylor, and from his notes I borrow the principal part of the following observations.

The principal thing that requires to be settled in this chapter is, what kind of election and reprobation the apostle is arguing about: whether election, by the absolute decree and purpose of God, to eternal life; and reprobation, by a like absolute decree, to eternal misery; or only election to the present privileges and external advantages of the kingdom of God in this world; and reprobation, or rejection, as it signifies the not being favoured with those privileges and advantages. I think it demonstrably clear that it is the latter election and rejection the apostle is discoursing on, and not the former; as the following considerations appear to me to demonstrate.

I. The subject of the apostle’s argument is manifestly such privileges as are enumerated, Romans 9:4, 5: Who are Israelites, to whom pertains the adoption, &c. From these privileges he supposes the Jews had fallen, or would fall; or, that for a long time they would be deprived of the benefit of them. For it is with regard to the loss of those privileges that he was so much concerned for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, Romans 9:2, 3. And it is with reference to their being stripped of these privileges that he vindicates the word and righteousness of God, Romans 9:24. Not as though the word of God had taken no effect, or failed, &c.; proving that God, according to his purpose of election, was free to confer them upon any branch of Abraham’s family: consequently, those privileges were the singular blessings which by the purpose of God according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth, were conferred upon Jacob’s posterity. But those privileges were only such as the whole body of the Israelites enjoyed in this world, while they were the Church and people of God, and such privileges as they might afterwards lose, or of which they might be deprived; therefore the election of Jacob’s posterity to those privileges was not an absolute election to eternal life. II. Agreeably to the purpose of God according to election, it was said unto Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger, meaning the posterity of the elder and the younger; Genesis 25:23: The Lord said unto her, two NATIONS are in thy womb, and two manner of PEOPLE shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one PEOPLE shall be stronger than the other PEOPLE; and the elder shall serve the younger. These are the words which signify the purpose of God according to election: therefore the election refers to Jacob’s posterity, or the whole nation of Israel. But all the nation of Israel were not absolutely elected to eternal life: therefore the purpose of God according to election referred to temporal and not to eternal blessings, and was a privilege of which they might be deprived. III. Agreeably to the purpose of God according to election, it was said to Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger; but to serve, in Scripture, never meant to be eternally damned in the world to come: consequently the opposite blessing, bestowed upon the posterity of the younger, could not be eternal salvation, but certain privileges in this life; therefore the purpose according to election refers to those privileges, and the servitude does not imply everlasting perdition.

IV. The election the apostle speaks of is not of works, Romans 9:11, but of the mere will of God, who calls and invites, and refers to no qualifications in the persons thus elected and called. But in no part of the sacred writings is final salvation said to be given to any who are not qualified by holiness to receive and enjoy it; therefore election to eternal glory cannot be what the apostle speaks of in this epistle. V. The election of which the apostle speaks took place, first in Abraham and his seed, before his seed was born; and then (secluding Ishmael and all his posterity) in Isaac and his seed before they were born. And then, secluding Esau and all his posterity, in Jacob and his seed before they were born. But the Scripture no where represents eternal life as bestowed upon any family or race of men in this manner; therefore this election mentioned by the apostle cannot be an election unto eternal life.

VI. Vessels of mercy, Romans 9:23, are manifestly opposed to vessels of wrath, Romans 9:22. The vessels of mercy are the whole body of the Jews and Gentiles, who were called or invited into the kingdom of God under the Gospel, Romans 9:24; consequently, the vessels of wrath are the whole body of the unbelieving Jews. So in Romans 9:30, 31, the whole body of believing Gentiles, who, according to God’s purpose of election, had attained justification, are opposed to the whole body of the Israelites, who came short of it. But men shall not be received into eternal life or subjected to eternal damnation at the last day in collective bodies, but according as particular persons in those bodies have acted well or ill; therefore, this election is not of these particular bodies unto eternal life, &c.

VII. Whoever carefully peruses the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters, will find that those who have not believed, Romans 11:31, are the present rejected Jews, or that Israel to whom blindness hath happened in part, Romans 11:25; the same who fell, and on whom God hath shown severity, Romans 11:22; the same with the natural branches whom God spared not, Romans 11:21; who were broken off from the olive tree, Romans 11:20, 19, 17; who were cast away, Romans 11:15; who were diminished and fallen, Romans 11:12; who had stumbled, Romans 11:11; who were a disobedient and, gainsaying people, Romans 10:21; who, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, went about to establish their own, Romans 10:3; because they sought righteousness, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, Romans 9:32, and therefore had not attained to the law of righteousness, Romans 9:31; the same people spoken of in all these places, are the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, Romans 9:22, and the same for whom Paul had great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart, Romans 9:2, 3; -in short, they are the unbelieving nation, or people of Israel; and it is with regard to the reprobation or rejection of this people that he is arguing and vindicating the truth, justice, and wisdom of God in this ninth chapter.

