Text -- Romans 9:1-24 (NET)

Israel’s Rejection Considered

9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit– 9:2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed– cut off from Christ– for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, 9:4 who are Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen. 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, 9:7 nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” 9:8 This means it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants. 9:9 For this is what the promise declared: “About a year from now I will return and Sarah will have a son.” 9:10 Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac– 9:11 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling)– 9:12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” 9:13 just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 9:15 For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 9:16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 9:18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” 9:20 But who indeed are you– a mere human being– to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? 9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 9:23 And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory– 9:24 even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Rom 9:1

In Christ ( en Christōi ).

Paul really takes a triple oath here so strongly is he stirred. He makes a positive affirmation in Christ, a negative one (not lying), the appeal to his conscience as Corinthians-witness (sunmarturousēs , genitive absolute as in Rom 2:15 which see) "in the Holy Spirit."

Robertson: Rom 9:2

Sorrow ( lupē ).

Because the Jews were rejecting Christ the Messiah. "We may compare the grief of a Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem"(Sanday and Headlam).

Robertson: Rom 9:2

Unceasing pain in my heart ( adialeiptos odunē tēi kardiāi ).

Like angina pectoris . Odunē is old word for consuming grief, in N.T. only here and and 1Ti 6:10.

Robertson: Rom 9:2

Unceasing ( adialeiptos ).

Late and rare adjective (in an inscription 1 cent. b.c.), in N.T. only here and 2Ti 1:3. Two rare words together and both here only in N.T. and I and II Timothy (some small argument for the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles).

Robertson: Rom 9:3

I could wish ( ēuchomēn ).

Idiomatic imperfect, "I was on the point of wishing."We can see that euchomai (I do wish) would be wrong to say. An ēuchomēn would mean that he does not wish (conclusion of second class condition). An ēuchomēn would be conclusion of fourth class condition and too remote. He is shut up to the imperfect indicative (Robertson, Grammar , p. 886).

Robertson: Rom 9:3

Anathema ( anathema ).

See for this word as distinct from anathēma (offering) 1Co 12:3; Gal 1:8.

Robertson: Rom 9:3

I myself ( autos egō ).

Nominative with the infinitive einai and agreeing with subject of ēuchomēn .

Robertson: Rom 9:3

According to the flesh ( kata sarka ).

As distinguished from Paul’ s Christian brethren.

Robertson: Rom 9:4

Who ( hoitines ).

The very ones who, inasmuch as they.

Robertson: Rom 9:4

Israelites ( Israēleitai ).

Covenant name of the chosen people.

Robertson: Rom 9:4

Whose ( hōn ).

Predicate genitive of the relative, used also again with hoi pateres . For "the adoption"(hē huiothesia ) see note on Rom 8:15.

Robertson: Rom 9:4

The glory ( hē doxa ).

The Shekinah Glory of God (Rom 3:23) and used of Jesus in Jam 2:1.

Robertson: Rom 9:4

The covenants ( hai diathēkai ).

Plural because renewed often (Gen 6:18; Gen 9:9; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:2, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:9; Exo 2:24).

Robertson: Rom 9:4

The giving of the law ( hē nomothesia ).

Old word, here only in N.T., from nomos and tithēmi .

Robertson: Rom 9:4

The service ( hē latreia ).

The temple service (Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6).

Robertson: Rom 9:4

The fathers ( hoi pateres ).

The patriarchs (Act 3:13; Act 7:32).

Robertson: Rom 9:5

Of whom ( ex hōn ).

Fourth relative clause and here with ex and the ablative.

Robertson: Rom 9:5

Christ ( ho Christos ).

The Messiah.

Robertson: Rom 9:5

As concerning the flesh ( to kata sarka ).

Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh."Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in Rom 1:3.

Robertson: Rom 9:5

Who is over all, God blessed for ever ( ho on epi pantōn theos eulogētos ).

A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See note on Act 20:28 and note on Tit 2:13 for Paul’ s use of theos applied to Jesus Christ.

Robertson: Rom 9:6

But it is not as though ( ouch hoion de hoti ).

Supply estin after ouch : "But it is not such as that,"an old idiom, here alone in N.T.

Robertson: Rom 9:6

Hath come to nought ( ekpeptōken ).

Perfect active indicative of ekpiptō , old verb, to fall out.

Robertson: Rom 9:6

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel ( ou gar pantes hoi ex Israēl houtoi Israēl ).

"For not all those out of Israel (the literal Jewish nation), these are Israel (the spiritual Israel)."This startling paradox is not a new idea with Paul. He had already shown (Gal 3:7-9) that those of faith are the true sons of Abraham. He has amplified that idea also in Romans 4. So he is not making a clever dodge here to escape a difficulty. He now shows how this was the original purpose of God to include only those who believed.

Robertson: Rom 9:6

Seed of Abraham ( sperma Abraam ).

Physical descent here, but spiritual seed by promise in Rom 9:8. He quotes Gen 21:12.

Robertson: Rom 9:8

The children of the promise ( ta tekna tēs epaggelias ).

Not through Ishmael, but through Isaac. Only the children of the promise are "children of God"(tekna tou theou ) in the full sense. He is not speaking of Christians here, but simply showing that the privileges of the Jews were not due to their physical descent from Abraham. Cf. Luk 3:8.

Robertson: Rom 9:9

A word of promise ( epaggelias ho logos houtos ).

Literally, "this word is one of promise."Paul combines Genesis 18:10, 14 from the lxx.

Robertson: Rom 9:10

Having conceived of one ( ex henos koitēn echousa ).

By metonymy with cause for the effect we have this peculiar idiom (koitē being bed, marriage bed), "having a marriage bed from one"husband. One father and twins.

Robertson: Rom 9:11

The children being not yet born ( mēpō gennēthentōn ).

Genitive absolute with first aorist passive participle of gennaō , to beget, to be born, though no word for children nor even the pronoun autōn (they).

Robertson: Rom 9:11

Neither having done anything good or bad ( mēde praxantōn ti agathon ē phaulon ).

Genitive absolute again with first active participle of prassō . On phaulon , see note on 2Co 5:10.

Robertson: Rom 9:11

The purpose of God ( hē prothesis tou theou ).

See note on Rom 8:28 for prothesis .

Robertson: Rom 9:11

According to election ( kat' eklogēn ).

Old word from eklegō , to select, to choose out. See note on 1Th 1:4. Here it is the purpose (prothesis ) of God which has worked according to the principles of election.

Robertson: Rom 9:11

Not of works ( ouk ex ergōn ).

Not of merit.

Robertson: Rom 9:12

But of him that calleth ( all' ek tou kalountos ).

Present active articular participle of kaleō in the ablative case after ek . The source of the selection is God himself. Paul quotes Genesis 25:33 (lxx).

Robertson: Rom 9:13

Paul quotes Mal 1:2. @@But Esau I hated ( ton de Esau emisēsa ).

This language sounds a bit harsh to us. It is possible that the word miseō did not always carry the full force of what we mean by "hate."See Mat 6:24 where these very verbs (miseō and agapaō ) are contrasted. So also in Luk 14:26 about "hating"(miseō ) one’ s father and mother if coming between one and Christ. So in Joh 12:25 about "hating"one’ s life. There is no doubt about God’ s preference for Jacob and rejection of Esau, but in spite of Sanday and Headlam one hesitates to read into these words here the intense hatred that has always existed between the descendants of Jacob and of Esau.

Robertson: Rom 9:14

Is there unrighteousness with God? ( mē adikia para tōi theōi̇ ).

Paul goes right to the heart of the problem. Mē expects a negative answer. "Beside"(para ) God there can be no injustice to Esau or to any one because of election.

Robertson: Rom 9:15

For he says to Moses ( tōi Mōusei gar legei ).

He has an Old Testament illustration of God’ s election in the case of Pharaoh (Exo 33:19).

Robertson: Rom 9:15

On whom I have mercy ( hon an eleō ).

Indefinite relative with an and the present active subjunctive of eleaō , late verb only here and Jud 1:23 in N.T. "On whomsoever I have mercy."The same construction in hon an oikteirō , "on whomsoever I have compassion."

Robertson: Rom 9:16

So then ( ara oun ).

In view of this quotation.

Robertson: Rom 9:16

It is not of ( ou ).

We must supply estin eleos with ou . "Mercy is not of."The articular participles (tou thelontos , tou trechontos ,tou eleōntos ) can be understood as in the genitive with eleos understood (mercy is not a quality of) or as the predicate ablative of source like epiluseōs in 2Pe 1:20. Paul is fond of the metaphor of running.

Robertson: Rom 9:17

To Pharaoh ( tōi Pharaō ).

There is a national election as seen in Rom 9:7-13, but here Paul deals with the election of individuals. He "lays down the principle that God’ s grace does not necessarily depend upon anything but God’ s will"(Sanday and Headlam). He quotes Exo 9:16.

Robertson: Rom 9:17

Might be published ( diaggelēi ).

Second aorist passive subjunctive of diaggellō .

Robertson: Rom 9:18

He hardeneth ( sklērunei ).

Pharaoh hardened his own heart also (Exo 8:15, Exo 8:32; Exo 9:34), but God gives men up also (Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:28). This late word is used by the Greek physicians Galen and Hippocrates. See note on Act 19:9. Only here in Paul.

Robertson: Rom 9:19

Why doth he still find fault? ( ti eti memphetai̇ ).

Old verb, to blame. In N.T. only here and Heb 8:8. Paul’ s imaginary objector picks up the admission that God hardened Pharaoh’ s heart. "Still"(eti ) argues for a change of condition since that is true.

Robertson: Rom 9:19

Withstandeth his will ( tōi boulēmati autou anthestēken ).

Perfect active indicative of anthistēmi , old verb, maintains a stand (the perfect tense). Many have attempted to resist God’ s will (boulēma , deliberate purpose, in N.T. only here and Act 27:43; 1Pe 4:3). Elsewhere thelēma (Mat 6:10).

Robertson: Rom 9:20

Nay, but, O man, who art thou? ( O anthrōpe , men oun ge su tis ei̇ ).

"O man, but surely thou who art thou?"Unusual and emphatic order of the words, prolepsis of su (thou) before tis (who) and men oun ge (triple particle, men , indeed, oun , therefore, ge , at least) at the beginning of clause as in Rom 10:18; Phi 3:8 contrary to ancient idiom, but so in papyri.

Robertson: Rom 9:20

That repliest ( ho antapokrinomenos ).

Present middle articular participle of double compound verb antapokrinomai , to answer to one’ s face (anti̇ ) late and vivid combination, also in Luk 14:6, nowhere else in N.T., but in lxx.

Robertson: Rom 9:20

The thing formed ( to plasma ).

Old word (Plato, Aristophanes) from plassō , to mould, as with clay or wax, from which the aorist active participle used here (tōi plasanti ) comes. Paul quotes these words from Isa 29:16 verbatim. It is a familiar idea in the Old Testament, the absolute power of God as Creator like the potter’ s use of clay (Isa 44:8; Isa 45:8-10; Jer 18:6). Mē expects a negative answer.

Robertson: Rom 9:20

Why didst thou make me thus? ( ti me epoiēsas houtōṡ ).

The original words in Isaiah dealt with the nation, but Paul applies them to individuals. This question does not raise the problem of the origin of sin for the objector does not blame God for that but why God has used us as he has, made some vessels out of the clay for this purpose, some for that. Observe "thus"(houtōs ). The potter takes the clay as he finds it, but uses it as he wishes.

Robertson: Rom 9:21

Or hath not the potter a right over the clay? ( ē ouk echei exousian ho kerameus tou pēlou̇ ).

This question, expecting an affirmative answer, is Paul’ s reply to the previous one, "Why didst thou make me thus?"Pēlos , old word for clay, is mud or wet clay in Joh 9:6, Joh 9:11, Joh 9:14. The old word for potter (kerameus ) in N.T. only here and Mat 27:7, Mat 27:10.

Robertson: Rom 9:21

Lump ( phuramatos ).

Late word from phuraō , to mix (clay, dough, etc.).

Robertson: Rom 9:21

One part ( ho men )

- another (ho de ). Regular idiom for contrast (meṅ̇de ) with the old demonstrative ho (this), "this vessel (skeuos , old word as in Mar 11:16) for honour, that for dishonour."Paul thus claims clearly God’ s sovereign right (exousian , power, right, authority, from exesti ) to use men (already sinners) for his own purpose.

Robertson: Rom 9:22

Willing ( thelōn ).

Concessive use of the participle, "although willing,"not causal, "because willing"as is shown by "with much long-suffering"(en pollēi makrothumiāi , in much long-suffering).

Robertson: Rom 9:22

His power ( to dunaton autou ).

Neuter singular of the verbal adjective rather than the substantive dunamin .

Robertson: Rom 9:22

Endured ( ēnegken ).

Constative second aorist active indicative of the old defective verb pherō , to bear.

Robertson: Rom 9:22

Vessels of wrath ( skeuē orgēs ).

The words occur in Jer 50:25 (lxx Jer 27:25), but not in the sense here (objective genitive like tekna orgēs , Eph 2:3, the objects of God’ s wrath).

Robertson: Rom 9:22

Fitted ( katērtismena ).

Perfect passive participle of katartizō , old verb to equip (see note on Mat 4:21 and see 2Co 13:11), state of readiness. Paul does not say here that God did it or that they did it. That they are responsible may be seen from 1Th 2:15.

Robertson: Rom 9:22

Unto destruction ( eis apōleian ).

Endless perdition (Mat 7:13; 2Th 2:3; Phi 3:19), not annihilation.

Robertson: Rom 9:23

Vessels of mercy ( skeuē eleous ).

Objective genitive like skeuē orgēs .

Robertson: Rom 9:23

Afore prepared ( proētoimasen ).

First aorist active indicative of proetoimazō , old verb to make ready (from hetoimos , ready) and pro , before, in N.T. only here and Eph 2:10. But same idea in Rom 8:28-30.

Robertson: Rom 9:24

But also from the Gentiles ( alla kai ex ethnōn ).

Paul had already alluded to this fact in Rom 9:6. (cf. Gal 3:7-9). Now he proceeds to prove it from the Old Testament.

Vincent: Rom 9:1

In Christ

Not by Christ, as the formula of an oath, Christ being never used by the apostles in such a formula, but God . Rom 1:9; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:31; Phi 1:8. For this favorite expression of Paul, see Gal 2:17; 1Co 1:2; 2Co 2:14, 2Co 2:17; 2Co 12:19, etc.

Vincent: Rom 9:1

Conscience

See on 1Pe 3:16.

Vincent: Rom 9:1

Bearing me witness

Rev., bearing witness with me . See on Rom 8:16. Concurring with my testimony. Morison remarks that Paul speaks of conscience as if it were something distinct from himself, and he cites Adam Smith's phrase, " the man within the breast."

Vincent: Rom 9:1

In the Holy Ghost

So Rev. The concurrent testimony of his declaration and of conscience was " the echo of the voice of God's Holy Spirit" (Morison).

Vincent: Rom 9:2

Heaviness, sorrow ( λύπη ὀδύνη )

Heaviness , so Wyc. and Tynd., in the earlier sense of sorrow . So Chaucer:

" Who feeleth double sorrow and heaviness

But Palamon?"

" Knight's Tale ," 1456

Shakespeare:

" I am here, brother, full of heaviness."

2 " Henry IV .," iv ., 5 , 8

Rev., sorrow . Ὁδύνη is better rendered pain . Some derive it from the root ed eat , as indicating, consuming pain. Compare Horace, curae edares devouring cares . Only here and 1Ti 6:10.

Vincent: Rom 9:2

Heart

See on Rom 1:21.

Vincent: Rom 9:3

I could wish ( ἠυχόμην )

Or pray as 2Co 13:7, 2Co 13:9; Jam 5:16. Lit., I was wishing ; but the imperfect here has a tentative force, implying the wish begun , but stopped at the outset by some antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, so that, practically, it was not entertained at all. So Paul of Onesimus: " Whom I could have wished (ἐβουλόμην ) to keep with me," if it had not been too much to ask (Phm 1:13). Paul would wish to save his countrymen, even at such sacrifice, if it were morally possible. Others, however, explain the imperfect as stating an actual wish formerly entertained.

Vincent: Rom 9:3

Accursed from Christ ( ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ )

Compare Gal 1:8, Gal 1:9; 1Co 12:3; 1Co 16:22. See on offerings , Luk 21:5. Set apart to destruction and so separated from Christ (Phi 1:21; Phi 3:8, Phi 3:20). An expression of deep devotion. " It is not easy to estimate the measure of love in a Moses and a Paul. For our limited reason does not grasp it, as the child cannot comprehend the courage of warriors" (Bengel). Compare Moses, Exo 32:32.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

Who ( οἵτινες )

The double relative characterizes the Israelites with their call and privileges as such that for them he could even wish himself accursed.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

Israelites

See on Act 3:12.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

Adoption

See on Rom 8:15. Israel is always represented as the Lord's son or first-born among all peoples. Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Hos 11:1.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

The glory

The visible, luminous appearance of the divine presence was called by the Israelites the glory of Jahveh , or, in rabbinical phrase, the Shekinah . See Exo 24:16; Exo 40:34, Exo 40:35; Eze 1:28; Heb 9:5. Not the final glory of God's kingdom; for this belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

The covenants ( αἱ διαθῆκαι )

See on Mat 26:28. Those concluded with the patriarchs since Abraham. See Gal 3:16, Gal 3:17; Eph 2:12. The plural never occurs in the Old Testament. See on Heb 9:16.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

The giving of the law ( ἡ νομοθεσία )

The act of giving, with a secondary reference to the substance of the law; legislation .

Vincent: Rom 9:4

The service ( ἡ λατρεία )

See on Joh 16:2; see on Luk 1:74; see on Rev 22:3; see on Phi 3:3. Here the sum total of the Levitical services instituted by the law.

Vincent: Rom 9:4

The promises

The collective messianic promises on which the covenants were based. The word originally means announcement . See on Act 1:4.

Vincent: Rom 9:5

Of whom ( ἐξ ὧν )

From the midst of whom. But in order to guard the point that the reference is only to Christ's human origin, he adds, as concerning the flesh .

Vincent: Rom 9:5

Who is over all, God blessed for ever ( ὁ ὣν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας )

Authorities differ as to the punctuation; some placing a colon, and others a comma after flesh . This difference indicates the difference in the interpretation; some rendering as concerning the flesh Christ came . God who is over all be blessed for ever ; thus making the words God, etc., a doxology: others, with the comma, the Christ , who is over all , God blessed forever ; i.e., Christ is God (For minor variations see margin of Rev.)

Vincent: Rom 9:5

Amen

See on Rev 1:6.

Vincent: Rom 9:6

Not as though ( οὐχ οἶον δὲ ὅτι )

Rev., but it is not as though . The thought is abruptly introduced. I am not speaking of a matter of such a nature as that the doctrine of faith involves the failure of God's promises to Israel.

Vincent: Rom 9:6

Hath taken none effect ( ἐκπέπτωκεν )

Lit., has fallen out . Rev., come to nought .

Vincent: Rom 9:7

In Isaac

Not in Ishmael, though Ishmael also was the seed of Abraham. The saying of Gen 21:12 is directly added without it is written or it was said , because it is assumed to be well known to the readers as a saying of God. The Hebrew is: " in Isaac shall posterity be named to thee." In the person of Isaac the descendant of Abraham will be represented and recognized. The general principle asserted is that the true sonship of Abraham does not rest on bodily descent.

Vincent: Rom 9:7

Shall be called ( κληθήσεται )

Named. See on Rom 4:17. Others, called from nothing . But the promise was made after Isaac was born.

Vincent: Rom 9:8

That is

The Old-Testament saying amounts to this.

Vincent: Rom 9:8

Children of the promise

Originating from the divine promise. See Gal 4:23.

Vincent: Rom 9:9

This is the word of promise

The A.V. obscures the true sense. There is no article, and the emphasis is on promise . " I say 'a word of promise ,' for a word of promise is this which follows." Or, as Morison, " this word is one of promise."

Vincent: Rom 9:9

At this time ( κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον )

Rev., according to this season . The reference is to Gen 18:14, where the Hebrew is when the season is renewed or revives ; i.e., next year at this time. The season is represented as reviving periodically.

Vincent: Rom 9:10

And not only so

The thought to be supplied is: Not only have we an example of the election of a son of Abraham by one woman, and a rejection of his son by another, but also of the election and rejection of the children of the same woman.

Vincent: Rom 9:10

By one

Though of one father, a different destiny was divinely appointed for each of the twins. Hence only the divine disposal constitutes the true and valid succession, and not the bodily descent.

Vincent: Rom 9:11

Evil ( φαῦλον )

See on Joh 3:20; see on Jam 3:16.

Vincent: Rom 9:11

Purpose according to election ( ἡ κατ ' ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις )

For πρόθεσις purpose , see on the kindred verb προέθετο , Rom 3:25, and compare Rom 8:28. The phrase signifies a purpose so formed that in it an election was made. The opposite of one founded upon right or merit. For similar phrases see Act 19:20; κατὰ κράτος according to might , mightily ; Rom 7:13, καθ ' ὑπερβολὴν according to excess , exceedingly . See note.

Vincent: Rom 9:11

Might stand ( μένῃ )

Lit., abide , continue: remain unchangeable. This unchangeableness of purpose was conveyed in His declaration to Rebecca. Contrast with come to nought (Rom 9:6).

Vincent: Rom 9:11

Of works ( ἐξ )

Lit., out of . By virtue of.

Vincent: Rom 9:11

Calleth ( καλοῦντος )

Eternal salvation is not contemplated. " The matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic stand-point" (Godet).

Vincent: Rom 9:12

Elder - younger ( μείζων - ἐλάσσονι )

Lit., greater - smaller . Compare Gen 27:1, here the Hebrew is: " Esau his great son;" Sept., πρεσβύτερον elder . Gen 29:16, Sept., " The name of the greater was Leah, and the name of the younger (τῇ νεωτέρᾳ ) Rachel." See a similar use in Aeschylus, " Agamemnon," 349, " Neither old (μέγαν ) nor young (νεαρῶν ) could escape the great net of slavery." While in these cases " greater" and " smaller" are evidently used as older and younger , yet the radical meaning is greater and less , and the reference is not to age, but to their relative position in the theocratic plan. Μείζων greater , occurs in forty-four passages in the New Testament, and in no case with the meaning elder . Compare Gen 25:23 be stronger ; Sept., ὑπέρεξει ; shall surpass . The reference, if to the persons of Jacob and Esau, is to them as representatives of the two nations. See Gen 25:23.

Historically the Edomites, represented by Esau, were for a time the greater, and surpassed the Israelites in national and military development. Moses sent envoys to the king of Edom from Kadesh, asking permission to pass through his country, which was refused, and the Edomite army came out against Israel (Num 20:14-21). Later they were " vexed" by Saul (1Sa 14:47), and were conquered and made tributary by David (2Sa 8:14). Their strength was shown in their subsequent attempts to recover independence (2Ki 8:20, 2Ki 8:21; 2Ki 14:7; 2Ch 28:17). Their final subjugation was effected by John Hyrcanus, who incorporated them into the Jewish nation and compelled them to be circumcised.

Vincent: Rom 9:13

Jacob - Esau

See Gen 25:23. Representing their respective nations, as often in the Old Testament. Num 23:7, Num 23:10, Num 23:23; Num 24:5; Jer 49:10; compare also the original of the citation, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, the burden of the word of the Lord to Israel . Compare also Edom in Mal 1:4, synonymous with Esau in Mal 1:3; and Israel , Mal 1:5, synonymous with Jacob , Mal 1:2.

Vincent: Rom 9:13

Hated ( ἐμίσησα )

The expression is intentionally strong as an expression of moral antipathy. Compare Mat 6:24; Luk 14:26. No idea of malice is implied of course.

Vincent: Rom 9:15

I will have mercy - compassion ( ἐλεήσω - οἰκτειρήσω )

See Exo 33:19. For mercy see on 2Jo 1:3; see on Luk 1:50. The former verb emphasizes the sense of human wretchedness in its active manifestation; the latter the inward feeling expressing itself in sighs and tears. Have mercy therefore contemplates, not merely the sentiment in itself, but the determination of those who should be its objects. The words were spoken to Moses in connection with his prayer for a general forgiveness of the people, which was refused, and his request to behold God's glory, which was granted. With reference to the latter, God asserts that His gift is of His own free grace, without any recognition of Moses' right to claim it on the ground of merit or service.

Vincent: Rom 9:16

It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth. It , the participation in God's mercy. Of him, i.e., dependent upon . Runneth , denoting strenuous effort. The metaphor from the foot-race is a favorite one with Paul. See 1Co 9:24, 1Co 9:26; Gal 2:2; Gal 5:7; Phi 2:16; 2Th 3:1. God is laid under no obligation by a human will or a human work .

Vincent: Rom 9:17

Saith

Present tense. " There is an element of tirelessness in the utterance. If the scripture ever spoke at all, it continued and continues to speak. It has never been struck dumb" (Morison).

Vincent: Rom 9:17

Pharaoh

The original meaning of the word is now supposed to be the double house or palace . Compare the Sublime Porte .

Vincent: Rom 9:17

Raised thee up ( ἐξήγειρα )

Hebrew, caused thee to stand . Sept., διετηρήθης thou wast preserved alive . Only once elsewhere in the New Testament, 1Co 6:14, of raising from the dead. The meaning here is general, allowed thee to appear ; brought , thee forward on the stage of events , as Zec 11:16. So the simple verb in Mat 11:11; Joh 7:52. Other explanations are, preserved thee alive , as Sept., excited thee to opposition , as Hab 1:6; created thee .

Vincent: Rom 9:17

Might be declared ( διαγγελῇ )

Published abroad , thoroughly (διά ). So Rev. See on Luk 9:60. " Even to the present day, wherever throughout the world Exodus is read, the divine intervention is realized" (Godet).

Vincent: Rom 9:18

He will ( θέλει )

In a decretory sense. See on Mat 1:19.

Vincent: Rom 9:18

Hardeneth ( σκληρύνει )

Only here by Paul. See on hard , Mat 25:24; see on Jud 1:14; see on Jam 3:4. Three words are used in the Hebrew to describe the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. The one which occurs most frequently, properly means to be strong , and therefore represents the hardness as foolhardiness, infatuated insensibility to danger. See Exodus 14. The word is used in its positive sense, hardens , not merely permits to become hard . In Exodus the hardening is represented as self-produced (Exo 8:15, Exo 8:32; Exo 9:34), and as produced by God (Exo 4:21; Exo 7:3; Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20, Exo 10:27; Exo 11:10). Paul here chooses the latter representation.

Vincent: Rom 9:19

Hath resisted ( ἀνθέστηκεν )

Rev., more correctly, with - standeth . The idea is the result rather than the process of resistance. A man may resist God's will, but cannot maintain his resistance. The question means, who can resist him?

Vincent: Rom 9:20

O man

Man as man, not Jew.

Vincent: Rom 9:20

That repliest ( ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος )

Only here and Luk 14:6. Lit., to contradict in reply: to answer by contradicting . Thus, in the case of the dropsical man (Luke 14), Jesus answered (ἀποκριθεὶς ) the thought in the minds of the lawyers and Pharisees by asking, " Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Then He asked, " Who of you would refuse on the Sabbath to extricate his beast from the pit into which it has fallen?" And they were unable to answer Him in reply: to answer by contradicting Him . So here, the word signifies to reply to an answer which God had already given, and implies, as Godet observes, the spirit of contention.

Vincent: Rom 9:21

Power ( ἐξουσίαν )

Or right . See on Mar 2:10; see on Joh 1:12.

Vincent: Rom 9:21

Lump ( φυράματος )

From φυράω to mix so as to make into dough . Hence any substance mixed with water and kneaded. Philo uses it of the human frame as compounded. By the lump is here meant human nature with its moral possibilities, " but not yet conceived of in its definite, individual, moral stamp" (Meyer). The figure of man as clay molded by God carries us back to the earliest traditions of the creation of man (Gen 2:7). According to primitive ideas man is regarded as issuing from the earth. The traditions of Libya made the first human being spring from the plains heated by the sun. The Egyptians declared that the Nile mud, exposed to the heat of the sun, brought forth germs which sprang up as the bodies of men. A subsequent divine operation endowed these bodies with soul and intellect, and the divine fashioner appears upon some monuments molding clay, wherewith to form man, upon a potter's wheel. The Peruvians called the first man " animated earth;" and the Mandans of North America related that the Great Spirit molded two figures of clay, which he dried and animated with the breath of his mouth, one receiving the name of First Man, the other that of Companion. The Babylonian account, translated by Berosus, represents man as made of clay after the manner of a statue. See Francois Lenormant, " Beginnings of History."

Vincent: Rom 9:21

To make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor ( ποιῆσαι ὃ μεν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος , ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν )

Rev., more correctly, to make one part a vessel unto honor , and another part , etc. For vessel , see on 1Pe 3:7; compare Mat 12:29; Act 9:15. The vessel here is the one which has just come from the potter's hand. Those in Rom 9:22 have been in household use.

Vincent: Rom 9:22

Willing ( θέλων )

Although willing, not because . Referring not to the determinate purpose of God, but to His spontaneous will growing out of His holy character. In the former sense, the meaning would be that God's long-suffering was designed to enhance the final penalty. The emphatic position of willing prepares the way for the contrast with long-suffering . Though this holy will would lead Him to show His wrath, yet He withheld His wrath and endured .

Vincent: Rom 9:22

Vessels of wrath ( σκεύη ὀργῆς )

Not filled with wrath , nor prepared to serve for a manifestation of divine wrath ; but appertaining to wrath . Such as by their own acts have fallen under His wrath. Compare Psa 2:9.

Vincent: Rom 9:22

Fitted ( κατηρτισμένα )

Lit., adjusted . See on mending , Mat 4:21; perfect , see on Mat 21:16; see on Luk 6:40; see on 1Pe 5:10. Not fitted by God for destruction , but in an adjectival sense, ready , ripe for destruction, the participle denoting a present state previously formed, but giving no hint of how it has been formed. An agency of some kind must be assumed. That the objects of final wrath had themselves a hand in the matter may be seen from 1Th 2:15, 1Th 2:16. That the hand of God is also operative may be inferred from the whole drift of the chapter. " The apostle has probably chosen this form because the being ready certainly arises from a continual reciprocal action between human sin and the divine judgment of blindness and hardness. Every development of sin is a net-work of human offenses and divine judgments" (Lange).

Vincent: Rom 9:23

And that He might make known

The connection is variously explained. Some make and that dependent on He endured: " If, willing to show His wrath.... God endured... and also that ." Others make that dependent on fitted : " Vessels fitted to destruction and also that He might make known ," etc. Godet supplies He called from Rom 9:24 : " And called that He might make known," etc. The difficulty is resolved by the omission of καὶ and . So Westcott and Hort, on the single authority of B. See Rev., in margin.

Vincent: Rom 9:23

His glory

See on Rom 3:23. Godet thinks the phrase was suggested by Moses' request, " Show me thy glory," Exo 33:18.

Vincent: Rom 9:23

Afore prepared ( προητοίμασεν )

Only here and Eph 2:10. The studied difference in the use of this term instead of καταρτίζω to fit (Rom 9:22), cannot be overlooked. The verb is not equivalent to foreordained (προορίζω ). Fitted , by the adjustment of parts, emphasizes the concurrence of all the elements of the case to the final result. Prepared is more general. In the former case the result is indicated; in the latter, the previousness . Note before prepared, while before is wanting in Rom 9:22. In this passage the direct agency of God is distinctly stated; in the other the agency is left indefinite. Here a single act is indicated; there a process . The simple verb ἑτοιμάζω often indicates, as Meyer remarks, to constitute qualitatively ; i.e., to arrange with reference to the reciprocal quality of the thing prepared, and that for which it is prepared. See Luk 1:17; Joh 14:2; 1Co 2:9; 2Ti 2:21. " Ah, truly," says Reuss, " if the last word of the christian revelation is contained in the image of the potter and the clay, it is a bitter derision of all the deep needs and legitimate desires of a soul aspiring toward its God. This would be at once a satire of reason upon herself and the suicide of revelation. But it is neither the last word nor the only word; nor has it any immediate observable bearing on the concrete development of our lives. It is not the only word, because, in nine-tenths of Scripture, it is as wholly excluded from the sphere of revelation as though it had been never revealed at all; and it is not the last word, because, throughout the whole of Scripture, and nowhere more than in the writings of the very apostle who has faced this problem with the most heroic inflexibility, we see bright glimpses of something beyond. How little we were intended to draw logical conclusions from the metaphor, is shown by the fact that we are living souls, not dead clay; and St. Paul elsewhere recognized a power, both within and without our beings, by which, as by an omnipotent alchemy, mean vessels can become precious, and vessels of earthenware be transmuted into vessels of gold" (Farrar). See note at end of ch. 11.

Vincent: Rom 9:24

Called - of

Compare Rom 8:30. For of , read from (ἐξ ), as Rev. From among.

Wesley: Rom 9:1

This seems to imply an appeal to him.

Wesley: Rom 9:1

Through his grace.

Wesley: Rom 9:2

A high degree of spiritual sorrow and of spiritual Joy may consist together, Rom 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.

Wesley: Rom 9:3

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:4

_He enumerates six prerogatives, of which the first pair respect God the Father, the second Christ, the third the Holy Ghost.

Wesley: Rom 9:4

That is, Israel is the first-born child of God, and the God of glory is their God, Deu 4:7; Psa 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, Gal 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.

Wesley: Rom 9:5

To the preceding, St. Paul now adds two more prerogatives.

Wesley: Rom 9:5

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:5

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:6

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:6

The promises of God to Israel.

Wesley: Rom 9:6

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:6

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, Rom 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.

Wesley: Rom 9:7

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:8

_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. Gen 21:12

Wesley: Rom 9:9

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. Gen 18:10.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

Whose purpose was, to elect or choose the promised seed.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

Not for any preceding merit in him he chose.

Wesley: Rom 9:10

Of his own good pleasure who called to that privilege whom he saw good.

Wesley: Rom 9:12

Esau.

Wesley: Rom 9:12

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

Wesley: Rom 9:13

With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees.

Wesley: Rom 9:13

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, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau 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. Mal 1:2-3.

Wesley: Rom 9:14

Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only.

Wesley: Rom 9:14

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:14

According to the terms I myself have fixed.

Wesley: Rom 9:14

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

Wesley: Rom 9:15

Exo 33:19.

Wesley: Rom 9:16

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.

Wesley: Rom 9:17

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. Exo 9:16.

Wesley: Rom 9:18

That is, accordingly he does show mercy on his own terms, namely, on them that believe.

Wesley: Rom 9:18

Namely, them that believe not.

Wesley: Rom 9:18

Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Wesley: Rom 9:19

The particle still is strongly expressive of the objector's sour, morose murmuring.

Wesley: Rom 9:19

The word his likewise expresses his surliness and aversion to God, whom he does not even deign to name.

Wesley: Rom 9:20

Little, impotent, ignorant man.

Wesley: Rom 9:20

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?

Wesley: Rom 9:21

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. Jer 18:6-7

Wesley: Rom 9:22

Referring to Rom 9:18-19. That is, although it was now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief, To show his wrath - Which necessarily presupposes sin.

Wesley: Rom 9:22

This is repeated from Rom 9:17.

Wesley: Rom 9:22

As he did Pharaoh.

Wesley: Rom 9:22

Which should have led them to repentance.

Wesley: Rom 9:22

Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy.

Wesley: Rom 9:22

By their own wilful and final impenitence. Is there any injustice in this ?

Wesley: Rom 9:23

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?

Wesley: Rom 9:24

Here the apostle comes to the other proposition, of grace free for all, whether Jew or gentile.

Wesley: Rom 9:24

This he treats of, Rom 9:25.

Wesley: Rom 9:24

Treated of in the same verse.

JFB: Rom 9:1-2

As if steeped in the spirit of Him who wept over impenitent and doomed Jerusalem (compare Rom 1:9; 2Co 12:19; Phi 1:8).

JFB: Rom 9:1-2

"my conscience as quickened, illuminated, and even now under the direct operation of the Holy Ghost."

JFB: Rom 9:2

"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.

JFB: Rom 9:3

"in behalf of"

JFB: Rom 9:3

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 (Exo 32:32).

JFB: Rom 9:4

See Rom 11:1; 2Co 11:22; Phi 3:5.

JFB: Rom 9:4

"whose is"

JFB: Rom 9:4

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 (Gal 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 (Exo 4:22; Deu 32:6; Isa 1:2; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; Mal 1:6).

JFB: Rom 9:4

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."

JFB: Rom 9:4

"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 Gal 3:16-17).

JFB: Rom 9:4

From Mount Sinai, and the possession of it thereafter, which the Jews justly deemed their peculiar honor (Deu 26:18-19; Psa 147:19-20; Rom 2:17).

JFB: Rom 9:4

Or, of the sanctuary, meaning the whole divinely instituted religious service, in the celebration of which they were brought so nigh unto God.

JFB: Rom 9:4

The great Abrahamic promises, successively unfolded, and which had their fulfilment only in Christ; (see Heb 7:6; Gal 3:16, Gal 3:21; Act 26:6-7).

JFB: Rom 9:5

Here, probably, the three great fathers of the covenant--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--by whom God condescended to name Himself (Exo 8:6, Exo 8:13; Luk 20:37).

JFB: Rom 9:5

Most exalted privilege of all, and as such, reserved to the last.

JFB: Rom 9:5

(See on Rom 1:3).

JFB: Rom 9:5

Or, "is Christ"

JFB: Rom 9:5

Rather, "God over all."

JFB: Rom 9:5

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," Psa 68:35; "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel," Psa 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 Rom 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.]

JFB: Rom 9:6

"hath fallen to the ground," that is, failed: compare Luk 16:17, Greek.

JFB: Rom 9:6

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 Rom 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.

JFB: Rom 9:7-9

"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."

JFB: Rom 9:7-9

The true election are such of Abraham's seed as God unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in that promise.

JFB: Rom 9:7-9

(Gen 21:12).

JFB: Rom 9:10-13

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."

JFB: Rom 9:14

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 Rom 9:19, where we have the second objection.

JFB: Rom 9:15

(Exo 33:19).

JFB: Rom 9:15

"on whom I have"

JFB: Rom 9:15

"on whom I have"

JFB: Rom 9:15

"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."

JFB: Rom 9:16

Hath the inward desire

JFB: Rom 9:16

Maketh active effort (compare 1Co 9:24, 1Co 9:26; Phi 2:16; Phi 3:14). Both these are indispensable to salvation, yet salvation is owing to neither, but is purely "of God that showeth mercy." See on Phi 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."

JFB: Rom 9:17

Observe here the light in which the Scripture is viewed by the apostle.

JFB: Rom 9:17

"this very"

JFB: Rom 9:17

"raised I"

JFB: Rom 9:17

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].

JFB: Rom 9:17

"may"

JFB: Rom 9:17

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].

JFB: Rom 9:17

"may"

JFB: Rom 9:17

"proclaimed"

JFB: Rom 9:17

"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].

JFB: Rom 9:18

"So then he hath." The result then is that He hath

JFB: Rom 9:18

By judicially abandoning them to the hardening influence of sin itself (Psa 81:11-12; Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:28; Heb 3:8, Heb 3:13), and of the surrounding incentives to it (Mat 24:12; 1Co 15:38; 2Th 2:17).

Second objection to the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty:

JFB: Rom 9:19

"Why then" is the true reading.

JFB: Rom 9:19

"Who resisteth"

JFB: Rom 9:19

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."

JFB: Rom 9:20-21

"didst thou make"

JFB: Rom 9:20-21

(Isa 45:9).

JFB: Rom 9:21

"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."

JFB: Rom 9:22-23

"designing to manifest"

JFB: Rom 9:22-23

His holy displeasure against sin.

JFB: Rom 9:22-23

To punish it

JFB: Rom 9:22-23

That is, "destined to wrath"; just as "vessels of mercy," in Rom 9:23, mean "vessels destined to mercy"; compare Eph 2:3, "children of wrath."

JFB: Rom 9:22-23

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.

JFB: Rom 9:23

That "glorious exuberance of Divine mercy" which "was manifested in choosing and eternally arranging for the salvation of sinners."

JFB: Rom 9:24

Rather, "Whom he hath also called, even us," &c., in not only "afore preparing," but in due time effectually "calling us."

JFB: Rom 9:24

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" (Act 28:14); and that subject, thus introduced, is now continued to the end of the eleventh chapter.

Clarke: Rom 9:1

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:3

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, Exo 32:10) begged that he himself should rather die than that the children of Israel should be destroyed, Exo 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. Wakefield 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 ευχομαι ειναι 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, etc. 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. Ηυχομην γαρ αυτος εγω αναθεμα ειναι απο του Χριστου ὑπερτων αδελφων μου, ‘ For I did wish myself to be an anathema From Christ ( ὑπο, By Christ, as some ancient MSS. read) for my brethren.’ As ηυχομην 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 αναθεμα, 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, Deu 7:25, Deu 7:26; Jos 6:17, Jos 6:18; Jos 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, Exo 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, (Rom 9:33 (note), point 1.). 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 Matthew 24), Paul is willing that in their place Christ should devote him: for I could wish myself, αναθεμα ειμαι απο (or, as some excellent MSS. have it, ὑπο ) του Χριστου, 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:4

Who are Israelites - Descendants of Jacob, a man so highly favored of God, and from whom he received his name Israel - a prince of God, Gen 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

Clarke: Rom 9:4

The adoption - The Israelites were all taken into the family of God, and were called his sons and first-born, Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; and this adoption took place when God made the covenant with them at Horeb

Clarke: Rom 9:4

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 favored

Clarke: Rom 9:4

The covenants - The covenants made with Abraham, both that which relates to the spiritual seed, and that which was peculiar to his natural descendants, Gal 3:16, Gal 3:17; which covenants were afterwards renewed by Moses, Deu 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 ברית berith , or covenant, Deu 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

Clarke: Rom 9:4

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

Clarke: Rom 9:4

The service - Λατρεια . 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

Clarke: Rom 9:4

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:5

Whose are the fathers - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, etc., etc., 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

Clarke: Rom 9:5

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, κατα σαρκα, 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, Joh 5:22; has given all things into his hands, Mat 28:18; he is Lord of all, Act 10:36. God has given him a name above every name, Phi 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, 1Co 15:27) under his feet and given him to be head over all things, Eph 1:21, Eph 1:22. This is our Lord’ s supreme Godhead. And that he is ευλογητος, blessed for ever, or the object of everlasting blessing, is evident from Rev 5:12, Rev 5:13 : Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power - and blessing and honor 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 Col 1:16, Col 1:17 : 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:6

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect - A Jew might have objected, as in Rom 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? Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8 : 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, Rom 4:16, Rom 4:17. 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:7

Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, etc. - 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

Clarke: Rom 9:7

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, Gen 25:1, Gen 25:2, particularly Ishmael, who was circumcised before Isaac was born, and in whom Abraham was desirous that the promise should be fulfilled, Gen 17:18, and in him God might have fulfilled the promise, had he so pleased; and yet he said to Abraham, Gen 21:12 : Not in Ishmael, but in Isaac, shall thy seed be called.

Clarke: Rom 9:8

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:9

For this is the word of promise, etc. - That is, this is evidently implied in the promise recorded Gen 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, Rom 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, Rom 9:7, Rom 9:8, etc., 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, Rom 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:10

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, Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23 : 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:11

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

Clarke: Rom 9:11

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:12

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 honor 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 Gen 32:4; Gen 33:8, Gen 33:13. 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, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, 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? Mal 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 endeavored 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 fullness 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, Mat 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 favor, 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 Genesis 27 (note).

Clarke: Rom 9:14

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:15

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy, etc. - The words of God to Moses, Exo 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 favor, 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:16

So then it is not of him that willeth, etc. - 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:17

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, Exo 9:15, Exo 9:16 : 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 Exo 9:15 (note), Exo 9:16 (note); and, about the hardening of Pharaoh, see the notes on those places where the words occur in the same book.

Clarke: Rom 9:18

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:19

Why doth he yet find fault? - The apostle here introduces the Jew making an objection similar to that in Rom 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?

Clarke: Rom 9:20

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."

Clarke: Rom 9:21

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, Jer 18:1, etc., 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 honorable and another to a less honorable 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 honorable place in the mansion, and therefore he made it for a less honorable place, but as necessary for the master’ s use there, as it could have been in a more honorable 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:22

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.

Clarke: Rom 9:23

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

Clarke: Rom 9:23

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, Psa 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, Rom 9:33; Rom 10:3; Rom 11:11, Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15, Rom 11:28, Rom 11:30. 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.

Clarke: Rom 9:24

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.

Calvin: Rom 9:1

In this chapter he begins to remove the offences which might have diverted the minds of men from Christ: for the Jews, for whom he was appointed according to the covenant of the law, not only rejected him, but regarded him with contempt, and for the most part bated him. Hence one of two things seemed to follow, — either that there was no truth in the Divine promise, — or that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was not the Lord’s anointed, who had been especially promised to the Jews. This twofold knot Paul fully unties in what follows. He, however, so handles this subject, as to abstain from all bitterness against the Jews, that he might not exasperate their minds; and yet he concedes to them nothing to the injury of the gospel; for he allows to them their privileges in such a way, as not to detract anything from Christ. But he passes, as it were abruptly, to the mention of this subject, so that there appears to be no connection in the discourse. ²⁸³ He, however, so enters on this new subject, as though he had before referred to it. It so happened in this way, — Having finished the doctrine he discussed, he turned his attention to the Jews, and being astonished at their unbelief as at something monstrous, he burst forth into this sudden protestation, in the same way as though it was a subject which he had previously handled; for there was no one to whom this thought would not of itself immediately occur, — “If this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets, how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?” And further, it was everywhere known, that all that he had hitherto spoken of the law of Moses, and of the grace of Christ, was more disliked by the Jews, than that the faith of the Gentiles should be assisted by their consent. It was therefore necessary to remove this obstacle, lest it should impede the course of the gospel.

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

The expression, In Christ, means “according to Christ.” ²⁸⁴ By adding I lie not, he signifies that he speaks without fiction or disguise. My conscience testifying to me, etc. By these words he calls his own conscience before the tribunal of God, for he brings in the Spirit as a witness to his feeling. He adduced the Spirit for this end, that he might more fully testify that he was free and pure from an evil disposition, and that he pleaded the cause of Christ under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of God. It often happens that a person, blinded by the passions of the flesh, (though not purposing to deceive,) knowingly and wilfully obscures the light of truth. But to swear by the name of God, in a proper sense of the word, is to call him as a witness for the purpose of confirming what is doubtful, and at the same time to bind ourselves over to his judgment, in case we say what is false.

Calvin: Rom 9:2

2.That I have great sorrow, etc He dexterously manages so to cut short his sentence as not yet to express what he was going to say; for it was not as yet seasonable openly to mention the destruction of the Jewish nation. It may be added, that he thus intimates a greater measure of sorrow, as imperfect sentences are for the most part full of pathos. But he will presently express the cause of his sorrow, after having more fully testified his sincerity.

But the perdition of the Jews caused very great anguish to Paul, though he knew that it happened through the will and providence of God. We hence learn that the obedience we render to God’s providence does not prevent us from grieving at the destruction of lost men, though we know that they are thus doomed by the just judgment of God; for the same mind is capable of being influenced by these two feelings: that when it looks to God it can willingly bear the ruin of those whom he has decreed to destroy; and that when it turns its thoughts to men, it condoles with their evils. They are then much deceived, who say that godly men ought: to have apathy and insensibility, (ἀπάθειαν καὶ ἀναλγησίαν) lest they should resist the decree of God.

Calvin: Rom 9:3

3.For I could wish, etc He could not have expressed a greater ardour of love than by what he testifies here; for that is surely perfect love which refuses not to die for the salvation of a friend. But there is another word added, anathema , which proves that he speaks not only of temporal but of eternal death; and he explains its meaning when he says, from Christ, for it signifies a separation. And what is to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the hope of salvation? It was then a proof of the most ardent love, that Paul hesitated not to wish for himself that condemnation which he saw impending over the Jews, in order that he might deliver them. It is no objection that he knew that his salvation was based on the election of God, which could by no means fail; for as those ardent feelings hurry us on impetuously, so they see and regard nothing but the object in view. So Paul did not connect God’s election with his wish, but the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the salvation of the Jews.

Many indeed doubt whether this was a lawful desire; but this doubt may be thus removed: the settled boundary of love is, that it proceeds as far as conscience permits; ²⁸⁵ if then we love in God and not without God’s authority, our love can never be too much. And such was the love of Paul; for seeing his own nation endued with so many of God’s benefits, he loved God’s gifts in them, and them on account of God’s gifts; and he deemed it a great evil that those gifts should perish, hence it was that his mind being overwhelmed, he burst forth into this extreme wish. ²⁸⁶

Thus I consent not to the opinion of those who think that Paul spoke these words from regard to God only, and not to men; nor do I agree with others, who say, that without any thought of God, he was influenced only by love to men: but I connect the love of men with a zeal for God’s glory.

I have not, however, as yet explained that which is the chief thing, — that the Jews are here regarded as they were adorned with those singular tokens, by which they were distinguished from the rest of mankind. For God had by his covenant so highly exalted them, that by their fall, the faithfulness and truth of God himself seemed also to fail in the world: for that covenant would have thus become void, the stability of which was promised to be perpetual, as long as the sun and moon should shine in heaven. (Psa 72:7.) So that the abolition of this would have been more strange, than the sad and ruinous confusion of the whole world. It was not therefore a simple and exclusive regard for men: for though it is better that one member should perish than the whole body; it was yet for this reason that Paul had such a high regard for the Jews, because he viewed them as bearing the character, and, as they commonly say, the quality of an elect people; and this will appear more evident, as we shall soon see, from what follows.

The words, my kinsmen according to the flesh, though they contain nothing new, do yet serve much for amplification. For first, lest any one should think that he willingly, or of his own accord, sought cause of quarrel with the Jews, he intimates, that he had not put off the feeling of kindred, so as not to be affected with the destruction of his own flesh. And secondly, since it was necessary that the gospel, of which he was the preacher, should go forth from Sion, he does not in vain pronounce an eulogy in so many words on his own kindred. For the qualifying expression, according to the flesh, is not in my view added for the sake of extenuation, as in other places, but, on the contrary, for the sake of expressing his faith: for though the Jews had disowned Paul, he yet concealed not the fact, that he had sprung from that nation, the election of whom was still strong in the root, though the branches had withered. What Budoeus says of the word anathema , is inconsistent with the opinion of [Chrysostom] , who makes ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα , to be the same.

Calvin: Rom 9:4

4.Who are Israelites, etc Here the reason is now more plainly given, why the destruction of that people caused him so much anguish, that he was prepared to redeem them by his own death, namely because they were Israelites; for the relative pronoun is put here instead of a causative adverb. In like manner this anxiety took hold on Moses, when he desired that he should be blotted out of the book of life, rather than that the holy and chosen race of Abraham should be reduced to nothing. (Exo 32:32.) Then in addition to his kind feeling, he mentions also other reasons, and those of a higher kind, which made him to favor the Jews, even because the Lord had, as it were, by a kind of privilege, so raised them, that they were separated from the common order of men: and these titles of dignity were testimonies of love; for we are not wont to speak thus favorably, but of those whom we love. And though by their ingratitude they rendered themselves unworthy to be esteemed on account of these gifts of God, yet Paul continued justly to respect them, that he might teach us that the ungodly cannot so contaminate the good endowments of God, but that they always deserve to be praised and admired: at the same time, those who abuse them acquire thereby nothing but a greater obloquy. But as we are not to act in such a manner as to contemn, through a detestation of the ungodly, the gifts of God in them; so, on the other hand, we must use prudence, lest by our kind esteem and regard for them we make them proud, and especially lest our praises bear the appearance of flattery. But let us imitate Paul, who conceded to the Jews their privileges in such a manner, that he afterwards declared that they were all of no worth without Christ. But it was not in vain that he mentioned this as one of their praises, — that they were Israelites; for Jacob prayed for this as a great favor, that they should be called by his name. (Gen 48:16.)

Whose are the adoption, etc The whole drift of Paul’s discourse is to this purpose, — that though the Jews by their defection had produced an ungodly divorce between God and themselves, yet the light of God’s favor was not wholly extinguished, according to what he had also said in Rom 3:3. They had indeed become unbelievers and had broken his covenant; but still their perfidy had not rendered void the faithfulness of God; for he had not only reserved for himself some remnant seed from the whole multitude, but had as yet continued, according to their hereditary right, the mime of a Church among them.

But though they had already stripped themselves of these ornaments, so that it availed them nothing to be called the children of Abraham, yet as there was a danger, lest through their fault the majesty of the gospel should be depreciated among the Gentiles, Paul does not regard what they deserved, but covers their baseness and disgraceful conduct by throwing vails over them, until the Gentiles were fully persuaded, that the gospel had flowed to them from the celestial fountain, from the sanctuary of God, from an elect nation. For the Lord, passing by other nations, had selected them as a people peculiar to himself, and had adopted them as his children, as he often testifies by Moses and the prophets; and not content simply to give them the name of children, he calls them sometimes his first-begotten, and sometimes his beloved. So the Lord says in Exo 4:22, —

“My first-begotten son is Israel; let my son go,
that he may serve me.”

In Jer 31:9, it is said,

“I am become a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-begotten:”

and again, “Is not my son Ephraim precious to me? Is he not a delightful child? Hence troubled for him are my bowels, and I will yet pity him.” By these words he means, not only to set forth his kindness towards the people of Israel, but rather to exhibit the efficacy of adoption, through which the promise of the celestial inheritance is conveyed.

Glory means the excellency into which the Lord had raised up that people above all other nations, and that in many and various ways, and especially by dwelling in the midst of them; for besides many other tokens of his presence, he exhibited a singular proof of it in the ark, where he gave responses, and also heard his people, that he might show forth his power in helping them: and for this reason it was called “the glory of God.” (1Sa 4:22.) ²⁸⁷

As he has distinguished here between covenants ²⁸⁸ and promises, we may observe this difference, — that a covenant is that which is expressed in distinct and accustomed words, and contains a mutual stipulation, as that which was made with Abraham; but promises are what we meet with everywhere in Scripture; for when God had once made a covenant with his ancient people, he continued to offer, often by new promises, his favor to them. It hence follows, that promises are to be traced up to the covenant as to their true source; in the same manner as the special helps of God, by which he testifies his love towards the faithful, may be said to flow from the true fountain of election. And as the law was nothing more than a renewal of the covenant, and more fully sanctioned the remembrance of it, legislation, or the giving of the law, seems to be here peculiarly applied to the things which the law decreed: for it was no common honor conferred on the Jewish people, that they had God as their lawgiver. For if some gloried in their Solons and Lycurguses, how much more reason was there to glory in the Lord? of this you have an account in Deu 4:32. By worship he understands that part of the law in which the legitimate manner of worshipping God is prescribed, such as rites and ceremonies. These ought to have been deemed lawful on account of God’s appointment; without which, whatever men devise is nothing but a profanation of religion.

Calvin: Rom 9:5

5.Whose are the fathers, etc It is indeed of some importance to be descended from saints and men beloved of God, since God promised to the godly fathers mercy with regard to their children, even to thousand generations, and especially in the words addressed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as we find in Gen 17:4, and in other passages. It matters not, that this by itself, when separated from the fear of God and holiness of life, is vain and useless: for we find the same to have been the case as to worship and glory, as it is evident everywhere in the prophets, especially in Isa 1:11; Isa 60:1; and also in Jer 7:4. But, as God dignified these things, when joined with attention to godliness, with some degree of honor, he justly enumerated them among the privileges of the Jews. They are indeed said to be the heirs of the promises for this very reason, — because they descended from the fathers. (Act 3:25.)

From whom, is Christ, etc They who apply this to the fathers, as though Paul meant only to say that Christ had descended from the fathers, have no reason to allege: for his object was to close his account of the pre-eminence of the Jews by this encomium, — that Christ proceeded from them; for it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed, to have been united by a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world; for if he had honored the whole human race, in joining himself to us by a community of nature, much more did he honor them, with whom he had a closer bond of union. It must at the same time be always maintained, that when this favor of being allied by kindred is unconnected with godliness, it is so far from being an advantage, that on the contrary it leads to a greater condemnation.

But we have here a remarkable passage, — that in Christ two natures are in such a manner distinguished, that they are at the same time united in the very person of Christ: for by saying that Christ had descended from the Jews, he declared his real humanity. The words according to the flesh, which are added, imply that he had something superior to flesh; and here seems to be an evident distinction made between humanity and divinity. But he at last connects both together, where he says, that the Christ, who had descended from the Jew’s according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever.

We must further observe, that this ascription of praise belongs to none but only to the true and eternal God; for he declares in another place, (1Ti 1:17,) that it is the true God alone to whom honor and glory are due. They who break off this clause from the previous context, that they may take away from Christ so clear a testimony to his divinity, most presumptuously attempt, to introduce darkness in the midst of the clearest light; for the words most evidently mean this, — Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever ²⁸⁹ And I doubt not, but that Paul, who had to contend hard with a reproach urged against him, did designedly raise up his own mind to the contemplation of the eternal glory of Christ; nor did he do this so much for his own sake individually, as for the purpose of encouraging others by his example to raise up their thoughts.

Calvin: Rom 9:6

6.Not however, etc Paul had been carried away by the ardour of his wish, as it were, into an excess of feeling, ( in ecstasin ,) but now, returning to discharge his office as a teacher, he adds what may be viewed as somewhat qualifying what he had said, as though he would restrain immoderate grief. And inasmuch as by deploring the ruin of his own nation, this inconsistency seems to follow, that the covenant made by God with the seed of Abraham had failed, (for the favor of God could not have been wanting to the Israelites without the covenant being abolished,) he reasonably anticipates this inconsistency, and shows, that notwithstanding the great blindness of the Jews, the favor of God continued still to that people, so that the truth of the covenant remained firm.

Some read, “But it is not possible,” etc., as though it were in Greek οἷον τε ²⁹⁰ but as I find this reading in no copy, I adopt the common reading, Not however that it had failed, etc., and according to this sense, “That I deplore the destruction of my nation is not because I think the promise, given formerly by God to Abraham, is now void or abolished.”

For not all, etc The statement is, — that the promise was so given to Abraham and to his seed, that the inheritance did not belong to every seed without distinction; it hence follows that the defection of some does not prove that the covenant does not remain firm and valid.

But that it may be more evident on what condition the Lord adopted the posterity of Abraham as a peculiar people to himself, two things are to be here considered. The first is, That the promise of salvation given to Abraham belongs to all who can trace their natural descent to him; for it is offered to all without exception, and for this reason they are rightly called the heirs of the covenant made with Abraham; and in this respect they are his successors, or, as Scripture calls them, the children of the promise. For since it was the Lord’s will that his covenant should be sealed, no less in Ishmael and Esau, than in Isaac and Jacob, it appears that they were not wholly alienated from him; except, it may be, you make no account of the circumcision, which was conferred on them by God’s command; but it cannot be so regarded without dishonor to God. But this belonged to them, according to what the Apostle had said before, “whose are the covenants,” though they were unbelieving; and in Act 3:25, they are called by Peter, the children of the covenants, because they were the descendants of the Prophets. The second point to be considered is, That the children of the promise are strictly those in whom its power and effect are found. On this account Paul denies here that all the children of Abraham were the children of God, though a covenant had been made with them by the Lord, for few continued in the faith of the covenant; and yet God himself testifies, in Eze 6:9, that they were all regarded by him as children. In short, when a whole people are called the heritage and the peculiar people of God, what is meant is, that they have been chosen by the Lord, the promise of salvation having been offered them and confirmed by the symbol of circumcision; but as many by their ingratitude reject this adoption, and thus enjoy in no degree its benefits, there arises among them another difference with regard to the fulfilment of the promise. That it might not then appear strange to any one, that this fulfilment of the promise was not evident in many of the Jews, Paul denies that they were included in the true election of God.

Some may prefer such a statement as this, — “The general election of the people of Israel is no hinderance, that God should not from them choose by his hidden counsel those whom he pleases.” It is indeed an illustrious example of gratuitous mercy, when God deigns to make a covenant of life with a nation: but his hidden favor appears more evident in that second election, which is confined to a part only.

But when he says, that all who are of Israel are not Israelites, and that all who are of the seed of Abraham are not children, it is a kind of change in the meaning of words, (παρονομασία); for in the first clause he includes the whole race, in the second he refers only to true sons, who were not become degenerated.

Calvin: Rom 9:7

7.But, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Paul mentions this, to show that the hidden election of God overrules the outward calling, and that it is yet by no means inconsistent with it, but, on the contrary, that it tends to its confirmation and completion. That he might then in due order prove both, he in the first place assumes, that the election of God is not tied to the natural descendants of Abraham, and that it is not a thing that is included in the conditions of the covenant: and this is what he now confirms by a most suitable example. For if there ought to have been any natural progeny, which fell not away from the covenant; this ought to have been especially the case with those who obtained the privilege at first: but when we find, that of the first sons of Abraham, while he was yet alive, and the promise new, one of them was separated as the seed, how much more might the same thing have taken place in his distant posterity? Now this testimony is taken from Gen 17:20, where the Lord gives an answer to Abraham, that he had heard his prayer for Ishmael, but that there would be another on whom the promised blessing would rest. It hence follows, that some men are by special privilege elected out of the chosen people, in whom the common adoption becomes efficacious and valid.

Calvin: Rom 9:8

8.That is, They are not, etc. He now gathers from God’s answer a proposition, which includes the whole of what he had in view. For if Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the seed, though the one as well as the other was Abraham’s son, it must be that all natural sons are not to be regarded as the seed, but that the promise is specially fulfilled only in some, and that it does not belong commonly and equally to all. He calls those the children of the flesh, who have nothing superior to a natural descent; as they are the children of the promise, who are peculiarly selected by the Lord.

Calvin: Rom 9:9

9.For the word of promise is this, etc He adds another divine testimony; and we see, by the application made of it, with what care and skill he explains Scripture. When he says, the Lord said that he would come, and that a son would be born to Abraham of Sarah, he intimated that his blessing was not yet conferred, but that it was as yet suspended. ²⁹¹ But Ishmael was already born when this was said: then God’s blessing had no regard to Ishmael. We may also observe, by the way, the great caution with which he proceeds here, lest he should exasperate the Jews. The cause being passed over, he first simply states the fact; he will hereafter open the fountain.

Calvin: Rom 9:10

10.And not only, etc There are in this chapter some broken sentences, such as this is, — But Rebecca also, who had conceived by one, our father Isaac; for he leaves off in the middle, before he comes to the principal verb. The meaning, however, is, that the difference as to the possession of the promise may not only be seen in the children of Abraham, but that there is a much more evident example in Jacob and Esau: for in the former instance some might allege that their condition was unequal, the one being the son of an handmaid; but these were of the same mother, and were even twins: yet one was rejected, and the other was chosen by the Lord. It is hence clear, that the fulfilment of the promise does not take place in all the children of the flesh indiscriminately.

And as Paul refers to the persons to whom God made known his purpose, I prefer to regard a masculine pronoun to be understood, rather than a neuter, as [Erasmus] has done: for the meaning is, that God’s special election had not been revealed only to Abraham, but also to Rebecca, when she brought forth her twins. ²⁹²

Calvin: Rom 9:11

11.For when the children, etc He now begins to ascend higher, even to show the cause of this difference, which he teaches us is nowhere else to be found except in the election of God. He had indeed before briefly noticed, that there was a difference between the natural children of Abraham, that though all were adopted by circumcision into a participation of the covenant, yet the grace of God was not effectual in them all; and hence that they, who enjoy the favor of God, are the children of the promise. But how it thus happened, he has been either silent or has obscurely hinted. Now indeed he openly ascribes the whole cause to the election of God, and that gratuitous, and in no way depending on men; so that in the salvation of the godly nothing higher ( nihil superius ) must be sought than the goodness of God, and nothing higher in the perdition of the reprobate than his just severity.

Then the first proposition is, — “As the blessing of the covenant separates the Israelitic nation from all other people, so the election of God makes a distinction between men in that nation, while he predestinates some to salvation, and others to eternal condemnation.” The second proposition is, — “There is no other basis for this election than the goodness of God alone, and also since the fall of Adam, his mercy; which embraces whom he pleases, without any regard whatever to their works.” The third is, — “The Lord in his gratuitous election is free and exempt from the necessity of imparting equally the same grace to all; but, on the contrary, he passes by whom he wills, and whom he wills he chooses.” All these things Paul briefly includes in one sentence: he then goes on to other things.

Moreover, by these words, When the children had not yet been born, nor had done any good or evil, he shows, that God in making a difference could not have had any regard to works, for they were not yet done. Now they who argue on the other side, and say, that this is no reason why the election of God should not make a difference between men according to the merits of works, for God foresees who those are who by future works would be worthy or unworthy of his grace, are not more clear-sighted than Paul, but stumble at a principle in theology, which ought to be well known to all Christians, namely, that God can see nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, to induce him to manifest his favor. When therefore he says, that neither of them had then done any good or evil, what he took as granted must also be added, — that they were both the children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no particle of righteousness.

I do not dwell thus long on explaining these things, because the meaning of the Apostle is obscure; but as the Sophists, being not content with his plain sense, endeavour to evade it by frivolous distinctions, I wished to show, that Paul was by no means ignorant of those things which they allege.

It may further be said, that though that corruption alone, which is diffused through the whole race of man, is sufficient, before it breaks out, as they say, into action, for condemnation, and hence it follows, that Esau was justly rejected, for he was naturally a child of wrath, it was yet necessary, lest any doubt should remain, as though his condition became worse through any vice or fault, that sins no less than virtues should be excluded. It is indeed true, that the proximate cause of reprobation is the curse we all inherit from Adam; yet, that we may learn to acquiesce in the bare and simple good pleasure of God, Paul withdraws us from this view, until he has established this doctrine, — That God has a sufficiently just reason for electing and for reprobating, in his own will. ²⁹³

That the purpose of God according to election, etc He speaks of the gratuitous election of God almost in every instance. If works had any place, he ought to have said, — “That his reward might stand through works;” but he mentions the purpose of God, which is included, so to speak, in his own good pleasure alone. And that no ground of dispute might remain on the subject, he has removed all doubt by adding another clause, according to election, and then a third, not through works, but through him who calls. Let us now then apply our minds more closely to this passage: Since the purpose of God according to election is established in this way, — that before the brothers were born, and had done either good or evil, one was rejected and the other chosen; it hence follows, that when any one ascribes the cause of the difference to their works, he thereby subverts the purpose of God. Now, by adding, not through works, but through him who calls, he means, not on account of works, but of the calling only; for he wishes to exclude works altogether. We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the purpose of God alone: here merits avail nothing, as they issue in nothing but death; no worthiness is regarded, for there is none; but the goodness of God reigns alone. False then is the dogma, and contrary to God’s word, — that God elects or rejects, as he foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of his favor. ²⁹⁴

Calvin: Rom 9:12

12.The elder shall serve the younger See how the Lord makes a difference between the sons of Isaac, while they were as yet in their mother’s womb; for this was the heavenly answer, by which it appeared that God designed to show to the younger peculiar favor, which he denied to the elder. Though this indeed had reference to the right of primogeniture, yet in this, as the symbol of something greater, was manifested the will of God: and that this was the case we may easily perceive, when we consider what little benefit, according to the flesh, Jacob derived from his primogeniture. For he was, on its account, exposed to great danger; and to avoid this danger, he was obliged to quit his home and his country, and was unkindly treated in his exile: when he returned, he tremblingly, and in doubt of his life, prostrated himself at the feet of his brother, humbly asked forgiveness for his offence, and lived through the indulgence shown to him. Where was his dominion over his brother, from whom he was constrained to seek by entreaty his life? There was then something greater than the primogeniture promised in the answer given by the Lord.

Calvin: Rom 9:13

13.As it is written, Jacob I loved, etc He confirms, by a still stronger testimony, how much the heavenly answer, given to Rebecca, availed to his present purpose, that is, that the spiritual condition of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and servitude of Esau, and also that Jacob obtained this favor through the kindness of God, and not through his own merit. Then this testimony of the prophet shows the reason why the Lord conferred on Jacob the primogeniture: and it is taken from the first chapter of Malachi, where the Lord, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude, mentions his former kindness to them, — “I have loved you,” he says; and then he refers to the origin of his love, — “Was not Esau the brother of Jacob?” as though he said, — “What privilege had he, that I should prefer him to his brother? None whatever. It was indeed an equal right, except that by the law of nature the younger ought to have served the elder; I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. I therefore chose you for my people, that I might show the same kindness to the seed of Jacob; but I rejected the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Ye are then so much the worse, inasmuch as the remembrance of so great a favor cannot stimulate you to adore my majesty.” ²⁹⁵ Now, though earthly blessings are there recorded, which God had conferred on the Israelites, it is not yet right to view them but as symbols of his benevolence: for where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where his love is, there is life.

Calvin: Rom 9:14

14.What then shall we say? === etc. The flesh cannot hear of this wisdom of God without being instantly disturbed by numberless questions, and without attempting in a manner to call God to an account. We hence find that the Apostle, whenever he treats of some high mystery, obviates the many absurdities by which he knew the minds of men would be otherwise possessed; for when men hear anything of what Scripture teaches respecting predestination, they are especially entangled with very many impediments.

The predestination of God is indeed in reality a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately, through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea. What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing concerning it, except what Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us hear from Paul how they are to be met.

===Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.

But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.

Calvin: Rom 9:15

15.For he saith to Moses, etc ²⁹⁶ With regard to the elect, God cannot be charged with any unrighteousness; for according to his good pleasure he favors them with mercy: and yet even in this case the flesh finds reasons for murmuring, for it cannot concede to God the right of showing favor to one and not to another, except the cause be made evident. As then it seems unreasonable that some should without merit be preferred to others, the petulancy of men quarrels with God, as though he deferred to persons more than what is right. Let us now see how Paul defends the righteousness of God.

In the first place, he does by no means conceal or hide what he saw would be disliked, but proceeds to maintain it with inflexible firmness. And in the second place, he labours not to seek out reasons to soften its asperity, but considers it enough to check vile barkings by the testimonies of Scripture.

It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none, Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he prayed for the salvation of the whole people, “I will show mercy,” was God’s answer, “on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all. The words indeed mean as much as though he had said, “From him to whom I have once purposed to show mercy, I will never take it away; and with perpetual kindness will I follow him to whom I have determined to be kind.” And thus he assigns the highest reason for imparting grace, even his own voluntary purpose, and also intimates that he has designed his mercy peculiarly for some; for it is a way of speaking which excludes all outward causes, as when we claim to ourselves the free power of acting, we say, “I will do what I mean to do.” The relative pronoun also expressly intimates, that mercy is not to all indiscriminately. His freedom is taken away from God, when his election is bound to external causes.

The only true cause of salvation is expressed in the two words used by Moses. The first is חנן , chenen, which means to favor or to show kindness freely and bountifully; the other is רחם , rechem, which is to be treated with mercy. Thus is confirmed what Paul intended, that the mercy of God, being gratuitous, is under no restraint, but turns wherever it pleases. ²⁹⁷

Calvin: Rom 9:16

16.It is not then of him who wills, etc From the testimony adduced he draws this inference, that beyond all controversy our election is not to be ascribed to our diligence, nor to our striving, nor to our efforts, but that it is wholly to be referred to the counsel of God. That none of you may think that they who are elected are elected because they are deserving, or because they had in any way procured for themselves the favor of God, or, in short, because they had in them a particle of worthiness by which God might be moved, take simply this view of the matter, that it is neither by our will nor efforts, (for he has put running for striving or endeavour,) that we are counted among the elect, but that it wholly depends on the divine goodness, which of itself chooses those who neither will, nor strive, nor even think of such a thing. And they who reason from this passage, that there is in us some power to strive, but that it effects nothing of itself unless assisted by God’s mercy, maintain what is absurd; for the Apostle shows not what is in us, but excludes all our efforts. It is therefore a mere sophistry to say that we will and run, because Paul denies that it is of him who wills or runs, since he meant nothing else than that neither willing nor running can do anything.

They are, however, to be condemned who remain secure and idle on the pretence of giving place to the grace of God; for though nothing is done by their own striving, yet that effort which is influenced by God is not ineffectual. These things, then, are not said that we may quench the Spirit of God, while kindling sparks within us, by our waywardness and sloth; but that we may understand that everything we have is from him, and that we may hence learn to ask all things of him, to hope for all things from him, and to ascribe all things to him, while we are prosecuting the work of our salvation with fear and trembling.

[Pelagius] has attempted by another sophistical and worthless cavil to evade this declaration of Paul, that it is not only of him who wills and runs, because the mercy of God assists. But [Augustine] , not less solidly than acutely, thus refuted him, “If the will of man is denied to be the cause of election, because it is not the sole cause, but only in part; so also we may say that it is not of mercy but of him who wills and runs, for where there is a mutual cooperation, there ought to be a reciprocal commendation: but unquestionably the latter sentiment falls through its own absurdity.” Let us then feel assured that the salvation of those whom God is pleased to save, is thus ascribed to his mercy, that nothing may remain to the contrivance of man. ²⁹⁸

Nor is there much more colour for what some advance, who think that these things are said in the person of the ungodly; for how can it be right to turn passages of Scripture in which the justice of God is asserted, for the purpose of reproaching him with tyranny? and then is it probable that Paul, when the refutation was at hand and easy, would have suffered the Scripture to be treated with gross mockery? But such subterfuges have they laid hold on, who absurdly measured this incomparable mystery of God by their own judgment. To their delicate and tender ears this doctrine was more grating than that they could think it worthy of an Apostle. But they ought rather to have bent their own stubbornness to the obedience of the Spirit, that they might not surrender themselves up to their gross inventions.

Calvin: Rom 9:17

17.For the Scripture saith, etc He comes now to the second part, the rejection of the ungodly, and as there seems to be something more unreasonable in this, he endeavours to make it more fully evident, how God, in rejecting whom he wills, is not only irreprehensible, but also wonderful in his wisdom and justice. He then takes his proof from Exo 9:16, where the Lord declares that it was he who raised up Pharaoh for this end, that while he obstinately strove to resist the power of God, he might, by being overcome and subdued, afford a proof how invincible the arm of God is; to bear which, much less to resist it, no human power is able. See then the example which the Lord designed to exhibit in Pharaoh! ²⁹⁹

There are here two things to be considered, — the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden counsel of God, — and then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God; and on this does Paul primarily dwell: for if this hardening was of such a kind, that on its account the name of God deserved to be made known, it is an impious thing, according to evidence derived from the contrary effect, to charge him with any unrighteousness.

But as many interpreters, striving to modify this passage, pervert it, we must first observe, that for the word, “I have raised,” or stirred up, ( excitavi ,) the Hebrew is, “I have appointed,” ( constitui ,) by which it appears, that God, designing to show, that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent him to deliver his people, not only affirms, that his fury had been foreseen by him, and that he had prepared means for restraining it, but that he had also thus designedly ordained it, and indeed for this end, — that he might exhibit a more illustrious evidence of his own power. ³⁰⁰ Absurdly then do some render this passage, — that Pharaoh was preserved for a time; for his beginning is what is spoken of here. For, seeing many things from various quarters happen to men, which retard their purposes and impede the course of their actions, God says, that Pharaoh proceeded from him, and that his condition was by himself assigned to him: and with this view agrees the verb, I have raised up. But that no one may imagine, that Pharaoh was moved from above by some kind of common and indiscriminate impulse, to rush headlong into that madness, the special cause, or end, is mentioned; as though it had been said, — that God not only knew what Pharaoh would do, but also designedly ordained him for this purpose. It hence follows, that it is in vain to contend with him, as though he were bound to give a reason; for he of himself comes forth before us, and anticipates the objection, by declaring, that the reprobate, through whom he designs his name to be made known, proceed from the hidden fountain of his providence.

Calvin: Rom 9:18

18.To whom he wills then he showeth mercy, etc Here follows the conclusion of both parts; which can by no means be understood as being the language of any other but of the Apostle; for he immediately addresses an opponent, and adduces what might have been objected by an opposite party. There is therefore no doubt but that Paul, as we have already reminded you, speaks these things in his own person, namely, that God, according to his own will, favors with mercy them whom he pleases, and unsheathes the severity of his judgment against whomsoever it seemeth him good. That our mind may be satisfied with the difference which exists between the elect and the reprobate, and may not inquire for any cause higher than the divine will, his purpose was to convince us of this — that it seems good to God to illuminate some that they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish: for we ought particularly to notice these words, to whom he wills, and, whom he wills: beyond this he allows us not to proceed.

But the word hardens, when applied to God in Scripture, means not only permission, (as some washy moderators would have it,) but also the operation of the wrath of God: for all those external things, which lead to the blinding of the reprobate, are the instruments of his wrath; and Satan himself, who works inwardly with great power, is so far his minister, that he acts not, but by his command. ³⁰¹ Then that frivolous evasion, which the schoolmen have recourse to respecting foreknowledge, falls to the ground: for Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will; and Solomon teaches as the same thing, — that not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end — that they may perish. (Pro 16:4.)

Calvin: Rom 9:19

19.Thou wilt then say, etc Here indeed the flesh especially storms, that is, when it hears that they who perish have been destined by the will of God to destruction. Hence the Apostle adopts again the words of an opponent; for he saw that the mouths of the ungodly could not be restrained from boldly clamouring against the righteousness of God: and he very fitly expresses their mind; for being not content with defending themselves, they make God guilty instead of themselves; and then, after having devolved on him the blame of their own condemnation, they become indignant against his great power. ³⁰² They are indeed constrained to yield; but they storm, because they cannot resist; and ascribing dominion to him, they in a manner charge him with tyranny. In the same manner the Sophists in their schools foolishly dispute on what they call his absolute justice, as though forgetful of his own righteousness, he would try the power of his authority by throwing all things into confusion. Thus then speak the ungodly in this passage, — “What cause has he to be angry with us? Since he has formed us such as we are, since he leads us at his will where he pleases, what else does he in destroying us but punish his own work in us? For it is not in our power to contend with him; how much soever we may resist, he will yet have the upper hand. Then unjust will be his judgment, if he condemns us; and unrestrainable is the power which he now employs towards us.” What does Paul say to these things?

Calvin: Rom 9:20

20.But, O man! who art thou? etc ³⁰³ As it is a participle in Greek, we may read what follows in the present tense, who disputest, or contendest, or strivest in opposition to God; for it is expressed in Greek according to this meaning, — “Who art thou who enterest into a dispute with God?” But there is not much difference in the sense. ³⁰⁴ In this first answer, he does nothing else but beat down impious blasphemy by an argument taken from the condition of man: he will presently subjoin another, by which he will clear the righteousness of God from all blame.

It is indeed evident that no cause is adduced higher than the will of God. Since there was a ready answer, that the difference depends on just reasons, why did not Paul adopt such a brief reply? But he placed the will of God in the highest rank for this reason, — that it alone may suffice us for all other causes. No doubt, if the objection had been false, that God according to his own will rejects those whom he honors not with his favor, and chooses those whom he gratuitously loves, a refutation would not have been neglected by Paul. The ungodly object and say, that men are exempted from blame, if the will of God holds the first place in their salvation, or in their perdition. Does Paul deny this? Nay, by his answer he confirms it, that is, that God determines concerning men, as it seems good to him, and that, men in vain and madly rise up to contend with God; for he assigns, by his own right, whatever lot he pleases to what he forms.

But they who say that Paul, wanting reason, had recourse to reproof, cast a grievous calumny on the Holy Spirit: for the things calculated to vindicate God’s justice, and ready at hand, he was at first unwilling to adduce, for they could not have been comprehended; yea, he so modifies his second reason, that he does not undertake a full defence, but in such a manner as to give a sufficient demonstration of God’s justice, if it be considered by us with devout humility and reverence.

He reminds man of what is especially meet for him to remember, that is, of his own condition; as though he had said, — “Since thou art man, thou ownest thyself to be dust and ashes; why then doest thou contend with the Lord about that which thou art not able to understand?” In a word, the Apostle did not bring forward what might have been said, but what is suitable to our ignorance. Proud men clamour, because Paul, admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God, alleges no cause; as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason, and not rather, that by his silence he reminds us, that a mystery which our minds cannot comprehend ought to be reverently adored, and that he thus checks the wantonness of human curiosity. Let us then know, that God does for no other reason refrain from speaking, but that he sees that we cannot contain his immense wisdom in our small measure; and thus regarding our weakness, he leads us to moderation and sobriety.

Does what is formed? etc We see that Paul dwells continually on this, — that the will of God, though its reason is hid from us, is to be counted just; for he shows that he is deprived of his right, if he is not at liberty to determine what he sees meet concerning his creatures. This seems unpleasant to the ears of many. There are also those who pretend that God is exposed to great reproach were such a power ascribed to him, as though they in their fastidiousness were better divines than Paul, who has laid down this as the rule of humility to the faithful, that they are to admire the sovereignty of God, and not to estimate it by their own judgment.

But he represses this arrogance of contending with God by a most apt similitude, in which he seems to have alluded to Isa 45:9, rather than to Jer 18:6; for nothing else is taught us by Jeremiah, than that Israel was in the hand of the Lord, so that he could for his sins wholly break him in pieces, as a potter the earthen vessel. But Isaiah ascends higher, “Woe to him,” he says, “who speaks against his maker;” that is, the pot that contends with the former of the clay; “shall the clay say to its former, what doest thou?” etc. And surely there is no reason for a mortal man to think himself better than earthen vessel, when he compares himself with God. We are not however to be over-particular in applying this testimony to our present subject, since Paul only meant to allude to the words of the Prophet, in order that the similitude might have more weight. ³⁰⁵

Calvin: Rom 9:21

21.Has not the worker of the clay? etc The reason why what is formed ought not to contend with its former, is, that the former does nothing but what he has a right to do. By the word power, he means not that the maker has strength to do according to his will, but that this privilege rightly and justly belongs to him. For he intends not to claim for God any arbitrary power but what ought to be justly ascribed to him.

And further, bear this in mind, — that as the potter takes away nothing from the clay, whatever form he may give it; so God takes away nothing from man, in whatever condition he may create him. Only this is to be remembered, that God is deprived of a portion of his honor, except such an authority over men be conceded to him as to constitute him the arbitrator of life and death. ³⁰⁶

Calvin: Rom 9:22

22.And what, etc A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.

The particles, εἰ δὲ, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what if? so that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be more evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this as being understood, — “Who then can charge him with unrighteousness, or arraign him? ” for here appears nothing but the most perfect course of justice. ³⁰⁷

But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be examined. He then argues thus, — There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth; — what is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behoves us rather to adore than to scrutinize.

And he has mentioned vessels, as commonly signifying instruments; for whatever is done by all creatures, is, as it were, the ministration of divine power. For the best reason then are we, the faithful, called the vessels of mercy, whom the Lord uses as instruments for the manifestation of his mercy; and the reprobate are the vessels of wrath, because they serve to show forth the judgments of God.

Calvin: Rom 9:23

23.That he might also make known the riches of his glory, etc I doubt not but the two particles καὶ ἵνα, is an instance of a construction, where the first word is put last; (ὕστερον πρότερον) and that this clause may better unite with the former, I have rendered it, That he might also make known, etc. ( Ut notas quoque faceret , etc.) It is the second reason which manifests the glory of God in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known; for how do they differ from them except that they are delivered by the Lord from the same gulf of destruction? and this by no merit of their own, but through his gratuitous kindness. It cannot then be but that the infinite mercy of God towards the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not his wrath.

The word glory, which is here twice mentioned, I consider to have been used for God’s mercy, a metonymy of effect for the cause; for his chief praise or glory is in acts of kindness. So in Eph 1:13, after having taught us, that we have been adopted to the praise of the glory of his grace, he adds, that we are sealed by the Spirit of promise unto the praise of his glory, the word grace being left out. He wished then to show, that the elect are instruments or vessels through whom God exercises his mercy, that through them he may glorify his name.

Though in the second clause he asserts more expressly that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot.

Calvin: Rom 9:24

24.Whom he also called, etc From the reasoning which he has been hitherto carrying on respecting the freedom of divine election, two things follow, — that the grace of God is not so confined to the Jewish people that it does not also flow to other nations, and diffuse itself through the whole world, — and then, that it is not even so tied to the Jews that it comes without exception to all the children of Abraham according to the flesh; for if God’s election is based on his own good pleasure alone, wherever his will turns itself, there his election exists. Election being then established, the way is now in a manner prepared for him to proceed to those things which he designed to say respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and also respecting the rejection of the Jews; the first of which seemed strange for its novelty, and the other wholly unbecoming. As, however, the last had more in it to offend, he speaks in the first place of that which was less disliked. He says then, that the vessels of God’s mercy, whom he selects for the glory of his name, are taken from every people, from the Gentiles no less than from the Jews.

But though in the relative whom the rule of grammar is not fully observed by Paul, ³⁰⁹ yet his object was, by making as it were a transition, to subjoin that we are the vessels of God’s glory, who have been taken in part from the Jews and in part from the Gentiles; and he proves from the calling of God, that there is no difference between nations made in election. For if to be descended from the Gentiles was no hinderance that God should not call us, it is evident that the Gentiles are by no means to be excluded from the kingdom of God and the covenant of eternal salvation.

Defender: Rom 9:6

In this section, Paul is clearly speaking about "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3), not about the Gentile church. Nevertheless, God's election of Israel refers ultimately only to those Israelites who become true children of God by faith. In the coming kingdom, the nation of Israel will be the leading nation of the world (Zec 14:16), with the twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luk 22:29, Luk 22:30), but the Israelites who participate in the kingdom will only be those who have acknowledged the returning Christ as their Messiah and Redeemer (Zec 12:10, Zec 12:11). In the meantime, Israelites who accept Christ in this age are also part of true Israel, while simultaneously being part of the Christian church, in practice being no different from Gentile Christians (Col 3:11)."

Defender: Rom 9:7

Of all the biological children of Abraham (Gen 17:18, Gen 17:19; Gen 25:1, Gen 25:2), only Isaac was in the line of promise. In fact, the promised seed in its ultimate fulfillment was none other than Christ Himself (Gal 3:16)."

Defender: Rom 9:8

Again this has a dual application. Only those Israelites who are saved by faith in Christ participate in God's ultimate promises to the nation of Israel. Likewise all who come to Christ by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, are spiritual children of Abraham, saved through the promised seed."

Defender: Rom 9:11

God is Creator of all and needs no human justification for His actions. It is His prerogative to choose whomever He will. We can be confident that His "purpose" is good and holy, whether or not we understand it now; it is our responsibility simply to trust and thank Him.

Defender: Rom 9:11

Before Esau and Jacob were born, they had no record of works, so God could not have chosen one of them on that basis. But neither had either one yet exhibited either faith or rebellion, so God's election of Jacob rather than Esau was not because of either works or faith, "but of him that calleth." In due time, of course, Jacob did manifest saving faith and demonstrate its validity by his works, but both had been foreordained by God in ways inscrutable to man."

Defender: Rom 9:12

This revelation expressing God's purpose had been given to Rebekah while the twins were struggling in her womb (Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23), and she undoubtedly transmitted this word to Isaac, but the latter nevertheless continued to favor Esau over Jacob until God overruled him in traumatic fashion (see notes on Genesis 25-27). It is noteworthy that, in the line of the promised seed, God often chose a younger son, over-riding the natural human tendency to choose the elder (Seth over Cain, Shem over Japheth, Isaac over Ishmael, Judah over Reuben, Pharez over Er, David over Eliab). Of all in the line of promise whose brothers' names are given, only Abraham and Jesus Himself were firstborn sons."

Defender: Rom 9:13

Undoubtedly, "hated" is used here only in a relative sense. Note a similar usage by Jesus (Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3; Luk 14:26)."

Defender: Rom 9:15

This was said to Moses in response to Moses' request to see the glory of God (Exo 33:19). Since there are none who merit salvation, there are none who are fit (or who can make themselves fit) to be in God's immediate presence. Therefore, it is entirely by God's mercy that any at all are saved, and He surely has the divine right by creation to show mercy on whomever He will (Rom 9:16)."

Defender: Rom 9:17

Note here that Paul equates the word spoken by God with "scripture" (Exo 9:16). The fact that this pronouncement of God was written down by Moses (the Greek word for "Scripture" was graphe, meaning a "written document") gave the writing the authority of God Himself. Note Paul's summary in 2Ti 3:16, 2Ti 3:17."

