Ro 9:1–33. The Bearing
of the Foregoing Truths upon the Condition and Destiny of the Chosen People—Election—The
Calling of the Gentiles.
Too well
aware that he was regarded as a traitor to the dearest interests of his people
(Ac 21:33; 22:22; 25:24), the apostle opens this division of his subject by
giving vent to his real feelings with extraordinary vehemence of protestation.
1,
2. I say the truth in Christ—as
if steeped in the spirit of Him who wept over impenitent and doomed Jerusalem
(compare Ro 1:9; 2Co 12:19; Php 1:8).
my
conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost—“my conscience as quickened, illuminated, and even now
under the direct operation of the Holy Ghost.”
2.
That I have, &c.—“That I have great grief
(or, sorrow) and unceasing anguish in my heart”—the bitter hostility of his
nation to the glorious Gospel, and the awful consequences of their unbelief,
weighing heavily and incessantly upon his spirit.
3.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for—“in behalf of”
my
brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh—In
proportion as he felt himself severed from his nation, he seems to have
realized all the more vividly their natural relationship. To explain away the
wish here expressed, as too strong for any Christian to utter or conceive, some
have rendered the opening words, “I did wish,” referring it to his
former unenlightened state; a sense of the words too tame to be endured: others
unwarrantably soften the sense of the word “accursed.” But our version gives
the true import of the original; and if it be understood as the language rather
of “strong and indistinct emotions than of definite ideas” [Hodge], expressing passionately how he
felt his whole being swallowed up in the salvation of his people, the
difficulty will vanish, and we shall be reminded of the similar idea so nobly
expressed by Moses (Ex 32:32).
4.
Who are Israelites—See Ro 11:1; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5.
to
whom pertaineth—“whose is”
the
adoption—It is true that, compared with the
new economy, the old was a state of minority and pupilage, and so far that of a
bond-servant (Ga 4:1–3); yet, compared with the state of the surrounding
heathen, the choice of Abraham and his seed was a real separation of them to be
a Family of God (Ex 4:22; De 32:6; Is 1:2; Je 31:9; Ho 11:1; Mal 1:6).
and
the glory—that “glory of the Lord,” or
“visible token of the Divine Presence in the midst of them,” which rested on
the ark and filled the tabernacle during all their wanderings in the
wilderness; which in Jerusalem continued to be seen in the tabernacle and
temple, and only disappeared when, at the Captivity, the temple was demolished,
and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. This was what the Jews
called the “Shekinah.”
and
the covenants—“the covenants of promise” to which
the Gentiles before Christ were “strangers” (Eph 2:12); meaning the one
covenant with Abraham in its successive renewals (see Ga 3:16, 17).
and
the giving of the law—from Mount Sinai, and the possession
of it thereafter, which the Jews justly deemed their peculiar honor (De 26:18,
19; De 26:18, 19, Ps 147:19, 20; Ro 2:17).
and
the service of God—or, of the sanctuary, meaning the
whole divinely instituted religious service, in the celebration of which they
were brought so nigh unto God.
and
the promises—the great Abrahamic promises,
successively unfolded, and which had their fulfilment only in Christ; (see Heb
7:6; Ga 3:16, 21; Ga 3:16, 21, Ac 26:6, 7).
5.
Whose are the fathers—here, probably, the three great
fathers of the covenant—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—by whom God condescended to
name Himself (Ex 8:6, 13; Lu 20:37).
and—most exalted privilege of all, and as such, reserved to the
last.
of
whom as concerning the flesh—(See
on Ro 1:3).