Now, if we turn back and review those three chapters, we shall find that the apostle, Romans 11:1, heartily desired and prayed that those same reprobated and rejected people of Israel might be saved; he affirms that they had not stumbled so as to fall finally and irrecoverably, Romans 11:11; that they should have again a fulness, Romans 11:12; that they should be received again into the Church, Romans 11:16; that a holiness still belonged to them, Romans 11:16; that if they did not still abide in unbelief, they should be graffed into their own olive tree again, Romans 11:23, 24; that blindness had happened unto them only for a time, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, Romans 11:25; and then he proves from Scripture, that all Israel-all those nations at present under blindness, shall be saved, Romans 11:26,27; that, as touching the (original) election, they were still beloved for the fathers’, the patriarchs’, sake, Romans 11:28; that, in their case, the gifts and calling of God were without repentance, Romans 11:29; that through our (the believing Gentiles’) mercy, they shall at length obtain mercy, Romans 11:31. All these several things are spoken of that Israel, or the body of people concerning whose rejection the apostle argues in the ninth chapter. And therefore the rejection which he there argues about cannot be absolute reprobation to eternal damnation, but to their being, as a nation, stripped of those honours and privileges of God’s peculiar Church and kingdom in this world, to which, at a certain future period, they shall again be restored.

VIII. Once more: whoever carefully peruses those three chapters will find that the people who in times past believed not God, but have NOW obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Jews, Romans 11:30, are the whole body of the believing Gentiles; the same who were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were graffed, contrary to nature, into the good olive tree, Romans 11:24, 17; the same to whom God hath shown goodness, Romans 11:22; the WORLD that was reconciled, Romans 11:15; the GENTILES who were enriched by the diminishing of the Jews, Romans 11:12; to whom salvation came through their fall, Romans 11:11; the Gentiles who had attained to righteousness, (justification,) Romans 9:30; who had not been God’s people, nor believed; but now were his people, beloved, and children of the living God, Romans 9:25, 26; even US whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, out also of the Gentiles, Romans 9:24, who are the vessels of mercy, on whom God has made known the riches of his glory, Romans 9:23; the vessels made unto honour, Romans 9:21. He speaks of the same body of men in all these places; namely, of the believing Gentiles principally, but not excluding the small remnant of the believing Jews, who were incorporated with them. And it is this body of men, whose calling and election he is proving, in whose case the purpose of God according to election stands good, Romans 9:11, and who are the children of the promise that are counted for the seed, Romans 9:8: these are the election, or the elect.

Now, concerning this called or elect body of people, or any particular person belonging to this body, the apostle writes thus, Romans 11:20-22: Well, because of unbelief, they (the Jews) were broken off, (reprobated, rejected,) and thou standest (in the Church among God’s called and elect) by faith; be not high minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, (the Jews,) take heed, lest he also spare not thee, (the Gentiles.) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them (the Jews) which fell, severity; but towards thee (believing Gentiles) goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, rejected, reprobated. This proves that the calling, and election, for which the apostle is arguing in the ninth chapter, is not absolute election unto eternal life, but to the present privileges of the Church-the honours and advantages of God’s peculiar people; which election, through unbelief and misimprovement, may be rendered void and come to nothing. See Dr. Taylor, p. 330, &c.

From thus carefully considering the apostle’s discourse, and taking in his scope and design, and weighing the different expressions he uses, in connection with the Scripture facts and Scripture phrases employed in describing those facts, we must be fully convinced that the doctrines of eternal, absolute, unconditional election and reprobation have no place here, and that nothing but a pre-established creed, and a total inattention to the apostles scope and design, could ever have induced men to bend these scriptures to the above purpose, and thus to endeavour to establish as articles of faith, doctrines which, far from producing glory to God in the highest, and peace and good will among men, have filled the Church of God with contention, set every man’s sword against his brother, and thus done the work of Apollyon in the name of Christ. If men will maintain these and such like for Scriptural doctrines, it is but reasonable to request that it be done in the spirit of the Gospel.