Defender: Rom 9:18

It was said several times that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Exo 7:3, Exo 7:13; Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20; Exo 11:10; Exo 14:4). But also it was noted that Pharaoh often hardened his own heart (Exo 7:4, Exo 7:14, Exo 7:22; Exo 8:15, Exo 8:19, Exo 8:32; Exo 9:7, Exo 9:34). In some mysterious way, our human decisions (for which we bear full responsibility) have also been God's decisions, and vice versa. This is beyond our finite comprehension and we should not try to rationalize it by some human device of reasoning. What God does is right, by definition (Gen 18:25; Psa 33:4) and His ways are "past finding out" (Rom 11:33; Psa 139:6). We must simply trust Him in whatever He does, knowing that He is accomplishing His own eternal purposes thereby (Rom 9:22, Rom 9:23)."

Defender: Rom 9:20

We have no right to ask God: "Why?" Remember that He answered Job's pleas for understanding merely by reminding Job of the fact of creation (Job 38-41). As our great Potter, He has the right to make His pottery vessels both for honor and dishonor (Rom 9:21). We who have been redeemed by His mercy should be grateful that He chose us even before the world began (Eph 1:3, Eph 1:4; 2Ti 1:9), confident that He - by whatever means He chooses - is preparing His "vessels of mercy" (Rom 9:23) to receive the full manifestation of His glory in the ages to come (Eph 2:10). The fact that our finite minds cannot comprehend the simultaneous operation of divine election and human responsibility is irrelevant. Both Scripture and human experience demonstrate both to be true. We must both rest in that fact and act in light of it."

TSK: Rom 9:1

I say : Rom 1:9; 2Co 1:23, 2Co 11:31, 2Co 12:19; Gal 1:20; Phi 1:8; 1Th 2:5; 1Ti 2:7, 1Ti 5:21

my conscience : Rom 2:15, Rom 8:16; 2Co 1:12; 1Ti 1:5; 1Jo 3:19-21

TSK: Rom 9:2

Rom 10:1; 1Sa 15:35; Psa 119:136; Isa 66:10; Jer 9:1, Jer 13:17; Lam 1:12; Lam 3:48, Lam 3:49, Lam 3:51; Eze 9:4; Luk 19:41-44; Phi 3:18; Rev 11:3

TSK: Rom 9:3

I could : Exo 32:32

were : Deu 21:23; Jos 6:17, Jos 6:18; 1Sa 14:24, 1Sa 14:44; Gal 1:8, Gal 3:10,Gal 3:13

accursed : or, separated

my kinsmen : Rom 11:1; Gen 29:14; Est 8:6; Act 7:23-26, Act 13:26

TSK: Rom 9:4

are Israelites : Rom 9:6; Gen 32:28; Exo 19:3-6; Deu 7:6; Psa 73:1; Isa 41:8, Isa 46:3; Joh 1:47

the adoption : Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Jer 31:9, Jer 31:20; Hos 11:1

and the glory : Num 7:89; 1Sa 4:21, 1Sa 4:22; 1Ki 8:11; Psa 63:2, Psa 78:61, Psa 90:16; Isa 60:19

covenants : or, testaments, Gen 15:18, Gen 17:2, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:10; Exo 24:7, Exo 24:8, Exo 34:27; Deu 29:1, Deu 31:16; Neh 13:29; Psa 89:3, Psa 89:34; Jer 31:33, Jer 33:20-25; Act 3:25; Heb 8:6-10

the giving : Rom 3:2; Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14; Psa 147:19; Eze 20:11, Eze 20:12; Joh 1:17

the service : Exo 12:25; Isa 5:2; Mat 21:33; Heb 9:3, Heb 9:10

promises : Luk 1:54, Luk 1:55, Luk 1:69-75; Act 2:39, Act 3:25, Act 3:26, Act 13:32, Act 13:33; Eph 2:12; Heb 6:13-17

TSK: Rom 9:5

are the fathers : Rom 11:28; Deu 10:15

of whom : Rom 1:3; Gen 12:3, Gen 49:10; Isa 7:14, Isa 11:1; Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38; 2Ti 2:8; Rev 22:16

who is : Rom 10:12; Psa 45:6, Psa 103:19; Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7; Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6; Mic 5:2; Joh 1:1-3; Joh 10:30; Act 20:28; Phi 2:6-11; Col 1:16; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:8-13; 1Jo 5:20

blessed : Rom 1:25; Psa 72:19; 2Co 11:31; 1Ti 6:15

Amen : Deu 27:15-26; 1Ki 1:36; 1Ch 16:36; Psa 41:13, Psa 89:52, Psa 106:48; Jer 28:6; Mat 6:13, Mat 28:20; 1Co 14:16; Rev 1:18, Rev 5:14, Rev 22:20

TSK: Rom 9:6

as though : Rom 3:3, Rom 11:1, Rom 11:2; Num 23:19; Isa 55:11; Mat 24:35; Joh 10:35; 2Ti 2:13; Heb 6:17, Heb 6:18

they are not : Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29, Rom 4:12-16; Joh 1:47; Gal 6:16

TSK: Rom 9:7

because : Luk 3:8, Luk 16:24, Luk 16:25, Luk 16:30; Joh 8:37-39; Phi 3:3

In Isaac : Gen 21:12; Heb 11:18

TSK: Rom 9:8

They which : Rom 4:11-16; Gal 4:22-31

are counted : Gen 31:15; Psa 22:30, Psa 87:6; Joh 1:13; Gal 3:26-29, Gal 4:28; 1Jo 3:1, 1Jo 3:2

TSK: Rom 9:9

At this time : Gen 17:21, Gen 18:10,Gen 18:14, Gen 21:2

Sarah : Heb 11:11, Heb 11:12, Heb 11:17

TSK: Rom 9:10

not only : Rom 5:3, Rom 5:11; Luk 16:26

but when : Gen 25:21-23, Rebekah

TSK: Rom 9:11

the children : Rom 4:17; Psa 51:5; Eph 2:3

that the : Rom 8:28-30; Isa 14:24, Isa 14:26, Isa 14:27, Isa 23:9, Isa 46:10,Isa 46:11; Jer 51:29; Eph 1:9-11; Eph 3:11; 2Ti 1:9

according : Rom 11:5, Rom 11:7; Eph 1:4, Eph 1:5; 1Th 1:4; 2Pe 1:10

not of works : Rom 11:6; Eph 2:9; Tit 3:5

but of : Rom 8:28; 1Th 2:12; 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14; 1Pe 5:10; Rev 17:14

TSK: Rom 9:12

The elder : or, The greater, Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23; 2Sa 8:14; 1Ki 22:47

younger : or, lesser

TSK: Rom 9:13

Jacob : Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3

hated : Gen 29:31, Gen 29:33; Deu 21:15; Pro 13:24; Mat 10:37; Luk 14:26; Joh 12:25

TSK: Rom 9:14

shall : Rom 3:1, Rom 3:5

Is there unrighteousness : Rom 2:5, Rom 3:5, Rom 3:6; Gen 18:25; Deu 32:4; 2Ch 19:7; Job 8:3, Job 34:10-12, Job 34:18, Job 34:19; Job 35:2; Psa 92:15, Psa 145:17; Jer 12:1; Rev 15:3, Rev 15:4, Rev 16:7

TSK: Rom 9:15

I will have : Rom 9:16, Rom 9:18, Rom 9:19; Exo 33:19, Exo 34:6, Exo 34:7; Isa 27:11; Mic 7:18

TSK: Rom 9:16

Rom 9:11; Gen 27:1-4, Gen 27:9-14; Psa 110:3; Isa 65:1; Mat 11:25, Mat 11:26; Luk 10:21; Joh 1:12, Joh 1:13, Joh 3:8; 1Co 1:26-31; Eph 2:4, Eph 2:5; Phi 2:13; 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14; Tit 3:3-5; Jam 1:18; 1Pe 2:9, 1Pe 2:10

TSK: Rom 9:17

For : Rom 11:4; Gal 3:8, Gal 3:22, Gal 4:30

Even : Exo 9:16

I raised : 1Sa 2:7, 1Sa 2:8; Est 4:14; Isa 10:5, Isa 10:6, Isa 45:1-3; Jer 27:6, Jer 27:7; Dan 4:22; Dan 5:18-21

that : Exo 10:1, Exo 10:2, Exo 14:17, Exo 14:18, Exo 15:14, Exo 15:15, Exo 18:10,Exo 18:11; Jos 2:9, Jos 2:10, Jos 9:9; 1Sa 4:8; Psa 83:17, Psa 83:18; Pro 16:4; Isa 37:20

that my : Joh 17:26

TSK: Rom 9:18

hath : Rom 9:15, Rom 9:16, Rom 5:20,Rom 5:21; Eph 1:6

will he : Rom 1:24-28, Rom 11:7, Rom 11:8; Exo 4:21, Exo 7:13; Deu 2:30; Jos 11:20; Isa 63:17; Mat 13:14, Mat 13:15; Act 28:26-28; 2Th 2:10-12

TSK: Rom 9:19

Thou : Rom 3:8; 1Co 15:12, 1Co 15:35; Jam 1:13

Why doth : Rom 3:5-7; Gen 50:20; 2Ch 20:6; Job 9:12-15, Job 9:19, Job 23:13, Job 23:14; Psa 76:10; Isa 10:6, Isa 10:7, Isa 46:10,Isa 46:11; Dan 4:35; Mar 14:21; Act 2:23, Act 4:27, Act 4:28

TSK: Rom 9:20

O man : Rom 2:1; Mic 6:8; 1Co 7:16; Jam 2:20

who art : Job 33:13, Job 36:23, Job 38:2, Job 38:3, Job 40:2, Job 40:5, Job 40:8, Job 42:2-6; Mat 20:15

repliest : or, answerest again, Job 16:3; Tit 2:9, or, disputes with God, 1Co 1:20; 1Ti 6:5

Shall : Isa 29:16, Isa 45:9-11

TSK: Rom 9:21

the potter : Rom 9:11, Rom 9:18; Pro 16:4; Isa 64:8; Jer 18:3-6

one vessel : Rom 9:22, Rom 9:23; Jer 22:28; Hos 8:8; Act 9:15; 2Ti 2:20,2Ti 2:21

TSK: Rom 9:22

willing : Rom 9:17, Rom 1:18, Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5; Exo 9:16; Psa 90:11; Pro 16:4; Rev 6:16, Rev 6:17

endured : Num 14:11, Num 14:18; Psa 50:21, Psa 50:22; Ecc 8:11, Ecc 8:12; Lam 3:22; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 2:3, 2Pe 2:9; 2Pe 3:8, 2Pe 3:9, 2Pe 3:15; Jud 1:4; Rev 6:9-11

the vessels : The Apostle, by employing the appellation of the vessels of wrath, carries on the similitude of the potter, by which he had illustrated the sovereignty of God. Rom 9:21; 1Th 5:9; 2Ti 2:20

fitted : or, made up, Gen 15:16; Mat 23:31-33; 1Th 2:16; 1Pe 2:8; Jud 1:4

TSK: Rom 9:23

might : Rom 2:4, Rom 5:20,Rom 5:21; Eph 1:6-8, Eph 1:18, Eph 2:4, Eph 2:7, Eph 2:10, Eph 3:8, Eph 3:16; Col 1:27; 2Th 1:10-12

he had afore : 1Ch 29:18; Luk 1:17; Eph 2:3-5; Col 1:12; 1Th 5:9; 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14; 2Ti 2:21; Tit 3:3-7; 1Pe 1:2-5

TSK: Rom 9:24

whom : Rom 8:28-30; 1Co 1:9; Heb 3:1; 1Pe 5:10; Rev 19:9

not of the Jews : Rom 3:29, Rom 3:30, Rom 4:11, Rom 4:12, Rom 10:12, Rom 11:11-13, Rom 15:8-16; Gen 49:10; Psa 22:27; Act 13:47, Act 13:48, Act 15:14, Act 21:17-20; Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-13, Eph 3:6-8; Col 3:11

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Rom 9:1

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

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

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

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

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

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

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he doctrines which he was about to state and defend were of a similar character; he was about to maintain that no small part of his own countrymen, notwithstanding their privileges, would be rejected and lost. In this solemn manner, therefore, he assures them that this doctrine had not been embraced because he did not love them, but because it was solemn, though most painful truth. He proceeds to enumerate their privileges as a people, and to show to them the strength and tenderness of his love.

Barnes: Rom 9:2

Great heaviness - Great grief.

Continual sorrow - The word rendered "continual"here must be taken in a popular sense. Not that he was literally all the time pressed down with this sorrow, but that whenever he thought on this subject, he had great grief; as we say of a painful subject, it is a source of constant pain. The cause of this grief, Paul does not expressly mention, though it is implied in what he immediately says. It was the fact that so large a part of the nation would be rejected, and cast off.

Barnes: Rom 9:3

For I could wish ... - This passage has been greatly controverted. Some have proposed to translate it, "I did wish,"as referring to a former state, when he renounced Christ, and sought to advance the interests of the nation by opposing and defying him. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 he object of the apostle is not to state his former feelings, but his present attachment to his countrymen, and willingness to suffer for them.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not I did wish, but I could desire; that is, if the thing were possible. It is not I do wish, or did wish, but I could desire ἠυχόμην ēuchomēn , implying that he was willing now to endure it; that his present love for them was so strong, that he would, if practicable, save them from the threatened ruin and apostasy.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 t is not true that Paul ever did wish before his conversion to be accursed by Christ, that is, by the Messiah. He opposed Jesus of Nazareth; but he did not believe that he was the Messiah. At no time would he have wished to be devoted to destruction "by the Messiah,"or "by Christ."Nothing would have been more terrible to a Jew; and Saul of Tarsus never doubted that he was the friend of the promised Messiah, and was advancing the true interests of his cause, and defending the hopes of his nation against an impostor. The word, therefore, expresses a feeling which the apostle had, when writing this Epistle, in regard to the condition and prospects of the nation.

Were accursed from Chest - Might be anathema by Christ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ anathema einai apo tou Christou . This passage has been much controverted. The word rendered "accursed"(anathema) properly means,

(1) Anything that was set up, or "set apart,"or consecrated to the gods in the temples, as spoils of war, images, statues, etc. This is its Classical Greek meaning. It has a similar meaning among the Hebrews, It denoted what was set apart or consecrated to the service of God, as sacrifices or offerings of any kind. In this respect it is used to express the sense of the Hebrew word חרם cherem "anything devoted to Yahweh, without the possibility of redemption."Lev 27:21; Lev 27:29; Num 18:14; Deu 7:26; Jos 6:17-18; Jos 7:1; 1Sa 15:21; Eze 44:29.

\caps1 (2) a\caps0 s what was thus dedicated to Yahweh was alienated from the use of him who devoted it, and was either burnt or slain and devoted to destruction as an offering, the word came to signify a devotion of any thing to destruction, or to complete ruin. And as whatever is devoted to destruction may be said to be subject to a curse, or to be accursed, the word comes to have this signification; 1Ki 20:42; Isa 34:5. But in none of these cases does it denote eternal death. The idea, therefore, in these places is simply, "I could be willing to be destroyed, or devoted, to death, for the sake of my countrymen."And the apostle evidently means to say that he would be willing to suffer the bitterest evils, to forego all pleasure, to endure any privation and toil, nay, to offer his life, so that he might be wholly devoted to sufferings, as an offering, if he might be the means of benefiting and saving the nation. For a similar case, see Exo 32:32. This does not mean that Paul would be willing to be damned forever. For,

(1)    The words do not imply that, and will not bear it.

(2)\caps1     s\caps0 uch a destruction could in no conceivable way benefit the Jews.

(3)\caps1     s\caps0 uch a willingness is not and cannot be required. And,

(4)    It would be impious and absurd. No man has a right to be willing to be the "eternal enemy"of God; and no man ever yet was, or could be willing to endure everlasting torments.

From Christ - By Christ. Grotius thinks it means from the church of Christ. Others think it means "after the example of Christ;"and others, from Christ forever. But it evidently means that he was willing to be devoted by Christ; that is, to be regarded by him, and appointed by him, to suffering and death, if by that means he could save his countrymen. It was thus the highest expression of true patriotism and benevolence. It was an example for all Christians and Christian ministers. They should be willing to be devoted to pain, privation, toil, and death, if by that they could save others from ruin.

My kinsmen ... - My countrymen; all of whom he regarded as his kinsmen, or relations, as descended from the same ancestors.

According to the flesh - By birth. They were of the same blood and parentage, though not now of the same religious belief.

Barnes: Rom 9:4

Who are Israelites - Descended from Israel, or Jacob; honored by having such an ancestor, and by bearing a name so distinguished as that of his descendants. It was formerly the honorable appellation of the people of God.

To whom pertaineth - To whom it belongs. It was their elevated external privilege.

The adoption - Of the nation into the family of God, or to be regarded as His special people; Deu 7:6.

And the glory - The symbol of the divine presence that attended them from Egypt, and that finally rested over the ark in the first temple - "the Shechinah;"Exo 13:21-22; Exo 25:22.

And the covenants - The various compacts or promises which had been made from time to time with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and with the nation; the pledges of the divine protection.

The giving of the law - On Mount Sinai; Exo. 20; compare Psa 147:19.

And the service of God - The temple service; regarded by them as the pride and ornament of their nation.

And the promises - Of the Messiah; and of the spread of the true religion from them as a nation.

Barnes: Rom 9:5

Whose are the fathers - Who have been honored with so illustrious an ancestry. Who are descended from Abraham, Isaac, etc. On this they highly valued themselves, and in a certain sense not unjustly; compare Mat 3:9.

Of whom - Of whose nation. This is placed as the crowning and most exalted privilege, that their nation had given birth to the long-expected Messiah, the hope of the world.

As concerning the flesh - So far as his human nature was concerned. The use of this language supposes that there was a higher nature in respect to which he was not of their nation; see the note at Rom 1:3.

Christ came - He had already come; and it was their high honor that he was one of their nation.

Who is over all - This is an appellation that belongs only to the true God. It implies supreme divinity; and is full proof that the Messiah is divine: Much effort has been made to show that this is not the true rendering, but without success. There are no various readings in the Greek manuscripts of any consequence; and the connection here evidently requires us to understand this of a nature that is not "according to the flesh,"i. e., as the apostle here shows, of the divine nature.

God blessed forever - This is evidently applied to the Lord Jesus; and it proves that he is divine. If the translation is fairly made, and it has never been proved to be erroneous, it demonstrates that he is God as well as man. The doxology "blessed forever"was usually added by the Jewish writers after the mention of the name God, as an expression of reverence. (See the various interpretations that have been proposed on this passage examined in Prof. Stuart’ s Notes on this verse.)

Barnes: Rom 9:6

Not as though ... - Not as though the promise of God had entirely failed. Though I grieve thus Rom 9:2-3, though I am deeply apprehensive for the nation, yet I do not affirm that all the nation is to be destroyed. The promise of God will not entirely fail.

Not all Israel - Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term; see the note at Rom 2:28-29.

Barnes: Rom 9:7

Are they all children - Adopted into the true family of God. Many of the descendants of Abraham were rejected.

But in Isaac - This was the promise; Gen 21:12.

Shall thy seed ... - Thy true people. This implied a selection, or choice; and therefore the doctrine of election was illustrated in the very commencement of the history of the nation; and as God had then made such a distinction, he might still do it. As he had then rejected a part of the natural descendants of Abraham, so he might still do it. This is the argument which the apostle is pursuing.

Barnes: Rom 9:8

They which are the children of the flesh - The natural descendants.

These are not the children of God - Are not of necessity the adopted children of God; or are not so in virtue of their descent merely. This was in opposition to one of the most settled and deeply cherished opinions of the Jews. They supposed that the mere fact of being a Jew, entitled a man to the blessings of the covenant, and to be regarded as a child of God. But the apostle shows them that it was not by their natural descent that these spiritual privileges were granted; that they were not conferred on people simply from the fact that they were Jews; and that consequently those who were not Jews might become interested in those spiritual blessings.

But the children of the promise - The descendants of Abraham on whom the promised blessings would be bestowed. The sense is, that God at first contemplated a distinction among the descendants of Abraham, and intended to confine his blessings to such as he chose; that is, to those to whom the promise particularly appertained, to the descendants of Isaac. The argument of the apostle is, that "the principle"was thus established that a distinction might be made among those who were Jews; and as that distinction had been made in former times, so it might be under the Messiah.

Are counted - Are regarded, or reckoned. God reckons things as they are; and therefore designed that they should be his true children.

As the seed - The spiritual children of God; the partakers of his mercy and salvation. This refers, doubtless, to spiritual privileges and to salvation; and therefore has relation not to nations as such, but to individuals.

Barnes: Rom 9:9

For this is the word of promise - This is the promise made to Abraham. The design of the apostle, in introducing this, is doubtless to show to whom the promise appertained; and by specifying this, he shows that it had not reference to Ishmael, but to Isaac.

At this time - Greek, According to this time; see Gen 18:10, Gen 18:14. Probably it means at the exact time promised; I will fulfil the prediction at the very time; compare 2Ki 4:16.

Barnes: Rom 9:10

And not only this - Not only is the principle of making a distinction among the natural descendants of Abraham thus settled by the promise, but it is still further seen and illustrated in the birth of the two sons of Isaac. He had shown that the principle of thus making a distinction among the posterity of Abraham was recognised in the original promise, thus proving that all the descendants of Abraham were not of course to be saved; and he now proceeds to show that the principle was recognised in the case of his posterity in the family of Isaac. And he shows that it is not according to any natural principles that the selection was made; that he not only made a distinction between Jacob and Esau, but that he did it according to his good pleasure, choosing the younger to be the object of his favor, and rejecting the older, who, according to the custom of the times, was supposed to be entitled to special honor and rights. And in order to prove that this was done according to his own pleasure, he shows that the distinction was made before they were born; before they had formed any character; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not be pretended that it was in consequence of any works which they had performed.

But when Rebecca - The wife of Isaac; see Gen 25:21, Gen 25:23.

Barnes: Rom 9:11

For the children being not yet born - It was not, therefore, by any works of theirs. It was not because they had formed a character and manifested qualities which made this distinction proper. It was laid back of any such character, and therefore had its foundation in the purpose or plan of God.

Neither having done any good or evil - That is, when the declaration Rom 9:12 was made to Rebecca. This is a very important passage in regard to the question about the purposes of God.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hey had done nothing good or bad; and when that is the case, there can be, properly speaking, no moral character, for "a character is not formed when the person has not acquired stable and distinctive qualities."Webster.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat the period of moral agency had not yet commenced; compare Gen 25:22-23. When that agency commences, we do not know; but here is a case of which it is alarmed that it had not commenced.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he purpose of God is antecedent to the formation of character, or the performance of any actions, good or bad.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 t is not a purpose formed because he sees anything in the individuals as a ground for his choice, but for some reason which he has not explained, and which in the Scripture is simply called purpose and good pleasure; Eph 1:5.

\caps1 (5) i\caps0 f it existed in this case, it does in others. If it was right then, it is now. And if God then dispensed his favors on this principle, he will now. But,

(6) This affirmation respecting Jacob and Esau does not prove that they had not a nature inclined to evil; or a corrupt and sensual propensity; or that they would not sin as soon as they became moral agents. It proves merely that they had not yet committed actual sin. That they, as well as all others, would certainly sin as soon as they committed moral acts at all, is proved everywhere in the Sacred Scriptures.

The purpose of God - Note, Rom 8:28.

According to election - To dispense his favors according to his sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals; but according to a wise plan "lying back"of the formation of their characters, and before they had done good or evil. The favors were thus conferred according to his choice, or election.

Might stand - Might be confirmed; or might be proved to be true. The case shows that God dispenses his favors as a sovereign. The purpose of God was thus proved to have been formed without respect to the merits of either.

Not of works - Not by anything which they had done either to merit his favor or to forfeit it. It was formed on other principles than a reference to their works. So it is in relation to all who shall be saved. God has good reasons for saving those who shall be saved. What the reasons are for choosing some to life, he has not revealed; but he has revealed to us that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.

But of him that calleth - According to the will and purpose of him that chooses to dispense those favors in this manner. It is not by the merit of man, but it is by a purpose having its origin with God, and formed and executed according to his good pleasure. It is also implied here that it is formed in such a way as to secure his glory as the primary consideration.

Barnes: Rom 9:12

It was said unto her - By Yahweh; see Gen 25:23.

The elder - The oldest son, which was Esau. By the law of primogeniture among the Hebrews, he would have been entitled to special honors and privileges. But it was said that in his case this custom should be reversed, and that he should take the rank of the younger.

Should serve - Shall be subject to; shall not have the authority and priority, but should be inferior to. The passage in Genesis Gen 25:23 shows that this had reference particularly to the posterity of Esau, and not to him as an individual. The sense is, that the descendants of Esau, who were Edomites, should be inferior to, and subject to the descendants of Jacob. Jacob was to have the priority; the promised land; the promises; and the honor of being regarded as the chosen of God. There was reference here, therefore, to the whole train of temporal and spiritual blessings which were to be connected with the two races of people. If it be asked how this bears on the argument of the apostle, we may reply,

(1) That it settles "the principle"that God might make a distinction among people, in the same nation, and the same family, without reference to their works or character.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat he might confer his blessings on such as he pleased.

\caps1 (3) i\caps0 f this is done in regard to nations, it may be in regard to individuals. The principle is the same, and the justice the same. If it be supposed to be unjust in God to make such a distinction in regard to individuals, it is surely not less so to make a distinction in nations. The fact that numbers are thus favored, does not make it the more proper, or remove any difficulty.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 f this distinction may be made in regard to temporal things, why not in regard to spiritual things? The principle must still be the same. If unjust in one case, it would be in the other. The fact that it is done in one case proves also that it will be in the other; for the same great principle will run through all the dealings of the divine government. And as people do not and cannot complain that God makes a distinction among them in regard to talents, health, beauty, prosperity, and rank, neither can they complain if he acts also as a sovereign in the distribution of his spiritual favors. They, therefore, who regard this as referring only to temporal and national privileges, gain no relief in respect to the real difficulty in the case, for the unanswerable question would still be asked, why has not God made all people equal in everything? Why has he made any distinction among people? The only reply to all such inquiries is, "Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight;"Mat 11:26.

Barnes: Rom 9:13

As it is written - Mal 1:2-3. That is, the distribution of favors is on the principle advanced by the prophet, and is in accordance with the declaration that God had in fact loved the one and hated the other.

Jacob - This refers, doubtless, to the posterity of Jacob.

Have I loved - I have shown affection for that people; I have bestowed on them great privileges and blessings, as proofs of attachment. I have preferred Jacob to Esau.

Esau - The descendants of Esau, the Edomites; see Mal 1:4.

Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Mal 1:3,"And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;"compare Jer 49:17-18; Eze 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love"and "hatred"in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Gen 29:30-31; Pro 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;"Mat 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other,"etc.; Luk 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."

Barnes: Rom 9:14

What shall we say then? - What conclusion shall we draw from these acknowledged facts, and from these positive declarations of Scripture.

Is there unrighteousness with God? - Does God do injustice or wrong? This charge has often been brought against the doctrine here advanced. But this charge the apostle strongly repels. He meets it by further showing that it is the doctrine explicitly taught in the Old Testament Rom 9:15, Rom 9:17, and that it is founded on the principles of equity, and on just views of the sovereignty of God; Rom 9:19-23.

God forbid - Note, Rom 3:4.

Barnes: Rom 9:15

For he saith to Moses - Exo 33:19.

I will have mercy - This is said by God when he declared expressly that he would make all his goodness pass before Moses Exo 33:19, and when, therefore, it was regarded, not as a proof of stern and inexorable justice, but as "the very proof of his benevolence,"and the highest which he thought proper to exhibit. When people, therefore, under the influence of an unrenewed and hosthe heart, charge this as an unjust and arbitrary proceeding, they are resisting and perverting what God regards as the very demonstration of his benevolence. The sense of the passage clearly is, that he would choose the objects of his favor, and bestow his mercies as he chose. None of the human race deserved his favor; and he had a right to pardon whom he pleased, and to save people on his own terms, and according to his sovereign will and pleasure.

On whom I will have mercy - On whom I choose to bestow mercy. The mode he does not explain. But there could not be a more positive declaration of these truths,

(1)    That he does it as a sovereign, without giving an account of the reason of his choice to any.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat he does it without regard to any claim on the part of man; or that man is regarded as destitute of merit, and as having no right to his mercy.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat he will do it to any extent which he pleases, and in whatever time and manner may best accord with his own good pleasure.

(4)\caps1     t\caps0 hat he has regard to a definite number and that on that number he intends to bestow eternal life; and,

(5)    That no one has a right to complain.

It is proof of his benevolence that any are saved; and where none have a claim, where all are justly condemned, he has a right to pardon whom he pleases. The executive of a country may select any number of criminals whom he may see fit to pardon, or who may be forgiven in consistency with the supremacy of the laws and the welfare of the community and none has a right to complain, but every good citizen should rejoice that any may be pardoned with safety. So in the moral world, and under the administration of its holy Sovereign, it should be a matter of joy that any can be pardoned and saved; and not a subject of murmuring and complaint that those who shall finally deserve to die shall be consigned to woe.

Barnes: Rom 9:16

So then - It follows as a consequence from this statement of God to Moses. Or it is a doctrine established by that statement.

Not of him that willeth - This does not mean that he that becomes a Christian, and is saved, does not choose eternal life; or is not made willing; or that he is compelled to enter heaven against his own choice. It is true that people by nature have no desire of holiness, and do not choose eternal life. But the effect of the influences of God’ s Spirit on the heart is to make it "willing in the day of his power;"Psa 110:3. The meaning here is evidently, that eternal life is not bestowed because man had any original willingness or disposition to be saved; it is not because he commences the work, and is himself disposed to it; but it is because God inclines him to it, and disposes him to seek for mercy, and then confers it in his own way. The word "willeth"here denotes wish or desire.

Nor of him that runneth - This denotes "strenuous, intense effort,"as when a man is anxious to obtain an object, or hastens from danger. The meaning is not that the sinner does not make an effort to be saved; nor that all who become Christians do not "in fact"strive to enter into the kingdom, or earnestly desire salvation, for the Scriptures teach the contrary; Luk 16:16; Luk 13:24. There is no effort more intense and persevering, no struggle more arduous or agonizing, than when a sinner seeks eternal life. Nor does it mean that they who strive in a proper way, and with proper effort, shall not obtain eternal life; Mat 7:7. But the sense is,

(1)    That the sinner would not put forth any effort himself. If left to his own course, he would never seek to be saved.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat he is pardoned, not "on account"of his effort; not because he makes an exertion; but because God chooses to pardon him.

There is no merit in his anxiety, and prayers, and agony, on account of which God would forgive him; but he is still dependent on the mere mercy of God to save or destroy him at his will. The sinner, however anxious he may be, and however much or long he may strive, does not bring God under an obligation to pardon him any more than the condemned criminal, trembling with the fear of execution, and the consciousness of crime, lays the judge or the jury under an obligation to acquit him. This fact, it is of great importance for an awakened sinner to know. Deeply anxious he should be, but there is no merit in his distress. Pray he should, but there is no merit in his prayers. Weep and strive he may, but in this there is no ground of claim on God for pardon; and, after all, he is dependent on his mere sovereign mercy, as a lost, ruined, and helpless sinner, to be saved or lost at his will.

But of God that showeth mercy - Salvation in its beginning, its progress, and its close, is of him. He has a right, therefore, to bestow it when and where he pleases. All our mercies flow from his mere love and compassion, and not from our deserts. The essential idea here is, that God is the original fountain of all the blessings of salvation.

Barnes: Rom 9:17

For the Scripture saith - Exo 9:16. That is, God saith to Pharaoh in the Scriptures; Gal 3:8, Gal 3:22. This passage is designed to illustrate the doctrine that God shows mercy according to his sovereign pleasure by a reference to one of the most extraordinary cases of hardness of heart which has ever occurred. The design is to show that God has a right to pass by those to whom he does not choose to show mercy; and to place them in circumstances where they shall develope their true character, and where in fait they shall become more hardened and be destroyed; Rom 9:18.

Unto Pharaoh - The haughty and oppressive king of Egypt; thus showing that the most mighty and wicked monarchs are at his control; compare Isa 10:5-7.

For this same purpose - For the design, or with the intent that is immediately specified. This was the leading purpose or design of his sustaining him.

Have I raised thee up - Margin in Exo 9:16, "made thee stand,"that is, sustained thee. The Greek word used by the apostle ( ἐξήγειρα exēgeira ), means properly, I "have excited, roused, or stirred"thee up. But it may also have the meaning, "I have sustained or supported thee."That is, I have kept thee from death; I have preserved thee from ruin; I have ministered strength to thee, so that thy full character has been developed. It does not mean that God had infused into his mind any positive evil, or that by any direct influence he had excited any evil feelings, but that he had kept him in circumstances which were suited to develope his true character. The meaning of the word and the truth of the case may be expressed in the following particulars:

(1) God meant to accomplish some great purposes by his existence and conduct.

\caps1 (2) h\caps0 e kept him, or sustained him, with reference to that.

\caps1 (3) h\caps0 e had control over the haughty and wicked monarch. He could take his life, or he could continue him on earth. As he had control over all things that could affect the pride, the feelings, and the happiness of the monarch, so he had control over the monarch himself.

(4) "he placed him in circumstances just suited to develope his character."He kept him amidst those circumstances until his character was fully developed.

\caps1 (5) h\caps0 e did not exert a positive evil influence on the mind of Pharaoh; for,

(6) In all this the monarch acted freely. He did what he chose to do. He pursued his own course. He was voluntary in his schemes of oppressing the Israelites. He was voluntary in his opposition to God. He was voluntary when he pursued the Israelites to the Red sea. In all his doings he acted as he chose to do, and with a determined "choice of evil,"from which neither warning nor judgment would turn him away. Thus, he is said to have hardened his own heart; Exo 8:15.

\caps1 (7) n\caps0 either Pharaoh nor any sinner can justly blame God for placing them in circumstances where they shall develope their own character, and show what they are. It is not the fault of God, but their own fault. The sinner is not compelled to sin; nor is God under obligation to save him contrary to the prevalent desires and wishes of the sinner himself.

My power in thee - Or by means of thee. By the judgments exerted in delivering an entire oppressed people from thy grasp. God’ s most signal acts of power were thus shown in consequence of his disobedience and rebellion.

My name - The name of Yahweh, as the only true God, and the deliverer of his people.

Throughout all the earth - Or throughout all the land of Egypt; Note, Luk 2:1. We may learn here,

(1)    That a leading design of God in the government of the world is to make his power, and name, and character known.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat this is often accomplished in a most signal manner by the destruction of the wicked.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat wicked people should be alarmed, since their arm cannot contend with God, and since his enemies shall be destroyed.

(4)\caps1     i\caps0 t is right that the incorrigibly wicked should be cut off. When a man’ s character is fully developed; when he is fairly tried; when in all circumstances, he has shown that he will not obey God, neither justice nor mercy hinders the Almighty from cutting him down and consigning him to death.

Barnes: Rom 9:18

Therefore hath he mercy ... - This is a conclusion stated by the apostle as the result of all the argument.

Whom he will he hardeneth - This is not stated in what the Scripture said to Pharaoh, but is a conclusion to which the apostle had arrived, in view of the case of Pharaoh. The word "hardeneth"means only to harden in the manner specified in the case of Pharaoh. It does not mean to exert a positive influence, but to leave a sinner to his own course, and to place him in circumstances where the character will be more and more developed; see the note at Joh 12:40. It implies, however, an act of sovereignty on the part of God in thus leaving him to his chosen course, and in not putting forth that influence by which he could be saved from death. Why this is, the apostle does not state. We should, however, not dispute a fact everywhere prevalent; and should have sufficient confidence in God to believe that it is in accordance with infinite wisdom and rectitude.

Barnes: Rom 9:19

Thou wilt say then unto me - The apostle here refers to an objection that might be made to his argument. If the position which he had been endeavoring to establish were true; if God had a purpose in all his dealings with people; if all the revolutions among people happened according to his decree, so that he was not disappointed, or his plan frustrated; and if his own glory was secured in all this, why could he blame people?

Why doth he yet find fault? - Why does he blame people, since their conduct is in accordance with his purpose, and since he bestows mercy according to his sovereign will? This objection has been made by sinners in all ages. It is the standing objection against the doctrines of grace. The objection is founded,

(1)    On the difficulty of reconciling the purposes of God with the free agency of man.

(2)\caps1     i\caps0 t assumes, what cannot be proved, that a plan or purpose of God must destroy the freedom of man.

(3)\caps1     i\caps0 t is said that if the plan of God is accomplished, then what is best to be done is done, and, of course, man cannot be blamed. These objections are met by the apostle in the following argument.

Who hath resisted his will? - That is, who has "successfully opposed"his will, or frustrated his plan? The word translated "resist"is commonly used to denote the resistance offered by soldiers or armed men. Thus, Eph 6:13, "Take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand (resist or successfully oppose) in the evil day:"see Luk 21:15, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist;"see also Act 7:10; Act 13:8, "But Elymas ...withstood them, etc."The same Greek word, Rom 13:2; Gal 2:11. This does not mean that no one has offered resistance or opposition to God, but that no one has done it successfully. God had accomplished his purposes "in spite of"their opposition. This was an established point in the sacred writings, and one of the admitted doctrines of the Jews. To establish it had even been a part of the apostle’ s design; and the difficulty now was to see how, this being admitted, people could be held chargeable with crime. That it was the doctrine of the Scriptures, see 2Ch 20:6, "In thine hand "is there not"power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?"Dan 4:35, "he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"See also the case of Joseph and his brethren, Gen 50:20, "As for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good."

Barnes: Rom 9:20

Nay but, O man ... - To this objection the apostle replies in two ways; first, by asserting the sovereignty of God, and affirming that he had a right to do it Rom 9:20-21; and secondly, by showing that he did it according to the principles of justice and mercy, or that it was involved of necessity in his dispensing justice and mercy to mankind; Rom 9:22-24.

Who art thou ... - Paul here strongly reproves the impiety and wickedness of arraigning God. This impiety appears,

(1) Because man is a creature of arraigning God. This impiety appears, Because man is a creature of God, and it is improper that he should arraign his Maker.

\caps1 (2) h\caps0 e is unqualified to understand the subject. "Who art thou?"What qualifications has a creature of a day, a being just in the infancy of his existence; of so limited faculties; so perverse, blinded, and interested as man, to sit in judgment on the doings of the Infinite Mind? Who gave him the authority, or invested him with the prerogatives of a judge over his Maker’ s doings?

\caps1 (3) e\caps0 ven if man were qualified to investigate those subjects, what right has he to reply against God, to arraign him, or to follow out a train of argument tending to involve his Creator in shame and disgrace? No where is there to be found a more cutting or humbling reply to the pride of man than this. And on no subject was it more needed. The experience of every age has shown that this has been a prominent topic of objection against the government of God; and that there has been no point in the Christian theology to which the human heart has been so ready to make objections as to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

Repliest against God - Margin, "Answerest again; or, disputest with God."The passage conveys the idea of answering again; or of arguing to the dishonor of God. It implies that when God declares his will, man should be still. God has his own plans of infinite wisdom, and it is not ours to reply against him, or to arraign him of injustice, when we cannot see the reason of his doings.

Shall the thing formed ... - This sentiment is found in Isa 29:16; see also Isa 45:9. It was especially proper to adduce this to a Jew. The objection is one which is supposed to be made by a Jew, and it was proper to reply to him by a quotation from his own Scriptures. Any being has a right to fashion his work according to his own views of what is best; and as this right is not denied to people, we ought not to blame the infinitely wise God for acting in a similar way. They who have received every blessing they enjoy from him, ought not to blame him for not making them different.

Barnes: Rom 9:21

Hath not the potter ... - This same sovereign right of God the apostle proceeds to urge from another illustration, and another passage from the Old Testament; Isa 64:8, "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."This passage is preceded in Isaiah by one declaring "the depravity of man;"Isa 64:6, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."As they were polluted with sin, as they had transgressed the Law of God, and had no claim and no merit, God might bestow his favors as he pleased, and mould them as the potter did the clay. He would do no injury to those who were left, and "who had no claim to his mercy,"if he bestowed favors on others, any more than the potter would do injustice to one part of the mass, if he put it to an ignoble use, and moulded another part into a vessel of honor.

This is still the condition of sinful people. God does no injustice to a man if he leaves him to take his own course to ruin, and makes another, equally undeserving, the recipient of his mercy. He violated none of my rights by not conferring on me the talents of Newton or of Bacon; or by not placing me in circumstances like those of Peter and Paul. Where all are undeserving, the utmost that can be demanded is that he should not treat them with injustice. And this is secured even in the case of the lost. No man will suffer more than he deserves; nor will any man go to perdition feeling that he has "a claim"to better treatment than he receives. The same sentiment is found in Jer 18:6, "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’ s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, etc."

The passage in Isaiah proves that God has the right of a sovereign over guilty individuals; that in Jeremiah, that he has the same right over nations; thus meeting the whole case as it was in the mind of the apostle. These passages, however, assert only the right of God to do it, without affirming anything about the manner in which it is done. In fact, God bestows his favors in a mode very different from that in which a potter moulds his clay. God does not create holiness by a mere act of power, but he produces it in a manner consistent with the moral agency of people; and bestows his favors not to compel people, but to incline them to be willing to receive them; Psa 110:3, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power."It should be further remarked, that the argument of the apostle here does not refer to "the original creation"of people, as if God had then made them one for honor and another for dishonor. He refers to man as fallen and lost. His argument is this: "Man is in ruins: he is fallen; he has no claim on God; all deserve to die; on this mass, where none have any claim, he may bestow life on whom he pleases, without injury to others; he may exercise the right of a sovereign to pardon whom he pleases; or of a potter to mould any part of the useless mass to purposes of utility and beauty."

Potter - One whose occupation it is to make earthen vessels.

Power - This word denotes here not merely "physical power,"but authority, right; see Mat 7:29, translated "authority;"Mat 21:23; 2Th 3:9; Mar 2:10; Luk 5:24, "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, etc."

Lump - Mass. It denotes anything that is reduced to a fine consistency, and mixed, and made soft by water; either clay, as in this place, or the mass produced of grain pounded and mixed with water; Rom 11:16, "If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy;"1Co 5:6, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"

One vessel - A cup, or other utensil, made of clay.

Unto honour - Fitted to an honorable use, or designed for a more useful and refined purpose.

Unto dishonour - To a meaner service, or more common use. This is a common mode of expression among the Hebrews. The lump here denotes the mass of people, sinners, having no claim on God. The potter illustrates God’ s right over that mass, to dispose of it as seems good in his sight. The doctrine of the passage is, that people have no right to complain if God bestows his blessings where and when he chooses.

Barnes: Rom 9:22-23

What if God ... - If God does what the apostle supposes, what then? Is it not right? This is the second point in the answer to the objection in Rom 9:19. The answer has respect to the "two classes"of people which actually exist on the earth - the righteous and the wicked. And the question is, whether "in regard to these two classes God does in fact do wrong?"If he does not, then the doctrine of the apostle is established, and the objection is not valid. It is assumed here, as it must be, that the world is "in fact"divided into two classes - saints and sinners. The apostle considers the case of sinners in Rom 9:22.

Willing - Being disposed; having an inclination to. It denotes an inclination of mind toward the thing proposed. If the thing itself was right; if it was proper to "show his wrath,"then it was proper to be willing to do it. If it is right to do a thing, it is right to purpose or intend to do it.

His wrath - τὴν ὀργὴν tēn orgēn . This word occurs thirty-five times in the New Testament. Its meaning is derived from the idea of earnestly desiring or reaching for an object, and properly denotes, in its general sense, a vehement desire of attaining anything. Hence, it comes to denote an earnest desire of revenge, or of inflicting suffering on those who have injured us; Eph 4:31, "Let all bitterness and wrath, etc."Col 3:8; 1Ti 2:8. Hence, it denotes indignation in general, which is not joined with a desire of revenge; Mar 3:5, "He looked round about on them with anger."It also denotes punishment for sin; the anger or displeasure of God against transgression; Note, Rom 1:18; Luk 3:7; Luk 21:23, etc. In this place it is evidently used to denote "severe displeasure against sin."sin is an evil of so great magnitude, "it is right"for God to be willing to evince his displeasure against it; and just in proportion to the extent of the evil. This displeasure, or wrath, it is proper that God should always be willing to show; nay, it would not be right for him not to show it, for that would be the same thing as to be indifferent to it, or to approve it. In this place, however, it is not affirmed,

(1)    That God has any pleasure in sin, or its punishment; nor,

(2)    That he exerted any agency to compel man to sin. It affirms only that God is willing to show his hatred of incorrigible and long-continued wickedness when it actually exists.

To make his power known - This language is the same as what was used in relation to Pharaoh; Rom 9:17; Exo 9:16. But it is not probable that the apostle intended to confine it to the Egyptians only. In the following verse he speaks of "the vessels of mercy prepared "unto glory;"which cannot be supposed to be language adapted to the temporal deliverance of the Jews. The case of Pharaoh was "one instance, or illustration"of the general principle on which God would deal with people. His government is conducted on great and uniform principles; and the case of Pharaoh was a development of the great laws on which he governs the universe.

Endured - Bore with; was patient, or forbearing; Rev 2:3. "And hast borne, and hast patience, etc."1Co 13:7, "charity, (love) beareth all things."Luk 18:7, "will not God avenge his elect. though he bear long with theme?"

With much long-suffering - With much patience. He suffered them to live while they deserved to die. God bears with all sinners with much patience; he spares them amid all their provocations, to give them opportunity of repentance; and though they are suited for destruction, yet he prolongs their lives, and offers them pardon, and loads them with benefits. This fact is a complete vindication of the government of God from the aspersions of all his enemies.

Vessels of wrath - The word "vessel"means a cup, etc. made of earth. As the human body is frail, easily broken and destroyed, it comes to signify also the body. 2Co 4:7; "we have this treasure in earthen vessels."1Th 4:4, "that everyone of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor"- that everyone should keep his body from the indulgence of unlawful passions; compare Rom 9:3. Hence, also it means "the man himself."Act 9:15, "he is a chosen vessel unto me, etc."compare Isa 13:5. In this place there is doubtless, allusion to what he had just said of clay in the hands of the potter. The phrase "vessels of wrath"denotes wicked people against whom it is fit or proper that wrath should be shown; as Judas is called "the son of perdition,"see the note at Joh 17:12. This does not mean that people by their very creation, or their physical nature, are thus denominated; but people who, from long continuance in iniquity, deserve to experience wrath; as Judas was not called "son of perdition"by any arbitrary appointment, or as an original designation, but because in consequence of his avarice and treason this was the name which "in fact"actually described him, or suited his case.

Fitted - κατηρτισμένα katērtismena . This word properly means to "restore; to place in order; to render complete; to supply a defect; to fit to, or adapt to, or prepare for;"see Mat 4:21, "Were mending their nets."Gal 6:1, "restore such an one, etc."In this place it is a participle, and means those who are suited for or "adapted to"destruction; those whose characters are such as to deserve destruction, or as to make destruction proper. See the same use of the word in Heb 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed"- beautifully suited up in proper proportions, one part adapted to another - "by the Word of God."Heb 10:5, "a body hast thou prepared for me;"suited, or adapted to me; compare Psa 68:10; Psa 74:16. In this place there is not the semblance of a declaration that "God had prepared them, or fitted them for destruction."It is a simple declaration that they were in fact suited for it, without making an affirmation about the manner in which they became so.

A reader of the English Bible may, perhaps, sometimes draw the impression that God had suited them for this. But this is not affirmed; and there is an evident design in not affirming it, and a distinction made between them and the vessels of mercy which ought to be regarded. In relation to the latter it is expressly affirmed that God suited or prepared them for glory; see Rom 9:23, "Which he had afore prepared unto glory."The same distinction is remarkably striking in the account of the last judgment in Mat 25:34, Mat 25:41. To the righteous, Christ will say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you, etc."To the wicked, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;"not said to have been originally prepared "for them."It is clear, therefore, that God intends to keep the great truth in view, that he prepares his people "by direct agency"for heaven; but that he exerts "no such agency"in preparing the wicked for destruction.

For destruction - εἰς ἀπώλειαν eis apōleian . This word occurs in the New Testament no less than 20 times; Mat 7:13, "Which leadeth to destruction."Joh 17:12, "son of perdition."Act 8:20, "thy money perish with thee;"Greek, be for destruction with thee, Act 25:16; Phi 1:28, "Token of perdition."Phi 3:19, "whose end is destruction."2Th 2:3, "the son of perdition."1Ti 5:9, "which drown men in destruction and perdition."Heb 10:39, "which draw back into perdition; see also 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:3; 2Pe 3:7, 2Pe 3:16, etc. In these places it is clear that the reference is to the future punishment of wicked people, and in "no instance"to national calamities. No such use of the word is to be found in the New Testament; and this is further clear from the contrast with the word "glory"in the next verse. We may remark here, that if people are suited or prepared for destruction; if future torment is adapted to them, and they to it; if it is fit that they should be subjected to it; then God will do what is fit or right to be done, and, unless they repent, they must perish. Nor would it be right for God to take them to heaven as they are; to a place for which they are not suited, and which is not adapted to their feelings, their character, or their conduct.

Rom 9:23

And that he might make known - That he might manifest or display. The apostle had shown (in Rom 9:22) that the dealings of God toward the wicked were not liable to the objection made in Rom 9:19. In this verse he proceeds to show that the objection could not lie against his dealings with the other class of people - the righteous. If his dealings toward neither were liable to the objection, then he has "met the whole case,"and the divine government is vindicated. This he proves by showing that for God to show the riches of his glory toward those whom he has prepared for it, cannot be regarded as unjust.

The riches of his glory - This is a form of expression common among the Hebrews, meaning the same as his rich or "his abundant glory."The same expression occurs in Eph 1:18.

On the vessels of mercy - People toward whom his mercy was to be displayed (see Rom 9:22); that is, on those toward whom he has purposed to display his mercy.

Mercy - Favor, or pity shown to the miserable. Grace is favor to the undeserving; mercy, favor to those in distress. This distinction is not, however, always strictly observed by the sacred writers.

Which he had afore prepared - We are here brought to a remarkable difference between God’ s mode of dealing with them and with the wicked. Here it is expressly affirmed that God himself had prepared them for glory. In regard to the wicked, it is simply affirmed that they "were fitted"for destruction, without affirming anything of the agency by which it was done. That God prepares his people for glory - commences and continues the work of their redemption - is abundantly taught in the Scriptures; 1Th 5:9, "God hath appointed us, to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ."2Ti 1:9, "who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."See also Eph 1:4-5, Eph 1:11; Rom 8:28-30; Act 13:48; Joh 1:13. As the renewing of the heart and the sanctifying of the soul is an act of goodness, it is worthy of God, and of course no objection could lie against it. No man could complain of a course of dealings designed to make people better; and as this is the sole design of the electing love of God, his deal, ings with this class of people are easily vindicated. No Christian can complain that God has chosen him, renewed him, and made him pure and happy. And as this was an important part of the plan of God, it is easily defended from the objection in Rom 9:19.

Unto glory - To happiness; and especially to the happiness of heaven Heb 2:10, "It became him, in bringing many sons unto glory, etc."Rom 5:2, "we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."2Co 4:17, "our light affliction worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,"2Th 2:14; 2Ti 2:10; 1Pe 5:4. This eternal state is called "glory,"because it blends together everything that constitutes honor, dignity, purity, love, and happiness. All these significations are in various places attached to this word, and all mingle in the eternal state of the righteous. We may remark here,

(1) That this word "glory"is not used in the Scriptures to denote any "external national privileges;"or to describe any external call of the gospel. No such instance is to be found. Of course the apostle here by vessels of mercy meant individuals destined to eternal life, and not nations externally called to the gospel. No instance can be found where God speaks of nations called to external privileges, and speaks of them as "prepared unto glory."

\caps1 (2) a\caps0 s this word refers to the future state of individuals, it shows what is meant by the word "destruction"in Rom 9:22. That term stands contrasted with glory; and describes, therefore, the future condition of individual wicked people. This is also its uniform meaning in the New Testament.

On this vindication of the apostle we may observe:

(1) That all people will be treated as they ought to be treated. People will be dealt with according to their characters at the end of life.

\caps1 (2) i\caps0 f people will suffer no injustice, then this is the same as saying that they will be treated justly. But what is this? That the wicked shall be treated as they deserve. What they deserve God has told us in the Scriptures. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment."

(3) God has a right to bestow his blessings as he chooses. Where all are undeserving, where none have any claim, he may confer his favors on whom he pleases.

\caps1 (4) h\caps0 e actually does deal with people in this way. The apostle takes this for granted. He does not deny it. He most evidently believes it, and labors to show that it is right to do so. If he did not believe it, and meant to teach it, he would have said so. It would have met the objection at once, and saved all argument. He reasons as if he did believe it; and this settles the question that the doctrine is true.

Barnes: Rom 9:24

Even us ... - See Rom 1:16; Rom 2:10; Rom 3:29-30. To prove that the Gentiles might be called as well as the Jews, was a leading design of the Epistle.

Us - Christians, selected from both Jews and Gentiles. This proves that he did not refer to nations primarily, but to individuals chosen out of nations. Two things are established here.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 hat the grace of God was not confined to the Jewish people, as they supposed, so that it could be conferred on no others.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 hat God was not bound to confer grace on all the descendants of Abraham, as he bestowed it on those selected from the mass, according to his own will, and not of necessity "on the mass"itself.

Poole: Rom 9:1

Rom 9:1-5 Paul professeth an unfeigned sorrow for the Jewish nation,

Rom 9:6-13 but proveth by instance from Scripture that the promise

to Abraham did not necessarily include all his descendants,

Rom 9:14-18 asserting that there is no unrighteousness in God’ s

bestowing his unmerited bounty on whom he pleaseth,

Rom 9:19-24 and that he was unquestionably free to suspend his

judgments, where deserved, either for the more signal

display of his power in taking vengeance on some, or

of his mercy in calling others to glory.

Rom 9:26-29 The calling of the Gentiles, and rejection of the

Jews, foretold.

Rom 9:30,31 Accordingly, the Gentiles have attained the

righteousness of faith, which the Jews refused.

Rom 9:32,33 The cause of such refusal.

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

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

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

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

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

Poole: Rom 9:2

His grief for his nation and people he expresseth,

1. By the greatness of it; it was such as a woman hath in travail so the word imports.

2. By the continuance of it; it was continual, or without intermission.

3. By the seat of it; it was in his heart, and not outward in his face. The cause he doth not here set down, but it is easily gathered from what follows, viz. the obstinacy and infidelity, together with the rejection, of the Jews.

Poole: Rom 9:3

I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ or, separated from Christ. This verse hath greatly vexed interpreters. Some read it, I did wish myself accursed from Christ: q.d. Before my conversion, I was willing to be accursed from Christ, to be a violent persecutor of the Christians, and so to be held of them as accursed for my brethren’ s sake. The vulgar Latin, and many Romanists, thus render the word hucomhn , in the text; but the generality of interpreters read it as we do, not indicatively, but potentially; and they make an ellipsis in the words, hucomhn pro hucoimhn an ; the like is frequent; see Act 25:22 1Co 2:8 2Co 11:1 . But then still the difficulty is, how, and in what sense, the apostle wished himself accursed, or separated from Christ. The received opinion is, that out of zeal to the glory of God, and love to his brethren, he was willing to be damned, that they all might be saved. Many of the ancients did thus expound this place: "Christ became a curse for us; and what marvel is it" (says one) "if the Lord would be made a curse for the servants, that a servant should be willing to become an anathema for the brethren." "He doth not wish" (says another) "for his brethren’ s sake to be separated from the love and grace of Christ, but from the comforts of Christ, and the future happiness that we have by him: he is content to lose his part in the heavenly glory, if that might promote the glory of Christ, which would be more illustrated by the saving a whole nation, than a particular person: q.d. If this might be the fruit of it, if it would gain this end, I could, methinks, be content to part with all my hopes in Christ, even my eternal happiness, upon condition my brethren might be partakers thereof; so passionate and abundant love have I to and for them." This exposition is not satisfactory; therefore so, he think the apostle here speaks of being accursed only for a season, or of being an anathema in this world. An anathema sometimes signifieth corporal death and destruction: of old, in times of common calamity, they were wont to sacrifice men to their idols and infernal gods, for the pacifying of their anger; such a sacrifice they called anathema, which is the word here used: q.d. For my brethren’ s sake, that so they might be saved, I could be content to be cut off, to be made a sacrifice, to die the worst of deaths. But if this be admitted, how then is that clause to be understood, from Christ? It is not, I could wish myself an anathema, but an anathema from Christ. To this they answer that favour this interpretation, That instead of from Christ, you may read, by Christ: q.d. I could be content to be cut off or destroyed by Christ, that my brethren might be saved. This sense of the words suits well with the zeal and kindness of Moses to his brethren, Exo 32:32 ; rather than they should not be pardoned and spared, he prays, that God would blot him out of the book that he had written: see annotations there. There is yet another, and a more probable, interpretation of this wish of the apostle. It is as if he had said, I could be willing to be separated or excommunicated from the church of Christ, for the sake and salvation of my country and nation. Anathema (says Hesychius) signifies akoinwnhtov , excommunicate; 1Co 16:22 : If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema; let him be removed from the Christian assemblies, deprived of those Christian privileges that are afforded there. Gal 1:8,9 , Let him be an anathema that teacheth another gospel; i.e. turned out of the church of Christ, and avoided by all true Christians. If this sense be admitted, then from Christ must signify, from the body of Christ; and so the word Christ is used, 1Co 12:12 Gal 3:27 . Christ being the Head of the body, he that is cut off from the body may be truly enough said to be cut off from Christ. Thus the apostle Paul, who was accused and persecuted by the Jews, for having made a defection from the law of Moses, and setting up Christian assemblies in opposition to their Judaical service, doth fitly express his kindness and love to them, in wishing himself deprived of those most valuable privileges, on condition they night be partakers thereof. To this it may be added, that in the primitive times, this anathematizing, or excommunicating, was attended with delivering up to Satan, and that with destruction of the flesh, with very sharp and severe punishments upon the bodies of men. And so anathema, in this notion, may be taken with this improvement, and may contain all those temporal calamities that he was willing to endure and undergo for their good: see D.H. in loc.

My kinsmen according to the flesh so the Jews were by natural descent: see Gen 29:14 .

Poole: Rom 9:4

In this and the following verse, he rehearseth the privileges and advantages the Jews had from God, above all other nations of the earth; and this he doth to show, that he had good reason to make such a wish, as in the foregoing verse; as also, that what he should declare concerning the Jews, and their ejection, did not proceed from any disrespect or disesteem of them.

Israelites i.e. the offspring of that holy patriarch Israel: this was the Jews’ first title of honour, that they descended from him, who by God himself was surnamed Israel, or a prince that had power with God, and prevailed, Gen 32:28 .

The adoption; adoption is not here to be understood as before, in Rom 8:15 , or as in Eph 1:5 , and elsewhere. But thereby we must understand the peculiar privilege of the seed of Jacob; that they, of all the nations of the earth, were pitched upon to be nearly related to God, to be his children (as they are called) and his firstborn: see Exo 4:22 Deu 14:1 Jer 31:9,20 Mt 15:26 .

The glory the ark and the temple; so called, because in them God did manifest his glorious presence, 1Sa 4:21,22 Ps 26:8 78:61 .

The covenants some understand by covenants, the tables of the law: see Heb 9:4 . Others rather understand the covenant made with Abraham, Gen 15:8 17:2,7 ; and with the Jewish nation, Exo 24:7,8 Ex 34:27 , &c. Circumcision also may be intended, for that is called God’ s covenant, Gen 17:10 .

The giving of the law the judicial, ceremonial, but especially the moral law. This is spoken of as a great privilege, Deu 4:8,32 . It may refer both to the law itself, and to the circumstances, also, with which the law was given.

The service of God the true manner of worshipping God, which was a great privilege. Other nations knew there was a God, and that he must be worshipped, but they knew not how; and so they ran into superstition and idolatry.

The promises of this life, and that to come; particularly of the Messiah, and of the benefits and blessings by him. These are found in Moses and the prophets, and were entailed upon the Jews and their children, Act 2:39 Eph 2:12 , till God at last cut off the entail.

Poole: Rom 9:5

Whose are the fathers who are lineally descended of the holy patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with other holy fathers and prophets, and of the same blood. This was also a great privilege, of which the Jews boasted.

Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came or out of whom; understand the people of the Jews, not the fathers. The meaning is, Christ took his human nature of their stock. It is the great honour of mankind, that Christ took not the nature of angels, but of man; and it is a great honour to the nation of the Jews, that he took the seed of Abraham their father.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever this is the fullest place to express the two natures that are in the person of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ; he was God as well as man: yea, this is the title by which the one and supreme God was known amongst the Jews.

Poole: Rom 9:6

An objection is here obviated: the Jews might object and say: If they were cast off and rejected, then God is unfaithful, and all his promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their seed, are ineffectual. To this he answers by a distinction of Israelites. Some are Israelites only in respect of their carnal generation; and others, again, are true Israelites, children of the promise, and of the faith of Abraham: see Rom 2:28,29 . Now the promises of God were made to the true Israelites, and in all such it is effectual: and under the name of Israel, or true Israelites, all those are comprehended, who imitate the faith of Abraham, and walk in his steps, whether they descended from him by fleshly generation or not. This he further asserts in the following verse.

Poole: Rom 9:7

He had before made a difference of Israelites, and now he makes a difference of the seed of Abraham. This was ever and anon in the mouths of the Jews: We are Abraham’ s seed, Joh 8:33 . But here he tells them, that all Abraham’ s seed were not the children of the promise; for it was said to Sarah, Gen 21:12 , that the promised seed should be confined to Isaac’ s line, of his issue should the Messiah come, and all the true seed of Abraham, who are born after the manner of Isaac, by the word and promise of God. And as Ishmael, though Abraham’ s natural seed, was cast out, and therein was a type of those who are born only according to the flesh; so Isaac is a type of Abraham’ s spiritual seed, who are born not of the power of nature, but by virtue of the promise of God.

Poole: Rom 9:8

q.d. That I may speak more plainly, all those that are the children of Abraham according to the flesh, are not therefore the adopted children of God; it is not their blood, but their faith, must make them such. There are some of Abraham’ s seed, that are selected from the rest, to whom the promise was made, who are therefore called

children of the promise and of this sort are all they who are born after the Spirit, ( as Isaac is said to be, Gal 4:29 ), whether Jews or Gentiles. The sense of this verse is fully expressed, Gal 3:8,14,29 : see Gal 4:28 .

Poole: Rom 9:9

The birth of Isaac was a thing extraordinary; for which, neither Abraham nor Sarah had any ground to hope, but only that promise made, Gen 18:10 , in these words: At this time, or according to this time, i.e. the time of bearing children after conception,

will I come, and Sarah shall have a son i.e. I will manifest my power in fulfilling my promise of giving thee a son. By which it is clear, that the birth of Isaac was an effect of God’ s promise, and nothing else. So that they to whom the promise belong, (whosoever they be), they are the seed of Abraham, and, upon the obedience of faith, shall be accepted for the children of God. The apostle Peter tells women, (whether Jews or Gentiles, it matters not), that by well-doing they become the daughters of Sarah.

Poole: Rom 9:10

And not only this some read it, And not only she; the particle this is not in the Greek.

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

Poole: Rom 9:11

For the children being not yet born: q.d. As there was nothing in the birth of those twins, so neither in their works, that occasioned the difference that God made between them; for when God spake of what should happen to them, they were unborn, and had done neither good nor evil.

Neither having done any good or evil he means, actual good or evil, such as might difference them one from another. As for original sin, they were both alike tainted therewith.

That the purpose of God this purpose of God is to be understood about reprobation, or (if you will) rejection, or preterition, as well as about election.

Might stand be firm or stable.

Not of works either done or foreseen.

But of him that calleth i.e. of the good pleasure and undeserved favour of God, who also effectually calleth those that he hath elected, as Rom 8:30 . See a parallel place, 2Ti 1:9 .

Poole: Rom 9:12

This verse is to be read with Rom 9:10,11 being a parenthesis. Then when she resorted to the Lord for counsel, about the struggling of the children in her womb, it was told her, or revealed to her of God, that

the elder should serve the younger: of the sense of which words, sea annotations on Gen 25:23 , where they are recorded.

Poole: Rom 9:13

The foregoing oracle is expounded by another, taken out of Mal 1:2,3 ; see the annotations there. Because the foregoing passage of Esau’ s serving Jacob doth not seem so full and clear, to betoken the election of Jacob, and the rejection of Esau, in the purpose of God, therefore the apostle brings this place to explain the former; and proves that the service or subjection of Esau to Jacob, was accompanied with God’ s eternal and undeserved love of the one, and his just and righteous hatred of the other. There are some, that by Esau and Jacob do understand their posterity, and not their persons; that say, the love and hatred of God, in the forecited text, doth only or chiefly respect temporal things; God loved Jacob, i.e. he gave him the Land of Promise; but hated Esau, i.e. he gave him a dry and barren country, and made his mountain waste: that by God’ s hating Esau, is only meant he loved him less than Jacob, &c. Such should consider, that the scope of the apostle is to show, that some are the children of God, and of the promise, and not others; and they must not make him cite testimonies out of the Old Testament impertinently. Much is written pro and con upon this argument. But I remember, he that writes a commentary must not too far involve himself in controversy.

Poole: Rom 9:14

Another anticipation of an objection. Some might object and say: If God elect some, and reject others, their case being the same, or their persons being in themselves equal and alike, then he is unjust and partial. To this he answers,

1. More generally, with his repeated note of detestation: God forbid; the Syriac translator reads it, God forgive; noting thereby the heinousness of such a thought and then he answers this cavil more particularly; showing:

1. That God is not unjust in electing some, Rom 9:15,16 . And,

2. That he is not unjust in rejecting others, Rom 9:17 .

Poole: Rom 9:15

q.d. God is not chargeable with any injustice in electing some, and not others; for this is an act of mere mercy and compassion, and that can be no violation of justice. To prove this, he cites a testimony out of Exo 33:19 , which see. There he tells Moses, that the good pleasure of his will was the only rule of all his favourable and merciful dealings with the children of men. The same thing is intended and expressed in two several phrases: and the ingemination imports the freeness of God’ s mercy; nothing moves him thereunto, but his own gracious inclination; and also the arbitrariness thereof; it depends only upon his good will and pleasure. The sum is, if God show mercy to some, and not to others, he cannot be accused of injustice, because he injures none; nor is he obliged or indebted to any.

Poole: Rom 9:16

q.d. God’ s election is not of Jacob’ s, or of any other man’ s, willing or running; i.e. it is not from his good desires or deeds, his good inclinations or actions, or from the foresight thereof; but it is of God’ s mere mercy and good pleasure. This text wounds Pelagianism under the fifth rib. Nec volenti, nec volanti, was the motto of a noble personage.

Poole: Rom 9:17

This verse shows, that God is not unjust in rejecting others of equal condition with the elect; for the proof of which, he cites a testimony out of Exo 9:16 . This verse must be joined with Rom 9:14 .

God forbid; for the Scripture saith i.e. God saith in the Scripture:

Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up i.e. I have created or promoted thee to be king in Egypt. Or, (as some), I have raised or stirred thee up to oppress my people. Or, I have hardened thee, as it follows in the next verse, and given thee up to thy own rebellious and obstinate mind.

That I might show my power in thee, &c.: I have done what I have done for this very end, that the whole world may ring of my power and glory. And this shows, that it is not unjust in God to reject sinners of the children of men, because thereby he furthers his own glory. For this end all things are made, and all things are accordingly ordered and disposed, Pro 16:4 .

Poole: Rom 9:18

This verse is a short repetition of the foregoing argument.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy: see Rom 9:15 , and the notes there.

And whom he will he hardeneth i.e. in a judicial way. Besides natural hardness, which is in all men, and is hereditary to them; and habitual hardness, which is contracted by a custom in sin, as a path is hardened by the continual trampling of passengers; there is judicial or judiciary hardness, which is inflicted by God as a punishment. Men harden their own hearts sinfully, (so it is thrice said of Pharaoh in Exodus, that he hardened his own heart, Exo 8:15,32 9:34 ), and then God hardens their hearts judicially: so it is often said of God in Exodus, that he hardened Pharaoh’ s heart, Exo 7:13 Exo 9:12 10:1,20,27 14:8 . God is not said properly to harden the hearts of men; i.e. he doth not make their soft hearts hard, nor doth he put hardness into the hearts of men, (as our adversaries slanderously report us to affirm), nor doth he barely permit or suffer them to be hardened (which is the opinion of the papists about this matter); but two ways may he be said to harden sinners:

1. By forsaking them, and not softening their hearts: as darkness follows upon the sun’ s withdrawing of his light, so doth hardness upon God’ s withholding his softening influence.

2. By punishing them; he inflicts further hardness, as a punishment of former hardness; and this he infuseth not, but it is effected either:

a) By Satan, to whom hardened sinners are delivered up; or,

b) By themselves, they being given over to their own hearts’ lusts; or,

c) By God’ s word and works, which accidentally harden the hearts of men, as might be shown. see Rom 9:19

See Poole on "Rom 9:19" .

Poole: Rom 9:19

Here he obviates a third objection or cavil. The first was, that God is unfaithful, Rom 9:6 ; the second, that God is unjust, Rom 9:14 ; now the third is, that God is severe and cruel. Some might object and say, If God, in those courses which he takes with men and sinners, doth follow only his own will and pleasure, and all things are done thereafter; why then doth he complain of sinners, and find fault with them? It seems it is his will to reject them; and who hath resisted, or can make resistance thereunto? It seems to be a common saying amongst the Hebrews, that None can withstand God: Rom 9:2 2Ch 20:6 , and elsewhere.

Poole: Rom 9:20

Here follows the answer to this cavil; which is either personal to the caviller, in this and the next verse, or real to the cavil, in the two following verses.

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? The apostle seems to speak these words with some warmth, as if his spirit and zeal was stirred at the sauciness of the caviller: q.d. Dost thou consider what thou art? Thou art but a man, a piece of living clay, a little breathing dust, a contemptible worm in comparison; and darest thou to word it with God, to dispute with thy Maker, to question or call him to an account? You may argue matters with your fellow creatures, but not with your Creator: see Isa 45:9,10 , from whence this seems to be borrowed, and Job 40:2 .

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? q.d. Shall the wood quarrel with the carpenter, the iron with the smith; or, as it is in the next verse, the clay with the potter?

Poole: Rom 9:21

He argueth from the less to the greater, that if a potter hath power over his clay, to form it as he pleaseth, then God hath much more power over his creatures, to form them or order them as he listeth. God’ s authority over his creature, is greater than that of a potter over his clay. The potter made not his clay; but both clay and potter are made by God. Here is something implied, that as there is no difference in the matter or lump out of which the potter frameth diversity of vessels, so there is no difference in mankind; all men are alike by nature, and in the same corrupt state; both those who are elected, and those who are rejected, that are made vessels of mercy, or vessels of wrath. And here is this expressed, that as the potter maketh vessels of honour or dishonour, of nobler or viler use, out of the same lump, as he listeth, and is not bound to give a reason of his so doing to his pots; so God may choose some, and reject others, and give no account thereof unto his creatures. The potter takes nothing from the clay, of what form soever he makes it; and the Creator doth no wrong to the creature, however he doth dispose of it.

Poole: Rom 9:22

In this and in the next verse, is a real answer to the cavil in Rom 9:19 . The apostle having spoken before of God’ s absolute right and power over his creatures, to dispose of them at his pleasure, as the potter doth his clay; lest any should tax God with tyranny and partiality towards his creatures, he subjoineth the reasons of his different proceedings with the one and with the other. q.d. What hast thou to answer or object against God, if he take a severe course with some? Seeing:

1. He thereby manifesteth his great displeasure against sin, and his power to take vengeance of sinners. Seeing:

2. He bears long with them in their sins; exerciseth great patience towards them in the midst of their provocations, giving them space to repent, if they call or will. And seeing:

3. They are vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction; partly by themselves, and their own sensual courses; partly by God’ s righteous judgment, who gives them up thereunto.

Poole: Rom 9:23

q.d. Again, on the other side, what hast thou to say, if he proceed more mercifully with others? Seeing:

1. He thereby manifesteth the riches of his glory, or his glorious grace; and seeing:

2. They are vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory; i.e. he had done it by election from eternity, and by regeneration and sanctification of the Spirit in time. He speaks here of two sorts of vessels, some of wrath, and some of mercy, as he had before spoken of vessels of honour, and of dishonour. Concerning the latter, he speaks passively, that they are fitted to destruction: see Rom 9:22 . Concerning the former, he speaks actively, that God hath prepared them unto glory.

Poole: Rom 9:24

Hitherto he hath been showing, that the promise was never made or meant to the carnal seed of Abraham. This argument he began, Rom 9:6,7 , and he continues it (using several apostrophes and amplifications, which were to his purpose) till he comes to these words; and here he tells you plainly who are the true seed of Abraham, and the children of the promise, even the called of God of all nations, whether Jews or Gentiles. And he takes occasion to fall into it, by speaking of some in the foregoing verse, that were vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory: now here, in this verse, he tells you, who these are; (and to be sure they are the persons he is inquiring after, viz. the spiritual seed of Abraham, and the children of the promise:) he says, they are such as God called; i.e. effectually called,

not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles and that this is so, he further proves in the following verse.

PBC: Rom 9:11

See PB: Ro 8:30

PBC: Rom 9:13

Think about these two men, Jacob and Esau.  Jacob, the one of whom God said, " Jacob have I loved."  Think about Jacob.  Think about his life.  Was he one that was seeking after God?  Far from it, far from it.  Jacob is the one who took his brothers birthright when his brother was at his weakest position.  Instead of having compassion on him when he was hungry saying " Well, I’ll just cook your dinner anyway because you’re my brother," rather said " I’ll cook your dinner - just give me your birthright."  Jacob the one who willingly followed through with his mothers plot to steal the blessing of his brother, walked in there and lied, boldface to his blind father who had no way to perceive that he was lying unto him and boldface and unashamedly lied to his father and stole the blessing.  My friends, there is no good in Jacob. 

Well, what about Esau?  Esau’s kind of the victim in this, right?  In a way.  But Esau was so angered that his brother would take his blessing - this was a material blessing, a natural blessing, but he was so angered that his brother would steal his blessing that he swore that when the mourning was finished for his fathers death that he would avenge and SLAY - think about that - that he would KILL, not just beat him up in a fight but " I will slay my brother to avenge this horrible crime that he has performed against me."

Now, you tell me who you’d choose!  Who gets salvation?  You see, friends, God was working a purpose - not the purpose of finding who’s going to be the best or who’s the best candidate.  It has nothing to do with it at all because there are no good candidates.  There are no good sources.  We’ve got people on this side of the table who say " We’re for Jacob" or " we’re for Esau," but we can all argue or decide that neither one of them were good choices.  God said, " I’m working My own purpose - " the purpose of God according to election might stand."  And what is that purpose?  " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

PBC: Rom 9:16

See PB: Ro 8:30

See PB: Joh 6:63

Haydock: Rom 9:3

I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ. [1] The word anathema, according to its derivation, signifies a thing separated or laid apart for some particular use. Hence it was put to signify things given and consecrated to God, which therefore used to be presented and hung up in temples. 2. The word also was applied to signify things whose destruction, as sometimes, men deputed to be sacrificed to the gods to appease their anger. This signification was according to the Hebrew word cherem, and the Syriac word horma, as Numbers xxi. 3. He called the name of that place Horma, that is, anathema; because it was to be entirely destroyed. See 1 Machabees v. Hence anathema was also used for a curse, and to anathematize, to curse. See Acts xxiii. 14. The sense of this place is differently expounded. Tolet, by the word I wished, or I did wish, thinks that St. Paul might speak of the time before his conversion, when out of a false zeal, he wished to be separated from Christ, and from all Christians: and that he brings this to shew his brethren how zealous he had been for their religion. But this wish of St. Paul is generally expounded as proceeding from the great love and charity he had, when he was an apostle, for the conversion and salvation of his brethren, the Jews, who mostly remained obstinate and incredulous: and some will have it to be no more than a hyperbolical expression of his great love and affection for them. Others, with St. Jerome, ep. ad Algasiam, tom. iv. p. 203. Ed. Ben. think that by this way of speaking, St. Paul signifies himself willing to be sacrificed, by undergoing any death for their conversion: but St. John Chrysostom (hom. xvi.) thinks this far short of the sublime charity of St. Paul; for by such a death, says he, he would not be separated from Christ, but would be a great gainer by it; since by that means he would soon be free from all the troubles and sufferings of a miserable life, and blessed with the company and enjoyment of Christ in the kingdom of his glory. He, and many others, think that St. Paul was so troubled and grieved to the heart at the obstinacy of the unbelieving Jews, at their blasphemies against Christ, and their eternal perdition, that an extraordinary charity and zeal for God's honour, and their salvation, made him wish even to endure a separation from Christ, and from the glory prepared for him in heaven, though not from the love, or from the grace of Christ. If this, says St. John Chrysostom, seems incredible to us, it is because we are far from such heroic dispositions of the love of God, and of our neighbours. (Witham) ---

The apostle's concern and love for his countrymen, the Jews, was so great, that he was willing even to suffer an anathema, or curse, for their sake; or any evil that could come upon him, without his offending God. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Anathema esse a Christo, Greek: anathema einai apo tou Christou. From Greek: anathesthai. See Greek: anathema, and Greek: anathema in Legh's critic. sac. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xiv. p. 136. Ed. Sav. where he says, that to expound St. Paul, as if he wished to die for Christ's sake, is a childish exposition, not worthy of the great charity of St. Paul, that is deserves no confutation: Greek: ouk esti tauta, ouk esti....oude gar antilegein pros taouta axion. He thinks that St. Paul was willing to be separated, not from the love of Christ, (God forbid) but from the glory of the kingdom of heaven; Pag. 135. Greek: alotriothenai ouchi tes agapes autou, me genoito, alla tes apolauseos ekeines kai tes doxes.

Haydock: Rom 9:4-5

To whom belongeth the adoption of children. Literally, whose is the adoption. He mentions the favours which God had done to his people, the Jews. As, 1. That God had adopted them for his elect people. 2. That he had glorified them with so many miracles. 3. That he had made a particular covenant and alliance with them. 4. Given them a written law. 5. Prescribed the manner they should worship him. 6. Promises of divers blessings. 7. Who are from the Fathers. Literally, whose are the Fathers; i.e. who descended from the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. 8. Of whose race, i.e. of the family of David, Jesus Christ, as man, was born. ---

Who is over all things God, [2] blessed for ever. Amen. Though the apostles did not often, in express words, call Jesus Christ, the God, lest the heathens, when they were not sufficiently instructed, should imagine that there were many gods, (as divers of the fathers take notice) yet here, and in several places, they clearly delivered the divinity of our Saviour, Christ. The Socinians might here observe, that the apostle calls him the God blessed for ever, and with the Greek article. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:5

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Qui est super omnes Deus benedictus in sæcula. Amen. Greek: o on ep ponton theos eulogetos eis tous aionas, Amen.

Haydock: Rom 9:6-7

Not as though the word of God hath failed in his promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs. The Jews pretended that the promises were made to them only, and to those that were of their race, and that the Gentiles were not to partake of them. St. Paul shews them their mistake, by telling them who are to be esteemed the true children of Abraham, and of the patriarchs, according to the promises which God made, and who are not. (Witham) ---

All are not Israelites, &c. Not all, who are the carnal seed of Israel, are true Israelites in God's account: who, as by his free grace he heretofore preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so he could, and did by the like free grace, election, and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles, and prefer them before the carnal Jews. (Challoner) ---

Neither are all they, who are of the seed of Abraham, his true spiritual children, to whom these promises were made: nor are all they who are descended from Isaac the children of these promises nor are all they true Israelites, to whom these blessings were promised, although they are descended from Israel; but only they who are the children of the patriarchs by faith in Jesus, the Messias, in whom God promised that he would bless all nations. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:9

To prove that the children of Abraham are the children of the promise, he adduces the passage of Scripture: "I will come in a year's time, and Sara shall have a son." (Genesis xviii.) This promised child was Isaac, the true son of the promise of God, and of the faith of Abraham; and not the son of the flesh, for Ismael was this as well as Isaac; but he was granted to the prayers of Abraham, a child of the grace and mercy of God. All the faithful, therefore, of whatever race or nation they may be, are in this sense the children of Abraham, by being gratuitously chosen by God, and by the fidelity in which they are imitators of Abraham. (Calmet)

Haydock: Rom 9:10

and not only she (Sara) brought forth Isaac, who was the only child of Abraham, to whom the promises descended, though he was the father of Ismael, by Agar, and of all the Ismaelites. And lest the Jews should say that the Ismaelites, though descending from Abraham, according to the flesh, were not to be reputed as his children for another reason, because they came of Agar, who was only the handmaid of Sara; he brings them another example to which they could make no such reply; to wit, that Rebecca also at once had two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob; where, though Esau was the first-born, these promises were not reputed as made to him, and his descendants, the Idumeans, who were equally the descendants of Isaac, yet not the favourite people, nor the children of God, as the Jews saw very well. (Witham) ---

Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is not one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) ---

Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. ---

That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God's elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:14

What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God, when he bestows special favours and benefits on some, and not on others? He answers, by no means. And he justifies almighty God's conduct, ver. 22. In the mean time, it is certain that there is no injustice in not giving what another has no right to: and besides all men having sinned, deserved punishment. If, then, he shews mercy to some, it is an effect of his goodness and liberality only which they do not deserve. If he leaves others in their sins, they are only punished according to their deserts. His mercy shines upon his elect; and his divine justice is displayed against the wicked and the reprobate, but only according to what they have deserved. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:15-16

I will have mercy, &c. Then it is not of him that willeth, &c. By these words he again teaches that God's call and predestination of those whom he has decreed to save, in not upon account of any works or merits in men, but only to be attributed to the mercy and goodness of God. See St. Thomas Aquinas on this chap. lect. iii. See St. Augustine, Encher. chap. xcviii. Epis. 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. chap. xxv. &c. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:17

For the Scripture saith to Pharao, &c. St. Paul had shewn that there was no injustice in God by his giving special graces to the elect; now he shews that God cannot be accounted unjust for leaving the reprobate in their sins, or for punishing them as they deserve; for this purpose he brings the example of Pharao, who remained hardened against all the admonitions and chastisements of him and his kingdom. ---

Have I raised thee up, placed thee king over Egypt; I have done so many miracles before thee, I have spared thee when thou deservedst to be punished with death, and at last shall punish thee with thy army in the Red Sea, that my name may be known over all the earth. (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:18

And whom he will, he hardeneth. [3] That is, permits to be hardened by their own malice, as it is divers times said in Exodus, that Pharao hardened his heart. God, says St. Augustine, is said to harden men's hearts, not by causing their malice, but by not giving them the free gift of his grace, by which they become hardened by their own perverse will. (Witham) ---

Not by being the cause, or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et quem vult indurat. &c. St. Augustine, lib. de Gra. & Lib. Arb. chap. 23. Deus induravit cor Pharaonis, & ipse Pharao per Liberum Arbitrium. Quærimus meritum obdurationis & invenimus: merito namque peccati, universa massa damnata est: nec obdurat Deus impertiendo malitiam, sed non impertiendo misericordiam:....quærimus autem meritum misericordiæ, nec invenimus: quia nullum est, ne gratia evacuetur, si non gratis donetur, sed meritis redditur. Obduratio Dei est, nolle miserere, &c. Pharao, says St. John Chrysostom, was a vessel of anger, but his was from himself; Greek: kai par eautou.

Haydock: Rom 9:19

Thou wilt say, therefore, to me, &c. The apostle makes objection, that if God call some and harden, or even permit others to be hardened, and no one resisteth, or can hinder his absolute will, why should God complain that men are not converted? St. Paul first puts such rash and profane men in mind, that is unreasonable and impertinent for creatures to murmur and dispute against God their Creator, when they do not comprehend the ways of his providence. ---

O man, [4] who art thou that repliest against God? This might stop the mouths, and quiet the minds of every man, when he cannot comprehend the mysteries of predestination, of God's foreknowledge, his decrees and graces, or the manner of reconciling them with human liberty. He may cry out with St. Paul again, (chap. xi. 33.) O the riches of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! how incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! ---

Shall the thing formed, &c. Hath not the potter power, &c.[5] To teach men that they ought not to complain against God and his providence, when they cannot comprehend his works, he puts them in mind of their origin. Every one may say to God, with the prophet Isaias, (vi. 48.) Lord, thou art our Father, and we are but clay; thou art our Maker who framed us, and we are all of us the work of thy hands. Hath not the potter power as he pleaseth, out of the same lump of clay to make some vessels for honourable uses, and some for less honourable. St. John Chrysostom observes very well, that this comparison must not be extended further than the apostle designed; which was to teach us, how submissive we ought to be to God, in what we do not understand; but we must not pretend from hence, nor from any expression in this chapter, as divers heretics have done, that as vessels of clay are destitute of free will and liberty, so are men. This is against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and against the Scriptures, in many places. (Witham) ---

The potter. This similitude is used, only to shew that we are not to dispute with our Maker: nor to reason with him why he does not give as much grace to one as to another: for since the whole lump of our clay is vitiated by sin, it is owing to his goodness and mercy that he makes out of it so many vessels of honour; and it is no more than just that others, in punishment of their unrepented sins, should be given up to be vessels of dishonour. (Challoner)

Haydock: Rom 9:20

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

O homo, tu quis es? &c. The apostle, says St. John Chrysostom, (p. 141.) does not say, that this cannot be answered, but that such questions are impertinent, because we cannot understand what God does, &c. Greek: ou legei oti adunaton toiauta luein, &c.

Haydock: Rom 9:21

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Annon potestatem habet figulus, &c.? St. John Chrysostom (p. 142.) expressly takes notice, that we must not by this comparison pretend that man has not free-will, &c. Greek: entautha ou to autexousion anairon. &c.

====================

Haydock: Rom 9:22-23

And if God, &c. He now gives the reason why God might, without any injustice, have mercy on some, and not on others; grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all mankind was become liable to damnation by original sin: the clay that al are made of, is a sinful clay; and as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of in, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hat done unjustly? (Witham)

Haydock: Rom 9:24

Whom also he hath called, &c. That is, he hath called some of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles, to be vessels of election, as he foretold by his prophet Osee, (ii. 24.) I will call them my people, that were not my people,... and I will make them the children of the living God. And as it was also foretold by the prophet Isaias, of all the numerous nation of the Jews, only a remnant shall be saved, by their obstinacy in not receiving, and refusing to believe in, their Messias. For finishing his word, and reducing it by his justice to a little, because the Lord will bring to pass his word reducing it to a small compass upon the earth. The sense and construction of this verse is equally obscure in the Greek and in the Latin text: the true sense seems to be, that finishing his word, or fulfilling his promises to Israel, those that are to be saved, will be reduced by his justice for their sins, to a few; because, though he brings to pass his word, and his promises, the saved among the Israelites will be reduced to a small compass, in comparison of the great number of the Gentiles. This exposition agrees with the rest of the text, and with what follows, and was foretold by Isaias, (chap. i. 9.) that unless the God of Sabaoth (of hosts) had, through his mercy, left them a seed, a small number, they would all in a manner have deserved to be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrha. (Witham) ---

What I say, shall come to pass, that in those places, viz. Greece, Italy, &c. where those who are strangers to the worship of the true God dwell, and have been called, on account of their profane worship, not my people. In those very places, they shall receive the true worship God, and by this means shall become and be called the children of the living God. He is so particular as to place, lest the Jews should imagine that the Gentiles would be converted like their former proselytes, and either dwell in Judea, or repair to it at certain stated times. Thus the apostle repeats what Jesus Christ had before said to the Samaritan woman. The hour will come when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you adore the Father. (Estius) (John iv.) ---

A remnant. That is, a small number only of the children of Israel shall be converted and saved. How perversely is this text quoted for the salvation of men of all religions, when it speaks only of the converts of the children of Israel. (Challoner) ---

St. Paul is here speaking of the reprobation of the Jews, and of the vocation of the Gentiles, and foretells that a remnant, or small number of the children of Israel shall be converted, and saved. In the sense of St. Paul, we sincerely hope, and confidently trust, that a remnant of all will be saved through a timely conversion. But we no where read, in the Old, or New Scriptures, that a remnant of all will be saved, as if it were a matter of indifference to what society or connexion a Christian was joined. (Haydock)

Gill: Rom 9:1

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

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

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

Gill: Rom 9:2

That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. This is the thing he appeals to Christ for the truth of, and calls in his conscience and the Holy Ghost to bear witness to. These two words, "heaviness" and "sorrow", the one signifies grief, which had brought on heaviness on his spirits; and the other such pain as a woman in travail feels: and the trouble of his mind expressed by both, is described by its quantity, "great", it was not a little, but much; by its quality it was internal, it was in his "heart", it did not lie merely in outward show, in a few words or tears, but was in his heart, it was a heart sorrow; and by its duration, "continual", it was not a sudden emotion or passion, but what had been long in him, and had deeply affected and greatly depressed him: and what was the reason of all this? it is not expressed, but may pretty easily be understood; it was because of the obstinacy of his countrymen the Jews, the hardness of their hearts, and their wilful rejection of the Messiah; their trusting to their own righteousness, to the neglect and contempt of the righteousness of Christ, which he knew must unavoidably issue in their eternal destruction; also what greatly affected his mind was the utter rejection of them, as the people of God, and the judicial blindness, and hardness of heart, he full well knew was coming upon them, and which he was about to break unto them.