Christ
came—or, “is Christ”
who
is over all, God—rather, “God over all.”
blessed
for ever. Amen—To get rid of the bright testimony
here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been
adopted: (1) To place a period, either after the words “concerning the flesh
Christ came,” rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father—“God who is
over all be blessed for ever”; or after the word “all”—thus, “Christ came, who
is over all: God be blessed.”, &c. [Erasmus,
Locke, Fritzsche, Meyer,
Jowett, &c.]. But it is fatal
to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies
the word “Blessed” precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is
invoked (thus: “Blessed be God,” Ps 68:35; “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of
Israel,” Ps 72:18). Besides, any such doxology here would be “unmeaning and
frigid in the extreme”; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting
anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ’s Incarnation [Alford]. (2) To transpose the words
rendered “who is”; in which case the rendering would be, “whose (that is, the
fathers’) is Christ according to the flesh” [Crellius,
Whiston, Taylor, Whitby].
But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as
is also the conjecture of Grotius
and others, that the word “God” should be omitted from the text. It remains
then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that
while Christ is “of” the Israelitish nation “as concerning the flesh,”
He is, in another respect, “God over all, blessed for ever.” (In 2Co
11:31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered “who is,” is used in
the same sense; and compare Ro 1:25, Greek). In this view of the
passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the
orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur [Bengel, Tholuck,
Stuart, Olshausen, Philippi,
Alford, &c.]
6.
Not as though the word of God had taken none effect—“hath fallen to the ground,” that is, failed: compare Lu
16:17, Greek.
for
they are not all Israel which are of Israel—better,
“for not all they which are of Israel are Israel.” Here the apostle enters
upon the profound subject of Election,
the treatment of which extends to the end of the eleventh chapter—“Think not
that I mourn over the total loss of Israel; for that would involve the failure
of God’s word to Abraham; but not all that belong to the natural seed, and go
under the name of ‘Israel,’ are the Israel of God’s irrevocable choice.”
The difficulties which encompass this subject lie not in the apostle’s
teaching, which is plain enough, but in the truths themselves, the evidence for
which, taken by themselves, is overwhelming, but whose perfect harmony is
beyond human comprehension in the present state. The great source of error here
lies in hastily inferring (as Tholuck
and others), from the apostle’s taking tip, at the close of this chapter, the
calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of Israel, and
continuing this subject through the two next chapters, that the Election
treated of in the body of this chapter is national, not personal
Election, and consequently is Election merely to religious advantages,
not to eternal salvation. In that case, the argument of Ro 9:6, with
which the subject of Election opens, would be this: “The choice of Abraham and
his seed has not failed; because though Israel has been rejected, the
Gentiles have taken their place; and God has a right to choose what nation
He will to the privileges of His visible kingdom.” But so far from this, the
Gentiles are not so much as mentioned at all till towards the close of the
chapter; and the argument of this verse is, that “all Israel is not
rejected, but only a portion of it, the remainder being the ‘Israel’
whom God has chosen in the exercise of His sovereign right.” And that this is a
choice not to mere external privileges, but to eternal salvation, will
abundantly appear from what follows.
7–9.
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children—“Not in the line of mere fleshly descent from Abraham does
the election run; else Ishmael, Hagar’s child, and even Keturah’s children,
would be included, which they were not.”
but—the true election are such of Abraham’s seed as God
unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in that promise.
in
Isaac shall thy seed be called—(Ge
21:12).
10–13.
And not only this; but when Rebecca,
&c.—It might be thought that there was a natural reason for preferring the
child of Sarah, as being Abraham’s true and first wife, both to the child of
Hagar, Sarah’s maid, and to the children of Keturah, his second wife. But there
could be no such reason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac’s only wife; for the
choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother
and of the younger in preference to the elder, and before either of them was
born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of
preference: and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the
unconditional choice of God—“not of works, but of Him that calleth.”
14.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid—This is the first of two objections to the foregoing
doctrine, that God chooses one and rejects another, not on account of their
works, but purely in the exercise of His own good pleasure: “This doctrine
is inconsistent with the justice of God.” The answer to this objection
extends to Ro 9:19, where we have the second objection.
15.
For he saith to Moses—(Ex 33:19).