ROMANS

Verses 30-33. What shall we say then — What is to be concluded from all that has been said, but this, that the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness — Who a while ago had no knowledge of, no care or thought about it; have attained to righteousness — Or justification; even the righteousness which is of faith — Which is by faith in Christ and in his gospel, Philippians 3:9. This is the first conclusion we may draw from the preceding observations. The second is, that Israel, (the Jews,) which followed after the law of righteousness — The law which, duly used, would have led them to faith, and thereby to righteousness; hath not attained to the law of righteousness — To that righteousness, or justification, which is one great end of the law. Or, as Estius and Beza think, the law of righteousness is put for the righteousness of the law; as Hebrews 7:16, the law of a carnal commandment, signifies the carnal commandment of the law. According to this interpretation, the apostle’s meaning is, Israel, who pursued the righteousness of the law, have not attained it. Wherefore? Is it because God eternally decreed they should not? No: there is nothing like this to be met with in the apostle’s reasoning; but, agreeably to his argument, he gives us this grand reason for it: because they sought it not by faith, whereby alone it could be attained; but, as it were — In effect, if not professedly; by the works of the law — The works required by it, which they were not able perfectly to perform. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone — Which lay in their way. This is an allusion to one who, running in a race, stumbles on a stone in his way, and, falling, loses the race. As it is written — Foretold by their own prophet; Behold, I lay in Sion — I exhibit in my church what, though in truth the only sure foundation of religion and happiness, yet will be, in fact, a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence — An occasion of ruin to many through their obstinate unbelief. And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed — Or, as the original expression may be more literally translated, No one who believeth on him shall be ashamed. The reader will observe two passages of Isaiah are here joined in one quotation, because they relate to the same subject; namely, Isaiah 28:16, and 8:14. See note on 1 Peter 2:8. Accordingly, those in Israel who expected the Messiah to be a great temporal prince, stumbled at Jesus on account of the poverty, meanness, and state of suffering in which he appeared among them. Hence they fell short of righteousness and salvation, and lost all their privileges as the people of God.

33. Behold—This verse is a free blending together (after the manner of the Jewish writers) of Isaiah 8:14, and 28:16, both of which passages were applied by the Jews to the Messiah. (See our note on Matthew 21:42, and Luke 2:34.)

Verses 30-33 help us to understand CHAPTER 9, of which it is a summing up. Paul does not introduce his new matter by laying down, as in Romans 1:16; 3:21, 22; 6:3, 4; 8:3, 4, a foundation-stone of explicit doctrinal statement. Therefore, only from the argument can we learn the exact purpose of the chapter. Paul’s aim, as I understand it, is to defend the Gospel expounded in Rom. 1-8. against Jewish objections, and especially against the great objection that if the Gospel be true the mass of the Jewish nation are outside the blessings promised to their fathers, or in other words to defend the Gospel in view of the fact that many Jews have rejected and many Gentiles have accepted it. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul expresses his sorrow for this fact. But, in Romans 9:6-13, he shows that, painful as it is to himself, it is not inconsistent with the promises of God; nor (Romans 9:14-18) with the declared principles of His government. The reply to Objection 1 is put in a form which provokes Objection 2: the reply to this last suggests Objection 3, viz. that such principles of government destroy human accountability. This objection, Romans 9:19-23 meet. Paul then states in Romans 9:24, from the point of view of the Gospel call, what he afterwards, in Romans 9:30, 31, states from the point of view of actual results. In Romans 9:25-29, the statement of Romans 9:24 is shown to be in harmony with O.T. prophecy. This is followed in Romans 9:30, 31 by a plain assertion of the fact which in Romans 9:1-5 caused Paul so much sorrow and which throughout Rom. 9, he has been harmonizing with the character of God. This fact is in Romans 9:32 traced to its cause; and even this cause is in Romans 9:33 found to be in harmony with the Old Testament. Thus the whole chapter is a proof that the Gospel expounded in this epistle is in harmony with the earlier revelation.

ELECTION, PREDESTINATION: associated in Ephesians 1:4, 5. In Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28, we find the words elect, ELECTION; and in 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28; Ephesians 1:4; James 2:5; Mark 13:20; Luke 6:13; 9:35; 10:42; 14:7; John 6:70; Acts 1:24; 15:22, we have the cognate verb choose, chosen. They denote a mental act by which we take for ourselves a smaller out of a larger number of objects. Choice implies freedom in him who makes it, but is generally determined by the difference between the objects chosen and rejected.

A divine election is prominent in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7; Psalms 33:12Psalm 33:12; Isaiah 41:8, 9; 43:20; 44:1; 65:9, 22. Out of all nations, God chose Israel to be specially His own. From this divine choice resulted all the religious advantages of the Jews. Hence the nation could never forget that it was the chosen people of God. Since the foretold glory was destined only for the faithful ones in Israel, the word was sometimes used specially for them: so Isaiah 65:9, 15, 22, a stepping-stone to its N.T. use. We have a connecting link, amid O.T. phraseology, in 1 Peter 2:9: “a chosen race:” so Romans 1:1. Our Lord, in Matthew 22:14; 24:22, 31; Luke 18:7, and Paul in Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1, speak of believers as elect: so Revelation 17:14. In Romans 11:5; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that his readers were chosen by God, before the world was, for a salvation to be realised in holiness and faith; and that God’s choice arose, not from their works, but altogether from God’s favour.