Gill: Rom 9:3

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ,.... Some consider this as the reason of the apostle's great heaviness, and continual sorrow of heart, because he had made such a wish as this, and read the words, "for I have wished", or "did wish"; that is, in my unregenerate state, whilst I was a persecutor of Christ, and a blasphemer of his name, I wished to be for ever separated from him, and to have nothing to do with him; for then I thought I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, and this I did out of respect to the Jewish nation, and because I would not relinquish the Jewish religion; but oh! what a trouble of mind is it to me? what uneasiness does it give me when I think of it, and reflect upon it? But this can never be the apostle's meaning, for he would never have appealed to Christ in so solemn a manner, and took an oath upon it, for the truth of his enmity to Christ, and alienation from him before conversion, which everybody knew; nor was it anything strange, that whilst he was an unbelieving Jew, he should wish himself separated from Jesus of Nazareth, and always to remain so; and his having done this before his embracing of Christianity could be no evidence of his present affection for the Jewish nation, especially since he repented of it, and was sorry for it. But this wish, whatever is meant by it, is mentioned as an instance of his great love to his countrymen the Jews. Many have thought that his meaning is, that he had so great a value for them, that he could even wish himself, and be content to be eternally separated from Christ, everlastingly banished from his presence, never to enjoy communion more with him, or in other words, to be eternally damned, that they might be saved. But this is what could never be, and which he knew, was impossible to be done, and was contrary to that strong persuasion he had just expressed in the close of the foregoing chapter. Nor is it consistent with his love to Christ, to wish any thing of this kind; it would make him to love the Jews much better than Christ; since, according to this sense, he must wish to be parted from him, that they might be saved, and consequently must love them more than Christ: nor is it consistent with, but even contrary both to the principles of nature and grace; it is contrary to the principles of nature, for a man to desire his own damnation upon any consideration whatever; and it is contrary to the principle of grace, which always strongly inclines to be with Christ, and not separated from him; in a word, to be accursed from Christ in this sense, could be no proper means of the salvation of the Jews, and therefore it cannot be thought to be desirable, or wished for. Some things are said indeed for the qualifying of this sense of the words, as that the apostle said this inconsiderately, when he was scarcely himself, through an ecstasy of mind, and intemperate zeal, and an overflow of affection for his nation; but this is highly to reflect upon the apostle, and to represent him in a very unworthy manner, when it is certain he said this with the greatest deliberation and seriousness; he introduces it in the most solemn manner, with an appeal to Christ, the Holy Spirit, and his own conscience, and therefore it could never drop from him through incogitancy, and an overheated affection. Again, it is said, that this wish was made with a condition, if it was the will of God, but that he knew was not; or if it could be for the good of these people, this also he knew it could never be: the best qualification Of it is to say it is an hyperbolical expression; and so if it is, it must be with a witness, being such an hyperbole, as is not to be matched in sacred or profane writings. The words of Moses are thought to be a parallel one, "blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written", Exo 32:32; but that is not to be understood of the book of eternal life; but either of the book of the law, as R. Sol. Jarchi expounds it, which God had ordered him to write, and his desire is, that his name might not stand there; or rather of the book of this temporal life, that he might die and not live. It remains then that these words must have another meaning. Now let it be observed, that the word αναθεμα, here translated "accursed", answers to the Hebrew word חרם, which, with the Jewish writers, is one sort of excommunication in use among them, and the greater sort; the forth of it, as given by them, is very horrible, and shocking ^r; See Gill on Joh 9:22; and so we may observe the word "anathema" here used is mentioned as a form of excommunication in 1Co 16:22; of all such as love not Christ and his Gospel, and make it appear by their principles or practices, or both, that they do not, and so ought to be removed from the communion of churches. Now, taking the word in this sense, the apostle's meaning is, that he could wish to be excommunicated from Christ; that is, from the body of Christ, from the church of Christ, Christ mystical, as the word "Christ" is used, 1Co 12:12; to be deprived of the ordinance of Christ's house, to be degraded from his office in it, and not to be so much as a member in it. He saw that these branches, the people of the Jews, were going to be cut off, and no longer to be of the church of God; and such was his affection to them, that he could have wished rather to be cut off himself, that they might be spared; and this was an instance of great love to them, since, next to Christ, the church and the ordinances of it were exceeding dear unto, and highly valued by the apostle. Again, it is worthy of observation, that the Hebrew word חרם, which the Septuagint render by αναθεμα, the word in the text, is used for any thing devoted to God, and which could not be alienated to any other use or service; and if it was a man, or any among men that was devoted, it was not to be redeemed, but was "surely to be put to death", Lev 27:29. Some have thought that Jephthah's daughter was put to death upon this law; but be that as it will, the apostle here may reasonably be thought to allude unto it, and his sense be this, that he could wish himself αναθεμα ειναι απο του χριστου, "to be devoted unto death", not from Christ, but "by" Christ; and some copies read υπο, "by": I could wish that my dear Lord and Master, as if he should say, would appoint and order me to die, might this nation of mine but escape that ruin and destruction I see is coming upon them, as a nation and a church; I could be content to die the most accursed death, and be treated in the most ignominious manner, might they but be saved; a like expression is that of R. Ishmael ^s, בני ישראל אני כפרתן "may I be an expiatory sacrifice for the children of Israel";

"which (says one commentator ^t) he said, מתוך חבתן, "because of his love to them"; and it is as if he should say, all the punishment which is right to come upon them, I will take it on myself, in order to atone for them;''

and says another ^u,

"the sense is, he took upon him their redemption, and this he said, לרוב אהבתו, "because of the greatness of his love":''

now for a man to die for his country, that a whole nation perish not, was agreeably to the sentiments both of Jews and Gentiles, and was the highest instance of love among men; "greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends", Joh 15:13; and this is carrying the sense of the apostle's wish high enough, and not too far. The persons on whose account he could have expressed this wish, are described by their natural relation to him,

my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh: he calls them his brethren, not in a spiritual sense, nor in a strict natural sense, but in a general way, as being of the same nation: it is a saying with the Jews ^w, כל ישראל אחים, "all the Israelites are brethren"; for the same reason he calls them kinsmen; and these appellations he uses to remove that ill will and prejudice they had conceived in their minds against him, and to signify the ground of his affection for them: and he adds, "according to the flesh", to distinguish them from his spiritual brethren and relations; for though they were brethren in a national sense, they were not all so in a spiritual relation.

Gill: Rom 9:4

Who are Israelites,.... Which were their national name, as descended from Jacob, whose name was Israel; and it was accounted a very honourable one; see Phi 3:5; and the very name they bore gave the apostle some concern that they should be cut off; and then he proceeds to enumerate the several distinguishing favours and privileges they had been partakers of:

to whom pertaineth the adoption; not that special adoption, which springs from eternal predestination, is a blessing of the covenant of grace, comes through the redemption of Christ, and is received and enjoyed only by believers in him; for all that were Israelites, were not in this sense the children of God; but national adoption is here meant, by which the whole body of the people, as nation, were the sons of God, his firstborn:

and the glory; either the ark of the covenant, which is so called in Psa 63:2, according to Kimchi; or the clouds in the tabernacle and temple, which were called the glory of the Lord, and were symbols of his presence, the same with the Shekinah; and so Aben Ezra interprets power, the ark, and glory, the Shekinah, Psa 63:2,

and the covenants; not the two Testaments, Old and New, but the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham their father, and the covenant at Sinai they entered into with the Lord; some copies, and the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, read, "the covenant":

and the giving, of the law: מתן תורה, a way of speaking the ^x Jews make use of when they take notice of this privilege; for it was peculiarly given to them with great solemnity by God himself, through the disposition of angels into the hands of Moses the mediator, and by him to them; and on account of this, they reckoned themselves more beloved of God than the rest of mankind ^y.

and the service of God; or "the service", as in the Greek text. So the Jews ^z are used to call it עבודה, "the service"; and false worship is called by them עבודה זרה, "strange service", which is the title of one of their Misnic tracts; and here it signifies the whole worship of God, in the whole compass of it, sacrifices, prayer, praise, &c. daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly:

and the promises; both temporal and spiritual, especially such as related to the Messiah, and which now had their accomplishment.

Gill: Rom 9:5

Whose are the fathers,.... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for, according to the ^a Jewish writers,

"they call none in Israel אבות, "fathers", but three, and they are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and they call none "mothers" but four, and they are, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah:''

their descent from these fathers was a privilege, though they valued themselves too highly upon it; but what was the crown and glory of all, and which they took the least, though the apostle took the most notice of, is,

and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; that is, either of the fathers, or of the Israelites, from whom Christ, according to his human nature, sprung; being a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of David, and the son of Mary; hence the Messiah is called משיהא דישראל, "the Messiah or Christ of Israel" ^b:

who is described as

over all, angels and men, being the creator, upholder, and governor of them; and as having another nature, a divine one, being

God, truly and properly God,

blessed for evermore; in himself, and to be blessed and praised by all creatures. The apostle alludes to that well known periphrastic name of God so much used by the Jews, הקדוש ברוך הוא, "the holy, blessed God"; to which, by way of assent and confirmation, the apostle puts his

Amen. Now all these particular privileges are mentioned by him, as what heightened his concern for these people; it filled him with heaviness and sorrow of heart, when he considered, that persons who had been partakers of such favours, and especially the last, that the Messiah should spring from them, be born of them, and among them, and yet that they should be given up to ruin and destruction.

Gill: Rom 9:6

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect,.... Or "it is not possible indeed that the word of God should fall"; see 1Sa 3:10; This the apostle says, partly to relieve his own mind pressed with sorrow, and partly to obviate an objection some might make, or prevent any mistake any might be ready to go into; as though from what he suggested that what God had said concerning the people of the Jews, was made void and without effect: for whether by the "word of God" are meant, the Scriptures in general, the prophecies of the Old Testament, these were now about to have their accomplishment, in the rejection of the Jews, and in the conversion of the Gentiles; or whether by it is designed the Gospel, this, as preached both by Christ and his apostles, had had its effect upon God's chosen ones among that people; it was become the power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first: or rather by it may be intended, God's word of promise to Abraham, that he would be a God to him, and to his seed after him; and that he and they should be heir of the world, of this and of that which is to come; particularly the heavenly inheritance, which he gave to him by promise; this was not made void, or had taken none effect: for this was made only to Abraham and his spiritual seed; and therefore though his carnal seed believed not, and for their unbelief should be cut off, this did not make the faith, or faithfulness of God of none effect:

for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; that is, they which are the descendants of the patriarch Jacob, whose name was Israel; or who are of the Israelitish nation, of the stock of Israel, belonging to that people; they are not all את ישראל, "the Israel", by way of emphasis, as in Psa 25:22, or the "Israel of God", Gal 6:16, the Israel whom Jehovah the Father has chosen for a peculiar people; which Christ has redeemed from all their iniquities; which the Spirit of God calls with an holy calling, by special grace, to special privileges; the seed of Israel who are justified in Christ, whose iniquities are so pardoned and done away, that when they are sought for they shall not be found, and who are saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: or in other words, though they are "Israel after the flesh", 1Co 10:18, yet not after the Spirit; though they are by nation Israelites, they are not Israelites "indeed", as Nathanael was, Joh 1:47; they are Jews outwardly, not inwardly; they have not all principles of grace, uprightness, and sincerity in them: now to these spiritual Israelites, or seed of Abraham, were the word of God, the promises of God concerning spiritual and eternal things made, and upon these they had their effect; and therefore it could not be said that the word of God had taken none effect; though the whole body of Israel after the flesh were cut off and rejected. Some copies, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, "who are Israelites"; and the Ethiopic version, "they are not all Israel who came out of Egypt".

Gill: Rom 9:7

Neither because they are the seed of Abraham,.... The Jews highly valued themselves, upon being the natural seed of Abraham; and fancied, upon this account, that they were children, which the apostle here denies: neither

are they all children; as in the former verse, he explains in what sense they were Israelites, which he had mentioned among their high characters and privileges, as descending from Jacob, and in what sense they were not; so in this he shows in what manner the "adoption", Rom 9:4, belonged to them, and it did not; being Abraham's seed, they were his natural children, and the children of God by national adoption; but, they were not all the spiritual children of Abraham, nor the children of God by the special grace of adoption; these characters only belonged to some of them, and which are equally true of Gentile believers; who being of the same faith with Abraham, are his children, his seed, and also the children of God: natural descent from Abraham avails nothing in this case, as is clear from the instance of Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the natural seed of Abraham, as well as Isaac; but he was not a son of Abraham in a spiritual sense, nor a child of God; he was not a child of promise, this was peculiar to Isaac:

but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; see Gen 21:12. The meaning of which is, either that the progeny of Abraham in the line of Isaac should only be called, accounted, and esteemed, in an eminent sense, the seed of Abraham, and not his posterity in the line of Ishmael: agreeably to which the Jews say ^c, that

"Ishmael is not בכלל זרעו של אברהם, "in the general account of the seed of Abraham"; for it is said, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called", Gen 21:12; nor is Esau in the general account of the seed of Isaac; hence, says R. Joden bar Shalom, in Isaac, that is, in part of Isaac.''

So another ^d of their writers, on mentioning this passage, observes,

"that it is said in Isaac, ולא כל יצחק, but "not all Isaac";''

or all that sprung from him. Or this has respect to the most eminent and famous seed of Abraham, the Messiah, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed; who was to spring from him by Isaac, in the line of Jacob; and may likewise have a personal respect to Isaac himself, the son of the promise, a child of Abraham in a spiritual sense, when Ishmael was not; and to whom belonged the spiritual promises and blessings, and who was to be, and was effectually called by the grace of God; and may include also his whole seed and posterity, who, both natural and spiritual, were children of the typical promise, the land of Canaan, and the enjoyment of temporal good things; and the matter also children of the antitypical promise, or of those spiritual and eternal things, which God has promised to Abraham's spiritual seed, whether among Jews or Gentiles; and which always have their effect, and had, even when, and though Abraham's natural seed had a "lo ammi", Hos 1:9, written upon them.

Gill: Rom 9:8

That is, they which are the children of the flesh,.... This is an explanation of the foregoing verse, and shows, that by "the seed of" Abraham are meant, the natural seed of Abraham, who are born after the flesh, or descend from him by carnal generation:

these are not the children of God; that is, not all of them, nor any of them, on account of their being children of the flesh, or Abraham's natural seed; for adoption does not come this way; men do not commence children of God by their fleshly descent; they are not "born of blood", but of God, who are the sons of God:

but the children of the promise are counted for the seed; בני ברית "children of the covenant", is a common phrase with the Jews; who reckoned themselves as such, because they were the seed of Abraham: thus in their prayers they say ^e to God,

"we are thy people, בני בריתך, "the children of thy covenant", the children of Abraham thy friend.''

And so they were the children of the covenant, or promise, which God made with Abraham and his natural seed, respecting the land of Canaan, and their enjoyment of temporal good things in it; but they were not all of them the children of the promise, which God made to Abraham and his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles, respecting spiritual and eternal things; to whom alone the promises of God, being their God in a spiritual sense, of spiritual and eternal salvation by Christ, and of the grace of the Spirit of God, and of eternal life belong; and who are the seed which were promised to Abraham by God, saying, "thou shalt be a father of many nations", Gen 17:4, for which reasons, because these spiritual promises belong to them, and because they themselves were promised to Abraham, as his children, therefore they are called "children of the promise": or rather, because as Isaac was a child of promise, being born after the Spirit, by virtue of the promise of God, through his divine power and goodness, when there were no ground or foundation in nature, for Abraham and Sarah to hope for a son; so these are called "children of promise", Gal 4:28, because they are born again, not through the power of nature, and strength of their own free will; they are not born of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, according to the will of God and his abundant mercy, by the word of truth, through his power, Spirit, and grace; and by faith receive the promises made unto them; and are counted and reckoned as "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise", Gal 3:29, whether they be Jews, or whether they be Gentiles: and since now the promises of God are all made good to these persons, the word of God is not without effect, or is not made void, by the casting off the children of the flesh, or the carnal seed of Abraham, who were not children of the promise in the sense now given.

Gill: Rom 9:9

For this is the word of promise,.... The following passage is the Scripture, which contains the promise concerning the birth of Isaac; which was the produce, not of nature, but of divine grace and power; and was typical of the regeneration of God's elect, who "as Isaac was, are the children of promise", Gal 4:28, for as Ishmael was a type of them that are born after the flesh, and are carnal men, so Isaac was a type of those, who are born after the Spirit, and are spiritual men: the promise is,

at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son; the passage referred to is in Gen 18:10; which there stands thus, "I will certainly return unto thee, according to the time of life, and lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son": some difference there is between the words as cited by the apostle, and as they stand in the original text; the word "lo", is omitted by the apostle, nor was there any necessity to repeat it, since it was used only to excite Abraham's faith, attention, and wonder; also the phrase "thy wife", is neglected, the reason is, because the words in Genesis are an address to Abraham, here the substance of the promise to him is produced; besides it was not only well known in the apostle's time, that Sarah was the wife of Abraham, but that as such she brought forth Isaac, wherefore it was not so very necessary it should be mentioned here; add to this, that it is not repeated in Gen 18:14, which will justify our apostle in the omission of it: but the greater seeming difference is, that what in Genesis is rendered, "according to the time of life", is by the apostle, "at this time": some think, that there may be an emendation of the present original text, and suppose a various reading, and that the apostle, instead of חיה, "life", read חזה, "this", but there is no occasion for such a supposition, or to make this amendment: for the phrase "the time of life", signifies the present time, the "nunc stans"; so R. Levi ben Gerson ^f, understands this phrase, "according to the time of life", כעת הזאת שהיא קיימת ועומדת עתה, "according to this time which is now standing and abiding" and adds, rightly is this said, because neither time past nor to come are to be found, only the present time, the "nunc stans" and afterwards more than once explains it, of this present time, the next year: and so both R. Solomon Jarchi, and R. Aben Ezra ^g, expound it, כעת הזאת, "according to this time", the year following; that is, exactly according to this present time next year, or this time twelve month; besides, in Gen 17:21 it is said, "at this set time", and in Gen 18:14, "at the appointed time"; all which support the apostle in his version.

Gill: Rom 9:10

And not only this,.... This instance of Ishmael and Isaac, is not the only one, proving that Abraham's natural seed, the children of the flesh, are not all children, the children of God:

but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, "it was said unto her", Rom 9:12, being in a parenthesis, "the elder shall serve the younger". The apostle was aware, that the Jews would be ready to say, that the instance of Ishmael and Isaac was not a pertinent one; since Ishmael was not born of Sarah, the lawful wife of Abraham, but of a bondwoman, which was the reason his rejection, when Isaac was the son of promise, by the lawful wife, and that they were children of Abraham in the line of Isaac, and so children of the promise, as he was: wherefore he proceeds to mention the case of Jacob and Esau, which was not liable to any such exception; seeing they not only had the same father, but the same mother, Isaac's lawful wife; they were conceived by Rebecca at once, were in the same womb together, were twins, and if any had the preference and advantage, Esau had it, being born first; and yet a difference was made between these two by God himself, and which was notified by him to the mother of them, before either were born.

Gill: Rom 9:11

For the children being not yet born, So says ^h the Chaldee paraphrast,

"the prophet said unto them, was it not said of Jacob, עד דלא אתיליד, "when he was not yet born", that he should be greater than his brother?''

the Syriac version supplies, "his children", that is, Isaac's; and the Arabic version, "his two children". This shows, that the apostle designs not the posterity, but the very persons of Jacob and Esau; since as he speaks of their conception in the verse preceding, so of their birth in this: and though in the words of God to Rebecca, and which are urged in favour of the other sense, it is said, "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", Gen 25:23; yet this primarily respects the persons of Jacob and Esau, as the roots of their respective offspring; and only secondarily their posterity, as branches that should sprout from them; it properly regards their persons, and only in an improper, figurative, and metonymical sense, their seed; for in no other sense could two nations, or two manner of people be in Rebecca's womb, than as there were two persons there, who would be the authors of two nations and people; and whatever may be said for their respective posterity, taking their rise from one common father Isaac, or for their being chosen or rejected as nations, before they were in being as such, yet it cannot be said with any propriety, that "Rebecca conceived" their several offspring "by one, even by our father Isaac", Rom 9:10, which sense well agrees with the scope of the apostle, which is to prove, that all were not Israel which were of Israel, and that all Abraham's natural seed were not the children of God; which he could not better exemplify, than in the persons of Jacob and Esau; for to have instanced in the posterity of Esau, would have been foreign to his purpose, and not accord with the continuation of his discourse in the following verses, which entirely proceeds upon the subject of personal election and rejection, and with the scriptural account of the personal characters of Jacob and Esau; and from hence, as from many other passages, it may be concluded, that predestination, whether to life or death, is a personal thing, concerns particular persons, and not nations, or collective bodies of men:

neither having done any good or evil; Jacob and Esau were under all considerations upon an equal foot, were just in the same situation and condition, when the one was loved and the other hated; or in other words, when the one was chosen, and the other rejected; they were neither of them as yet born, and had they been born, their birth and parentage could have been no reason why one was chose and the other not, because in both the same; nor had the one performed a good action, or the other an evil one; so that Jacob was not loved for his good works, nor Esau hated for his evil ones; which confirms the truth of this doctrine, that the objects of predestination, whether to life or death, are alike, are in the same situation and condition: whether they are considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen, they are all equally such, so that there could not be any reason in them, why some should be chosen and others left; or whether in the pure mass, antecedent to the fall, and without any consideration of it, which is clearly signified in this passage, there could be nothing in the one, which was not in the other, that could be the cause of such a difference made: so that it follows, that works neither good nor evil are the causes moving God to predestinate, whether to life or death; good works are not the cause of election to eternal life, for not only, this act of distinguishing grace, passed before any were done, but also these are fruits, effects, and consequence of it, and so cannot be the causes thereof; God does not proceed in order branches of salvation, as in calling, justification, &c. according to them, and therefore it cannot be thought he should proceed upon this foot in the first step to it; and which is ascribed to his free grace, in opposition to works. Evil works are not the cause of the decree of rejection, for this also being as early as the decree of election, as it must unavoidably be, was before any evil works were done; sin is not the cause of God's decree, but of the thing decreed, eternal death; otherwise all the individuals in the world being equally in sin, must have been rejected: it remains then, that not any works of men, good or bad, are the cause of predestination in either of its branches, but the sovereign will and secret counsel of God: that

the purpose of God according to election might stand: the decree of God, which is entirely free, and depends upon his own will and choice, stands firm and immutable, and is not to be disannulled by earth or hell, for it stands not on the precarious foot of works:

not of works: did it, it would not stand sure, for nothing is more variable and uncertain, than the actions of men:

but of him that calleth: who is the unchangeable Jehovah; it stands upon his invariable will and immutable grace, whose "gifts and calling are without repentance", Rom 11:29.

Gill: Rom 9:12

It was said unto her,.... To Rebecca, Gen 25:23,

the elder shall serve the younger, or "the greater shall serve the lesser", an Hebrew way of speaking; so Japheth is called הגדול, "the great", or, as we render it, "the elder", Gen 10:21; and the evil imagination is said ⁱ to be גדול, "greater", that is, elder than the good, thirteen years; See Gill on Luk 22:26; The sense is, Esau shall be a servant to Jacob; which is to be understood, not of temporal servitude; for in this sense he never was a servant to him; so far from it, that as soon as Jacob had got the birthright and blessing, he was obliged to flee from the face and fury of Esau; and upon his return after many years, he sent messengers to Esau in a very submissive manner, charging them after this manner, "thus shall ye shall say to my lord Esau, thy servant Jacob saith thus", &c. Gen 32:4, and when he found that his brother was coming to meet him, which threw him into a panic fear, lest he should "smite him, and the mother with the children", Gen 32:11, he prepares presents for him; and when he came to him, bowed himself seven times, and his wives and children bowed likewise; and the language in which he addressed his brother Esau, all the while they were together, was that of "my lord": now if this oracle was to be understood of outward temporal servitude, it is strange it should have no appearance, nor any shadow of an accomplishment in the persons of Jacob and Esau, supposing it was to have one in their posterity; and indeed the completion of it, in this sense, is not very evident in their offspring. It is certain, there was a long train of dukes and kings in Esau's family, before there was any king in Israel; the posterity of Esau were in lordly grandeur and splendour, when the children of Israel were grievously oppressed with hard bondage in Egypt. The single instance usually referred to, when the Edomites became tributaries to David, was near a thousand years after the giving out of this oracle; and this show of servitude did not last long, for in Joram's time they revolted, and so continued; and it is evident, that at the time of the Babylonish captivity, the children of Edom were prosperous and triumphant, and said concerning Jerusalem, "Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof", Psa 137:7, this servitude therefore is to be understood in a spiritual sense, of Esau's exclusion from the favour of God, and blessings of grace, signified by his being rejected from inheriting the blessing, which was given to Jacob; and it appeared that he was not a son, but a servant, by his departure, and pitching his dwelling elsewhere; which showed he had no interest in spiritual adoption, no right to the covenant of grace, nor was he an heir of heaven, all which were peculiar to Jacob: Esau was a servant of sin, under the dominion of it, and in bondage to it; whilst Jacob was the Lord's freeman, and, as a prince, had power with God and with men, and prevailed: Esau was serviceable to Jacob, both in things temporal and spiritual; as reprobates are to the elect, for all things are for their sakes, and work together for their good; Jacob's being obliged to flee from his brother, was for his good; by this means he got him a suitable wife, and large substance: his brother's meeting him on his return, which gave him so much pain and uneasiness, issued in his spiritual good; this sent him to the throne of grace, to humble himself before God, acknowledge his mercies, and his dependence on him, to implore his help, and plead his promises; and thus the oracle was verified in the persons of Jacob and Esau.

Gill: Rom 9:13

As it is written,.... In Mal 1:2;

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are explanative of the former; they are of like import, and the one interpret the other; and show, that the former are to be understood in a spiritual, and not in a temporal sense, and of the persons, and not the posterity of Jacob and Esau; for though Malachi prophesied long after Jacob and Esau were personally dead, yet the Lord in that prophecy manifestly directs the murmuring Jews to the personal regard he had had to Jacob and Esau, and which had continued in numberless instances to their respective posterities, in order to stop their mouths, and reprove their ingratitude; and though he speaks of the nation of the Edomites, and to the posterity of Israel, yet it is evident, that he has a respect to the persons of Jacob and Esau, from whence they sprung, when he says, "was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Mal 1:2, now though an Edomite may be said to be brother to an Israelite, yet Esau is never said, nor can he with any propriety be said to be the brother of Jacob's posterity: it remains, that these words regard their persons, and express the true spring and source of the choice of the one, and the rejection of the other; and which holds true of all the instances of either kind: everlasting and unchangeable love is the true cause and spring of the choice of particular persons to eternal salvation; and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God's will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others; so the word "hate" is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in Luk 14:26.

Gill: Rom 9:14

What shall we say then?.... A form of expression the apostle frequently uses, when he is about to introduce an objection, as is what follows:

is there unrighteousness with God? This is not an objection of his own, but of an adversary, which he takes up and returns an answer to; and which itself greatly serves to settle and confirm the true sense and meaning of the apostle in this place; as that it could not be, that election and rejection of men should proceed according to their merits; or that God chooses some for their good works, and rejects others for their wicked works, because no man could ever pretend to charge God with unrighteousness on this account; nor could it be that God chose and rejected men, upon a foresight of their good and evil works, for this also would not be liable to such an objection; nor that the Jews, having made the law of none effect by their traditions, despised the Gospel, crucified Christ, and persecuted his disciples, are therefore cast off, and the Gentiles, being obedient both in word and deed, are received into favour, for this likewise would not be chargeable with unrighteousness by men; but that two persons, as Jacob and Esau, and the same may be said of all mankind, being upon an equal foot, not being yet born, nor having done either good or evil, an inequality, a difference is made between them, by God himself; the one is chose, the other passed by: now in this is some show, some pretence at least, for such an objection; nor is it any wonder to meet with it from the carnal reason of men; wherefore we may be sure that the latter, and not either of the former, is the true sense of the apostle; since only this, and not either of them, is liable to such an exception: let us attend to the apostle's answer, which is "first" in his usual manner, by way of detestation and abhorrence,

God forbid: God is not unrighteous in his nature; nor in any of his ways and works; nor in this, in choosing some and rejecting others. There is no unrighteousness with God in that part of predestination, commonly called election; for this is neither an act of justice, nor injustice; not of justice, but of grace and mercy; of undue and undeserved grace and mercy, of mere sovereign grace and mercy; and is what God was not obliged to do; wherefore to choose some and not others, is no act of injustice; for injustice is a violation of justice, which has no place in this affair: if it is an act of injustice, it must be either to them that are chosen, or to them that are not; not to them that are chosen, to them it is an act of favour and good will, they are chosen to grace and glory, to holiness here, and happiness hereafter; not to them that are passed by, because they had no right nor claim to the grace and glory, which by this act are denied them, and therefore no injustice is done them. Every prince may choose his own ministers and favourites, and who he will have of his privy council, without doing any injustice, to those he takes no notice of; every man may choose his own company who he will converse with, without doing any wrong to such he does not think fit to admit to an intimacy with him; and yet men are not willing to allow the Most High that liberty, which every man daily takes, and may lawfully make use of: nor is there any unrighteousness with God in the other branch of predestination, commonly called reprobation, which is either negative or positive; negative reprobation is the act of preterition, or God's passing by, leaving, taking no notice of some, while he chose others: now the objects of this act are to be considered either in the pure, or in the corrupt mass; if in the pure mass, i.e. of creatureship, which seems to be the apostle's meaning, as being not yet created, made, or born, and having done neither good nor evil; no injustice is done by this act, for as it found them, it left them; it put nothing into them, no evil in them, nor appointed them to any, of any kind; man after, and notwithstanding this act, came into the world an upright creature, and became sinful, not by virtue of this act, but by their own inventions: or if considered as in the corrupt mass, as fallen creatures, sunk into sin and misery, which is the case of all mankind; since God was not obliged to save any of the sinful race of men, whose destruction was of themselves, it could be no injustice to pass by some of them in this condition, when he chose others; for if it would have been no injustice to have condemned all, as he did the angels that sinned, whom he spared not, it can be no act of injustice in him, to leave some of them in that condition, which sin had brought them into, whilst he has mercy on others; unless to have mercy on any, can be thought to be an act of injustice: what unrighteousness can there be in this procedure, any more than in drowning the world of the ungodly, whilst Noah and his family were saved in the ark? or in raining showers of fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities of the plain, whilst Lot, his wife, and two daughters, were delivered from the same? Positive reprobation is the decree, or appointment to damnation: now as God damns no man but for sin, so he has decreed to damn no man but for sin; and if it is no unrighteousness in him to damn men for sin, as to be sure it is not, so it can be no unrighteousness in him to decree to damn any for it: upon the whole it appears, that whatever show, upon first sight, there may be for a charge of unrighteousness against such a procedure of the Divine Being, there is no real foundation for it. The objection is to be treated with abhorrence and indignation.

Gill: Rom 9:15

For he saith to Moses,.... That is, God said to Moses. The apostle goes on to answer to the above objections, by producing some testimonies out of the writings of Moses, in favour of both branches of predestination; showing, that the doctrine he had advanced, was no other than what God himself had delivered to Moses, whose name and writings were in great esteem with the Jews, whereby the apostle might hope to give full satisfaction in this point. The first passage he cites, is in Exo 33:19.

And will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. This is produced, in favour of special, particular, and personal election, and to clear it from any charge of unrighteousness; and by it, it appears, that God bestows his grace and mercy in time, on such persons he has willed and determined from all eternity to bestow it; this, is clear from hence, for since all this is dependent on his will, it must be as this was his will from eternity, seeing no new will can possibly arise in God, God wills nothing in time, but what he willed before time; that this grace and mercy are shown only to some persons, and that the only reason of this is his sovereign will and pleasure, and not the works and merits of men; wherefore since this grace and mercy rise out of his own free good will and pleasure, and are by no means the creature's due, it most clearly follows, that God in determining to bestow his grace and mercy, and in the actual doing of it, whilst he determines to deny it, and does deny it to others, cannot possibly be chargeable with any unrighteousness.

Gill: Rom 9:16

So then it is not of him that willeth,.... This is not a consequence drawn by an adversary, showing that if this be the case, it signifies nothing for men to will or do, they may even sit still and do nothing, but depend on the mercy of God; but this is a conclusion of the apostle's from the above cited testimony, inferring from thence, that election, which is what he is discoursing of, is "not of him that willeth",

nor of him that runneth: that is, is not owing to the will or works of men, to the desires, inclinations, and affections of their minds, or to the actions of their lives; these are not the motives, conditions, or causes of this act:

but of God that sheweth mercy; in a free sovereign way and manner, which he is not obliged to by anything the creature wills or works; he is at full liberty, notwithstanding whatever they will or do, to give his grace and mercy, when, where, and to whom he pleases; and therefore to give it to some, and deny it to others, can never be accounted an act of injustice, since he is not bound to give it to any. Some make the it to be the blessing of Isaac, which was not of the will of any of the parties concerned; not of Isaac who willed it to Esau; nor of Esau who willed it to himself, but had it not; nor of the will of the persons who had their desires, not of the will of Rebecca, who was desirous of it for her son Jacob, nor of the will of Jacob, who desired it for himself, though he had it; nor of either of them that ran, not of Esau, who made haste to hunt for, and prepare venison for his father, nor of Jacob, who ran to the flock, for two kids of the goats; but of God that showed mercy to him, who, according to his sovereign will and pleasure, had signified before to Rebecca, that "the elder should serve the younger", Gen 25:23, as the apostle had mentioned this so lately, it might still be in his thoughts, and he may allude to it; but election being what he is discoursing of in the context, that is the "it" here designed; and what is true of that, is true of salvation in all its parts, and therefore some understand it in the large sense of salvation; though by others so qualified and limited, as to spoil the glory of the text: some saying that the sense is, it is not of him that willeth and runneth wrong, but of the grace and mercy of God; but as no man would ever assert, that salvation is of him that wills and runs wrong, so the apostle had no occasion to deny it: others say, that it is not only of him that wills, and only of him that runs, but also of God that shows mercy; making man's will and works joint causes with the mercy of God in man's salvation; and besides, as Austin ^k long ago observes, according to this sense, the words might as well be read, it is not only of God that shows mercy, but of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, which no Christian would dare to say: the true sense is, that as election, which is the leading step to salvation, is not owing at all to the will of men, but to the good pleasure and will of God; and not at all to the works of men, that being done before them, and they being the fruits and effects of that, but to the free love, grace, and good will of God; so salvation in all its parts and branches, as redemption, justification, regeneration, calling, and conversion, faith, repentance, hope, love, &c. and eternal life, is not to be ascribed at all to the will of men, nor at all to the works of men, but entirely and alone to the love, grace, and mercy of God through Christ.

Gill: Rom 9:17

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh,.... אמר קרא, "The Scripture saith", is a Talmudic ^l way of speaking, used when any point is proved from Scripture; and is of the same signification with אמר רחמנא, "the merciful God says"; and so the sense of it here is, God said to Pharaoh; the testimony here cited, stands in Exo 9:16; where it is read thus, "for this cause have I raised thee up", העמדתיך, or "made thee stand", "for to show in thee my power, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth"; and is produced by the apostle in proof of the other branch of predestination, called reprobation, and to vindicate it from the charge of unrighteousness: in which may be observed, that the act of raising up of Pharaoh is God's act,

even for this same purpose have I raised thee up; which may be understood in every sense that is put upon that phrase, unless that which some Jewish ^m writers have annexed to it, namely, that God raised Pharaoh from the dead; otherwise, I say, all the rest may well enough be thought to be comprised in it; as that God ordained and appointed him from eternity, by certain means to this end; that he made him to exist in time, or brought him into being; that he raised him to the throne, promoted him to that high honour and dignity; that he preserved him, and did not cut him off as yet; that he strengthened and hardened his heart, irritated, provoked, and stirred him up against his people Israel; and suffered him to go all the lengths he did, in his obstinacy and rebellion: all which was done,

that I might shew my power in thee; his superior power to him, his almighty power in destroying him and his host in the Red sea, when the Israelites were saved: and the ultimate end which God had in view in this was,

that my name might be declared throughout all the earth; that he himself might be glorified, and that the glory of his perfections, particularly of his wisdom, power, and justice, might be celebrated throughout the world. The sum of it is, that this man was raised up by God in every sense, for God to show his power in his destruction, that he might be glorified; from whence the apostle deduces the following conclusion.

Gill: Rom 9:18

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will,.... These are the express words of the former testimony: it follows,

and whom he will he hardeneth; which is the just and natural consequence of what is contained in the latter; for if God could, or he did, without any injustice, raise up Pharaoh, and harden his heart against him and his people, that he might rise up against him and destroy him by his power for his own glory, then he may harden any other person, and even whom he will: now this hardening of men's hearts may be understood in perfect agreement with the justice and holiness of God: men first harden their own hearts by sinning, as Pharaoh did; what God does, is by leaving them to the hardness of their hearts, denying them that grace which only can soften them, and which he is not obliged to give, and therefore does them no injustice in withholding it from them; by sending them both mercies and judgments, which through the corruption of their hearts, are the means of the greater hardening of them; so judgments in the case of Pharaoh, and mercies in the case of others; see Isa 6:10; by delivering them up into the hands of Satan, and to their own lusts, which they themselves approve of; and by giving them up to a judicial blindness and hardness of heart, as a just punishment for their impieties.

Gill: Rom 9:19

Thou wilt say then unto me,.... That is, thou wilt object to me; for this is another objection of the adversary, against the doctrine the apostle was advancing: and it is an objection of a mere natural man, of one given up to a reprobate mind, of an insolent hardened sinner; it discovers the enmity of the carnal mind to God; if is one of the high things that exalts itself against the knowledge of him; it is with a witness a stretching out of the hand against God, and strengthening a man's self against the Almighty; it is a running upon him, even upon the thick bosses of his bucklers; it carries in it the marks of ill nature, surliness, and rudeness, to the last degree:

why doth he yet find fault? The objector does not think fit to name the name of "God", or "the Lord", but calls him "he"; and a considerable emphasis lies upon the word "yet": what as if he should say, is he not content with the injustice he has already exercised, in passing by some, when he chose others; in leaving them to themselves, and hardening their hearts against him, and to go on in their own ways, which must unavoidably end in destruction; but after all this, is angry with them, finds fault with them, blames, accuses, and condemns them, for that which they cannot help; nay, for that which he himself wills? this is downright cruelty and tyranny. The objector seems to have a particular regard to the case of Pharaoh, the apostle had instanced in, when after God had declared that he had raised him up for this very purpose, to make known his power, and show forth his glory in all the world, still finds fault with him and says, "as yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?" Exo 9:17; and yet he himself had hardened his heart, and continued to harden his heart, that he might not let them go as yet; and when he had let them go, hardened his heart again to pursue after them, when he drowned him and his host in the Red sea; all which in this objection, is represented as unparalleled cruelty and unmercifulness; though it is not restrained to this particular case, but is designed to be applied to all other hardened persons; and to expose the unreasonableness of the divine proceedings, in hardening men at his pleasure; and then blaming them for acting as hardened ones, when he himself has made them so, and wills they should act in this manner:

for who hath resisted his will? This is said in support of the former, and means not God's will of command, which is always resisted more or less, by wicked men and devils; but his will of purpose, his counsels and decrees, which stand firm and sure, and can never be resisted, so as to be frustrated and made void. This the objector takes up, and improves against God; that since he hardens whom he will, and there is no resisting his will, the fault then can never lie in them who are hardened, and who act as such, but in God; and therefore it must be unreasonable in him to be angry with, blame, accuse, and condemn persons for being and doing that, which he himself wills them to be and do. Let the disputers of this world, the reasoners of the present age, come and see their own faces, and read the whole strength of their objections, in this wicked man's; and from whence we may be assured, that since the objections are the same, the doctrine must be the same that is objected to: and this we gain however by it, that the doctrines of particular and personal election and reprobation, were the doctrines of the apostle; since against no other, with any face, or under any pretence, could such an objection be formed: next follows the apostle's answer.

Gill: Rom 9:20

Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?.... Or "answerest again to God": some have been so weak and wicked as to suggest, that the apostle met with an objection he could not answer, or give a fair solution of, and therefore takes the method he does: but when the several things returned in answer by the apostle are considered, it will appear that he has taken the wisest method to silence such an audacious objector, and that he abundantly clears God from the charge of cruelty and unmercifulness. And he answers "first", by putting the insolent creature in mind of what he was; "nay, but O man, who art thou?" &c. Thou art man, and not God; a creature, and not the Creator; and must not expect that he, thy Creator, will give an account of his matters to thee, or a reason why he does, this or the other thing. Thou art but a man, who in his best estate was vanity, being mutable; thou art a fallen sinful creature, and obnoxious to the wrath and displeasure of God for thy sins, and darest thou to open thy mouth against him? thou art a poor, foolish, and ignorant man, born like a wild ass's colt, without understanding, and wilt thou take upon thee to confront, direct, or counsel the Most High, or tell him what is fitting to be done, or not done? "next" the apostle answers, by pointing out his folly and madness, in replying to God. To speak to God in behalf of a man's self at the throne of grace, in the most submissive manner, for any mercy or favour wanted, is an high privilege, and it is a wonderful condescension in God to admit of; and when a man, a good man takes upon him to plead with God on the behalf of others, of a wicked people, a sinful nation, he ought to set before him the example and conduct of Abraham, who in a like case acknowledged himself to be but dust and ashes, and more than once entreated, that the Lord would not be angry at his importunity; but for a man to answer again to God, which a servant ought not to do to his master, to litigate a point with God, to dispute a matter with him, is the highest instance of arrogance and impudence: "woe unto him that striveth with his Maker, let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth", Isa 45:9, with their equals, with men like themselves, but let no man dare to "contend with God"; if he should, "he cannot answer him one of a thousand", Job 9:3; for "he is wise in heart", in forming all his counsels, purposes, and decrees; "and mighty in strength", to execute them; "who hath hardened himself against him and hath prospered?" Job 9:4. Another way the apostle takes in answering the objection is, by showing the absurdity of a creature's wrangling with God about his make, and the circumstances in which he is made:

shall the thing formed, say unto him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? reference is had to Isa 45:9; Now as it would be a most absurd thing for the clay, was it capable of speaking, to say to the fashioner of it, why dost thou put me into such or such a shape and form? or for any piece of workmanship to say to the maker of it, he has no hands, no head, no judgment and skill; or for a child to say to its parents, what begettest thou, or what hast thou brought forth? so absurd and unreasonable is it, for any to say to God, why hast thou appointed me to such and such ends and purposes, and has brought me into being in such a manner, and under such circumstances? There is a story in the Talmud ⁿ, which may be pertinently produced here;

"it happened to R. Eleazar ben Simeon, of Migdal Gedur, that he went from his master's house, and he was riding on an ass, and travelling by the sea side, and as he rejoiced exceedingly, and his heart was lifted up because he had learnt much of the law, there was joined to him a certain man that was very much deformed, and says to him, peace be upon thee Rabbi; but he did not return the salutation to him, but says to him "Raca", how deformed is that man! perhaps all thy townsmen are as deformed as thee; he replied to him, I do not know, but go and say, לאומן שעשאני, "to the workman that made me", how ugly is this vessel thou hast made, when he knew in himself that he has sinned; upon this the Rabbi dismounted his ass, and fell down before him, and said unto him, I entreat of thee forgive me; he said unto him, I cannot forgive thee, till thou goest "to the workman that made me", and say, how ugly is this vessel which thou hast made.''

Gill: Rom 9:21

Hath not the potter power over the clay,.... By the power the potter has over the clay, to shape it in what form he pleases, and out of it to make what vessels he pleases, and for what purposes he thinks fit, which will be most to his own advantage, the apostle expresses the sovereign and unlimited powder which God has over his creatures; the passages referred to, are Isa 64:8, in which God is represented as the potter, and men as clay in his hands; now if the potter has such power over the clay which he did not make, only has made a purchase of, or has it in his possession, much more has God a power, who has created the clay, to appoint out of it persons to different uses and purposes, for his own glory, as he sees fit; even

of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. The apostle seems to design hereby, to point out to us the object of predestination to be man, as yet not made, but as lying in the mere mass of creatureship, signified by the unformed clay, before put into any shape; and is an allusion to the first creation of man, out of the clay, or dust of the earth, Gen 2:7; for such a consideration of man best agrees with the clay, lump, or mass, not yet formed, than as already made, and much less as fallen and corrupted: for if men, in predestination, were considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen creatures, they could not be so well said to be made out of it, both to honour and dishonour; but rather since they were all dishonourable, that some were left in that dishonour, and others removed from it unto honour: besides, if this is not the case, God must create man without an end, which is contrary to the principle of reason and wisdom; the end is the cause, for which a thing is what it is; and it is a known rule, that what is first in intention, is last in execution, and "vice versa": the end is first fixed, and then the means; for God to create man, and then to fix the end of his creation, is to do what no wise potter would do, first make his pots, and then think of the end of making them, and the use they are to be put unto. To make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour, is for God to appoint creatures, which are to be made out of the same mass and lump, for his own glory; which end, his own glory, he determines to bring about by different means, as these following: with respect to the vessels of honour, whom he appoints for his glory, he determines to create them; to suffer them to fall into sin, whereby they become polluted and guilty; to raise and recover them, by the obedience, sufferings, and death of his Son; to regenerate, renew, and sanctify them, by his Spirit and grace, and to bring them to eternal happiness; and hereby compass the aforesaid end, his own glory, the glorifying of his grace and mercy, in a way consistent with justice and holiness: with respect to the vessels of dishonour, whom he also appoints for the glorifying of himself, he determines to create them out of the same lump; to suffer them to fall into sin; to leave them in their sins, in the pollution and guilt of them, and to condemn them for them; and hereby gain his ultimate end, his own glory, glorifying the perfections of his power, justice, and holiness, without the least blemish to his goodness and mercy: now if a potter has power, for his own advantage and secular interest, to make out of the same clay what vessels he pleases; much more has God a power, out of the same mass and lump of creatureship, to appoint creatures he determines to make to his own glory; which he brings about by different methods, consistent with the perfections of his nature.

Gill: Rom 9:22

What if God, willing to show his wrath,.... The apostle proceeds to clear God from any charge of cruelty and unmercifulness, by observing his conduct in time, both towards those he passes by, and towards those he chooses; for in this and the following verse, nothing is said relating to any act of God before time, everything of that kind being considered already. In this verse, the apostle considers the conduct of God towards the vessels of dishonour; and let it be observed, that these are called

vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; they are said to be vessels, and so no longer considered in the clay, in the mass and heap of creatureship, but as creatures formed and made, and brought into being; and so to be used as instruments in God's hands, to subserve his ends and purposes, and therefore called "vessels"; and not only so, but "vessels of wrath", fallen sinful creatures, and so deserving of the wrath of God, and objects of his vindictive justice, in whom he may righteously display his wrath and vengeance: hence they may be so called, being as vessels filled with his wrath; as such who are the instruments and executioners of his wrath are called, in Isa 13:5, כלי זעמו, "vessels of his wrath"; and in Jer 50:25; where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here: and they are moreover said to be "fitted for destruction", as Haman is said to be by the Jews ^o; whom they affirm to be the same with Memucan, and ask why is his name called Memucan? and answer, שמוכן לפורענות, "because he was fitted for punishment": so these are said to be "fitted for destruction", that is, eternal damnation; not by God, for this does not respect God's act of ordination to punishment; but by Satan, the god of this world, that blinds them, who works effectually in them, and leads them captive at his will; and by themselves, by their own wickedness, hardness of heart, and impenitence, do they treasure up to themselves wrath, against the day of wrath, so that their destruction is of themselves: a phrase somewhat like this is used in Psa 31:12, where the Psalmist, under some dismal apprehensions of himself, says, that he was like כלי אבד, "a perishing vessel", or "a vessel of perdition"; the Septuagint render it, σκευος απολωλος, "a lost vessel". Now what is the method of the divine conduct towards such persons? he

endures them with much longsuffering; as he did the old world, before he destroyed it; and as he did Pharaoh, before he cut him off: God not only supports such persons in their beings, amidst all their impieties and iniquities, but follows and fills them with his providential goodness, insomuch that many of them have more than heart can wish; nay, to many he affords the outward means of grace, which they slight and despise; externally calls them, but they refuse, loving darkness rather than light, and therefore are inexcusable: now if after all this patience, indulgence, and forbearance, when he could in justice have sent them to hell long ago, he is "willing to show his wrath"; his displicency at sin and sinners, his vindictive justice, his righteous vengeance:

and to make his power known; what it is he can do, by the utter destruction and damnation of such persons; what man in his senses can ever find fault with such a procedure, or charge it with tyranny, cruelty, and unmercifulness?

Gill: Rom 9:23

And that he might make known the riches of his glory,.... That is, his glorious riches, the perfections of his nature, his love, grace, and mercy, his wisdom, power, faithfulness, justice, and holiness; all which are most evidently displayed in the salvation of his people, here called

vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory. They are said to be vessels, and so considered as creatures, made and brought into being; "vessels of mercy", and so fallen creatures, and by sin become miserable, for only such are objects of mercy: they are not called so, because deserving of mercy more than others, they are in no wise better than others, and are by nature children of wrath, even as others; but because God of his infinite goodness fills them with his mercy, displays it in them, in the redemption of them by his Son, in the regeneration of them by his Spirit, and in their eternal salvation: and these are by him "afore prepared unto glory"; to everlasting happiness, which he has chosen them to before time, and calls them to in time; to this glory he does not take them, until he has prepared them for it; which act of preparation does not regard the eternal predestination of them to eternal life, but an act of his grace towards them in time; and which lies in putting upon them the righteousness of his Son, and in putting his grace in them; or in other words, in justifying them by the imputation and application of the righteousness of his Son unto them, and by the regeneration, renovation, and sanctification of their hearts, by his Spirit. Now what if God willing to make known his glorious perfections, by displaying his mercy to such sinners, and by preparing them for heaven in a way consistent with his holiness and justice, what can any man that has the exercise of his reason object to this? The whole of his conduct is free from blame and censure; the vessels of wrath he shows his wrath upon, are such as fit themselves for destruction, and whom he endures with much longsuffering and patience, and therefore he cannot be chargeable with cruelty; the vessels of mercy he brings to glory, none of them are taken thither, until they are prepared for it, in a way of righteousness and holiness, and therefore he cannot be charged with acting contrary to the perfections of his nature.

Gill: Rom 9:24

Even us whom he hath called,.... From election the apostle proceeds to calling, the fruit and evidence of it, taking the same method he did in Rom 8:30, with a view to treat of the call of the Gentiles, of which he afterwards gives proof from prophecy; whence it appears to be according to divine predestination, upon which prophecy is founded; for God foretells that such a thing will be, because he has foreordained it shall be. These words are explanative of the former, and show who the vessels of mercy are; they are such whom God calls by his grace. Election may be known by calling, as the cause by its effect, and that without an extraordinary revelation. This may as well be known, as man's adoption, justification, and the forgiveness of his sins; for as all the chosen are, and shall be called in time, so all that are truly called by the grace of God, are manifestly, and to a demonstration, the chosen vessels of salvation: if a man is satisfied of his calling, he ought to be equally so of his election, the one being demonstrable by the other; and for such an one to doubt of it, is his sin and crime. Moreover, the above phrase, "afore prepared for glory", is here further explained; to be afore prepared for glory, is no other than to be called, sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God; for this is the saints' preparation for glory, before they come to it; and hereby the means are expressed, even sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, through which God appoints his people unto salvation: now this calling is to be understood, not of a call to any office, as of Aaron to the priesthood, of Saul to the kingdom, of the disciples of Christ to apostleship, or of ministers to the work of the ministry; for persons may be called to the highest office in church and state, as Judas to: apostleship, and Pharaoh to the throne of Egypt, and yet have no share in electing grace: nor of a call by the external ministry of the word, which is often slighted, despised, and of none effect; in this sense many are called, who are not chosen: but of a call that is by the powerful, efficacious, and irresistible grace of God; a call that is internal, that reaches the heart, and not the ear only: a special one that is peculiar to God's elect, is by special grace, and is to special blessings, as both grace and glory; it is an high, heavenly, and holy calling, and is without repentance; between which and glorification, as between it and eternal election, there is a close and an inseparable connection. The objects of this grace follow,

not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles; not all the Jews, nor all the Gentiles, but some of each; as all are not chosen, all are not redeemed, only some out of every kindred, tongue, nation, and people; so not all, but some only are called by grace: and this is not peculiar to the Jews, it reaches to the Gentiles also; and under the present dispensation, to the far greater number of them.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Rom 9:1

¹ sn Rom 9:1–11:36. These three chapters are among the most difficult and disputed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. One area of difficulty is the relationship between Israel and the church, especially concerning the nature and extent of Israel’s election. Many different models have been constructed to express this relationship. For a representative survey, see M. Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup), 22-27. The literary genre of these three chapters has been frequently identified as a diatribe, a philosophical discussion or conversation evolved by the Cynic and Stoic schools of philosophy as a means of popularizing their ideas (E. Käsemann, Romans, 261 and 267). But other recent scholars have challenged the idea that Rom 9–11 is characterized by diatribe. Scholars like R. Scroggs and E. E. Ellis have instead identified the material in question as midrash. For a summary and discussion of the rabbinic connections, see W. R. Stegner, “Romans 9.6-29 – A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37-52.

² tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:2

¹ tn Grk “my sorrow is great and the anguish in my heart is unceasing.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:3

¹ tn Or “For I would pray.” The implied condition is “if this could save my fellow Jews.”

² tn Grk “brothers.” See BDAG 18-19 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.b.

³ tn Grk “my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:4

¹ tn Grk “of whom.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

² tn The Greek term υἱοθεσία (Juioqesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. BDAG 1024 s.v. notes, “a legal t.t. of ‘adoption’ of children, in our lit., i.e. in Paul, only in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component).” Although some modern translations remove the filial sense completely and render the term merely “adoption” (cf. NAB, ESV), the retention of this component of meaning was accomplished in the present translation by the phrase “as sons.”

³ tn Or “cultic service.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:5

¹ tn Grk “of whom are the fathers.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

² tn Grk “from whom.” Here the relative pronoun has been replaced by a personal pronoun.

³ tn Grk “according to the flesh.”

⁴ tn Or “Messiah.” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed.”)

⁵ tn Or “the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever,” or “the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever!” or “the Messiah who is over all. God be blessed forever!” The translational difficulty here is not text-critical in nature, but is a problem of punctuation. Since the genre of these opening verses of Romans 9 is a lament, it is probably best to take this as an affirmation of Christ’s deity (as the text renders it). Although the other renderings are possible, to see a note of praise to God at the end of this section seems strangely out of place. But for Paul to bring his lament to a crescendo (that is to say, his kinsmen had rejected God come in the flesh), thereby deepening his anguish, is wholly appropriate. This is also supported grammatically and stylistically: The phrase ὁ ὢν (Jo wn, “the one who is”) is most naturally taken as a phrase which modifies something in the preceding context, and Paul’s doxologies are always closely tied to the preceding context. For a detailed examination of this verse, see B. M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, 95-112; and M. J. Harris, Jesus as God, 144-72.

NET Notes: Rom 9:6

¹ tn Grk “For not all those who are from Israel are Israel.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:7

¹ tn Grk “be called.” The emphasis here is upon God’s divine sovereignty in choosing Isaac as the child through whom Abraham’s lineage would be counted as opposed to Ishmael.

sn A quotation from Gen 21:12.

NET Notes: Rom 9:8

¹ tn Grk “That is,” or “That is to say.”

² tn Because it forms the counterpoint to “the children of promise” the expression “children of the flesh” has been retained in the translation.

sn The expression the children of the flesh refers to the natural offspring.

NET Notes: Rom 9:9

¹ tn Grk “For this is the word of promise.”

² tn Grk “About this time I will return.” Since this refers to the time when the promised child would be born, it would be approximately a year later.

³ sn A quotation from Gen 18:10, 14.

NET Notes: Rom 9:10

¹ tn Or possibly “by one act of sexual intercourse.” See D. Moo, Romans (NICNT), 579.

NET Notes: Rom 9:11

¹ tn Grk “God’s purpose according to election.”

² tn Or “not based on works but based on…”

³ tn Grk “by the one who calls.”

sn The entire clause is something of a parenthetical remark.

NET Notes: Rom 9:12

¹ sn Many translations place this verse division before the phrase “not by works but by his calling” (NA²⁷/UBS⁴, NIV, NRSV, NLT, NAB). Other translations place this verse division in the same place that the translation above does (NASB, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV). The translation has followed the latter to avoid breaking the parenthetical statement.

² sn A quotation from Gen 25:23.

NET Notes: Rom 9:13

¹ sn A quotation from Mal 1:2-3.

NET Notes: Rom 9:15

¹ sn A quotation from Exod 33:19.

NET Notes: Rom 9:16

¹ sn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.

² tn Grk “So then, [it does] not [depend] on the one who desires nor on the one who runs.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:17

¹ sn Paul uses a typical rabbinic formula here in which the OT scriptures are figuratively portrayed as speaking to Pharaoh. What he means is that the scripture he cites refers (or can be applied) to Pharaoh.

² sn A quotation from Exod 9:16.

NET Notes: Rom 9:18

¹ sn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:20

¹ tn Grk “O man.”

² tn Grk “On the contrary, O man, who are you to talk back to God?”

³ sn A quotation from Isa 29:16; 45:9.

NET Notes: Rom 9:21

¹ tn Grk “Or does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump.”

² tn Grk “one vessel for honor and another for dishonor.”

NET Notes: Rom 9:22

¹ tn Grk “vessels.” This is the same Greek word used in v. 21.

² tn Or “vessels destined for wrath.” The genitive ὀργῆς (orghs) could be taken as a genitive of destination.

³ tn Or possibly “objects of wrath that have fit themselves for destruction.” The form of the participle could be taken either as a passive or middle (reflexive). ExSyn 417-18 argues strongly for the passive sense (which is followed in the translation), stating that “the middle view has little to commend it.” First, καταρτίζω (katartizw) is nowhere else used in the NT as a direct or reflexive middle (a usage which, in any event, is quite rare in the NT). Second, the lexical force of this verb, coupled with the perfect tense, suggests something of a “done deal” (against some commentaries that see these vessels as ready for destruction yet still able to avert disaster). Third, the potter-clay motif seems to have one point: The potter prepares the clay.

NET Notes: Rom 9:23

¹ tn Grk “vessels.” This is the same Greek word used in v. 21.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:1

I say ^{( 1 )} the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

^{( 1 )} The third part of this epistle, which goes to the twelfth chapter, in which Paul ascends to the higher causes of faith: and first of all, because he purposed to speak much of the casting off of the Jews, he uses a declaration, saying by a double or triple oath, and by witnessing of his great desire towards their salvation, his singular love towards them, and in addition granting to them all their privileges.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:3

For I could wish that myself were ^{( a )} accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the ^{( b )} flesh:

^{( a )} The apostle loved his brethren so completely that if it had been possible he would have been ready to have redeemed the castaways of the Israelites with the loss of his own soul forever: for this word "accursed" signifies as much in this place.

^{( b )} Being brethren by flesh, as from one nation and country.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:4

Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the ^{( c )} glory, and the ^{( d )} covenants, and the giving of the ^{( e )} law, and the ^{( f )} service [of God], and the ^{( g )} promises;

^{( c )} The ark of the covenant, which was a token of God's presence.

^{( d )} The tables of the covenant, and this is spoken by the figure of speech metonymy.

^{( e )} Of the judicial law.

^{( f )} The ceremonial law.

^{( g )} Which were made to Abraham and to his posterity.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:5

Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], ^{( 2 )} who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

^{( 2 )} Or, "who is God over all, blessed for ever." A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:6

^{( 3 )} Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all ^{( h )} Israel, which are of Israel:

^{( 3 )} He enters into the handling of predestination, by means of presenting an objection: How may it be that Israel is cast off, and that in addition we must also make the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed, frustrated and void? He answers therefore that God's word is true, although Israel is cast off: for the election of the people of Israel is so general and common, that nonetheless the same God chooses by his secret council those as it pleases him. So then this is the proposition and state of this treatise: the grace of salvation is offered generally in such a way, that in spite of how it is offered, the efficacy of it pertains only to the elect.

^{( h )} Israel in the first place, is taken for Jacob: and in the second, for the Israelites.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:7

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: ^{( 4 )} but, In ^{( i )} Isaac shall thy seed be called.

^{( 4 )} The first proof is taken from the example of Abraham's own house, in which Isaac only was considered the son, and that by God's ordinance: although Ishmael also was born of Abraham, and circumcised before Isaac.

^{( i )} Isaac will be your true and natural son, and therefore heir of the blessing.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:8

^{( 5 )} That is, They which are the children of the ^{( k )} flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the ^{( l )} promise are counted for the seed.

^{( 5 )} A general application of the former proof or example.

^{( k )} Who are born of Abraham by the course of nature.

^{( l )} Who are born by virtue of the promise.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:9

^{( 6 )} For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

^{( 6 )} A reason of that application: because Isaac was born by the power of the promise, and therefore he was not chosen, no, he was not at all, except by the free will of God: by which it follows that the promise is the fountain of predestination, and not the flesh, from which promise the particular election proceeds, that is, that the elect are born elect, and not that they are first born, and then after elected, by God who predestinates.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:10

^{( 7 )} And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;

^{( 7 )} Another strong and persuasive proof taken from the example of Esau and Jacob, who were both born of the same Isaac, who was the son of promise of one mother, and were born at the same time, and not at different times as Ishmael and Isaac were: and yet nonetheless, as Esau was cast off, only Jacob was chosen: and that before their birth, that neither any goodness of Jacob's might be thought to be the cause of his election, neither any wickedness of Esau to be the cause of his casting away.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:11

(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the ^{( m )} purpose of God according to election might ^{( 8 )} stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

^{( m )} God's decree which proceeds from only his good will, by which it pleases him to choose one, and refuse the other. ^{( 8 )} Paul does not say, "might be made", but "being made might remain". Therefore they are deceived who make foreseen faith the cause of election, and foreknown infidelity the cause of reprobation.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:12

^{( 9 )} It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

^{( 9 )} He proves the casting away of Esau in that he was made servant to his brother: and proves the choosing of Jacob in that he was made lord of his brother, although his brother was the first begotten. And in order that no man might take what God had said, and refer it to external things, the apostle shows out of Malachi, who is a good interpreter of Moses, that the servitude of Esau was joined with the hatred of God, and the lordship of Jacob with the love of God.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:14

^{( 10 )} What shall we say then? [Is there] ^{( n )} unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

^{( 10 )} The first objection: if God loves or hates without any consideration of worthiness or unworthiness, then is he unjust, because he may love those who are unworthy, and hate those who are worthy? The apostle detests this blasphemy, and afterward responds to it in depth, point by point.

^{( n )} Man knows no other causes of love or hatred, but those that are in the persons, and thereupon this objection arises.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:15

^{( 11 )} For he saith to Moses, I will ^{( o )} have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have ^{( p )} compassion on whom I will have compassion.

^{( 11 )} He answers first with regard to those who are chosen to salvation, in the choosing of whom he denies that God may seem unjust, although he chooses and predestinates to salvation those that are not yet born, without any respect of worthiness: because he does not bring the chosen to the appointed end except by the means of his mercy, which is a cause discussed under predestination. Now mercy presupposes misery, and again, misery presupposes sin or voluntary corruption of mankind, and corruption presupposes a pure and perfect creation. Moreover, mercy is shown by her degrees: that is, by calling, by faith, by justification and sanctification, so that at length we come to glorification, as the apostle will show afterwards. Now all these things orderly following the purpose of God, do clearly prove that he can by no means seem unjust in loving and saving his.

^{( o )} I will be merciful and favourable to whom I wish to be favourable.

^{( p )} I will have compassion on whoever I wish to have compassion.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:16

^{( 12 )} So then [it is] not of him that ^{( q )} willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

^{( 12 )} The conclusion of the answer: therefore God is not unjust in choosing and saving from his free goodness, such as it pleases him: as he also answered Moses when he prayed for all of the people.

^{( q )} By "will" he means the thought and endeavour of heart, and by "running", good works, to neither of which he gives the praise, but only to the mercy of God.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:17

^{( 13 )} For the ^{( r )} scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I ^{( s )} raised thee up, that I might ^{( 14 )} shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

^{( 13 )} Now he answers concerning the reprobate, or those whom God hates who are not yet born, and has appointed to destruction, without any respect of unworthiness. And first of all he proves this to be true, by alleging the testimony of God himself concerning Pharaoh, whom he stirred up to this purpose, that he might be glorified in Pharaoh's hardening and just punishing.

^{( r )} God speaks unto Pharaoh in the scripture, or, the scripture in talking about God, in this way talks to Pharaoh.

^{( s )} Brought you into this world.

^{( 14 )} Secondly, he brings the goal of God's counsel, to show that there is no unrighteousness in him. Now the main goal is not properly and simply the destruction of the wicked, but God's glory which appears in their rightful punishment.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:18

^{( 15 )} Therefore hath he mercy on whom he ^{( t )} will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

^{( 15 )} A conclusion of the full answer to the first objection: therefore seeing that God does not save those whom he freely chose according to his good will and pleasure, but by justifying and sanctifying them by his grace, his counsels in saving them cannot seem unjust. And again, there is not injustice in the everlasting counsel of God, with regard to the destruction of those whom he lifts to destroy, because he hardens before he destroys: therefore the third answer for the maintenance of God's justice in the everlasting counsel of reprobation, consists in this word "hardening": which nonetheless he concealed in the former verse, because the history of Pharaoh was well known. But the force of the word is great, for hardening, which is set against "mercy", presupposes the same things that mercy did, that is, a voluntary corruption, in which the reprobate are hardened: and again, corruption presupposes a perfect state of creation. Moreover, this hardening also is voluntary, for God hardens in such a way, being offended with corruption, that he uses their own will whom he hardens, for the executing of that judgment. Then follow the fruits of hardening, that is, unbelief and sin, which are the true and proper causes of the condemnation of the reprobate. Why does he then appoint to destruction? Because he wishes: why does he harden? Because they are corrupt: why does he condemn? Because they are sinners. Where then is unrighteousness? Nay, if he would destroy all after this manner, to whom would he do injury?

^{( t )} Whom it pleased him to appoint, to show his favour upon.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:19

^{( 16 )} Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

^{( 16 )} Another objection, but only for the reprobate, rising upon the former answer. If God appoints to everlasting destruction, such as he wishes, and if that which he has decreed cannot be hindered nor withstood, how does he justly condemn those who perish by his will?

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:20

^{( 17 )} Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? ^{( 18 )} Shall the thing ^{( u )} formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

^{( 17 )} The apostle does not answer that it is not God's will, or that God does not either reject or elect according to his pleasure, which thing the wicked call blasphemy, but he rather grants his adversary both the antecedents, that is, that it is God's will, and that is must of necessity so happen, yet he denies that God is therefore to be thought an unjust avenger of the wicked: for seeing that it appears by manifest proof that this is the will of God, and his doing, what impudency is it for man, who is but dust and ashes, to dispute with God, and as it were to call him into judgment? Now if any man say that the doubt is not so dissolved and answered, I answer, that there is no surer demonstration in any matter, because it is grounded upon this principle, that the will of God is the rule of righteousness.

^{( 18 )} An amplification of the former answer, taken from a comparison, by which it also appears that God's determinate counsel is set by Paul as the highest of all causes: so that it depends not in any way on the second causes, but rather shapes and directs them.

^{( u )} This similitude agrees very properly to the first creation of mankind.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:21

^{( 19 )} Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one ^{( 20 )} vessel unto ^{( x )} honour, and another unto ^{( 21 )} dishonour?

^{( 19 )} Alluding to the creation of Adam, he compares mankind not yet made (but who are in the creators mind) to a lump of clay: who afterwards God made, and daily makes, according as he purposed from everlasting, both such as should be elect, and such as should be reprobate, as also this word "make" declares.

^{( 20 )} Whereas in the objection propounded, mention was only made of vessels to dishonour, yet he speaks of the others also in this answer, because he proves the Creator to be just in either of them.

^{( x )} To honest uses.

^{( 21 )} Seeing then, that in the name of dishonour the shame of everlasting death is signified, those agree with Paul, who say that some are made by God for most just destruction: and they that are offended with this kind of speech betray their own folly.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:22

^{( 22 )} [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the ^{( y )} vessels of wrath fitted to ^{( 23 )} destruction:

^{( 22 )} The second answer is this, that God, moreover and besides that he justly decrees whatever he decrees, uses that moderation in executing his decrees, as is declared his singular mercifulness even in the reprobate, in that he endures them a long time, and permits them to enjoy many and singular benefits, until at length he justly condemns them: and that to good end and purpose, that is, to show himself to be an enemy and avenger of wickedness, that it may appear what power he has by these severe judgments, and finally by comparison of contraries to set forth indeed, how great his mercy is towards the elect.

^{( y )} By vessels, the Hebrews understand all types of instruments.

^{( 23 )} Therefore again, we may say with Paul, that some men are made by God the creator for destruction.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:23

And that he might make known the ^{( z )} riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

^{( z )} The unmeasurable and marvellous greatness.

Geneva Bible: Rom 9:24

^{( 24 )} Even us, whom he hath called, not of the ^{( a )} Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

^{( 24 )} Having established the doctrine of the eternal predestination of God on both parts, that is, on the part of the reprobate as well as of the elect, he comes now to show its use, teaching us that we ought not to seek its testimony in the secret counsel of God, but by the calling which is made manifest, and set forth in the Church, propounding to us the example of the Jews and Gentiles, that the doctrine may be better perceived.

^{( a )} He does not say that each and every one of the Jews are called, but some of the Jews, and some of the Gentiles.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Rom 9:1-33

1 Paul is sorry for the Jews.

7 All of Abraham not of the promise.

18 God's sovereignty.

25 The calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews, foretold.

32 The cause of the Jews' stumbling.

MHCC: Rom 9:1-5

Being about to discuss the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, and to show that the whole agrees with the sovereign electing love of God, the apostle expresses strongly his affection for his people. He solemnly appeals to Christ; and his conscience, enlightened and directed by the Holy Spirit, bore witness to his sincerity. He would submit to be treated as " accursed," to be disgraced, crucified; and even for a time be in the deepest horror and distress; if he could rescue his nation from the destruction about to come upon them for their obstinate unbelief. To be insensible to the eternal condition of our fellow-creatures, is contrary both to the love required by the law, and the mercy of the gospel. They had long been professed worshippers of Jehovah. The law, and the national covenant which was grounded thereon, belonged to them. The temple worship was typical of salvation by the Messiah, and the means of communion with God. All the promises concerning Christ and his salvation were given to them. He is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever.

MHCC: Rom 9:6-13

The rejection of the Jews by the gospel dispensation, did not break God's promise to the patriarchs. The promises and threatenings shall be fulfilled. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits always found with outward church privileges. Not only some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will. God foresaw both Esau and Jacob as born in sin, by nature children of wrath even as others. If left to themselves they would have continued in sin through life; but for wise and holy reasons, not made known to us, he purposed to change Jacob's heart, and to leave Esau to his perverseness. This instance of Esau and Jacob throws light upon the Divine conduct to the fallen race of man. The whole Scripture shows the difference between the professed Christian and the real believer. Outward privileges are bestowed on many who are not the children of God. There is, however, full encouragement to diligent use of the means of grace which God has appointed.

MHCC: Rom 9:14-24

Whatever God does, must be just. Wherein the holy, happy people of God differ from others, God's grace alone makes them differ. In this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own. None have deserved it; so that those who are saved, must thank God only; and those who perish, must blame themselves only, Hos 13:9. God is bound no further than he has been pleased to bind himself by his own covenant and promise, which is his revealed will. And this is, that he will receive, and not cast out, those that come to Christ; but the drawing of souls in order to that coming, is an anticipating, distinguishing favour to whom he will. Why does he yet find fault? This is not an objection to be made by the creature against his Creator, by man against God. The truth, as it is in Jesus, abases man as nothing, as less than nothing, and advances God as sovereign Lord of all. Who art thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so unable to judge the Divine counsels? It becomes us to submit to him, not to reply against him. Would not men allow the infinite God the same sovereign right to manage the affairs of the creation, as the potter exercises in disposing of his clay, when of the same lump he makes one vessel to a more honourable, and one to a meaner use? God could do no wrong, however it might appear to men. God will make it appear that he hates sin. Also, he formed vessels filled with mercy. Sanctification is the preparation of the soul for glory. This is God's work. Sinners fit themselves for hell, but it is God who prepares saints for heaven; and all whom God designs for heaven hereafter, he fits for heaven now. Would we know who these vessels of mercy are? Those whom God has called; and these not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles. Surely there can be no unrighteousness in any of these Divine dispensations. Nor in God's exercising long-suffering, patience, and forbearance towards sinners under increasing guilt, before he brings utter destruction upon them. The fault is in the hardened sinner himself. As to all who love and fear God, however such truths appear beyond their reason to fathom, yet they should keep silence before him. It is the Lord alone who made us to differ; we should adore his pardoning mercy and new-creating grace, and give diligence to make our calling and election sure.

Matthew Henry: Rom 9:1-5

We have here the apostle's solemn profession of a great concern for the nation and people of the Jews - that he was heartily troubled that so many of them were enemies to the gospel, and out of the way of salvation. For this he had great heaviness and continual sorrow. Such a profession as this was requisite to take off the odium which otherwise he might have contracted by asserting and proving their rejection. It is wisdom as much as may be to mollify those truths which sound harshly and seem unpleasant: dip the nail in oil, it will drive the better. The Jews had a particular pique at Paul above any of the apostles, as appears by the history of the Acts, and therefore were the more apt to take things amiss of him, to prevent which he introduces his discourse with this tender and affectionate profession, that they might not think he triumphed or insulted over the rejected Jews or was pleased with the calamities that were coming upon them. Thus Jeremiah appeals to God concerning the Jews of his day, whose ruin was hastening on (Jer 17:16), Neither have I desired the woeful day, thou knowest. Nay, Paul was so far from desiring it that he most pathetically deprecates it. And lest this should be thought only a copy of his countenance, to flatter and please them,

I. He asserts it with a solemn protestation (Rom 9:1): I say the truth in Christ, "I speak it as a Christian, one of God's people, children that will not lie, as one that knows not how to give flattering title."Or, "I appeal to Christ, who searches the heart, concerning it."He appeals likewise to his own conscience, which was instead of a thousand witnesses. That which he was going to assert was not only a great and weighty thing (such solemn protestations are not to be thrown away upon trifles), but it was likewise a secret; it was concerning a sorrow in his heart to which none was a capable competent witness but God and his own conscience. - That I have great heaviness, Rom 9:2. He does not say for what; the very mention of it was unpleasant and invidious; but it is plain that he means for the rejection of the Jews.

II. He backs it with a very serious imprecation, which he was ready to make, out of love to the Jews. I could wish; he does not say, I do wish, for it was no proper means appointed for such an end; but, if it were, I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren - a very high pang of zeal and affection for his countrymen. He would be willing to undergo the greatest misery to do them good. Love is apt to be thus bold, and venturous, and self-denying. Because the glory of God's grace in the salvation of many is to be preferred before the welfare and happiness of a single person, Paul, if they were put in competition, would be content to forego all his own happiness to purchase theirs. 1. He would be content to be cut off from the land of the living, in the most shameful and ignominious manner, as an anathema, or a devoted person. They thirsted for his blood, persecuted him as the most obnoxious person in the world, the curse and plague of his generation, 1Co 4:13; Act 22:22. "Now,"says Paul, "I am willing to bear all this, and a great deal more, for your good. Abuse me as much as you will, count and call me at your pleasure; your unbelief and rejection create in my heart a heaviness so much greater than all these troubles can that I could look upon them not only as tolerable, but as desirable, rather than this rejection."2. He would be content to be excommunicated from the society of the faithful, to be separated from the church, and from the communion of saints, as a heathen man and a publican, if that would do them any good. he could wish himself no more remembered among the saints, his name blotted out of the church-records; though he had been so great a planter of churches, and the spiritual father of so many thousands, yet he would be content to be disowned by the church, cut off from all communion with it, and have his name buried in oblivion or reproach, for the good of the Jews. It may be, some of the Jews had a prejudice against Christianity for Paul's sake; such a spleen they had at him that they hated the religion he was of: "If this stumble you,"says Paul, "I could wish I might be cast out, not embraced as a Christian, so you might but be taken in."Thus Moses (Exo 32:33), in a like holy passion of concern, Blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written. 3. Nay, some think that the expression goes further, and that he could be content to be cut off from all his share of happiness in Christ, if that might be a means of their salvation. It is a common charity that begins at home; this is something higher, and more noble and generous.

III. He gives us the reason of this affection and concern.

1. Because of their relation to them: My brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. Though they were very bitter against him upon all occasions, and gave him the most unnatural and barbarous usage, yet thus respectfully does he speak of them. It shows him to be a man of a forgiving spirit. Not that I had aught to accuse my nation of, Act 28:19. My kinsmen. Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special engagements, and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and concerning them, and our usefulness to them, we must in a special manner give account.

2. Especially because of their relation to God (Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5): Who are Israelites, the seed of Abraham, God's friend, and of Jacob his chosen, taken into the covenant of peculiarity, dignified and distinguished by visible church-privileges, many of which are here mentioned: - (1.) The adoption; not that which is saving, and which entitled to eternal happiness, but that which was external and typical, and entitled them to the land of Canaan. Israel is my son, Exo 4:22. (2.) And the glory; the ark with the mercy-seat, over which God dwelt between the cherubim - this was the glory of Israel, 1Sa 4:21. The many symbols and tokens of the divine presence and guidance, the cloud, the Shechinah, the distinguishing favours conferred upon them - these were the glory. (3.) And the covenants - the covenant made with Abraham, and often renewed with his seed upon divers occasions. There was a covenant at Sinai (Ex. 24), in the plains of Moab (Deu. 29), at Shechem (Jos. 24), and often afterwards; and still these pertained to Israel. Or, the covenant of peculiarity, and in that, as in the type, the covenant of grace. (4.) And the giving of the law. It was to them that the ceremonial and judicial law were given, and the moral law in writing pertained to them. It is a great privilege to have the law of God among us, and it is to be accounted so, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20. This was the grandeur of Israel, Deu 4:7, Deu 4:8. (5.) And the service of God. They had the ordinances of God's worship among them - the temple, the altars, the priests, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the institutions relating to them. They were in this respect greatly honoured, that, while other nations were worshipping and serving stocks, and stones, and devils, and they knew not what other idols of their own invention, the Israelites were serving the true God in the way of his own appointment. (6.) And the promises - particular promises added to the general covenant, promises relating to the Messiah and the gospel state. Observe, The promises accompany the giving of the law, and the service of God; for the comfort of the promises is to be had in obedience to that law and attendance upon that service. (7.) Whose are the fathers (Rom 9:5), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those men of renown, that stood so high in the favour of God. The Jews stand in relation to them, are their children, and proud enough they are of it: We have Abraham to our father. It was for the father's sake that they were taken into covenant, Rom 11:28. (8.) But the greatest honour of all was that of them as concerning the flesh (that is, as to his human nature) Christ came; for he took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb 2:16. As to his divine nature, he is the Lord from heaven; but, as to his human nature, he is of the seed of Abraham. This was the great privilege of the Jews, that Christ was of kin to them. Mentioning Christ, he interposes a very great word concerning him, that he is over all, God blessed for ever. Lest the Jews should think meanly of him, because he was of their alliance, he here speaks thus honourably concerning him: and it is a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever. Therefore, how much sorer punishment were they worthy of that rejected him! It was likewise the honour of the Jews, and one reason why Paul had a kindness for them, that, seeing God blessed for ever would be a man, he would be a Jew; and, considering the posture and character of that people at that time, it may well be looked upon as a part of his humiliation.

Matthew Henry: Rom 9:6-13

The apostle, having made his way to that which he had to say, concerning the rejection of the body of his countrymen, with a protestation of his own affection for them and a concession of their undoubted privileges, comes in these verses, and the following part of the chapter, to prove that the rejection of the Jews, by the establishment of the gospel dispensation, did not at all invalidate the word of God's promise to the patriarchs: Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect (Rom 9:6), which, considering the present state of the Jews, which created to Paul so much heaviness and continual sorrow (Rom 9:2), might be suspected. We are not to ascribe inefficacy to any word of God: nothing that he has spoken does or can fall to the ground; see Isa 55:10, Isa 55:11. The promises and threatenings shall have their accomplishment; and, one way or other, he will magnify the law and make it honourable. This is to be understood especially of the promise of God, which by subsequent providences may be to a wavering faith very doubtful; but it is not, it cannot be, made of no effect; at the end it will speak and not lie.

Now the difficulty is to reconcile the rejection of the unbelieving Jews with the word of God's promise, and the external tokens of the divine favour, which had been conferred upon them. This he does in four ways: - 1. By explaining the true meaning and intention of the promise, Rom 9:6-13. 2. By asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, Rom 9:14-24. 3. By showing how this rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, Rom 9:25-29. 4. By fixing the true reason of the Jews' rejection, Rom 9:30, to the end.

In this paragraph the apostle explains the true meaning and intention of the promise. When we mistake the word, and misunderstand the promise, no marvel if we are ready to quarrel with God about the accomplishment; and therefore the sense of this must first be duly stated. Now he here makes it out that, when God said he would be a God to Abraham, and to his seed (which was the famous promise made unto the fathers), he did not mean it of all his seed according to the flesh, as if it were a necessary concomitant of the blood of Abraham; but that he intended it with a limitation only to such and such. And as from the beginning it was appropriated to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau, and yet for all this the word of God was not made of no effect; so now the same promise is appropriated to believing Jews that embrace Christ and Christianity, and, though it throws off multitudes that refuse Christ, yet the promise is not therefore defeated and invalidated, any more than it was by the typical rejection of Ishmael and Esau.

I. He lays down this proposition - that they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Rom 9:6), neither because they are, etc., Rom 9:7. Many that descended from the loins of Abraham and Jacob, and were of that people who were surnamed by the name of Israel, yet were very far from being Israelites indeed, interested in the saving benefits of the new covenant. They are not all really Israel that are so in name and profession. It does not follow that, because they are the seed of Abraham, therefore they must needs be the children of God, though they themselves fancied so, boasted much of, and built much upon, their relation to Abraham, Mat 3:9; Joh 8:38, Joh 8:39. But it does not follow. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privileges, though it is common for people thus to stretch the meaning of God's promise, to bolster themselves up in a vain hope.

II. He proves this by instances; and therein shows not only that some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but that God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will; and not with regard to that law of commandments to which the present unbelieving Jews were so strangely wedded.

1. He specifies the case of Isaac and Ishmael, both of them the seed of Abraham; and yet Isaac only taken into covenant with God, and Ishmael rejected and cast out. For this he quotes Gen 21:12, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, which comes in there as a reason why Abraham must be willing to cast out the bond-woman and her son, because the covenant was to be established with Isaac, Gen 17:19. And yet the word which God had spoken, that he would be a God to Abraham and to his seed, did not therefore fall to the ground; for the blessings wrapt up in that great word, being communicated by God as a benefactor, he was free to determine on what head they should rest, and accordingly entailed them upon Isaac, and rejected Ishmael. This he explains further (Rom 9:8, Rom 9:9), and shows what God intended to teach us by this dispensation. (1.) That the children of the flesh, as such, by virtue of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, are not therefore the children of God, for then Ishmael had put in a good claim. This remark comes home to the unbelieving Jews, who boasted of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, Phi 3:3. Ishmael was a child of the flesh, conceived by Hagar, who was young and fresh, and likely enough to have children. There was nothing extraordinary or supernatural in his conception, as there was in Isaac's; he was born after the flesh (Gal 4:29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness. (2.) That the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Those that have the honour and happiness of being counted for the seed have it not for the sake of any merit or desert of their own, but purely by virtue of the promise, in which God hath obliged himself of his own good pleasure to grant the promised favour. Isaac was a child of promise; this his proves, Rom 9:9, quoted from Gen 18:10. he was a child promised (so were many others), and he was also conceived and born by force and virtue of the promise, and so a proper type and figure of those who are now counted for the seed, even true believers, who are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God - of the incorruptible seed, even the word of promise, by virtue of the special promise of a new heart: see Gal 4:28. It was through faith that Isaac was conceived, Heb 11:11. Thus were the great mysteries of salvation taught under the Old Testament, not in express words, but by significant types and dispensations of providence, which to them then were not so clear as they are to us now, when the veil is taken away, and the types are expounded by the antitypes.

2. The case of Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:10-13), which is much stronger, to show that the carnal seed of Abraham were not, as such, interested in the promise, but only such of them as God in sovereignty had appointed. There was a previous difference between Ishmael and Isaac, before Ishmael was cast out: Ishmael was the son of the bond-woman, born long before Isaac, was of a fierce and rugged disposition, and had mocked or persecuted Isaac, to all which it might be supposed God had regard when he appointed Abraham to cast him out. But, in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was neither so nor so, they were both the sons of Isaac by one mother; they were conceived hex henos - by one conception; hex henos koitou , so some copies read it. The difference was made between them by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any good or evil. Both lay struggling alike in their mother's womb, when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen, that the purpose of God according to election might stand - that this great truth may be established, that God chooses some and refuses others as a free agent, by his own absolute and sovereign will, dispensing his favours or withholding them as he pleases. This difference that was put between Jacob and Esau he further illustrates by a quotation from Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, where it is said, not of Jacob and Esau the person, but the Edomites and Israelites their posterity, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. The people of Israel were taken into the covenant of peculiarity, had the land of Canaan given them, were blessed with the more signal appearances of God for them in special protections, supplies, and deliverances, while the Edomites were rejected, had no temple, altar, priests, nor prophets - no such particular care taken of them nor kindness shown to them. Such a difference did God put between those two nations, that both descended from the loins of Abraham and Isaac, as at first there was a difference put between Jacob and Esau, the distinguishing heads of those two nations. So that all this choosing and refusing was typical, and intended to shadow forth some other election and rejection. (1.) Some understand it of the election and rejection of conditions or qualifications. As God chose Isaac and Jacob, and rejected Ishmael and Esau, so he might and did choose faith to be the condition of salvation and reject the works of the law. Thus Arminius understands it, De rejectis et assumptis talibus, certa qualitate notatis - Concerning such as are rejected and such as are chosen, being distinguished by appropriate qualities; so John Goodwin. But this very much strains the scripture; for the apostle speaks all along of persons, he has mercy on whom (he does not say on what kind of people) he will have mercy, besides that against this sense those two objections (Rom 9:14, Rom 9:19) do not at all arise, and his answer to them concerning God's absolute sovereignty over the children of men is not at all pertinent if no more be meant than his appointing the conditions of salvation. (2.) Others understand it of the election and rejection of particular person - some loved, and others hated, from eternity. But the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, not in their own persons, but as ancestors - Jacob the people, and Esau the people; nor does God condemn any, or decree so to do, merely because he will do it, without any reason taken from their own deserts. (3.) Others therefore understand it of the election and rejection of people considered complexly. His design is to justify God, and his mercy and truth, in calling the Gentiles, and taking them into the church, and into covenant with himself, while he suffered the obstinate part of the Jews to persist in unbelief, and so to unchurch themselves - thus hiding from their eyes the things that belonged to their peace. The apostle's reasoning for the explication and proof of this is, however, very applicable to, and, no doubt (as is usual in scripture) was intended for the clearing of the methods of God's grace towards particular person, for the communication of saving benefits bears some analogy to the communication of church-privileges. The choosing of Jacob the younger, and preferring him before Esau the elder (so crossing hands), were to intimate that the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and the first-born of the church, should be laid aside; and the Gentiles, who were as the younger brother, should be taken in in their stead, and have the birthright and blessing. The Jews, considered as a body politic, a nation and people, knit together by the bond and cement of the ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood, the centre of their unity, had for many ages been the darlings and favourites of heaven, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, dignified and distinguished by God's miraculous appearances among them and for them. Now that the gospel was preached, and Christian churches were planted, this national body was thereby abandoned, their church-polity dissolved; and Christian churches (and in process of time Christian nations), embodied in like manner, become their successors in the divine favour, and those special privileges and protections which were the products of that favour. To clear up the justice of God in this great dispensation is the scope of the apostle here.