I
will have mercy on whom I will have—“on
whom I have”
mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have—“on whom I have”
compassion—“There can be no unrighteousness in God’s choosing whom He
will, for to Moses He expressly claims the right to do so.” Yet it is worthy of
notice that this is expressed in the positive rather than the negative form:
not, “I will have mercy on none but whom I will”; but, “I will have
mercy on whomsoever I will.”
16.
So then it is not of him that willeth—hath
the inward desire
nor
of him that runneth—maketh active effort (compare
1Co 9:24, 26; Php 2:16; 3:14). Both these are indispensable to salvation, yet
salvation is owing to neither, but is purely “of God that showeth mercy.” See
on Php 2:12,13, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is
God which, out of His own good pleasure, worketh in you both to will
and to do.”
17.
For the scripture saith to Pharaoh—observe
here the light in which the Scripture is viewed by the apostle.
Even
for this same—“this very”
purpose
have I raised—“raised I”
thee
up, &c.—The apostle had shown that
God claims the right to choose whom He will: here he shows by an example that
God punishes whom He will. But “God did not make Pharaoh wicked; He only
forbore to make him good, by the exercise of special and altogether unmerited
grace” [Hodge].
that
I might—“may”
show
my power in thee—It was not that Pharaoh was worse
than others that he was so dealt with, but “in order that he might become a
monument of the penal justice of God, and it was with a view to this that God
provided that the evil which was in him should be manifested in this definite
form” [Olshausen].
and
that my name might—“may”
be
declared—“proclaimed”
in
all the earth—“This is the principle on which all
punishment is inflicted, that the true character of the Divine Lawgiver should
be known. This is of all objects, where God is concerned, the highest and most
important; in itself the most worthy, and in its results the most beneficent” [Hodge].
18.
Therefore hath he—“So then he hath.” The result then
is that He hath
mercy
on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth—by judicially abandoning them to the hardening influence of
sin itself (Ps 81:11, 12; Ps 81:11, 12, Ro 1:24, 26, 28; Ps 81:11, 12, Ro 1:24,
26, 28, Heb 3:8, 13), and of the surrounding incentives to it (Mt 24:12; 1Co
15:38; 2Th 2:17).
Second
objection to the doctrine of Divine
Sovereignty:
19.
Thou shalt say then unto me, Why—“Why
then” is the true reading.
doth
he yet find fault? for who hath resisted—“Who
resisteth”
his
will?—that is, “This doctrine is
incompatible with human responsibility”; If God chooses and rejects,
pardons and punishes, whom He pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by
Him, cannot help sinning and perishing? This objection shows quite as
conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to—that it
is Election and Non-election to eternal salvation prior to any difference of
personal character; this is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection
here stated, and to this doctrine the objection is plausible. What now
is the apostle’s answer? It is twofold. First: “It is irreverence and
presumption in the creature to arraign the Creator.”
20,
21. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made—“didst thou make”
me
thus?—(Is 45:9).
21.
Hath not the potter power over the clay; of the same lump to make one vessel
unto honour, and another to dishonour?—“The
objection is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the relation between
God and His sinful creatures; supposing that He is under obligation to extend
His grace to all, whereas He is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and
have forfeited every claim to His mercy; it is therefore perfectly competent to
God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to
dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God’s
right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures:
as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful
creature against his Creator that he is answering, and be does so by showing
that God is under no obligation to give His grace to any, but is as sovereign
as in fashioning the clay” [Hodge].
But, Second: “There is nothing unjust in such sovereignty.”
22,
23. What if God, willing to show—“designing
to manifest”
his
wrath—His holy displeasure against sin.
and
to make his power—to punish it
known
endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath—that is, “destined to wrath”; just as “vessels of mercy,”
in Ro 9:23, mean “vessels destined to mercy”; compare Eph 2:3, “children of
wrath.”
fitted
for destruction—It is well remarked by Stuart that the “difficulties which such
statements involve are not to be got rid of by softening the language of one
text, while so many others meet us which are of the same tenor; and even if we
give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge an omnipotent and omniscient
God we cannot abate in the least degree from any of the difficulties which such
texts make.” Be it observed, however, that if God, as the apostle teaches,
expressly “designed to manifest His wrath, and to make His power (in the way of
wrath) known,” it could only be by punishing some, while He pardons others; and
if the choice between the two classes was not to be founded, as our apostle
also teaches, on their own doings but on God’s good pleasure, the decision
behooved ultimately to rest with God. Yet, even in the necessary punishment of
the wicked, as Hodge observes, so
far from proceeding with undue severity, the apostle would have it remarked
that God “endures with much long-suffering” those objects of His righteous
displeasure.