The N.T. doctrine of election may be thus stated: From eternity, moved only by pity for our lost state and not at all by any foreseen good in us, and as irresponsible sovereign of the world, God resolved to save, not all men promiscuously, but only those who should believe the Gospel. This doctrine is a restatement of the fundamental doctrine of salvation through faith, from the point of view of the eternal forethought of God. Whatever God does in time, He purposed from eternity: and, whatever He does, He does unmoved by any good external to Himself. For apart from Him no good exists. God proclaimed that He will save all who believe the good news, and destroy those who reject it. We infer then that from eternity He resolved so to do. He saw man in sin and misery, and resolved to save. He was moved to save, by His love to the entire race: John 3:16, 17; 1 Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11. To reconcile the salvation of sinners with divine justice, God gave His Son to die: Romans 3:25, 26. He chose the Gospel to be the instrument, and faith the condition, of salvation to each individual: Romans 1:16, 17; 3:22, 28, 30. He exerts on all men influences leading towards repentance, influences without which none can come to Christ: Romans 2:4; John 6:44. God thought fit, in infinite wisdom and universal love, to permit men either to yield to, or resist, these influences; and made the effect of the Gospel contingent on man’s surrender to them. From the beginning, He foresaw who would believe and how many would continue in faith. But He was moved to save, not by their foreseen faith and perseverance, but only by His love and by man’s misery and helplessness. Our faith is God’s work in us and gift to us: and the good works which follow faith are not its necessary result, but are attached to it by the grace of God and wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Our faith and good works, so far from being the motive, are results, of God’s eternal purpose.

This doctrine, thus stated, contains all that Paul says about election. The resolution to save, not all men indiscriminately, but only believers, is a purpose according to election. For, by fixing, of His own free-will, and without reference to man’s conduct, the condition of salvation, He chose the objects of salvation. We thus owe His favour to-day entirely to the sovereign election of God.

Closely related to this doctrine of Election, is Paul’s teaching about PREDESTINATION, already in some measure expounded under Romans 8:29, 30. It is the eternal purpose in which before the world was God marked out the path along which, and the goal towards which, He would lead His chosen ones, viz. to adoption into His family and to likeness to the glory of His Firstborn. It is a logical development of Doctrine 3, viz. that we are to be dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus, just as Election is a development of Doctrine 1, Justification through Faith, each of these fundamental doctrines being viewed in the light of the eternal forethought of God.

Like election, predestination is simply a purpose; and by no means implies its inevitable accomplishment. Hence in Romans 11:21, 22 Paul solemnly warns his readers that, unless they continue in faith, they will, although predestined to glory, be cut off and perish.

This chapter has frequently been appealed to in support of Calvin’s teaching that God brings to bear, in pursuance of an eternal purpose, upon some of those who hear the Gospel and not on others, influences which necessarily and always lead to repentance, faith, justification, and eternal life; and that the reason why these influences, without which none can be saved, are not exerted on some men while they are on others is entirely in God and not at all in man. See my New Life in Christ pp. 270-276. And it must be admitted that some serious objections brought against this teaching of Calvin are in Rom. 9, brought against the teaching of Paul. But very different doctrines may lie open to the same objection. And Paul’s replies, which are irresistible against those who object to the doctrine of Justification through Faith, are powerless to meet the same objections when brought against the teaching of Calvin. It is true that, if Calvin’s teaching were that of Paul, a Jew might object that it was inconsistent with the promise of God: and, if so, the objection would, I admit, be fairly met in Romans 9:6-13. Again, on the ground of justice, objection has frequently been made to Calvin’s teaching. But was anyone who brought this objection ever convinced, by reading Romans 9:14-18, that this teaching is in harmony with God’s justice? Certainly the story of Pharaoh does nothing whatever to harmonize it with the character of God. But we have seen how decisively the case of Pharaoh overturns objections to the teaching of Romans 3:22; 9:31 based on the justice of God. To the teaching of Calvin we might fairly bring the objection in Romans 9:19. But how irrelevant would then be Paul’s answer! We should reply back that it was not our fault that we were born in sin; and that being born in sin we could not, apart from justifying grace, avoid resisting God. Therefore God would have no more reason to find fault with us than with a lion tearing its prey. The mention of the potter’s clay puts to silence the man who objects to Romans 3:22; 9:31: but, as a defence of Calvin’s scheme, it provokes bitterest reply. We cannot accept doctrines never explicitly asserted in the Bible simply because objections now brought against them were also brought against other teaching of Paul. See further in my New Life in Christ pp. 263-277.