Matthew Henry: Rom 9:14-24

The apostle, having asserted the true meaning of the promise, comes here to maintain and prove the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, with reference to their eternal state. And herein God is to be considered, not as a rector and governor, distributing rewards and punishments according to his revealed laws and covenants, but as an owner and benefactor, giving to the children of men such grace and favour as he has determined in and by his secret and eternal will and counsel: both the favour of visible church-membership and privileges, which is given to some people and denied to others, and the favour of effectual grace, which is given to some particular persons and denied to others.

Now this part of his discourse is in answer to two objections.

I. It might be objected, Is there unrighteousness with God? If God, in dealing with the children of men, do thus, in an arbitrary manner, choose some and refuse others, may it not be suspected that there is unrighteousness with him? This the apostle startles at the thought of: God forbid! Far be it from us to think such a thing; shall not the judge of all the earth do right? Gen 18:25; Rom 3:5, Rom 3:6. He denies the consequences, and proves the denial.

1. In respect of those to whom he shows mercy, Rom 9:15, Rom 9:16. He quotes that scripture to show God's sovereignty in dispensing his favours (Exo 33:19): I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. All God's reasons of mercy are taken from within himself. All the children of men being plunged alike into a state of sin and misery, equally under guilt and wrath, God, in a way of sovereignty, picks out some from this fallen apostatized race, to be vessels of grace and glory. He dispenses his gifts to whom he will, without giving us any reason: according to his own good pleasure he pitches upon some to be monuments of mercy and grace, preventing grace, effectual grace, while he passes by others. The expression is very emphatic, and the repetition makes it more so: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. It imports a perfect absoluteness in God's will; he will do what he will, and giveth not account of any of his matters, nor is it fit he should. As these great words, I am that I am (Exo 3:14) do abundantly express the absolute independency of his being, so these words, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, do as fully express the absolute prerogative and sovereignty of his will. To vindicate the righteousness of God, in showing mercy to whom he will, the apostle appeals to that which God himself had spoken, wherein he claims this sovereign power and liberty. God is a competent judge, even in his own case. Whatsoever God does, or is resolved to do, is both by the one and the other proved to be just. Eleēsō on han heleō - I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. When I begin, I will make an end. Therefore God's mercy endures for ever, because the reason of it is fetched from within himself; therefore his gifts and callings are without repentance. Hence he infers (Rom 9:16), It is not of him that willeth. Whatever good comes from God to man, the glory of it is not to be ascribed to the most generous desire, nor to the most industrious endeavour, of man, but only and purely to the free grace and mercy of God. In Jacob's case it was not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; it was not the earnest will and desire of Rebecca that Jacob might have the blessing; it was not Jacob's haste to get it (for he was compelled to run for it) that procured him the blessing, but only the mercy and grace of God. Wherein the holy happy people of God differ from other people, it is God and his grace that make them differ. Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him, the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God's free grace that made that difference. The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness, Mat 4:16. In darkness, therefore not willing what they knew not; sitting in darkness, a contented posture, therefore not running to meet it, but anticipated with these invaluable blessings of goodness. Such is the method of God's grace towards all that partake of it, for he is found of those that sought him not (Isa 65:1); in this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own. Our eye therefore must not be evil because his is good; but, of all the grace that we or others have, he must have the glory: Not unto us, Psa 115:1.

2. In respect of those who perish, Rom 9:17. God's sovereignty, manifested in the ruin of sinners, is here discovered in the instance of Pharaoh; it is quoted from Exo 9:16. Observe,

(1.) What God did with Pharaoh. He raised him up, brought him into the world, made him famous, gave him the kingdom and power, - set him up as a beacon upon a hill, as the mark of all his plagues (compare Exo 9:14) - hardened his heart, as he had said he would (Exo 4:21): I will harden his heart, that is, withdraw softening grace, leave him to himself, let Satan loose against him, and lay hardening providences before him. Or, by raising him up may be meant the intermission of the plagues which gave Pharaoh respite, and the reprieve of Pharaoh in those plagues. In the Hebrew, I have made thee stand, continued thee yet in the land of the living. Thus doth God raise up sinners, make them for himself, even for the day of evil (Pro 16:4), raise them up in outward prosperity, external privileges (Mat 11:23), sparing mercies.

(2.) What he designed in it: That I might show my power in thee. God would, by all this, serve the honour of his name, and manifest his power in baffling the pride and insolence of that great and daring tyrant, who bade defiance to Heaven itself, and trampled upon all that was just and sacred. If Pharaoh had not been so high and might, so bold and hardy, the power of God had not been so illustrious in the ruining of him; but the taking off of the spirit of such a prince, who hectored at that rate, did indeed proclaim God glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders, Exo 15:11. This is Pharaoh, and all his multitude.

(3.) His conclusion concerning both these we have, Rom 9:18. He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. The various dealings of God, by which he makes some to differ from others, must be resolved into his absolute sovereignty. He is debtor to no man, his grace is his own, and he may give it or withhold it as it pleaseth him; we have none of us deserved it, nay, we have all justly forfeited it a thousand times, so that herein the work of our salvation is admirably well ordered that those who are saved must thank God only, and those who perish must thank themselves only, Hos 13:9. We are bound, as God hath bound us, to do our utmost for the salvation of all we have to do with; but God is bound no further than he has been pleased to bind himself by his own covenant and promise, which is his revealed will; and that is that he will receive, and not cast out, those that come to Christ; but the drawing of souls in order to that coming is a preventing distinguishing favour to whom he will. Had he mercy on the Gentiles? It was because he would have mercy on them. Were the Jews hardened? It was because it was his own pleasure to deny them softening grace, and to give them up to their chosen affected unbelief. Even so, Father, because it seemed good unto thee. That scripture excellently explains this, Luk 10:21, and, as this, shows the sovereign will of God in giving or withholding both the means of grace and the effectual blessing upon those means.

II. It might be objected, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Rom 9:19. Had the apostle been arguing only for God's sovereignty in appointing and ordering the terms and conditions of acceptance and salvation, there had not been the least colour for this objection; for he might well find fault if people refused to come up to the terms on which such a salvation is offered; the salvation being so great, the terms could not be hard. But there might be colour for the objection against his arguing for the sovereignty of God in giving and withholding differencing and preventing grace; and the objection is commonly and readily advanced against the doctrine of distinguishing grace. If God, while he gives effectual grace to some, denies it to others, why doth he find fault with those to whom he denies it? If he hath rejected the Jews, and hid from their eyes the things that belong to their peace, why doth he find fault with them for their blindness? If it be his pleasure to discard them as not a people, and not obtaining mercy, their knocking off themselves was no resistance of his will. This objection he answers at large,

1. By reproving the objector (Rom 9:20): Nay but, O man. This is not an objection fit to be made by the creature against his Creator, by man against God. The truth, as it is in Jesus, is that which abases man as nothing, less than nothing, and advances God as sovereign Lord of all. Observe how contemptibly he speaks of man, when he comes to argue with God his Maker: " Who art thou, thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so short-sighted, so incompetent a judge of the divine counsels? Art thou able to fathom such a depth, dispute such a case, to trace that way of God which is in the sea, his path in the great waters?" That repliest against God. It becomes us to submit to him, not to reply against him; to lie down under his hand, not to fly in his face, nor to charge him with folly. Ho antapokrinomenos - That answerest again. God is our master, and we are his servants; and it does not become servants to answer again, Tit 2:9.

2. By resolving all into the divine sovereignty. We are the thing formed, and he is the former; and it does not become us to challenge or arraign his wisdom in ordering and disposing of us into this or that shape of figure. The rude and unformed mass of matter hath no right to this or that form, but is shaped at the pleasure of him that formeth it. God's sovereignty over us is fitly illustrated by the power that the potter hath over the clay; compare Jer 18:6, where, by a like comparison, God asserts his dominion over the nation of the Jews, when he was about to magnify his justice in their destruction by Nebuchadnezzar.

(1.) He gives us the comparison, Rom 9:21. The potter, out of the same lump, may make either a fashionable vessel, and a vessel fit for creditable and honourable uses, or a contemptible vessel, and a vessel in which is no pleasure; and herein he acts arbitrarily, as he might have chosen whether he would make any vessel of it at all, or whether he would leave it in the hole of the pit, out of which it was dug.

(2.) The application of the comparison, Rom 9:22-24. Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind: - [1.] Vessels of wrath - vessels filled with wrath, as a vessel of wine is a vessel filled with wine; full of the fury of the Lord, Isa 51:20. In these God is willing to show his wrath, that is, his punishing justice, and his enmity to sin. This must be shown to all the world, God will make it appear that he hates sin. He will likewise make his power known, to dumaton autou . It is a power of strength and energy, an inflicting power, which works and effects the destruction of those that perish; it is a destruction that proceeds from the glory of his power, 2Th 1:9. The eternal damnation of sinners will be an abundant demonstration of the power of God; for he will act in it himself immediately, his wrath preying as it were upon guilty consciences, and his arm stretched out totally to destroy their well-being, and yet at the same instant wonderfully to preserve the being of the creature. In order to this, God endured them with much long-suffering - exercised a great deal of patience towards them, let them alone to fill up the measure of sin, to grow till they were ripe for ruin, and so they became fitted for destruction, fitted by their own sin and self-hardening. The reigning corruptions and wickedness of the soul are its preparedness and disposedness for hell: a soul is hereby made combustible matter, fit for the flames of hell. When Christ said to the Jews (Mat 23:32), Fill you up then the measure of your father, that upon you may come all the righteous blood (Mat 23:35), he did, as it were, endure them with much long-suffering, that they might, by their own obstinacy and wilfulness in sin, fit themselves for destruction. [2.] Vessels of mercy - filled with mercy. The happiness bestowed upon the saved remnant is the fruit, not of their merit, but of God's mercy. The spring of all the joy and glory of heaven is that mercy of God which endures for ever. Vessels of honour must to eternity own themselves vessels of mercy. Observe, First, What he designs in them: To make known the riches of his glory, that is, of his goodness; for God's goodness is his greatest glory, especially when it is communicated with the greatest sovereignty. I beseech thee show me thy glory, says Moses, Exo 33:18. I will make all my goodness to pass before thee, says God (Exo 33:19), and that given out freely: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. God makes known his glory, this goodness of his, in the preservation and supply of all the creatures: the earth is full of his goodness, and the year crowned with it; but when he would demonstrate the riches of his goodness, unsearchable riches, he does it in the salvation of the saints, that will be to eternity glorious monuments of divine grace. Secondly, What he does for them he does before prepare them to glory. Sanctification is the preparation of the soul for glory, making it meet to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light. This is God's work. We can destroy ourselves fast enough, but we cannot save ourselves. Sinners fit themselves for hell, but it is God that prepares saints for heaven; and all those that God designs for heaven hereafter he prepares and fits for heaven now: he works them to the self-same thing, 2Co 5:5. And would you know who these vessels of mercy are? Those whom he hath called (Rom 9:24); for whom he did predestinate those he also called with an effectual call: and these not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles; for, the partition-wall being taken down, the world was laid in common, and not (as it had been) God's favour appropriated to the Jews, and they put a degree nearer his acceptance than the rest of the world. They now stood upon the same level with the Gentiles; and the question is not now whether of the seed of Abraham or no, that is neither here nor there, but whether or no called according to his purpose.

Barclay: Rom 9:1-6

Paul begins his attempt to explain the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ. He begins, not in anger, but in sorrow. Here is no tempest of anger and no outbreak of enraged condemnation; here is the poignant sorrow of the broken heart. Paul was like the God whom he loved and served--he hated the sin. but he loved the sinner. No man will ever even begin to try to save men unless he first loves them. Paul sees the Jews, not as people to be lashed with anger, but as people to be yearned over with longing love.

Willingly Paul would have laid down his life if he could have won the Jews for Christ. It may be that his thoughts were going back to one of the greatest episodes in Jewish history. When Moses went up the mountain to receive the law from the hands of God, the people who had been left below sinned by making the golden calf and worshipping it. God was wreath with them; and then Moses prayed the great prayer: "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written" (Exo 32:32).

Paul says that for the sake of his brethren he would consent to be accursed if it would do any good. The word he uses is anathema (331) and it is a terrible word. A thing which was anathema (331) was under the ban; it was devoted to God for utter destruction. When a heathen city was taken, everything in it was devoted to utter destruction, for it was polluted (Deu 3:6; Deu 2:34; Jos 6:17; Jos 7:1-26). If a man tried to lure Israel away from the worship of the true God, he was pitilessly condemned to utter destruction (Deu 13:8-11). The dearest thing in all Paul's life was the fact that nothing could separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus; but, if it would do anything to save his brethren, he would even accept banishment from God.

Here again is the great truth that the man who would save the sinner must love him. When a son or a daughter has done something wrong and incurred punishment, many a father and a mother would gladly bear that punishment if only they could. As Myers makes Paul say in his poem Saint Paul:

"Then with a thrill the intolerable craving,

Shivers throughout me like a trumpet call;

O to save these, to perish for their saving--

Die for their life, be offered for them all."

That is what God felt; that is what Paul felt; and that is what we must feel.

Paul did not for a moment deny the place of the Jews in the economy of God. He enumerates their privileges.

(i) In a special sense they were children of God, specially chosen, specially adopted into the family of God. "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Deu 14:1). "Is not he your father, who created you?" (Deu 32:6). "Israel is my firstborn son" (Exo 4:22). "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt called my son" (Hos 11:1). The Bible is full of this idea of the special sonship of Israel and of Israel's refusal to accept it in the fullest sense.

Boreham somewhere tells how he was visiting in a friend's house when he was a boy. There was one room into which it was forbidden to go. One day he was opposite the room when the door opened and inside he saw a boy of his own age, but in a dreadful state of animal idiocy. He saw the boy's mother go to his side. She must have seen young Boreham in all his health and sanity and then looked at her own son; and the comparison must have pierced her heart. He saw her kneel by the idiot boy's bedside and heard her cry out in a kind of anguish: "I've fed you and clothed you and loved you--and you've never known me." That was what God might have said to Israel--only in this case it was worse, for Israel's rejection was deliberate and open-eyed. It is a terrible thing to break the heart of God.

(ii) Israel had the glory. The shekinah or kaboth occurs again and again in Israel's history. It was the divine splendour of light which descended when God was visiting his people (Exo 16:10; Exo 24:16-17; Exo 29:43; Exo 33:18-22). Israel had seen the glory of God and yet had rejected him. To us it has been given to see the glory of God's love and mercy in the face of Jesus Christ; it is a terrible thing if we then choose the ways of earth.

(iii) Israel had the covenants. A covenant is a relationship entered into between two people, a bargain for mutual profit, an engagement for mutual friendship. Again and again God had approached the people of Israel and entered into a special relationship with them. He did so with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob and upon Mount Sinai when he gave the law.

Irenaeus distinguishes four great occasions when God entered into agreement with men. The first was the covenant with Noah after the flood, and the sign was the rainbow in the heavens which stood for God's promise that the floods would not come again. The second was the covenant with Abraham and its sign was the sign of circumcision. The third was the covenant with the nation entered into on Mount Sinai and its basis was the law. The fourth is the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

It is an amazing thing to think of God approaching men and entering into a pledged relationship with them. It is the simple truth that God has never left men alone. He did not make one approach and then abandon them. He has made approach after approach; and he still makes approach after approach to the individual human soul. He stands at the door and knocks; and it is the awful responsibility of human will that man can refuse to open.

(iv) They had the law. Israel could never plead ignorance of God's will; God had told them what he desired them to do. If they sinned, they sinned in knowledge and not in ignorance, and the sin of knowledge is the sin against the light which is worst of all.

(v) They had the worship of the Temple. Worship is in essence the approach of the soul to God; and God in the Temple worship had given to the Jews a special road of approach to himself. If the door to God was shut, they had shut it on themselves.

(vi) They had the promises. Israel could never say that it did not know its destiny. God had told them of the task and the privilege which were in store for them in his purpose. They knew that they were destined for great things in the economy of God.

(vii) They had the fathers. They had a tradition and a history; and it is a poor man who can dare to be false to his traditions and to shame the heritage into which he has entered.

(viii) Then comes the culmination. From them there came the Anointed One of God. All else had been a preparation for this; and yet when he came they rejected him. The biggest grief a man can have is to give his child every chance of success, to sacrifice and save and toil to give him the opportunity, and then to find that the child, through his disobedience or rebelliousness or self-indulgence, has failed to grasp it. Therein lies tragedy, for therein is the waste of love's labour and the defeat of love's dream. The tragedy of Israel was that God had prepared her for the day of the coming of his Son--and all the preparation was frustrated. It was not that God's law had been broken; it was that God's love had been spurned. It is not the anger, but the broken heart of God, which lies behind Paul's words.

Barclay: Rom 9:7-13

If the Jews have rejected and crucified Jesus, the Son of God, is that to say that God's purposes were frustrated and his plan defeated? Paul produces a strange argument to prove that it is not so. In point of fact not all the Jews did reject Jesus; some of them accepted him, for, of course, all the early followers were Jews, as was Paul himself. Now, he says, if we go back through the history of Israel, we will see again and again a process of selection at work. Again and again we see that it was not all Jews who were within the design of God. Some were and some were not. The line of the nation through which God worked, and in which he carried out his plan, was not at any time composed of all those who could claim physical descent from Abraham. At the back of the whole plan there is not merely physical descent; there is the selection, the election of God.

To prove his case, Paul cites two instances from Jewish history and buttresses them with proof texts. Abraham had two sons. There was Ishmael, who was the son of the bondwoman Hagar, and there was Isaac, who was the son of his wife Sarah. Both were true blood descendants of Abraham. It was late in life when Sarah had a son, so late that it was, humanly speaking, an impossibility. As he grew up, there came a day when Ishmael mocked at Isaac. Sarah resented it, and demanded that Hagar and Ishmael should be ejected and that Isaac alone should inherit. Abraham was very unwilling to eject them, but God told him to do so, for it was in Isaac that his descendants would preserve his name (Gen 21:12). Now Ishmael had been the son of natural human desire; but Isaac had been the son of God's promise (Gen 18:10-14). It was to the child of the promise that the real descent was given. Here is the first proof that not all physical descendants of Abraham are to be ranked as the chosen ones. Within the nation, God's selection and election have gone on.

Paul proceeds to cite another instance. When Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, was with child, she was told by God that in her womb there were two children who would be the fathers of two nations; but that in the days to come the elder would serve and be subject to the younger (Gen 25:23). So the twins Esau and Jacob were born. Esau was the elder twin, and yet the choice of God fell on Jacob, and it was through the line of Jacob that God's will was to be done. To clinch the argument Paul cites Mal 1:2-3, where God is represented as saying to the prophet: "I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau."

Paul argues that there is more to Jewishness than descent from Abraham, that the chosen people were not simply the entire sum of all the physical descendants of Abraham, that within that family there was a process of election all through history. A Jew would thoroughly understand and accept the argument so far. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood son of Abraham, but the Jews would never have dreamed of saying that the Arabs belonged to the chosen people. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau--that in fact is what Malachi means--and Esau was a true son of Isaac, even the twin brother of Jacob, but no Jew would ever have said that the Edomites had any share in the chosen people. From the Jewish point of view Paul has made his point; there was election within the family of Abraham's physical descendants.

He makes the further point that that selection had nothing to do with deeds and merit. The proof is that Jacob was chosen and Esau was rejected, before either of them was born. The choice was made while they were still in their mother's womb.

Our minds stagger at this argument. It presents us with the picture of a God who apparently quite arbitrarily chooses one and rejects the other. To us it is not a valid argument, because it makes God responsible for an action which does not seem to be ethically justified. But the fact remains that it would strike home to a Jew. And even to us, at the heart of this argument one great truth remains. Everything is of God; behind everything is his action; even the things which seem arbitrary and haphazard go back to him. Nothing in this world moves with aimless feet.

Barclay: Rom 9:14-18

Paul now begins to meet the very arguments and objections which rise in our own minds. He has stated that in all Israel's history the process of selection and election has gone on; he has stressed the fact that this election was based not on any merit of the person elected but on nothing else than the will of God himself. The objector asks: "Is that fair? Is it just of God to pursue a policy of quite arbitrary selection altogether?" Paul's answer is that God can do what he chooses to do. In the terrible days of the Roman Empire, when no man's life was safe and any one might die at the whim of an irresponsible and suspicious Emperor, Galba said, when he became Emperor, that now "he could do what he liked and do it to anyone." To be honest, that is what Paul is saying about God in this passage.

Again he cites two instances to prove his point and buttresses them with scripture quotations. The first is from Exo 33:19. Moses is beseeching some real proof that God is really with the people of Israel. God's answer is that he will have mercy on those on whom he chooses to have mercy. His attitude of loving mercy to the nation depends on himself alone. The other instance is from Israel's battle for release from Egypt and the power of Pharaoh. When Moses first went to ask for that release, he warned Pharaoh that God had simply brought him on to the stage of history to demonstrate the divine power and to serve to all men as an example of what happens to the man who opposes it (Exo 9-16).

Once again our mind staggers at this argument. It is, of course, not true to say that God can do anything. He cannot do anything which contradicts his own nature. He cannot be responsible for any act which is unjust and which, in fact, breaks his own laws. We find it hard, and even impossible, to conceive of a God who irresponsibly gives mercy to one and not to another, and who raises up a king to be a mere puppet or lay figure through which his own avenging power may be demonstrated. But the argument would be valid and convincing to a Jew, because again it, in essence, means that God is behind everything.

When we get to the foot of this argument, it does conserve one great truth. It is impossible to think of the relationship between God and man in terms of justice. Man has no claim on God whatever. The created has no claim on the Creator. Whenever justice enters into it, the answer is that from God man deserves nothing and can claim nothing. In God's dealings with men, the essential things are his will and his mercy.

Barclay: Rom 9:19-29

In the previous passage Paul had been showing that all through the history of Israel there had been going on a process of election and selection by God. A very natural objection arises--if at the back of the whole process there is the selection and rejection of God, how can God possibly blame the men who have rejected him? Surely the fault is not theirs at all, but God's. Paul's answer is blunt almost to the point of crudity. He says that no man has any right to argue with God. When a potter makes a vessel, it cannot talk back to him; he has absolute power over it; out of the one lump of clay he can make one vessel for an honourable purpose and another for a menial purpose, and the clay has nothing to do with it and has no right whatever to protest. In point of fact Paul took this picture from Jeremiah (Jer 18:1-6). There are two things to be said about it.

(i) It is a bad analogy. One great New Testament commentator has said that this is one of the very few passages which we wish Paul had not written. There is a difference between a human being and a lump of clay. A human being is a person and a lump of clay is a thing. Maybe you can do what you like with a thing, but you cannot do what you like with a person. Clay does not desire to answer back; does not desire to question; cannot think and feel; cannot be bewildered and tortured. If someone has inexplicably suffered some tremendous sorrow, it will not help much to tell him that he has no right to complain, because God can do what he likes. That is the mark of a tyrant and not of a loving Father. It is the basic fact of the gospel that God does not treat men as a potter treats a lump of clay; he treats them as a loving father treats his child.

(ii) But when we have said that we must remember one thing--it was out of anguish of heart that Paul wrote this passage. He was faced with the bewildering fact that God's own people, his own kinsmen, had rejected and crucified God's own Son. It was not that Paul wished to say this; he was driven to say it. The only possible explanation he could see was that, for his own purposes, God had somehow blinded his people.

In any event, Paul does not leave the argument there. He goes on to say that this rejection by the Jews had happened in order that the door might be opened to the Gentiles. His argument is not good. It is one thing to say that God used an evil situation to bring good out of it; it is quite another thing to say that he created it to produce good in the end. Paul is saying that God deliberately darkened the minds and blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts of the mass of the Jewish people in order that the way might open for the Gentiles to come in. We must remember that this is not the argument of a theologian sitting quietly in a study thinking things out; it is the argument of a man whose heart was in despair to find some reason for a completely incomprehensible situation. In the end the only answer Paul can find is that God did it.

Now Paul was arguing with Jews, and he knew that the only way he could buttress his argument was with quotations from their own scriptures. So he goes on to cite texts to prove that this rejection of the Jews and acceptance of the Gentiles had actually been foretold in the prophets. Hosea had said that God would make a people his people who were not his people (Hos 2:23). He said that a people who were not God's people would be called the sons of God (Hos 1:10). He showed how Isaiah had foreseen a situation when Israel would have been obliterated had not a remnant been left (Isa 10:22-23; Isa 37:32). It is his argument that Israel could have foreseen her doom had she only understood.

It is easy in this passage to criticize him, but the one thing that must be remembered is that Paul, in his despairing anguish for his own people, clung to the fact that somehow everything was God's work. For him there was nothing left to say but that.

Constable: Rom 9:1--11:36

V. THE VINDICATION OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS chs. 9--11

A major problem concerning God's righteousness arises out of what Paul just claimed for God. It is this. If God is for His elect and will never remove His love from them, why has He set aside His chosen people, the Jews? It certainly looks as though something separated them from His love. If God has turned away from Israel, are Christians really that secure? The problem focuses on God's righteous dealings with humankind and therefore was one that Paul needed to deal with in this epistle.

In chapters 9-11 the apostle defended the righteousness of God in His dealings with Israel. Having explained how God justifies sinners Paul now found it necessary to justify God Himself, to prove and declare Him righteous.²⁸⁸ The apostle to the Gentiles proceeded to show that God had not removed His love from the Jews. Nothing had separated them from His love. God's present dealings with Israel do not indicate that He has abandoned them but need viewing in the light of His future plans for the nation. In the future God will also glorify Israel.

In chapter 9 Paul dealt primarily with God's dealings with Israel in the past, in chapter 10 with their present situation, and in chapter 11 with His future plans for the nation.

We note in these chapters that God's dealings with Israel as a nation are similar to His dealings with individual Christians whom Paul had been speaking of in recent chapters. God elected both Israel and each Christian.²⁸⁹ Unsaved Israel, as many unsaved individuals, tried to establish its own righteousness by obeying the law instead of by believing God's promise. A mass conversion of Israel will occur in the future (11:25-32). It is similar to the grand picture of the climax of salvation that we have in chapter 8. God will prove faithful to Israel as well as to individual Christians. The whole section dealing with Israel culminates in rapturous praise to God (11:33-36) as the section dealing with individual salvation did (8:31-39). While these parallels do exist, Paul did not stress them.

Constable: Rom 9:1-33

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

Paul began by tracing God's dealings with Israel in the past.

"No conjunction or particle connects the two chapters, and the tone shifts dramatically from celebration (8:31-39) to lamentation (9:1-3)."²⁹⁰

Constable: Rom 9:1-5

1. God's blessing on Israel 9:1-5

9:1 The apostle opened his discussion of God's relations with Israel very personally by sharing his heart for his own people. Some might have thought that Paul hated the Jews since he had departed from Judaism and now preached a Law-free gospel. Therefore he took pains to affirm his love for his fellow Jews. He claimed two witnesses that he was telling the truth when he professed love for the Jews. These witnesses were his own position in Christ who is the truth and his clear conscience that the Holy Spirit had sensitized.

9:2 Paul's sorrow and grief over Israel's condition contrast with his joy and exultation over his own condition (8:38-39).

9:3 "I could wish" introduces a wish that God would not possibly grant (8:35). Nevertheless it was a sincere wish. Paul had given up many other things for the salvation of others (Phil. 3:8). Moses voiced a similar self-sacrificing wish for the Israelites' salvation (Exod. 32:30-35). Paul's brethren here were not his spiritual but his racial brothers and sisters. Even though he was "the apostle to the Gentiles" he still took pleasure in being a Jew.

9:4 Paul shared much in common with his blood brothers. "Israelites" connotes the chosen people of God whereas "Jews" simply distinguishes them from Gentiles. Here the apostle pointed out further advantages of the Jews (cf. 3:2). He named eight of their special blessings in verses 4 and 5.

God graciously had adopted Israel as He had Christians (cf. 8:15; Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1-12). The Israelites had the glory of God's presence among them as Christians have the glory of God within us through His indwelling Spirit (Exod. 40:34; 1 Kings 8:11). God took the initiative in reaching out to Israel with covenants that bound Him and the nation together (i.e., the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants). He has reached out to us with the gospel and the New Covenant with the same result. The "giving" (NASB; not "receiving," NIV) of the Mosaic Law was a great privilege that corresponds to the teaching of Christ. The Jewish sacrificial system enabled Israel to have fellowship with God now available through the high priestly work of Christ. The promises revealed to the patriarchs guaranteed God's action for them just as God's promises to Christians guarantee His action for us (8:31).

"He also gave them His Law to govern their political, social, and religious life, and to guarantee His blessing if they obeyed."²⁹¹

9:5 The patriarchs were the fathers to whom God gave the promises before Israel was a nation. In this respect they correspond to the apostles in the church.

"The meaning and extent of these promises are the linchpin in Paul's interpretation of salvation history; see 9:6b-13; 11:15; and especially 11:28, which forms with this verse an inclusio' surrounding Paul's discussion in these chapters."²⁹²

The Messiah came from Israel, though He was not exclusively theirs since He is the sovereign eternally blessed God (John 1:1). Here Paul called Jesus "God" (cf. Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:2).

Paul did not explicitly compare Israel's blessings and ours, which comparisons I have pointed out above. His point was simply that God had blessed Israel greatly. Obviously even though God had blessed the Israelites greatly their blessings did not exceed those of Christians today. The writer of the Book of Hebrews argued that God's blessings of Christians under the New Covenant surpass His blessings of Israelites under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant.

Constable: Rom 9:6-13

2. God's election of Israel 9:6-13

Paul's train of thought unfolds as follows in these verses. Because God's election of Israel did not depend on natural descent (vv. 6-10) or human merit (vv. 11-14), Israel's disobedience cannot nullify God's sovereign purpose for the nation.

9:6 The word of God that was in Paul's mind was evidently God's revelation of His plans for Israel in the Old Testament. God revealed that He had chosen Israel to be a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:5-6). The Israelites were to function as priests in the world by bringing the nations to God (cf. Isa. 42:6). They were to do this by demonstrating through their life in the Holy Land how glorious it can be to live under the government of God. Israel had failed to carry out God's purpose for her thus far and consequently had suffered His discipline. It looked as though the word that God had spoken concerning Israel's purpose had failed. The Greek word translated "failed" (ekpeptoken) means "gone off its course" as a ship. Paul proceeded to show that God would accomplish His purpose for Israel in the rest of chapters 9-11.

". . . Romans 9-11 contains 11 occurrences of the term Israel,' and in every case it refers to ethnic, or national, Israel. Never does the term include Gentiles within its meaning. The NT use of the term is identical with the Pauline sense in this section."²⁹³

"Premillennialists deny that the NT authors spiritualize, or reinterpret, OT texts. That is really the focus, it seems to me. Does the NT, for example, apply OT promises made to ethnic believing Israel to the NT church (cf. Acts 15:13-18; Gal. 6:16)?"²⁹⁴

Even though all the descendants of Israel (Jacob) constitute the nation of Israel as Scripture speaks of Israel, God spoke of Israel in a more restricted sense as well. Paul had previously pointed out this distinction between the outward Jew and the inward Jew (2:28-29).²⁹⁵

9:7 Even though God promised to bless Abraham's descendants it was only one branch of his family that He singled out for special blessing. God's special elective purpose applied only to Isaac and his line of descendants.

9:8 It was not all the natural children of Abraham that God had in mind when He spoke of blessing Abraham's seed uniquely. It was only the children born supernaturally in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham about seed that He was speaking, namely Isaac's descendants.

"What counts is grace, not race."²⁹⁶

9:9 God did not choose to bless Isaac after his birth only because he was Abraham's son. Rather He promised Abraham before Isaac's birth that He would provide and bless a son for the patriarch supernaturally. His unusual birth confirmed God's choice of Isaac, as the channel of special blessing, to his parents.

9:10-12 God's special election of one portion of Abraham's descendants for special blessing is further evident in His choice of Jacob rather than Esau. Someone might say that Isaac was obviously the natural son through whom blessing would come since he was the first son born to Abraham and Sarah. That was not true of Jacob. Furthermore Esau and Jacob both had the same mother as well as father, so that was not a factor as an objector might claim it was in Isaac and Ishmael's case. Jacob and Esau might have shared the firstborn privilege since they were twins. One conception produced both of them. However, God chose Jacob even though Rebekah bore Esau before Jacob. As in the case of Isaac, God made a choice between them before their birth. Their birth was also supernatural since their mother was barren. God chose Jacob before he had done any deeds or manifested a character worthy of God's special blessing. The fact that Jacob became a less admirable person in some respects than Esau shows that God's choice was not due to Jacob but to Himself.

"Surely, if Paul had assumed that faith was the basis for God's election, he would have pointed this out when he raised the question in v. 14 about the fairness of God's election. All he would have needed to say at that point was of course God is not unjust in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, for his choosing took into account the faith of one and the unbelief of the other.'"²⁹⁷

9:13 By quoting Malachi 1:2-3 Paul raised his discussion from the level of personal election to national election. Malachi was speaking of nations, as the context of this Malachi quotation shows. Paul's point was that God does not wait until He sees how individuals or nations develop and what choices they make before He elects them. God chose Jacob and the nation of Israel for reasons that lay within Himself, not because they merited election (cf. Deut 7:6-8). This is a powerful refutation of the idea that election results from prior knowledge, that God chooses a person for salvation having foreseen that he or she will believe the gospel.

"The connection of this quotation with v. 12 suggests that God's love is the same as his election: God chose Jacob to inherit the blessings promised first to Abraham. . . . If God's love of Jacob consists in his choosing Jacob to be the seed' who would inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, then God's hatred of Esau is best understood to refer to God's decision not to bestow this privilege on Esau. It might best be translated reject.' "Love' and hate' are not here, then, emotions that God feels but actions that he carries out."²⁹⁸

"As to Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,' a woman once said to Mr. Spurgeon, I cannot understand why God should say that He hated Esau.' That,' Spurgeon replied, is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob!"²⁹⁹

"The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms."³⁰⁰

In verses 6-13 Paul established that Israel was the object of God's choice for special blessing because of His own gracious will. He did not choose Israel because of the Israelites' natural descent from Abraham or because of their superior qualities.

Constable: Rom 9:14-18

3. God's freedom to elect 9:14-18

The question of fairness arises whenever someone makes a choice to favor one person over another. Paul dealt with the justice of God in doing what He did in this pericope.

"These verses are a detour from the main road of Paul's argument. Paul takes this detour because he knows that his insistence on God's initiative in determining who should be saved and who rejected (see vv. 10-13 especially) will meet with questions and even objections. Appropriately, therefore, Paul reverts to the diatribe style, with its question-and-answer format and references to a dialogue partner, that he has utilized earlier in the letter (see 2:1-3:8; 3:27-31; 6-7)."³⁰¹

9:14 The apostle first flatly denied the charge that God is unjust. God cannot be unjust because He is God.

9:15 Then he proceeded to refute the charge. When the whole nation of Israel rebelled against God by worshipping the golden calf (Exod. 33), God took the lives of only 3,000 of the rebels. He could have justly slain the whole nation. His mercy caused Him to do something that appeared to be unjust. Likewise in His dealings with Jacob and Esau God blessed Esau greatly as a descendant of Abraham as He did all of Abraham's descendants. Nevertheless He chose to bestow special grace on Jacob.

"The grace of God has been spoken of in this Epistle often before; but not until these chapters is mercy named; and until mercy is understood, grace cannot be fully appreciated."³⁰²

9:16 It is not man's desire or effort that causes God to be merciful but His own sovereign choice. God is under no obligation to show mercy or to extend grace to anyone. If we insist on receiving just treatment from God, what we will get is condemnation (3:23).

9:17 God said He raised Pharaoh up. God had mercifully spared Pharaoh up to the moment when He said these words to him, through six plagues and in spite of his consistent opposition to God. God did not mean that He had created Pharaoh and allowed him to sit on Egypt's throne, though He had done that too. This is clear from Exodus 9:16, which Paul quoted. The NASB translation makes this clear by translating Exodus 9:16, ". . . for this cause I have allowed you to remain." Pharaoh deserved death for his opposition and insolence. However, God would not take his life in the remaining plagues so his continuing opposition and God's victory over him would result in greater glory for God (cf. Josh. 9:9; Ps. 76:10).

Here is another example similar to the one in verse 15 of God not giving people what they deserve but extending mercy to them instead.

9:18 This statement summarizes Paul's point. In chapter 1 the apostle had spoken about the way God gives people over to their own evil desires as a form of punishment for their sins. This is how God hardens people's hearts. In Pharaoh's case we see this working out clearly. God was not unjust because He allowed the hardening process to continue. His justice demanded punishment.

"Neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself."³⁰³

". . . we say boldly, that a believer's heart is not fully yielded to God until it accepts without question, and without demanding softening, this eighteenth verse."³⁰⁴

"God's hardening, then, is an action that renders a person insensitive to God and his word and that, if not reversed, culminates in eternal damnation."³⁰⁵

"God's hardening does not, then, cause spiritual insensitivity to the things of God; it maintains people in the state of sin that already characterizes them."³⁰⁶

Paul did not mention the fact that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, which Moses stated in Exodus. Paul's point was simply that God can freely and justly extend mercy or not extend mercy to those who deserve His judgment.

Constable: Rom 9:19-29

4. God's mercy toward Israel 9:19-29

Next Paul dealt with a question that rises out of what he had just argued for, namely God's freedom to extend mercy to whom He will. Is it not logical that if God is going to show mercy to whom He will in spite of human actions and merit that human actions really provide no basis for His judging us? Is not the basis of judgment really God's will rather than human actions?

9:19 Paul posed the question in this verse and then answered it in the verses that follow.

9:20 In the first place it is presumptuous for human beings as the objects of divine judgment to sit in judgment on their Judge. Judging is God's prerogative, not ours. Creatures have no right to complain about their Creator's behavior.

". . . men are not lost because they are hardened; they are hardened because they are lost; they are lost because they are sinners."³⁰⁷

9:21 The illustration in this verse clarifies the inappropriateness of this critical attitude. Clearly Israel is in view as the vessel in the illustration (cf. Isa. 29:16; Jer. 18:6). Israel had no right to criticize God for shaping her for a particular purpose of His own choosing. Really Israel had nothing to complain about since God had formed her for an honorable use. Obviously the same is true of individuals.

"Neither Moses, nor Pharaoh, nor anyone else, could choose his parents, his genetic structure, or his time and place of birth. We have to believe that these matters are in the hands of God."³⁰⁸

9:22 People prepare themselves for destruction by pursuing sin (ch. 1). Pharaoh was such a vessel of wrath. However, Paul had in mind those in Israel who had opposed the gospel in his day. God was patient and merciful with them allowing them time to change their minds (repent) and believe (cf. 2:3-4; Acts 2:38; 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 3:9).

9:23-24 Those who believe the gospel are those in whom God will display the riches of His glory, not His wrath.

"Paul teaches that God has brought upon certain people whom he chooses on the basis of nothing but his own will a condition of spiritual stupor, a condition that leads to eternal condemnation."³⁰⁹

These vessels include both Jews and Gentiles (cf. 1:16; 2:10-11; 3:22).

9:25-26 The inclusion of Gentiles in this group is in harmony with Old Testament prophecy. Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 in their contexts refer to a reversal of Israel's status. Some interpreters say that this is a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.³¹⁰ Others claim that this was an initial partial fulfillment that does not eliminate a future complete fulfillment.³¹¹ A better explanation, I think, is that Paul saw an analogy between God's present calling of Gentiles and His future calling of Israel.³¹² Gentiles were not a distinct people as were the Jews but constituted the mass of humanity. Nevertheless by God's grace believing Gentiles became members of the new people of God, the church.

9:27-28 Israel's election as a nation did not preclude God's judgment of the unbelievers in it. His mercy and faithfulness are observable in His sparing a remnant. Isaiah 10:22-23 anticipated the depletion of Israel through Sennacherib's invasion. That was God's instrument of judgment. When Paul wrote, the believing remnant of Israel was within the church as it is today.

9:29 If God had not tempered His judgment with mercy He would have destroyed Israel as completely as He had Sodom and Gomorrah. The remnant of believers among the mass of racial Jews is proof of God's mercy to the children of Israel.

College: Rom 9:1-33

9:1-11:36 - PART FOUR

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE JEWS

We now begin our consideration of one of the most difficult sections of the Bible, Romans 9-11. As N.T. Wright says, "It is as full of problems as a hedgehog is of prickles" ( Climax , 231). It is a premiere example of the common hermeneutical challenge: how can we know the meaning of the parts until we first know the meaning of the whole? But how can we know the meaning of the whole until we first know the meaning of the parts?

We begin by examining the question of the meaning of the whole. The reader may correctly assume, however, that the conclusions set forth here have been preceded by a great deal of dialectical (back-and-forth) analysis of the parts and the whole together.

A. THE PRINCIPAL THEME OF THIS SECTION

As we read through these three chapters, a number of prominent themes leap to our attention. They are as follows, listed in the order of their initial appearance in the text.

a) The Nation of Israel . From beginning to end this section is dominated by references to ethnic or physical Israel, the Jews as a nation, those whom Paul calls "my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel" (9:3-4). Paul makes several points about their role in God's plan (9:4-5,22-23; 11:11-15,25-32), their historical destiny (11:1,11-15,25-32), and their salvation (9:30-10:3; 10:16-21; 11:7-32).

b) God's Faithfulness . Another subject introduced near the beginning of this section is the faithfulness of God, specifically, whether God has been faithful to his word concerning his people Israel (9:6a). Has he kept his promises to them? Has he been and is he being fair in his dealings with them? "Is God unjust?" (9:14). See also 9:19; 11:29.

c) The Remnant . Another key subject is the distinction between Israel as a whole and remnant Israel: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (9:6b). Membership in the former is determined by physical birth, but the latter is defined in spiritual terms as determined by God. See 9:23-29; 11:2-7. A key idea is stated in 9:27: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved." This is the "remnant chosen by grace" (11:5).

d) God's Sovereignty in Election . "God's purpose in election" is another important theme (9:11), especially his sovereignty in making the choices that he does. "For who resists his will?" (9:19). He has the same sort of sovereign authority that a potter has over his clay (9:21). See also 9:15-23; 11:5-10,28-29.

e) The Gentiles . Paul also raises the question of the relation between the Jews and the Gentiles. God's elect, he says, are drawn "not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles" (9:24). See 9:24-31. How the two are related dominates chapter 11 (vv. 11-32).

f) Law and Grace . We are not surprised that the main subject in chs. 1-8, law and grace, comes to the surface again in 9:30-31 as the key to the question of why God saves some and rejects others. A major part of ch. 10 (vv. 3-17) is the point that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by law or works of law. See also 11:6,20,23.

g) The Church . A final theme, discussed in 11:17-24, is the church. Though the word "church" itself is not used, this is clearly the point. The specific issue in this section is the relation between the church and Israel.

Having surveyed the various topics that arise in this section, we may now ask which of them is the main point of 9-11. What is Paul's purpose in writing this section? What is the underlying and unifying theme that ties it all together? What overall point is the author trying to establish?

1. Inadequate Answers

Several possibilities have been suggested as the main theme of these chapters, most of which are inadequate or off the mark. Three of these will now be briefly discussed.

God's Sovereignty in Election

A common idea is that Paul's main point here is the sovereignty of God in his election of individuals to salvation. Some see 9-11 as the locus classicus (main proof text) for the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. As Moo notes, Augustine taught that "Paul added these chapters to illustrate and expand on his teaching of predestination" (547, n. 1; see 548, n. 2).

In 1839 Robert Haldane said the same thing in his commentary on Romans. In earlier chapters, he said, Paul dealt mostly with justification and sanctification, but "now he proceeds to treat particularly of the doctrine of predestination, and to exhibit the sovereignty of God in his dealings both towards Jews and Gentiles." God's treatment especially of the Jews "furnishes the most ample opportunity for the illustration of this highly important subject" (438). "So," says Lloyd-Jones ( Chapter 9 , 2), "according to Haldane, the main object of this section is to deal with the doctrine of predestination and to illustrate it in that way."

William G.T. Shedd is another example of this view. Chs. 1-8, he says, show that the proximate cause of salvation is faith; but 9-11 are added to show that God is the ultimate and efficient cause. Here Paul "teaches that the ultimate reason why the individual believes, is that God elects him to faith, and produces it within him." Redemption thus rests upon "the divine sovereignty in the bestowment of regenerating grace." After touching on election in 8:28-33, Paul "now enters upon the full examination of it, together with the correlated doctrine of reprobation" (271-272).

This view must be rejected, however; neither election (predestination) as such nor God's sovereignty in election is the main point of 9-11. This conclusion has nothing to do with one's particular view of predestination, since scholars on both sides of this issue generally agree on this. Lloyd-Jones, a Calvinist, specifically rejects this view, saying that the subject matter here is "altogether bigger than predestination." Indeed, "for anyone to exalt predestination as the main theme in this section is almost to be guilty of blasphemy" ( Chapter 9 , 2,7). Godet, a non-Calvinist, agrees and declares that this view is refuted by "the entire course of this great exposition" (336). Nygren agrees: "If one uses chapters 9-11 as his point of departure in studying Paul's view of predestination, he ends with a false picture of it" (354). See also Moo, 548.

It is certainly true that the subject of God's sovereignty in election is present in these chapters, especially in ch. 9. It is not the main point, however.

Justification by Faith

Another view is that in 9-11 Paul is just continuing the theme of 1-8, that justification before God is by faith in the work of Jesus Christ, with a special emphasis on how this relates to Israel. For example, Fitzmyer sees Rom 1:16-11:36 as one unit in which the gospel is set forth. Part one (1:16-4:25) explains how the gospel reveals that the uprightness (or righteousness) of God justifies people by faith (253). Part two (5:1-8:39) explains that God's love further assures salvation to those justified by faith (393). Then part three (9:1-11:36), says Fitzmyer, discusses "the relationship of Israel to this mode of justification or salvation." He gives the following title to this section: "This justification and salvation through faith do not contradict God's promises to Israel of old" (539). Paul's main point is "to explain how the Jewish people fit into the new plan of God" (541).

Certainly the themes of law and grace are prominent in this section, especially in 9:30-10:21. Here Paul shows why God has rejected the Jews and accepted the Gentiles: the former have vainly sought justification by works of law, while the latter have accepted the free grace of Jesus Christ through faith. This theme appears also in ch. 11 (vv. 5-6,20-23). Thus there is a clear connection between this section of Romans and the first eight chapters. As Morris says, "Paul is not here proceeding to a new and unrelated subject. These three chapters are part of the way he makes plain how God in fact saves people" (344).

Nevertheless we must conclude that justification by faith is not the main point of 9-11. To be sure, the way the law-grace theme is presented in 1-8 indirectly leads to the question being dealt with here, as we shall presently see. But the main point is something else.

The Role of Israel in God's Plan

One other view, one that is quite common but still inadequate, is that Paul's purpose in writing 9-11 was to explain the role of the nation of Israel in God's redemptive plan. "God's Purpose for Israel" is the heading given to this section by Matthew Black (122). "Chapters 9-11 are concerned with the place of Israel within the framework of God's redemptive purpose," say Newman and Nida (196). According to W.H. Griffith Thomas, this section "deals with the relation of the Jew to the Gospel of Righteousness treated of in chs. i.-viii." (2:112). "Chapters nine through eleven of Romans have as their theme the destiny of Israel in the plan of God ," says Vanderlip (70). The subject here is "Israel herself," says Moo (548).

Many interpreters think this section is mainly concerned with the question of Israel's salvation. For example, MacArthur declares that "the major theme of chapters 9-11 is God's dealing with His elect nation" (2:17). In discussing this theme, he says, Paul addresses several basic questions. Has God forsaken his ancient people Israel, or does the gospel of grace apply to them, too? If it does apply, why have most Jews rejected it? Also, is there any hope for the nation of Israel (2:3-5)? The answer, of course, is in 11:26,29: "And so all Israel will be saved," since "God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

Others believe that Paul's main point is to explain the relation between Israel and the Gentiles, or as Murray puts it, to "delineate for us the worldwide design in reference to Jew and Gentile." This is necessary in view of the fact that the gospel of grace is God's gift "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (1:16, NASB; Murray, 2:xiii). The practical purpose of such an explanation would be to unite the squabbling Jewish and Gentile factions within the Roman church (see Moo, 553). It was especially crucial that they be united in their support of Paul's plan to preach the gospel in a new area, according to Wright ( Climax , 252-253).

These chapters are obviously quite heavily focused on the nation of Israel. The Jews are involved in Paul's argument throughout the whole section. However, I disagree that Israel is the main point here, whether it be Israel and salvation, Israel and the Gentiles, Israel and the church, or national Israel and remnant Israel. Thus I would not entitle this section "The Problem of Israel," as Moo does (547).

2. The Faithfulness of God

The real focus of these chapters is not upon predestination as such, justification as such, or Israel as such. The focus is rather upon God himself (see Wright, Climax , 235). Specifically, the theme is the faithfulness of God . True, Israel figures heavily in this discussion. In fact, it is God's dealings with Israel that give rise to the question of his faithfulness. Has God been faithful to his chosen people? Has he kept his promises to them (9:6a)? Has he been fair to them? Because of Israel's involvement here one could probably say, as does Dunn, that "the true theme of chaps. 9-11 is God and Israel" (2:520). More specifically, though, it is God himself; and more specifically still, his faithfulness. As Piper says ( Justification , 19), "What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel . . . . Ultimately God's own trustworthiness is at stake." Cranfield entitles this section, "The Unbelief of Men and the Faithfulness of God" (2:445).

What, specifically, has raised this issue? Two things: The Jews' rejection of the gospel, and God's consequent rejection of the Jews. First, it was a simple historical fact that most of the nation of Israel did not accept Jesus as the expected Messiah; they rejected the gospel of grace. Stott declares that in 9-11 "the dominant theme is Jewish unbelief, together with the problems which it raised" (262). I disagree that it is the dominant theme, but I agree that it helped to raise the problem that does dominate this section.

Second, it was also a fact that God rejected his people (9:3), the nation of Israel as a whole, when they rejected him. That is, he rejected them with respect to salvation. This fact in particular raised the issue of God's faithfulness. After all, God himself had chosen the Jews and showered them with covenant promises and covenant blessings. Is he now going back on his word? Piper speaks of "the tension between God's word and the fate of Israel" ( Justification , 19). This indeed is a "key tension" (Moo, 548), and it raises what Godet calls "the greatest enigma in history: the rejection of the elect people" (336). "How, at a given point in time, can God reject those whom He has elected?" (337).

The issue, then, is whether or not God has been faithful with respect to his promises to the Jews. Has his word failed (9:6a)? When he rejected his people, " God's word of promise seems to have lost its validity . . . . Does not that mean that God has revoked the promises He made to the fathers?" (Nygren, 356-357). "How stands his faithfulness in the face of Israel's unfaithfulness?" (Dunn, 2:530). As Wright puts it ( Climax , 236), "The main subject-matter of Romans 9-11 . . . is the covenant faithfulness of God, seen in its outworking in the history of the people of God." This is the point. See Piper, Justification , 46.

Paul's intent in these chapters is to show that, in spite of the nation's unbelief and God's subsequent rejection of them, God has nevertheless been completely faithful to the Jews and has kept all his promises to them (9:6a). "All of Rom 9-11 is written with a view to showing that God has not been and will not be unfaithful to his word" (Piper, Justification , 217-218). See Moo, 550-551.

This section, then, is in effect an exercise in theodicy , or an attempt to justify before men the ways of God. It is not, as some have thought, Paul's attempt to defend himself and his Gentile mission. "No, it is not his mission, and still less his person, which Paul means to defend when he traces this vast scheme of the ways of God; it is God Himself and His work in mankind by the gospel. He labors to dissipate the shadow which might be thrown on the character of God or the truth of the gospel by the unbelief of the elect people" (Godet, 337).

One final point should be made in this connection. We are saying here that the theme of 9-11 is the faithfulness of God. Some interpreters identify it instead as the righteousness of God. "God's Righteousness Vindicated" is Mounce's heading for these chapters (193). "Chapters 9-11 discuss the subject of God's righteousness in view of his apparent rejection of the Jewish nation" (195). See also Harrison, 100; and Edwards, 228.

It is true that the concept of the righteousness of God appears in 9-11. It is also true that there is a close relation between righteousness and faithfulness. Also, the theme of divine righteousness figures prominently in 1-8. Nevertheless it is best not to speak of the righteousness of God as the main point of 9-11. The main reason is that the righteousness of God that may also be called his faithfulness is not the kind of righteousness that is at the heart of the gospel as explained in 1-8 (see 1:17; 3:21-22; 4:6,9,11; 5:17). In these first eight chapters the divine righteousness is primarily God's gift of righteousness to believing sinners, on the basis of which he justifies them. This kind of divine righteousness does appear in 9-11 (see 9:30-31; 10:3-6), but it is not the main point. The righteousness of God that is equivalent to his own internal integrity and self-consistency and faithfulness is also found in 1-8 (see 3:25-26), but there the issue is whether God can be righteous (i.e., true to himself) when he saves sinners. The answer is yes, he can, because of the cross. But here in 9-11, though this kind of righteousness is alluded to in 9:14, the issue is very different, namely, whether or not God is un righteousness when he does not save the Jews.

Thus, in order to avoid any confusion that might arise because of these different connotations of divine righteousness, and to avoid the misconception that the main point here is the same kind of divine righteousness that is prominent in 1-8, I believe it is better to speak here of the faithfulness of God.

B. PAUL'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION

OF GOD'S FAITHFULNESS

How then does Paul answer the question about God's faithfulness? The key to his answer is the distinction between service and salvation, with a corresponding distinction between utilitarian promises and redemptive promises. Being chosen for service is not the same as being chosen for salvation, and promises concerning the former do not necessarily entail promises concerning the latter. Thus it was concerning Israel: when God chose the Jewish nation to play a part in his great drama of redemption, he did not thereby guarantee the salvation of every individual Jew.

1. Chosen for Service

God did indeed choose Israel for a special role of unmatched service, which Paul spells out in detail in 9:4-5 (see 3:1-2). Their mission was filled with wonder and glory, leading up to the grand climax of bringing into the world the Messiah, the Savior of mankind. One cannot imagine a greater privilege.

The fact is, despite all her shortcomings, Israel did indeed accomplish this mission. Nursed along by God's patient and chastising hand, Israel at last yielded the Messiah. This is something in which every individual Jew can take pride: "Through us , through our nation, God brought the Savior into the world! What a wonder!" This, along with all the preparatory glories mentioned in 9:4-5, are privileges that will always belong to Israel and to Israel alone. These unique blessings have not been taken away from the elect nation, nor are they shared with anyone else, not even the church.

Thus Israel rendered to God and to the rest of the world the greatest possible service. But it was service nonetheless, and service is the only thing for which the Jews as a nation were elected or chosen. That God chose them to serve in even this exalted way did not include and was not even directly related to their salvation. Personal salvation - justification by faith - was never intended for nor guaranteed to any individual Jew just because he was a Jew (see Piper, Justification , 218).

Thus Schreiner is wrong when he declares that the crucial statement in 9:6a " refers to God's promises to save his people Israel ," and when he links the list of privileges in 9:4-5 to "the salvation of Israel" ("Election," 91). Schreiner infers this conclusion from the fact that in 9:1-3 Paul does refer to Israel's salvation, or the lack of it. But to say that 9:6a, and the rest of ch. 9, must then be speaking of salvation promises is a non sequitur . In fact, it misses Paul's whole point, which is actually just the opposite: the nonsalvation of individual Jews does not negate God's promises to the Israelite nation, because those promises did not have to do with individual salvation in the first place.

Thus Israel's rejection of salvation in no way implies that God's plan for the Jews as a nation was a failure. The problem or challenge concerning God's faithfulness arises only when one misunderstands God's intended role for the Jews in the first place. This was in fact a major mistake that the Jews themselves had made. They assumed that their election for service automatically involved salvation; but this was never the point, as Paul has already shown in 2:1-3:8. In ch. 2 Paul addressed the Jews' assumption that their very Jewishness, symbolized by their possession of the Law and circumcision, guaranteed their personal salvation. Paul very clearly showed that this is false, and that the way of salvation for individual Jews, despite the privileges of the nation as a whole (3:1-2), was no different from the way Gentiles themselves are saved, i.e., not through law but through grace alone.

Paul's discussion in ch. 9 (vv. 1-29) presupposes that God has the perfect right to make this distinction between service and salvation. One might think (as did the Jews) that God surely cannot deny salvation to the people whom he loved and whom he chose and whom he used in such a marvelous way. Somehow this would just not seem fair! But that is the very point: it is fair; it is righteous for God to do this. He has the perfect right to make such a distinction, and to keep his choice for service completely separate from his choice for salvation. The fact that God used Pharaoh for his redemptive purposes did not require the latter to be saved (9:17-18). The same is true of Israel. If God wants to use the Jews in his service yet deny them salvation because of their unbelief, that is perfectly consistent with his nature and his promises. God is completely within his rights when he does this (9:19-21).

2. Chosen for Salvation

But what about the salvation of the Jews? If they are not necessarily saved, are they then necessarily condemned? Are they totally cut off from Jesus and from his saving grace? No, they are neither automatically included, nor are they automatically excluded from grace. The point is simply that the salvation of any individual Jew - and salvation is open to them all - is an issue that is separate from the nation's election to service. God in his sovereignty has set up a way of salvation according to his own choosing, and he has sovereignly established the conditions under which anyone may receive this salvation, whether Jew or Gentile. Any individual Jew is free to meet these conditions and to accept this salvation.

This way of salvation, of course, is the same that Paul has expounded throughout 1-8: grace, not law; and the means by which any Jew may receive it is just as Paul has explained in these earlier chapters: faith in God's promises concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. See 9:30-10:21.

It is true that most Jews are not saved (9:1-3), but the reason is that they are trying to be saved by a way of their own choosing rather than the way of God's choosing, i.e., by law and not by grace (9:30-10:3). When the Jews thus reject God's saving promises and are then themselves rejected, this is not a "defeat" for God's "redemptive word" (contra Achtemeier, 154), because this is completely consistent with what has always been God's way of redemption. Nor is it a defeat for God's utilitarian word, i.e., his promises to use Israel to bring salvation into the world, because these promises have been completely fulfilled apart from the salvation of any or all Jews.

Have any Jews actually believed and been saved? Of course they have! These are the "remnant" (9:27; 11:5) and the "descendants" (9:29, lit. "seed") of which Isaiah spoke. They are the seven thousand who did not bow to Baal (11:4). Though they be relatively few compared with the total number of ethnic Jews, they were the true Israel (9:6b) in OT times; and they along with believing Gentiles are in NT times the new Israel, the church (9:23-29). This way of salvation is still open to any and all Jews (11:17-24).

Paul emphasizes the point that it is possible for all Jews to be saved, but it will happen only "thus" or "so" (ou{tw" , houtos , 11:26), i.e., only "in this way." The way of salvation for individual Jews is the same as for anyone else: grace, not law. Contrary to the speculations of many, God will not at some point in the future establish some totally different and special way of salvation for Jews (see Wright, Climax , 233). When we understand that God's utilitarian promises to Israel as a nation did not include salvation, and when we see that all these utilitarian promises have already been fulfilled, then we are able to see how God has been faithful in his promises to Israel without having to save every Jew. This also sets us free from an interpretation of ch. 11 that requires all physical Israelites to be saved in order for God to be true to his redemptive word.

C. THE RELATION BETWEEN 1-8 AND 9-11

Another introductory issue is the relation between 9-11 and the first eight chapters of Romans. How is this section related to Paul's overall argument thus far? What is the flow of his thought here? Is there a logical connection between 9-11 and 1-8?

1. Avoiding Extremes

In answering this question two extremes must be avoided. One is the view that there is no inherent connection, i.e., that chs. 9-11 are a kind of digression or parenthesis, or an appendix only loosely related to what has gone before. For example, C.H. Dodd sees this section as "a compact and continuous whole, which can be read quite satisfactorily without reference to the rest of the epistle" (148). He suggests that it may have been a sermon that Paul had written earlier and carried with him, which he would use when called upon to explain the role of the Jews, and which he decided to insert in his Roman letter at this point. Though its contents are not irrelevant to the material in 1-8, still, if he had omitted it, we would have had no sense of a gap between ch. 8 and ch. 12 (149-150).

At the other extreme is the view that 9-11 is not just inherently related to 1-8 but is the logical climax to the argument being developed there. Viewed this way, 9-11 is then regarded as the heart and essence of the entire letter. Krister Stendahl, for instance, calls these chapters "the climax of Romans," the section to which everything else is leading ( Paul , 4, 85). N.T. Wright also argues that 9-11 functions "as the climax of the theological argument. . . . The whole of Romans 1-11 is, in one sense, an exposition of how the one God has been faithful, in Jesus Christ, to the promises he made to Abraham." Rom 9-11 is the "climactic section" to the whole ( Climax , 234, 255).

Neither of these extremes is acceptable. On the one hand, chs. 1-8 do form a logically complete unit, to which 8:31-39 is a natural climax. These chapters deal with the question of personal salvation, affirming it to be by grace and not by law. But on the other hand, looking at it this way does not require us to regard 9-11 as a mere "aside or appendix, dealing with a different problem." A more moderate view will now be explained.

2. The Nature of the Connection

What has happened in the writing of Romans is this. Throughout Paul's explanation of how we are saved by grace and not by law (1-8), a question comes repeatedly to the surface but is not dealt with in detail lest the flow of the argument be too greatly interrupted. But once the main argument has been completed, it becomes possible, even necessary, to return to this question and to address it more specifically and completely, which is what Paul does in 9-11. Thus 9-11 definitely has a thematic connection with 1-8, though it is not a part of the logical flow of the latter. It is a separate unit. The point of 1-8 would stand without 9-11, and we could understand the main point of 9-11 without 1-8. But we would not know why Paul wrote these three chapters without referring back to 1-8.

To be specific, the very point of the first eight chapters - that salvation is by grace and not by law - seems in itself to render the Jews irrelevant, to render God's 2000 years of dealing with them futile and pointless, and definitely to raise the question of God's faithfulness to them.

The argument of 1-8 is that one is saved not by his response to any law code, including the Law of Moses, but only by the grace of God made available to all through the saving work of Jesus Christ (see 3:28; 6:14). But since the Jews are so closely identified with law (in the form of the Law of Moses), and since the way of grace appears to some to disparage or even dismiss the law, the gospel thus appears to be dismissing the Jews from God's plan as well. What then has become of God's promises to the Jews and of God's faithfulness to his promises?

This problem is compounded by the many positive references to the Jews and to the OT in 1-8. Paul begins the letter by declaring that the gospel was promised by the OT prophets (1:2). He then declares that the gospel is actually intended for the Jews first (1:16). He says the Jews were given many advantages, especially their stewardship of the OT Scriptures (3:1-2). These very Scriptures testify to grace as the way of salvation (3:21). In fact, the gospel of grace actually upholds the law (3:31). The law is holy, and righteous, and good (7:12); and the believer agrees with it (7:16) and obeys it with his whole heart (7:25).

But all of these positive things about the Jews and about law seem to be overshadowed and negated by statements of another kind and by the general contrast with grace. This is especially true in the thematic statements, that we are justified by faith not by works of law (3:28), and that we are not under law but under grace (6:14). In addition, the entire second chapter is extremely critical of the Jews and their law. In the final analysis there seems to be no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (2:9-12,25-29; 3:9). The law is of no value for justifying sinners; such justification must occur "apart from law" (3:20-21). Anyone who believes is a child of Abraham, whether he be Jew or Gentile (4:9-16). We who are alive to Christ are dead to the law (7:4) and released from it (7:6).

The fact that the Jews and the law seem to be cast in such a negative light is what raises the question with which 9-11 deals. The message of grace in effect seems to make the 2000 years of Jewish history superfluous. Why did God focus his loving attention upon the Jews, and shower so many privileges upon them, if in the final analysis we are saved by grace, not by law? Has God changed his mind? Has he gone back on his promises to the Jews? Has he reversed his plan, and arbitrarily abandoned his people? As Moo (553) expresses it, "Does the gospel presented in the NT genuinely 'fulfill' the OT and stand, thus, as its natural completion [as the positive statements cited above would suggest]? Or is the gospel a betrayal of the OT, with no claim therefore to come from the same God who elected and made promises to Israel [as the negative statements would seem to suggest]?"

Thus "Paul's whole argument" in 1-8 "demands an examination of the Jewish question" (Morris, 343). There must be a "harmonizing" of the OT with the NT, says Lloyd-Jones ( Chapter 9 , 6).

Especially troublesome is the simple fact that most Jews rejected the grace of God and even their Messiah when he came. But if the gospel is so rooted in the OT, why did the Jews refuse it? As Calvin put it, "If this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets [3:21], how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?" (333). If it all began with Abraham and was even patterned after Abraham's faith-relation to God, "how came it, then, that it was pre-eminently Abraham's descendants who refused to believe the gospel?" (Bruce, 183).

These are the sorts of questions that are left hanging in 1-8, and which Paul's discussion of God's faithfulness to the Jews in 9-11 is intended to answer. In the earlier part of the epistle they are closest to the surface in 2:1-3:8. See especially 3:1, where Paul asks, "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?" But at this point he gives only one positive answer to the question (3:2). Then in 3:3-8 the very issue of Israel's unbelief and God's faithfulness is raised, with Paul simply confirming the latter and quickly moving on in his argument. But now in 9-11 he comes back to these very questions and deals with them in more detail.

It is noteworthy also that Paul's basic answer to these questions has already been suggested in 2:1-3:8, where he addresses the Jews' assumption that the very fact that they were the "chosen people" guaranteed their salvation. In ch. 2 Paul explicitly denies that this is the case. No one, not even a Jew, is saved by his relation to God's law, and especially not by his mere possession of that law (as the Jews possessed the Law of Moses). In this earlier section, however, he makes only an abbreviated reference to the distinction between election to salvation and election to service (3:1-2). Now in 9-11 he presents this in detail as the solution to the problem.

3. The Immediate Contextual Connection: 8:31-39

The theme of 9-11 is God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. We have seen that this discussion is necessary because the gospel of grace-not-law seems to be inconsistent with God's covenant promises to Israel. It looks as if he is relegating his chosen nation to the trash pile with a dismissive "Never mind!" To prevent such erroneous thoughts from taking root and becoming a stumbling block to many, Paul shows why this is not the case.

But there is another reason why it is appropriate if not necessary for Paul to defend God's faithfulness at this point in his letter to the Romans. He has just concluded his explanation of the gospel of grace with one of the greatest hymns of hope in the human language, 8:31-39. In this paragraph the Apostle sets forth the precious promises that are the essence of God's new covenant through Jesus Christ.

After reading these promises, however, some may be tempted to ask whether they are as wonderful as they seem to be at first glance. Certainly their content cannot be surpassed: God is on our side; he gave up his Son for us; he will give us all things; Christ even now is interceding for us at God's right hand; nothing shall separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus. What, then, is the problem? As some may see it, the problem is whether or not we can truly count on God to keep all these promises! In other words, will he be faithful ?

Why should anyone raise such a question? Why should anyone dare to challenge the faithfulness of God? Here is where the question of Israel may possibly be raised. Someone may well ask, Did not God make equally great promises to the Jews under the Old Covenant? Did he not choose Israel as his special people and make them the special objects of his love and attention? But where are the Jews now? God seems to have abandoned them, and has even set aside the magnificent Law with which he entrusted them. So why should we count on him to keep all these high-sounding promises to us under the New Covenant? If his word has failed for the Jews, will it also fail for us Christians? The promises of 8:31-39 presuppose a faithful God. But if his faithfulness can be called into question concerning his promises to the Jews, how can we depend on him to keep his promises to us now?

Even if this is not the main reason why Paul wrote 9-11, it surely cannot have been absent from his mind as he constructed his careful argument concerning God's faithfulness in these chapters. Most interpreters see such a connection, and conclude that 9-11 serves to reinforce the Christian's confidence in God's promises. God did not in fact go back on his promises to the Jews; neither will he fail to keep his promises to us.

D. THE QUESTION OF GOD'S SOVEREIGN ELECTION

A final issue that must be briefly discussed in this introduction is the question of God's sovereign election as it relates to human responsibility and free will. As we have noted above, some have drawn the conclusion that predestination is the main point of this whole section of Romans. Though this is not the case, this subject does figure prominently here, especially in ch. 9. Thus some preliminary remarks are in order before we turn to a detailed examination of the text.

Key affirmations of God's sovereignty are as follows. Even before Isaac was born, God chose him for his purposes (9:7), and he chose Jacob and rejected Esau in the same manner (9:11-13). God told Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (9:15). God's choice does not depend on man's efforts but on God's mercy (9:16). He chose Pharaoh for his purposes (9:17). "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (9:18). God is like a potter who has complete control over his clay (9:19-21). Some are prepared for destruction and some for glory (9:22-23). He calls individuals from among Jews and Gentiles (9:24). He has a remnant chosen by grace (11:5). The chosen obtained God's righteousness; the rest were hardened (11:7-8). God loves the Jews in accord with his purpose of election (11:28). His gifts and call are irrevocable (11:29).

These affirmations of God's sovereign election seem to be overwhelming, but at the same time there is considerable emphasis on human freedom and man's responsibility for his own fate. E.g., the Gentiles obtained righteousness because they pursued it by faith, whereas the Jews did not attain it because they pursued it by works (9:30-32). The key is personal faith (9:33; 10:4,10). The Jews did not submit themselves to God's righteousness (10:3). The conditions for salvation are faith and confession (10:9-10). God saves all who call upon the name of the Lord (10:12-13). Faith comes through hearing Christ's word (10:17). Some whom God calls do not answer (10:21). Paul hopes his evangelism of the Gentiles will move some Jews to accept salvation (11:14). Jews are rejected because of their unbelief, and Gentiles are accepted because of their belief (11:20). God will save those believing Gentiles who continue in their belief, and reject those who do not (11:22). He will also restore those unbelieving Jews who do not continue in their unbelief (11:23).

How are we to assess these data? How may we harmonize the references to divine sovereignty on the one hand, with the references to human beings' responsibility for their own fate on the other hand? Some see the answer in the distinction between the election of groups and the election of individuals. It is often argued (by Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike) that the main point in ch. 9 is corporate election, especially the election of Israel as a nation. This is the view of Forster and Marston: "People often fail to understand that in this whole section the apostle is talking about nations and not about individuals." Even in 9:14-18, "the bearing of Moses and Pharaoh on the earthly function and destiny of the nation of Israel" is the issue ( Strategy , 59, 75). See also Achtemeier: "Paul is addressing the problem of Israel as chosen people"; he "is not addressing the fate of some individual." In ch. 9 God is choosing the destiny "of peoples, not of individuals" (154-155). Fitzmyer also cautions us to remember that Paul's "emphasis is on corporate Israel despite the examples of individuals that he uses" (542). Cranfield agrees: "It is, in fact, with the election of the community that Paul is concerned in Romans 9 to 11" (2:450). See Morris: "We should bear in mind that Paul is here dealing with the community rather than with individuals" (345).

On the other hand, many deny that the main point is corporate election. In his book The Justification of God Piper believes he has shown that Rom 9 teaches "the predestination of individuals to their respective eternal destinies." At the same time he finds "the view that sees only national election in these verses" to be exegetically untenable ( Justification , 218). Schreiner agrees, as he defends the typical Calvinist view "that Romans 9 teaches that God unconditionally elects individuals to be saved" ("Election," 89). He argues against the view that Rom 9 "relates to the salvation of groups, of corporate entities, and not of individuals" (90; see 98-105).

What should we say about this? Surely, in our exegesis of 9-11 it is important to ask whether Paul is dealing with groups or with individuals. But actually this is not the key issue, and to approach this passage as if it were may cause us to miss its whole point. The key issue is the distinction between election for salvation and election for service . Also significant is the distinction between physical or ethnic Jews - the nation of Israel, and those who are Jews spiritually - those described as the remnant (9:27; 11:5). Paul's main point, though, is the difference between service and salvation, and whether these refer to individuals or groups in the final analysis will not affect the main point.

One point on which almost everyone agrees is that, somewhere in Rom 9, Paul deals at least in part with God's election of Israel as a nation for a role of service, or what Moo calls "this general (and nonsalvific) corporate election of Israel" (559, n. 24). But the problem, the point at issue, is this: exactly with what is this corporate election for service being compared or contrasted? Some say the contrast is with election of individuals to salvation, and that this is really the main point of Rom 9. This is the view of Piper, Schreiner, and Moo, as cited above. Others say the contrast is with salvific corporate election, with the election of a group , not individuals, to salvation. Forster and Marston say, "The prime point is that the election of the church [which is comparable to the remnant in Israel] is a corporate rather than an individual thing" ( Strategy , 136). "The election of grace is corporate rather than particular," says Shank ( Elect , 157; see 114, 122).

Which of these approaches is correct? In my judgment, neither of them. Does this mean that Paul is not concerned here with election to salvation at all? On the contrary, he is very much concerned with it as a fact , but especially in ch. 9 he is not concerned with any details relating to it. Again, the main point is the simple distinction between salvation and service. This is a distinction which the Jews themselves failed to make, and this very failure was the basis for questioning the faithfulness of God. "If God has chosen us, why is he now rejecting us and not saving us?" Because, says Paul, he did not choose you for salvation, but for service.

Election to service applies to the entire nation of Israel, and to every individual within it. Election to salvation applies only to the "Israel within Israel" - the remnant - and to every individual within it. Whether it be nations (groups) or individuals is not the point. This is contrary to the common Calvinist view, which tries to find individual election to salvation in this passage; it is also contrary to the view that salvific election is of groups, not individuals. The simple fact is that in Rom 9 it is not Paul's purpose to explain election to salvation at all.

Paul's discussion of Israel in Rom 9 in fact shows that God has the sovereign right to distinguish between salvation and service. The emphasis is on God's sovereign authority to choose unconditionally any group or any individual to fill any given role in the working out of his purposes, without being bound at the same time to guarantee their salvation. In this way God selected Israel from all the nations of the earth to perform the greatest act of service possible for an earthly agent.

At the same time God is sovereignly free to choose individuals for salvation in a way that is completely different from the way he chooses anyone for service. The fact is that he chooses to bestow salvation on the basis of grace and upon the primary condition of faith. This conditional election to salvation is established in 9:30-10:21. Certainly those unconditionally chosen for service can also be saved, but 9:30-10:21 shows that salvation is given only to those who through faith choose to relate to God in terms of grace instead of law. Those who put their trust in God's way of grace form another group within and distinct from ethnic Israel, namely, spiritual Israel, the remnant of believers.

This resolves the seeming paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in 9-11. Many interpreters, especially Calvinists, are content to regard the presence of these two themes as a paradox, but this is totally unnecessary. God's sovereignty is exercised in his unconditional election of individuals and groups, Israel in particular, to roles of service in the working out of his redemptive plan. His sovereignty is also seen in the way he chooses to distinguish service from salvation, which allows him to choose and use Israel without guaranteeing the salvation of all individual Jews as part of the same package. Another expression of his sovereignty is his right to establish the system of salvation according to a way of his own choosing, in a way independent of works, namely, by grace. Those who accept this way to salvation become part of "the elect."

But it is made very clear from 9:30 onward that becoming a part of this grace category is the result of one's responsible choice to believe God's promises. In other words, salvation is conditional . This in no way contradicts the sovereignty of God, but rather upholds it, since it is perfectly consistent with the way God made human beings and configured his way of salvation in the first place.

E. AN OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS 9-11

Romans 9-11 is divided into three main sections. After a prologue (9:1-5) that sets up the problem to be discussed, the first main section (9:1-29) discusses the fact that God has made a distinction within the nation of Israel so that there are in fact two Israels: (1) physical, ethnic, or national Israel, i.e., Israel according to flesh; and (2) remnant or spiritual Israel, i.e., Israel according to faith. The former was chosen for service, the latter for salvation. The second main section (9:30-10:21) explains the criterion for distinguishing between the two Israels, i.e., the choice between law and grace. The third section (11:1-32) shows that there is still hope for the salvation of all ethnic Jews. The passage closes with a doxology of praise to God (11:33-36).

I. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF THE JEWISH NATION (9:1-5)

The transition from ch. 8 to ch. 9 is quite abrupt. No connecting word (e.g., "therefore," "however") links 9:1 closely with 8:39. There is an obvious shift in subject matter. Also, the tone changes dramatically. The spirit of joy and confidence characterizing the end of ch. 8 is replaced by a spirit of tension and sorrow.

The reason for this new direction in Paul's thought is the problem of his own kinsmen, the Jewish people. In view of the Jews' privileged role in God's plan, the logical expectation would be that they above all others should have been rejoicing in the hope Paul describes in 8:31-39. The shocking and tragic fact, though, was that most Israelites were rejecting the Messiah whose coming was their very reason for being. As a result, rather than celebrating their salvation, they were under God's curse.

Paul's reaction to the plight of the Jews took two forms. On a subjective, personal level his heart was filled with grief because of their lost state. On a more objective, theological level he was concerned that some might take Israel's rejection as an indication that God's word had failed. Though his personal grief was genuine, his greater concern was to show that the tragedy of the Jews in no way violated God's original promises and plans for them as a nation.

The main point of this section (9:1-5) is to set forth the contrast between the plight of Israel (1-3) and her privileges (4-5). How can these be reconciled? Has God's word somehow failed to come true? By raising these questions Paul thus prepares the way for his defense of the faithfulness of God in his dealings with his people.

A. ISRAEL'S AGONY: THEY ARE ACCURSED (9:1-3)

9:1 I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit - With these introductory words Paul affirms in several ways the truthfulness of what he is about to say in vv. 2-3. In the Greek text of his positive statement, the word "truth" stands first, in the place of emphasis: " Truth I speak in Christ!" This point is reemphasized by saying the same thing negatively, "I am not lying."

To further confirm the veracity of his words, Paul invokes three distinct witnesses. One is his own conscience (see 2:15), which, he says, testifies or bears witness along with him. ("Testifies along with me" or "bears witness along with me" is a literal translation and is to be preferred over the NIV's "confirms it.") In other words Paul has no inward reservations at all about what he is saying.

The other two witnesses are Christ and the Holy Spirit. Paul says he speaks the truth "in Christ." This could mean simply that he speaks as one who is conscious of being in union with Jesus Christ, and who thus as a Christian is always bound to speak the truth (see Moo, 555; Cranfield, 2:452). I believe, though, in view of the parallel idea in 1 Tim 2:7, that he is referring to his appointment by Christ to be an apostle; and thus "in Christ" is an invocation of his apostolic authority (see Dunn, 2:523).

Similarly "in the Holy Spirit" could be referring to the indwelling Holy Spirit, through whose moral power every Christian can resist the temptation to lie (see 8:13). More likely, though, Paul is here referring to his consciousness of the fact that he is writing under the inspiration of the Spirit and is thus divinely prevented from speaking falsehood (see 1 Cor 7:40).

Seldom does Paul go to such lengths to reinforce the truthfulness of his assertions. Sometimes he declares that he is telling the truth (2 Cor 11:10; Titus 1:13) and sometimes he denies that he is lying (2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:20). In 1 Tim 2:7, as here, he does both. Such attestations do not mean that on other occasions he is not telling the truth. They are simply his way of underscoring the seriousness of what he is saying.

Paul's appeal to Christ and the Holy Spirit in addition to his conscience is an important lesson for us. We must remember that the conscience itself is not an infallible guide. Rather, it operates on the basis of a standard of truth and right that must be established on other grounds (see 2:15). Unlike Paul, we do not have personal apostolic authority and divine inspiration, but we do have the Spirit-inspired Bible to serve as the reference point for guiding our consciences. Thus what we believe and teach to be truth must pass not only the test of conscience but the test of biblical teaching as well.

9:2 Exactly what is the momentous truth solemnly introduced in v. 1? Strictly speaking, it is the fact that Paul is personally filled with tremendous grief and anguish: I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. The cause of his grief is not actually stated in this verse, but is made clear in v. 3. It is the fact that his own natural kinsmen, the Jewish people, were under God's curse because of their unbelief.

That the Israelites were truly accursed will be established in the next verse, but Paul here certainly implies it by revealing the agony of his soul. The words "sorrow" and "anguish" refer to the emotional state of his heart, and their intensity is magnified by the adjectives "great" and "unceasing." Would Paul's spirit be filled with such deep suffering if he thought for a moment that the Jews as such were saved?

Just as Samuel "mourned for" the fallen King Saul (1 Sam 15:35), and Jeremiah wept for fallen Israel of old (Jer 4:19; 9:1; 13:15-17; 14:17), so was Paul in a state of constant grief because his own people would not accept the gospel and thus were not saved.

Why did Paul think it was so important to establish this fact in such an emphatic way? For one thing, he had already exposed the shallowness of the Jews (ch. 2) and consigned them to sin and condemnation (3:8-9). Also, in the discussion that is about to follow he is going to declare again that the Jews as such are lost, and that God is under no obligation to save them just because they are Jews. Thus Paul wants everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike, to know that he is not indifferent to Israel's plight nor does he take delight in it. This establishes his authenticity; it shows that his negative judgment against his countrymen is not just the result of some personal spite against them, but is the true word of God, a word that afflicted him so deeply that he would give anything if it were not true.

9:3 Just how deep are Paul's feelings for his fellow Jews? Just how far would he go to save them? This verse tells us: For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, . . .

Exactly what was Paul willing to endure on behalf of his brethren? To be "cursed and cut off from Christ." The word "cursed" translates ajnavqema ( anathema ), used in other places for eternal condemnation (1 Cor 16:22; Gal 1:8-9). Literally this word refers to something delivered over to or consecrated to God, possibly for service but more often for destruction (see Deut 7:26; Josh 7:11-12, LXX). That the latter is its meaning here is made clear by the addition of the words "from Christ." There is no word for "cut off" in the Greek text. Literally it reads "accursed from Christ" (see 2 Thess 1:7-10). Most agree that this is a strong and clear reference to condemnation in hell (Lard, 294; MP, 377; Moo, 557).

The verb translated "I could wish" is difficult, not in itself but in view of what Paul was wishing. This word (eu[coma i, euchomai ) can mean either "to pray" or "to wish"; either meaning conveys the notion of a sincere desire. The content of Paul's desire is that he himself might be sent to hell in the place of his fellow Jews.

What makes this difficult to translate is that although this is no doubt a continuing wish in Paul's heart, the verb form is a kind of past tense (i.e., imperfect). The straightforward meaning is "I was praying (wishing)," or "I used to pray (wish)"; but a past tense does not fit the context. Thus most agree that it should be treated as hypothetical, i.e., as a "potential imperfect" (Nash, "Critique," 31) or "the imperfect of wishes" (Lenski, 583). In other words, "I would pray or wish this if it could be done, but I know it cannot."

But why is such a thing impossible? The Calvinist answer is that this would contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, or "once saved, always saved." The more obvious answer, though, is that Paul knew that he as a sinful human being could not be an adequate substitute for even one other sinner, much less for the whole nation of Israel. Paul's words, "for the sake of my brothers," are the language of substitution (compare 6:6,8; see Moo, 559). But only the divine and sinless Messiah could be and was such a substitute (Gal 3:13).

What is unequivocally demonstrated by this statement is the reality of Paul's concern for his people, and the depth of his grief at their lost condition. "Paul felt such love that he was willing to relinquish his own salvation and spend eternity in hell if somehow that could bring his fellow Jews to faith in Christ!" (MacArthur, 2:11). This seems to go beyond even John 15:13 and Rom 5:7. Maybe this is why Paul felt he had to multiply his assurances and witnesses in v. 1, "because it seems unbelievable that a man should want to be damned in order that the damned might be saved" (Luther, 261).

Another thing that is demonstrated by this statement is that Israel as a nation, i.e., the majority of the Jews, were in fact lost. The language "accursed from Christ" certainly refers to eternal lostness, and Paul's willingness to endure this state in Israel's place without a doubt implies that Israel herself was under such a curse (see Moo, 557-558; Piper, Justification , 45). The Jews "are really in this state," as Godet says (340). Though Dunn doubts this (2:525), he is on the wrong track. The whole discussion in 9-11 is predicated on the fact that God's chosen covenant people are in fact lost; anything less than this would negate the seriousness of the problem with which Paul is dealing here.

There is no question that Paul's concern is directed toward the nation of Israel. He calls them "my brothers, those of my own race." Paul often speaks of his fellow Christians as his "brothers" - 130 times, according to Moo (559, n. 24). Some conclude from this that Paul's calling his fellow Jews "brothers" implies that they are in fact saved. "That is, he recognizes them still, in spite of their unbelief, as fellow-members of the people of God." Indeed, "unbelieving Israel is within the elect community, not outside it" (Cranfield, 2:458-459). See Fitzmyer (545) for a similar view.

This notion must be rejected, however. Sometimes in the NT Jews spoke of their fellow Jews as "brothers." This is true often in the Book of Acts (e.g., 2:29,37; 3:17,22; 7:2; 9:17; 13:26). Even Paul addressed unbelieving Jews as his "brothers" (Acts 13:26,38; 22:1,5; 23:1,5,6; 28:17). Thus no connotation of salvation is implied here by the term "brothers." In fact, one of Paul's main points in this very chapter is that membership in physical Israel is not equivalent to membership in the true spiritual people of God (9:6; see ch. 2).

In order to make it clear that he is talking here only about physical kinship, Paul adds "those of my own race," literally, "my kinsmen (relatives) according to the flesh." See 1:3 and 9:5 for uses of "according to the flesh" in the sense of physical lineage. Compare 11:14.

Despite the fact that Paul was "the apostle to the Gentiles," he never forgot his roots, his identity as a Jew. He never lost his sincere love for his original family, and his earnest desire for their salvation.

B. ISRAEL'S ECSTASY: THEY ARE RECIPIENTS OF

UNSPEAKABLY GLORIOUS PRIVILEGES (9:4-5)

Paul now turns to the other side of the paradox called Israel. The same nation which is the object of God's curse is the one that he chose to receive some of the greatest blessings imaginable. These next two verses give a list of these privileges, a project begun in 3:1-2 and now continued in detail.

These verses also give us more insight into why Paul was willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of Israel's salvation. They were more than his relatives; they were the people who were next to God's own heart and who were at the very center of God's redemptive plan (Murray, 2:4).

One very important question regarding these privileges is whether they were related only to pre-Christian Israel, or whether they continue to apply to Jews in the Christian era and beyond. Some take the latter approach. Murray declares that the privileges enumerated here "have abiding relevance because 'the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of' (11:29)"; thus he sees them as applying to a future, restored Israel (2:xiv). Following Barth, Cranfield thinks this list of privileges indicates the "continuing fact" of Israel's election (2:459-460). Moo (560) argues that these blessings "relate not only to Israel's glorious past that she has forever forfeited; some of them, at least, relate also to Israel's present state and are pregnant with potential future significance (especially, 'adoption,' 'promises,' and 'patriarchs')." Piper agrees that these blessings will always apply, not to every individual Jew, but to the elect remnant at the end of the ages ( Justification , 30). "In some sense," he says, they are "still the prerogative of historical Israel," and even have "saving implications" (40). That is, "the privileges taken as a whole are redemptive and eschatological" (46). Dunn even argues that the privileges are "the blessings brought to all believers, Jew and Gentile, through the gospel" (2:534).