23.
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy—that “glorious exuberance of Divine mercy” which “was
manifested in choosing and eternally arranging for the salvation of sinners.”
24.
even us, whom he hath called,
&c.—rather, “Whom he hath also called, even us,” &c. in not only “afore
preparing,” but in due time effectually “calling us.”
not
of the Jews, &c.—better, “not from among
Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.” Here for the first title in this
chapter the calling of the Gentiles is introduced; all before having
respect, not to the substitution of the called Gentiles for the rejected Jews,
but to the choice of one portion and the rejection of another of the same
Israel. Had Israel’s rejection been total, God’s promise to Abraham would not
have been fulfilled by the substitution of the Gentiles in their room; but
Israel’s rejection being only partial, the preservation of a “remnant,” in
which the promise was made good, was but “according to the election of grace.”
And now, for the first time, the apostle tells us that along with this elect
remnant of Israel, it is God’s purpose to “take out of the Gentiles
a people for His name” (Ac 28:14); and that subject, thus introduced, is now
continued to the end of the eleventh chapter.
25.
As he saith also in Osee—“Hosea.”
I
will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was
not beloved—quoted, though not quite to the
letter, from Ho 2:23, a passage relating immediately, not to the heathen, but
to the kingdom of the ten tribes; but since they had sunk to the level of the
heathen, who were “not God’s people,” and in that sense “not beloved,” the
apostle legitimately applies it to the heathen, as “aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” (so 1Pe
2:10).
26.
And—another quotation from Ho 1:10.
it
shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not
my people; there shall they be called the children—“called sons”
of
the living God—The expression, “in the place where
… there,” seems designed only to give greater emphasis to the gracious change
here announced, from divine exclusion to divine admission to the privileges of
the people of God.
27–29.
Esaias also crieth—“But Isaiah crieth”—an expression
denoting a solemn testimony openly borne (Jn 1:15; 12:44; Ac 23:6; 24:21).
concerning
Israel, Though the number of the children—“sons”
of
Israel be as the sand of the sea, a—“the”
remnant—that is, the elect remnant only shall be saved.
28.
For he will finish the work, and cut—“is
finishing the reckoning, and cutting it”
it
short in righteousness; because a short work—“reckoning”
will
the Lord make upon the earth—(Is
10:22, 23), as in the Septuagint. The sense given to these words by the
apostle may seem to differ from that intended by the prophet. But the sameness
of sentiment in both places will at once appear, if we understand those words
of the prophet, “the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness,” to
mean that while a remnant of Israel should be graciously spared to return from
captivity, “the decreed consumption” of the impenitent majority should be
“replete with righteousness,” or illustriously display God’s righteous
vengeance against sin. The “short reckoning” seems to mean the speedy
completing of His word, both in cutting off the one portion and saving the
other.
29.
And as Esaias said—“hath said”
before—that is, probably in an earlier part of his book, namely,
Is 1:9.
Except
the Lord of Sabaoth—that is, “The Lord of Hosts”: the
word is Hebrew, but occurs so in the Epistle of James (Jam 5:4), and has
thence become naturalized in our Christian phraseology.
had
left us a seed—meaning a “remnant”; small at
first, but in due time to be a seed of plenty (compare Ps 22:30, 31; Ps 22:30,
31, Is 6:12, 13).
we
had been—“become”
as
Sodom, &c.—But for this precious seed,
the chosen people would have resembled the cities of the plain, both in
degeneracy of character and in merited doom.