I strongly disagree with this approach. It is true that everything in this list of blessings pointed beyond the OT era to this age and beyond, as did Israel's very existence. The single purpose of Israel's election, and of all the preliminary privileges listed in 3:2 and 9:4-5a, is the climactic privilege named in 9:5b, i.e., the first coming of Christ. By serving God's purpose of bringing the Christ into the world, all of these prerogatives have played a preparatory role in the eternal salvation of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. And every ethnic Jew who ever lived and will live, whether saved or not, has a right to look at this list and take humble and grateful pride in the fact that God chose his nation to be the recipients of these blessings and thereby to prepare for the Christ and his saving work.

But this does not mean that these blessings in themselves are still actually being applied to and enjoyed by anyone today, whether Jew or Gentile. In fact, they are not. It is one thing to receive the intended result of these privileges, as does every saved person; it is quite another to receive the privileges themselves, which was true only of the nation of Israel (including every individual within it) up to the time of Christ's first coming. Here Paul is talking only about the latter circumstance. He is referring only to the privileges God bestowed upon the Jewish nation in the OT era, privileges that applied in that day to every Jew whether he was part of the saved remnant or not. But they no longer apply in any direct sense to anyone : not to Jews as Jews, whether individually or collectively; not to Gentiles as such; and not to Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles.

Herein lies the nature of the tragic irony of Israel's existence. They were so absorbed with the privileges themselves (and continued to be, in Paul's day), that they neglected and even rejected the intended result of these privileges, God's gracious salvation through Christ. They glorified the means, and ignored the end. The very people who were, by God's gracious choice, responsible for bringing the Redeemer into the world were themselves the object of his wrath.

9:4 At the beginning of v. 4 Paul refers to his brothers and kinsmen (v. 3) as the people of Israel . This can be taken in two possible ways. On the one hand, it may be in apposition to "brothers" and "kinsmen," bringing the thought of v. 3 to an end (as in the NIV). On the other hand, it may be the first item in the list of the privileges themselves, as the verse division suggests. I prefer the latter view, though this is not a serious issue.

Taking these words as the first blessing, we find a total of nine privileges bestowed upon the chosen people. They are presented in four relative clauses relating back to the masculine plural nouns at the end of v. 3, "brothers" and "kinsmen." The first relative clause is this one, "who are Israelites" (NASB). This is a better translation than the NIV. The second relative clause begins with "of whom," and has six predicates: adoption as sons, divine glory, covenants, receiving of the law, temple worship, and promises (the verb "are" is understood). The third relative clause is "of whom [are] the fathers." The last relative clause is "from whom [is] the Christ according to the flesh." Schematically the list looks like this:

. . . my brothers and kinsmen -

- who are Israelites;

- of whom [are] adoption, glory, covenants, law, worship, and promises;

- of whom [are] the fathers; and

- from whom [is] the Christ.

The first privilege of the Jews, says Paul, is that they are Israelites . Most interpreters see this name as more than just a synonym for "Jews," and as signifying more than just ethnic identity. It seems to point back to the time of Israel's calling, to the period of their very formation as a people from the loins of Jacob, whom God renamed "Israel" (Gen 32:28). Thus "Israelites" calls attention to the Jews' origin and to their unique covenant relationship with God. It is in itself a title of honor that embodies the totality of their God-given privileges.

Some think the present tense ("who are Israelites") is significant (Fitzmyer, 545). It shows that "this title has not been revoked," says Moo (561). This may be true in the sense described above, namely, that Jews may still take pride in the fact that theirs was the nation God used in a special way. However, this does not mean he is still using them thus, nor that he will ever do so again. Nor does being an "Israelite" today guarantee one's personal salvation, any more than it did in OT times.

Theirs is the adoption as sons . . . . Literally it says, "of whom is the adoption." This term, uiJoqesiva ( huiothesia ), is used in the NT to represent the individual Christian's relationship with God (8:15,23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). As Christians we are his family, his adopted sons and daughters. Some see the term as applying here to the Jews in the very same way, with the "fullest saving significance" (Piper, Justification , 32). This saving sonship would then be a blessing possessed by present and future Israel.

I believe this view is quite mistaken. Here Paul is not talking primarily about individual Jews but about the nation as a whole. The term refers to God's sovereign choice of Israel collectively to be his son: "Israel is my firstborn son" (Exod 4:22). "I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son" (Jer 31:9). "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos 11:1). In a derivative sense each individual born as a Jew enjoyed this status of adoptive sonship: "You are the children [sons] of the LORD your God" (Deut 14:1; see Deut 32:19; Isa 1:2; 43:6).

This concept of Israel's adoption emphasizes God's initiative and deliberate choice in establishing this relationship with Israel. It "helps bring out the sense of election more clearly" (Dunn, 2:526). Also, it indicates that God's relation with his people was one of fatherly affection (Deut 1:31; 8:5; Isa 46:3-4; Jer 3:19).

Though this adoption was extremely significant, its limitations must still be recognized. For one thing, it did not in itself entail the salvation (spiritual sonship) of any individual Jew. (See Lard, 294-295; Moo, 562; MacArthur, 2:13.) Also, this father-son relation with Israel as a nation ended with the beginning of the New Covenant, under which adoption is now a saving relationship with all willing individuals, including both Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:26-4:7).

[T]heirs is the divine glory . . . (literally, "and the glory"). Again some project this into the future history of Israel. They say that Paul is here guaranteeing that the Jews as Jews will participate in the messianic eschatological glory of Christ's second coming (Piper, Justification , 33-34; Dunn, 2:526-527, 534). In my opinion this is again a misreading of this text and of the whole section (9-11). "The glory" refers to the fact that God manifested himself to OT Israel and even dwelt among them in a glorious visible form (a theophany).

From the beginning of their exodus journey the people of Israel were blessed with the visible presence of God in their midst in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Exod 13:21-22; 40:36-38). At least on some occasions "there was the glory of the LORD appearing in the cloud" (Exod 16:10). "The glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai" when God revealed the law to Moses (Exod 24:15-18). When the tabernacle was consecrated, "the glory of the LORD filled" it (Exod 40:34-35). "The glory of the LORD appeared to all the people" at times of sacrifice (Lev 9:23) and at times of judgment (Num 14:10; 16:19, 42). When Solomon's temple was dedicated, "the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD" (1 Kgs 8:11, NASB; see 2 Chr 7:1-3).

Later Judaism began to use the Hebrew term shekinah to refer to this glorious manifestation of God's presence. Shekinah means "dwelling" or "presence" (Cranfield, 2:462) and was thus a kind of shorthand for "the presence of God's glory." As a brightly shining radiance this visible entity marked the splendor of God's very presence among his people Israel. No wonder Paul included this in the list of Israel's privileges! Of course God is everywhere in the sense of his omnipresence, but to no other nation on the face of the earth has God displayed his special presence in glory as he did to his people Israel.

Today God is present in a special way within his church (1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:22) and within individual Christians (1 Cor 6:19). Though this presence is not one of visible glory, it is even greater than the shekinah because it is part of our salvation.

The next privilege is the covenants . A major question is, why is this plural? There are several possibilities. One is that Paul is speaking of the several ratifications of the Mosaic covenant - Exod 19:5-6, at Sinai; Deut 29:1, at Moab; and Josh 8:30-35, at Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Barrett, 177-178). Another is that he is talking about all biblical covenants, including the New Covenant (Piper, Justification , 35; Dunn, 2:534; Bruce, 185). To include the New Covenant, however, violates the intent of this list, which is to name those privileges which are exclusive to Israel.

The third and most likely possibility is that "covenants" refers to all OT covenants specifically involving Israel. This would not include the covenant with Noah (Gen 9:9), since this was not with Israel per se . It would include the covenant with Abraham and the other patriarchs (Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 26:3-5,24; 28:13-15); the covenant at Sinai (Exod 19:1-6; 24:8), as ratified at Moab and at Gerizim-Ebal; and the covenant with David (2 Sam 23:5). See Eph 2:12 for a similar use of the plural. In Gal 3:15-19 Paul treats the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant as two parts of a single covenant, with the promise aspect given first to Abraham and the law aspect added later (v. 19) through Moses.

The main point is that Israel is the only nation on earth with whom God chose to enter a special covenant relationship. This is just one more indication of their status of exalted privilege.

The next blessing named by Paul is the receiving of the law. This refers to the Law of Moses, and to the fact that being chosen to be the recipients of this law was an honor granted only to Israel. "He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD" (Ps 147:20). In ch. 2 Paul has shown that mere possession of this law did not guarantee salvation for any Jew, but still it was a unique privilege to receive it and to be granted stewardship of it (see 3:1-2).

In this and in the next two items we see examples of how these privileges overlap with one another at certain points. The law, the temple worship, and the promises are all included in the covenants to a certain degree.

Israel was also granted the privilege of the temple worship . This is the word latreiva ( latreia ), which means "service," usually in the sense of worshiping the true and living God (see 12:1). This could mean Israel's general privilege of being able to serve the true God in a world of idolatry, but the NIV is probably correct to take it in the more narrow sense of the temple services. This would include "the entire ceremonial system" of the Law of Moses (MacArthur, 2:15), and especially the system of sacrifices that dealt with sin and foreshadowed the Messiah's atoning work. See Moo, 564.

The last privilege listed in v. 4 is the promises. This refers to all the promises included in God's covenants, as well as all the other promises made to Israel. This includes the promises given to the Jewish people generally, and the promises given to individuals such as Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Gal 3:16,21), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), Jacob (Gen 28:13-14), Moses (Deut 18:18-19), and David (2 Sam 7:11-16; Acts 13:22-23). See Rom 15:8, "the promises made to the patriarchs."

All such promises ultimately pointed toward a single goal, the coming of the Messiah. Their fulfilment was the means to this one end. They are like individual notes that lead into the great symphony of messianic promises and prophecies themselves, e.g., Isa 7:14; 9:6-7; Jer 23:5; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28; Micah 5:2; Zech 9:9-10; Mal 3:1. What is important to see is that all these promises made to Israel were fulfilled when Jesus came the first time; see Acts 13:32-34. Rom 9:5b is the goal and climax of them all. The promises made to Abraham and to the rest were fulfilled through Israel, in Christ, to us. These promises no longer apply to Israel today nor to Christians as such. We are not under these promises, but rather under their fulfilment. The promises of the New Covenant are different, and better (Heb 8:6).

9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, . . . (literally, "the fathers"; see 11:28; 15:8). This refers especially to the "founding fathers" of the Jewish people: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see 9:6-13; Exod 3:15). From the perspective of the Jews, the fact that God chose these men to be the foundation of his chosen people made them not only national heroes but also the greatest figures in the history of the world (Deut 7:6-8). It was certainly a great privilege to be able to claim them as ancestors.

This leads to the climactic and most wonderful privilege of all: and from them [the Jews] is traced the human ancestry of Christ . . . . This is the blessing for which all the others were only means to an end, the one purpose for which the others existed in the first place, namely, to bring the Messiah, the Christ, into the world.

The emphasis here is on the human nature of Christ. The Greek text may be translated literally thus: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." Christ's saving work required that he have not only a divine nature but also a true and complete human nature. "Flesh" refers to the human origin of this human nature (body and spirit), in contrast with the divine origin of his divine nature. It was Israel's incomparable privilege to provide the former (see 1:3).

The blessings mentioned earlier in the list are described as belonging to Israel: "theirs" (vv. 4a,5a), literally, " of whom." Here the expression changes to " from them." This shows that the relation between the Messiah and national Israel was one of origin or ancestry only. Jesus did not "belong" to Israel; he was not their Messiah in the sense of their personal Savior, since most Jews remained unbelievers. Although this did not contradict God's purpose for the nation, since their election was not meant to guarantee the salvation of individual Israelites (see 9:6-7), it was nevertheless a great irony and a greater tragedy. The very people granted the prerogative of bringing the Christ into the world rejected him when he came. Their greatest privilege was the very obstacle over which they stumbled.

What compounds the tragedy is the fact that by rejecting this climactic and teleological blessing, the Jews in effect repudiated the significance of all the others! As pointed out above, Paul is not here portraying Christian-era Jews as having a continuing and perpetual claim to the blessings listed here; these were privileges that belonged strictly speaking to pre-Christian Israel. But the tragedy is that whenever ethnic Jews hear the gospel of Christ and reject it, they are rejecting everything that has ever made their nation special from its very beginning.

This simple fact that from Israel came the Christ was the ultimate fulfilment of all God's promises to and covenants with the Jews as a nation. God's word thus did not fail, and his purpose for physical Israel was thus achieved.

The next clause - . . . who is God over all, forever praised! Amen - has been interpreted in two main ways. The basic question is whether the term qeov" ( theos , "God") refers to Christ or not. If it does, this verse is one of the strongest NT affirmations of the divine nature of Jesus.

Since the original Greek text has no punctuation, every translation of this verse is actually an interpretation by virtue of the way the translators choose to divide and punctuate it. Those who deny that theos refers to Christ insert a period somewhere in the middle of the verse, usually after the word "Christ." Verse 5b then becomes a statement of praise to God, a doxology that is separate from the statement about Christ. The following are examples: From the Jews "according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever" (RSV). "Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" (TEV). The NEB is similar.

The other main possibility is to take the entire verse (after "the patriarchs") as a single statement about the Christ, which thus would be affirming that he is theos , or God. The NIV is an example of this view, as are the following: From the Jews "is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever" (NASB). "From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever" (NRSV).

The evidence favors the latter interpretation. The first three arguments have to do with the wording in v. 5b. (1) The Greek words at the beginning of the clause (oJ w[n , ho ôn ) most naturally introduce a relative clause that refers to something in the immediately preceding context, i.e., "Christ." (2) Paul's doxologies of praise in other places do not stand alone but are attached to a word in the preceding context (1:25; 11:36; 2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:5; 2 Tim 4:18). (3) In independent statements of blessing, the word "blessed" almost always precedes the word or words for God (e.g., 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). These first three arguments can be summed up together thus: if v. 5b were referring to God the Father and not to Jesus Christ, to be consistent with other biblical usage, the wording would have been different, as follows: "Blessed be God, who is over all forever."

Other arguments have to do with the context. (4) The reference to Christ's human nature in v. 5a calls for a complementary reference to his divine nature. (5) Taking the latter part of the verse as a doxology seems out of place in a paragraph "otherwise expressing sorrow and regret" (Fitzmyer, 549). (6) Taking v. 5b as affirming Christ's deity is compatible with the climactic nature of this last and highest privilege bestowed upon Israel. "Without some predication expressive of Jesus' transcendent dignity there would be a falling short of what we should expect in this climactic conclusion" (Murray, 2:247).

Over against these arguments from wording and context it is argued that Paul nowhere else refers to Christ as theos ("God"). It is true that Paul's usual title for Jesus is kuvrio" ( kyrios , "Lord"), and that theos is usually reserved for God the Father (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3-6; Eph 4:5-6; Phil 2:11). But Paul certainly attributes deity to Christ elsewhere (see Gal 1:1; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9), and a strong case can be made that he calls Jesus theos in Titus 2:13 and 2 Thess 1:12 (see Murray, 2:247-248). The title kyrios is itself a title of deity (see 1:4; 10:9-13).

Moo is therefore correct in concluding that Paul is calling Jesus theos in this verse, thus "attributing to him full divine status." This view, he says, is "exegetically preferable, theologically unobjectionable, and contextually appropriate" (568).

The other descriptions of Christ in v. 5b are also indicative of his divine nature. He is the one who is "over all," an expression of his universal Lordship (Acts 10:36), which belongs only to God. He is the "blessed" one (NIV, "praised"), a term which elsewhere in the NT refers only to God (Mark 14:61; Luke 1:68; Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). He is blessed "forever," indicating his eternality.

This concludes our discussion of 9:1-5, where Israel's "ecstasy" (4-5) stands in sharp contrast with her "agony" (1-3). This paragraph certainly reveals Paul's own deep love and concern for his kinsmen, as he contemplates their lost state. But an even deeper consideration is his love for God and his concern for the integrity of God's faithfulness to his words of promise. How can Israel's accursedness be reconciled with all these glorious privileges? This is the question he begins to address in 9:6.

II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHNIC

AND SPIRITUAL ISRAEL (9:6-29)

The main theme of 9-11 is God's faithfulness in his dealings with Israel. The issue is summarized in 9:1-5 thus: in view of the privileges for which Israel was chosen (vv. 4-5), how is it possible for a faithful God to reject them and curse them (vv. 1-3)? Does this mean that God's purpose for Israel has in fact failed? "Have not God's promises to Israel ended in nothing as far as the Jews are concerned?" (Fitzmyer, 558).

Paul's answer, of course, is that God's purposes and promises have not failed (9:6a; see 3:4). The apparent paradox of 9:1-5 is easily resolved by seeing that there is not just one Israel, but two (9:6b), and by discerning the proper nature and purpose of each. National, ethnic, physical Israel was chosen by God to play a primary role in his plan of redemption. This entitled them to all the blessings of 9:4-5, but these blessings did not include the guarantee of personal salvation. Every covenant promise God made to Israel as a nation was completely fulfilled, irrespective of the salvation status of any individual Jew. God has the sovereign right to choose and use any individual or group in this manner. This is the point of 9:6-18.

Is it true, then, that every individual Israelite is actually lost? In 9:3 Paul implies that physical Israel, his "kinsmen according to the flesh," are indeed "accursed" (NASB). But he does not say this applies to every Jew without exception. Yes, some (most) Jews are lost, but some are saved! Those who are saved are still part of national Israel and participate in all the covenant blessings bestowed upon the nation as a whole, but they constitute an "Israel" of a different sort, an "Israel within Israel," one that is defined not just in terms of physical descent from Jacob but also in terms of a saving relationship with God. This is the point of Paul's key statement in 9:6b, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." God's sovereign right to make this distinction within the larger body of ethnic Israel is the point of 9:19-29. He can use the entire nation for his redemptive purposes, while limiting salvation only to spiritual Israel, the remnant. "It is the remnant that will be saved" (9:27b, NASB).

It is extremely important to understand how the issue of salvation figures into the discussion in 9:6-29. Some points are accepted by almost everyone. It is agreed that election (choosing, making distinctions) is a key theme in this section. It is agreed that Paul is stressing God's sovereign freedom to make distinctions and choices in whatever way he pleases. It is also agreed that belonging to physical Israel was not in itself a guarantee of personal salvation.

But there is sharp disagreement, usually (but not always) along Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist lines, as to which parts of vv. 6-29 refer to God's election to service , and which refer to his election to salvation . This disagreement occurs in view of the fact that Calvinism generally teaches unconditional election to salvation, and because (especially) vv. 7-23 seem to be affirming unconditional election. Thus it is quite common to see Calvinists use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of the unconditional election of individuals to salvation (and usually, the unconditional reprobation of all others to hell). Examples are Murray (2:15-24), Schreiner ("Election," 89-106), Moo (584-588), and Piper ( Justification , 50-73).

Non-Calvinists of course disagree, and usually take one of two approaches to this passage. Some say the election described therein does have to do with individual salvation, but it is conditional rather than unconditional. Even though the conditions (such as faith) are not specifically named in the text itself, they are taken to be implicit in view of other biblical teaching. A common form of this view is that God made his choices, e.g., of Jacob over Esau, based on divine foreknowledge of the lives and character of each. Examples of this view are cited in Piper (52, n. 13). Many are from ancient writers such as Philo and Chrysostom. A later example is Godet, who speaks of "God's prevision of the power of faith" in the case of Jacob (350). Foreseen faith is not at all the same as foreseen works, he says (348). See also Smith, 2:16-17.

Since the text itself does not mention foreknowledge and seems to exclude human conditions as such, others have taken the approach that Paul is here talking about unconditional election to service , not salvation. Piper (57) cites several examples. Speaking of 9:12, Morris declares, "It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation" (356). In my judgment this is the correct view.

Piper (58) argues that this view does not fit the context, that it "cannot successfully explain the thread of Paul's argument as it begins in Rom 9:1-5 and continues through the chapter." Especially, it does not address the problem of Israel's unbelief and rejection, and it is not a logical follow-up to Paul's statement about the two Israels (9:6b).

One reason Piper says this, is his erroneous view of 9:4-5, in which he takes these benefits as having saving implications for Israel (49). Thus, he says, since these blessings "imply the eschatological, eternal salvation" of the people of Israel, the line of thought developed in the following context " must address the issue of individual, eternal salvation" (65).

But Piper is wrong to include saving content in 9:4-5 (see above), and he is wrong to say that the concept of election for service is inconsistent with the problem as set forth in 9:1-5 and the solution as summed up in 9:6b. The following summary of the argument in 9:1-29 shows this to be the case.

First, Paul expresses his grief over the fact that most Jews are accursed - the very Jews who were chosen to receive the greatest of privileges (9:1-5). But how is this possible? Is this some kind of contradiction? Has God's word failed? No! God's purposes and promises have not failed (9:6a), basically because there are two different kinds of "Israel" (9:6b). One is national Israel, which was unconditionally chosen by God to be a party to the covenant made with the fathers, and thus to receive the blessings of 9:4-5. This was an election and a call to service only, and it was a matter of God's sovereign and unconditional choice with no requirement for saving faith on the part of any individual Israelite. Israel's founders were chosen apart from any decisions, qualifications, faith, or works on their part; and God kept his promises to the nation and carried out his purposes for them not because of their belief but in spite of their frequent unbelief (9:7-13).

The other Israel is composed of those individuals within the ethnic body which do in fact have a saving faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Salvation is promised and given not to the nation as a whole, but only to this spiritual Israel, which is in a sense the "true" Israel (see 2:28-29), the redeemed remnant. The fact that God has withheld salvation from the majority of Jews is not a violation of his covenant with them, for that covenant as such did not include a promise of automatic salvation based on ethnic heritage alone.

Paul's key point in v. 6b is in effect that God has made a distinction within the nation of Israel, using all Jews to serve his saving purpose but giving salvation only to some. This is his solution to the problem raised in vv. 1-5. But his following discussion shows that he anticipates that this solution to the original problem will itself be seen as a problem, namely, its fairness will be questioned (see v. 14). Does God have the right to make this kind of distinction within his chosen people, a distinction resulting in two kinds of Israel?

In defense of his statement in 9:6b and in anticipation of such an objection, in 9:7-13 Paul makes a point that no Jew can deny, namely, that in the very events that gave rise to the nation of Israel, God had already made some unconditional distinctions within the progeny of Abraham. These verses are not talking about the distinction within Israel as affirmed in v. 6b, which is a distinction between service and salvation. Rather they describe divine choices whereby some were chosen for service and others were passed by, choices by which Israel as a nation was created in the first place.

This has two applications. The first refers to the distinction specified in v. 6b. To those who might suggest that such a distinction is unfair, Paul is simply pointing out that making such distinctions is nothing new for God; he did this sort of thing in the very beginning when he brought Israel into existence. Granted, that was a matter of selecting certain individuals and a certain people for service rather than for salvation, but it set a precedent showing that God was not acting out of character or contrary to established patterns when he made the distinction between the two Israels as such.

The second application of 9:7-13 relates directly to the problem of Israel's lostness raised in vv. 1-5. The point is that this lostness does not negate God's promises because his original choice of the founders of Israel had nothing to do with their works, character, merits, faith, or salvation status in general. It was simply his sovereign will to use these individuals (Isaac and Jacob) rather than the alternatives (Ishmael and Esau), and the purpose for which he chose them was such that they did not have to be personally saved to carry it out. God could and did choose to use them just as they were. The same is true for the entire nation of Israel that sprang from their loins. God intended to use them for his service whether or not they believed and were saved. Thus there is no conflict between vv. 1-3 and vv. 4-5.

In 9:14-18 Paul specifically raises the problem of fairness that some are bound to see in such divine distinguishing. Doesn't it seem unjust for God to choose people for service in this way? Shouldn't individuals have the right to volunteer, or at least consent to being thus used? And if they are going to be conscripted into service, as it were, shouldn't they at least be rewarded with salvation?

In response Paul simply declares that God has the right to choose whomever he wills to use for his purposes, whether they be saved or not. The subject is election for service, not salvation. The mercy and compassion of which Moses spoke is not saving grace, but God's selection and appointment of a person (or a nation) to have the privilege of serving him (see below). That such a person does not have to be saved to serve God's redemptive purposes is perfectly illustrated by Pharaoh, upon whom God had mercy by choosing him for a vital role in his plan, but who at the same time was hardened in order that he might fulfill that role. In like manner God chose the nation of Israel for his grand redemptive purpose, and he used them for it even though most individual Jews (like Pharaoh) were hardened.

In 9:19-29 Paul turns specifically to the original distinction set forth in 9:6b, the distinction between national Israel as a whole (used for service) and the spiritual Israel existing within it (blessed with salvation). Does God have a right to make this distinction? The objection is put into the mouths of those Israelites who are lost, as they try to blame God for their lost state (9:19). They say, if God is orchestrating this whole thing, how can he hold us responsible and condemn us for our unbelief? Hasn't God made us the way we are?

Paul's primary answer at this point is that the lost person (specifically, the unbelieving Jew) has no right to complain to God at all, since God is indeed the sovereign Lord who has by decree created this single "lump of clay" known as Israel (9:21). It is his plan and his clay, and he (like a potter) can do with it what he wills. Since it is his to begin with by right of creation (9:7-13), it is also his right to divide it as he chooses and to make different kinds of vessels from it. Some are vessels of wrath and are under the curse of v. 3; others are vessels of mercy and will be saved. These vessels of mercy are the remnant of which the prophets spoke, i.e., the true believers, or spiritual Israel, to which in this church age are added all true believers from among the Gentiles.

This main section comes to a close with this point, but in itself it does not resolve the issue of divine faithfulness raised in 9:1-5. It simply establishes the fact that God has made a distinction between the two Israels, only one of which is saved. It shows clearly that ethnic Israel's role of service had no essential connection with personal salvation. It also asserts God's sovereign right to make this distinction between the serving and the saved (9:19-29), but it does not go into detail as to the nature of such a distinction. In particular, this section does not raise the question as to the basis, or conditions, upon which God distinguishes the remnant from the larger group of Israelites according to the flesh.

Those of a Calvinist bent will insist that this is an improper question to begin with, since they are convinced that election to salvation is unconditional. But this conclusion is invalid in view of the fact that the language of unconditionality in 9:7-18 applies only to election to service. Election to salvation is a completely different issue. The divine distinguishing that separates the saved from the lost is conditioned upon the free human choice either to accept or to reject the saving promises of God. This is the point of the next main section, 9:30-10:21. Only when this point has been made is the issue of divine faithfulness regarding Israel completely resolved.

A. ISRAEL'S SITUATION AND GOD'S FAITHFULNESS (9:6-13)

The relationship of this section to Paul's overall argument has been discussed just above. It is clear that these verses deal with divine election. Morris's title for this paragraph is, appropriately, "God Works by Election" (351). But the question is, election to what ? There are, as Cranfield says (2:471), "different levels or forms of election." The relevant choices are election to service and election to salvation . This distinction relates to the two Israels named in 9:6b: ethnic Israel, chosen for service; and spiritual Israel, chosen for salvation. But which of these two is the main subject of 9:6-13?

Many simply assume that spiritual Israel is the main subject, and that God's choice of Isaac and his choice of Jacob are prime examples of how God distinguishes the true spiritual Israel (the saved) from ethnic Israel as a whole. They argue that the terminology used in these verses can only be salvation language: seed or children of Abraham, children of God, children of promise, God's purpose, God's call as opposed to human works, God's love.

A brief reflection upon the individuals and incidents being discussed in these verses will show, however, that Paul is not talking about how God makes distinctions within Israel (between the ethnic and the spiritual, as in v. 6b), but how he established ethnic Israel in the first place. Ishmael and Isaac as a pair were not the original "ethnic Israel" from which God elected only Isaac to be the first member of "spiritual Israel." Ishmael was never a part of Israel in either sense; he was chosen neither for service nor for salvation (as far as we know). The same is true of the twins Esau and Jacob.

The point of these verses is that Isaac and Jacob were chosen to be the first representatives of ethnic Israel (after Abraham himself). Whether they were saved or not, i.e., whether they were also part of spiritual Israel, is not relevant. In fact, the nonrelevance of their salvation status is the key to Paul's argument: Isaac and Jacob, like ethnic Israel as a whole, could be chosen and used for God's service whether they were saved or not. This is the key to v. 9:6a, "It is not as though God's word had failed." God's promises to physical Israel have not failed, even though most Jews are unbelievers, because these promises did not include salvation as such.

But what about the language used in this section? Is it not the language of salvation? This depends solely upon the context. In other NT contexts the terminology does refer to salvation and the saved, but it is not inherently limited to this. It is covenant language, to be sure, but covenant language is not always salvation language. A common error in modern theology is to erase the proper distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, and to project the salvation content of the latter back into the former. This is common among Calvinists, and it is why someone such as Murray or Piper cannot separate the covenant realities of 9:4-5 from salvation, and why they cannot see anything but salvation in the language of 9:7-13.

The point of the Abrahamic covenant, though, was not the salvation of its recipients. Its point was rather that through Abraham and his (physical) seed the means by which all peoples could be saved would be brought into the world. This was a covenant of service; and the recipients of this covenant, i.e., ethnic Israel, were chosen to render this service and to experience its accompanying temporal privileges and rewards (vv. 4-5). Fitzmyer is simply wrong to say that "the OT promises were not made to the ethnic or historical-empirical Israel, those of physical descent or of flesh and blood, but to the Israel of faith" (559-560).

The language of 9:7-13 is perfectly consistent with the role played by ethnic Israel in God's plan. God had a definite purpose for choosing this nation (9:11), which he did by choosing its forefathers, Isaac and Jacob. He called them into his service without regard for any meritorious qualifications on their part and without even asking for their own conscious participation in the choice (9:11-12). It was all a matter of God's choice and promise, i.e., his covenant promise to bless and to use these individuals and their physical descendants for the purpose of bringing the Savior into the world. In this context "children of Abraham," "children of God," and "children of promise" (9:7-8) are perfectly consistent with God's purpose for ethnic Israel, and perfectly applicable to Isaac and Jacob and their natural descendants in contrast with Ishmael and Esau and their descendants. Isaac and Jacob were the progenitors not just of spiritual Israel, but of ethnic Israel as a whole.

Thus I agree with Lenski (597-598), that Isaac and Jacob are not types of election to salvation: "Paul's two illustrations have nothing to do with an eternal election or predestination of Isaac and of Jacob to salvation and with a reprobation of Ishmael and of Esau to damnation."

Shall we say, then, that 9:6-13 has no bearing at all upon the election of individuals to eternal salvation? Not necessarily. The error is to take the references to Isaac and Jacob as examples of election to salvation and therefore as exact models for the way God saves any individual. In other words, according to this erroneous view, just as God unconditionally chose Jacob and rejected Esau, so he unconditionally predestines some to heaven and some to hell. But this is not Paul's point. At the most, we may possibly say that God's choosing Isaac and Jacob for service is analogous at some points with his electing of individuals to salvation. For one thing, members of spiritual Israel are "children of promise" and not "children of the flesh," even though the promises that apply in this case are not the same promises that set ethnic Israel apart from the rest of the world. Members of spiritual Israel are also chosen and called, though not in the same way that God chose and called ethnic Israel. "Not by works" (9:12) is likewise a key ingredient in being chosen for membership in spiritual Israel, though such membership does require the precondition of faith, as Paul goes on to show in 9:30-10:21 and 11:20-23.

In other words, there are some similarities between election to service and election to salvation, but they are not the same in every detail. To assume that they are would defeat Paul's whole purpose in this section (9:6-13), which is to answer the charge that God is somehow being untrue to his word unless all ethnic Israel is saved. The very essence of his answer is that being chosen for service is different from being chosen for salvation. The two Israels are constituted differently, or are established on different bases. The process by which God established ethnic Israel, i.e., through the unconditional choosing of Isaac and Jacob, did not in itself involve their personal salvation, which requires a specific decision of faith.

Thus we must strongly disagree with Piper when he says that this sort of distinction between election to service and election to salvation goes against the point of chapter 9. Referring to the unconditional election of Isaac and Jacob "apart from all human distinctives," he says it is "an unwarranted leap to infer against the context of Rom 9 that this principle applies when the promised blessing at stake is 'theocratic blessing' or a 'historical role' but does not apply when the promised blessing is personal, eternal salvation" ( Justification , 64). On the contrary, the fact is that the context demands this very distinction, the distinction between unconditional election to service and conditional election to salvation. The one thing that Piper wants to find in this paragraph - the " ongoing principle ," "the principle of unconditional election" to salvation (66, 69) - is the one thing that would undermine Paul's whole argument.

1. God's Word Concerning Israel Has Not Failed (9:6a)

9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. This statement presupposes an unstated implication that someone might try to draw from vv. 1-5. In spite of the impressive list of covenant blessings bestowed upon the people of Israel (vv. 4-5), the majority apparently are "cursed and cut off from Christ" (v. 3). Has something thus gone wrong with God's plan for Israel? Has he failed to keep his word to his people?

Paul immediately rejects these unspoken suggestions. His response begins with a strong negative expression, "But it is not as if" or "But this does not mean." He is saying that the seemingly conflicting circumstances described in vv. 1-5 do not mean that "God's word has failed."

The word "failed" is ejkpivptw (ekpiptô ), literally, "to fall from" or "to fall off of" (see Acts 12:7; Jas 1:11; 1 Pet 1:24). In Gal 5:4 and 2 Pet 3:17 it is used metaphorically for "falling from" grace. Here it has the more general meaning of "fail, come to nothing, be annulled." This is parallel to its meaning in (some manuscripts of) 1 Cor 13:8, "Love never fails."

Paul declares that "God's word" (oJ lovgo" tou' qeou' , ho logos tou theou ) does not fall away or fail. What is meant by "God's word"? Certainly what the Apostle says here is true of "the Word of God" in the most general and inclusive sense. Every word of God, including the entire Bible, is true, passes every test, will accomplish its purpose, will be fulfilled, cannot be broken. (See Ps 12:6; Prov 30:5; Isa 55:11; Matt 5:17-18; John 10:35; 17:17; Rom 3:4.) It is "the living and enduring word of God," says Peter; "the grass withers and the flowers fall [ekpiptô ], but the word of the Lord stands forever" (1 Pet 1:23-25).

In this text, though, "God's word" means something more specific. "The declared purpose of God" (SH, 240) is still too broad. So is Barrett's suggestion that it refers to "the whole plan and intention of God in salvation," including messianic promises and "the gospel" as preached by Paul (126-127). The context shows rather that "God's word" here refers specifically to his words of promise , i.e., the promises he made to and about OT Israel (Dunn, 2:539). These "promises made to Israel and its patriarchs" (Fitzmyer, 559) are the word of God that has not failed.

2. The Key to the Puzzle: the Existence of Two Israels (9:6b)

But in view of Israel's lostness and the apparent inconsistency between vv. 1-3 and vv. 4-5, how can it be said that God's promises to Israel have never failed? The answer, says Paul, lies in the fact that there is not just one Israel, but two. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. This statement clearly affirms the existence of two groups, both called "Israel" but in two different senses: ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. The former includes all those who bear Abraham's genes through physical descent from Isaac and Jacob, i.e., the Jews; the latter is composed only of those Jews who also share Abraham's faith in the God of salvation.

The literal sense of the Greek sentence is thus: "For all the ones who are from Israel - these are not Israel" (see Moo, 573, n. 19). The first group is called "the ones of [or from] Israel." This expression may mean simply "the ones who belong to the nation of Israel," or it may mean (as the NIV suggests) "the ones who can trace their physical lineage back to the man Israel," i.e., to Jacob whom God renamed Israel. The second group is simply called "Israel," but it is usually (and rightly) referred to as spiritual Israel or even as the true Israel, to distinguish it from the former.

These two Israels are not two totally distinct groups, with some Jews belonging to one and some to the other. In fact, all Jews belong to the first group, and only some to the second. I.e., those in the latter group actually belong to both. The relationship between the two Israels may be depicted not by two side-by-side circles, but by two concentric circles, thus:

We should note that this passage has in view Jewish people only, and thus the "spiritual Israel" in this verse includes only Jewish believers (as the concentric circles indicate). Other NT teaching warrants the conclusion that in this dispensation the church as a whole, including believing Jews and believing Gentiles, may be called the true Israel or spiritual Israel. See Rom 9:23-30 and 11:17-24, where Jews and Gentiles together constitute the remnant and the one olive tree. Together they are called "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). This may be depicted thus:

This is not the point of 9:6b, however. See Moo, 573-574.

A key word in this second sentence in 9:6b is gavr ( gar ), "for" or "because." This word indicates that 6a is explained by 6b, i.e., the latter is the reason why the former is true. God's promises concerning Israel have not failed, because there are really two Israels.

Everyone seems to agree that this is how the two parts of the verse are meant to be connected. There is a serious disagreement, though, as to the nature and recipients of the promises included in the phrase "God's word." Some take God's word (of promise) to be referring specifically to his promises of salvation , or "all his promises relative to the salvation of Israel" (Lard, 298). How can one say, then, that this promise of salvation has not failed, in view of the lostness of most Jews (v. 3)? Here is how the point about the two Israels enters in, according to this view: the promises of salvation were made not to ethnic Israel as a whole, but only to spiritual Israel, the remnant (Lard, 298). As Murray puts it, "The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfilment of God's covenant purpose and promise" (2:10). See also Hendriksen (2:317), Nygren (361-362), and Fitzmyer (559-560).

In my judgment this misses Paul's point completely. "God's word" does indeed refer to "the promises made to Israel and its patriarchs" (Fitzmyer, 559), but the main reference is to the promises made to ethnic Israel as a whole, especially the covenant promises made to the patriarchs regarding God's messianic purpose for the nation collectively and including the accompanying privileges that served as a means to this end. In other words, God's promises to ethnic Israel included everything named in vv. 4-5, and every one of these promises was kept.

But did not God's OT promises include forgiveness and eternal life? Certainly, but here is where the distinction between the two Israels is crucial. Personal salvation was not among the unconditionally guaranteed promises enjoyed by the entire nation of Israel. This blessing was promised only to spiritual Israel, the believing remnant. The existence of the two Israels thus resolves the dilemma of vv. 1-5. "All who are descended from Israel" experience the covenant blessings of vv. 4-5, but only the true Israel escapes the curse of eternal damnation. The promises of salvation applied only to the latter. This had always been God's plan; this is the way it happened; thus his word did not fail.

3. Ethnic Israel Exists by God's Sovereign Choice (9:7-13)

The subject of these next seven verses - this is very important - is not spiritual Israel but ethnic Israel. In them Paul is responding to a possible objection that might be raised by what he has just said in v. 6. There he affirmed, contrary to the beliefs of practically every Jew at that time, that just because a person was a Jew did not necessarily mean that God would save him. In other words, Paul has said that God could use the nation of Israel for service without giving them salvation.

This paragraph responds to expected resistance to this idea. Paul simply points out that this has been God's modus operandi from the very beginning. That is, Israel's existence as a nation is the result of God's sovereign, unconditional choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. God elected them (and the entire nation through them) for service - apart from any salvation promises on his part or any salvation responses on their part - just because that was the way he wanted it. Because of God's sovereign "purpose in election" (v. 11) Israel would fulfill God's plan for the Messiah and God would thus fulfill his promises toward them, whether they as individuals entered into a saving relationship with him or not.

Thus we must not interpret vv. 7-13 as further elaboration upon the distinction between the two Israels in v. 6, as if these verses are describing how or why God made that distinction. Nor are these verses somehow meant to justify this distinction, contrary to Moo's view (570-571). They are in fact making a point that is separate from 9:6b. The progression of thought from 6b to 7a is thus: Not all members of physical Israel are also members of spiritual Israel; neither are they called the children of Abraham just because they are physically descended from Abraham. Thus v. 7 begins a separate thought. The paragraph through v. 13 focuses on the origin and role of ethnic Israel as such, explaining the manner in which God called them into his service. The main point is that this is different from the way he calls individuals to salvation. Only when the two are confused do questions about God's faithfulness to Israel arise.

The Choice of Isaac (9:7-9)

9:7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. This verse begins with the negative particle oujdev ( oude ), which joins concepts that are related but not identical. Thus it introduces another consideration in answer to the charge that God has treated Israel unfairly. The erroneous assumption to which Paul is responding is the Jews' mistaken idea that just because they were descendants of Abraham, God was obligated to treat them in a certain way. Paul's point is that this is not true even with regard to Israel's role of service in God's historical plan of redemption, much less their participation in eternal life.

There has been much debate as to the respective meanings of "descendants" (lit., spevrma , sperma , "seed") and "children" (tevkna , tekna ). This debate is usually waged with the assumption that Paul is simply repeating his distinction between physical Israel and spiritual Israel (9:6b). Assuming this, a few proceed to identify the former with Abraham's "children" and the latter with his "seed" or "descendants." Most, however, take the reverse approach, equating "seed" with physical Israel and "children" with spiritual Israel.

The fact is that the terms "seed" and "children" seem to be used interchangeably in vv. 7-8, as they are in John 8:33-39 ( vv. 33, 37, "seed of Abraham"; v. 39, "children of Abraham").

The most common error here is the assumption that v. 7 is parallel to v. 6b, which it is not. Spiritual Israel is not in view in v. 7, thus neither term ("seed," "children") applies to it in this context. The distinction rather is between all the physical descendants of Abraham, including those born to Hagar (Gen 16:15) and Keturah (Gen 25:1-5) as well as to Sarah, and only those physical descendants of Abraham born through Sarah and Isaac (Gen 21:1-3). Only the latter may be called Abraham's true seed or children. Just being physically descended from Abraham did not establish someone as the "seed of Abraham" named in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:5, 18; 17:6-8; 22:17-18). Something more than physical descent is required, as v. 8 specifies.

On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." This is an exact quotation from the LXX translation of Gen 21:12. God made this promise to Abraham as he was explaining to him why the patriarch should not hesitate to sever his connections with his son Ishmael (Gen 21:8-21). The sense of it is, "Through Isaac alone , not through Ishmael or any other possible progeny, will come the seed specified in my covenant with you."

The word translated "reckoned" literally means "called." Here it does not have the theological connotation of "called unto salvation," as it does in 8:28-29; 9:24-26. At most it may refer to God's call to service , i.e., only children born to Isaac will be called upon to continue the covenant responsibilities and receive the covenant blessings given to Abraham. Only those connected with Isaac will be called (named, counted as, recognized as, acknowledged as, reckoned to be) Abraham's true covenant seed. Dunn is correct: "God had told Abraham that his promise of seed and land applied only to the line of descent through Isaac, that so far as his covenant with Abraham was concerned only Isaac and his offspring would be recognized as Abraham's seed" (2:547). The only thing to remember is that this covenant did not include the promise of salvation as such; "Abraham's seed" in this context is not the same as spiritual Israel.

As the next two verses will show, Paul's main point in bringing up the "divine distinguishing" between Isaac and Ishmael is to emphasize the sovereign, unilateral way in which God established the nation of Israel and enlisted it into his service.

9:8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. "In other words" ("this is to say," "this means") introduces the basis upon which God chose Isaac. Though this may well be a general principle that God applies in the context of salvation, that is not how the statement functions here. In this case it relates to the choice of Isaac and thus to the manner in which Israel came into existence.

"The natural children" is literally "the children of the flesh," or children born by purely natural means. It is similar to the expression in 1:3 and 4:1 (kataΙ savrka , kata sarka , "according to the flesh"), where "flesh" is used in a morally neutral sense. "The children of the promise" refers to God's promise to Abraham and Sarah concerning the birth of Isaac, as v. 9 shows. They are "children of promise" because they owe their existence to this promise; they are "born as a result of a promise" (Morris, 354). These children of the promise are identified as "God's children" and as "Abraham's offspring." The latter expression is a loose but accurate paraphrase for one word, "seed" ( sperma ). "Regarded" is logivzomai ( logizomai ), the same word used for the concept of imputation almost a dozen times in Rom 4. Here it simply means "considered to be, counted as, looked upon as." It is equivalent to "reckoned" ("called") in v. 7.

It is easy to see why many take this verse to refer to the distinction between physical Israel and spiritual Israel, and thus take it as referring to the way God elects some to salvation while rejecting others. "God's children" and "children of the promise," as well as the verb logizomai , all have salvation connotations in other contexts. (See Moo, 577.) Indeed, we may agree that there is a significant analogy between the way God chose Isaac for service and the way he chooses individuals for salvation. The concept of promise is the main similarity. See Gal 3:14, 16-22, 29; 4:23.

We must remember, though, that such terminology does not always connote the eternal salvation of individuals. The covenant made with Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob) was primarily a series of promises, culminating in the promised coming of the Messiah (Acts 13:23,32; 26:6; Rom 15:8; Heb 8:6; 11:9). Thus it is appropriate to think of Israel as a whole as "children of the promise." The expression "children of God" is surprisingly rare in Scripture. Sometimes it refers to those in a saving relationship with God (Rom 8:16,21; Phil 2:15); at least once it refers to the Jews as a nation (John 11:52; see also Deut 14:1 and Ps 82:6, "sons" of God). It is not inappropriate to see the latter sense here.

We conclude, then, in accord with the present context, that it is ethnic Israel that is here identified as "God's children" and "children of the promise," and that these terms describe Israel's role as the special family through whom God brought the Messiah into the world. This is consistent with 9:4, which says that the Israelites received "the adoption as sons" and "the promises."

What is Paul's point? He is simply reminding Israel that their status as God's children and Abraham's seed was not something they possessed by an accident of nature, by inherent right, or by meritorious acquisition. It was theirs only by God's gracious choice and promise. God alone controls the selection process and the terms of selection. In this case God demonstrated his sovereign control by specifying that Abraham's covenant family would come into existence through one whose own existence was dependent upon nothing except the promise and power of God.

9:9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." Paul's statement of the promise concerning Isaac is a combination of thoughts from Gen 18:10 and 18:14. God spoke these words during a glorious visitation (a theophany) to Abraham and Sarah (Gen 18:1-15). "At the appointed time" is usually taken to mean "about this time next year." "I will return" is literally "I will come." This does not necessarily mean that God was promising another visible manifestation of himself to Abraham and Sarah a year later; no such theophany is recorded in Genesis. It means only that God would come upon Abraham and Sarah in his providential power, opening Sarah's barren and "dead" womb (Gen 11:30; 18:11; Rom 4:19; Heb 11:11-12) and causing her to conceive contrary to all natural means.

This verse is important because it shows us that Paul's main concern here is not the general promise of salvation made to all who will believe in God's mercy, but rather the specific event of the choice of Isaac rather than Ishmael as the one who would carry on the covenant line of his father Abraham - which was a call to service, not to salvation. In fact, v. 8 says that the Israelites were "the children of the promise," meaning the specific promise identified in v. 9.

The first part of this verse specifically reads, "For the word [lovgo" , logos ] of promise is this." The term logos ties this in with 9:6a, where Paul says, "It is not as though God's word [ logos ] has failed." This shows that he is mainly concerned here with the charge that somehow God's words of promise to the nation of Israel had failed. The promises are those which establish Israel as the covenant nation, and as words of promise they establish God as the one who is in complete control of Israel's tenure as the covenant people.

Thus there is no reason for anyone to think that God has lost control of the situation with respect to Israel. Though most individual Israelites are accursed, God has still kept every promise he ever made to them as a people, as is evidenced by the way he kept one of the very first promises that brought them into existence in the first place.

The Choice of Jacob (9:10-13)

These next four verses show how God chose a particular son of Isaac to be the one who would carry on his covenant purposes. The debate continues, of course, as to whether this incident is intended to describe the way God chooses individuals for salvation. Does God's choice of Jacob demonstrate the way he distinguishes true spiritual Israel from ethnic Israel as a whole, or does it tell us how he chooses those who will serve him in the carrying out of his redemptive purposes? In my judgment only the latter point is being made here . The focus is exactly the same as in vv. 7-9, namely, the sovereignty of God in establishing the nation of Israel.

9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. This truth does more than simply repeat the lesson from Isaac and Ishmael; it strengthens it and clarifies it. Regarding the earlier example, someone might try to argue that the natural circumstances surrounding the births of Abraham's (first) two sons were so different that the choice of Isaac was no surprise. After all, the boys had different mothers, and Ishmael's mother was not even Abraham's true wife. But this cannot be said of Jacob and Esau. As twins, they were the product not only of the same mother, but of the same pregnancy. In addition, Esau was the first-born twin. Thus according to every natural expectation, Esau should have been selected as the covenant seed. The fact that God chose Jacob for this role shows unequivocally that his election of those who will serve his purposes need not be conditioned upon any human circumstance or qualification.

The grammar and syntax of this section are notoriously difficult, but the NIV generally sorts it out quite well. Literally v. 10 does not speak of Rebekah's children but of Rebekah herself. It says that she conceived "from one." The use of the Greek word koivth (koitç ) leads to some rather graphic interpretations. The word basically means "bed," but was also used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse and even the emission of semen. Thus some say the verse means that Rebekah conceived "by the one act of sexual intercourse" (Dunn, 2:542) or even "from one seminal emission" (Hendriksen, 2:319). Thus "from one" is given a dual force: not only were Jacob and Esau conceived from one father , namely, "our father Isaac," but also from just one act of intercourse . The point is to minimize any natural distinctions between Esau and Jacob.

9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad . . . . This is a participial phrase. The subject ("the twins") is not in the Greek but is properly supplied by the NIV. The whole phrase modifies the main verb in v. 12b, "she was told." The participles themselves may be expressing simple temporal priority in relation to the main verb (" Before the twins were born . . . , she was told," NIV), or they may express a contrary or unlikely circumstance (" Even though the twins were not yet born" - see the NASB). The NRSV captures the meaning very succinctly: "Even before they had been born."

The point is that God had already made his decision as to his choice between Jacob and Esau, and had already announced it to Rebekah (v. 12), before anything had happened from the human side that might have any possible bearing upon that choice. "Before the twins were born" indicates that the birth order would be irrelevant. Before they "had done anything good or bad" shows that their future conduct was not a factor in the selection.

To introduce divine foreknowledge into the picture here, as some non-Calvinists do, misses the point. Certainly the omniscient God had a complete foreknowledge of the entire lives of both the twins, including which would be born first (v. 12b). But that is not only irrelevant; it tends also to obscure the very point Paul is making, namely, that the choice had nothing to do with either the works or the faith of either twin, whether foreknown or not. God wanted Jacob and not Esau, and that's that.

But someone will say that this sounds a lot like unconditional election, which is a main doctrine of Calvinism, and that we need the concept of foreknowledge here in order to avoid it. I will reply that the choice of Jacob over Esau was a case of unconditional election. But this is not a concession to Calvinism, because Paul is not talking about election to salvation , but to service .

Calvinists themselves usually fail to understand this point. They assume that God's choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau had to do with the twins' eternal destinies, thus seeing this passage as biblical proof of the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. Murray says it indicates "the pure sovereignty of the discrimination which the covenant promise implies" (2:13). Cranfield says it shows that a key characteristic of the "divine distinguishing" is "its independence of all human merit" (2:477). Moo says it implies "that it was God's will alone, and not natural capacity, religious devotion, or even faith that determined their respective destinies" (578).

Such statements are true as they apply to God's selection of Jacob for covenant service, and they may be true of election to service in general; but the context does not warrant applying them to election to salvation, as these writers do.

- in order that God's purpose in election might stand. This is the first part of a parenthetical comment (vv. 11b-12a), separated from the rest of the sentence in the NIV by dashes. In this comment Paul is explaining why ("in order that") God's choice of Jacob (and thus of the nation of Israel) was unconditional (v. 11a), namely, so that his purpose according to election might not fail. What was God's purpose for choosing one or the other of these twins? It was the same purpose he had for choosing Abraham in the first place, then Isaac. It was the purpose expressed when God first made his covenant with Abraham: "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3). This purpose was fulfilled with the birth of the Messiah (9:5b; Acts 13:32-33).

This redemptive purpose was too important to be allowed to depend on the vicissitudes of human behavior. Thus God made it clear from the very beginning that he was going to accomplish his purpose through this particular family regardless of their individual decisions and the direction of their personal piety. He showed this by the very way in which he chose Jacob over Esau, i.e., unconditionally. This means that even if he had chosen Esau over Jacob, he would still have accomplished his purpose.

How this applies to the issue under discussion should be clear. At stake is God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. How could he shower them with the covenant blessings of 9:4-5 and allow them to be lost at the same time? The answer is that the covenant did not include a promise of individual salvation for all Jews; it was limited to God's special use of the nation of Israel as the conduit for bringing Christ into the world. From the beginning God determined that he was going to do this, regardless of whether any individual Jews were saved. Just as "God's purpose in election" did not depend upon the spiritual status of the twin he chose from Rebekah's womb, so it did not depend upon the salvation status of the Jews in Paul's day.

Again it is an error to see in this expression, "God's purpose in election," any reference to God's general method of saving individuals. "God's purpose in election" is roughly parallel to "God's word" in 9:6a, i.e., to his covenant promises to the nation as a whole. In 9:6 Paul says these covenant promises have not failed; here in 9:11 he says that God's purpose for choosing Israel will "stand" or remain firm. These are basically the same idea stated first negatively then positively.

9:12 . . . not by works but by him who calls. Like many others, Schreiner says that the phrase "not by works" always is used in the context of individual salvation; thus that must be the subject here ("Election," 93). But the present context is different. It is clear that "not by works" simply explains or restates "before the twins . . . had done anything good or bad" (9:11), and (as we have seen) this refers to Jacob's unconditional election for service, not salvation. God's choice of Jacob had nothing to do with any superior qualifications he might have possessed, and it was in spite of any of his potential weaknesses or character flaws. It was simply God's sovereign decision to choose him and use him, and this was a paradigm representing his choice of the nation of Israel as such.

This entire phrase modifies 9:11b; it tells us why it is that God's purpose in election will stand, namely, not by virtue of the accomplishments, faith, or faithfulness of the ones called to fulfill that purpose, but solely by the invincible power of the God who called them.

Many of a Calvinist bent insist that the concept of calling must mean "the effectual call to salvation" (Murray, 2:19), or "the call to faith and obedience" (Cranfield, 2:478-479). Others rightly see it as a call that has "exclusive reference to time, and with no reference to eternity" (Lard, 301-302). "It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation," as Morris says (356). The terminology of calling is not used exclusively for calling to salvation in the NT, but on several occasions refers to calling to service. Abraham was called to inaugurate God's covenant plan (Heb 11:8), and Aaron was called to the high priesthood (Heb 5:4). Jesus called James and John to apostleship (Matt 4:21). Paul was called to be an apostle (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:15).

In Jesus' statement, "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14, NASB), the "many" who are called are probably the nation of Israel as a whole, which was called into God's service; and the "few" who are chosen are probably the spiritual Israel of Rom 9:6b. This verse from Matthew, especially in its context of the parable of the wedding feast, definitely helps us to understand the nature of the calling to which Paul refers here in 9:12.

- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." This picks up the thought from v. 11a: before the twins were even born or had done anything good or wrong, God had already told Rebekah which one he was choosing for his covenant purposes. The quote is directly from Gen 25:23 (LXX). The "older" is Esau, who was born first; "the younger" is Jacob.

Commentators argue over whether this divine decree refers to Jacob and Esau as individuals or to the two nations established by each. From Jacob, of course, came Israel; and from Esau came the Edomites. God's full statement to Rebekah, recorded in Gen 25:23, shows that he originally had the two nations in mind: "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger." That is probably the main point here. The OT does not record any instance where Esau personally assumed the role of a servant to Jacob, but it does refer to times when the Edomites were in a kind of servitude to Israel or Judah (see Num 24:18-19; 2 Sam 8:14; 1 Kgs 11:15-16; 2 Kgs 14:7).

This is not a serious issue except for those who want to read election of individuals to salvation into this context; they may be inclined to limit Paul's reference to Jacob and Esau to these men as individuals. Even if this is the case, though, election to service (not salvation) is Paul's point. The language of servanthood is simply a way of indicating which of the twins would be favored by God and chosen to be the covenant son, and which would not.

9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." This quotation, from Mal 1:2, continues the thought already elaborated in vv. 10-12 and carries it a step further. By introducing it with the formulaic "it is written," Paul presents it as a proof text for the point he is making. The main idea is that God's choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau were based not on something within these men but upon something within God himself, i.e., his own love and hate.

Two main issues arise here. One is the common question of whether God's love and hate relate to Jacob's and Esau's temporal fortunes or to their eternal destinies. Consistent with their approach to the passage as a whole, many see God's love as the basis for his unconditional election of Jacob to salvation, and God's hatred as the basis for his unconditional reprobation of Esau to hell. This is then generalized into the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election as such (see Moo, 585-586).

As we have already seen, however, the subject here is not individual salvation but election to service. This election is unconditional to be sure, but it is election to service nonetheless. In reference to this verse we can see this is the case by examining the context of the quotation as it appears originally in Malachi. There it is clear that the main point is not God's attitude toward and treatment of the two brothers themselves, but of the two nations springing from them. Even more significantly, the consequences of these contrasting attitudes are not eternal destinies but different earthly fortunes.

The other main issue is the meaning of "Esau I hated." In what sense did God "hate" Esau? Some say Paul is merely employing a semitic hyperbole, in which the strong term "hate," when used in comparative conjunction with "love," sometimes simply means "to love less"; see Gen 29:33 (cf. v. 30); Deut 21:15; Luke 14:26 (cf. Matt 10:37); John 12:25 (MP, 389; Fitzmyer, 563). Others agree this is a valid meaning of "hate," but say that it does not apply here. They equate love with election, and see "hatred" as God's nonemotional decision to reject Esau (decline to choose him) and just set him aside (Moo, 587; Morris, 357; Dunn, 2:544-545). Still others believe, and I agree, that neither of these explanations is strong enough. Murray correctly observes that the treatment of Esau (Edom) in Mal 1:1-5 can hardly be called just a less intense love or even nonselection. It is "a positive judgment, not merely the absence of blessing." It is "disfavour, disapprobation, displeasure," a true "holy hate" (2:22-23).

It is difficult to think of this "holy hate," even in the form of temporal destruction as described in Mal 1:1-5, as unconditional and in no sense related to Edom's conduct - or as Dunn puts it (2:544), "without any reference to Esau's (Edom's) deeds." Here is where I believe the thought of 9:13 goes a step beyond the basic point of 9:10-12. The main point throughout is God's sovereignty in his selection of those who will carry out his purposes. His initial choice of Jacob over Esau stresses this sovereignty, even to the point of unconditionality. This quotation seems to show, though, that God's subsequent historical treatment of their respective nations was conditioned to some extent upon their conduct.

This can be seen in other OT references to God's wrath upon Esau's people, Edom (Isa 34:5-15; Jer 49:7-22; Ezek 35:1-15; Obad 1-21). In these and other texts it is made clear that this wrath is divine vengeance against Edom because of its wicked treatment of Israel (Ps 137:7; Isa 5:8; Jer 49:12; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:5,11-15; Obad 10-16). Thus even if God's original choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau were totally unconditional, his subsequent treatment of them did have respect to their conduct. This does not contradict Paul's basic premise regarding the manner of God's original choice of Jacob (and the people of Israel); it simply adds another dimension to his continuing historical relationship with this nation.

The overall main point of this section (vv. 7-13) is still the sovereign freedom of God to set up his plan of redemption as he chooses. He can choose whomever he pleases, whether individuals or nations, to carry out his redemptive purposes, apart from their own choice or cooperation if necessary. His chosen servants do not have to be a part of "spiritual Israel" to be of service to him, and he is not obligated to reward them with eternal life just because they have played their intended part in the messianic drama. There is no inherent connection between service and salvation.

Such is Paul's reply (in part) to those who would accuse God of unfaithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. He appeals, as Godet says, to "the great truth of God's liberty." Godet (351) makes these perceptive comments:

The two examples of exclusion, given in the persons of Ishmael and Esau, have served to prove a fact which Israel embraced with their whole heart: God's right to endow them with privilege at the expense of the Arab (Ishmael) and Edomite (Esau) nations, by assigning to them in the history of redemption the preponderating part to which the right of primogeniture seemed to call those excluded. Now, if Israel approved the principle of divine liberty when it was followed in a way so strikingly in their favor, how could they repudiate it when it was turned against them!

B. GOD'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND USE PEOPLE

WITHOUT SAVING THEM (9:14-18)

As we have said earlier, Paul's main purpose in Rom 9 is to affirm God's sovereign right to choose any individual or group for service without at the same time choosing them for salvation . The emphasis is not simply upon God's right to choose some while rejecting others; it is also upon the manner in which God makes his choices.

The bottom line is that God's distinction between physical Israel and spiritual Israel is based upon his freedom to choose in whatever way he wishes. There is indeed a spiritual Israel which enjoys the blessings of salvation, and God has determined to bestow these blessings on the condition of faith (9:30-10:21). But at the same time he has reserved the right to choose and use people for service with no strings attached, as in the case of physical Israel. If it suits his purposes, he can choose them unconditionally, and use them without saving them or rewarding them in any way.

This present paragraph lies at the heart of this argument. In the previous paragraph Paul demonstrates that this is the way God works by citing the concrete examples of Isaac and Jacob. Now in vv. 14-18 he affirms the general principle of divine sovereignty that underlies all such specific examples: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (v. 15).

This is not an argument in the sense that Paul is attempting to justify God's actions before the bar of reason. He is not trying to defend God by appealing to some cosmic code of conduct that is independent of God and to which God himself is bound. Rather, by citing the general principle as stated in OT Scripture, Paul is simply showing that God's choices of Isaac and Jacob - and therefore of the nation of Israel - were consistent with his own nature and with his own plainly stated principles of action. This is the only sense in which this paragraph may be called a theodicy.

Throughout this study of Rom 9 we must keep in mind that the main issue is the status of physical Israel . I.e., if they have been chosen for covenant service, why are they not saved? Thus in 9:14 the question ("Is God unjust?") is not about those whom God has not chosen (such as Ishmael and Esau), but about those whom he has chosen, i.e., Isaac and Jacob - as forerunners of the nation of Israel. Like Isaac and Jacob, physical Israel did not receive its role in God's plan through personal achievement but solely through God's unconditional choice (vv. 15-16). Therefore it does not have any claim on God's saving grace, and can be chosen and hardened at the same time, like Pharaoh (vv. 17-18).

Again we must insist that the issue here is not how God chooses individuals for salvation, contrary to the common Calvinist effort to use this text as a proof for unconditional election. Achtemeier (163) is correct: "Paul is dealing in this passage with the place of Israel in God's plan of salvation. He is not dealing with the fate of individuals." Dunn (2:562) warns against "generalizing too quickly from this passage. . . . Paul is thinking solely in terms of salvation-history, of God's purpose for Israel. . . . A more extensive doctrine of election is not to be found here."

1. God's Righteousness Is Challenged (9:14)

9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! Paul dialogues thus with himself when he knows he has just said something that is likely to be misunderstood or to raise objections or false conclusions in the minds of his hearers. "What then shall we say?" is parallel to 3:5; 6:1,15; 7:7. "Not at all!" is mhΙ gevnoito (mç genoito ), the very strong negative expression frequently used by Paul; see 3:4 above. The question itself, "Is God unjust?" is stated in such a way in the Greek (using the negative particle mç ) that a negative answer is implied and expected. Also, "unjust" is actually a noun, ajdikiva ( adikia ). The NASB has a literal translation: "There is no injustice with God, is there?"

The term adikia has been used several times already, always for human unrighteousness or wickedness (1:18, 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13). It is the opposite of righteousness, the essence of which is conformity to the proper norm or standard (JC, 1:116-117). That God is righteous does not mean that he conforms to some norm outside himself, since such a norm does not exist. God's essence is itself the highest and ultimate norm, even for his own actions. To say, then, that God is righteous means that his actions always conform to his own essence. He never goes against himself and never acts in a way that is inconsistent with or contradictory to his own nature. He is always faithful to himself.

Thus to say that God is unrighteous or unjust is to accuse him of doing something that violates his very nature - which is impossible. Since it is his nature to be true (3:4) and never to lie (Titus 1:2), his righteousness thus requires that he always be faithful and true to his word. In the context of Rom 9, to suggest that God may be unrighteous or unjust is simply to raise the question again as to whether or not God's word of promise to Israel has failed (9:6a). "The question is - Is God righteous ? - i.e., has he been true to his covenanted word?"

We must remember that the issue here is the status of national Israel. Thus the objection stated in 9:14 is one that would most likely be raised by the Jews regarding God's treatment of them as a nation. It is a mistake to see this question as something that relates only to the immediately preceding section, and especially to limit it to the rejection of Ishmael and Esau. It relates rather to everything Paul has said in vv. 1-13. "What then shall we say - about the way God chose and has been using Israel? Has his treatment of the nation been unjust? Has his word failed, as some seem to think? No! Absolutely not!" Paul's answer has the intensity and the content of Abraham's conviction in Gen 18:25, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Why is God's treatment of Israel not unjust? Because, as 9:6b says, there really are two Israels, and God is not obliged to treat them in the same way. Specifically, he is free to use the nation as a whole for his covenant purposes, while limiting salvation only to those who trust his saving promises. The unconditional nature of God's choice of the larger group is illustrated in vv. 7-13. These verses in themselves show that God's use of Israel has not been unjust. The question in v. 14 is not so much an objection to the content of vv. 7-13 as it is a statement of the implied objection that underlies the whole chapter. And Paul's answer to the question in vv. 15-18 is not different from what he has already said in vv. 7-13, but is a generalized restatement of it. He simply shows, as Lard says (304), "that God acted according to his own avowed principles of conduct."

2. God's Sovereignty in Election for Service (9:15-16)

9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." The connecting word "for" ( gar ) has several possible meanings. Ordinarily it introduces the cause or reason for the preceding statement. In this case the idea would be, "No, God is not unjust, because . . . ." This would then raise the question as to how God's statement to Moses shows that God is not unjust. The best answer is that Paul believes that the quoting of OT Scripture is sufficient to establish his point. (See also v. 17.) Since the main source of the objection in v. 14 would be the Jews, refuting it from their own Scripture would be especially effective. This would also be indicative of Paul's high view of the authority of Scripture. See Murray, 2:25.

Gar suggests, then, that in these verses Paul is confirming his affirmation of God's justice or faithfulness. He confirms it by quoting Scripture, and especially by citing the general principle or general divine prerogative that embraces all the specific cases at issue. No, God has not acted unjustly in his choice of Isaac, in his choice of Jacob, and especially in his choice of the nation of Israel, because Scripture itself records his sovereign right to choose anyone he pleases according to his own terms. He has simply acted in accord with his established word.

The divine statement cited by Paul was spoken "to Moses." It is an exact quote from the Greek version (the LXX) of Exod 33:19b and is very close to the Hebrew. The general occasion for the statement was Moses' intercession for Israel following their unfaithfulness with the golden calf. Specifically it was part of God's reply when Moses requested to see the very essence of God: "Then Moses said, 'Now show me your glory'" (Exod 33:18).

Paul's citation of this statement by God raises several questions. First, does it apply to the eternal salvation of individuals, or to temporal election for service? Second, how does it relate to the overall argument of ch. 9? Third, why is the statement only positive , with no corresponding negative reference to exclusion from God's mercy?

The most crucial (and by now, most familiar) issue, of course, is whether the statement applies to God's choice for salvation or for service. Many, such as Murray, argue for the former: "In this context we may not tone down the soteric import" (2:26). Others declare that salvation is not the point here. For instance, DeWelt states that the choices of which this text speaks "never involve salvation of a man's soul" (148).

Either way we must show that our view fits into the overall context. But since this statement in 9:15 is a quotation from the OT (Exod 33:19b), this raises the question as to which context should be used to determine whether Paul is referring to salvation or service: Exod 33 or Rom 9? Lenski (611) says it is best to stay with the NT context, to take the words as Paul quotes them, "and not to consider the whole episode with regard to Moses, his prayer to see God's face, etc." DeWelt, on the other hand, declares that it is imperative to see "that this free reign of God's mercy and compassion is all related as occurring in the Old Testament and must not be carried over into the New Testament dispensation" (148). Such extremes are inadequate, however; both contexts are important, and in the end they yield the same result regarding the issue of salvation or service.

The OT context is important here and definitely must be considered. Why did God originally make this statement? It was addressed to Moses, but for what purpose? What was its intended application? To ask the question another way, to whom was the statement originally intended to apply: to Moses himself, or to the nation of Israel? Many have concluded the former, i.e., that God was telling Moses that he would be the recipient of God's blessing. This would happen not because of any meritorious accomplishment on Moses' part, however, but solely because of God's sovereign choice.

Fitzmyer says it refers to "how God called Moses" (565). This hardly fits the context, however. Others say it refers to God's decision to answer Moses' request, "Now show me your glory" (Exod 33:18). In response to this request, God says first of all that he will grant it: "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence" (33:19a). Then he says immediately, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (33:19b).

Why did God make the latter statement immediately after declaring that he would answer Moses' request? Piper tries to make the case that it is a paraphrase of God's name as later revealed in the theophany in 34:6-7 ( Justification , 84-89). Verse 19b is just "a brief, preliminary declaration of the verbal theophany," he says (88). This understanding does not fit the flow of the conversation between Moses and God, however. Verse 18 states Moses' request, "Now show me your glory." God's reply is threefold: the statement of his intention to grant the request (19a); the reason for his decision (19b); and the one qualification (20a), "'But,' he said, 'you cannot see my face.'"

This latter view is most consistent with the context and is held by many. Keil and Delitzsch ( Pentateuch , 237) say v. 19b expresses "the reason why Moses' request was granted, viz. that it was an act of unconditional grace and compassion on the part of God." It definitely refers to Moses' request, according to Godet (352): in Exod 33:19 God, "when condescending to grant the bold request of Moses that he might behold His glory with his bodily eyes, gives him to understand that nothing in him . . . merited such a favor." See also DeWelt, 148; GRe, 364.

In my judgment the view just described is correct, being true to the context and to the terminology used (as will be explained shortly). But I have concluded that this is not the whole picture, and that the statement in 33:19b must be taken also in the broader context of the immediate crisis concerning Israel, and thus also applies to the nation as a whole. Only then is it relevant to Paul's argument in Rom 9.

Israel's episode with the golden calf, as an act of great sin and even apostasy, certainly raised the question of the salvation of those who were involved (Exod 32:25-35). But it also raised the question of Israel's preservation as the people chosen to serve God's covenant purposes. Moses was very concerned with the latter, especially when God told the people that from that point on he would not be personally present among them on their journey (33:3-5). The visible presence of God had up to that time been a crucial factor in their lives (33:7-11), and Moses argued before God that without his continuing visible presence among them they would not really know if they were still God's unique people, nor would anyone else know (33:12-16).

At this point in the narrative the issue is not the eternal salvation of individual Jews, but Israel's preservation as a nation and her continuing role in God's plan. In reference to God's threat to withdraw his presence, Moses reminds him, "Remember that this nation is your people" (33:13). Certainly it is true that Moses' prayer is "for the salvation of the whole people," to use Calvin's words (356), but the point is not the eternal salvation of individual Jews but the temporal preservation of the nation as such. See Fitzmyer, 566.

In the face of Moses' intercessory prayer God relents and tells Moses that he will indeed once more bestow his personal presence upon them (33:15,17). This is the point at which Moses makes his bold request, "Now show me your glory" (33:18), i.e., as an assurance that he and Israel had been restored to God's favor. What follows is the marvelous event of God's unique revelation to Moses, both visibly and audibly (33:19-34:7). Moses' response is a final and humble plea for the nation's reinstatement as God's "inheritance" (34:8-9), though they obviously did not deserve it. God concludes the matter by reestablishing his covenant with Moses and with Israel (34:10-28).

The point is that the critical statement in 33:19b refers not only to God's sovereignty in his choice of which prayers to answer (according to which he granted Moses' request), but also to his sovereignty in his choice of those who will serve him in the accomplishment of his plan of redemption. That God answered Moses' prayer and showed himself to Moses in a unique way was symbolic of his intention to relent and once more to grace the nation with his presence. His ultimate answer to Moses' prayer was in "His sparing the people and continuing to guide and protect them" (MacArthur, 2:32).

In this light we can see why Paul chose to quote Exod 33:19b in support of his own argument that God's word toward Israel has not failed and therefore that he cannot be accused of injustice in his treatment of them. The issue in Exod 33 and Rom 9 is very much the same: not the salvation of individuals, but the role of the nation in God's plan. The point is that God is free to choose whomever he will, according to whatever conditions he pleases.

One main problem that many will have with this interpetation is the meaning of the terms "have mercy" and "have compassion." Do not these terms refer to eternal salvation? Not necessarily. These terms and their Hebrew counterparts have a variety of uses, depending upon context.

The second word in God's statement is "have compassion": racham ) in Exod 33:19b and oijkteivrw (oikteirô ) here. This verb and its cognates (words with the same root) refer to the attitude of compassion, mercy, or pity upon someone in any kind of need. It can refer to God's compassion upon the lost, leading to salvation (see Isa 55:7; Rom 12:1), but it can also refer to divine or human compassion expressed in temporal ways (see Luke 6:36; Heb 10:28). In the OT, racham is frequently used for God's temporal blessings upon his people, either as bestowed or as withheld (see Isa 14:1; Jer 13:14; 21:7; 33:26; 42:12; Zech 10:6). As Ezek 39:25 says, "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will now bring Jacob back from captivity and will have compassion [ racham ] on all the people of Israel."

The first word in God's statement, "have mercy," is used much more often in both testaments. The Hebrew word in Exod 33:19b is /nj ( chanan ). Because it is sometimes translated "be gracious" (as in the NASB in Exod 33:19b), and because its noun form (/j, chçn ) is often translated "grace," some just assume that it refers to saving grace in this text. The word does have that meaning in some contexts; but saving grace is actually one of its lesser meanings. Basically it means to do someone a favor, to show favor, to be merciful and kind, or to bestow a blessing. Human beings are said to be merciful (gracious) to other people, and God is said to be merciful (gracious) to various people.

The word is often used as a preface to prayer, as in Ps 27:7: "Hear my voice when I call, O LORD; be merciful to me and answer me." Thus in Exod 33:19b, when God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," he could very well be simply saying to Moses, "All right, Moses; I will answer your prayer this time; but remember that it is my sovereign prerogative to determine which prayers I will answer and which I will deny."

God's mercy (grace, favor) is sometimes the grace of forgiveness and salvation for individuals (Ps 51:1), but more often it refers to some temporal blessing (Gen 33:5,11; 2 Sam 12:22). The nation of Israel as such is often the recipient of such temporal mercy (favor, grace). For example, Ps 102:13 says, "You will arise and have compassion on Zion, for it is time to show favor to her." See also 2 Kgs 13:23; Isa 30:18-19; Amos 5:15. Thus it is completely consistent with the meaning of the word chanan to interpret Exod 33:19b as referring to God's sovereign choice to spare the people of Israel and to continue to use them as his servant nation.

In Rom 9:15 the Greek word used to translate chanan is ejleevw ( eleëô ), and it, too, has a range of meanings other than saving mercy (as does its noun form, e[leo" , eleos ). A few times it does refer to salvation (1 Tim 1:13,16; 1 Pet 2:10). More often, though, it refers to showing compassion to the poor, sick, or needy (Rom 12:8; Phil 2:27). Thus it is used as a prelude to a request for such mercy: "Have mercy on me, and help me" (e.g., Matt 9:27; 15:22; 17:15; 20:30-31; Luke 16:24). Most significantly, it is sometimes used to refer to God's choosing or calling someone for service, specifically, Paul's call to apostleship: 1 Cor 7:25; 2 Cor 4:1. This last meaning is the one Paul intends in 9:15, I believe; and it has special reference to God's choice of the nation of Israel to play a crucial role in his covenant purposes. In other words, when God chooses anyone for service, it is the bestowal of a great favor upon that person (or nation), whether that person (or nation) is saved or not.

The next question is how Paul's citation of Exod 33:19b relates to his overall argument in Rom 9. The answer should be obvious. At stake is the righteousness or faithfulness of God in relation to Israel. Does not his choosing of Israel for covenant service imply that all Jewish people should be saved? No, says Paul; as in his choice of Isaac and Jacob, God chooses as it pleases him. He is free to choose whomever he likes. He can choose and use people, including the whole nation of Israel, whether they are saved or not. Salvation is neither a prerequisite for nor a necessary result of such a choice. The quote from Exod 33:19b states this as a general principle; the example of Pharaoh in 9:17-18 is a specific example.

The last question about v. 15 is, why does the statement refer only to a positive choice, i.e., one grounded in mercy and compassion? Why is there no reference to God's sovereign rejection of others? This question is meaningful only when one concludes that the passage is talking about the eternal salvation of individuals rather than election to service. For those who hold the former view, the issue is whether or not there is such a thing as double predestination, i.e., both election to salvation and reprobation to damnation.

Some see such a double predestination in vv. 7-13,18,21-24; thus they accept it as an inference in v. 15. Others see v. 15 as softening the negative side of predestination elsewhere in the chapter. It "shows that God is out to secure mercy, not condemnation," says Morris (359). A "symmetry between grace and wrath . . . is missing here," says Achtemeier, since Paul "speaks exclusively of God's decision to be merciful." Indeed, "the whole discussion is marked rather by the asymmetry of a dominating grace" (162). See Cranfield, 2:483-484.

This whole discussion is meaningful, however, only if this chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals. If it is, the double-predestination folks are correct. To say that God is free to show saving mercy unconditionally on whomever he chooses definitely implies that he is free to withhold saving mercy unconditionally from whomever he chooses, and his decision to do the former necessarily entails his decision to do the latter. Such a decision to withhold mercy is in effect a decision to send these nonrecipients to hell, with all the resulting negative implications for the nature of God.

This is why it is so important to see that the issue is not a kind of sovereignty by which God chooses some for salvation and condemns others to hell. Rather, the issue in vv. 7-13 is his sovereignty in choosing one (Isaac, Jacob) rather than another (Ishmael, Esau) for a role of service, and the issue in the chapter as a whole is his sovereignty in choosing and using the nation of Israel apart from the promise of individual salvation. Such choosing of Isaac, Jacob and national Israel was a matter of (temporal) mercy and favor, but the nonchoosing of Ishmael and Esau was not ipso facto an act of eternal condemnation. Those who were not so chosen are just no longer relevant to the discussion. Thus to have added, "I will condemn whomever I will condemn" would have been irrelevant and beside the point, not to mention untrue. Even the references to Pharaoh and hardening in 9:17-18 are not about condemnation as such.

9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Since the issue in this context is not the eternal salvation of individuals, the considerable amount of rhetoric that attempts to extract Calvinist unconditional election from this verse is wasted. Since the subject is the election of individuals and groups for service, all conclusions concerning divine sovereignty and unconditionality in election must instead be applied thereto. Further argument on this point is unnecessary.

The main point is that God's final decision to select someone for his covenant service is based not upon anything in the person himself, but entirely and only upon the divine purpose. If it is God's purpose to choose someone, he will do so, whether that person is willing or unwilling, or whether he is prepared or not. Of course, God would rather use a willing person who will devote his entire strength to God's cause. Also, for those tasks that require someone who is especially gifted and trained, God will prepare such a person through his providential control of life circumstances. Examples are Moses and Paul. But for other tasks he can use those who are unwilling and even hostile toward him. Examples are Balaam (Num 22-24) and, of course, Pharaoh (9:17-18). Many in Israel were in this last category.

The thought of this verse is not different from that of v. 15, and is set forth as a logical conclusion ("therefore") from it. The subject of v. 16 ("it") is not stated but must be supplied from the context. "Mercy" is the choice of many (e.g., SH, 254; Cranfield, 2:484; Moo, 593), and those who interpret the entire passage in terms of election to salvation naturally take this to be saving mercy, eternal life, or being a child of God (e.g., Hendriksen, 2:325; MacArthur, 2:32; Stott, 269). It is best not to take "mercy" as the subject, however, since whatever the subject is, it depends "on God's mercy." In keeping with our overall interpretation, I believe the subject is simply "being chosen for God's service."

Being thus chosen does not depend upon human desire or willing. Jacob is a perfect example; he was chosen before he was born and contrary to the will of his father Isaac (Gen 27). Nor does it depend on human effort. "Effort" is literally "the running one" or "the one who runs." This refers to "moral attainment" (Piper, Justification , 153), or vigorous, purposeful striving as in the running of a race. Paul uses this metaphor often, sometimes for the work of his apostolic ministry. These two terms together "sum up the totality of man's capacity," his motivation and his action (Dunn, 2:553; see Phil 2:13). Sometimes this motivation and this action are good, sometimes bad. Either way, as Dunn says, "they are not factors in election, neither in the initial choice nor in its maintenance" (2:553). This applies, of course, to election to service in general, and specifically to God's purpose for Israel. As Dunn says, "God's purpose is not conditioned on Israel's good will and effort" (2:562).

Such election for service is a matter of "the one who shows mercy, namely, God," as the text literally says. This simply repeats v. 15, where we saw that "showing mercy" refers to the mercy God bestows in choosing someone to serve his covenant purposes.

3. God's Purposes Can Be Served by the Unsaved (9:17-18)

9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Paul takes this quote directly from Exod 9:16. Obviously "the Scripture" did not say this to Pharaoh. God himself, through Moses, spoke these words to him. By thus personifying Scripture and thinking of it as interchangeable with God himself, Paul shows us his very high view of the nature of the Bible. This phenomenon is "a graphic illustration that Paul thinks of scripture as the word of God," says Dunn (2:553). "The Scripture says" is essentially the same as "God says." A similar equation is seen in Gal 3:8.

How are vv. 17-18 related to the preceding verses? This depends on how we understand the word "for" ( gar ) at the beginning of v. 17. Some say that gar ties this verse sequentially to v. 16, making vv. 17-18 an example of the principle in v. 16 (Achtemeier, 162), or "a development of v 16" (Dunn, 2:553). This is possible, but I believe it is more likely that the gar in v. 17 is parallel to the gar in v. 15, each relating equally to v. 14. Thus vv. 15-16 and vv. 17-18 are two distinct points, each confirming that God's treatment of the Jews is not unjust (v. 14) by citing data from the OT. See Lenski, 613; Cranfield, 2:485; Moo, 593-594.

What, then, is the progression of Paul's argument? First, God's treatment of the Jews is not unjust because he has complete sovereignty in the way he chooses those who will serve his purposes. The way he chose Isaac and Jacob demonstrates this by example (vv. 7-13), and this is further confirmed by the citation of the general principle from Exod 33:19b (vv. 14-16). All of this together shows that God is free to choose whomever he pleases for roles of service.

But this by itself does not fully address the issue of the Jews. The question specifically is whether God is unjust because he called the nation of Israel into his service while at the same time condemning many if not most individual Jews to hell. If God is going to use them, is he not thereby obligated to save them? This is the point addressed in vv. 17-18. Here Paul shows from the OT that God's sovereignty in election for service includes the prerogative of choosing and using someone without saving them. His premiere example is Pharaoh. Not only was he chosen ("shown mercy"), but he was also hardened (confirmed in his unbelief).

A very common approach to this text is to take Pharaoh as an example of reprobation (condemnation to hell), in contrast with Moses, who is an example of election to salvation . Verses 15-18 are taken as parallel to the two parts of v. 13. "Jacob I loved" is equivalent to the positive example of Moses in vv. 15-16, while "Esau I hated" corresponds to the negative example of Pharaoh in vv. 17-18 (Moo, 593; Morris, 360). According to Pendleton (MP, 398), Moses and Pharaoh are a pair between whom God chooses, just as he chose between Isaac and Ishmael, and between Jacob and Esau. And in this "third case he granted favor to Moses, and meted out punishment to Pharaoh."

I believe this approach is a very serious error, not only because the context is not dealing with the question of eternal destinies, but also because it is not warranted by what the text specifically says about Pharaoh and the others. For one thing, Moses is not introduced here as the object of election, whether for service or for salvation. He is simply the one to whom God spoke the statement in 9:15 and is not being used as an example of anything. Thus it is not proper to speak of a "contrast between Moses and Pharaoh." For another thing, there is no parallel between Esau and Pharaoh. Esau was not chosen for anything; but Pharaoh was chosen for a significant role, a fact that is crucial for Paul's point. (This is contrary to Dunn's assertion that Pharaoh "filled the same sort of antithetical role" toward Israel that Esau did [2:563].)

God's rejection and punishment of Pharaoh are indeed significant, but not as a parallel with Ishmael and Esau, and not even as a contrast with Isaac, Jacob, or Moses. They are significant only insofar as they make Pharaoh an exact parallel of the nation of Israel itself. God chose both Israel and Pharaoh for a role of service, and he used both of them not only despite their hardness of heart, but even because of it. Pharaoh is not an example of God's freedom to reject whom he will, contrary to Godet (352-353). Rather, he is an example of God's freedom to elect some for service while at the same time withholding salvation from them. Thus Pharaoh is a special kind of example of "God's freedom and sovereignty in the choice of instruments to achieve his end" (Fitzmyer, 568). The pagan King Cyrus is another such example (Isa 44:28-45:7).

In Exod 9:16 the LXX translates the Hebrew word for "raised up" with diathrevw (diatçreô ), "to keep, to preserve." Thus some, following the LXX, interpret God to be saying in Exod 9:16 that he has preserved Pharaoh alive or spared his life, in contrast with Exod 9:15. The NASB translates v. 16, "But, indeed, for this cause I have allowed you to remain." Hendriksen (2:325) says it means "spared you" both in Exodus and here in 9:17. The majority of interpreters, however, rightly take the Hebrew verb (literally, "I have caused you to stand") in a more general sense, as referring to God's causing Pharaoh to appear on the stage of history at this particular time for this particular purpose. See Cranfield, 2:486; Godet, 353; Moo, 595; Morris, 360; Murray, 2:27.

Thus in the affirmation "I raised you up," God is saying that he exercised his sovereign prerogative to choose Pharaoh for a very specific role in his redemptive plan. "For this very purpose" stresses the fact that Pharaoh was being used by God, even when it seemed that he was most emphatically opposing God. He was carrying out the divine purpose in and through his hardened heart.

God's purpose for Pharaoh was twofold: to be an instrument for displaying God's power and for proclaiming God's name in all the earth. The power to which God refers is not the power to save individuals from their sins (1:16), but the power to overthrow opposing earthly rulers and their so-called deities, and thereby the power to deliver his people from Egyptian slavery and oppression. How did God display this power "in" or "through" Pharaoh? By hardening his heart so that he continued to refuse to let the people go, thereby giving God the opportunity to add plague upon plague all the way to the climactic death of the Egyptian firstborn. What God needed from Pharaoh was not his immediate acquiescence but his continuing resistance. This he achieved by his providential power to harden the Egyptian's heart (GRu, 203), thus providing the occasion for the public and overwhelming display of his might.

The second part of God's purpose for Pharaoh (a direct consequence of the first) was the proclamation of the name of the true God in all the inhabited earth. "My name" does not have to refer to any one particular name, such as Exod 3:14, or Exod 33:19 or 34:6-7. The point is simply that God intended his utter defeat of Pharaoh's gods (via the plagues) and Pharaoh's forces (in the Red Sea) to be trumpeted abroad, so that everyone would know that Israel's God was the one true God, and that all other so-called "gods" are nothings.

In fact, thanks to the way God used Pharaoh through the whole episode of the Exodus, God's name and power were magnified in all the nations. The Song of Moses included these words: "The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia. The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away" (Exod 15:14-15; see vv. 16-17). See Joshua 2:9-11; 9:9; 11:1-4 for the fulfillment of these words.

The display of power in Egypt was a continuing testimony to God's omnipotence for the Israelites themselves (Deut 6:22; 7:18-19; 11:1-4), and it continued to be celebrated throughout their history (Ps 78:12-13; 105:26-38; 106:9-11; 135:9; 136:10-15; Acts 7:36).

The main point is that God is free to use as his instruments even hardened unbelievers; this is not contrary to his justice (v. 14). That God was justified in using Pharaoh thus was something any Jew would have granted. Paul simply wanted the Jews to see that the same principle applied to them as a nation. They could serve God's purposes, whether as individuals they were believers or not.

9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. "Therefore" indicates this is the logical conclusion or summarized result, not just from vv. 15-17, but from the whole discussion in vv. 6-17.

Two errors must be avoided from the outset. One error is the common assumption that this statement applies to eternal destinies, and that it therefore confirms the Calvinist concept of unconditional election (see, e.g., Moo, 596-599). But as we have stressed repeatedly, the subject of this section is not eternal salvation but election to service. That is true of this verse also. Cranfield (2:489) is correct: "The assumption that Paul is here thinking of the ultimate destiny of the individual, of his final salvation or final ruin, is not justified by the text."

The other error is the assumption that the objects of the two verbs, "have mercy on" and "harden," are exclusive and cannot refer to the same individual or group. This error naturally follows from the first, and is accepted without question by those who think the subject is eternal destinies.

Once these two errors are accepted, it is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion of double predestination. The parallelism between the two sides of Paul's statement would seem to make the condemnation as unconditional as the salvation. Yet sometimes even the most ardent Calvinists interject qualifications. Moo, for example, while acknowledging the "strict parallelism" here (597), nevertheless declares that the showing of mercy and the hardening "are not equivalent acts" (599-600). Likewise Murray, who says the divine sovereignty is "as ultimate in the negative as in the positive" (2:27), softens the negative by saying that the hardening was "judicial," or "presupposes ill-desert" (2:29). However, such qualifications are inconsistent with the parallelism of this verse and with the references to the irrelevance of works in other verses (9:11-12,16). They are introduced in order to avoid the harsh conclusion that unconditional reprobation is equally ultimate with unconditional salvation.

Both of the errors mentioned above, along with their necessary implication of double predestination, are easily avoided by understanding that the sovereign choices to which Paul refers in 9:18 are for historical roles of service, not eternal destinies. As Achtemeier says, "Paul is dealing in this passage with the place of Israel in God's plan of salvation. He is not dealing with the fate of individuals" (162-163).

The divine sovereignty in this matter is the main emphasis: "on whom he wants." This verb is qevlw (thelô ), "to wish, to will." God's choice of the one to receive mercy and the one to harden is purely a matter of his own will. He does not have to justify his choices; his sovereignty is grounded in the very fact that he is, after all, God . Just because he is God, he "is free to choose whom he will for what he will" (MP, 400).

The common approach to this verse, whether seen as dealing with salvation or service, is that 18a refers to Moses and 18b to Pharaoh. Murray's statement is typical: "As Moses, in this context, exemplifies mercy, so Pharaoh hardening" (2:28). The verse means that "Moses was redeemed and Pharaoh was not," says MacArthur (2:35). Cranfield generalizes the disjunction as it refers to service: God gives some a positive role in which they serve consciously and voluntarily; he gives others a negative role in which they serve unconsciously and involuntarily (2:488).

In my judgment, though, this is not the point of v. 18. The mercy and the hardening are not exclusive, but may be bestowed upon the same person (or group). We have already seen that "having mercy" in this context refers not to saving mercy but to the favor of being chosen by God to play some role in the working out of his redemptive purposes (see v. 15). Whether one is conscious of being chosen and used is irrelevant; even whether one is saved or not is irrelevant (see Isa 45:4-5, concerning Cyrus). "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy" refers thus to God's sovereign choosing of whomever he pleases to serve his purposes. It is an all-inclusive statement, embracing all who are selected for whatever roles they will play in his plan - even Pharaoh.

The second half of v. 18 thus does not refer to individuals or a group of individuals that are separate and distinct from those in 18a. It refers rather to certain individuals within the first, inclusive category. God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, i.e., he calls into his service whom he wants to call into his service; but some of these can serve his purposes only by being hardened. Thus it was with Pharaoh. God bestowed favor upon him by selecting him for a key role, but he could fill that role only by being hardened.

Only when we understand v. 18 thus can we see how this discussion really speaks to the issue raised in 9:1-5: how can God use Israel for his covenant purposes and at the same time condemn them? Is he being untrue to his word? No, because his original covenant with the nation did not guarantee salvation for individual Jews; and there is no inherent connection between service and salvation, as the example of Pharaoh shows. Thus the obvious and intended application of this whole section, 9:14-18, is to the nation of Israel. God bestowed a temporal mercy upon them when he chose to use them in his redemptive plan, but he also hardened at least some of them (11:7,25) in reference to the role he wanted them to play. There is no inconsistency or contradiction here, either with Pharaoh or with Israel.

What is the nature of the hardening of which Paul speaks? This is obviously a reference to the OT teaching about Pharaoh, and to the fact that God used him in his service specifically by hardening his heart. The Greek word is sklhruvnw (sklçrynô ), which means "to make firm, to harden." It can refer to something physical but is more often used figuratively for a hardened attitude or state of mind. In Scripture it usually refers to a hardened attitude toward God, an attitude of resistance and rebellion toward God's will. Also, in Scripture it is something that a person does to himself; hence the warnings in Hebrews to "not harden your hearts" (Heb 3:8,15; 4:7, quoting Ps 95:8). In the OT the Israelites are often accused of being stiff-necked, i.e., hardened in their hearts; and they are considered responsible for being in this state. See Deut 10:16; 2 Kgs 17:14; Neh 9:16-17,29; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15.

The Exodus narrative refers to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in various ways: (a) his heart "became hard" or "was hardened" (7:13,14,22; 8:19; 9:35; 13:15); (b) he hardened his own heart (8:15, 32; 9:34); (c) God promises to harden his heart (4:21; 7:3; 14:4); (d) God did harden his heart (9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:8). God also hardened the hearts of other Egyptian officials and soldiers (9:34; 10:1; 14:17).

Much is made of these different ways of speaking. It is assumed from them that the occasions when Pharaoh hardened his own heart are somehow distinct from those occasions when God hardened it. Then it is usually declared that Pharaoh's self-hardening preceded God's action. For example, Lenski says, "Ten times Exodus reports that Pharaoh hardened himself; then, only in consequence of this self-hardening, we read ten times that God hardened this self-hardened man" (617). Morris says that nowhere in Scripture "is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself" (361). "Harden your heart against God, and He will harden your heart," says Smith (2:19).

I believe this analysis is unnecessary and misleading. Throughout the series of encounters between Moses and Pharaoh, from beginning to end, God was working providentially to harden Pharaoh's heart. On every occasion where his heart was hardened, the hardening was accomplished by both God and Pharaoh. On each occasion it was Pharaoh who made the conscious and deliberate decision to not let the people go. But prior to this moment I suggest that God was working within Pharaoh's mental processes, causing such thoughts to enter his consciousness that he could not bear to grant or follow through with permission to let the people go. The following observation by Sherlock is relevant:

Let a man be never so much bent upon any project, yet hope or fear, some present great advantage or great inconvenience, the powerful intercession of friends, a sudden change of circumstances, the improbability of success, the irreparable mischief of a defeat, and a thousand other considerations, will divert him from it; and how easy it is for God to imprint such thoughts upon men's minds with an irresistible vigour and brightness, that it shall be no more in their power to do what they had a mind to, than to resist all the charms of riches and honours, than to leap into the fire, and to choose misery and ruin ( Providence , 51).

How did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Perhaps by flooding his mind with the kinds of thoughts to which Sherlock refers, i.e., what a great loss of free labor it will be to lose these Israelites! or what a laughing-stock the king of Egypt will be when other nations hear how a bunch of slaves had their way with him! Such thoughts would have great validity in the mind of Pharaoh, and God could have pressed them upon his consciousness at just the right time, i.e., when he was weakening and about to let the people go (GRu, 203).

While it is true that Pharaoh's heart was already self-hardened toward God in a general way before God hardened his heart, this was not in fact the reason why God worked this specific hardness upon him. Many emphasize such a cause/effect connection, though, because they think God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart had something to do with his salvation . But the two are not causally related. Like any pagan unbeliever, Pharaoh had a heart that was self-hardened toward the true God (1:18-32), and God may already have confirmed him in that unbelief according to the principle implied in 1:24,26,28. But the divine hardening of Pharaoh in 9:18 is of a different kind. It is not about salvation as such; it is about how someone whose heart is already self-hardened by sin can in fact be fitted into God's cast of characters for working out his redemptive plan.

Thus we do not have to think of God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart as some kind of punishment for his sins. Such a view is very common, though. Morris says, "God's hardening follows on what Pharaoh himself did. His hardening always presupposes sin and is always part of the punishment of sin" (361). Murray says divine hardening always "presupposes ill-desert," i.e., a person so hardened deserves it because of his prior sin. "Hardening may never be abstracted from the guilt of which it is the wages" (2:29-30). Godet calls it "retribution" and "punishment" (355). See also Stott, 269; Lenski, 616.

This sort of thinking, however, is a serious misunderstanding of Paul's concept of hardening. It confuses the general self-hardening of rebellious unbelief with God's providential hardening in order to accomplish a specific temporal purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh, both in Exod 4:14 and here in 9:18, is of the latter type, not the former. It in fact had only one specific goal: to cause Pharaoh to oppose God's demand that he set the Israelites free. God expressed his purpose clearly: "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go" (Exod 4:21).

This particular hardening was not a natural consequence of Pharaoh's already rebellious heart, nor an act of divine retribution against him because of this rebellion. It did not cause him to be lost, nor did it somehow intensify his lostness. It simply brought him to a state of mind that resulted in his decision to forbid the Israelites to leave. This occurred over and over, which in turn allowed God to send plague after plague, which in turn accomplished the purposes stated by Paul: "that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (9:17).

What this shows, in reference to Paul's overall point in Rom 9, is that God can call into his service someone who is lost (by his own choice), and can use him in a significant way even if that person's heart must be divinely hardened in some special manner. The ultimate application of this truth is to the nation of Israel. It demonstrates how God could take Israel, a nation comprised mostly of self-hardened sinners, and use them in their lost state to carry out his purposes. Paul's point is not to explain why such people are lost, but simply to affirm that God can use them even though they are lost.

The hardening of Pharaoh in 9:18 must not be equated with the general self-hardening that characterizes the lost state of every sinner. Nor is the hardening of Pharaoh necessarily the same as the hardening of Israel mentioned later (11:7,25), though they are of the same general type (i.e., a providential hardening that helps God carry out his purposes, rather than a hardening that causes them to be lost). That God has hardened Pharaoh, and even Israel, as part of his use of them, does not imply in any way that he has a hand in the hardening of sinners unto condemnation.

C. GOD USED ETHNIC ISRAEL TO PRODUCE

SPIRITUAL ISRAEL (9:19-29)

We must remember that the main point in Rom 9-11 is the issue of God's faithfulness in his dealings with the nation of Israel. Despite their covenant privileges (9:4-5), the nation as a whole stands "cursed and cut off from Christ" (9:3). What does this imply, then, concerning God's commitment to Israel, and concerning his faithfulness to his word? Has he failed to keep his promises (9:6a)?

The reason why first-century Jews saw this as a problem was that they assumed that God's calling them into his covenant service guaranteed their final salvation. Paul is in the process of pointing out that this is a false assumption. Godet declares (373) that the Apostle's main concern in ch. 9 "is to destroy the false conclusion drawn by Israel from their special election, their law, their circumcision, their ceremonial works, their monotheism, their moral superiority. These were in their eyes so many bonds by which God was pledged to them beyond recall." But such was not the point of God's relation to Israel, says Paul.

But is not God the God of salvation ? And is not salvation the inherent and ultimate purpose of the covenant with Israel? So how can God be true to his word and at the same time cut Israel off from this very salvation? The basic answer is that there are two Israels (9:6b). Israel the physical nation was God's main historical instrument or means for making salvation a reality (9:5); the Israel whose origin and essence is spiritual is the actual recipient of the salvation.

Paul develops this thought in two stages. First, in 9:7-18 the subject is physical Israel, Israel the nation. The Apostle sets forth the manner in which God elected this nation, and separated them from all the other nations of the world. By reminding them of the free and sovereign choices used to bring them into existence, he establishes God's sovereign right to choose and use them as he pleases. I.e., their election to covenant service was unconditional. God can use even the unbelieving and the hardened, as the example of Pharaoh shows.

But now in the second stage of this explanation, of which 9:19-29 is a part, the focus of attention is spiritual Israel, the group which is the recipient of God's saving mercy. A major point of this section is the fact that the calling and saving of spiritual Israel was all along a part of the very purpose for the existence of ethnic Israel. In other words, it has always been God's sovereign purpose to distinguish between the two Israels, as the remnant prophecies show (9:27-29). The means by which God distinguishes between them is explained in 9:30-10:21.

In summary, just as 9:7-18 explains how God separated physical Israel from the rest of the world, so does 9:19-10:21 explain how God separates spiritual Israel from physical Israel.

Here is how the present section (9:19-29) unfolds. First, by way of transition, Paul words an objection he anticipates from his Jewish readers (v. 19). His immediate response (vv. 20-21) is to issue a stern generic warning about how presumptuous it is for the creature (the clay) to challenge the ways of the Creator (the potter).

Applying the potter-clay analogy to the particular issue at hand, Paul then begins his specific reply to the objection in v. 19 by succinctly summing up God's purpose and intention for the two Israels (vv. 22-24). Like a potter, God has the right to take one lump of clay (the original nation of Israel) and make two completely different kinds of vases from it. One consists of those individuals who are Israelites by physical birth only. Like Pharaoh, they are unbelievers and will ultimately suffer the wrath of God. This is actually the bulk of Israel. So why does God put up with these "vessels of wrath"? Because only through them can he bring into existence the "vessels of mercy," i.e., spiritual Israel, which is the church - a group composed not only of believing Jews but of believing Gentiles as well.

In these three verses (22-24) is summed up one whole major aspect of the history and purpose of Israel. It is a supplement, as it were, to vv. 4-5.

To show that this is not some new and alien concept that he has hatched out of his own brain, Paul then cites prophecies from Hosea and Isaiah. These biblical texts show that this has been God's intention for Israel - and the Gentiles - all along (vv. 25-29). Dunn (2:575) points out that these verses turn on its head "Israel's belief that others were rejected in order that Israel might be chosen and redeemed." As the quotes from the prophets show, God's ultimate purpose was never physical Israel as such.

This does not end Paul's reply to the objection in v. 19, "Why does God still blame us?" Actually it only prepares the way for the main response to this question, which is given in 9:30-10:21. The curse upon physical Israel (9:3), and upon the individual Jews of which it is composed, is not unconditional , as if God were arbitrarily assigning some to eternal wrath. Nor are the individuals within spiritual Israel unconditionally elected to salvation. As 9:30-10:21 shows, the difference between the two Israels is justification by faith . Physical Israel, the vessels of wrath, are those who seek to be justified by their own righteousness, while spiritual Israel, the vessels of mercy, accept Christ's salvation through faith. This connection between 9:19 and 9:30-10:21 must not be missed.

This point is missed, of course, by those who think ch. 9 is a fundamental proof text for unconditional election. They find this doctrine especially in vv. 19-23, which they see as simply repeating the point of vv. 7-18. For example, speaking of vv. 14-23, Moo declares that "this text . . . gives further support (see Rom. 8:28-30) to the doctrine of unconditional election," and to some extent to the doctrine of reprobation as well (609). As Piper sees it, 9:14-23 deals specifically with unconditional election ( Justification , 184). However, this approach hopelessly confuses two entirely distinct acts of God: one, his dealing with physical Israel in terms of unconditional election to service; and two, his way of distinguishing between physical Israel and spiritual Israel by the condition of faith.

It is important to see that in this present section (9:19-29), unlike in vv. 7-18, eternal destinies are now an important part of the picture, since the distinction between the two Israels has eternal consequences. But we must be careful not to apply the affirmations of God's sovereign, unconditional choice of the nation as such (vv. 7-18) to the respective eternal destinies of the individuals within the two groups.

In this paragraph, for the first time in this major section (chs. 9-11), Paul introduces the issue of the Gentiles. For some, the incorporation of the Gentiles into spiritual Israel is the key point of the paragraph. For example, Achtemeier (165) says, "The passage is therefore about the enlargement of God's mercy to include gentiles, not about the narrow and predetermined fate of each individual. We gentiles can now be part of his gracious purpose, we can be part of his people, chosen by grace through Christ Jesus. That is the point of this passage." Morris (363) says that this passage shows that God's work of showing mercy and hardening (v. 18) has been done "to extend his mercy to the Gentiles."

It is true that believing Gentiles are here identified as being included within the new Israel. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this is not a major point of the paragraph. The main emphasis here is still God's faithfulness in his dealings with physical Israel. I.e., his use of them has been in every way consistent with his stated purposes.

1. The Objection (9:19)

9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" At this point Paul anticipates an objection and directly addresses a representative of his audience, literally, "You [singular] will say to me therefore, 'Why does he still find fault?'" We immediately ask, find fault with whom? To whom is the objector referring? To Pharaoh? Piper calls the objector Pharaoh's "advocate" ( Justification , 186; see Lenski, 618). But this application seems too narrow. But Pharaoh might be seen as a representative of sinners in general, especially those who are thought to be unconditionally condemned to eternal hell. MacArthur applies it thus: "How can human beings . . . be blamed for their unbelief and sin, when their destiny has already been divinely determined?" (2:36; see Murray, 2:31). But this application is probably more inclusive than the questioner intends.

Who, then, is the objector? He is probably a typical first-century Jew. Forster and Marston say he is "obviously Hebrew" and call him "Paul's Pharisee critic" ( Strategy , 80-81). These questions come from "the prejudiced mind of the Jew," says DeWelt (155). "It is an in-house Jewish argument," says Dunn (2:555). See also Fitzmyer, 568; Moo, 600.

The context supports this conclusion. In v. 20 Paul addresses the objector as "O man," using exactly the same Greek phrase with which he addressed the Jewish objector in 2:1 (see JC, 1:180). Also, the Greek word ou ( oun , "then, therefore") shows that the objection grows out of the preceding discussion, especially what was said in vv. 15-18. But these verses cannot be isolated from the total context, where the issue is the status of the Jewish nation as such. In 9:3 Paul clearly implies that the bulk of his physical brethren were under eternal condemnation, "cursed and cut off from Christ." He recognizes that the intervening references to God's unconditional decisions regarding mercy and hardening may cause some Jews to conclude that this explains why they were lost, even though this is not his point. This in turn generates their objection, which "runs thus: But, Paul, if God shows mercy to whom he will, and if he hardens whom he will, then it is he who has hardened us Jews in unbelief against the gospel. Why, then, does he still find fault with us, since he himself, according to your argument, has excluded us from blessedness, and made us unfit for mercy?" (MP, 402).

The word for "blame" (mevmfomai , memphomai ) includes the idea of "finding fault with" or "holding responsible for." I.e., how can God hold us responsible for our unbelief and therefore condemn us to hell (v. 3), if our hardening and therefore our unbelief are his own doing? Does this not all the more suggest that he is unjust (v. 14)?

In his second question - literally, "For who has resisted his will?" - the objector seeks to justify his first question by appealing to what seems to be an unassailable theological axiom: no one can resist the will of the sovereign God. Has not Paul himself appealed to this very axiom in vv. 15 and 18? The word for "resist" is ajnqivsthmi (anthistçmi ), which in the middle sense means "to resist, to oppose, to withstand, to go against, to set oneself against" (AG, 66). His "will" is bouvlhma (boulçma ), a word which means "counsel, intention, will, purpose."

But is it not possible for a free-will creature to resist or oppose God's will? Is this not the very essence of sin? Yes, if by "will" we mean God's preceptive will, i.e., his laws, his commandments, and even his desires. God's preceptive will can be rejected and thwarted by human beings. (See Matt 7:21; 23:37; Luke 7:30; Rom 2:18; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9.) But if we are talking about God's purposive will, i.e., his deliberate purposes and determinative decisions, then the answer is no, it is not possible for any human being to oppose, violate, or resist his will in this sense (Ps 33:11; Prov 19:21; Isa 14:27; John 6:40; Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph 1:11).

In 9:19 the objector's questions seem to have the latter aspect of God's will in mind, and so the objection does involve a valid theological truth, i.e., no one has ever truly resisted God's purposive will. But if this is the case, then why is God blaming us for our sin and rebellion against him? If "he hardens whom he wants to harden" (9:18), then our sin and rebellion are actually his will, are they not? So why is he punishing us as if we were resisting his will, when in reality we are not - since no one can? (See Cranfield, 2:489; Piper, Justification , 186).

A crucial issue at this point is whether or not the objection is valid in the sense that it correctly and accurately represents the meaning of Paul's teaching in the previous verses. Is this a legitimate conclusion to draw from vv. 15-18? Many say that it is. Piper declares, "I have assumed with most commentators that the objection in Rom 9:19 is based on a sound interpretation of 9:18. That is, Paul agrees with the objector that no one can resist God's will and that nevertheless God still finds fault" ( Justification , 189). Certainly if the objection was based on a misunderstanding, then "Paul would very simply have set the objector straight and removed the bogus stumbling block" (190). But as it is Paul "does not give the slightest trace of disagreement with the objector's interpretation of Rom 9:18" (191). Dunn agrees: "The question is a legitimate one, and Paul's response indicates that he does not dispute its logic: the objector has not misunderstood the thrust of vv. 17-18 . . . , and Paul does not attempt to deny its force" (2:555-556).

I have concluded that this approach is incorrect. As Lard says, "God does not do what is here ascribed to him" (309). I agree with Forster and Marston that "the question of Paul's critic . . . is based on a flagrant misrepresentation of Paul's teaching" ( Strategy , 80).

Wherein lies the error? First, we should emphasize that it does not lie in the objector's second question, "For who has resisted [resists, can resist] his will?" As noted above, there is such a thing as God's purposive will, his eternal purpose which is irresistible and immutable, and which therefore cannot be opposed by mere creatures. This is God's "deliberate purpose" (SH, 259), his "determinate purpose" and "irresistible decree" (Murray, 2:31), his "effectual will" or "will of decree" (Piper, Justification , 192).

Wherein, then, is the error? The objector's misunderstanding was in assuming that this purposive will of God applied to Israel's salvation status (9:3) as well as to the nation's historical role in accomplishing God's redemptive plan. To say it another way, the objector took Paul's statements in vv. 15-18 as explaining why most Israelites were hardened to the point of rejecting their Messiah and thus being cursed. However, as we have seen, this is not Paul's point. In these verses he is affirming God's right to sovereignly choose and use anyone, even sinners, to serve his covenant purposes, and even to harden them with regard to certain decisions if this is necessary.

Calvinist interpreters and theologians commit the same sort of error. While correctly distinguishing between God's preceptive and purposive wills, they err in assuming that the latter is all-inclusive . I.e., they conclude that everything that ever happens, period , has been decreed to happen by God's purposive (secret, determinative, decretive, efficacious) will. This especially includes every individual's choice to believe or not to believe in God's saving promises. See my explanation and critique of this in GRu, 169-173, 301-310, especially the section on Eph 1:11 (306-309). This concept of an eternal, comprehensive, efficacious, unconditional, irresistible decree is simply not a biblical teaching; it finds no support in Rom 9.

One reason why interpreters assume that the objector must have understood Paul correctly is that they conclude that the Apostle does not try to refute the objection; he simply rebukes the objector for his presumptuous attitude. But this is simply not true, as I have explained in the introduction to this section. Paul does rebuke the questioner (20-21), and he does reaffirm and explain God's inviolable purposive will for Israel the nation (22-29). But then (9:30-10:21) he sets forth a lengthy reply to the objector's first question, "Then why does God still blame us?" The reply, in effect, is simply this: "Because you refused to believe in your own Messiah." The attempt to excuse such unbelief by illegitimately applying God's purposive will to this circumstance is thereby repudiated.

2. Paul's Initial Rebuke of the Objector's Attitude (9:20-21)

These two verses are not a specific response to the objection worded in v. 19, nor are they meant to preclude such a response. They are only a preface to the more detailed response which follows. As a rebuke, they are directed more toward the tone of the objection than its content. The rebuke is actually generic and may be applied to many a presumptuous and misguided complaint against God's purposes and providence.

9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? In the NIV, "but" translates a much stronger Greek expression better rendered "on the contrary," as in the NASB. This indicates that Paul is about to correct the erroneous thinking by which the objector seeks to justify himself: "Hey, it's not my fault! God made me do it. So why should I be blamed?" "On the contrary," says Paul; "you have missed the whole point. Let me explain it to you."

In view of this expression - "on the contrary" - it is strange that Dunn should say that Paul does not dispute the objector's logic (2:555), and that Piper should say that Paul "does not give the slightest trace of disagreement with the objector's interpretation of Rom 9:18" ( Justification , 191). If 9:19 embodied a misunderstanding, says Piper, then "Paul would very simply have set the objector straight" (190). Well, the fact is that this is exactly what Paul is doing in the rest of ch. 9 and in all of ch. 10!

The first part of Paul's correction (vv. 20-21) is directed toward the objector's presumptuous attitude; the Apostle rebukes him for arguing with God. We must realize that the objector is not portrayed as simply raising a sincere question concerning God's ways as does Habakkuk (1:1-4,12-13), and as 9:14 seems to do. Rather, the man is described as arrogantly taking a debater's stance against God; he is "talking back" to God, says Paul. The word for "talk back" has strongly negative connotations, including "to make unjustified accusations," "to dispute" (Büchsel, "krivnw ," 945). It has a "nuance of contention," as Moo says (602). Compare 3:1-8.

The objector is addressed as "O man." This seems to be a way of emphasizing his mere creaturehood, in contrast with the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator. "Who are you, a mere human being , a 'feeble morsel of sinful dust' (MP, 403), to argue against God ?" "By thus setting man over against God, Paul is certainly putting man in his place" (Cranfield, 2:490).

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" The NIV puts this question in quotation marks because it represents the thought of Isa 29:16 and Isa 45:9, where the clay and the vessel made from it are likewise depicted as sitting in judgment on the potter. As Paul uses the metaphor in v. 20b, the complaint comes not from the clay as such but from the piece of pottery formed from it. The scene is almost comical: a finished pot is lifted from the potter's wheel and, personified, looks upon itself with disappointment. It then glares accusingly at the potter and reprimands him thus: "Why did you make me to look like this? I'm a mess! Is this the best you could do? Haven't you made some sort of mistake?"

The potter-clay analogy can be used to teach many lessons (see Job 10:8-9; Isa 64:8; Jer 18:1-12), and we are rightly warned to stick to the point Paul is making here and not to try to apply all the details indiscriminately (Cranfield, 2:491). What is Paul's point? Just this: in a potter-clay relationship it is obviously the potter who decides how the clay will be used. Once his decision is made and the vessel has been formed, it is the height of absurdity and arrogance for the vessel to criticize the potter.

Why does Paul use this metaphor here? To what or whom does it specifically apply? Not to the original creation event (contra Achtemeier, 161; Dunn, 2:564-565); not just to individuals such as Pharaoh; and especially not to "the destinies of individual men" (contra Piper, Justification , 193). Its specific application is to the nation of Israel. This is how the analogy is used in Jeremiah: "Then the word of the LORD came to me: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?' declares the Lord. 'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel'" (Jer 18:5-6). Even the thought in Isa 29:16 and 45:9-10 is "that God formed Israel into a nation," says Morris (365).

Thus Paul is rebuking the objector of v. 19 not in the latter's role as a creature nor as a condemned sinner as such, but in his role as a representative of Israel who is complaining that God's treatment of the nation is basically unfair. To such an objection Paul simply says, "Whoa! Let's not forget who we are, shall we? Remember: God is the potter; you (Israel) are just clay in his hands. Who do you think you are, to challenge the one who formed you in the first place?"

9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? While Paul's reference to the potter and the clay in v. 20 was somewhat general, here he gets more specific. He refers to the potter's right and authority to do with the clay (Israel) whatever he chooses, particularly to his right to make from the same lump the two Israels of 9:6b.

This verse begins with the word "or" (h[ [ç ], untranslated in the NIV). Here it has the force of "to put it another way." Whereas the question in v. 20b has the Greek particle that shows a negative answer is expected ("Shall what is formed say . . . ? Of course not!"), v. 21 has the particle indicating that the answer is "Yes!" Thus it is the same as an affirmation.

The basic affirmation is the potter's authority over the clay. He, not the clay, has the right to decide how the latter will be used. And since this is where the authority lies, the clay itself has no basis for uttering a complaint such as "Why did you make me like this?" (v. 20b). And if a mere potter has this right, how much more does the sovereign God!

It is obvious that the potter here represents God, but to whom does the "same lump" refer? A common assumption is that it refers to the human race in general (Lard, 310; MP, 404), the "mass of humanity" (Moo, 603), "the same mass of human beings" (Hendriksen, 2:327), the "same human clay" (Lenski, 621; Dunn, 2:565). Understood thus, this verse is often taken as confirming the Calvinist concept of predestination, especially the twofold predestination of some sinners to heaven (election) and others to hell (reprobation). As Lenski says (620), "Calvinism assumes that the whole story as to why some are saved and others are lost is figuratively described in this verse." An example is this statement by Hendriksen (2:327):

The main idea Paul is putting across is this: If even a potter has the right out of the same lump or mass of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor, then certainly God, our Maker, has the right, out of the same mass of human beings who by their own guilt have plunged themselves into the pit of misery, to elect some to everlasting life, and to allow others to remain in the abyss of wretchedness.

Thus this "same lump" would refer not to the dust from which God made the two kinds of human beings, but to the mass of "fallen humanity" (Stott, 271), some of whom God chooses to save and others he chooses to condemn.

In my judgment this approach is a serious error. In keeping with the overall context, the "same lump" here refers not to the mass of human individuals as such but to the totality of Israel, from which God makes the two derivative groups, physical Israel and spiritual Israel. As Smith rightly says (2:20), "Israel as a nation, is in the hand of God as a potter holds clay." Smith reminds us of Jer 18:1-12, where the clay in the potter's hand is the people of Israel.

From the same lump of clay, says Paul, the potter has the right to make pieces of pottery that are very different in their nature and disposition. On the one hand he can make from it a vessel eij" timhvn (eis timçn ), "unto honor"; on the other hand he can make from it a vessel eij" ajtimivan ( eis atimian ), "unto dishonor."

This statement raises some key issues. First, how are these terms - honor and dishonor - related to each other? One approach is to take them in a comparative sense: one vessel is given more honor, the other less honor. This is the point of the NIV: some "for noble purposes and some for common use." It is the difference between exalted use and menial use, says Fitzmyer (569). As Lenski says (620), one vessel might be a beautiful ornamental vase, and the other "a slop jar" (a chamber pot). Both are useful, but for very different purposes (see 2 Tim 2:20).

The other approach is to take the terms timç and atimia in their more natural sense as opposites rather than as comparatives. Though the latter sense for these terms is possible (as in 2 Tim 2:20), such a relationship would more naturally be expressed with the comparative adjectival form, as in 1 Cor 12:23 (ajtimovtera , atimotera , "less honorable"). Also, if the vessels unto honor and unto dishonor in v. 21 are equivalent to the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath in vv. 22-23, then they must be taken in an opposite and not just a comparative sense. This is also more in keeping with the actual meaning of the words. Timç means "honor, value, respect, worthiness"; atimia means "dishonor, contempt, shame, disgrace" (On the latter see Hübner, "a[timo" ," 177.)

In my opinion the terms should be regarded as opposites, and the NIV is thus misleading.

This leads to the second and more overriding issue, namely, do these terms refer to God's creation of all individuals for the specific purpose of saving some ("for noble purposes") and sending the rest to hell ("for common use")? Or do they refer to God's preparation of some individuals and even some nations for specific uses in the accomplishment of his historical plan of salvation? Those taking the former view naturally see the terms timç and atimia as opposites; advocates of the latter view see them as comparative.

Calvinists argue for the former view. The terms refer to "the eternal destinies of individuals," says Moo. "Honor" means the eternal glory of the saved; "dishonor" means the eternal wrath suffered by the lost (603). God deliberately designs and forms individuals for these purposes. The evidence shows that v. 21 is "a reference to the predestining of individuals to their respective eternal destinies," says Piper ( Justification , 202; see 200-204). The emphasis of the verse is upon God's sovereign right (as a potter) to do this.

Others, especially non-Calvinists, argue for the latter view, i.e., that God like a potter has prepared various vessels to be used in comparatively more honorable and less honorable ways for his covenant purposes. The emphasis is on God's sovereign right to form and use individuals and nations - particularly the latter - in this way. According to Dunn, "the more natural sense of the metaphor is of vessels put to differing uses within history" (2:557). "The vessels are nations" (MP, 404).

Those who take this latter view especially insist that eternal destinies are not in view, and that "dishonor" does not mean destruction or damnation (Fitzmyer, 569; Lard, 310; DeWelt, 156). Vessels "unto dishonor" are simply those chosen or appointed by God to carry out certain lesser tasks involved in salvation history. Just as a potter "never makes pots simply in order to destroy them" says Morris, so also "it would not be right for God to create sinners simply in order to punish them." But with regard to "the working out of the divine purpose," God certainly has the right to make certain vessels, such as Pharaoh and unbelieving Jews, for menial or "dishonorable" uses (366).

Cranfield agrees that the proper conclusion to be drawn from this verse is that God is free "to appoint men to various functions in the on-going course of salvation-history for the sake of the fulfilment of His over-all purpose" (2:492). See Moo, 602-603.

I cannot accept either of these two views. I do agree that the main reference here is to the nation of Israel, and not to the human race as such. But at the same time I believe Paul is referring not to how God used this nation in his historical plan, but to the eternal destinies of individuals within it.

It is unlikely that the point here is simply God's right to prepare and use individuals and nations - especially Israel - for his covenant purposes, because Paul has already made this point in vv. 7-18. An even more convincing reason, though, is the use of the word atimia , or "dishonor." The source and nature of the objection worded in v. 19 indicates that Paul is addressing here in vv. 20-21 the status of unbelieving Jews; thus the terms "honor" and "dishonor" must apply in some way to this group. Most who take the latter view outlined above would see unfaithful Israel as an example of a "vessel of dishonor" (e.g., Morris, 366).

My contention, though, is this: if this verse applies only to the way God uses nations, especially Israel, for his historical redemptive plan, there is no way that the role of Israel - believing or unbelieving - can be described as dishonorable or even menial. The term atimia , however interpreted, simply does not fit the use God made of the nation of Israel. Theirs was indeed the most exalted and honorable role imaginable, apart from that of the Messiah himself (9:4-5). Thus this interpretation of v. 21 cannot stand.

What, then, is the alternative? I believe Calvinists are right to see "honor" and "dishonor" as referring to eternal destinies, heaven and hell. But I believe they are wrong on two counts. First, they are wrong to assume that the "clay" refers to the human race in general. The clay is not the mass of humanity, but the nation of Israel only. Second, Calvinists are wrong to think that God made two separate vessels from this clay for the express purpose of sending one to heaven and the other to hell. "Unto honor" and "unto dishonor" do indeed refer to the eternal destinies of individuals within Israel, but these respective destinies are not determined by God himself. The next main section, 9:30-10:21, shows that individuals determine their own eternal destinies according to whether or not they put their trust in God's saving promises.

This distinction applies even to the people of Israel. God used the nation in its totality to accomplish his exalted redemptive purposes, and this honor belongs to believing and unbelieving Jews alike. But with regard to eternal destinies, God has exercised his sovereign right, like a potter, to make an internal separation among the individuals of whom this nation is composed. He makes from the one lump a vessel of honor, spiritual Israel , whose distinguishing characteristic is faith in God's gracious promises. Also from this same lump he makes a vessel of dishonor, the majority of the original nation, whose distinguishing characteristic is that, even though they are Jews physically, they have never given their hearts to God. As Forster and Marston say, "God obviously has the right to make from the nation of Israel two vessels rather than one, just as a potter can divide one lump and make two pots. This is, in fact, what God has done. The unrepentant portion of Israel has become a vessel unto dishonor , and the faithful part a vessel unto honor" ( Strategy , 82).

A key point here is that this distinction between the vessel of honor and the vessel of dishonor, though decreed by God, is ultimately the responsibility of the individuals placed within each group. As Forster and Marston say, "The basic lump that forms a nation will either be built up or broken down by the Lord, depending on their own moral response" (ibid.). This view is supported by Jer 18:1-12, where God compares his relationship with Israel as that of potter to clay. "'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel'" (18:6b). But God makes it clear that this potter-clay relationship does not mean that he arbitrarily determines the destiny of the nation. He declares that he tailors his final decision regarding any nation or kingdom to the way it responds to his warnings (18:7-12; see Smith, 2:20). In his role as a potter, God's method of dealing with nations must surely also apply to his dealing with individuals.

We should remember that the main point of vv. 20-21 is to rebuke the objector in v. 19 for his presumptuousness in talking back to God. The metaphor of the potter and his clay is a generic warning applicable to anyone who presumes to do the same in any sort of circumstance. We know that Paul intends that it be applied to Israel in the way explained above because of the way he himself continues the metaphor in vv. 22-24.

3. Beyond Ethnic Israel to Spiritual Israel (9:22-24)

In these next three verses Paul begins his specific response to the objection in v. 19. Basically he grants the objector's second point, that no one truly resists God's purposive will. This is surely true regarding Israel. Undeterred by massive unbelief, yea, even enduring it, God used this nation to accomplish his intended purpose for them.

That purpose first and foremost was to bring the Messiah himself into the world (9:5). But that is not the whole story. In these three verses Paul reveals another purpose for which God was using the nation of Israel: through them he brought into existence the other Israel, the true Israel, spiritual Israel, the remnant (9:6b). And here he mentions for the first time in this chapter the fact that believing Gentiles are also included within this spiritual Israel, the entity for which it was the glorious purpose of physical Israel to prepare.

In its fulness, then, spiritual Israel is no less than the church of Jesus Christ, which is composed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, i.e., of anyone who accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord. It was God's purposive will to use ethnic Israel as an instrument for bringing forth the church. In this respect the objector is correct: no one could have resisted God's purpose to do this.

But the objector erred in thinking that this same principle ("Who resists his will?") was the explanation for Israel's state of accursedness (9:3). As Paul will explain in the next section (9:30- 10:21), the reason for their condemnation was their resistance to God's preceptive will, i.e., that believing submission to Jesus Christ is a requirement for salvation.

The tragic irony of this, of course, is that most Israelites were lost because they refused to become a part of the very group whose origin was a major reason for their own existence.

As the following discussion will show, the Calvinist attempt to use these verses in their effort to find unconditional election in Rom 9 is futile. These verses are not, contrary to Piper, "Paul's final insight into the whys and wherefores of unconditional election" ( Justification , 187).

This section is difficult to understand and translate because, even though the syntax is quite extended and complicated, it does not form a complete sentence. Verse 22 begins with the word "if," seemingly introducing a protasis, or first part of a conditional sentence. The problem is that the expected second part of such a sentence, the "then" part (apodosis), never appears. This sort of construction does occur occasionally in classical Greek and in a few other places in the NT, and it requires that the overall sense of the sentence be discerned from the context. (See Cranfield, 2:492-493.)

There is a fairly general agreement that the NIV captures the intended sense very well: "What if . . . ?" (See KJV; NASB; NRSV; Dunn, 2:558, 566; Moo, 604; Morris, 367.) The main clause following the "what if" is "God . . . endured" (v. 22; NIV, "bore"), which is then followed by a purpose clause, "in order that" ( v. 23; NIV, "to"). I.e., Paul asks, "What if God endured this, in order that he might accomplish that?" Specifically, "What if God endured the vessels of wrath, in order that he might bring forth vessels of mercy?"

In any case the "if" does not mean that Paul is expressing an uncertain hypothesis here; he is stating a fact (Cranfield, 2:493). How does this relate to the objection in v. 19? The thought seems to be this: "What if it is so, in accordance with his role as a potter, that God sovereignly forms the nation of Israel and bears with their unfaithfulness in order to accomplish his purpose for them? So what if it is true, as you say, that no one can resist his will in this matter? Does this explain and excuse your sin? Does this shift responsibility for your condemnation to God? No!"

9:22-23 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory . . . ?

Verse 22 begins with a particle, dev ( de ), which the NIV does not translate. Here it introduces not a contrast but rather a more specific explanation and application of the potter-clay illustration (Moo, 604). It can be rendered "Now," in the sense of "Now, what does this mean?"

These verses form a single unit of thought, a thought which can be discerned only by working through a series of very difficult exegetical questions: Who are the "objects of his wrath"? In what sense are they "prepared for destruction"? In what sense does God choose to show his wrath? The word for "choosing" is a participle; what is its sense? What are the nature and purpose of God's patience? Who are the "objects of his mercy"? How are they "prepared in advance for glory"?

The Calvinist View

As is the case with most of chapter 9, there is a way of interpreting these verses and answering these questions that can only be called the Calvinist view. Unfortunately this Calvinist approach, though widely represented in the commentaries, is at odds with Paul's meaning at every step of the way. I will show this by first setting forth the Calvinist view in some detail, and then by explaining what I believe is the correct understanding of these verses. The exegetical issues will be discussed in detail in the latter part of this process.

The Calvinist interpretation is as follows. As to the scope of Paul's remarks, it is assumed that he is dealing here with the human race in general. The "objects of wrath" are the reprobate, the total number of lost human beings (Calvin, 367; Hendriksen, 2:328), the "world of sinners" (MacArthur, 2:40). Pharaoh may be particularly in mind, "yet he serves as the type of all other vessels of wrath" (Piper, Justification , 187).

The reprobate are lost because they were from the beginning "prepared for destruction" by God himself; they were "made and formed for this end" (Calvin, 368). "Before they are born they are destined to their lot" (Calvin, 370), and so destined by "the divine agency" (Piper, Justification , 213). Moo agrees: "Paul considers the 'vessels on whom God's wrath rests' as prepared by God himself for eternal condemnation"; those who reject God's mercy "do so ultimately because God himself hardens them" (607-608).

God determines to create a certain amount of human beings as objects of wrath simply as a decision of his secret, purposive will (which is the implication of the word "choosing" in the NIV). Calvinists usually speak of two types or levels of God's will: his revealed, expressed will and his secret, ultimate will. Things do not always happen according to the former, but the latter is all-inclusive and all-determinative (see GRu, 301-310). That some are "prepared for destruction" is simply the result of "the secret and inexplorable counsel of God" (Calvin, 369).

This determinative counsel by which God fixes "the perdition of the reprobate" is "secret" and "incomprehensible," says Calvin (367). God is simply "silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction"; "the reason is hid" in his secret counsel (368-369). But it seems that it is not hidden very well, because Calvin and others believe that in v. 22 Paul is telling us the reason why God prepares some for destruction, i.e., "to show his wrath and make his power known." Because he wants to display his wrath and power in punishing the wicked, God assigns some to eternal condemnation in hell. These unfortunate ones are "vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God's vengeance and displeasure" (Calvin, 368; see Murray, 2:33; Cranfield, 2:494). This is why God "determined to allow sin," says MacArthur, "because it gave Him the opportunity to display His wrath" (2:39).

Even God's patience , i.e., his delay in exercising his wrath, is designed to make the ultimate expression of that wrath all the more powerful and glorious. Calvin says that "the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples" (368). That is, the very reason for this "patience" is to magnify his wrath. Moo favors this interpretation: "In the case both of Pharaoh and of the vessels of wrath, God withholds his final judgment so that he can more spectacularly display his glory" (605). As Stott says, "His forebearance in delaying the hour of judgment" is designed to "make the ultimate outpouring of his wrath the more dreadful" (272). In Piper's words, "God sustains and tolerates vessels of wrath" so that his "sovereign power and terrible wrath can be demonstrated even more vividly" ( Justification , 187).

But this is not the whole story. Verse 23 adds another reason why God "bore with great patience the objects of his wrath." He did it in order "to make the riches of his glory known" to the elect, which are chosen unconditionally for salvation. As Calvin interprets it, this means that God delays punishing the reprobate, thus increasing their punishment, because the greater the punishment poured out upon the reprobate, the greater will appear the mercy bestowed upon the elect. God wants his wrath to appear dreadful so "that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth" (368). "The glory of God" is manifest "in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known" (369). "The infinite mercy of God toward the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not his wrath" (369). See Hendriksen, 2:329; and Piper, Justification , 188-189, for variations of this view.

Seeing Paul Through Non-Calvinist Eyes

Since Calvinists tend to see this entire chapter in terms of the unconditional predestination of individuals to their eternal destinies, it is not unexpected that they interpret these two verses as outlined above. But as we have seen, unconditional individual election and reprobation are not the point of this chapter. It deals rather with God's faithfulness in all his dealings with the nation of Israel. That is the subject of these two verses as well.

One point that Paul has stressed throughout this chapter is that God has the sovereign right to choose and use both individuals and nations in whatever ways he pleases for the accomplishment of his covenant purposes. No one "resists his will" in such matters (v. 19). These verses are simply reaffirming God's right, like a potter, to manipulate his clay in any way he chooses.

The "objects of his wrath" in v. 22 are not the total mass of lost human beings, but rather the nation of Israel, specifically the ethnic Jews who rejected God's promises of grace and were thus accursed (9:3). (The word translated "objects" is actually the word "vessels," as in v. 21, where the NIV translates it "pottery".) I.e., these unbelieving Israelites, viewed collectively as a nation, in spite of their indispensable role in God's plan, are nevertheless indeed the objects of his wrath (see Godet, 360). While allowing that pagans such as Pharaoh may be included, Dunn declares "that the 'objects of wrath' are the covenant people themselves, or more precisely, the bulk of the covenant people who have rejected the continuity/fulfillment of the covenant in the gospel" (2:567).

What is the "destruction" for which Israel has been prepared? It is possible that Paul is thinking about some sort of temporal destruction, such as the termination of Israel's special role in the plan of God as signified by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Godet, 360). This may be the case, but it is also likely that Paul is referring to the final, eternal destruction of sinners in hell, since its counterpart of "glory" in v. 23 also likely includes eternal life (see Dunn, 2:560; Moo, 607, n. 96; Godet, 362, 372; MP, 406). "Clearly it stands for the ultimate loss," says Morris (368).

Who, then, is the agent by which these vessels of wrath, these unbelieving Jews, are "prepared" for such destruction, whether temporal or eternal? The difference between the term used here in v. 22 and the comparable term in v. 23 ("he prepared in advance") makes it very likely (contrary to Calvinism) that they prepared themselves for such destruction (Godet, 361; MP, 406). The verb in v. 23 is active and has the prefix pro -, and clearly means that God himself prepared in advance the vessels of mercy for glory. But in v. 22 the verb seems to be deliberately different. It is either passive voice: "they were prepared," or (more likely) middle voice: "they prepared themselves" (AG, 419). I.e., they are responsible for their own destruction; by their sin and unbelief and refusal to repent, they sealed their own doom. Even if the agent of preparation were God himself, the lack of the prefix pro - ("in advance, beforehand"), unlike the verb in v. 23, would suggest that God prepared them for destruction only after they manifested their adamant unbelief. The more likely meaning, though, is that they prepared themselves.

The "objects [vessels] of his wrath," then, are ethnic Israel, viewed in terms of its unbelief. Like a potter God made the nation as such for his glorious purposes, which they did indeed fulfill. But in reference to their individual eternal destiny, the Jews' personal unbelief makes them the objects of divine wrath. Thus they ultimately become vessels of dishonor and shame (v. 21).

Exactly what is Paul saying about these vessels of wrath prepared for ultimate destruction? He says that God "bore" or "endured" them "with great patience." This refers to God's relationship with his chosen people throughout OT history, especially to the fact that he refrained from completely destroying them despite their blatant and repeated idolatry. As Dunn says (2:558), "God's patience with his chosen people was one of Israel's most common refrains." See Exod 34:6; Num 14:18-20; 2 Kgs 13:23; Neh 9:16-19,29-31; Ps 86:15; 102:8.

This next point is crucial to our understanding of this whole section. The question is, what is meant by the expression, "choosing to show his wrath and make his power known"? As we have seen, Calvinists usually take this as referring to God's infallible, purposive will: because God has determined (chosen) to display his wrath and power upon the objects of wrath whom he has prepared for destruction, he patiently withholds this wrath until the time comes when it can be exhibited in its most spectacular intensity. I.e., he exercises patience in the interests of greater wrath. In my judgment this interpetation is atrociously inaccurate and is an insult to the mercy and grace of God. What does the expression mean, then?

First of all, "choosing" is an unacceptable translation for the verb qevlw (thelô ), used here by Paul. Basically it means "to will, to be willing, to want, to desire, to wish." The object of the desire may become a reality (9:18), or it may not (7:15-21; Matt 23:37a). It certainly does not have the inherent connotation of the purposive will of God, contrary to many Calvinists. Also, Lard's "determining" is too strong a meaning (313). At this point Paul is simply saying that God was willing or wanted to show his wrath and power against Israel.

A second point is that the form of thelô is a present participle, indicating that this "wanting" is simultaneous with the action of the main verb, "bore." But the very nature of a participle requires that we determine from the context just how it relates to the main verb. Here it appears that the participle has either a causal or a concessive relationship with "bore." I.e., it means either, (1) " Because he was willing to show his wrath and make his power known, therefore he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath"; or, (2) " Although he wanted to show his wrath and make his power known, nevertheless he bore with great patience the objects of his wrath." For the latter, see the NASB.

In general, Calvinists accept the causal view; see Cranfield, 2:493-494; Murray, 2:34-35; Piper, Justification , 187; Moo, 605 (see also Dunn, 2:558). I.e., because God wants to display his wrath as impressively as possible, he patiently withholds it until he can do this. Likewise in general, non-Calvinists accept the concessive view; see Godet, 359-360; Lard, 312; Fitzmyer, 569 (see also SH, 261). I.e., even though God actually wanted to go ahead and abolish the nation of Israel and send unbelieving Israelites to hell, still he bore with them in order to achieve his ultimate saving purposes.

Is it possible to tell from Scripture itself which of these two views is correct? Yes. The key to the right understanding here is the reference to "patience" ("forebearance, longsuffering"; Greek, makroqumiva [ makrothymia ]). Paul says that God bore (endured, put up with) the vessels of wrath - not with just a little patience, but with great patience. Why? According to the causal interpretation of thelô , accepted by Calvinists, God exercises his patience toward the vessels of wrath for the express purpose of being able to heap even greater wrath upon them. On the contrary, however, I must insist that such a purpose is contrary to the very nature of patience. At the very heart of patience is the desire to decrease or even eliminate wrath, and to increase salvation. The Calvinist (causal) view thus violates the very essence of divine patience. The concessive view does not, as will be explained below.

This theological weakness of the Calvinist view was pointed out long ago by Godet. He says (359), "The connection expressed by because . . . would signify that God's long-suffering had no other end than to bring about an accumulation of wrath; but would such long-suffering deserve the name?" Sanday and Headlam (261) likewise point out that God's "great patience" is simply not consistent with the causal view. (See also Fitzmyer, 569.) Romans 2:4 expressly says that God's kindness and patience are designed to lead to repentance. Second Peter 3:9 says that God is patient because he does not want anyone to perish but for everyone to come to repentance. The Calvinist view of 9:22 makes a travesty of such texts.

Thus the cause of God's great patience cannot be found in v. 22. This verse simply asserts the reality of this patience: even though God many times wanted to pour out his wrath upon idolatrous and unbelieving Israel, and bring upon them the destruction they deserved, he bore with them with great patience. Why he did so is stated only in v. 23.

The terse syntax in vv. 22-23 causes most translators to add a few words at the beginning of v. 23 in order to clarify the connection between the two verses: "And He did so . . ." (NASB); "What if he did this . . ." (NIV); "And what if he has done so . . ." (NRSV). These words are added to show that, while v. 22 states God's action (he "bore with great patience"), v. 23 sets forth the purpose for this action, as indicated by the Greek word i{na ( hina ; "in order that," NASB; "to," NIV).

What is this purpose? "To make the riches of his glory known to the objects [vessels] of his mercy." In continuity with everything we have seen in ch. 9 thus far, we take these vessels of mercy to be the spiritual Israel alluded to in 9:6b; and in view of the reference to the Gentiles in v. 24, we take this specifically to refer to the NT church. For hundreds of years God endured with great patience the unbelieving multitudes of ethnic Israel because it was his purpose to produce through them, in the fullness of time, the true Israel.

It was certainly the case that any of these unbelieving Israelites along the way could have "circumcised their hearts" (Jer 4:4) and turned in pentitent faith toward the gracious God; and many did so. But strictly speaking God did not exercise his great patience toward OT Israel just for the purpose of allowing time for individual Jews to repent. The fact is, according to v. 22, he actually wanted to wipe them all out. What prevented him from doing so, and what caused him to be patient, was his determination to accomplish his final historical purpose for them as a nation: the establishment of the church of Jesus the Messiah.

The vessels of mercy are thus the individuals (Jews and Gentiles, v. 24) who respond in faith to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and receive within themselves the outpouring of God's saving mercy, the double cure of forgiveness through the blood of Christ and regeneration through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Collectively they form the church, which is the new and true Israel, or the Israel which is identified by spiritual rather than physical criteria.

How shall we understand "the riches of his glory" which he makes known to these vessels of mercy? Some take this to mean that God's purpose is to display his own glory by bestowing salvation upon the elect (Murray, 2:35). The NIV might be taken in this sense in that it refers to making the riches of God's glory " known to the objects of his mercy." I believe it is better, though, to interpret "the riches of his glory" to mean the riches of salvation as bestowed " upon vessels of mercy" (NASB, emphasis added). The preposition epi is better translated "upon" than "to." Thus it is God's purpose to manifest the glorious riches of his salvation by lavishly bestowing them upon the new Israel.

Does this "glory" refer to eschatological glorification, the final blessings of heaven itself? It certainly must include this, since "glory" most often has this specific reference (e.g., 2:7,10; 5:2; 8:18,21,30; Col 1:27). But it must not be limited to the glory of the end times; from the very beginning of the Christian life God pours "the riches of his glory" into the vessels of his mercy. This exact phrase is used in Eph 3:16 to refer to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within us. See also 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 3:13; Phil 4:19; Col 1:11; 1 Thess 2:12.

In what sense are the vessels of mercy "prepared in advance for glory"? Here the verb "prepared in advance" (proetoimavzw , proetoimazô ) is different from the verb translated "prepared" (katartivzw , katartizô ) in v. 22. Because the latter is middle or passive voice, we may conclude that the vessels of wrath prepared themselves for destruction. But in v. 23 the word is active voice and no doubt means that God is the one who has prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. Also, unlike v. 22, the verb in v. 23 has the prefix pro -, which means that God prepared them "in advance" or "beforehand."

If "prepared in advance for glory" refers to the final glory of heaven, then this statement is no different from 8:28-30. I.e., whom he foreknew would respond favorably to his gracious promises, he predestined to be in heaven (see JC, 1:502-514).

But it is possible that "prepared in advance" refers to the plan that God had begun to work out from the time he called Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the plan whereby he would use the ethnic people of Israel to lay the groundwork for the establishment of the church. That he prepared them "for glory" would then mean that he had already determined that he would pour out the riches of salvation upon all who accepted the Messiah, whether Jew or Gentile. See Eph 2:10; 1 Pet 1:2.

The reference to Gentiles in v. 24 makes it likely that the latter is the main point, since one fact that caused Paul to offer frequent praise to God was God's "mystery plan" to include the Gentiles as well as the Jews in his new covenant people, the church. See 16:25-26; Eph 2:11-3:11. "This mystery," he says in Ephesians, "is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body" (3:6). Even though this was God's "eternal purpose" (3:11), it "was not made known to men in other generations," but is now revealed through prophets and apostles, like Paul (3:5), who was given the privilege of preaching "to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (3:8). This mystery, long kept hidden, is now revealed "through the church" (3:9-10), which is spiritual Israel.

In other words, the church is the ultimate objective of God's advance preparation; its members are the vessels of mercy God "prepared in advance for glory." Every time a sinner is converted, God "make[s] the riches of his glory known" by pouring them out upon the convert.

We must not lose sight of Paul's main point, which is to declare God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. As he has insisted all along, the members of ethnic Israel did not have to be personal believers as a prerequisite for being used to carry out the divine plan. Even as vessels of wrath, they were used collectively as an instrument for bringing the church into existence. This was God's purpose, and as the objector in v. 19 rightly observes, no one can resist his purposive will.

It is important to see that the ultimate purpose of God is not wrath, but mercy. He used vessels of wrath (unbelieving Israel) to accomplish this purpose, but the purpose itself is to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy. And here is the most glorious truth of all: no unbelieving Jew - no individual vessel of wrath - needs to remain as such. Though the nation in general remains under God's curse because of unbelief, any individual Jew can respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ and become a vessel of mercy! After all, the gospel is "first for the Jew" (1:16).

9:24 . . . even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? The main point of this verse has already been set forth in the above discussion, namely, that the vessels of mercy for which God had long been preparing would include not only Jews but Gentiles as well. The two together constitute "an expanded chosen people" (Achtemeier, 160).

Once the advance preparation through ethnic Israel was completed, God "called" (kalevw , kaleô ) from the larger masses of Jews and Gentiles those who would receive his mercy. This is not the Calvinist "effectual call," which is identical with the doctrine of irresistible grace; it is rather the call that is extended to all sinners through the preaching of the gospel, though it is accepted by only a few (see 1:6-7; 8:28, 30; see JC, 1:83-84, 500-501, 512-513).

The word "from" is ejk ( ek ), which can be more forcefully translated "out of." Thus Paul is here identifying the vessels of mercy as "called-out ones," which is etymologically related to the NT word for "church," which is ejkklhsiva (ekklçsia ). This comes from the same two words used here in v. 24, ek and kaleô . This is completely consistent with what was said above, that Paul's whole point in this chapter is the way God used ethnic Israel to produce spiritual Israel, the church.

In view of this glorious and merciful purpose of God, how can anyone seriously complain against God and accuse him of unfaithfulness? As Lard says, he calls both Jews and Gentiles alike, and is willing to make them all into vessels of honor and mercy. Those who accept the call will be treated with equal mercy, but "on all the rest he will one day pour out his wrath" (312).

4. Prophetic Confirmation of God's Purpose (9:25-29)

This section does not add any new content to Paul's argument. It is a series of quotations from Hosea and Isaiah, cited to provide prophetic confirmation of God's purpose for Israel as it culminates in the birth of the NT church. The citations from Hosea (vv. 25-26) include the prophet's original application to exiled Israelites but are here also applied to the calling of the Gentiles into the people of God. The verses from Isaiah (vv. 27-29) show that God all along knew that only a small number, a remnant, of the Jews would accept the gospel and be saved.

This latter point speaks directly to the issue with which this chapter began, namely, the seeming paradox of Israel's position and privileges as the chosen people of God on the one hand, and her general condition of unbelief and accursedness on the other hand. To the Jewish mind, this appeared to be a contradiction. Especially, it seemed as if God's word and plan and promises had failed. Did not God's purpose for and use of the Israelite nation guarantee their personal salvation? Did God change his mind and go back on his word?

The answer, of course, is no; and this chapter shows why this is the case. God's use of Israel to work out his plan neither required nor guaranteed that every individual Jew would be saved. Any and all Jews could have been saved; if they were not, the cause was their own failure and refusal to believe and repent. In any case God's covenant purpose was not contingent upon it.

These OT quotations, especially those from Isaiah, show that the present state of Israel's unbelief and accursedness was no surprise to God, and that his original purpose had not failed. The quotations show, as Dunn says, "that God's purpose never had Israel as a people solely in view and never Israel as a whole or Israel the nation as such" (2:575). The nation itself was always intended to be a means to an end; the end itself is spiritual Israel, which consists of both the believing remnant from old Israel and all believers from among the Gentiles. This end, and therefore God's purpose for Israel, have been accomplished, in fulfillment of these prophecies.

9:25-26 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" A major question is whether or not Paul really intends to apply these quotes from Hosea to the calling of the Gentiles. This is problematic because Hosea's prophecy was originally addressed to Jews, specifically to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom. Because of their persistent unbelief God rejected them and caused them to be overrun and taken into permanent exile by the Assyrian forces. But Hosea's words gave them hope: though God rejected them as "not loved" and "not my people," a day would come when they would once again be God's loved ones and God's people (Hos 1:6-10; 2:21-23). The question now is this: how can Paul apply these prophecies to the Gentiles, when they obviously originally referred to the Jews?

One answer is that Paul does not apply them to the Gentiles, but is thinking only of the Jews in all the quotes from both Isaiah and Hosea. Lenski is an example of this view. He asks, "But why quote passages such as this [from Hosea] to establish the admission of the Gentiles when many passages speak of Gentiles directly? The passages quoted from Hosea show how God's word was fulfilled even in the case of the ten Israelite tribes" (627).

Most interpreters disagree with Lenski, however, and believe that Paul is indeed applying the Hosea texts to the evangelization of the Gentiles. One reason for saying this is that v. 24 ends with a reference to the Gentiles, and v. 25 begins with "as he says in Hosea." The word "as" seems to tie the quote to the Gentiles. Also, following the Hosea references Paul turns to Isaiah (v. 27), and he specifically mentions Israel: "Isaiah cries out concerning Israel." This suggests he was not referring to Israel in the previous quotes, says Moo (613).

But how could Paul justify applying the Hosea prophecies to the Gentiles? The consensus seems to be that the ten "lost" tribes' permanent exile has so intermingled them with the Gentiles that the evangelization of the one group will necessarily involve the evangelization of the other (Godet, 365). These Jews had become "not loved" and "not my people" through the judgment of the exile; the Gentiles were "not loved" and "not my people" by nature, so to speak. Thus in the NT age, when the church goes into all the world, the gospel appeal reaches Jew and Gentile alike, and the words of Hosea take on a new and expanded meaning. Hosea's prophecy specifically promises the restoration of the Jews, but because of their scattered status "Paul takes this promise as a proof of God's purpose to include the Gentiles in His salvation" (Cranfield, 2:500; see Morris, 370). Bruce's analysis is a fair one (196):

What Paul does here is to take this promise . . . and extract from it a principle of divine action which in his day was reproducing itself on a world-wide scale. In large measure through Paul's own apostolic ministry, great numbers of Gentiles, who had never been "the people of God" and had no claim on His covenant mercy, were coming to be enrolled among His people and to be the recipients of His mercy. The scale of the divine action was far wider than in Hosea's day, but the same pattern and principle were recognizable.

First Peter 2:10 seems to apply Hosea 2:23 in a similar way.

In view of these considerations, in my judgment it is proper to apply the Hosea prophecies to both Jews and Gentiles.

In v. 25 Paul introduces the quotation from Hosea 2:23 thus: "As he says in Hosea." The "he" is God; this is Paul's testimony to the divine origin of these "oracles" (see 3:2). The quotation itself is more of a paraphrase than an exact quote; the two main clauses are reversed.

For God to punish Israelites by stripping them of their status as "my people" was a severe blow; being the people of God was their greatest treasure. Thus the messianic promise that God would one day bestow this title upon them again would have special meaning for Jews. Gentiles who have never had this status to begin with may not at first realize what a great promise this is. To be "God's people" means to come into a special family relationship with him (see 8:14-17). God loves all human beings (John 3:16), but his most special love is reserved for those whose hearts and lives are surrendered to him (John 14:21). Through unbelief and idolatry Israel forfeited this special love and became like Gentiles to God, but the gospel of Jesus Christ makes this love-relationship available once more to fallen Jews and fallen Gentiles alike.

The word "call" in both v. 25 and v. 26 does not refer to the gospel call but to the giving of a new name or title. "I will call them" means "I will name them" or "I will give them this name" (Lard, 314; Murray, 2:39).

Verse 26 is a citation of Hosea 1:10; its main point is the same as v. 25 and Hos 2:23. In this verse the "not my people" are renamed "sons of the living God." To a once-fallen but now-converted Jew, this is the restoration of a name once proudly worn by all Israelites. That it is now a name applied not just to believing Jews but also to believing Gentiles shows that mere physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not suffice for true sonship. Today we are all - men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free men - sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:26-29).

Paul says, citing Hosea, that this calling (naming) will happen "in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people.'" This probably refers to the Gentile world. As applied to exiled and scattered Jews it means that they do not have to return to their "homeland" in order to become God's sons once again. Through the preaching of the gospel adoption into God's family takes place in whatever nation one is found, whether one be Jew or Gentile.

9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." Paul takes this quote from Isa 10:22-23 and specifically applies it to Israel. He says that Isaiah "cries out" this prophecy, indicating that the words were spoken with fervent emotion.

Though his message surely applies to the whole of Israel, Isaiah's ministry, unlike that of Hosea, was to the southern kingdom. The tenth chapter of Isaiah is mainly an oracle about Assyria, whom God used to punish unbelieving Israel and who then received God's punishment in return. The prophet is assuring Israel that even though they must suffer conquest and captivity, at least a remnant will survive and return to the Lord. But at the same time, the fact that only a remnant will be saved means that the rest will be destroyed.

Isaiah 10:21 says, "A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God." This does not mean that this remnant of the exiled northern tribes would return to their homeland, in the way that a remnant of the southern kingdom returned from Babylonian captivity to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Isaiah speaks rather of a spiritual return - a returning to the Lord. This is the way Paul understands it; thus in v. 27b he words the promise, "The remnant will be saved ." He sees Isaiah's prophecy as being fulfilled through the preaching of the gospel and the entry of many Jews into spiritual Israel, the church, through their conversion to Christ. As Fitzmyer says, "Paul applies the words to Jews called to accept Christ, and the remnant becomes those who actually did accept him, viz., Paul and fellow Jewish Christians" (574).

That the prophet Isaiah himself declares that only a remnant would thus be saved is a primary vindication of Paul's main point, "that the covenant promise did not contemplate or guarantee the salvation of all ethnic Israel" (Murray, 2:39). Everything that God promised to Israel as a nation was fulfilled, including the assurance that the number of Israelites would "be like the sand of the sea" - a promise spoken to Abraham in Gen 22:17 (see Gen 32:12). But the remnant prophecy shows that this great nation was chosen only for service, not for salvation; and the fact that only a small proportion were saved was in no way contrary to God's promises and God's faithfulness. See Dunn, 2:575.

Paul's use of the remnant concept in this way sheds important light on two other texts. One is 9:6b, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Ethnic Israel is the numerous-as-sand nation physically descended from Jacob; but only the remnant, those who accept salvation through Jesus Christ, are the true Israel, the true "sons of the living God." The other text is 11:26, "And so all Israel will be saved." The remnant doctrine, along with 9:6b, shows that "all Israel" does not have to refer to the nation as a whole.

The remnant doctrine is both a promise and a judgment. As a promise, it is an assurance that at least a remnant of Israel will be saved. There will always be an Israel, at least a spiritual Israel. But as a judgment, it is a solemn recognition that only a remnant will be saved. The NIV emphasizes this latter sense by translating ean as "though" and by adding the word "only" (both here and in Isa 10:22). Cranfield (2:502) says that the word translated "remnant" in itself implies "only a remnant." This necessarily means that the great majority of Israel will not be saved.

This note of judgment is emphasized in v. 28. It has the particle gavr ( gar , "for, because"); thus it "explains how it will come about that only a remnant of Israel will be saved" (Cranfield, 2:502). The verse seems to be a summary of Isa 10:22b-23, "Destruction has been decreed, overwhelming and righteous. The Lord, the LORD Almighty, will carry out the destruction decreed upon the whole land." In 9:28 the word lovgo" ( logos ), translated "sentence" in the NIV, probably refers to the decree of destruction of which Isaiah speaks. This is the sentence of judgment or destruction upon the nation of Israel as a whole, which is implicit in the promise that only a remnant of them will be saved.

The Lord himself will carry out this decree of judgment upon the nation "with speed and finality." These last words are an attempt to translate two participles, forms of the Greek words suntelevw (synteleô , "to complete, to carry out, to accomplish, to fulfill completely") and suntevmnw (syntemnô , "to cut short, to cut off, to end, to shorten"). These words indicate that God carries out this sentence with thoroughness and completeness and finality. The former word (synteleô ) looks to the past and means that in carrying out this sentence God is accomplishing an existing purpose, bringing it to completion, and fulfilling it completely. The latter word (syntemnô ) looks to the future and means that in carrying out this sentence God is cutting something off and bringing it to an end; it will not continue to exist in the future. In my opinion this means that the establishment of the remnant (spiritual Israel) marks the end of God's dealing with Israel as a nation; his purpose for ethnic Israel is now completed, and they are cut off as his special people. From this point on his focus is upon spiritual Israel.

The words translated "on earth" probably should be translated "upon the land," i.e., upon the land of Israel. In Isa 10:23 "upon the whole land" no doubt has this connotation, as it refers to "the devastation wrought by the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser" (Lenski, 631). A similar devastation of "the land" was the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; Lenski thinks this is the sense of it for Paul's time (631). This may be so, but in any case we should understand "upon the land" as referring to the land of Israel, with the word "land" standing for ethnic Israel or physical Israelites as such.

9:29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah." This last quotation, from Isaiah 1:9, reemphasizes both the seriousness of God's judgment upon unbelieving Israel and the divine provision for preserving at least a remnant of his people. In Scripture the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a type of final and decisive judgment. Thus without the remnant, Israel would have become like these two cities: extinct. By preserving only the remnant, God brought a judgment just short of this upon Israel.

But he did leave a remnant, as Isa 1:9 says and as Paul emphasizes. "The Lord Almighty" preserved this remnant. Both Isaiah and Paul actually say "the Lord of Hosts," but for some reason the NIV changes "hosts" to "Almighty." As "Lord of Hosts" God is the ruler of all the heavenly or angelic hosts; he is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

The word "descendants" definitely connotes the remnant idea in this text. Isa 1:9 says the Lord left "some survivors" (NIV), or "a few survivors" (NASB, NRSV), or "a very small remnant" (KJV). The LXX uses spevrma ( sperma , "seed") instead of survivors. Since he quotes the LXX verbatim, Paul also uses sperma , which the NIV translates "descendants." This is not a good translation, since "seed" here connotes not a relationship to what is past (i.e., to one's ancestors), but a preparation for the future, or (as Morris says) "the potential for new growth" (373; see Cranfield, 2:503). The purpose for leaving behind a few survivors is to reseed and replant for the future. The "new growth" that springs forth from this seed is the new spiritual Israel, the church.

The Lord "left us" this remnant. The verb used here can mean "to leave behind" in the sense of "to forsake, to abandon"; but it can also mean, as here, "to allow to remain" (AG, 214-215). Though the Lord carried out his sentence of destruction upon the nation in general, he allowed this seed-remnant to remain. This is definitely a note of promise and hope, or as Dunn says, "a gasp of gratitude" (2:576).

In what sense did the Lord leave this remnant? He left it in the sense that he "bore with great patience the objects of his wrath" (v. 22) until the time that he was ready for the spiritual Israel to come into existence. As Lenski says (632),

If God had made his final reckoning with the Jews in Isaiah's time or even prior to this, no godly remnant could have been obtained from them at any future time, certainly not at Paul's time. Judaism would have become a second Sodom, would have been made like to Gomorrah, not a soul would have been left after the cataclysm of punishment. But God restrained his wrath so that seed was left.

This brings the first main section of Rom 9-11 to a conclusion. Paul has shown that God has not been unfaithful to Israel nor treated them unfairly. He has kept every promise he made to them, and fulfilled every purpose he had for them as a nation.

The one question raised in this section that has yet to be addressed is the lost state of the great majority of the Jews, or more specifically, who is responsible for their lostness? The objector raised the question in v. 19a, "Then why does God still blame us?" The implication is that somehow God is responsible for the Jews' rejection of their Messiah; therefore they should not be blamed and punished. This is the issue that Paul will address in the next section.

III. ISRAEL'S CHOICE OF LAW

RATHER THAN GRACE (9:30-10:21)

There is considerable agreement that 9:30-10:21 forms the next major section of 9-11, but how it relates to the previous section is a matter of dispute. A common view is that ch. 9 explains Israel's lostness in terms of God's sovereign decision, while ch. 10 explains it as the result of Israel's own unbelief. For Calvinists especially, ch. 9 presents the picture of a sovereign God who unilaterally and unconditionally chooses which individuals he will save and which he will send to hell, while ch. 10 presents him as giving human beings the choice of whether to believe or not to believe, with salvation being conditioned on this choice. This seeming contradiction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is a paradox with no ready explanation.

For example, Moo says that according to Paul in ch. 9, Israel's plight "is due to the sovereign determination of God. But in 9:30-10:21, he argues that it is also the result of human response." Though Paul simply presents both sides without attempting to reconcile them, it is likely that Israel's unbelief "is simply the result of God's prior decision" (617).

In my judgment the point of these two sections is something quite different. Paul's main purpose in 9-11, as discussed earlier, is to vindicate God's faithfulness in view of (a) his promises to Israel and (b) Israel's lostness. Chs. 9 and 10 present two separate but related reasons why this situation does not violate God's faithfulness. First (ch. 9), his faithfulness is not violated because his promises to the nation as a whole involved only their role of service and not their salvation. God elected them to serve a special purpose in his redemptive plan, and he patiently accomplished this purpose through them. With reference to salvation, however, God has distinguished between two Israels: the physical nation and the spiritual remnant. This distinction explains the apparently contradictory way God has treated Israel according to the flesh. His sovereign election for covenant service, including his covenant promises, applies only to the former; salvation belongs only to those Jews who are also a part of the latter. Thus God's promises to ethnic Israel - all of which were kept - are consistent with their lostness.

The second reason (ch. 10) why God's faithfulness is not violated by this situation is because Israel's lostness (their exclusion from spiritual Israel) is the result of their own free choice of law rather than grace as the way of salvation. This is the main point of this present section, which stresses very clearly the fact that Israel is responsible for its own fate. As Fitzmyer rightly says, "The cause of Israel's failure is not to be found in God, but in Israel itself. . . . Its situation is derived from its own misstep" (576). Paul makes it clear that any and all Jews could have been saved if they had accepted God's gift of righteousness on his gracious terms instead of trying to attain salvation through their own works or personal righteousness. Such saving grace had always been available to individual Jews, based on God's loving offer of forgiveness of sins; but the offer was usually spurned, as the gospel of Christ itself came to be. In other words, it is the Jews themselves, not God, who have been unfaithful.

Herein lies the connection between 9-11 and 1-8, as well as between this section and the overall theme of the letter, which is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation (JC, 1:53). In 1-8 Paul has explained why it is impossible for anyone to be saved by the law system, and how God has therefore provided the alternative system of grace. Now he shows that the only reason most Jews were lost is that they persisted in trying to be accepted by God on the basis of their own righteousness, i.e., by the impotent system of law (see 1:18-3:20). Thus the responsibility for being accursed must be laid at their own feet, not God's.

Spiritual Israel, on the other hand, consists of those who have accepted the way of grace, in which God offers a divinely-established righteousness based on the death of Jesus Christ to all who put their trust in him (see 3:21-5:21). The reason some Gentiles are included in this new Israel is that they have trusted God's righteousness rather than their own, and the only reason the remnant of the Jews are included is that they do the same.

A. PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS VERSUS

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (9:30-10:3)

This paragraph presents the essence of this section in terms of the concept of righteousness, i.e., the righteousness on the basis of which one is accepted by God. The Jews were lost, says Paul, because they sought acceptance by God through their own personal righteousness or law-keeping, which can never be good enough. They rejected the gift of God's righteousness, which is the only hope for salvation.

"God's righteousness" (10:3) in this context is the same as the "righteousness from God" that is revealed in the gospel (1:17). It is not the attribute of God by which he is personally righteous, but rather a gift of righteousness that God offers to sinners, thus allowing him to accept them as righteous even though in reality they are not. Specifically, it is Jesus Christ's payment of the penalty of the law in our place (JC, 1:116-120).

Though the Jews are the main focus of this section, the Gentiles are mentioned here by way of contrast. The very thing the Jews were seeking but failed to attain, the Gentiles attained even though they were not seeking it (9:30-31). DeWelt paraphrases Paul thus: "It is strange, isn't it, that the Gentiles who were not looking or searching for justification, found it, and you Jews who were diligently seeking for a means of justification failed in your search?" (159). This is certainly tragic but also extremely ironic; indeed, it is "the most poignant irony in the whole of history" (Godet, 367).

1. The Reason for the Gentiles' Acceptance (9:30)

9:30 What then shall we say? Sometimes when Paul asks this question, he does so to introduce a false inference or idea, which he then proceeds to refute (e.g., 6:1; 7:7; 9:14). But here it serves simply to introduce the new section. What follows is not an objector's question but Paul's own teaching (as in 8:31; 11:7).

"What then shall we say" - about what? What has triggered this question? No doubt it is the whole of the previous section that is in view. I.e., what shall we say about the lostness of most Jews (9:3,22, 28), especially in view of the fact that even some Gentiles (!) are being saved (9:25-26)?

This is Paul's answer, That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, . . . This refers not to all Gentiles, but only to those who accept the gospel. What is the righteousness they have obtained? Most agree that Paul is not speaking of moral righteousness or righteous character, but rather a "righteous status in God's sight" (Cranfield, 2:506), or a right standing with God (e.g., Hendriksen, 2:333; Morris, 374). It is not the same as justification (contra Lard, 317; DeWelt, 159), but is rather the result of it. On the basis of his gracious act of justifying (declaring or counting righteous), believing Gentiles obtain their right standing before God.

Whether righteousness be taken as right moral character or as a right standing before God, it was characteristic of the Gentiles that they sought for neither. Regarding the former, there were no doubt some exceptions, but in general the pagan world was noted for its wickedness (1:18-32; Acts 14:16; 17:30; Eph 4:17-19). But this very fact shows that the Gentiles were not striving for the latter, either. This is true because without special revelation the only known means of being right with God is earnest moral striving; but as just noted, this was not typical of the Gentile world.

But even though they were not pursuing a right standing before God, they obtained it anyway! The words "pursue" and "obtain" go together. Literally they can refer to pursuing a quarry and catching it, or running after a prize in a race and winning it. Figuratively they refer to seeking after or pursuing a goal, and attaining it. What is so unusual is that the Gentiles attained this goal or prize without even seeking it. This refers to the fact that under the New Covenant God is actively seeking Gentiles to be his people through the worldwide preaching of the gospel. By accepting the gospel when it is presented to them, Gentiles obtain this right standing before God.

Specifically, Paul says, the Gentiles obtained a righteousness that is by faith . . . . That is, they obtained a right standing with God based on the free gift of God's own righteousness, a gift which they received by putting their trust in Christ's saving work (1:17; 3:21-22; Phil 3:9). "Righteousness by faith" is a shorthand expression for the grace system as a whole and is similar to "justified by faith" in 3:28 (JC, 1:267-268).

2. The Reason for the Jews' Lostness (9:31-33)

9:31 [B]ut Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Here is the tragic irony. The Gentiles did not pursue righteousness but obtained it anyway; Israel pursued it but did not attain it. "Israel" refers to the physical nation in general. "Pursued" is a present participle (literally, "pursuing"), to which both the NASB and the NIV give a purely descriptive meaning. Grammatically it could be causative (" because they pursued"), but this does not fit the context, as the following discussion shows. Another possibility, which I favor, is that the participle is concessive: " although they pursued." Although Israel, unlike the Gentiles, vigorously pursued a law of righteousness, they did not attain it.

The difficult part of this verse is the expression, "a law of righteousness" (novmon dikaiosuvnh" , nomon dikaiosynçs ). Why didn't Paul just say "righteousness," making the language parallel with v. 30? Why did he say " law of righteousness"? Some say "law of righteousness" is equivalent to "righteousness of law," and just turn it around: Israel "pursued the righteousness which is based on law: (NRSV; see Lard, 318; Fitzmyer, 578). This would suggest that the object of their pursuit was in itself a false goal, since righteousness based on law-keeping is impossible for sinners to attain.

This view is unacceptable, however, because v. 32 suggests that the Jews' problem was not the goal they were seeking but the manner in which they sought it: they pursued it by works rather than by faith. Thus we should take Paul's expression at face value. The Jews were pursuing a law of righteousness, which in itself is a proper pursuit.

What, then, is this "law of righteousness"? Murray (2:43) says the word "law" ( nomos ) here is not used in the sense of a law code, i.e., the Law of Moses. Rather, it "means principle or rule or order," as in 3:27 (see JC, 1:267). I.e., Israel was pursuing the principle of righteousness. If so, then Paul is not really adding anything to the concept of righteousness as such. This, however, is just the problem with this view. To use the loaded term nomos in this context in such an inconsequential way would be very confusing, especially in light of the way it is used in 10:4. I deem this approach unacceptable.

The best understanding is that "law" here refers to the Law of Moses, which the Jews obviously pursued and after which they hastened with the greatest of zeal (2:17-20; 10:2). Moo agrees that the nomos here is the Mosaic Law, and that in principle it was not wrong for Israel to seek it; yet he says that in the final analysis it was the wrong goal, since they should have sought Christ instead (625-627). I disagree with this last point. It is true that once Christ has come, it is wrong to continue to pursue the Law of Moses in even the best sense, since the law itself points everyone to Jesus Christ (Gal 3:24) and is obsolete now that he has come (as Hebrews teaches). But Paul's lament in 9:31 applies not just to the Jews who were contemporary with Christ and the birth of Christianity (cf. 9:32b-33), but also to preceding generations of Israelites who would not have known Christ as such. Hence throughout the OT era it was proper for the Jews to pursue the Law of Moses as a "law of righteousness."

In what sense is the Law of Moses a law of righteousness ? We should remember that righteousness as such means "conformity to the proper and relevant standard or norm" (see JC, 1:116). Thus any form of God's law for mankind (heart-engraved [2:15], Mosaic, New Covenant) is a law of righteousness in the sense that it is the norm or standard to which all human beings in their respective contexts are obligated to conform. The Law of Moses was the norm by which the righteousness of the Jews was to be measured, or as Dunn says, "a standard which defines what God requires of his covenant people" (2:581). As such it was meant to be meticulously and sincerely obeyed, which was the professed goal of every Israelite (see Ps 119).

Paul's lament is that, although the Jews pursued their law of righteousness, they did not attain it. "Attain" here is not the same Greek word as "obtain" in v. 30, but the concept is similar. Contrary to the Gentiles, who did obtain righteousness, the Jew did not arrive at their goal. They did not "catch up with" it; it "always left them far behind" (Lenski, 636).

Exactly what did the Jews hope to gain by pursuing the law of righteousness, i.e., by conforming their lives and conduct to the Law of Moses? Not just righteousness in the sense of perfect moral character, but righteousness in the sense of right standing before God - the very thing the Gentiles attained without seeking it. But why did the Jews not attain it?

9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. Here is a point that must not be overlooked: it was possible for the Jews to obtain a right standing with God by pursuing the Law of Moses, their "law of righteousness," as long as they pursued it in the right manner. Of course, if anyone had obeyed it perfectly, he would have been justified before God for that very reason; but Paul has already shown that no Jew ever accomplished this (2:1-3:20), and he is not just repeating that point here. Rather, Paul says the reason the Jews did not succeed was that they did not pursue their law "by faith." This implies that they could have pursued it by faith; and if they had done so, they would have obtained the same righteous standing with God that the Gentiles did. In fact, we must assume that a large number of Jews throughout OT history did in fact follow after the law by faith and attain righteousness thereby (11:4), though most did not.

But how is it possible for the Jews to follow after the Law of Moses by faith ? The most obvious way is that the Jews living in the Christian era can put their trust in the very one to whom their law points, namely, Jesus. But what of those who lived in pre-Christian generations? How could they pursue the law of righteousness by faith ? Doesn't this sound like a contradiction?

It is not a contradiction. The Law of Moses as a law code was unique, in that it contained not just moral and legal precepts to be obeyed, but also religious provisions that embodied the very essence of grace (i.e., forgiveness of sins). Pre-Christian Jews did not know Jesus as such, but they knew that they were sinners and law-breakers as measured by all the moral and legal requirements of their law, and they knew from the laws of sacrifice the principle of atonement via substitution. Thus they knew that their sin and idolatry could be forgiven when God's promises of mercy displayed in the sacrifices were embraced by faith (see 3:21). Those Jews who trusted in the gospel aspects of the Law of Moses rather than its legal aspects are the ones who obtained a righteous status before God.

In this sense the Jews' law was not an enemy of faith, but was in fact designed to engender faith. As Achtemeier says, that law was intended to uphold a righteous relationship with God based on trust in him; its very purpose was to help the Jews achieve such trust (167). Cranfield (2:508) says it thus:

. . . The law is the law of righteousness because it was intended and designed to show the people of Israel how they could be righteous before God, to show them that the way to this righteousness is - faith. In the law which they were pursuing so zealously they had that which was all the time pointing out the way to the possession of a status of righteousness in God's sight.

How then was it possible to pursue the law by faith? Again Cranfield's answer (2:510) is on target:

. . . The answer must be, surely, that it is to respond to the claim to faith which God makes through the law, and must include accepting, without evasion or resentment, the law's criticism of one's life, recognizing that one can never so adequately fulfil its righteous requirements as to put God in one's debt, accepting God's proffered mercy and forgiveness and in return giving oneself to Him in love and gratitude and so beginning to be released from one's self-centredness and turned in the direction of a humble obedience that is free from self-righteousness; that it is to allow oneself to be turned again and again by the forgiving mercy of God in the direction of loving Him with all one's heart and soul and mind and strength and of loving one's neighbor as oneself.

A biblical example of one who pursued the law by faith is the publican or tax collector in Jesus' parable in Luke 18:9-14. In the temple as he prayed for acceptance by God, he was overwhelmed by his unworthiness and cried simply, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Jesus declared that this man went home "justified before God." Though this story may have been fictional, it shows how any Jew at any time in OT history was able to attain by faith a righteous standing with God, as guided by the law. As Hendriksen says, "The law, with its uncompromising demand of perfect love and obedience, should have driven each Israelite to God with the fervent prayer, 'Oh, God, be thou merciful to me, the sinner'" (2:334).

Many were thus driven, but most were not. Indeed, most were like the Pharisee in the same parable. Instead of pursuing the law of righteousness by faith, Israel as a whole pursued it "by works." Instead of simply trusting the law's manifested grace as the source of their righteous standing before God, they trusted that their own ability to obey its precepts would make them worthy of acceptance by God. "They thought that the law pointed to the contribution they had to make" toward that acceptance, "and hence lost the point of the law, which was to engender trust in the God who had chosen them" (Achtemeier, 167). Instead of depending on God's forgiving grace, they trusted that they had achieved a satisfactory degree of personal righteousness, "as if the accumulation of works-righteousness were God's way of salvation" (Stott, 276).

What Israel did, in effect, was to transform their law code into a law system . As a law code, the Law of Moses was a simple set of commands to which the Israelites were obligated to conform their lives and conduct. To use it as such was to use it properly (3:31). But the moment they began to regard such obedience as the means or basis for gaining acceptance by God, their law code became the centerpiece in the law system as a way of salvation (JC, 1:128). But this is exactly why Israel was lost: the law system cannot save sinners (1:18-3:20).

They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." This is a reference to Yahweh's warning to Israel in Isa 8:13-15. "The LORD Almighty," he said, "is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread." Though he will be a sanctuary or place of safety, at the same time "for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." Many of the Jews "will stumble; they will fall and be broken."

Though 9:33 as well as other NT references show that the "stumbling stone" ultimately applies to Jesus Christ, originally the stone was Yahweh as such. To Jews in Old Covenant times, God presented himself as a sanctuary, i.e., as the holy place where one could find refuge from all his enemies (see 1 Kgs 1:50-51; 2:28-29). As such he placed himself squarely in the path of his people (Isa 65:1-2). Thus if they refused to take shelter in his grace, they ran headlong into him and crashed against him and fell. As Lenski says, "This is not a stone over which one may merely stumble and recover oneself but one against which one runs with his entire body and smashes it entirely; it is like knocking one's brains out" (637). Thus it was with all Jews throughout OT history who pursued the law of righteousness by works instead of by faith.

Thus it is no surprise that when Yahweh came in the flesh, the Jews of that generation stumbled against him as well. As Dunn says, their confusion regarding the law and righteousness "came to eschatological expression and climax in their refusal to recognize Christ as Messiah" (2:577). They were conditioned to do so by the chronic misuse of the law by their ancestors, which, in Achtemeier's words, "had as its inevitable outcome the result that when Christ came as the one who personified the call contained in the law to trust in God, the chosen people rejected him" (167).

9:33 As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." This verse expands the "stumbling stone" concept and implicitly applies it to Christ. I say "implicitly" because Christ is not specifically mentioned in the verse, yet these same OT quotes are applied to him elsewhere in the NT. In fact, the second part of this verse, a quote from Isa 28:16b, is explicitly applied to Christ in 10:11.