30,
31. What shall we say then?—“What now
is the result of the whole?” The result is this—very different from what one
would have expected.
That
the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained—“attained”
to
righteousness, even the righteousness of faith—As we have seen that “the righteousness of faith” is the
righteousness which justifies (see on Ro 3:22, &c.), this verse must
mean that “the Gentiles, who while strangers to Christ were quite indifferent
about acceptance with God, having embraced the Gospel as soon as it was
preached to them, experienced the blessedness of a justified state.”
31.
But Israel, which followed—“following”
after
the law of righteousness, hath not attained—“attained
not”
unto
the law of righteousness—The word
“law” is used here, we think, in the same sense as in Ro 7:23, to denote “a
principle of action”; that is, “Israel, though sincerely and steadily aiming at
acceptance with God, nevertheless missed it.”
32,
33. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were—rather simply, “as”
by
the works of the law—as if it were thus attainable,
which justification is not: Since, therefore, it is attainable only by faith,
they missed it.
for—it is doubtful if this particle was originally in the text.
they
stumbled at that stumbling-stone—better,
“against the stone of stumbling,” meaning Christ. But in this they only
did.
33.
As it is written—(Is 8:14; 28:16).
Behold, &c.—Two Messianic predictions are here combined, as is
not unusual in quotations from the Old Testament. Thus combined, the prediction
brings together both the classes of whom the apostle is treating: those to whom
Messiah should be only a stone of stumbling, and those who were to regard Him
as the Cornerstone of all their hopes. Thus expounded, this chapter presents no
serious difficulties, none which do not arise out of the subject itself, whose
depths are unfathomable; whereas on every other view of it the difficulty of
giving it any consistent and worthy interpretation is in our judgment insuperable.
Note, (1) To speak and act “in Christ,” with a conscience not
only illuminated, but under the present operation of the Holy Ghost, is not
peculiar to the supernaturally inspired, but is the privilege, and ought to be
the aim, of every believer (Ro 9:1). (2) Grace does not destroy, but only
intensify and elevate, the feelings of nature; and Christians should study to
show this (Ro 9:2, 3). (3) To belong to the visible Church of God, and enjoy
its high and holy distinctions, is of the sovereign mercy of God, and should be
regarded with devout thankfulness (Ro 9:4, 5). (4) Yet the most sacred external
distinctions and privileges will avail nothing to salvation without the heart’s
submission to the righteousness of God (Ro 9:31–33). (5) What manner of persons
ought “God’s elect” to be—in humility, when they remember that He hath
saved them and called them, not according to their works, but according to His
own purpose and grace, given them in Christ Jesus before the world began (2Ti
1:9); in thankfulness, for “Who maketh thee to differ, and what hast
thou that thou didst not receive?” (1Co 4:7); in godly jealousy over
themselves; remembering that “God is not mocked,” but “whatsoever a man soweth
that shall he also reap” (Ga 6:7); in diligence “to make our calling and
election sure” (2Pe 1:10); and yet in calm confidence that “whom God
predestinates, and calls, and justifies, them (in due time) He also glorifies”
(Ro 8:30). (6) On all subjects which from their very nature lie beyond human
comprehension, it will be our wisdom to set down what God says in His word, and
has actually done in His procedure towards men, as indisputable, even though it
contradict the results at which in the best exercise of our limited judgment we
may have arrived (Ro 9:14–23). (7) Sincerity in religion, or a general desire
to be saved, with assiduous efforts to do right, will prove fatal as a ground
of confidence before God, if unaccompanied by implicit submission to His
revealed method of salvation (Ro 9:31–33). (8) In the rejection of the great
mass of the chosen people, and the inbringing of multitudes of estranged
Gentiles, God would have men to see a law of His procedure, which the judgment
of the great day will more vividly reveal that “the last shall be first and the
first last” (Mt 20:16).
Excerpt from:
A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Rick Meyers. e-Sword ®: www.e-sword.net