"Stone" and "rock" are two different Greek words. The "stone" of stumbling (also in v. 32) is livqo" ( lithos ), which refers to a loose stone of any kind, large or small. The "rock" of falling is pevtra ( petra ), which generally refers to firm, immovable bedrock or rock-mass, whether underground or protruding from the ground (such as a cliff).

"As it is written" is a common NT way of introducing material from the OT, which in this case is a composite of two passages from Isaiah. "See, I lay in Zion a stone" is from Isa 28:16; "a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall" is from Isa 8:14; and the rest of the verse is from Isa 28:16 again. The way Paul combines them is an ingenious blending of the two texts. Isa 8:14 presents Yahweh as both a refuge (sanctuary) and a stone of judgment, with the emphasis being on the latter. Isa 28:16 concentrates on the stone as a place of refuge and safety. Paul simply combines the two and presents the one stone as the source of both judgment and promise.

One reason for saying v. 33 refers to Jesus is that, while in Isa 8:14 Yahweh himself is the stone, in Isa 28:16 Yahweh is the one who lays the stone. That the latter is a messianic prophecy is indicated by the fact that Matt 16:16-18 is clearly based on Isa 28:14-19. Christ's person and work as summed up in Peter's confession are the foundation stone on which the church is built, and all the forces of Hades (=Sheol in Isa 28:15, 18) cannot overpower it. Thus most scholars agree that the stone of stumbling in 9:32-33 is Jesus, especially in his role as the crucified Messiah (see 1 Cor 1:23).

But how can Paul apply both Isaiah texts to Jesus? In Isaiah 28:16, to be sure, the stone does appear to be the Messiah, but in 8:14 the stone is Yahweh himself. So how can they both refer to Jesus? The answer is simple: "Christ is God!" (Hendriksen, 2:335). The Messiah-Stone "is therefore Jehovah in His final manifestation" (Godet, 369; see Rom 10:9,13). This does not mean that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same person; it means only that Yahweh in the OT revelation is the entire Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus is "a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." This does not mean that God wants anyone to stumble over him or that he intended the Jews to fall because of him (Lard, 319). Based on Paul's use of the Isaiah verses where Yahweh says that he is laying "in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble," Dunn draws the conclusion that "Israel's fall was intended by God" (2:584). But the stumbling is a result , not a purpose. The stone is intended as a refuge; but because he has been rejected, "what was meant to be a basis of security has become a stumbling block" (Fitzmyer, 580). We can agree with Moo, however, that "Israel's stumbling over Christ was predicted in the OT" (630).

In what sense does anyone stumble or fall over Jesus? The verb for "stumble" (v. 32) is proskovptw (proskoptô ); it means literally "to strike or bump against, to stumble against or over"; figuratively it means "to give offense, to take offense at, to reject." The noun, provskomma ( proskomma ), is used in this verse. It can refer to the object over which someone stumbles, but here refers to the act of stumbling as such. The word for "fall" is the noun skavndalon ( skandalon ), which can be defined as "that which gives offense or causes revulsion, that which arouses opposition" (AG, 760). This definition does not capture the entire meaning, though. In the LXX the word often means "cause of ruin," and is often used in the sense of a snare or trap or temptation, i.e., a cause for sin and punishment. In Paul the gospel about Jesus is a skandalon in a similar sense; it is an "occasion of guilt" and a "cause of destruction" (Stählin, "skavndalon ," 342, 353). Thus a skandalon is something which one opposes or to which one takes offense only to his ruin and destruction. In this light it is easy to see how Jesus is a stumbling stone. Those who oppose him or who take offense at the gospel of the cross fall into eternal ruin and death. This is what happened to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23), and it can happen to anyone else.

But this is not the whole story. God lays in Zion a stone; some fall over him, but "the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." This part of v. 33 is based on Isa 28:16b, where the Hebrew verb in the latter clause seems to be "will not be in haste," or "will not be in a hurry" (NASB margin). Other interpretations of the word are "will not panic" (NRSV), "will not fuss and rush around but trust in God" (Bruce, 200), will not be "fleeing away in confusion" (MP, 416). The passive verb used by Paul means "to be disgraced, to be put to shame," and speaks more of the reason for such panic or hasty flight than the fleeing itself. The idea is that those who take refuge upon the Rock by trusting in him will never have to slink away in shame for having made a humiliating decision. As Bruce says, "Those who trust in God need never fear that their trust in Him will prove to be ill-founded. God vindicates His people's faith" (200). Those who do not believe will exist in "shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2).

In these three verses (31-33), then, Paul vindicates the faithfulness of God by declaring that Israel as a whole is responsible for its own lost condition. The essence of their failure was that they trusted in themselves rather than in God's promises and in their own Messiah; they pursued acceptance with God by works rather than by faith; they chose law rather than grace.

Such a path to perdition is not limited to the Jews, of course. Anyone living in the New Covenant era can respond to the New Covenant revelation in exactly the same way, i.e., by zealously pursuing its commands in an effort to win God's approval on the basis of such works. The fate of those who do so will be the same as Israel's.

McGarvey: Rom 9:1

[In Part I. of his Epistle (chaps. 1-8) Paul presented the great doctrine that righteousness and salvation are obtained through faith in Jesus Christ. But the unbelief of the Jews excluded them Generally from this salvation, yet "salvation is from the Jews" (Joh 4:22). The doctrine, and the situation engendered by it, raised before the minds of Paul's readers several great questions, such as these: How could Scripture, which promised blessings to the Jews, be fulfilled in a gospel which gave blessings to Gentiles to the exclusion of Jews? The covenants to Abraham guaranteed blessings to his seed, how, then, could the gospel be the fulfillment of these covenants when it brought blessing and salvation to the Gentiles, and rejection and damnation to the Jews, the seed of Abraham? It is for the purpose of answering these and kindred questions which naturally arose out of the doctrine of the first part of his work, that this second part was written. As these questions arose out of the history of Israel, Paul naturally reviews that history, so Tholuck calls this second part of his work "a historical corollary." The apostle's effort is to show that the gospel of Christ, while it conflicts with the false doctrinal deductions which the Jews drew from their history, agrees perfectly with all correct deductions from that history.] I say the truth in Christ [This is not an oath. Some modern, and most of the earlier, commentators suppose it is; but they forget that Deu 6:13 is repealed at Mat 5:33-37 . If it were an oath, we would, in the absence of any verb of swearing, have the Greek preposition pros ("by") with the genitive, but instead we have en ("in") with the dative. His asseveration is, however, as solemn and binding as an oath, and is designed to give vehement emphasis to his words -- comp. 2Co 2:17 : as though he said, "I speak the truth, for Christ is true, and I am a member in Christ, and he himself, therefore, speaks through me" -- comp. Gal 2:20 ; Phi 1:21], I lie not [Such a coupling of the positive and negative for purposes of emphasis is common to Scripture. See Deu 33:6 ; Isa 38:1 ; Joh 1:20], my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit [my conscience, though enlightened, guided and made more than literally sensitive and accurate by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, still testifies that in this I am wholly and unequivocally truthful],

McGarvey: Rom 9:2

that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart . [Paul, in the depth of his passion, does not deliberately state the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be implied. His grief was that the gospel had resulted in the rejection of his own people, the Jews. He had closed the first part of his Epistle in a triumphant outburst of praise at the glorious salvation wrought by the gospel of belief in Christ, but ere praise has died on his lips, this minor wail of anguish opens the second part of his Epistle because Israel does not participate in this glad salvation. "The grief for his nation and people," says Poole, "he expresseth, 1. By the greatness of it; it was such as a woman hath in travail; so the word imports. 2. By the continuance of it; it was continual, or without intermission. 3. By the seat of it; it was in his heart, and not outward in his face." And why does Paul asseverate so strongly that he feels such grief? 1. Because only himself and God (and God had to do with him through Christ and the Holy Spirit) knew the hidden secrets of his bosom. 2. Because without some such asseveration the Jews would hardly believe him in this respect. Even Christian Jews looked upon his racial loyalty with suspicion (Act 21:20-21); what wonder, then, if unbelieving Jews recorded him as the most virulent enemy of their race (Acts 28:17-19), and believed him capable of corrupting any Scripture to their injury, of inventing any doctrine to their prejudice, of perverting any truth into a lie to work them harm? (See 2Co 6:8 ; 2Co 1:17 ; 2Co 2:17 ; 2Co 4:1-2 ; 2Co 7:2 ; etc.) In their estimation Paul was easily capable of giving birth to this doctrine of salvation by faith for no other end than the joy of pronouncing their damnation for their unbelief. Yea, they could readily believe that his joy expressed at Rom 8:31-39 was more due to the fact that Israel was shut out from salvation, than that there was salvation. To thoroughly appreciate the full bitterness of the Jewish mistrust and hatred toward Paul we must remember the constancy with which for years they persecuted him, and that very soon after the writing of this Epistle they occasioned his long imprisonment in Rome, and relentlessly persisted in their accusations against him till they became the immediate cause of his martyrdom. Therefore, in expressing his sorrow over the rejection of Israel, Paul pledges his truthfulness in Christ for whom he had suffered the loss of all things, and in the Holy Spirit who was wont to strike down all lying Ananiases (Act 5:3-5), for it was necessary, before another word be said, that every Jew should know that Paul's doctrine was not his own, that it did not arise in his mind because of any spleen, malice, hostility, illwill, or even mild distaste for the Jewish people. On the contrary, his personal bias was against the doctrine which he taught; and none knew this so well as the Christ with whom the doctrine arose, and the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to teach it.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:3

For I could wish [Literally, "I was wishing." Some therefore regard Paul as referring to his attitude to Christ while he was persecuting the church in the days before his conversion. But Paul is asserting his present love toward Israel, and his past conduct proved nothing whatever as to it. The tense here is the imperfect indicative, and is correctly translated "I could wish," for it indicates arrested, incomplete action, a something never finished; and it therefore often stands for the conjunctive. This potential or conditional force of the imperfect is, as Alford remarks, "no new discovery, but common enough in every schoolboy's reading." Paul means to say that he never actually formed this wish, but could conceive of himself as going to the length of forming it, if admissible -- if it were merely a question of love toward his countrymen, and no obstacle intervened] that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake [The root idea of anathema is anything cut or torn off, anything separated or shut up. In the Old Testament the inanimate thing devoted or anathematized was stored up, while the animate thing was killed (Lev 27:26-29). Compare the anathemas of Jericho and Achan (Jos 6:16 ; Jos 7:15 ; Jos 7:22-26). But the New Testament prefers that use of the word which indicates spiritual punishment; viz., exclusion, banishment, as in the case of one resting under a ban (Gal 1:8-9 ; 1Co 12:3 ; 1Co 16:22), for Paul certainly ordered no one to be physically put to death. The idea of banishment is, in this case, made even more apparent by the addition of the words "from Christ." Paul therefore means to say, "I may, indeed, be regarded as an enemy of my people, delighting in their being excluded from salvation by their rejection of the gospel (as they indeed are -- Gal 1:8-9 ; Gal 5:4); but so far am I from doing this that I could, were it permissible, wish for their sakes that I might so exchange places with them that I might be cut off from Christ, and be lost, that they might be joined to him and be saved. For their sakes I could go into eternal perdition to keep them from going there." Men of prudent self-interest and cold, speculative deliberation regard Paul's words as so unreasonable that they would pervert them in order to alter their meaning. They forget that Judah offered to become a slave in Benjamin's stead (Gen 44:18-34); that David wished he had died for Absalom (2Sa 18:33), and that the petition of Moses exceeded this unexpressed wish of the apostle (Exo 32:32). They are blind to the great truth that in instances like this "the foolishness of God" (even operating spiritually in men of God) "is wiser than men" (1Co 1:25). No man can be a propitiation for the souls of other men. Only the Christ can offer himself as a vicarious sacrifice for the lives of others so as to become in their stead a curse (Gal 3:13), abandoned of God (Mar 15:34). But surely the true servant of Christ may so far partake of the Spirit of his Master as to have moments of exalted spiritual grace wherein he could wish, were it permissible, to make the Christlike sacrifice. (Comp. 2Co 12:15 ; Phi 2:17 ; 1Th 2:8 ; 1Jo 3:16) In this instance we may conceive of Paul as ardently contemplating such a wish, for: 1. He had prophetic insight into the age-long and almost universal casting off of the Jews, and their consequent sorrows and distresses, all of which moved him to unusual compassion. 2. He had also spiritual insight into the torments of the damned, which would stir him to superhuman efforts on behalf of his people. 3. He could conceive of the superior honor to Christ if received by the millions of Israel instead of the one, Paul. 4. He could deem it a sweeter joy to Christ to give salvation unto the many, rather than merely unto the one, Paul. 5. He could contrast the joys his exchange might give to the many with the single sorrow of damnation meted out to himself alone, and could therefore feel some satisfaction in contemplating such a sacrifice for such a purpose. (Comp. Heb 12:2) 6. Finally, just before this he has asserted the possibility of one dying for a righteous or good man (Rom 5:7). If such a thing is possible, might not Paul be excused if he felt ready, not only to die, but even to suffer eternal exclusion from Christ, if his act could avail to save a whole covenanted people, so worthy and so loved of God, as Israel was shown to be by those honors and favors bestowed upon it, which he proceeds at once to enumerate? Under all the circumstances, therefore, it is apparent that such strong words and deep emotions are to be expected from one who loved as did Paul. For further evidences of his love toward churches and individuals, see 1Co 1:4 ; Phi 1:3-4 ; Eph 1:16 ; 1Th 1:2 ; Phm 1:4 ; 2Ti 1:3-4 ; 2Co 11:28-29], my kinsmen according to the flesh [And here we have the first impulse for the strong expression of passion just uttered. In the Jew an ardent family affection, blending with an intense national pride, combine to form a patriotism unparalleled in its fervor and devotion]:

McGarvey: Rom 9:4

who are Israelites [The first distinction of the chosen people was their descent from and right to the name "Israel": a name won by Jacob when, wrestling, he so prevailed with God that he was called Israel, or prince of God (Gen 32:28), and also won for himself the unique honor of having all his descendants bear his name, and be accepted as God's covenant people]; whose is the adoption [i. e., the Sonship. Israel is always represented as the Lord's son or first-born, in contradistinction to the Gentiles, who are his creatures -- Exo 4:22-23 ; Exo 19:5 ; Deu 7:6 ; Deu 14:1 ; Isa 1:2 ; Jer 31:9 ; Hos 11:1 ; Mal 1:6], and the glory [The glory of having God manifested visibly as their friend and protector. This glory was called the Shekinah and appeared in the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night (Exo 13:21-22), and rested on Mt. Sinai (Exo 24:16) and on the tabernacle (Exo 29:43), and in the tabernacle (Exo 40:34-38 ; Lev 9:23-24), and enlightened the face Moses (Exo 34:29-35 ; 2Co 3:7-18), and filled Solomon's temple (1Ki 8:10-11), and is thought to have abode between the cherubim, over the mercy-seat of the ark of the covenant (Exo 25:22 ; Exo 29:43 ; Heb 9:5), whence it is also thought that the ark itself is once called "the glory of Israel" -- 1Sa 4:21], and the covenants [Especially the Messianic and promised-land covenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to which may be added the covenants with Aaron (Exo 29:9) and Phinehas (Num 25:10-13), and those made with Israel on the plains of Moab (Deu 29-30) and at Shechem (Jos 24:25), and the throne covenant with David -- 2Sa 7:12-17], and the giving of the law [It was given at Mt. Sinai directly from the person of God himself, and its retention in Israel was a notable mark of distinction between them and all other people, for it placed them under the divine government, as the peculiar heritage of Jehovah], and the service of God [The order of praise and worship in tabernacle and temple under charge of Levites and priests and explained at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews. "The grandest ritual," says Plumer, "ever known on earth, with its priests, altars, sacrifices, feasts, and splendid temple"], and the promises [The term "promise" is about the same as "covenant" (Act 2:39 ; Rom 15:8 ; Gal 3:16 ; Eph 2:12 ; Heb 11:17). If there is any distinction to be drawn between the two words, covenant is the larger, including threatenings as well as assurances of grace. In the promises the threatenings are omitted, and the details of the good are enlarged];

McGarvey: Rom 9:5

whose are the fathers [At Hebrews 11 we have the list of the chief of these fathers. They were Israel's pride and inspiration. "The heroes of a people," says Godet, "are regarded as its most precious treasure." The three pre-eminent "fathers" were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- Exo 3:6 ; Exo 3:13 ; Exo 3:15 ; Exo 4:5 ; Mat 22:32 ; Act 3:13 ; Act 7:32], and of whom [i. e., of or descended from the fathers] is Christ as concerning the flesh [Paul's enumeration of Israel's endowments ends in this as the climax of all their glories when coupled with the statement as to the divine nature of this Christ. But to this climax Israel failed to attain. They accepted neither the humanity nor divinity of Christ, hence Paul's grief], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen . [These words have quite a history. None of the so-called Ante-Nicene Fathers (theologians who wrote prior to A. D. 325) ever thought of contorting them from their plain reference to Christ. Even among later writers, but two -- Diodorus of Tarsus (bishop in A. D. 378; died in 394) and Theodore of Mopseustia (A. D. 350-429) -- ever questioned their reference to Christ. Then came Erasmus (A. D. 1465-1536). This fertile genius seems to have exerted all his ingenuity on this passage, for, by changing the punctuation, he made it read four different ways, two of which have attracted some notice. The first of these reads thus: "Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all. Blessed be God for ever. Amen." This effort to cut off the last clause and make a benediction of it is open to several objections; we note two. 1. It is too abrupt. 2. It is not grammatical if taken as a benediction, for to be in correct form eulogetos ("blessed") should precede Theos ("God"), but, instead, it follows it, as in narrative form (Rom 1:25 ; 2Co 11:31), which it is. The second reading makes the whole passage a benediction, thus: "Of whom is Christ concerning the flesh. Blessed for ever be God, who is over all. Amen." To this reading it may be properly objected: 1. That a benediction is contrary to the apostle's mood and thought. He is mourning over the rejection of Israel. Though he does recount the endowments of Israel, why should he burst forth in ecstatic benediction when all these endowments only brought the heavier condemnation because of Israel's unbelief? 2. Why should he leave his analysis of Christ unfinished (compare the finished, similar analysis at Rom 1:3-4) to wind up in a benediction, when he might have finished his analysis and thereby laid, in a finished climax, a better basis for a benediction? 3. Again, the eulogetos still follows the Theos, when it should precede it to form a benediction, as it does above twenty times in Scripture (Luk 1:68 ; 2Co 1:3 ; Eph 1:3 ; 1Pe 1:3 ; etc.). 4. The ho oon, "who is," stands naturally as in apposition to the preceding subject, ho Christos, "the Christ," and if by any unusual construction it has been meant to be taken in apposition to Theos, "God," it is hardly conceivable that we should have had the participle oon, "is" (literally "being"), which under such a construction is superfluous and awkward. This untenable reading would soon have been forgotten, but, unfortunately, Meyer has given respectability to it by a long argument in its favor; in which he insists that the reading, "Christ. . . who is over all, God blessed for ever," is contrary to the invariable teaching of Paul, who always recognizes the subordination of the Son to the Father and who does this by never calling the Son "God"; always reserving that title for the Father. It is true that Paul recognizes this subordination, and generally does it in the way indicated, but he does it as to Christ the unit; i. e., Christ the united compound of God and man. But Paul is here resolving that compound into its two elements; viz., Christ, man-descended after the flesh; and Christ, God after the Spirit. Now, when thus resolved into his elements, the divine in Christ is not described as subordinate to the Father, nor is the full measure of deity withheld from him. On the contrary, John and Paul (whom Meyer conceives of as disagreeing as to the Christ's subordination) agree perfectly in this, only Paul is even clearer and more explicit in his statement. John begins with our Lord before his divinity became compounded with humanity, and calls him the Word. "In the beginning," says he, "was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Joh 1:1). Surely there is no subordination indicated by John in treating of the separate divine nature of our Lord. Then he tells of the compounding of that divine nature with the human nature. "And the Word," says he, "became flesh, and dwelt among us" (Joh 1:14). Here, then, is that compounding of divinity and humanity which we call Jesus, and this Jesus is, according to John, subordinate to the Father. On this important point John lets the God-man speak for himself. "The Father," says Jesus, "is greater than I" (Joh 14:28). Now let us compare this teaching with the doctrine of Paul. "Have this mind in you," says he, "which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God" (that is, when he was what John calls the Word; when he was not as yet compounded with humanity), "counted not the being on an equality with God" (here Paul is more explicit than John in asserting our Lord's unsubordinate condition before he became incarnate) "a thing to be grasped, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (equivalent to John's "the Word became flesh," after which follows the statement of subordination; viz.); "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross," etc. (Phi 2:5-11). To one, therefore, who carefully compares these passages, it is apparent that according to apostolic doctrine Jesus, the unit, is subordinate to the Father, but when Jesus is separated by analysis into his component parts, his divine nature is God, and equal with God (Col 2:9). At Rom 1:3-4 this divine nature is called "Son of God"; here it is called "God over all, blessed for ever." So Meyer's contention against the reading of the text is not well taken. The natural reading refers the words to Christ, and there is good Scriptural reason why this should be done, for all things here said of Christ rest on Scriptural authority; for (1) he is called God (Isa 9:6 ; Joh 1:1 ; Phi 2:5-11 ; Joh 20:28 ; Tit 1:3 ; Tit 2:13 ; Tit 3:4 ; Tit 3:6 ; Col 2:9 . Comp. 1Ti 2:5 with Act 20:28 ; and the "my church" of Mat 16:18). (2) The term eulogetos may be fittingly applied to him, for it is even applied to mere men by the LXX. (Deu 7:14 ; Rth 2:20 ; 1Sa 15:13), and is no stronger than the term "glory" (2Pe 3:18 ; Heb 13:21 ; 2Ti 4:18). (3) Christ himself claims to be "over all" (Joh 3:31 ; Mat 28:18), and it is abundantly asserted that such is the case (Phi 2:6-11 ; Eph 1:20-23 ; Rom 10:12 ; Act 10:36). So complete is his dominion that Paul deems it needful to expressly state that the Father is not made subordinate (1Co 15:25-28). The whole passage, as Gifford well says, constitutes "a noble protest against the indignity cast upon him (Christ) by the unbelief of the Jews."]

McGarvey: Rom 9:6

But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought . [Or, as Fritsche translates, "The matter, however, is not so as that the word of God had come to nought." Paul is answering the reasoning of the Jew which runs thus: "You speak of God's covenants and promises given to the fathers and enlarged in the Scriptures, yet you say the Jew has failed to receive the blessings guaranteed to him by God in those covenants and promises. If such is the case, then you must admit it that the word of God has failed of fulfillment." Paul begins his answer by denying the failure of the word of God, and proceeds to prove his denial. But his argument is not rigidly polemic; it is rather a heart-to-heart discussion of well-known historic facts which show that God's present enactments, rulings and executions harmonize perfectly with those of the past, which, too, have been heartily and unanimously approved by the Jews. "No," is then Paul's answer, "the word of God has not come to nought in Israel's rejection, for it (in the Old Testament), as you well know and approve, taught and worked out in precedent and example the same principles and same distinctions which are today affecting the rejection of Israel." God has not changed, nor has his word failed: it was Israel which had changed and failed.] For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel [The Jews would never have regarded Paul's reaching as subversive of the promises or word of God if they had not misconstrued the promises. They read them thus: "The promises guarantee salvation to all Jews, and the Jews alone are to be saved." Paul begins his argument by denying the correctness of their construction of God's word. "The word of God has not failed," says he, "because God has cast off a part of Israel (the fleshly part represented by the Jews), for God's word is kept as long as he keeps covenant with the other part (the spiritual part, represented by the Christians, principally Gentiles), for you are wrong in thinking that all the descendants of Jacob are reckoned by God as Israelites, or covenant people, and also wrong in supposing that Israel has only fleshly children, and no spiritual children." This argument apparently concedes for the moment that God's covenant was to give Israel salvation, which was not really the case. God's covenant was to provide the sacrifice in his Son, which would afford the means of salvation, conditioned on faith and obedience]:

McGarvey: Rom 9:7

neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but [as God said to Abraham -- Gen 21:12], In Isaac shall thy seed be called . [I. e., the children of Isaac alone shall be known distinctively as thy children, the heirs of thy covenant. Here, again, Paul attacks a second false construction which the Jews placed upon the promises. They said: "We must all be saved because we have Abraham for our father (Mat 3:9). If God does not save us, he breaks his word with Abraham." "Here again ye err," says Paul, "for at the very start when Abraham had but two sons, God rejected one of them, casting Ishmael off, and choosing Isaac; and later when Abraham had many sons God still refused all but Isaac, saying, The sons of yours which I shall call mine shall descend from Isaac alone."]

McGarvey: Rom 9:8

That is, it is not the children of the flesh [of Abraham] that are [reckoned or accounted as] children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed . [Are accounted the children of God through Abraham. Fleshly descent from Abraham, of itself and without more -- i. e., without promise -- never availed for any spiritual blessing (Gal 4:23). "This," says Trapp, "profiteth them no more than it did Dives, that Abraham called him son" (Luk 16:25). So flesh avails neither then nor now, but promise. Paul proceeds to show that Isaac was a son of promise, and whatever covenants or promises availed for his children came to them because they, through him, became symbolically sons of promise, Isaac typifying Christ, the real son of promise given to Abraham (Gal 3:16), and Isaac's posterity typifying the real children of promise, the regenerated sons of God begotten unto Christ through the gospel (Gal 4:28; Joh 1:12-13). So as Abraham had a fleshly seed according to the first promise, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," these being Jews; so he had a spiritual seed according to the second promise, "In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations (Gentiles; but not excluding Jews) of the earth be blessed," these being Gentiles. Hence, if the two promises were each kept with the two parties to whom they were severally given, the word of God was not broken, and his promise had not failed. But such was indeed the case, for God kept his word with the fleshly seed, fulfilling to them the fleshly promise that Christ should be born of their stock (Joh 4:22 ; Gal 3:16), and to the spiritual seed he was fulfilling the spiritual promise granting them eternal life through that faith in Christ which made them spiritual children of Abraham, the father of the faithful (Gal 3:7-14). So it was not two promises to one seed, but two promises to two seeds, and each promise was kept of God to each promisee. And why, says Paul, do we call Isaac the son of promise? Because he was not born according to the natural law of the flesh, his mother being past bearing, but contrary to nature and by reason of the divine power, working to fulfill the promise of God, which promise is as follows]

McGarvey: Rom 9:9

For this is a word of promise [this is the saying or promise that brought Isaac into being, and made him a child of promise and not of natural birth -- Gen 18:10], According to this season [Godet translates, "Next year at the moment when this same time (this same epoch) will return"] will I come [to fulfill my promise], and Sarah shall have a son . [This fixing of the definite time (an exact year from the date of the promise) when the child of promise should be born, is extremely significant. Ishmael was alive when this promise was given. But what Jew would have justified him in urging a claim as against the promised Isaac? Later, in the days of Daniel, a time limit was set for Christ, the greater Son of promise, by which it is made sure that he would begin his ministry in A. D. 26. If Ishmael had no reason or right to complain that he and his offspring (though he was established as a son) were stood aside for Isaac and his offspring, what right had Isaac in his turn to complain if God set a date when he and his offspring (though established son as was Ishmael) should in like manner be stood aside for the greater Son of promise, the Christ and his offspring? God fixed the dates in each case, and the dates in Dan 9:24-25 are equally explicit with Gen 17:21 . The Christ, "the anointed one, the prince," was to appear at the end of sixty-nine weeks of years, or in A. D. 26, and at the full end of the seventy weeks, or eight years later, in A. D. 34, the time "decreed upon thy [Daniel's] people" came to an end. The Holy Spirit that year emphasized the rejection of fleshly Israel and the acceptance of the children of promise (believers in Christ, his spiritual offspring) by withdrawing from the Jews and appearing upon the household of Cornelius, the firstfruits of the Gentiles (Acts 10). God gave Ishmael only one year's warning, and no especial call to repent, or opportunity to save himself in any way. But through Daniel, Israel had five hundred years of warning, and was invited of Christ and of all his apostles (even being invariably invited first, by Paul the apostle to the Gentiles) to become joint children of promise with the Gentiles; a joint relationship wherein they were bound by every circumstance to obtain and hold the pre-eminence. Surely, then, the word of God had not failed as to them, but they had failed as to it.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:10

And not only so [Not only is Ishmael rejected for the promised Isaac, but even Isaac's seed, his two sons Esau and Jacob, are made the subject of choice by God, showing that even the seed of the children of promise may be so sifted that part may be received and part rejected, for God indeed did this, accepting Jacob and rejecting Esau]; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac [Now, it might be objected by the Jew (unjustly in view of the fact that four of the tribes of Israel were descended from bondwomen) that his case was not parallel to that of Ishmael, for Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman (an Egyptian), and was of a mocking, spiteful disposition (Gen 21:9). Ishmael's rejection, therefore, was justifiable, while the exclusion of the Jew by Paul's so-called gospel was utterly unwarranted. To this Paul makes answer by citing the cases of Jacob and Esau. They had one father, Isaac the child of promise; and one mother, Rebecca the well beloved, approved of God; they were begotten at one conception, and were twins of one birth, yet God exercised his right to choose between them, and no Jew had ever questioned this, his right of choice. Yea, the unbounded freedom of choice was even more clearly manifest in other details which Paul enumerates] --

McGarvey: Rom 9:11

for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good [as might be supposed of Jacob] or bad [as might be presumed of Esau], that the purpose of God according to election [choosing] might stand [might be made apparent and be fully and finally confirmed], not of works, but of him that calleth [not a choosing enforced on God by the irresistible, meritorious claims of man, in keeping the law of works, human and divine; but a free choosing on God's part manifested in his calling those who suit his purpose],

McGarvey: Rom 9:12

it was said unto her, The elder shall serve ["Servitude," says Trapp, "came in with a curse, and figureth reprobation -- Gen 9:25; Joh 8:34-35 ; Gal 4:30 "] the younger . [I. e., Esau shall serve Jacob. It is evident from these words that Jacob and Esau do not figure personally, but as the heads of elect and non-elect nations, for personally Esau never served Jacob. On the contrary, he lived the life of a prince or petty king, while Jacob was a hireling, and Jacob feared Esau as the man of power. But the nation sprung of the elder son did serve the nation descended from the younger. "History," says Alford, "records several subjugations of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by David (2Sa 8:14) -- under Joram they rebelled (2Ki 8:20), but were defeated by Amaziah (2Ki 14:7), and Elath taken from them by Uzziah (2Ki 14:22); under Ahaz they were again free, and troubled Judah (2Ch 28:16-17 ; comp. 2Ki 16:6-7) -- and continued free as prophesied in Gen 27:40; till the time of John Hyrcanus, who (Jos. Ant. 13:9, 1) reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorporated among the Jews."]

McGarvey: Rom 9:13

Even as it is written [Mal 1:2-3], Jacob loved, but Esau hated . [Expositors of Calvinistic bias insist upon the full, literal meaning of "hatred" in this passage; but Hodge, whose leaning that way is so decided that he can see no more injustice in eternal than in temporal election (he apparently never weighed the words of our Savior at Luk 16:25 ; Luk 12:48 ; and kindred passages which show that temporal favors which are indeed bestowed arbitrarily are taken into account to form the basis of just judgment in the bestowal of eternal favors), is nevertheless too fair-minded an exegete to be misled here. He says: "It is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favor. Thus, in Gen 29:33 ; Leah says she was hated by her husband; while in the preceding verse the same idea is expressed by saying, 'Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah' (Mat 6:24 ; Luk 14:26). 'If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother, etc.' (Joh 12:25)." As this ninth of Romans is the stronghold of Calvinism, the arsenal of that disappearing remnant who believe in eternal foreordination according to the absolute decree of the sovereign will of God, we feel that a word ought to be said about the doctrinal trend of its sections. We therefore submit a few points. 1. It is rather odd that this chapter should be used to prove salvation by election when, so far as it bears on election at all, it is wholly an effort to justify God in casting off an elect people (Jews) and choosing a non-elect people (Gentiles). If, therefore, the chapter as a whole teaches anything as to arbitrary election, it is plainly this, that those who depend upon God to show partiality in electing some and condemning others, will either be disappointed as were the Jews, or surprised as were the Gentiles, for election will never work out as they suppose. For, after showing favor to Abraham's seed for nineteen hundred years, God adjusted the balances, and, turning from Jews to Gentiles, made the first last, and the last first; the elect, non-elect; and the non-elect, elect. And now, the non-elect, having enjoyed the favors and privileges for a like term of nineteen hundred years, are now being called to account, and will, in their turn, be cut off. But if they are, it will be wholly their own fault, just as the rejection nineteen hundred years ago was by Israel's fault, and not by arbitrary decree of God. 2. Moreover, Paul is not discussing salvation, or foreordination as to eternity. There is not one word on that subject in the entire ninth chapter. The apostle is introducing no new doctrine, no unheard-of and strange enormity like Calvinism. "The difficulty," as Olshausen aptly puts it, "and obscurity of the whole section before us are diminished when we reflect that it by no means contains anything peculiar; since the same ideas which so startle us in reading it, are also expressed throughout the whole of the Old as well as the New Testament. It is only their conciseness, their bold and powerful utterance, that lends them, as it were, an unprecedented appearance here." The apostle is speaking of the bestowal of temporal advantages and benefits, and is showing that these, even when relating to Messianic privileges, are bestowed according to God's free will -- they have to be! They are like other earthly benefits or privileges; for instance, the distinction as to new-born souls. It is God alone who must determine how each shall enter the world, whether as of the white, brown, red, black or yellow race, whether among the rich or poor. So also, rising a step higher, whether a soul shall have a perfect or a defective brain to think with, and whether it shall enter a Christian or a pagan home. Now, as God gave a promise to Eve, the same law of necessity made it compulsory that he choose arbitrarily what household should be the repository of that promise and thus perpetuate a lively expectation of its fulfillment. God therefore first chose the Chaldees among the nations, then, as second choice, he elected Abraham among the Chaldees; third, he chose Isaac from Abraham's seed, and, fourth, Jacob from Isaac's offspring. Up to this time there was a marked separation, both spiritual and geographical, between the elect and the non-elect, so that there was no confusion in anybody's mind as to the inherent exclusiveness of election. But with Jacob a change came. His sons all dwell together, and during his lifetime till his last sickness no election was announced as to them until on his death-bed Jacob gave Judah the pre-eminence (Gen 49:8-12). But Moses passes over this pre-eminence (Deu 33:7) and there was no segregation of Judah. In fact, other tribes seem to have overshadowed Judah in importance, notably that of Levi, all of whom were set apart as Levites for God's service, and of which tribe also came Moses the lawgiver and Aaron the father of the priesthood. Moreover, many of the great judges came from other tribes, and the house of Benjamin furnished the first king. This community of interest, this privilege of enjoying the appurtenances and collaterals of election, should have taught Israel that the blessing promised was greater, wider and more gracious than the mere privilege of being the repository of that blessing, but, instead, it begot in them the mistaken idea that all the twelve tribes were elect. So, indeed, they were as to possessing the land, but they were not elect as to being repositories of the Messianic promise, which honor was first limited to Judah (1Ch 5:2) and afterwards to the house of David (2Sa 7:12 ; Mic 5:2 ; Joh 7:42). Now, this is what Paul is discussing. With him it is a question of fixing a promise so that men may watch for its fulfillment in a certain race and family -- a promise which, when fulfilled, brings blessings and benefits not confined to any race or family, but open and free to all who accept them, and denied to all who refuse and reject them, yea, even to the very race and family which have been the age-long repositories of the promise. And the point of Paul's whole argument is this: As God was absolutely free to choose who should be the repositories of the promise, so is he absolutely free to fix the terms by which men shall enjoy the blessings promised, even if those terms (because of rebellion against them on the part of the repositories) work out the failure of the repositories to enjoy the blessings so long held by them in the form of unfulfilled promise. And what has all this to do with electing infants to eternal damnation? No more than the election which makes one child black and the other white, when both are born the same moment. In short, no temporal election, no matter how blessed, includes salvation to the elect or necessitates damnation upon the non-elect, for it is apparent to all that the election of the Gentiles as repositories of Christian truth does not save half of them, and the rejection of the Jews from this holy office damns none of them. Salvation is accorded the Jew who believes as freely as it is to the Gentile, and the unbelieving Gentile is damned with the unbelieving Jew, and rests under heavier condemnation because he sins against greater temporal privileges and advantages. In either case the temporal advantage or disadvantage will be duly considered in forming a just judgment (Luk 12:48). 3. It should be noted that Paul proves God's right at any time to limit his promise. Thus the blessing to Abraham's seed was first "nakedly and generally expressed," as Chalmers puts it. Then it was limited to one son, Isaac. Again it was limited to Isaac's son, Jacob. Therefore, as God established his right of limiting the promise to those whom he chose in the inner circle of the promise, so he could in the gospel age limit the promise to spiritual to the exclusion of fleshly seed. This is not just what he did, but this is what he established his right to do, for if he could disinherit Ishmael after he had apparently obtained vested rights, and if he disinherited Esau before he was born, there was no limit to his right to disinherit, providing only that he kept within the promise and chose some one of Abraham's seed, or the seed of some one of his descendants to whom a like covenant was given. Compare his offer to make Moses the head of a new people (Exo 32:10), which he was free to do, not having confirmed the rights in Judah pronounced by Jacob -- Gen 49:8-12].

McGarvey: Rom 9:14

What shall, we say then? [The apostle makes frequent use of the semi-dialogue. Five times already in this Epistle he has asked this question (Rom 3:5 ; Rom 4:1 ; Rom 6:1 ; Rom 7:7 ; Rom 8:31). He begins with this question which calls out an objection in the form of a question, to which he replies with an indignant denial, which he backs up by a full and detailed answer, or explanation. The question called out is] Is there unrighteousness with God? [The indignant denial is as usual] God forbid . [Poole calls this "Paul's repeated note of detestation." He uses it fourteen times. It expresses indignant, pious horror. Literally it is, "Let it not be;" but as this form of expression was too tame for our English ancestry who have ever held God's name in that light reverence which makes free use of it for emphasis, we find it translated "God forbid" by Wyclif, Coverdale, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, etc. But the use of God's name, being needless, is inexcusable. The import, then, of verse 14 runs thus: If God chooses arbitrarily, is he not unjust? and does he not thereby do violence to his moral character, his holiness? The apostle's answer is unique; for it is merely a quotation from Scripture. His argument, therefore, rests upon a double assumption; first, that God is truly represented in the Scripture, and, second, the Scripture everywhere represents him as just, holy and perfect. Paul's objector, in this case, would be a Jew, and any Jew would accept both these assumptions as axiomatic. If, therefore, Paul's Scripture quotation shows that God's power of choice is absolutely free, then the apostle by it has likewise shown that God's arbitrary choices are nevertheless just and holy, and objection to them as unjust is not well founded. The arbitrary choice of a sinful heart is sinful, but the arbitrary choice of the Sinless is likewise sinless, just and holy partaking of his nature who chooses.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:15

For he saith to Moses [Exo 33:19 . Surely if the Scripture generally was final authority to the Jew, that part of it would be least questioned wherein God is the speaker and Moses the reporter], I will have mercy on whom I have mercy [God chooses both the occasion and the object of mercy, and it is not regulated by anything external to him. That which is bestowed upon the meritorious and deserving is not pure mercy; for, as Shakespeare expresses it, "The quality of mercy is not strained"], and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion . [Compassion is a stronger term than mercy; it is mercy with the heart in it. The words quoted were spoken to Moses when he requested to see God, and his request was in part granted. In expounding Exo 33:19 ; Keil and Delitzsch speak thus: "These words, though only connected with the previous clause by the copulative vav, are to be understood in a causal sense as expressing the reason why Moses' request was granted, that it was an act of unconditional grace and compassion on the part of God, to which no man, not even Moses, could lay any just claim." This interpretation is strengthened by the Old Testament reading, which runs thus: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy," for the act was one of grace rather than of compassion. Let us remember that Paul is here addressing a hypothetical Jewish objector. The Jew, influenced by false reasoning on his law, held a theory that man's conduct regulated God's and that man took the initiative and that God's actions were merely responsive. Such might, in some measure, have been the case had any man ever kept the law; but as things actually stood, to the subversion of all such things, it was evident from Scripture that Moses, the great lawgiver, himself had never been able to merit a favor at God's hands, but, on the contrary, God granted that to him as a matter of gracious mercy which he could never claim as a matter of right; viz., not eternal life with God, but the mere momentary glimpse of the passing of God's glory. Surely, with such a precedent before him, the rational, thoughtful Jew, whether of Paul's day or of our own, could and can have small hope of gaining heaven by the works of the law. Since it is true that Abraham obtained favor by faith and Moses received it solely by grace, who shall win it by merit under the law?]

McGarvey: Rom 9:16

So then [With these words Paul introduces the answer to the question in Rom 9:14 ; as inferred or deduced from the citation in Rom 9:15 ; as though he said, "As a conclusion from what I have cited, it is proven that as to the obtaining of God's favor"] it is not [the accomplishment] of him that willeth [of him that wants it], nor of him that runneth [of him that ardently strives, or offers works for it; as a runner does for his prize], but of God that hath mercy . [Many expositors, following Theophylact, refer this "willing" to Isaac, who sought to bless Esau against God's choice in Jacob, and refer the running to that of Esau, who ran to get the venison. But that running of Esau was too literal; it lacked in that moral effort Godward which Paul's argument implies. Others, as Meyer, Godet, etc., confine the willing and running to Moses, but this, too, is objectionable, as too narrow a base for so broad a principle. Paul includes Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses, and all like them. No man is chosen of God because he chooses or strives to be chosen till God has first chosen him (Joh 15:16-19). The first choice rests in the will of God. If God did not call all (Joh 3:16 ; Tit 2:11 ; Rev 22:17) and choose all who respond by sincerely wishing and striving to be chosen, the dark side of Calvinism might indeed be true. Originally there was no curb to the freedom of God in dealing with fallen man save the unspeakable mercy and goodness of God. Justice at that time afforded no curb; for man was a sinner without means of propitiation or atonement, and stood condemned by justice. The verbal form "runneth," though it comes in abruptly, is not of special, but of general, reference ("him" being equivalent to "any one"), and indicates strenuous moral effect toward God, or salvation (Psa 119:32). It is part of the old and familiar figure wherein life is regarded as a race or "course," moral effort being a "running" therein (see comment, Rom 9:31-32). This figure is so well known that it is customarily introduced thus abruptly (Act 13:25 ; Act 20:24 ; 2Ti 4:6-7). The use of the verb "to run" is as common as the noun "course," and is also brought in abruptly, as needing no gloss (Gal 2:2 ; Gal 5:7 ; Phi 2:16 ; Heb 12:1 . Comp. Phi 3:11-14 and 1Co 9:24-26 ; where the apostle elaborates the figure). These very references to Paul's use of this figure afford abundant proof that after God chooses us (and he has now chosen us all, for he would not that any should perish, but that all men be saved, and come into the knowledge of the truth -- 2Pe 3:9 ; 1Ti 2:4 ; Rom 2:4 ; Tit 2:11 : Eze 18:23 ; Eze 18:32 ; Eze 33:11), then everything depends upon our "willing" (Luk 13:34 ; Act 13:46) and "running," for we ourselves having obtained of God's free will and grace a calling and election, must of ourselves make that calling and election sure (2Pe 1:10-11); yea, we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and the aid of God (Phi 2:12), and must so "run" that we may obtain. Paul is here proving the unfettered freedom of the Almighty before he gave the gospel. A freedom which permitted him to give it when, how, where and to whom he chose, save as he had gradually limited himself, slightly, from time to time, by his promises. This freedom permitted him at last to give such a gospel that the self-righteous Jews saw fit to reject it and become castaways. Paul in all his argument says never a word about God's limitations in the gospel after the gospel was given; for they have nothing to do with his argument which relates to God's freedom when preparing the gospel and before the gospel was given. Failure to note this simple, obvious distinction has brought forth that abortive system of inexorable logic called Calvinism, which has gone near to attribute both the sins of man and the iniquities of the devil to God himself. God was free, but in his goodness he chose to provide salvation to those who would accept it on his conditions. Thus the Lord, being free, chose to be bound by his covenants and promises, even as the Lord Jesus, being rich, chose to be poor (2Co 8:9). Paul proves God's past freedom; no one save the Jew of his day ever denied it; but to say that Paul establishes a present freedom and absolute sovereignty in God, which robs man of his freedom to do right, or wrong: repent, or continue in sin; accept Christ, or reject him, etc., is to dynamite the gospel, and blast to shivers the entire rock of New Testament Scripture. Calvinism denies to God the possibility of making a covenant, or giving a promise, for each of these is a forfeiture of freedom, a limitation of liberty. According to Calvinism, God is absolutely free; according to the Scripture, he is free save where he has pledged himself to man in the gospel.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:17

For the scripture [Paul is still answering the question at verse 14 by Scripture citation] saith unto Pharaoh [We have had election choosing between Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob: we now have it choosing between a third pair, Moses and Pharaoh. In the first case God blessed both Isaac, and Ishmael with promises (Gen 17:20 ; Gen 21:13 ; Gen 21:18 ; Gen 21:20); in the second case he blessed Jacob and withheld his promise from Esau; in the third case he granted favor to Moses, and meted out punishment to Pharaoh. Thus there is a marked progress in reprobation in the three non-elect characters, which is suggestive, since Israel was thrice given over to a reprobate mind, and each punishment was more intense. First, all were rejected in the wilderness, but all their children were permitted to enter the promised land-time, forty years; second, all were rejected at the carrying away into Babylon, and only a small body were permitted to return -- time, seventy years; third, the race as a race was rejected in Paul's day and only a remnant will, even at the end, be restored (Isa 10:22-23 ; Isa 1:9) -- time, about nineteen hundred years], For this very purpose did I raise thee up [caused thee to occupy a time and place which made thee conspicuous in sacred history], that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth . [For the publishing of God's name, see Exo 15:14-16 ; Jos 2:9-10 ; Jos 9:9 . The dispersion of the Jews and the spread of Christianity have kept God's name glorified in the history of Pharaoh to this day. Paul is still establishing by Scripture God's freedom of choice. He chose the unborn in preference to the born; he chose between unborn twins; he chose between the shepherd Moses and Pharaoh the king. In this last choice Moses was chosen as an object of mercy, and Pharaoh as a creature of wrath, but his latter choice in no way violates even man's sense of justice. Instead of raising up a weak and timid owner of the Hebrew slaves, God exalted Pharaoh, the stubborn, the fearless. And who would question God's right to do this? Having put Pharaoh in power, God so managed the contest with him that his stubbornness was fully developed and made manifest, and in overcoming his power and stubbornness through the weakness of Moses, God showed his power. The transaction is very complex. God starts by stating the determined nature of Pharaoh (Exo 3:19) and follows the statement with the thrice repeated promise, "I will harden his heart" (Exo 4:21 ; Exo 7:3 ; Exo 14:4 . Comp. Exo 14:17). Once Jehovah says, "I have hardened his heart" (Exo 10:1). Thrice it is said that his "heart was hardened as Jehovah had spoken" (Exo 7:13 ; Exo 8:19 ; Exo 9:35). Once it reads that his "heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as Jehovah had spoken" (Exo 7:22). Five times we read that "Jehovah hardened" his heart (Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20 ; Exo 10:27 ; Exo 11:10 ; Exo 14:8). Thus thirteen times (with Exo 8:15 ; fourteen times) Pharaoh's hardness of heart is said to be the act of God. (Comp. Deu 2:30 ; Jos 11:20 ; Isa 63:17 ; Joh 12:40 ; Joh 9:39 ; Mar 4:12) Inexorably so? By no means: God would have gotten honor had he relented before matters reached extremes. Hence Pharaoh is called upon to repent (Exo 10:3), and several times he is near repenting, and might have done so had not God been too ready to show mercy (Exo 8:28 ; Exo 9:27 ; Exo 10:24). So there was sin in Pharaoh. We read that his "heart is stubborn" (Exo 7:14); "was stubborn" (Exo 9:7). "Pharaoh hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had spoken" (Exo 8:15). "Pharaoh hardened his heart" (Exo 8:32 ; 1Sa 6:6). "Pharaoh sinned yet more, and hardened his heart" (Exo 9:34). As the hardening was the joint work of Pharaoh and God, and as Pharaoh sinned in hardening his heart, God's part in the hardening was not an absolute, overmastering act. It was not even a persuasive act, as in cases of conversion. God hardened Pharaoh's heart by providing opportunity and occasion, as the narrative shows, and Pharaoh did the rest by improving the opportunity in the service of the devil. The same act of patience, forbearance and mercy which softens one heart, hardens another by delaying punishment, as we may see every day. The same sunshine that quickens the live seed, rots the dead one. The Jews approved God's course toward Pharaoh, but resented the same treatment when turned upon themselves, ignoring the natural law that like causes produce like effects. God found Pharaoh hard and used him for his glory negatively. He found Israel hard and made the same negative use of them, causing the gospel to succeed without them, thus provoking them to jealousy -- Rom 10:19]

McGarvey: Rom 9:18

So then [see Rom 9:16] he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. [This does not mean that God arbitrarily chooses the worst people upon whom to shower his mercies, and chooses those who are trying hard to serve him and hardens them that he may punish them. The point is that, in the absence of any promise or other self-imposed limitation. God is free to choose whom he will for what he will. As applicable to Paul's argument, it means that God's freedom of choice is not bound by man's judgment or estimation, for he may prefer the publican to the Pharisee (Luk 18:9-14) and may choose rather to be known as the friend of sinners than the companion of the rulers and chief priests, and he may elect the hedge-row Gentile to the exclusion of invited but indifferent Jews (Luk 14:23-24). God is bound by his nature to choose justly and righteously, but all history shows that man can not depend upon his sin-debased judgment when he attempts to specify what or whom God approves or rejects. Here we must be guided wholly by his word, and must also be prayerfully careful not to wrest it. In short, it is safer to say that God chooses absolutely, than to say that God chooses according to my judgment, for human judgment must rarely square with the divine mind. Had the Jew accepted Paul's proposition, he might centuries ago have seen the obvious fact that God has chosen the Gentiles and rejected him; but, persisting in his erroneous theory that God's judgment and choice must follow his own petty notions and whims, he is blind to that liberty of God's of which the apostle wrote, and naturally --

"For, Och! mankind are unco weak,

An' little to be trusted;

If self the wavering balance shake,

It's rarely right adjusted!"]

McGarvey: Rom 9:19

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? [That God actually and always does find fault with sinners is a fact never to be overlooked, and is also a fact which shows beyond all question or peradventure that God abhors evil and takes no positive steps toward its production. Even in the case cited by Paul, where God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the act of God was permissive, for else how could the Lord expostulate with Pharaoh for a rebellious spirit for which God himself was responsible? (Exo 9:17 ; Exo 10:3-4) Again, let us consider the case in point. If God hardened Israel by positive act, why did his representative and "express image" weep over Jerusalem? and why was the Book of Romans written?] For who withstandeth his will? [Since Paul is still justifying God in formulating a gospel which results in the condemnation of Jews and the saving of Gentiles, this objector is naturally either a Jew or some one speaking from the Jewish standpoint. This fact is made more apparent in the subsequent verses, for in them the apostle appropriately answers the Jew out of his Jewish Scriptures. The objection runs thus: But, Paul, if God shows mercy to whom he will, and if he hardens whom he will, then it is he who has hardened us Jews in unbelief against the gospel. Why, then, does he still find fault with us, since he himself, according to your argument, has excluded us from blessedness, and made us unfit for mercy? This reply implies three things: 1. God, not the Jew, was at fault. 2. The Jew was ill used of God, in being deprived of blessing through hardening. 3. The rewards of saints and sinners should be equal, since each did God's will absolutely in the several fields of good and evil where God had elected each to work. To each of these three implications the apostle replies with lightning-like brevity: 1. It is impious, O man, to so argue in self-justification as to compromise the good name of God. 2. It is folly for the thing formed to complain against him that formed it. 3. Rewards and destinies need not be equal, since, for instance, the potter out of the same lump forms vessels for different destinies, whether of honor or dishonor. But it must be borne in mind that in the last of these three brief answers the apostle aims rather, as Alford says, "at striking dumb the objector by a statement of God's indubitable right, against which it does not become us men to murmur, than at unfolding to us the actual state of the case." Let us now consider the three answers in detail.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:20

Nay but [One word in Greek,: viz., the particle menounge. "This particle is," says Hodge, "often used in replies, and is partly concessive and partly corrective, as in Luk 11:28 ; where it is rendered, yea, rather; in Rom 10:18 ; yes, verily. It may here, as elsewhere, have an ironical force. Sometimes it is strongly affirmative, as in Phi 3:8 , and at others introduces, as here, a strong negation or repudiation of what has been said." "I do not examine the intrinsic verity of what you allege, but, be that as it may, this much is certain, that you are not in a position to dispute with God" -- Godet], O man ["Man" stands at the beginner and "God" at the end of the clause to emphasize the contrast. Man, thou feeble morsel of sinful dust, wilt thou wrangle with God!], who art thou that repliest against God? ["That chattest and wordest it with him" (Trapp). "Repliest" signifies an answer to an answer. It suggests, to those familiar with legal parlance, the declaration and answer, the replication and rejoinder, the rebutter and surrebutter to the limits both of human impudence and divine patience. Before answering the objection, Paul, therefore, felt it necessary to rebuke the impious presumption of the objector. It is permissible to fathom and understand what God reveals about himself, but it is not allowable for us, out of our own sense of justice, arrogantly and confidently to fix and formulate what principles must guide God in his judging. To do this is to incur the censure meted out to Job (Job 38:41). "No man," says Haldane, "has a right to bring God to trial." Man's understanding is not adequate to such a task.] Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? [In the Greek the form of the question indicates that a negative answer is expected. The question is not a quotation, but rather "an echo" of Isa 29:16 and Isa 45:9 . "Formed" implies, not creation, but subsequent ethical moulding. God does not create us evil, but we are born into a world which, if not resisted, will form us thus. This is the actual work of God in the case. If we find ourselves formed after the pattern of evil, can we, in the light of all that he has done in the gospel, censure God for our life-result? Being insensate, the wood can not quarrel with the carpenter, nor the iron with the smith. Being sensate, and knowing the grace of God, and his own free will, man also is silent, and can render no complaint. The free will of man is an offset to the insensibility of the wood and iron, and makes their cases equal, or, legally speaking, "on all fours." Inanimate material can not complain of malformation, for it lacks understanding of the facts; but man, having understanding, likewise can not complain, for the malformation was his own free choice. Speaking mathematically, the "free will" cancels the "lack of understanding," and leaves the animate and the inanimate equal, and therefore alike silent as to the results of the processes of moulding.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:21

Or [This word presents a dilemma, thus: Either the clay (thing formed) has no right to question, or the potter has no right to dictate. In the Greek the form of the question indicates the affirmative answer: "The potter has a right to dictate"] hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another [part of the lump a vessel] unto dishonor? [God is the potter, the human race is the clay, and the vessels are nations. Being under obligations to none, for all, having fallen into sin, had thereby forfeited his regard and care as Creator, God, for the good of all, made election that the Jewish nation should be a vessel of honor (Act 13:17) to hold the truth (2Co 4:7 ; Rom 3:1-2), the covenants and the progenital line through which came the Messiah. Later he chose the Egyptians as a vessel of dishonor, to be punished for their abuse of the covenant people, and the murder of their little ones. In Paul's day he was choosing Gentiles (Europeans) as vessels of honor to hold the knowledge of the gospel. This choosing and forming is to the prejudice of no man's salvation, for all are invited in matters pertaining to eternal life, and each temporal election is for the eternal benefit of all. Potter's clay and potter's vessels are used to indicate national weakness (Dan 2:41-44 ; Lam 4:2 ; Isa 41:25 ; Psa 2:9 ; Rev 2:26-27) and national dependence (Isa 64:8-12) and national punishment (Jer 19:1 ; Jer 10:13 ; Isa 30:14). It is a national figure (Ecc 3:10-12), yet it recognizes national free will (Jer 18:1-12). In the single instance where it is used individually, it is employed by Paul in a passage very similar to this, yet clearly recognizing the power of human vessels to change destinies by the exercise of free will (2Ti 2:20-21). But no individual vessel is one of honor till cleansed by blood (Heb 9:21-22 ; Act 9:15 ; Act 22:14-16), and who will say that a vessel cleansed in Christ's blood is one of dishonor? And we are cleansed or not according to our own free choice.]

McGarvey: Rom 9:22

What if [With these words Paul introduces his real answer to the question asked in verse 19. The full idea runs thus: "I have answered your impudent question by an assertion of the absolute right of God, which you can not deny (Pro 26:5 ; Psa 18:26). But what will you say if, etc." If the absolute abstract right of God puts man to silence, how much more must he be silent before the actual, applied mercy and grace of God which forbears to use the right because of his longsuffering pity toward the impenitent, and his forgiving leniency toward the repentant. Paul asserts the absolute right of God, but denies that he applies it. Herein he differs from Calvinism, which insists that he applies it] God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction [And now, O man, how silent must you be if it appears that God, although willing to show his displeasure against wickedness, and ready to show his power to crush its designs, nevertheless endured with much longsuffering evil men whose conduct had already fitted them for, or made them worthy of, destruction. Paul has already told us that the longsuffering of God is exercised to induce repentance, though its abuse may incidentally increase both wrath and punishment (Rom 2:4-11). It is not affirmed that God "fitted" these evil ones for destruction. "And," says Barnes, "there is an evident design in not affirming it, and a distinction made between them and the vessels of mercy which ought to be regarded. In relation to the latter it is expressly affirmed that God fitted or prepared them for glory. (See Rom 9:23) 'Which HE had afore prepared unto glory.' The same distinction is remarkably striking in the account of the last judgment in Mat 25:34-41 . To the righteous, Christ will say, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU,' etc. To the wicked, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS;' not said to have been originally prepared for them. It is clear, therefore, that God intends to keep the great truth in view, that he prepares his people by direct agency for heaven; but that he exerts no such agency in preparing the wicked for destruction." No potter, either divine or human, ever made vessels just to destroy them. But any potter, finding a vessel suited to a dishonorable use, may so use it, and may afterwards destroy it. How the Jews "fitted" themselves for destruction is told elsewhere by the apostle -- 1Th 2:15-16]:

McGarvey: Rom 9:23

and [A copula of thoughts, rather than of clauses: God spared the wicked because of longsuffering mercy to them, and because they could be used to aid him in making known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy. Without attempting to show that God's patience with the godless aids him to win the godly, we will let it suffice to say that God spares the wicked for the sake of the righteous, lest the hasty uprooting of the former might jeopardize the safety of the latter -- Mat 13:28-30] that [he showed longsuffering to the wicked, in order that] he might make known the riches of his glory [God's glory is his holiness, his perfection; "riches," as Bengel observes, "of goodness, grace, mercy, wisdom, omnipotence"] upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory [It is much disputed whether the "glory" here mentioned is the temporal honor of being a church militant, a covenant people, a temple of the Spirit (Eph 2:22), a new dispensation of grace supplanting that of the law (glories won by the Gentiles, and lost by the Jews), or whether it refers to the glory of the land celestial, and the bliss of heaven. The context favors the latter view, for "glory" is the antithesis of "destruction" in the parallel clause, and destruction can refer to nothing temporal. By comparing the two parallel clauses, Gifford deduces the following: "We see (1) that St. Paul is here speaking, not of election or predestination, but of an actual preparation and purgation undergone by vessels of mercy to fit them for glory, before God 'makes known the riches of his glory upon them.' Compare 2Ti 2:20-21 ; a passage which evidently looks back on this. (2) We observe that this preparation, unlike that by which 'vessels of wrath' are 'fitted for destruction,' is ascribed directly and exclusively to God as its author, being wholly brought about by his providence and prevenient grace. The idea of fitness, akin to that of desert, is ascribed only to the vessels of wrath. The vessels of mercy God has made ready for glory, but there is no idea of merit involved"],

McGarvey: Rom 9:24

even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? [The apostle ends his question with a clear specification of who the vessels of mercy are. They are those called impartially from both Jews and Gentiles. "In calling to salvation," says Lard, "God is equally merciful to all. He sends to all the same Christ, the same gospel; on them he spends the same influences, and to them presents the same incentives to duty. But beyond this he strictly discriminates in bestowing mercy. He bestows it on those only that obey his Son. On the rest he will one day pour out his wrath." We may add, that toward those who accept his call he is equally impartial in preparing for glory, giving them the same remission of sins, the same gift of the Holy Spirit, the same promises, etc. But the impartiality which the apostle emphasizes is that which gave no preference to the Jew.]

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Rom 9:13

ROMANS 9:13 —How can God hate Esau when He is a God of love?

(See comments on Mal. 1:3 .)

Critics Ask: Rom 9:17

ROMANS 9:17 —How can Pharaoh be free if God hardened his heart?

PROBLEM: God said to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth” ( Rom. 9:17 , NASB ). In fulfillment of this, it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart ( Ex. 4:21 ; cf. Ex. 7:3 ). But if God raised up Pharaoh and even hardened his heart to accomplish His divine purposes, then isn’t Pharaoh exempt from responsibility for his actions?

SOLUTION: First, God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh’s free but stubborn action as well as the end of Israel’s deliverance. In Exodus 3:19 , God told Moses, “But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand.” Pharaoh rejected the request of Moses and only after ten plagues did Pharaoh finally let the people go.

Second, it is important to note that Pharaoh first hardened his own heart. When Moses initially approached Pharaoh concerning the release of the Israelites ( Ex. 5:1 ), Pharaoh responded, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go” ( Ex. 5:2 ). The passage Paul quotes (in Rom. 9:17 ) is Exodus 9:16 which, in context, is the plague of the boils, the sixth plague. But Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God made this statement. Just because God raised up Pharaoh does not mean that Pharaoh is not responsible for his actions.

Third, God uses the unrighteousness of humans to show His glory. God still holds Pharaoh accountable, but in the process of his hardened heart God used Pharaoh to display His greatness and glory. God sometimes uses evil acts to bring about good results. The story of Joseph is a good example of this point. Joseph is sold by his brothers and later becomes a ruler in Egypt. In Egypt, Joseph saves many lives during a famine. When he later reveals himself to his brothers and forgives them, he says, “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” ( Gen. 50:20 ). God can use bad actions to bring about His glory (see also discussion on Ex. 4:21 ).   

Evidence: Rom 9:1

" When a man calls himself an atheist, he is not attacking God; he is attacking his own conscience." Michael Pearl

Evidence: Rom 9:2

A letter from an atheist:

"You are really convinced that you've got all the answers. You've really got yourself tricked into believing that you're 100% right. Well, let me tell you just one thing. Do you consider yourself to be compassionate of other humans? If you're right about God, as you say you are, and you believe that, then how can you sleep at night? When you speak with me, you are speaking with someone who you believe is walking directly into eternal damnation, into an endless onslaught of horrendous pain which your 'loving' god created, yet you stand by and do nothing.

"If you believed one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unchangeable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That's equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You're just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that 'Walk' signal will shine your way across the road.

"Think about it. Imagine the horrors hell must have in store if the Bible is true. You're just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you're right, then you're an uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as love and caring."

If we have great heaviness and sorrow in our heart for the lost, we will warn them of the realities of hell (see 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9 footnote) and how to avoid it. See John 4:1 footnote for witnessing tips.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans

Spring of a.d. 57

By Way of Introduction

Integrity of the Epistle

The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Rom_16:2) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul’s long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Rom_16:3-5) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan’s theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Co_1:20, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul’s remarks about going to Rome (Rom_1:9-16) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added Rom_16:25-27 some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves Rom_15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

The Time and Place

The place is settled if we accept Rom_16:1. The time of the year is in the spring if we combine statements in the Acts and the Epistle. He says: " I am now going to Jerusalem ministering to the saints" (Rom_15:25). In Act_20:3 we read that Paul spent three months in Corinth. In II Corinthians we have a full account of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The account of the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem is given in Acts 20:3-21:17. It was in the spring between passover at Philippi (Act_20:6) and pentecost in Jerusalem (Act_20:16; Act_21:17). The precise year is not quite so certain, but we may suggest a.d. 57 or 58 with reasonable confidence.

The Purpose

Paul tells this himself. He had long cherished a desire to come to Rome (Act_19:21) and had often made his plans to do so (Rom_1:13) which were interrupted (Rom_15:22), but now he definitely plans to go from Jerusalem, after taking the contribution there (Rom_15:26), to Rome and then on to Spain (Rom_15:24, Rom_15:28). Meanwhile he sends this Epistle that the Romans may know what Paul’s gospel really is (Rom_1:15; Rom_2:16). He is full of the issues raised by the Judaizing controversy as set forth in the Epistles to Corinth and to Galatia. So in a calmer mood and more at length he presents his conception of the Righteousness demanded by God (Rom_1:17) of both Gentile (Rom_1:18-32) and Jew (Romans 2:1-3:20) and only to be obtained by faith in Christ who by his atoning death (justification) has made it possible (Romans 3:21-5:21). This new life of faith in Christ should lead to holiness of life (sanctification, chapters Romans 6-8). This is Paul’s gospel and the remaining chapters deal with corollaries growing out of the doctrine of grace as applied to practical matters. It is a cause for gratitude that Paul did write out so full a statement of his message. He had a message for the whole world and was anxious to win the Roman Empire to Christ. It was important that he go to Rome for it was the centre of the world’s life. Nowhere does Paul’s Christian statesmanship show to better advantage than in this greatest of his Epistles. It is not a book of formal theology though Paul is the greatest of theologians. Here Paul is seen in the plenitude of his powers with all the wealth of his knowledge of Christ and his rich experience in mission work. The church in Rome is plainly composed of both Jews and Greeks, though who started the work there we have no way of knowing. Paul’s ambition was to preach where no one else had been (Rom_15:20), but he has no hesitation in going on to Rome.

JFB: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE GENUINENESS of the Epistle to the Romans has never been questioned. It has the unbroken testimony of all antiquity, up to CLEMENT OF ROME, the apostle's "fellow laborer in the Gospel, whose name was in the Book of Life" (Phi 4:3), and who quotes from it in his undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians, written before the close of the first century. The most searching investigations of modern criticism have left it untouched.

WHEN and WHERE this Epistle was written we have the means of determining with great precision, from the Epistle itself compared with the Acts of the Apostles. Up to the date of it the apostle had never been at Rome (Rom 1:11, Rom 1:13, Rom 1:15). He was then on the eve of visiting Jerusalem with a pecuniary contribution for its Christian poor from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, after which his purpose was to pay a visit to Rome on his way to Spain (Rom 15:23-28). Now this contribution we know that he carried with him from Corinth, at the close of his third visit to that city, which lasted three months (Act 20:2-3; Act 24:17). On this occasion there accompanied him from Corinth certain persons whose names are given by the historian of the Acts (Act 20:4), and four of these are expressly mentioned in our Epistle as being with the apostle when he wrote it--Timotheus, Sosipater, Gaius, and Erastus (Rom 16:21, Rom 16:23). Of these four, the third, Gaius, was an inhabitant of Corinth (1Co 1:14), and the fourth, Erastus, was "chamberlain of the city" (Rom 16:23), which can hardly be supposed to be other than Corinth. Finally, Phœbebe, the bearer, as appears, of this Epistle, was a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea, the eastern port of Corinth (Rom 16:1). Putting these facts together, it is impossible to resist the conviction, in which all critics agree, that Corinth was the place from which the Epistle was written, and that it was despatched about the close of the visit above mentioned, probably in the early spring of the year 58.FOUNDER of this celebrated church is unknown. That it owed its origin to the apostle Peter, and that he was its first bishop, though an ancient tradition and taught in the Church of Rome as a fact not to be doubted, is refuted by the clearest evidence, and is given up even by candid Romanists. On that supposition, how are we to account for so important a circumstance being passed by in silence by the historian of the Acts, not only in the narrative of Peter's labors, but in that of Paul's approach to the metropolis, of the deputations of Roman "brethren" that came as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet him, and of his two years' labors there (Act 28:15, Act 28:30)? And how, consistently with his declared principle--not to build on another man's foundation (Rom 15:20) --could he express his anxious desire to come to them that he might have some fruit among them also, even as among other Gentiles (Rom 1:13), if all the while he knew that they had the apostle of the circumcision for their spiritual father? And how, if so, is there no salutation to Peter among the many in this Epistle? or, if it may be thought that he was known to be elsewhere at that particular time, how does there occur in all the Epistles which our apostle afterwards wrote from Rome not one allusion to such an origin of the church at Rome? The same considerations would seem to prove that this church owed its origin to no prominent Christian laborer; and this brings us to the much-litigated question.

For WHAT CLASS of Christians was this Epistle principally designed--Jewish or Gentile? That a large number of Jews and Jewish proselytes resided at this time at Rome is known to all who are familiar with the classical and Jewish writers of that and the immediately subsequent periods; and that those of them who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:10), and formed probably part of the three thousand converts of that day, would on their return to Rome carry the glad tidings with them, there can be no doubt. Nor are indications wanting that some of those embraced in the salutations of this Epistle were Christians already of long standing, if not among the earliest converts to the Christian faith. Others of them who had made the apostle's acquaintance elsewhere, and who, if not indebted to him for their first knowledge of Christ, probably owed much to his ministrations, seemed to have charged themselves with the duty of cherishing and consolidating the work of the Lord in the capital. And thus it is not improbable that up to the time of the apostle's arrival the Christian community at Rome had been dependent upon subordinate agency for the increase of its numbers, aided by occasional visits of stated preachers from the provinces; and perhaps it may be gathered from the salutations of the last chapter that it was up to that time in a less organized, though far from less flourishing state, than some other churches to whom the apostle had already addressed Epistles. Certain it is, that the apostle writes to them expressly as a Gentile Church (Rom 1:13, Rom 1:15; Rom 15:15-16); and though it is plain that there were Jewish Christians among them, and the whole argument presupposes an intimate acquaintance on the part of his readers with the leading principles of the Old Testament, this will be sufficiently explained by supposing that the bulk of them, having before they knew the Lord been Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith, had entered the pale of the Christian Church through the gate of the ancient economy.

It remains only to speak briefly of the PLAN and CHARACTER Of this Epistle. Of all the undoubted Epistles of our apostle, this is the most elaborate, and at the same time the most glowing. It has just as much in common with a theological treatise as is consistent with the freedom and warmth of a real letter. Referring to the headings which we have prefixed to its successive sections, as best exhibiting the progress of the argument and the connection of its points, we here merely note that its first great topic is what may be termed the legal relation of man to God as a violator of His holy law, whether as merely written on the heart, as in the case of the heathen, or, as in the case of the Chosen People, as further known by external revelation; that it next treats of that legal relation as wholly reversed through believing connection with the Lord Jesus Christ; and that its third and last great topic is the new life which accompanies this change of relation, embracing at once a blessedness and a consecration to God which, rudimentally complete already, will open, in the future world, into the bliss of immediate and stainless fellowship with God. The bearing of these wonderful truths upon the condition and destiny of the Chosen People, to which the apostle next comes, though it seem but the practical application of them to his kinsmen according to the flesh, is in some respects the deepest and most difficult part of the whole Epistle, carrying us directly to the eternal springs of Grace to the guilty in the sovereign love and inscrutable purposes of God; after which, however, we are brought back to the historical platform of the visible Church, in the calling of the Gentiles, the preservation of a faithful Israelitish remnant amidst the general unbelief and fall of the nation, and the ultimate recovery of all Israel to constitute, with the Gentiles in the latter day, one catholic Church of God upon earth. The remainder of the Epistle is devoted to sundry practical topics, winding up with salutations and outpourings of heart delightfully suggestive.

JFB: Romans (Outline)

• INTRODUCTION. (Rom. 1:1-17)
• THE JEW UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE. (Rom. 2:1-29)
• JEWISH OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. (Rom 3:1-8)
• THAT THE JEW IS SHUT UP UNDER LIKE CONDEMNATION WITH THE GENTILE IS PROVED BY HIS OWN SCRIPTURE. (Rom 3:9-20)
• GOD'S JUSTIFYING RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, ALIKE ADAPTED TO OUR NECESSITIES AND WORTHY OF HIMSELF. (Rom 3:21-26)
• INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING DOCTRINES AND AN OBJECTION ANSWERED. (Rom 3:27-31)
• THE FOREGOING DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ILLUSTRATED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Rom. 4:1-25)
• THE BLESSED EFFECTS OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Rom 5:1-11)
• COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ADAM AND CHRIST IN THEIR RELATION TO THE HUMAN FAMILY. (Rom 5:12-21)
• THE BEARING OF JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE UPON A HOLY LIFE. (Rom 6:1-11)
• WHAT PRACTICAL USE BELIEVERS SHOULD MAKE OF THEIR DEATH TO SIN AND LIFE TO GOD THROUGH UNION TO THE CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR. (Rom 6:12-23)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. (Rom. 7:1-25)
• CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT--THE GLORIOUS COMPLETENESS OF THEM THAT ARE IN CHRIST JESUS. (Rom. 8:1-39)
• THE BEARING OF THE FOREGOING TRUTHS UPON THE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE--ELECTION--THE CALLING OF THE GENTILES. (Rom. 9:1-33)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--HOW ISRAEL CAME TO MISS SALVATION, AND THE GENTILES TO FIND IT. (Rom. 10:1-21)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED--THE ULTIMATE INBRINGING OF ALL ISRAEL, TO BE, WITH THE GENTILES, ONE KINGDOM OF GOD ON THE EARTH. (Rom. 11:1-36)
• DUTIES OF BELIEVERS, GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. (Rom. 12:1-21)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONS--MOTIVES. (Rom 13:1-14)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE. (Rom. 14:1-23)
• SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED AND CONCLUDED. (Rom 15:1-13)
• CONCLUSION: IN WHICH THE APOSTLE APOLOGIZES FOR THUS WRITING TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS, EXPLAINS WHY HE HAD NOT YET VISITED THEM, ANNOUNCES HIS FUTURE PLANS, AND ASKS THEIR PRAYERS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THEM. (Rom. 15:14-33)
• CONCLUSION, EMBRACING SUNDRY SALUTATIONS AND DIRECTIONS, AND A CLOSING PRAYER. (Rom. 16:1-27)
• WHY THIS DIVINELY PROVIDED RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NEEDED BY ALL MEN. (Rom 1:18)
• THIS WRATH OF GOD, REVEALED AGAINST ALL INIQUITY, OVERHANGS THE WHOLE HEATHEN WORLD. (Rom 1:18-32)

TSK: Romans (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Romans is " a writing," says Dr. Macknight, " which, for sublimity and truth of sentiment, for brevity and strength of expression, for regularity in its structure, but above all, for the unspeakable importance of the discoveries which it contains, stands unrivalled by any mere human composition, and as far exceeds the most celebrated productions of the learned Greeks and Romans, as the shining of the sun exceeds the twinkling of the stars." " The plan of it is very extensive; and it is surprising to see what a spacious field of knowledge is comprised, and how many various designs, arguments, explications, instructions, and exhortations, are executed in so small a compass....The whole Epistle is to be taken in connection, or considered as one continued discourse; and the sense of every part must be taken from the drift of the whole. Every sentence, or verse, is not to be regarded as a distinct mathematical proposition, or theorem, or as a sentence in the book of Proverbs, whose sense is absolute, and independent of what goes before, or comes after, but we must remember, that every sentence, especially in the argumentative part, bears relation to, and is dependent upon, the whole discourse, and cannot be rightly understood unless we understand the scope and drift of the whole; and therefore, the whole Epistle, or at least the eleven first chapters of it, ought to be read over at once, without stopping. As to the use and excellency of this Epistle, I shall leave it to speak for itself, when the reader has studied and well digested its contents....This Epistle will not be difficult to understand, if our minds are unprejudiced, and at liberty to attend to the subject, and to the current scriptural sense of the words used. Great care is taken to guard and explain every part of the subject; no part of it is left unexplained or unguarded. Sometimes notes are written upon a sentence, liable to exception and wanting explanation, as Rom 2:12-16. Here Rom 2:13 and Rom 2:15 are a comment upon the former part of it. Sometimes are found comments upon a single word; as Rom 10:11-13. Rom 10:12 and Rom 10:13 are a comment upon πας [Strong’s 3956]

TSK: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Rom 9:1, Paul is sorry for the Jews; Rom 9:7, All of Abraham not of the promise; Rom 9:18, God’s sovereignty; Rom 9:25, The calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews, foretold; Rom 9:32, The cause of the Jews’ stumbling.

Poole: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 9

MHCC: Romans (Book Introduction)

The scope or design of the apostle in writing to the Romans appears to have been, to answer the unbelieving, and to teach the believing Jew; to confirm the Christian and to convert the idolatrous Gentile; and to show the Gentile convert as equal with the Jewish, in respect of his religious condition, and his rank in the Divine favour. These several designs are brought into on view, by opposing or arguing with the infidel or unbelieving Jew, in favour of the Christian or believing Gentile. The way of a sinner's acceptance with God, or justification in his sight, merely by grace, through faith in the righteousness of Christ, without distinction of nations, is plainly stated. This doctrine is cleared from the objections raised by Judaizing Christians, who were for making terms of acceptance with God by a mixture of the law and the gospel, and for shutting out the Gentiles from any share in the blessings of salvation brought in by the Messiah. In the conclusion, holiness is further enforced by practical exhortations.

MHCC: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

(Rom 9:1-5) The apostle's concern that his countrymen were strangers to the gospel.

(Rom 9:6-13) The promises are made good to the spiritual seed of Abraham.

(Rom 9:14-24) Answers to objections against God's sovereign conduct, in exercising mercy and justice.

(Rom 9:25-29) This sovereignty is in God's dealing both with Jews and Gentiles.

(Rom 9:30-33) The falling short of the Jews is owing to their seeking justification, not by faith, but by the works of the law.

Matthew Henry: Romans (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans

If we may compare scripture with scripture, and take the opinion of some devout and pious persons, in the Old Testament David's Psalms, and in the New Testament Paul's Epistles, are stars of the first magnitude, that differ from the other stars in glory. The whole scripture is indeed an epistle from heaven to earth: but in it we have upon record several particular epistles, more of Paul's than of any other, for he was the chief of the apostles, and laboured more abundantly than they all. His natural parts, I doubt not, were very pregnant; his apprehension was quick and piercing; his expressions were fluent and copious; his affections, wherever he took, very warm and zealous, and his resolutions no less bold and daring: this made him, before his conversion, a very keen and bitter persecutor; but when the strong man armed was dispossessed, and the stronger than he came to divide the spoil and to sanctify these qualifications, he became the most skilful zealous preacher; never any better fitted to win souls, nor more successful. Fourteen of his epistles we have in the canon of scripture; many more, it is probable, he wrote in the course of his ministry, which might be profitable enough for doctrine, for reproof, etc., but, not being given by inspiration of God, they were not received as canonical scripture, nor handed down to us. Six epistles, said to be Paul's, written to Seneca, and eight of Seneca's to him, are spoken of by some of the ancients [ Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 2] and are extant; but, upon the first view, they appear spurious and counterfeit.

This epistle to the Romans is placed first, not because of the priority of its date, but because of the superlative excellency of the epistle, it being one of the longest and fullest of all, and perhaps because of the dignity of the place to which it is written. Chrysostom would have this epistle read over to him twice a week. It is gathered from some passages in the epistle that it was written Anno Christi 56, from Corinth, while Paul made a short stay there in his way to Troas, Act 20:5, Act 20:6. He commendeth to the Romans Phebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea (ch. 16), which was a place belonging to Corinth. He calls Gaius his host, or the man with whom he lodged (Rom 16:23), and he was a Corinthian, not the same with Gaius of Derbe, mentioned Acts 20. Paul was now going up to Jerusalem, with the money that was given to the poor saints there; and of that he speaks, Rom 15:26. The great mysteries treated of in this epistle must needs produce in this, as in other writings of Paul, many things dark and hard to be understood, 2Pe 3:16. The method of this (as of several other of the epistles) is observable; the former part of it doctrinal, in the first eleven chapters; the latter part practical, in the last five: to inform the judgment and to reform the life. And the best way to understand the truths explained in the former part is to abide and abound in the practice of the duties prescribed in the latter part; for, if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, Joh 7:17.

I. The doctrinal part of the epistles instructs us,

1. Concerning the way of salvation (1.) The foundation of it laid in justification, and that not by the Gentiles' works of nature (ch. 1), nor by the Jews' works of the law (ch. 2, 3), for both Jews and Gentiles were liable to the curse; but only by faith in Jesus Christ, Rom 3:21, etc.; ch. 4. (2.) The steps of this salvation are, [1.] Peace with God, ch. 5. [2.] Sanctification, ch. 6, 7. [3.] Glorification, ch. 8.

2. Concerning the persons saved, such as belong to the election of grace (ch. 9), Gentiles and Jews, ch. 10, 11. By this is appears that the subject he discourses of were such as were then the present truths, as the apostle speaks, 2Pe 1:12. Two things the Jews then stumbled at - justification by faith without the works of the law, and the admission of the Gentiles into the church; and therefore both these he studied to clear and vindicate.

II. The practical part follows, wherein we find, 1. Several general exhortations proper for all Christians, ch. 12. 2. Directions for our behaviour, as members of civil society, Rom 13:1-14. 3. Rules for the conduct of Christians to one another, as members of the Christian church, ch. 14 and Rom 15:1-14.

III. As he draws towards a conclusion, he makes an apology for writing to them (Rom 15:14-16), gives them an account of himself and his own affairs (Rom 15:17-21), promises them a visit (Rom 15:22-29), begs their prayers (Rom 15:30-32), sends particular salutations to many friends there (ch. 16:1-16), warns them against those who caused divisions (Rom 16:17-20), adds the salutations of his friends with him (Rom 16:21-23), and ends with a benediction to them and a doxology to God (Rom 16:24-27).

Matthew Henry: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle, having plainly asserted and largely proved that justification and salvation are to had by faith only, and not by the works of the law, by Christ and not by Moses, comes in this and the following chapters to anticipate an objection which might be made against this. If this be so, then what becomes of the Jews, of them all as a complex body, especially those of them that do not embrace Christ, nor believe the gospel? By this rule they must needs come short of happiness; and then what becomes of the promise made to the fathers, which entailed salvation upon the Jews? Is not that promise nullified and made of none effect? Which is not a thing to be imagined concerning any word of God. That doctrine therefore, might they say, is not to be embraced, from which flows such a consequence as this. That the consequence of the rejection of the unbelieving Jews follows from Paul's doctrine he grants, but endeavours to soften and mollify (Rom 9:1-5). But that from this it follows that the word of God takes no effect he denies (Rom 9:6), and proves the denial in the rest of the chapter, which serves likewise to illustrate the great doctrine of predestination, which he had spoken of (Rom 8:28) as the first wheel which in the business of salvation sets all the other wheels a-going.

Barclay: Romans (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227.) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and, in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last for ever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my

brother. I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe

when I was in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got

my journey money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things

are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a

line, first to let me know how you are, and then about my

brothers, and thirdly, that I may kiss your hand, because you

brought me up well, and because of that I hope, God willing, soon

to be promoted. Give Capito my heartiest greetings, and my

brothers and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a little picture

of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius

Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good

wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo, Galloniuson."

(G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 36.)

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col_1:1-2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 ).

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

The Epistle That Is Different

There is an obvious difference between PaulLetter to the Romans and any other of his letters. Anyone coming from, say, a reading of the Letters to the Corinthians, will immediately feel that difference, both of atmosphere and of method. A very great part of it is due to one basic fact--when Paul wrote to the Church at Rome he was writing to a Church with whose founding he had had nothing whatever to do and with which he had had no personal contact at all. That explains why in Romans there are so few of the details of practical problems which fill the other letters. That is why Romans, at first sight, seems so much more impersonal. As Dibelius put it, "It is of all Paulletters the least conditioned by the momentary situation."

We may put that in another way. Romans, of all Paulletters, comes nearest to being a theological treatise. In almost all his other letters he is dealing with some immediate trouble, some pressing situation, some current error, some threatening danger, which was menacing the Church to which he was writing. Romans is the nearest approach to a systematic exposition of Paulown theological position, independent of any immediate set of circumstances.

Testamentary And Prophylactic

Because of that, two great scholars have applied two very illuminating adjectives to Romans. Sanday called Romans "testamentary." It is as if Paul was writing his theological last will and testament, as if into Romans he was distilling the very essence of his faith and belief. Rome was the greatest city in the world, the capital of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. Paul had never been there, and he did not know if he ever would be there. But, in writing to such a Church in such a city, it was fitting that he should set down the very centre and core of his belief. Burton called Romans "prophylactic." A prophylactic is something which guards against infection. Paul had seen too often what harm and trouble could be caused by wrong ideas, twisted notions, misguided conceptions of Christian faith and belief. He therefore wished to send to the Church in the city which was the centre of the world a letter which would so build up the structure of their faith that, if infections should ever come to them, they might have in the true word of Christian doctrine a powerful and effective defence. He felt that the best protection against the infection of false teaching was the antiseptic of the truth.

The Occasion Of PaulWriting To Rome

All his life Paul had been haunted by the thought of Rome. It had always been one of his dreams to preach there. When he is in Ephesus, he is planning to go through Achaea and Macedonia again, and then comes a sentence obviously dropped straight from the heart, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome" (Act_19:21 ). When he was up against things in Jerusalem, and the situation looked threatening and the end seemed near, he had one of those visions which always lifted up his heart. In that vision the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage, Paul. For as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome" (Act_23:11 ). In the very first chapter of this letter Pauldesire to see Rome breathes out. "I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you" (Rom_1:11 ). "So, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom_1:15 ). It might well be said that the name Rome was written on Paulheart.

When he actually wrote the Letter to the Romans, the date was sometime in the year A.D. 58, and he was in Corinth. He was just about to bring to its completion a scheme that was very dear to his heart. The Church at Jerusalem was the mother Church of them all, but it was poor, and Paul had organized a collection throughout the younger churches for it (1Co_16:1 ; 2Co_9:1 ). That collection was two things. It was an opportunity for his younger converts to put Christian charity into Christian action, and it was a most practical way of impressing on all Christians the unity of the Christian Church, of teaching them that they were not members of isolated and independent congregations, but of one great Church, each part of which had a responsibility to all the rest. When Paul wrote Romans he was just about to set out with that gift for the Jerusalem Church. "At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints" (Rom_15:25 ).

The Object Of PaulWriting

Why, then, at such a moment should he write?

(a) Paul knew that the journey to Jerusalem was not without its peril. He knew that he had enemies there, and that to go to Jerusalem was to take his life and liberty in his hands. He desired the prayers of the Roman Church before he set out on this expedition. "Now I appeal to you brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judaea" (Rom_15:30-31 ). He was mobilizing the prayers of the Church before he embarked on this perilous undertaking.

(b) Paul had great schemes simmering in his mind. It has been said of him that he was "always haunted by the regions beyond." He never saw a ship at anchor but he wished to board her and to carry the good news to men across the sea. He never saw a range of mountains, blue in the distance, but he wished to cross them, and to bring the story of the Cross to men who had never heard it. At this time Paul was haunted by the thought of Spain. "I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain" (Rom_15:24 ). "When I have completed this [that is, when he had delivered the collection to the Church in Jerusalem] I shall go on by way of you to Spain" (Rom_15:28 ).

Why this great desire to go to Spain? Rome had opened up that land. Some of the great Roman roads and buildings still stand there to this day. And it so happened that, just at this time, there was a blaze of greatness in Spain. Many of the great figures who were writing their names on Roman history and literature were Spaniards. There was Martial, the master of the epigram. There was Lucan, the epic poet. There were Columella and Pomponius Mela, great figures in Roman literature. There was Quintilian, the master of Roman oratory. And, above all, there was Seneca, the greatest of the Roman Stoic philosophers, the tutor of the Emperor Nero, and the Prime Minister of the Roman Empire. It was most natural that Paulthoughts should go out to this land which was producing such a scintillating galaxy of greatness. What might happen if men like that could be touched for Christ? As far as we know Paul never got to Spain. On that visit to Jerusalem he was arrested and he was never freed again. But, when he was writing Romans, that was his dream.

Paul was a master strategist. He had an eye for the layout of territory like a great commander. He felt that by this time he could move on from Asia Minor and for the time being leave Greece behind. He saw the whole west lying in front of him, virgin territory to be won for Christ. But, if he was to launch a campaign in the west, he needed a base of operations. There was only one such base possible--and that was Rome.

That was why Paul wrote this letter to Rome. He had this great dream in his heart and this great plan in his mind. He needed Rome for a base for this new campaign. He was aware that the Church in Rome must know his name. But he was also aware, for he was a realist, that the reports which reached Rome would be mixed. His opponents were not above spreading slanders and false accusation against him. So he wrote this letter to set out for the Church at Rome an account of the very essence of his belief, in order that, when the time came for action, he might find in Rome a sympathetic Church from which the lines of communication might go out to Spain and the west. It was with such a plan and such an intention, that in A.D. 58 Paul sat down in Corinth to write his letter to the Church at Rome.

The Layout Of The Letter

Romans is at once a very complicated and a very carefully constructed letter. It will therefore help us to find our way through it, if we have in our minds an idea of its framework. It falls into four definite divisions.

(i) Rom 1-8, which deal with the problem of righteousness.

(ii) Rom 9-11, which deal with problem of the Jews, the chosen

people.

(iii) Rom 12-15, which deal with practical questions of life and

living.

(iv) Rom 16 , which is a letter of introduction for Phoebe,

and a list of final personal greetings.

(i) When Paul uses the word "righteousness," he means a right relationship with God The man who is righteous is the man who is in a right relationship with God, and whose life shows it.

Paul begins with a survey of the Gentile world. We have only to look at its decadence and corruption to know that it had not solved the problem of righteousness. He looks at the Jewish world. The Jews had sought to solve the problem of righteousness by meticulous obedience to the law. Paul had tried that way himself, and it had issued in frustration and defeat, because no man on earth can ever fully obey the law, and, therefore, every man must have the continual consciousness of being in debt to God and under his condemnation.

So Paul finds the way to righteousness in the way of utter trust and utter yieldedness. The only way to a right relationship with God is to take him at his word, and to cast oneself, just as one is, on his mercy and love. It is the way of faith. It is to know that the important thing is, not what we can do for God, but what he has done for us. For Paul the centre of the Christian faith was that we can never earn or deserve the favour of God, nor do we need to. The whole matter is one of grace, and all that we can do is to accept in wondering love and gratitude and trust what God has done for us.

That does not free us, however, from obligations or entitle us to do as we like; it means that for ever and for ever we must try to be worthy of the love which does so much for us. But we are no longer trying to fulfil the demands of stern and austere and condemnatory law; we are no longer like criminals before a judge; we are lovers who have given all life in love to the one who first loved us.

(ii) The problem of the Jews was a torturing one. In a real sense they were Godchosen people, and yet, when his Son had come into the world, they had rejected him. What possible explanation could there be for this heart-breaking fact?

The only one Paul could find was that, in the end, it was all Goddoing. Somehow the hearts of the Jews had been hardened; but it was not all failure, for there had always been a faithful remnant. Nor was it for nothing, for the very fact that the Jews had rejected Christ opened the door so the Gentiles would bring in the Jews and all men would be saved.

Paul goes further. The Jew had always claimed that he was a member of the chosen people in virtue of the fact that he was a Jew. It was solely a matter of pure racial descent from Abraham. But Paul insists that the real Jew is not the man whose flesh and blood descent can be traced to Abraham. He is the man who has made the same decision of utter yieldedness to God in loving faith which Abraham made. Therefore, Paul argues, there are many pure-blooded Jews who are not Jews in the real sense of the term at all; and there are many people of other nations who are really Jews in the true meaning of that word. The new Israel was not a racial thing at all; it was composed of those who had the same faith as Abraham had had.

(iii) Rom 12 is so great an ethical statement that it must always be set alongside the Sermon on the Mount. In it Paul lays down the ethical character of the Christian faith. The fourteenth and fifteenth chapters deal with an ever-recurring problem. In the Church there was a narrower party who believed that they must abstain from certain foods and drinks, and who counted special days and ceremonies as of great importance. Paul thinks of them as the weaker brethren because their faith was dependent on these external things. There was a more liberal party, who had liberated themselves from these external rules and observances. He thinks of them as the brethren who are stronger in the faith. He makes it quite clear that his sympathies are with the more liberal party; but he lays down the great principle that no man must ever do anything to hurt the conscience of a weaker brother or to put a stumbling block in his way. His whole point of view is that we must never do anything which makes it harder for someone else to be a Christian; and that that may well mean the giving up of something, which is right and safe for us, for the sake of the weaker brother. Christian liberty must never be used in such a way that it injures anotherlife or conscience.

(iv) The fourth section is a recommendation on behalf of Phoebe, a member of the Church at Cenchreae, who is coming to Rome. The letter ends with a list of greetings and a final benediction.

Two Problems

Rom 16 has always presented scholars with a problem. Many have felt that it does not really form part of the Letter to the Romans at all; and that it is really a letter to some other Church which became attached to Romans when Paulletters were collected. What are their grounds? First and foremost, in this chapter Paul sends greetings to twenty-six different people, twenty-four of whom he mentions by name and all of whom he seems to know very intimately. He can, for instance, say that the mother of Rufus has also been a mother to him. Is it likely that Paul knew intimately twenty-six people in a Church which he had never visited? He, in fact, greets far more people in this chapter than he does in any other letter, and yet he had never set foot in Rome. Here is something that needs explanation.

If Rom 16 was not written to Rome, what was its original destination? It is here that Prisca and Aquila come into the argument. We know that they left Rome in A.D. 52 when Claudius issued his edict banishing the Jews (Act_18:2 ). We know that they went with Paul to Ephesus (Act_18:18 ). We know that they were in Ephesus when Paul wrote his letter to Corinth, less than two years before he wrote Romans (1Co_16:19 ). And we know that they were still in Ephesus when the Pastoral Epistles were written (2Ti_4:19 ). It is certain that if we had come across a letter sending greeting to Prisca and Aquila we should have assumed that it was sent to Ephesus, if no other address was given.

Is there any other evidence to make us think that chapter sixteen may have been sent to Ephesus in the first place? There is the perfectly general reason that Paul spent longer in Ephesus than anywhere else, and it would be very natural for him to send greetings to many people there. Paul speaks of Epaenetus, the first-fruits of Asia. Ephesus is in Asia, and such a reference, too, would be very natural in a letter to Ephesus, but not so natural in a letter to Rome. Rom_16:17 speaks about difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught, which sounds as if Paul was speaking about possible disobedience to his own teaching, and he had never taught in Rome.

It can be argued that the sixteenth chapter was originally addressed to Ephesus, but the argument is not so strong as it looks. For one thing, there is no evidence that the chapter was ever attached anywhere except to the Letter to the Romans. For another thing, the odd fact is that Paul does not send personal greetings to churches which he knew well. There are no personal greetings in Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, all of them letters to churches he knew well; whereas there are personal greetings in Colossians, although Paul had never set foot in Colosse.

The reason is really quite simple. If Paul had sent personal greetings to churches he knew well, jealousies might well have arisen; on the other hand, when he was writing to churches he had never visited, he liked to establish as many personal links as possible. The very fact that Paul had never been in Rome makes it likely that he would try to establish as many personal connections as possible. Again, it is to be remembered that Prisca and Aquila were banished by edict from Rome. What is more likely than that, after the trouble was over, six or seven years later, they would return to Rome and pick up the threads of their business after their stay in other towns? And is it not most likely that many of the other names are names of people who shared in this banishment, who took up temporary residence in other cities, who met Paul there, and who, when the coast was clear, returned to Rome and their old homes? Paul would be delighted to have so many personal contacts in Rome and to seize hold of them.

Further, as we shall see, when we come to study chapter 16 in detail, many of the names--the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus, Amplias, Nereus and others--well suit Rome. In spite of the arguments for Ephesus, we may take it that there is no necessity to detach chapter sixteen from the Letter to the Romans.

But there is a more interesting, and a much more important, problem. The early manuscripts show some very curious things with regard to Rom 14-16. The only natural place for a doxology is at the very end. Rom_16:25-27 is a doxology, and in most good manuscripts it comes at the end. But in a number of manuscripts it comes at the end of Rom 14 ; two good manuscripts have it in both places; one ancient manuscript has it at the end of Rom 15 ; two manuscripts have it in neither place, but leave an empty space for it. One ancient Latin manuscript has a series of section summaries. The last two are as follows:

50: On the peril of him who grieves his brother by meat.

That is obviously Rom_14:15-23 .

51: On the mystery of the Lord, kept secret before his passion

but after his passion revealed.

That is equally clearly Rom_16:25-27 , the doxology. Clearly, these summaries were made from a manuscript which did not contain chapters fifteen and sixteen. Now there is one thing which sheds a flood of light on this. In one manuscript the mention of Rome in Rom_1:7 and Rom_1:15 is entirely omitted. There is no mention of any destination.

All this goes to show that Romans circulated in two forms--one form as we have it with sixteen chapters, and one with fourteen chapters; and perhaps also one with fifteen chapters. The explanation must be this. As Paul wrote it to Rome, it had sixteen chapters; but Rom 15-16 are private and personal to Rome. Now no other letter gives such a compendium of Pauldoctrine. What must have happened was that Romans began to circulate among all the churches, with the last two local chapters omitted, except for the doxology. It must have been felt that Romans was too fundamental to stop at Rome and so the purely local references were removed and it was sent out to the Church at large. From very early times the Church felt that Romans was so great an expression of the mind of Paul that it must become the possession not of one congregation, but of the whole Church. We must remember, as we study it, that men have always looked on Romans as the quintessence of Paulgospel.

FURTHER READING

Romans

C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MC; E)

A. M. Hunter, The Epistle to the Romans: The Law of Love (Tch; E)

W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, Romans (Sixth edition, in two volumes, revised by C. E. B. Cranfield) (ICC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC : Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

The Problem Of The Jews (Rom_9:1-6)

In Rom 9-11 Paul tries to deal with one of the most bewildering problems that the Church has to solve--the problem of the Jews. They were God's chosen people; they had had a unique place in God's purposes; and yet when God's Son had come into the world they had rejected him and crucified him. How is this tragic paradox to be explained? That is the problem with which Paul seeks to deal in these chapters. They are complicated and difficult, and, before we begin to study them in detail, it will be well to set out the broad lines of the solution which Paul presented. One thing we must note before we begin to disentangle Paul's thought--the chapters were written not in anger but in heartbreak. He could never forget that he was a Jew and he would gladly have laid down his own life if, by so doing, he could have brought his brethren to Jesus Christ. Paul never denies that the Jews were the chosen people. God adopted them as his own; he gave them the covenants and the service of the Temple and the law; he gave them the presence of his own glory; he gave them the patriarchs. Above all Jesus was a Jew. The special place of the Jews in God's economy of salvation Paul accepts as an axiom and as the starting-point of the whole problem. The first point which he makes is this--it is true that the Jews as a nation rejected and crucified Jesus, but it is also true, that not all the Jews rejected him; some received him and believed in him, for all the early followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul then looks back on history and insists that racial descent from Abraham does not make a Jew. Over and over again in Jewish history there was in God's ways a process of selection--Paul calls it election--whereby some of those who were racial descendants of Abraham were chosen and some rejected. In the case of Abraham, Isaac, the son born according to the promise of God, was chosen, but Ishmael, the son born of purely natural desire, was not. In the case of Isaac, his son Jacob was chosen, but Esau, Jacob's twin, was not. This selection had nothing to do with merit; it was the work entirely of God's electing wisdom and power. Further, the real chosen people never lay in the whole nation; it always lay in the righteous remnant, the few who were true to God when all others denied him. It was so in the days of Elijah, when seven thousand remained faithful to God after the rest of the nation had gone after Baal. It was an essential part of the teaching of Isaiah, who said: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant Of them will be saved" (Isa_10:22; Rom_9:27). Paul's first point is that at no time were the whole people the chosen people. There was always selection, election, on the part of God. Is it fair of God to elect some and to reject others? And, if some men are elected and others are rejected through no virtue or fault of their own, how can you blame them if they reject Christ, and how can you praise them if they accept him? Here Paul uses an argument at which the mind staggers, and from which we quite properly recoil. Bluntly, it is that God can do what he likes and that man has no right whatever to question his decisions, however inscrutable they may be. The clay cannot talk back to the potter. A craftsman may make two vessels, one for an honourable purpose and another for a menial purpose; the vessels have nothing whatever to do with it. That, said Paul, is what God has a right to do with men. He quotes the instance of Pharaoh (Rom_9:17) and says that he was brought on to the stage of history simply to be the instrument through which God's avenging power was demonstrated. In any event, the people of Israel had been forewarned of the election of the Gentiles and of their own rejection, for, did not the prophet Hosea write: "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people', and her who was not beloved I will call 'my beloved'" (Hos_1:10; Rom_9:25). However, this rejection of Israel was not callous and haphazard. The door was shut to the Jews that it might be opened to the Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of the Jews and blinded their eyes with the ultimate purpose of opening a way for the Gentiles into the faith. Here is a strange and terrible argument. Stripped of all its non-essentials, it is that God can do what he likes with any man or nation. and that he deliberately darkened the minds and shut the eyes of the Jews in order that the Gentiles might come in. What was the fundamental mistake of the Jews? This may seem a curious question to ask in view of what we have just said. But, paradoxically, Paul holds that though the rejection of the Jews was the work of God, it need never have happened. He cannot get rid of the eternal paradox--nor does he desire to--that at one and the same time all is of God and man has free-will. The fundamental mistake of the Jews was that they tried to get into a right relationship with God through their own efforts. They tried to earn salvation; whereas the Gentiles simply accepted the offer of God in perfect trust. The Jews should have known that the only way to God was the way of faith and that human achievement led nowhere. Did not Isaiah say: "No one who believes in him will be put to shame"? (Isa_28:16; Rom_10:11 .) Did not Joel say: "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved"? (Joe_2:32; Rom_10:13 .) True, no man can have faith until he hears the offer of God; but to the Jews that offer was made. They clung to the way of human achievement through obedience to the law; they staked everything on works, but they should have known that the way to God was the way of faith, for the prophets had told them so. Once again it is to be stressed that all this was God's arrangement; and that it was so arranged to allow the Gentiles to come in. Paul therefore turns to the Gentiles. He orders them to have no pride. They are in the position of wild olive shoots which have been grafted into a garden olive tree. They did not achieve their own salvation any more than the Jews did; in point of fact they are dependent on the Jews; they are only engrafted branches; the root and the stem are still the chosen people. The fact of their own election and the fact of the rejection of the Jews are not to produce pride in Gentile hearts. If that happens, rejection can and will happen to them. Is this the end? Far from it. It is God's purpose that the Jews will be moved to envy at the relationship of the Gentiles to him and that they will ask to be admitted to it themselves. Did not Moses say: "I make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry"? (Deu_32:21; Rom_10:19 .) In the end the Gentiles will be the very instrument by which the Jews will be saved. "And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom_11:26). So Paul comes to the end of the argument. We may summarily set out its steps. (i) Israel is the chosen people. (ii) To be a member of Israel means more than racial descent. There has always been election within the nation; and the best of the nation has always been the remnant who were faithful. (iii) This selection by God is not unfair, for he has the right to do what he likes. (iv) God did harden the hearts of the Jews, but only to open the door to the Gentiles. (v) Israel's mistake was dependence on human achievement founded on the law; the necessary approach to God is that of the totally trusting heart. (vi) The Gentiles must have no pride for they are only wild olives grafted into the true olive stock. They must remember that. (vii) This is not the end; the Jews will be so moved to wondering envy at the privilege that the Gentiles have received that in the end they will be brought in by them. (viii) So in the very end all, Jew and Gentile, will be saved. The glory is in the end of Paul's argument. He began by saying that some were elected to reception and some to rejection. In the end he comes to say that it is God's will that all men should be saved.

The Tragic Failure (Rom_9:1-6)

The Choice Of God (Rom_9:7-13)

The Sovereign Will Of God (Rom_9:14-18)

The Potter And The Clay (Rom_9:19-29)

The Jewish Mistake (Rom_9:30-33)

Constable: Romans (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

Throughout the history of the church, from postapostolic times to the present, Christians have regarded Romans as having been one of the Apostle Paul's epistles.¹ Not only does the letter claim that he wrote it (1:1), but it develops many of the same ideas and uses the same terminology that appear in Paul's earlier writings (e.g., Gal. 2; 1 Cor. 12; 2 Cor. 8-9).

Following his conversion on the Damascus Road (34 A.D.), Paul preached in Damascus, spent some time in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus. Next he travelled to Jerusalem where he met briefly with Peter and James. He then moved on to Tarsus, which was evidently his base of operations and from which he ministered for about six years (37-43 A.D.). In response to an invitation from Barnabas he moved to Antioch of Syria where he served for about five years (43-48 A.D.). He and Barnabas then set out on their so-called first missionary journey into Asia Minor (48-49 A.D.). Returning to Antioch Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to strengthen the churches that he and Barnabas had just planted in Asia Minor (49 A.D.). After the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul took Silas and began his second missionary journey (50-52 A.D.) through Asia Minor and on westward into the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. From Corinth, Paul wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians (51 A.D.). He proceeded to Ephesus by ship and then on to Syrian Antioch. From there he set out on his third missionary journey (53-57 A.D.). Passing through Asia Minor he arrived in Ephesus where he labored for three years (53-56 A.D.). During this time he wrote 1 Corinthians (56 A.D.). Finally Paul left Ephesus and travelled by land to Macedonia where he wrote 2 Corinthians (56 A.D.). He continued south and spent the winter of 56-57 A.D. in Corinth. There he wrote the Epistle to the Romans and sent it by Phoebe (16:1-2) to the Roman church.

The apostle then proceeded from Corinth by land clockwise around the Aegean Sea back to Troas in Asia where he boarded a ship and eventually reached Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, the Jews arrested Paul and imprisoned him (57 A.D.). He arrived in Rome as a prisoner and ministered there for two years (60-62 A.D.). During this time he wrote the Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon). The Romans freed Paul, and he returned to the Aegean area. There he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, experienced arrest again, suffered imprisonment in Rome a second time, wrote 2 Timothy, and died as a martyr under Nero in A.D. 68.²

We know very little about the founding of the church in Rome. According to Ambrosiaster, a church father who lived in the fourth century, an apostle did not found it (thus discrediting the Roman Catholic claim that Peter founded the church). A group of Jewish Christians did.³ It is possible that these Jews became believers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) or at some other time quite early in the church's history. By the time Paul wrote Romans the church in Rome was famous throughout the Roman Empire for its faith (1:18).

Purpose

Paul wrote this epistle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for several reasons.⁴ He wanted to prepare the way for his intended visit to the church (15:22-24). He evidently hoped that Rome would become a base of operations and support for his pioneer missionary work in Spain and the western portions of the empire that he had not yet evangelized. His full exposition of the gospel in this letter would have provided a solid foundation for their participation in this mission.

As Paul looked forward to returning to Jerusalem between his departure from Corinth and his arrival in Rome, he was aware of the danger he faced (15:31). He may have written the exhaustive exposition of the gospel that we have in Romans to set forth his teaching in case he did not reach Rome. From Rome his doctrine could then go out to the rest of the empire as others preached it. Paul may have viewed Romans as his legacy to the church, his last will and testament.

Another reason for writing Romans was undoubtedly Paul's desire to minister to the spiritual needs of the Christians in Rome even though they were in good spiritual condition (15:14-16). The common problems of all the early churches were dangers to the Roman church as well. These difficulties included internal conflicts, mainly between Jewish and Gentile believers, and external threats from false teachers. Paul gave both of these potential problems attention in this epistle (15:1-8; 16:17-20).

Paul also wrote Romans as he did because he was at a transition point in his ministry, as he mentioned at the end of chapter 15. His ministry in the Aegean region was solid enough that he planned to leave it and move farther west into new virgin missionary territory. Before he did that, he planned to visit Jerusalem where he realized he would be in danger. Probably therefore Paul wrote Romans as he did to leave a full exposition of the gospel in good hands if his ministry ended prematurely in Jerusalem.

"The peculiar position of the apostle at the time of writing, as he reviews the past and anticipates the future, enables us to understand the absence of controversy in this epistle, the conciliatory attitude, and the didactic and apologetic elements which are all found combined herein."⁵

The great contribution of this letter to the body of New Testament inspired revelation is its reasoned explanation of how God's righteousness can become man's possession.

The Book of Romans is distinctive among Paul's inspired writings in several respects. It was one of the few letters he wrote to churches with which he had had no personal dealings. The only other epistle of this kind was Colossians. It is also a formal treatise within a personal letter.⁶ Paul expounded on the gospel in this treatise. He probably did so in this epistle rather than in another because the church in Rome was at the heart of the Roman Empire. As such it was able to exert great influence in the dissemination of the gospel. For these two reasons Romans is more formal and less personal than most of Paul's other epistles.

The Epistle to the Romans is, by popular consent, the greatest of Paul's writings. William Tyndale, the great English reformer and translator, referred to Romans as "the principle and most excellent part of the New Testament." He went on to say the following in his prologue to Romans that he wrote in the 1534 edition of his English New Testament.

"No man verily can read it too oft or study it too well; for the more it is studied the easier it is, the more it is chewed the pleasanter it is, and the more groundly [sic] it is searched the preciouser [sic] things are found in it, so great treasures of spiritual things lieth hid therein."⁷

Martin Luther wrote the following commendation of this epistle.

"[Romans] is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much, and the more it is dealt with the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes."⁸

Message⁹

Throughout the history of the church Christians have recognized this epistle as the most important book in the New Testament. The reason for this conviction is that it is an exposition of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Luther called Romans "the chief part of the New Testament and the perfect gospel." Coleridge, the English poet, declared it to be "the most profound work in existence." Frederick Godet, the French commentator, described it as "the cathedral of the Christian faith."¹⁰

To appreciate the message of this book it will be helpful first to consider Paul's presuppositions. He based these, of course, on Old Testament revelation concerning cosmology and history.

First, Paul assumed the God of the Old Testament. He assumed God's existence and full deity. He believed that God is holy and just. He also held that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign ruler of the universe.

Second, Paul's view of man is that he is subject to God's government of the universe. Man has received a measure of freedom from God, so he can choose to pursue sin. However, if he does so, he is still in the sovereign hand of God. God can allow the consequences of his sins to have their effects on him both now and forever. Man is also in authority over the rest of the material creation (Gen. 1:28). What man has experienced, the material creation also has experienced and reflects as a result of man's action.

Third, Paul's view of history was that of Old Testament revelation. The important historical events for Paul were those in his Scriptures.

Adam was the first man. He rebelled against God's authority. The result was threefold: the practical dethronement of God in the minds of Adam's descendents, the degradation of humanity, and the defilement of creation. This is a very different view of history from what evolutionists and humanists take. Man has lost his scepter because he rebelled against God's scepter.

Two other individuals were specially significant in history for Paul as we see in Romans: Abraham and Jesus Christ. God called Abraham to be a channel of blessing to the world. Christ is the greatest blessing. Through Him people and creation can experience restoration to God's original intention for them.

These are Paul's basic presuppositions on which all his reasoning in Romans rests. Romans is not the best book to put in the hands of an unsaved person to lead him or her to salvation. John is better for that purpose. However, Romans is the best book to put in the hands of a saved person to lead him or her to understand and appreciate our salvation.

We turn now to the major revelations in this book. These are its central teachings, the emphases that distinguish Romans from other books of the Bible.

First, Romans reveals the tragic helplessness of the human race. No other book of the Bible looks so fearlessly into the abysmal degradation that has resulted from human sin. If you read only 1:18-3:20, you will become depressed by its pessimism. If you keep reading, you will conclude from 3:21 on that we have the best, most optimistic news you have ever heard. This book is all about ruin and redemption. Its first great revelation is the absolute ruin and helplessness of the human race.

Paul divides the ruined race into two parts. The first of these is the Gentiles who have the light of nature. God has given everyone, Gentiles and Jews, the opportunity of observing and concluding two things about Himself: His wisdom and power. The average person as well as the scientist concludes that Someone wise must have put the natural world together, and He must be very powerful. Nevertheless having come to that conclusion he turns from God to vain reasonings, vile passions, unrighteous behavior, envy, murder, strife, deceit, insolence, pride, and perverted conduct. Just read today's newspaper and you will find confirmation of Paul's analysis of the human race.

The other part of the ruined race is the Jews who, in addition to the light of nature, also had the light of Scripture. Paul observed that in spite of his greater revelation and privilege the Jew behaves the same way as the Gentile. Yet he is a worse sinner. Having professed devotion to God and having claimed to be a teacher of the Gentiles because of his greater light he disobeys God and causes the Gentiles to blaspheme His name. Paul concluded, "There is none righteous, no, not one" (3:10). "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23).

The second major revelation of Romans is the magnificence of the divine plan of salvation. This plan centers on Jesus Christ whom Paul introduced on the very first page of his letter (1:3-4). God declared to everyone that the Jesus of the Gospels is His Son by resurrecting Him.

Two words describe Christ's relation to the divine plan of salvation: manifestation and propitiation. The righteousness manifested in Him is available to people through His propitiation. God's righteousness is available to everyone because Jesus died as the perfect offering for sin. The righteousness we see in Jesus in the Gospel records is available to those who believe that His sacrifice satisfied God (3:21, 25).

We can also describe God's relation to the plan of salvation with two words: holiness and love. The plan of salvation that Romans expounds resulted from a holy God reaching out to sinful humanity lovingly (3:22, 24). This plan vindicates the holiness of God as it unveils God's gracious love (chs. 9-11).

Man's relation to the plan of salvation is threefold. It involves justification, the imputation of God's righteousness to the believing sinner. It also involves sanctification, the impartation of God's righteousness to the redeemed sinner. Third, it involves glorification, the perfection of God's righteousness in the sanctified sinner. In justification God lifts the sinner into a relationship with Himself that is more intimate than we would have enjoyed if we had never sinned. In sanctification God progressively transforms the sinner into the Savior's image by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In glorification God finally restores the sinner to the place God intended for us to occupy in creation.

The creation's relation to the plan of salvation is twofold. God restores creation's king, man, to his intended position. Second, creation realizes all of its intended possibilities that sin has denied it.

Let us note next some of the lessons of this book. What did God want us to learn from it?

First, Romans calls us to measure ourselves by divine rather than human standards. We sometimes evaluate ourselves and one another by using the criteria that our age sets or that we set. However to know our true condition we must use the criteria that God sets. This standard reveals that we are all guilty before God. This is one of the great lessons that Romans teaches us.

Second, Romans calls us to live by faith rather than by sight. God did not come any closer to mankind in the incarnation of Christ than He ever had been. Yet in the incarnation the nearness of God became more obvious to people. In the resurrection the Son of God became observable as the Son of God to human beings. All the glories of salvation come to us as we believe God. Romans contrasts the folly of trying to obtain salvation by working for it with trusting God, simply believing what He has revealed as true.

Third, Romans calls us to dedicate ourselves to God rather than living self-centered lives (12:1). This is the reasonable response to having received salvation. We should give ourselves to God. God's grace puts us in His debt. Paul did not say that if we fail to dedicate ourselves to God we are unsaved. Rather he appeals to us as saved people to do for God what He has done for us, namely giving ourselves out of love. When we do this, we show that we truly appreciate what God has done for us.

On the basis of these observations I would summarize the message of Romans in these words. Since God has lovingly provided salvation for helpless sinners through His Son, we should accept that sacrifice by faith and express our gratitude to God by dedicating our lives to Him.

In conclusion let me suggest an application of the message of Romans.

In view of the greatness of the salvation that God has provided as Romans reveals, we, as Paul, have a duty to communicate this good news to the world (1:14-17; Matt. 28:19). We do this both by lip and life, by explanation and by example (8:29). Our living example will reflect death to self as well as life to God (6:13).

Constable: Romans (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-17

A. Salutation 1:1-7

1. The writer 1:1

2. The subject of the epistle 1:2-5

3. The original recipients 1:6-7

B. Purpose 1:8-15

C. Theme 1:16-17

II. The need for God's righteousness 1:18-3:20

A. The need of all people 1:18-32

1. The reason for human guilt 1:18

2. The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27

3. The wickedness of mankind 1:28-32

B. The need of good people 2:1-3:8

1. God's principles of judgment 2:1-16

2. The guilt of the Jews 2:17-29

3. Answers to objections 3:1-8

C. The guilt of all humanity 3:9-20

III. The imputation of God's righteousness 3:21-5:21

A. The description of justification 3:21-26

B. The defense of justification by faith alone 3:27-31

C. The proof of justification by faith from the law ch. 4

1. Abraham's justification by faith 4:1-5

2. David's testimony to justification by faith 4:6-8

3. The priority of faith to circumcision 4:9-12

4. The priority of faith to the promise concerning headship of many nations 4:13-17

5. The exemplary value of Abraham's faith 4:18-22

6. Conclusions from Abraham's example 4:23-25

D. The benefits of justification 5:1-11

E. The universal applicability of justification 5:12-21

IV. The impartation of God's righteousness chs. 6-8

A. The believer's relationship to sin ch. 6

1. Freedom from sin 6:1-14

2. Slavery to righteousness 6:15-23

B. The believer's relationship to the law ch. 7

1. The law's authority 7:1-6

2. The law's activity 7:7-12

3. The law's inability 7:13-25

C. The believer's relationship to God ch. 8

1. Our deliverance from the flesh by the power of the Spirit 8:1-11

2. Our new relationship to God 8:12-17

3. Our present sufferings and future glory 8:18-25

4. Our place in God's sovereign plan 8:26-30

5. Our eternal security 8:31-39

V. The vindication of God's righteousness chs. 9-11

A. Israel's past election ch. 9

1. God's blessings on Israel 9:1-5

2. God's election of Israel 9:6-13

3. God's freedom to elect 9:14-18

4. God's mercy toward Israel 9:19-29

5. God's mercy toward the Gentiles 9:30-33

B. Israel's present rejection ch. 10

1. The reason God has set Israel aside 10:1-7

2. The remedy for rejection 10:8-15

3. The continuing unbelief of Israel 10:16-21

C. Israel's future salvation ch. 11

1. Israel's rejection not total 11:1-10

2. Israel's rejection not final 11:11-24

3. Israel's restoration assured 11:25-32

4. Praise for God's wise plans 11:33-36

VI. The practice of God's righteousness 12:1-15:13

A. Dedication to God 12:1-2

B. Conduct within the church 12:3-21

1. The diversity of gifts 12:3-8

2. The necessity of love 12:9-21

C. Conduct within the state ch. 13

1. Conduct towards the government 13:1-7

2. Conduct toward unbelievers 13:8-10

3. Conduct in view of our hope 13:11-14

D. Conduct within Christian liberty 14:1-15:13

1. The folly of judging one another 14:1-12

2. The evil of offending one another 14:13-23

3. The importance of pleasing one another 15:1-6

4. the importance of accepting one another 15:7-13

VII. Conclusion 15:14-16:27

A. Paul's ministry 15:14-33

1. Past labors 15:14-21

2. Present program 15:22-29

3. Future plans 15:30-33

B. Personal matters ch. 16

1. A commendation 16:1-2

2. Various greetings to Christians in Rome 16:3-16

3. A warning 16:17-20

4. Greetings from Paul's companions 16:21-24

5. A doxology 16:25-27

Constable: Romans

Romans

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. New ed. Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1881.

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Auden, W. H. For the Time Being. London: Faber and Faber, 1958.

Baker, Bruce A. "Romans 1:18-21 and Presuppositional Apologetics." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):280-98.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Harper's New Testament Commentary series. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957.

Battle, John A., Jr. "Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26." Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981):115-29.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Baylis, Robert H. Romans: a letter to non-conformists. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):37-45.

Blue, J. Ronald. "Untold Billions: Are They Really Lost?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):338-50.

Bock, Darrell L. "The Reign of the Lord Christ." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 37-67. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Bruce, Frederick F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. Revised ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Burns, J. Lanier. "The Future of Ethnic Israel in Romans 11." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 188-229. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):310-26. Reprinted from January 1948 issue.

_____. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Coates, C. A. An Outline of the Epistle to the Romans. Kingston-on-Thames: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, n. d..

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Cook, W. Robert. "Biblical Light on the Christian's Civil Responsibility." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):44-57.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Doctrine of Prayer." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Crain, C. Readings on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1998.

Culver, Robert Duncan. "Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):131-43.

Daane, James. The Freedom of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973.

Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956.

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Acts of the Apostles--St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Greek Testament. 5 vols. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Fourth ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by C. W. Emmet.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings, 1902 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Archibald Robertson.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunn, J. D. G. Romans. Word Biblical Commentary series. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Dunnett, Walter M. The Secret of Life, Victory and Service. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1961.

English, E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):314-20.

Fort, John. God's Salvation. New ed. revised. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Premillennial View of Law and Government." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):250-66.

_____. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Glenny, W. Edward. "The Israel Imagery of 1 Peter 2." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 156-87. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "The People of God' in Romans 9:25-26." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):42-59.

Godet, Frederick L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by A. Cusin. Revised and edited by Talbot W. Chambers. Classic Commentary Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert Glenn. Salvation is Forever. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. Second ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hannah, John D. "The Doctrine of Original Sin in Postrevolutionary America." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:535 (July-September 1977):238-56.

_____. "The Meaning of Saving Faith: Luther's Interpretation of Romans 3:28." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):322-34.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Henry, Carl F. H. "Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):57-65.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Presentation and Transformation: An Exposition of Romans 12:1-2." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):309-24.

_____. "Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):170-83.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Death/Life Option." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:11 (November 1991):

_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Hopkins, Evan H. The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life. Revised ed. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1952.

Howe, Frederic R. "A Review of Birthright, by David C. Needham." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):68-78.

Howell, Don N., Jr. "The Center of Pauline Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):50-70.

Hunter, A. M. The Epistle to the Romans. Torch Bible Commentaries series. London: SCM, 1955.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S. v. "Romans, Epistle to the," by Handley Dunelm.

Ironside, Harry A. Sailing With Paul. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1965.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Behold the Lamb: The Gospel and Substitutionary Atonement." In The Coming Evangelical Crisis, pp. 119-38. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

_____. "Evidence from Romans 9-11." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 199-223. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:528 (October-December 1975):316-26.

_____. "Studies in Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):120-34; 512 (October-December 1971):327-40; 129:513 (January-March 1972):61-74; 514 (April-June 1972):124-33; 130:517 (January-March 1973):24-34; 518 (April-June 1973):151-63; 519 (July-September 1973):235-49; 520 (October-December 1973):329-37; 131:522 (April-June 1974):163-72.

Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

Kaye, B. The Argument of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6. Austin: Scholars Press, 1979.

Ketcham, Robert T. God's Provision for Normal Christian Living. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Klein, W. W. "Paul's Use of Kalein: A Proposal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (1984):53-64.

Knight, George W., III. "The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):3-13.

Lamp, Jeffrey S. "Paul, the Law, Jews, and Gentiles: A Contextual and Exegetical Reading of Romans 2:12-16." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):37-51.

Lampe, P. "The Roman Christians in Romans 16." In The Romans Debate, pp. 216-230. Revised and expanded ed. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans-Corinthians, by J. P. Lange, F. R. Fry, and C. F. Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst, Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Li, Ping-Kuen Eric. "The Relationship of the Christian to the Law as Expressed in Romans 10:4." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1991.

Liddon, Henry Parry. Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, n. d..

Longacre, Robert E., and Wallis, Wilber B. "Soteriology and Eschatology in Romans." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):367-82.

Lowe, Chuck. "There Is No Condemnation' (Romans 8:1): But Why Not?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):231-50.

Lowery, David K. "Christ, the End of the Law in Romans 10:4." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 230-47. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lyall, Francis. "Roman Law in the Writings of Paul--Adoption." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (December 1969):458-66.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

MacDonald, William. The Epistle to the Romans. Oak Park, Il: Emmaus Bible School, 1953.

Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):327-40.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

Maurier, Henri. The Other Covenant. New York: Newman Press, 1968.

McBeth, J. P. Exegetical and Practical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1937.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

McGee, J. Vernon. Reasoning through Romans. 2 vols. Los Angeles: Church of the Open Door, n. d..

Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. "The Epistle to the Romans." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1179-1226. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Mitchell, Curtis C. "The Holy Spirit's Intercessory Ministry." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:555 (July-September 1982):230-42.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

_____. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. 2 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968.

Nee, Watchman. The Normal Christian Life. Second British ed. London: Witness and Testimony Publishers, 1958.

Needham, David C. Birthright. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1979.

Newell, William R. Romans Verse by Verse. 1938. Chicago: Moody Press, 1970.

Packer, J. I. "The Way of Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):195-205; 516 (October-December 1972):291-306; 130:517 (January-March 1973):3-11; 518 (April-June 1973):110-16.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary English. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993.

Phillips, J. B. The New Testament in Modern English. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958.

Pierce, C. A. Conscience in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pyne, Robert A. "Antinomianism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):141-54.

_____. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June 1993):203-18.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Radmacher, Earl. "First Response to Faith According to the Apostle James' by John F. MacArthur, Jr." Journal of the Evangelical Society 33:1 (March 1990):35-41.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Ramm, Bernard. The Witness of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Reid, Marty L. "A Consideration of the Function of Rom 1:8-15 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):181-91.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Ridenour, Fritz. How To Be a Christian Without Being Religious. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1967.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Russell, Walter B., III. "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):174-84.

_____. "Insights from Postmodernism's Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in the Interpretation of Romans 7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):511-27.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.

_____. "The Christian and Civil Disobedience." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):153-62.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. What You Should Know about Social Responsibility. Current Christian Issues series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur, C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary series. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Sarles, Ken. L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145-577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Death in the City. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

_____. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):25-40.

Stifler, James M. The Epistle to the Romans. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Stott, John R. W. Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8. London: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swindoll, Charles R. "Is the Holy Spirit Transforming You?" Kindred Spirit 18:1 (January-April 1994):4-7.

Taylor, Clyde W. "Christian Citizens." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):200-14.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S. v. "opsonion," by Hans Wolfgang Heidland, 5 (1967):591-92.

_____. S. v. "soma," by Edward Schweizer, 7 (1971):1024-94.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith, Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

_____. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Contrast Between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Trench, Richard C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Ninth ed. London: James Clarke & Co., 1961.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.

Van den Doel, Anthonie. "Submission in the New Testament." Brethren Life and Thought 31:2 (Spring 1986):121-25.

Vine, W. E. The Epistle to the Romans. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

Vos, Gerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton: By the author, 1930.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Plan of Salvation. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n. d..

Way, Arthur S. The Letters of St. Paul and Hebrews. Reprint. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ'." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton, Il.: Victor Books, Scripture Press, 1989.

Wilkin, Robert N. "Assurance by Inner Witness?" Grace Evangelical Society News 8:2 (March-April 1993):2-3.

_____. "Obedience to the Faith: Romans 1:5." Grace in Focus 10:6 (November-December 1995):2-4.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):62-67.

Witmer, John A. "The Man with Two Countries." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):338-49.

_____. "Romans." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 435-503. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Wood, Leon. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

_____. Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Zuck, Roy B. "Cheap Grace?" Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):4-7.

_____. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Romans (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.

After the Gospels, which contain the history of Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the infant Church, we have the Epistles of the Apostles. Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general, if we except the two latter short epistles of St. John. --- The epistles of St. Paul contain admirable advice, and explain fully several tenets of Christianity: but an humble and teachable mind and heart are essentially requisite to draw good from this inexhaustible source. If we prepare our minds by prayer, and go to these sacred oracles with proper dispositions, as to Jesus Christ himself, not preferring our own weak judgment to that of the Catholic Church divinely inspired, and which he has commanded us to hear, and which he has promised to lead in all truth unto the end of the world, we shall improve both our mind and heart by a frequent and pious perusal. We shall learn there that faith is essentially necessary to please God; that this faith is but one, as God is but one; and that faith which shews itself not by good works, is dead. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of works that are incapable of justifying us, he speaks not of the works of moral righteousness, but of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic law, on which the Jews laid such great stress as necessary to salvation. --- St. Peter (in his 2nd Epistle, chap. iii.) assures us that there were some in his time, as there are found some now in our days, who misconstrue St. Paul's epistles, as if he required no good works any more after baptism than before baptism, and maintaining that faith alone would justify and save a man. Hence the other apostles wrote their epistles, as St. Augustine remarks in these words; "therefore because this opinion, that faith only was necessary to salvation, was started, the other apostolical epistles do most pointedly refute it, forcibly contending that faith without works profiteth nothing." Indeed St. Paul himself, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (Chap. xiii. 2.) positively asserts: if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. --- This epistle, like most of the following, is divided into two parts: the first treats of points of doctrine, and extends to the eleventh chapter inclusively; the second treats of morality, and is contained in the last five chapters: but to be able to understand the former, and to practise the latter, humble prayer and a firm adherence to the Catholic Church, which St. Paul (1 Timothy chap. iii.) styles, the pillar and ground of truth, are undoubtedly necessary. Nor should we ever forget what St. Peter affirms, that in St. Paul's epistles there are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter chap. iii. ver. 16.) (Haydock) --- St. Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, which was in the year fifty-seven or fifty-eight, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions and alms, collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the benefit and relief of the poor Christians in Judea, and at Jerusalem; and after he had preached in almost all places from Jerusalem even to Illyris, Illyrium, or Illyricum. See this Epistle, chap. xv. It was written in Greek. It is not the first in order of time, though placed first, either because of the dignity of the chief Christian Church, or of its sublime contents. --- The apostle's chief design was not only to unite all the new Christian converts, whether they had been Gentiles or Jews, in the same faith, but also to bring them to a union in charity, love, and peace; to put an end to those disputes and contentions among them, which were particularly occasioned by those zealous Jewish converts, who were for obliging all Christians to the observance of the Mosaic precepts and ceremonies. They who had been Jews, boasted that they were the elect people of God, preferred before all other nations, to whom he had given this written law, precepts, and ceremonies by Moses, to whom he had sent his prophets, and had performed so many miracles in their favour, while the Gentiles were left in their ignorance and idolatry. The Gentiles, now converted, were apt to brag of the learning of their great philosophers, and that sciences had flourished among them: they reproached the Jews with the disobedience of their forefathers to God, and the laws he had given them; that they had frequently returned to idolatry; that they had persecuted and put to death the prophets, and even their Messias, the true Son of God. St. Paul shews that neither the Jew nor the Gentile had reason to boast, but to humble themselves under the hand of God, the author of their salvation. He puts the Jews in mind, that they could not expect to be justified and saved merely by the ceremonies and works of their law, thought good in themselves; that the Gentiles, as well as they, were now called by the pure mercy of God: that they were all to be saved by believing in Christ, and complying with his doctrine; that sanctification and salvation can only be had by the Christian faith. He does not mean by faith only, as it is one particular virtue, different from charity, hope, and other Christian virtues; but he means by faith, the Christian religion, and worship, taken in opposition to the law of Moses and to the moral virtues of heathens. The design of the Epistle to the Galatians is much the same. From the 12th chapter he exhorts them to the practice of Christian virtues. (Witham)

====================

Gill: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS

Though this epistle is in order placed the first of the epistles, yet it was not first written: there were several epistles written before it, as the two epistles to the Thessalonians, the two to the Corinthians, the first epistle to Timothy, and that to Titus: the reason why this epistle stands first, is either the excellency of it, of which Chrysostom had so great an esteem that he caused it to be read over to him twice a week; or else the dignity of the place, where the persons lived to whom it is written, being Rome, the imperial city: so the books of the prophets are not placed in the same order in which they were written: Hosea prophesied as early as Isaiah, if not earlier; and before Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and yet stands after them. This epistle was written from Corinth, as the subscription of it testifies; and which may be confirmed from the apostle's commendation of Phoebe, by whom he sent it, who was of Cenchrea, a place near Corinth; by his calling Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, who abode at Corinth, 2Ti 4:20, and Gaius his host, who was a Corinthian, Rom 16:23, 1Co 1:14, though at what time it was written from hence, is not so evident: some think it was written in the time of his three months' travel through Greece, Act 20:2, a little before the death of the Emperor Claudius, in the year of Christ 55; others, that it was written by him in the short stay he made at Corinth, when he came thither, as is supposed, from Philippi, in his way to Troas, where some of his company went before, and had been there five days before him: and this is placed in the second year of Nero, and in the year of Christ 56; however, it was not written by him during his long stay at Corinth, when he was first there, but afterwards, even after he had preached from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum: and when he was about to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions of the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, to the poor saints there, Rom 15:19. The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church; See Gill on Act 28:14; Act 28:15; by whom the Gospel was first preached at Rome, and who were the means of forming the church there, is not very evident Irenaeus, an ancient writer, says ^a, that Peter and Paul preached the Gospel at Rome, and founded the church; and Gaius, an ecclesiastical man, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, asserts the same; and Dionysius; bishop of the Corinthians, calls the Romans the plantation of Peter and Paul ^b: whether Peter was ever at Rome is not a clear point with many; and certain it is, that the Apostle Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, at least it seems very probable he had not, by several expressions in Rom 1:10; and yet here was a church to which he writes, and had been a considerable time; for their faith was spoken of throughout the world, Rom 1:8; and when the apostle was on the road to this city, the brethren in it met him, Act 28:15. The chief design of this epistle is to set in a clear light the doctrine of justification: showing against the Gentiles, that it is not by the light of nature, and works done in obedience to that, and against the Jews, that it was not by the law of Moses, and the deeds of that; which he clearly evinces, by observing the sinful and wretched estate both of Jews and Gentiles: but that it is by the righteousness of Christ imputed through the grace of God, and received by faith; the effects of which are peace and joy in the soul, and holiness in the life and conversation: he gives an account of the justified ones, as that they are not without sin, which he illustrates by his own experience and case; and yet are possessed of various privileges, as freedom from condemnation, the blessing of adoption, and a right to the heavenly inheritance; he treats in it concerning predestination, the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews; and exhorts to the various duties incumbent on the saints, with respect to one another, and to the world, to duties of a moral and civil nature, and the use of things indifferent; and closes it with the salutations of divers persons.

Gill: Romans 9 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 9

The apostle having discoursed of justification and sanctification, and of the privileges of justified and sanctified ones, proceeds to treat of predestination, the source and spring of all the blessings of grace; and to observe how this distinguishing act of God's sovereign will has taken place, both among Jews and Gentiles; in treating of which, he knew he should go contrary to the sense of his countrymen the Jews, who have a notion that all Israel shall have a part in, or inherit the world to come ^q: and that the Gentiles will be for ever miserable; and nothing was more disagreeable to them, than to talk of their rejection of God, and the calling of the Gentiles; wherefore that it might be manifest, that it was not out of pique and ill will to them, that the apostle said the things hereafter related; he expresses the most cordial affection to them imaginable, and which he introduces in Rom 9:1, by way of appeal to Christ, who knew the truth of what he was about to say, and who could, together with the Spirit of God and his own conscience, testify for him that it was no lie: the thing he appeals for the truth of, is in Rom 9:2, that the salvation of the Jews lay near his heart; that it was no pleasure to him to think or speak of their rejection, but was what gave him continual pain and uneasiness: and his great desire for their good is expressed in a very strong and uncommon manner, Rom 9:3, the reasons of it are partly the relation they stood in to him, being his brethren and kinsmen; and partly the many privileges they had been favoured with of God; an enumeration of which is given, Rom 9:4, and foreseeing an objection, he prevents it, which might be made, that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people that he would be their God, would become void, and the preaching the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect; to which he answers by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the elect of God among them, and those that were not; wherefore though the latter were rejected according to the purpose of God, the promise and preaching of the word had their effect in the former, Rom 9:6, and that there was such a distinction, he proves from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, who were both Abraham's seed; yet one was a child of promise, and the other a child of the flesh, and were emblematical of the children of the promise, and the children of the flesh among that people; Rom 9:7, and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau, who were born of the same parents, and were twins; and yet one was in the favour of God, and the other not; and that this was owing not to works, but to the sovereign will of God in election, he proves by observing that this was before good or evil were done by either of them, Rom 9:11, and that this was notified to Rebekah before, Rom 9:12, as appears from a passage in Gen 25:23, and by another passage in Mal 1:2, which is cited, Rom 9:13, then an objection is started, Rom 9:14, that if God loves one, and hates another, both being in equal circumstances, as Jacob and Esau were, he must be guilty of unrighteousness; which he answers and removes, first by a detestation of such a charge against God, and then by producing testimonies out of the books of Moses, proving both election and reprobation, as being not of the works of men, but of the will of God; the former of these he proves, Rom 9:15, from Exo 33:19, by which it appears, that the choice of men to salvation is not according to the will of man, but according to the grace and love of God, Rom 9:16, the latter he proves by the case of Pharaoh, Rom 9:17, and the Scripture relating to that, Exo 9:16, and from both testimonies concludes, Rom 9:18, that God's having mercy on one, and hardening another, are according to his sovereign will and pleasure; then another objection rises, up, if so, God has no reason to find fault with men that are hardened in sin, since they are according to his will, and in sinning do but fulfil it, and which no man resists; and this objection is formed in a very pert and sneering manner, and insinuates that God is cruel and acts unreasonably, Rom 9:19, to which he answers, by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made; and by observing the folly and madness of replying against God, and the absurdity of such a procedure, taken from the consideration of the one being a creature, and the other the Creator, Rom 9:20, and by instancing in the case of the potter, who has power over his clay, to form it in what shape, and for what use he pleases, Rom 9:21, and accommodates this, both to the affair of election and reprobation, and to the business of the latter first, Rom 9:22, where he observes the end of God in it to show forth his power and wrath, and describes the subjects of it, which clears him from injustice, and points at the patience of God towards them, which frees him from the charge of cruelty, Rom 9:22, and then proceeds to apply the metaphor before used, to the objects of election styled vessels of mercy, and the end of the Lord to manifest the riches of his glory in them, and the method he takes to bring them to eternal happiness, by preparing them for it by grace, Rom 9:23, which is done in the effectual calling, the objects of which are both Jews and Gentiles, Rom 9:24, That it is the will of God that the Gentiles should be called, he proves, Rom 9:25, from some passages in Hosea, Hos 2:23, and that God had chosen, and so would call some among the Jews, he clearly makes appear, Rom 9:27, from some prophecies of Isaiah, Isa 10:22, and then he concludes the chapter by observing the free and distinguishing grace of God, in the calling of the Gentiles, and the justification of them by the righteousness of Christ; that such who were far off from it, and sought not after it, should enjoy it, Rom 9:30, when the Israelites, who were diligent and zealous in seeking after a righteousness to justify them before God, yet did not arrive to one, Rom 9:31, the reasons of which are given, Rom 9:32, because it was not the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of Christ received by faith they sought; but a legal one, and by works which can never be attained by sinful men: they sought after a wrong righteousness, and in a wrong way, because they stumbled at Christ, and rejected him and his righteousness; and this removes an objection which is suggested in the two preceding verses, that God is unrighteous in calling the Gentiles, who never sought after righteousness, and in rejecting the Jews that followed after one: and that they did stumble at Christ and his righteousness, is no other than what was foretold in Isa 8:14, and that whoever believes in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be saved, he suggests is a doctrine agreeably to Isa 28:16, which passages are referred to, Rom 9:33

College: Romans (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

I. ROMANS: ITS INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE

God's Word is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path (Ps 119:105), and no part of it shines more brilliantly than the book of Romans. The truth of God's Word sets us free (John 8:32), and Romans teaches us the most liberating of all truths. God's Word is sharp and piercing like a sword (Heb 4:12), and no blade penetrates more deeply into our hearts than Romans. Overall the book of Romans may be the most read and most influential book of the Bible, but sometimes it is the most neglected and most misunderstood book. The Restoration Movement has tended to concentrate especially on the book of Acts, which is truly foundational and indispensable. But Romans is to Acts what meat is to milk. We need to mature; we need to graduate from Acts to Romans.

In 1 Cor 15:3-4 Paul sums up the gospel as these three truths: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised up again on the third day. The reality of the historical facts of the Savior's death and resurrection is stressed over and over in the book of Acts. Romans, however, is an exposition of the meaning of these facts. In the language of 1 Cor 15:3, Romans focuses not on "Christ died," but on the next three words: " for our sins ." Acts explains what salvation consists of and how we may receive it. Romans does the same, but carries the explanation to heights and depths that thrill and satisfy the soul, providing it with an experience that is at the same time intellectual, spiritual, and esthetic.

The unparalleled ability of Romans to convict sinners and to motivate Christians is well attested. The comment of Sanday and Headlam (v) has often been noted: "If it is a historical fact that the spiritual revivals of Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible, this would be true in an eminent degree of the Epistle to the Romans." Leon Morris (1) concurs: "It is commonly agreed that the Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest Christian writings. Its power has been demonstrated again and again at critical points in the history of the Christian church."

The role of Romans in Augustine's conversion is well known. In his Confessions he tells how a discussion of Christian commitment with two of his friends brought him under strong conviction, filling him with remorse for his sins of sexual immorality and a sense of helplessness to overcome them. Later he and his friend Alypius went into the garden, taking along a copy of Paul's writings. Augustine went off by himself to weep over his sins. While doing so, he reports, "I heard the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating, 'Take up and read; take up and read.'" He took this as a sign from God to open the book of Paul's writings and read the first passage that met his eyes. He quickly returned to where Alypius was sitting and the book was lying. When he opened it, the first words he saw were these from Rom 13:13-14: "Not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature." This experience and these words gave him what he needed to turn completely to Christ. He says, "No further would I read, nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended, - by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart, - all the gloom of doubt vanished away."

Godet (1) declares that "the Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to the Romans." Morris (1) agrees: "The Reformation may be regarded as the unleashing of new spiritual life as a result of a renewed understanding of the teaching of Romans."

Insofar as the Reformation depends on the work of Martin Luther, this is surely the case. Luther confesses how in 1519 he had an ardent desire to understand the epistle to the Romans. His problem was the way he had been taught to understand the expression "the righteousness of God" in Rom 1:17. To him it meant the divine justice and wrath by which God punishes sin, which did not sound very much like gospel . "Nevertheless," he says, "I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted." Finally, by the mercy of God, he began to understand this expression in a totally different way, i.e., as the righteousness of Christ that God bestows upon the sinner and on the basis of which the sinner is justified. The effect on Luther was electrifying: "I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates." This new understanding of this one verse - Rom 1:17 - changed everything; it became in a real sense the doorway to the Reformation. "Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise," says Luther ("Latin Writings," 336-337).

Luther's regard for Romans is clearly seen in this well-known paragraph from his famous preface to this epistle:

This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes ("Preface," 365).

These words, first published in 1522, were echoed almost verbatim by the English reformer William Tyndale, in his prologue to his 1534 English translation of the New Testament. He says, "This epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the New Testament, and most pure . . . gospel, and also a light and a way in unto the whole Scripture." He also recommends learning it by heart and studying it daily, because "so great treasure of spiritual things lieth hid therein."

The Swiss reformer John Calvin echoes some of Tyndale's thoughts in his own commentary on Romans (xxix): "When any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture."

Working indirectly through Luther's preface, the book of Romans had an effect on John Wesley similar to the way it influenced Augustine and Luther. In his journal Wesley recounts his own search for personal victory over sin and assurance of salvation based on trust in the blood of Christ alone. He tells what happened to him on May 24, 1738:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: And an assurace was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine , and saved me from the law of sin and death ( Works , I:103).

Modern scholars and expositors seem unable to praise the letter to the Romans highly enough. Philip Schaff has said, "The Epistle to the Romans is the Epistle of the Epistles, as the Gospel of John is the Gospel of the Gospels" ("Preface," v). "This is in every sense the greatest of the Epistles of Paul, if not the greatest book in the New Testament," declares Thiessen ( Introduction , 219). Newell (375) says Romans is "probably the greatest book in the Bible." "If the apostle Paul had written nothing else, he would still be recognized as one of the outstanding Christian thinkers of all time on the basis of this letter alone," say Newman and Nida (1). This familiar praise comes from Godet (x):

The pious Sailer used to say, "O Christianity, had thy one work been to produce a St. Paul, that alone would have rendered thee dear to the coldest reason." May we not be permitted to add: And thou, O St. Paul, had thy one work been to compose an Epistle to the Romans, that alone would have rendered thee dear to every sound reason.

Godet adds, "The Epistle to the Romans is the cathedral of the Christian faith" (1).

Others add even higher praise. Batey (7) says, "Paul's epistle to the Romans stands among the most important pieces of literature in the intellectual history of Western man." "It is safe to say that Romans is probably the most powerful human document ever written," declares Stedman. Some might think this honor should go to the U.S. Constitution or to the Declaration of Independence. "But even they cannot hold a candle to the impact the Epistle to the Romans has had upon human history" (I:1-2). Boice avows: "Christianity has been the most powerful, transforming force in human history - and the book of Romans is the most basic, most comprehensive statement of true Christianity" (I:13).

Commentators often quote this statement from Coleridge: "I think St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans the most profound work in existence" ( Table Talk , 245). Many will certainly agree, but to Coleridge such profundity was not altogether a virtue. For him it meant that Romans "undoubtedly . . . is, and must be, very obscure to ordinary readers" (ibid., 245-246). Indeed, some think that the Apostle Peter may have been referring to Romans in 2 Pet 3:16. But at the same time, perhaps paradoxically, Newell is correct when he says (vii), "There is no more simple book in the Bible than Romans, when one comes to know the book, its contents, its message, its power."

Scholars praise Romans as the clearest statement of the gospel of salvation. As noted above, Luther called it "the purest gospel." Nygren agrees (3): "What the gospel is, what the content of the Christian faith is, one learns to know in the Epistle to the Romans as in no other place in the New Testament." Cranfield says Romans is "the most systematic and complete exposition of the gospel that the NT contains" (I:31). The Restoration scholar Moses Lard (xx) concurs: "It is the whole gospel compressed into the short space of a single letter - a generalization of Christianity up to the hight [sic] of the marvelous, and a detail down to exhaustion." In Stott's words (19), Romans is "the fullest, plainest and grandest statement of the gospel in the New Testament."

Scholars also praise Romans for its unparalleled presentation of the essence of Christian doctrine . In his preface to Romans (380) Luther says that in Romans we "find most abundantly the things that a Christian ought to know, namely, what is law, gospel, sin, punishment, grace, faith, righteousness, Christ, God, good works, love, hope, and the cross; and also how we are to conduct ourselves toward everyone." Thus it seems that Paul "wanted in this one epistle to sum up briefly the whole Christian and evangelical doctrine." Schaff declares it to be "the heart of the doctrinal portion of the New Testament. It presents in systematic order the fundamental truths of Christianity in their primitive purity, inexhaustible depth, all-conquering force, and never-failing comfort. It is the bulwark of the evangelical doctrines of sin and grace" ("Preface," v).

Modern writers agree. "The truth laid down in Romans forms the Gibraltar basis of doctrine, teaching, and confession in the true evangelical church," says Lenski (8). Moo says the Puritan writer Thomas Draxe described Romans as "the quintessence and perfection of saving doctrine." Moo agrees: "When we think of Romans, we think of doctrine" (I:1). Lard (xx) calls Romans Paul's "great doctrinal chart for the future." Newman and Nida (1) declare that "above all else, the appeal of Romans is its theology ."

Concerning its doctrinal content, MacArthur lists 49 significant questions about God and man that are answered by Romans, e.g., How can a person who has never heard the gospel be held spiritually responsible? How can a sinner be forgiven and justified by God? How are God's grace and God's law related? Why is there suffering? MacArthur points out that these key words are used repeatedly in the epistle: God (154 times), law (77), Christ (66), sin (45), Lord (44), and faith (40).

Which of these assessments is correct? Is Romans the crowning presentation of the Christian gospel ? Or is it the grandest statement of Christian doctrine ? Actually, it is both. Romans is the theology of the New Testament; it is also the definitive statement of the gospel. In this epistle doctrine and gospel merge, and the result is a spiritual feast for Christians.

Boice (I:10) advises that "it is time to rediscover Romans." Actually, it is always time to "rediscover" Romans, and down through the history of Christianity individuals have been doing just this. The results have been earth-shaking. It can and does happen over and over, in the lives of individuals, in congregations, in the Church at large. F.F. Bruce (60) has well said, "There is no telling what may happen when people begin to study the Epistle to the Romans."

II. THE AUTHOR OF ROMANS

The epistle to the Romans was written by the Apostle Paul (1:1). In the past a few critics challenged this, but without any real basis in fact. Today, as Cranfield says, "no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin" (I:2). Romans was quoted by the earliest Christian writers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin), and was attributed to Paul by name by Marcion in the mid-second century. Since the time of Irenaeus (late second century) writers have explicitly and regularly viewed it as Pauline.

Though composed and dictated by Paul, the letter was actually written down by a Christian scribe named Tertius, who inserted his own greeting in 16:22.

A. PAUL'S JEWISH BACKGROUND

It is not necessary to go into the details of Paul's life, except for a few facts that are important in view of the content of the epistle, which relates especially to the distinction between law and grace. One relevant fact is Paul's Jewish background, which he proudly avowed: "I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin," a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (11:1; Phil 3:5; 2 Cor 11:22). Though born in Tarsus, he was reared in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), the capital of Judaism.

Paul's education included strict and thorough religious training in the contents of the Old Testament - especially the Law (Torah) - at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most famous and most revered of all rabbis. His knowledge of the Law was so great that he was practically identified with it, being given the title "the Beauty of the Law." A saying recorded in the Talmud declares, "Since Rabban Gamaliel died the glory of the Law has ceased." "Under Gamaliel," says Paul, "I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Acts 22:3). "Thoroughly" translates kataÉ ajkrivbeian ( kata akribeian ), "according to exactness, strictness, precision."

Paul's zeal for God and commitment to his Law was total (Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14). He was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Phil 3:5), which he properly identified as "the strictest sect of our religion" (Acts 26:5). The glory of the Pharisees was the Law; they were devoted to akribeia in its interpretation and observance (Dunn, I:xl). Thus Paul not only knew the Law but also devoted himself to scrupulous obedience to its commandments (Acts 26:4-5; Phil 3:6).

This probably means that he was a legalist in the proper sense of that word, i.e., one who sought acceptance by God on the basis of his obedience to the Law. This is implied in the way he contrasted his pre-Christian life (Phil 3:6) and his Christian life (Phil 3:9). This is also the way Pharisees are generally pictured in the Gospels.

Paul's zeal for the Law was expressed perhaps most vehemently in his fanatical persecution of the earliest Christians, all converted Jews whom he no doubt regarded as traitors to God and his Law (Phil 3:6). See Acts 7:58; 8:3; 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:9-11; Gal 1:13; 1 Tim 1:13.

B. PAUL'S CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY

The second relevant fact about the Apostle Paul is his conversion. The details need not be recounted here. What is important is that the one who converted him to Christianity was no human preacher, but was Jesus himself (Gal 1:15-16). Also, the gospel he preached was not taught to him by a human teacher; he received it by direct revelation from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). The result was that Paul's conversion, his change, his turnaround, was complete. Whereas before he was totally committed to the Mosaic Law as a way of life and salvation, once converted he was just as totally committed to the gospel of grace.

As a Christian Paul set himself in complete opposition to everything he had stood for as a Pharisee. He now understood the way of law to be futile (10:3). He saw that his former legalistic approach to salvation was, as Murray says, "the antithesis of grace and of justification by faith" (I:xiii). Thus when Paul presents the classic contrast between law and grace in Romans, he speaks as one who knew both sides of the issue from personal experience and from the best teachers available. As Murray says, he is describing "the contrast between the two periods in his own life history, periods divided by the experience of the Damascus road" (I:xiv).

It is no surprise that Paul's preaching of the gospel and his condemnation of law-righteousness turned the Jews completely against him, even to the point that they tried to kill him (Acts 9:29; 13:45; 14:2, 19; 17:5-8; 18:12; 2 Cor 11:24-26). His opponents included "false brothers" (2 Cor 11:26), the Judaizers, or Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah but still clung to the Law of Moses.

In spite of all of this upheaval, Paul did not turn against the Jews as such. He still regarded them as his beloved brothers according to the flesh (9:1-3; 10:1), and as blessed by God in an incomparable way (3:1-2; 9:4-5). In fact, a major aspect of the teaching in Romans is an explanation and a defense of God's purpose for his Old Covenant people, the Jews (see especially chs. 9-11).

C. PAUL'S COMMISSION AS

THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES

The last detail about Paul's life that is relevant here is his call and commission to be the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17). His appointment as an apostle (1:1) invested him with the full authority of Jesus Christ and with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that his teachings are truly the Word of God (1 Cor 2:6-13; 1 Thess 2:13). When we read the book of Romans, we must understand it to be nothing less than this.

Also, Paul's appointment as the apostle to the Gentiles (1:5) completely governed his thoughts and deeds from that point on. As a Jew and a Pharisee, he had no doubt shared the typical Hebrew aversion to anything Gentile; and he had no doubt gloried in the Jews' exclusive position as God's chosen people. Thus when God revealed to him the mystery of the Gentiles - that it had been his plan all along to include Gentiles in the people of the Messiah (Eph 3:1-10), Paul was overwhelmed with awe and joy. He unhesitatingly opened his heart to the very people he had once despised. This was another complete turnaround in his life, and he devoted himself totally to his new mission.

Paul's role as apostle to the Gentiles had a direct bearing on his relationship with the Roman church and his letter to them. Paul tells us that he had often desired to visit Rome, in order to preach the gospel and have some converts there, "just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13). But since there was already a church in Rome, God's Spirit directed him into other Gentile areas in Asia Minor and the Greek peninsula first (15:17-22). But now he has covered this territory with three lengthy tours of missionary service (15:19). Thus he is ready to launch out into a totally new area, namely, Spain; and his journey there will take him through Rome, as he announces in this epistle (15:23-24).

Throughout the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes with the full conciousness of his mission to the Gentiles and of the Gentiles in his audience. One point that he clarifies in the letter is the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews with respect to salvation.

III. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING

Immediately after his baptism Paul began to preach Christ in Damascus (Acts 9:19-20), but soon went away into Arabia (Gal 1:17), which may have been the time he received his revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). He went from there back to Damascus, then to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17-18) and elsewhere, and ultimately to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26).

From Antioch Paul launched his first missionary trip among the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3), which was followed by two more. While in Ephesus on his third journey, "Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. 'After I have been there,' he said, 'I must visit Rome also'" (Acts 19:21). He shortly departed for Achaia (Greece) and arrived in Corinth, where he stayed for three months (Acts 20:1-3). This was approximately twenty years after his conversion, and ten years after the beginning of his first journey.

Corinth was the farthest point of his third trip, whence he retraced his steps back toward Ephesus. He stopped at Miletus instead, and traveled from there on to Jerusalem, with the goal of arriving by Pentecost (Acts 20:16-17). One main reason for the trip to Jerusalem was to deliver the money he had collected from the (mostly Gentile) churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Greece, to help the poor (mostly Jewish) saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:25-26). Though "compelled by the Spirit" to go to Jerusalem, he was apprehensive about what might happen to him there (Acts 20:22-23).

It was in the midst of this final journey, during the three months Paul spent at Corinth, that he most likely wrote the letter to the Romans. He was apparently staying at the house of Gaius (16:23), one of his converts at Corinth (1 Cor 1:14). The letter was carried to Rome by Phoebe, a Christian from the church in nearby Cenchrea (16:1).

The exact date of the writing of Romans is calculated in relation to the overall chronology of Paul's life and work. There is no unanimity on this chronology, though the differences of opinion are minor. Everyone agrees that the Apostle's stay in Corinth must have been in late winter and/or early spring, since he planned to set out from there and arrive in Jerusalem by Pentecost. Most agree also that this would have been in the middle or late 50s. Thus Romans was probably written early in A.D. 56, 57, or 58.

IV. RECIPIENTS OF ROMANS:

THE CHURCH IN ROME

Rome was the largest and most important city in the Roman Empire in Paul's day. Its population was probably over one million. Of this number, it is estimated that forty to fifty thousand were Jews, with as many as fifteen identifiable synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvi; Edwards, 9).

How the church in Rome originated is not known. There is no real evidence that Peter founded it, contrary to a common tradition. Some say that Rom 15:20 shows this could not have been the case. Here Paul says that he does not intend to "be building on someone else's foundation." The fact that he did plan to visit Rome and work there implies that no apostle had been there yet (MacArthur, I:xviii; Moo, I:4).

One very common speculation is that the Roman church was probably started by Jews and proselytes from Rome who were in the audience that heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and who were among the converts baptized that day. Upon returning to Rome, they would have established the church there. If so, and this seems very likely, then the first Christians in Rome were converts from Judaism.

Another likely speculation is that Christians from other churches, perhaps some of Paul's own converts from his earlier work in Tarsus and Antioch and Asia Minor, were among those who started the Roman church and helped it to grow. Perhaps some of Paul's acquaintances named in Romans 16 were among this group. Such a scenario is highly probable, given the importance of Rome and the constant travel to and from that city.

Thus the church in Rome would have begun not as the result of some formal missionary effort, but by residents converted while traveling (e.g., Acts 2:10) and by Christians moving there from other places. Their own evangelistic efforts would certainly have focused on the synagogues of Rome, following the pattern of evangelism reflected in the book of Acts. This would have resulted in converts not only from Judaism but also from among Gentile "God-fearers" who were commonly attached to the synagogues (Dunn, I:xlvii-xlviii).

The epistle to the Romans is addressed "to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" (1:7). The main question about these saints is the relative number of Jews and Gentiles among them. In answering this question, scholars usually begin with one solid historical fact, and then draw conclusions based on inferences and a bit of speculation. This has led to the following scenario, for which there is considerable consensus among commentators today.

The one fact is that the Roman emperor Claudius issued a decree that expelled all Jews from Rome. This is recorded in Acts 18:2, and is also mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius. The exact date of the decree is somewhat unclear, but the best calculation is A.D. 49. The reason for the decree is stated thus by Suetonius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, (Emperor Claudius) expelled them from the city" (cited in Fiensy, Introduction , 224). Though we cannot be certain about this, most scholars agree that "Chrestus" is just a mistaken spelling of "Christus," and that the decree had to do with Jesus Christ.

In what way would Christ be instigating disturbances among the Jews in Rome? It is inferred that this refers to conflicts among the Jews stemming from Christian evangelism in the various synagogues. Because there was a wide diversity among the Jews and synagogues in Rome, it is concluded that some were more receptive to Christianity than others, and that this must have led to disputes among them. The resulting unrest was apparently unpleasant enough for Claudius to order all Jews to leave the city. It is also assumed that his decree did not make a distinction between unbelieving and believing Jews; thus even the Jewish Christians had to leave, e.g., Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). After the decree the Roman church thus would be composed almost entirely of Gentiles. (See Donfried, "Presuppositions," 104-105.)

When Claudius died around A.D. 54, the decree was no longer enforced, and Jews and Jewish Christians were free to return to Rome. Some think, however, that they were still forbidden to assemble publicly (Wiefel, "Community," 92-94). The results for the church would have been twofold. First, the problem with public assembly may have forced the Christians to set up a number of "house churches," a possibility that seems to be confirmed in Rom 16:5, 14, 15. Second, the returning Jewish Christians would find the Roman church dominated by the Gentile Christians, if not in number then certainly in power and influence (Wiefel, "Community," 94-96).

Thus the saints in Rome, to whom the letter is addressed, were almost certainly a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians, though there is no way to tell which group had the larger number. If the circumstances outlined in the above scenario are correct, however, it is safe to assume that there was tension if not conflict among the two groups. Wiefel refers to "quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Bruce says, "It is implied in Romans 11:13-24 that the Gentile Christians tended to look down on their Jewish brethren as poor relations" ("Debate," 180). Dunn speaks of "at least some friction between Gentile and Jew" within the house churches, with the Jews being in a minority and feeling themselves vulnerable (I:liii).

What is obvious is that in the epistle Paul addresses both groups, with some passages being specifically directed toward the Jewish Christians and some toward the Gentile Christians (see Moo, I:10-11; Murray, I:xviii-xix). Some say the letter as a whole is directed mainly to the Jewish saints; others say it was mainly intended for the Gentiles.

Hendriksen is surely right, though, when he says that regarding the main point of Romans this whole question is really irrelevant, since it applies equally to both groups (I:23). All are sinners (3:9, 23), no one will be saved by law (3:19-20), and all are equal recipients of the grace that is in Christ Jesus (3:24; 4:11-12). Hendriksen stresses Rom 10:12-13, "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"

V. THE OCCASION OF THE WRITING

What were the circumstances that prompted Paul to write his epistle to the Romans? We have already noted that he wrote the letter during his three-month stay in Corinth on his final mission trip. What sorts of things were going through his mind that led him to write it at that particular time?

We are fortunate that Paul reveals his mind to us in certain statements of his desires and plans in chapters 1 and 15. These statements show us what occasioned the writing of Romans.

One main consideration was Paul's immediate travel plans, as they related to his all-determining calling as apostle to the Gentiles (15:15-24). He refers to his "priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God" (15:16). For twenty years he had been preaching in the eastern and northeastern sections of the Mediterranean area, and had covered it well. "So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum," he says, "I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ"; so now "there is no more place for me to work in these regions" (15:19, 23). Thus he decided to change his focus to the northwestern section, Spain in particular (15:24, 28). In his mind he was already planning his trip to Spain.

But first he had to go to Jerusalem (15:25-31). His purpose for doing this was to deliver the funds he had been collecting from the Gentile churches "for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" (15:26). He wanted to do this personally, to make sure that the funds were properly received (15:28). To this end he asked the Roman Christians to offer two specific prayers for him (15:30-31).

First, he knew that he still had many enemies in Jerusalem among the Jews especially. He knew that some of these enemies had already tried to kill him. Thus he really was not sure what dangers he might be facing in Jerusalem. Nevertheless he was determined to go (Acts 20:22-23), so he requested that the Roman Christians "pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea" (15:31). He was not afraid of losing his life; he just did not want his newly-formed missionary plans to be aborted (Acts 20:24; Rom 15:32).

Second, Paul was not really sure how the offering from the Gentile churches would be received by the Jewish saints in Jerusalem. There were still a lot of suspicions and misunderstandings between the two groups, mostly about the relation between the Old and New Covenants and the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the Christian. Thus the money he was bringing to the poor in Jerusalem was not just an act of charity, but was also a symbol of unity between the two main factions in the church. Thus Paul was anxious that it might be received in the proper spirit, so he asked the Romans to pray "that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there" (15:31).

Thus Paul was ultimately bound for Spain, after an initial trip to Jerusalem. But there was a third item in his itinerary: an intermediate stop in Rome itself (Acts 19:21; 23:11), a place he had never been. So he announced to the Christians in Rome that on his way to Spain he would stop and visit them (15:23, 24, 28). This was something he had longed to do for many years and had even made plans to do (1:11, 13; 15:23), but had "often been hindered from coming to you" (15:22; cf. 1:13).

Paul had many reasons for wanting to visit the church in Rome. For one thing, he wanted to enlist their help for his mission to Spain. "I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there," he says (15:24). But he had other reasons that predated his plans for Spain. For example, he seems simply to have desired to visit with the Christians there: to have fellowship with them, to enjoy their company, to be spiritually refreshed by them (15:24, 32), and to be encouraged by them (1:12). After all, he knew quite a few of them personally (16:3-15).

Paul's principal longstanding reason for wanting to visit Rome, though, was his desire to preach the gospel there. "I am obligated," he says, "both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:14-15). By this means or by some accompanying means he would be able to "impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong" (1:11). This would also enable him to "have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (1:13).

No wonder that Paul says he was praying "that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you" (1:10).

These are the immediate circumstances that prompted Paul to write the epistle to the Romans. But a simple presentation of these facts does not in itself answer the question of exactly why he wrote the letter. What was his purpose for writing? What did he hope to accomplish by writing this particular letter? This is the subject of the next section.

VI. THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

The question of Paul's purpose for writing the epistle to the Romans is very controversial; there is much disagreement about it. Everyone agrees on the facts described above relating to the occasion for the writing. The problem is that these facts have to be assessed in view of the contents of the main body of the letter, 1:18-15:13. The question is not just why he wrote a letter to the Roman church, but why he wrote this specific letter with this particular content. Why does he write "such a lengthy and involved discussion to a largely unknown congregation"? (Dunn, I:lv).

There are two basic approaches to this question. The older and more traditional approach is that the historical circumstances as described in the previous section were not particularly relevant with regard to Paul's decision to write the letter. Neither Paul's own plans nor the state of the Roman church presented him with a pressing need or occasion that required him to write. Thus unlike his other letters, Romans is more or less non-occasional. It is regarded rather as a kind of timeless theological essay on the essence of Christianity. As Sanday and Headlam describe this view, "the main object of the Epistle is doctrinal; it is rather a theological treatise than a letter; its purpose is to instruct the Roman Church in central principles of the faith, and has but little reference to the circumstances of the moment" (xl).

The more recent approaches to the purpose of Romans take the opposite view, that it is "a situational letter rather than a doctrinal treatise" (Jewett, "Argument," 265). Paul was not simply writing an essay detached from his circumstances, but was specifically addressing a particular situation that needed his attention at that time. Thus Romans is just as much an occasional letter as 1 Corinthians or Galatians.

Those who take the latter approach usually go in one of two directions. Some emphasize that Paul wrote the letter to fulfill certain needs of his own, relating to his trip either to Jerusalem or to Spain. Others say that Paul wrote mainly to meet the needs of the Roman church at that particular time.

It is possible, of course, that Paul had more than one purpose for writing Romans, as Cranfield says: "It is surely quite clear that Paul did not have just one single purpose in mind but rather a complex of purposes and hopes" (II:815). Dunn (I:lx) and Moo (I:20) agree.

A. ROMANS IS A DOCTRINAL ESSAY

Now we shall go into a bit more detail concerning the possibilities outlined above. The first view is that Paul was not addressing a specific situation but was writing a timeless doctrinal essay. In its most extreme form this view says that Romans is a complete systematic theology, a compendium of Christian doctrine. Shedd (viii) calls it " an inspired system of theology , . . . a complete statement of religious truth." Romans is so "encyclopædic in its structure" that one "need not go outside of this Epistle, in order to know all religious truth."

More recently Bornkamm has taken a similar view, describing Romans as Paul's "last will and testament" - "a summary of his theology in light of the impending danger in Jerusalem" (Donfried, "Presuppositions," 103). Bornkamm says ("Letter," 27-28), "This great document . . . summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and . . . elevates his theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the eternally and universally valid."

Many writers agree that Romans was not occasioned by some immediate need or crisis but was a kind of doctrinal essay. Nygren says (4), "The characteristic and peculiar thing about Romans, differentiating it from the rest of Paul's epistles, is just the fact that it was not, or was only in slight degree aimed at circumstances within a certain congregation." Lenski (10-12) agrees.

Most who take this non-occasional view, however, say that it is an exaggeration to call Romans a full-blown systematic theology. "If Romans is a compendium of theology," says Morris (8), "there are some curious gaps." (See also Moo, I:1; Hendriksen, I:25; W. Williams, 19-20.) It is a doctrinal essay, to be sure, but one that is more focused and limited in its scope.

Just what is the focus of this doctrinal essay? The most common view is that it has to do with the doctrines of salvation, i.e., that Romans is a summary or synopsis of Paul's gospel . Morris says that Paul probably thought his three-month, pressure-free sojourn in Corinth was a good time to bring together the timeless teachings that had crystallized in his thinking during his twenty years as a preacher. Thus he sets forth "a summary of the gospel and its consequences as he understood them" (pp. 18-19). Cranfield likewise says it is likely that Paul "was conscious of having reached a certain maturity of experience, reflection and understanding, which made the time ripe for him to attempt, with God's help, such an orderly presentation of the gospel" (II:817).

Vincent summarizes this whole approach quite well when he says that Romans "is distinguished among the epistles by its systematic character. Its object is to present a comprehensive statement of the doctrine of salvation through Christ, not a complete system of christian doctrine" ( Word Studies , III:x). As Hendriksen says (I:25), "Romans is not really 'a complete compendium of Christian Doctrine.' If it had been Paul's intention to draw up such a document, he would surely have included far more material." The specific doctrine he deals with is one needed not just in Rome but by all people in all times: " the manner in which sinners are saved ." (See Edwards, 3.)

The idea that Romans is a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the general doctrine of salvation is correct, in my opinion. However, I do not think it is wise to separate it too sharply from the occasion or circumstances discussed in the last section. I question W. Williams' approach, for example, when he says (19), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation," and in the next sentence says, "This discussion was incidental to the apostle's circumstances." In my opinion this is a false choice. It is an essay on salvation, but its purpose was definitely related to the circumstances at that time, as we shall see below.

B. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED

BY PAUL'S IMMEDIATE NEEDS

The second major approach to the purpose of Romans is that it was occasioned by the various circumstances relating to Paul's immediate plans in relation to his mission. In other words, it was designed to meet needs that Paul felt in his own life at the time. As Jervell says, "Its raison d'être does not stem from the situation of the Roman congregation, but is to be found in Paul himself at the time of writing" ("Letter," 54).

The main idea here resembles the modern practice of churches requesting that prospective ministers send a tape recording of one of their sermons. In this case Paul takes the initiative and sets forth in writing a "sermon" or a lengthy presentation of his gospel. He does this because he needs to introduce himself to people who are not familiar with him or with what he preaches. Or, he does this because his enemies are spreading false rumors about what he preaches, and are misrepresenting his gospel especially as to what he says about Jew-Gentile relations. Thus Romans is not just a presentation but also a defense of Paul's gospel.

This is how Moo explains the purpose of Romans. The various circumstances that he faced "forced Paul to write a letter in which he carefully rehearsed his understanding of the gospel, especially as it related to the salvation-historical questions of Jew and Gentile and the continuity of the plan of salvation" (I:20). Bruce agrees that it was "expedient that Paul should communicate to the Roman Christians an outline of the message which he proclaimed. Misrepresentations of his preaching and his apostolic procedure were current and must have found their way to Rome" ("Debate," 182). (See Stuhlmacher, "Purpose," 236.)

Why was it crucial for Paul at this particular time to write such a presentation and defense of his gospel? The answer is that it was necessary in order to facilitate his immediate plans. For one thing, he was on his way to Jerusalem with the offering for the poor saints, and was apprehensive about how this would turn out. Thus some contend that in this letter Paul was rehearsing what he was going to say in Jerusalem in defense of himself and in an effort to seal Jew-Gentile unity. He sent the product to the Roman church in a letter, asking them to pray for him and the upcoming Jerusalem episode (15:30-32). Thus, says Jervell, Romans is Paul's "'collection speech,' or more precisely, the defense which Paul plans to give before the church in Jerusalem." He sends it to Rome "to ask the Roman congregation for solidarity, support, and intercession on his behalf" ("Letter," 56). Dunn calls this Paul's "apologetic purpose" (I:lvi; see I:xlii-xliii).

Though this is a fairly common view today, some object to it or at least doubt that it could be the only purpose for Romans (Moo, I:18). Thus other aspects of Paul's immediate plans must have elicited the letter. One of the most obvious is Paul's plan to visit Rome itself. Though he knew some of the Roman Christians, he had never been in Rome and would not know most of the people there. It must have seemed expedient, then, for him to write a kind of "letter of introduction" to himself, especially in view of the false rumors that were probably afoot.

This is how Morris understands it (16-17). Paul used his three-month interlude in Corinth "to write to the Roman Christians to let them know of his plan to visit them and to set down in order something of what the gospel meant." He wanted to give them "a clear but profound statement of the essential message of Christianity as he proclaimed it. This will show the Romans where he stands." MacArthur's view is similar: "Paul's letter to the church at Rome was, among other things, an introduction to himself as an apostle. He clearly set forth the gospel he preached and taught, so that believers in Rome would have complete confidence in his authority" (I:xix). (See also Stott, 34.)

Those who hold this view usually take it a step further, and say that Paul laid out and defended his gospel to the Romans as a means of enlisting their support for his Spanish mission. In a real sense Rome was just a means to an end, both in Paul's itinerary and in his missionary strategy. He needed them as a kind of "base of operations" for what he hoped to accomplish in Spain (Stott, 33). Thus "if Rome was to be his base, the Romans would need to be assured of his message and theological position" (Morris, 17). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "missionary purpose" for Romans (I:lv). This is a fairly common view. (See Cranfield, II:817-818; Jewett, "Argument," 266, 277.)

C. ROMANS WAS OCCASIONED BY NEEDS AT ROME ITSELF

As we have just seen, those who believe the writing of Romans was motivated by the immediate circumstances sometimes locate those circumstances in Paul's own personal needs. Others who take the occasional approach, however, believe that the situation in Rome itself is what Paul is specifically addressing in this epistle. Though he had not been there, he still would have been acquainted with the state of the Roman church. It was, after all, a famous church (1:8). Besides, Paul's Roman friends, such as Aquila and Priscilla (16:3), would probably have kept him informed especially of any problems that existed there (Sanday and Headlam, xl-xli).

Whatever the nature of those problems or needs, Paul wrote to resolve them. Since all of Paul's other letters were "addressed to the specific situations of the churches or persons involved," says Donfried, we must begin with the assumption that Romans "was written by Paul to deal with a concrete situation in Rome" ("Presuppositions," 103). This is what Dunn calls Paul's "pastoral purpose" (I:lvi-lviii).

1. The Need for Jew-Gentile Unity

What sorts of needs existed at Rome that would call forth from Paul's pen the most magnificent gospel tract ever written? Several possibilities are suggested, but the one most commonly held begins with the assumption that there was considerable tension in the Roman church between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Thus the purpose of Paul's letter was to resolve this tension.

This view usually grows out of the speculations (discussed above) concerning the development of the Roman church following Claudius' decree expelling the Jews from Rome. With Jewish Christians being forced to leave Rome, the Gentile Christians became the dominant force; and this situation prevailed even after the former returned to Rome. This led to conflict between the two factions. This scenario is supported by the various references to Jews and Gentiles (Greeks) in Romans, by the discussion of the weak (Jews?) and the strong (Gentiles?) in 14:1-15:13, and by several references to unity and division within the church (12:16; 15:5; 16:17-18). Such texts seem to be evidence of a "basic division existing between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians at Rome" (P. Williams, "Purpose," 64).

This view has been argued by Marxsen and more recently by Wiefel, who concludes that Romans "was written to assist the Gentile Christian majority, who are the primary addressees of the letter, to live together with the Jewish Christians in one congregation, thereby putting an end to their quarrels about status" ("Community," 96). Here is Edwards' summary (15-16):

Romans is addressed to the problems which inevitably resulted when Jewish Christians began returning to Rome following the edict of Claudius. We can imagine their trials of readjusting to churches which had become increasingly Gentile in their absence. Would Gentile believers who had established their supremacy during the Jewish absence, and for whom the law was now largely irrelevant, continue to find a place within their fellowship for a Jewish Christian minority which still embraced the law? Paul cannot have been unaware of such concerns.

In Dunn's words, "Paul wrote to counter (potential) divisions within Rome among the Christian house churches, particularly the danger of gentile believers despising less liberated Jewish believers" (I:lvii). (See also Stott, 34-36.)

2. The Need for an Apostolic Foundation

Another possible need being addressed by Paul is related to the circumstances of the origin of the church in Rome. It is inferred from 15:20 that no apostle was involved in its founding, nor as yet had even visited Rome. Thus Paul was concerned that the church did not have a solid apostolic foundation (see Eph 2:20), and he writes this epistle in order to provide that foundation. This is the view of Günter Klein ("Purpose," 39, 42), but Morris (11-12) gives reasons for doubting it.

3. The Need for Paul's Gospel

Another possibility (to which I subscribe) is that Paul did indeed recognize the need of the Roman church to hear his apostolic preaching and teaching, but not necessarily in a foundational sense. This view begins with Paul's sense of duty, based upon his special calling, to preach the gospel to everyone in the Gentile world (1:14), including those in Rome: "That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome" (1:15).

But these people are already Christians. Why would Paul want to "preach the gospel" to believers ? Here is a point that is often missed: the gospel is more than just the initial evangelistic witness given to unbelievers with a view to their conversion. It also includes the deeper meaning and implications of the basic facts of salvation, which are things about which even mature believers can never hear enough. That Paul wanted to preach the gospel to the Christians in Rome means that he wanted to go deeper into the meaning of Christ's saving work "for our sins," unfolding for them the full power of the gospel in the Christian life and at the same time clearing up common misunderstandings that may arise through incomplete knowledge.

Paul's desire, of course, was to do this in person, and he had often planned to travel to Rome for this very reason. Up to this point, however, God's providence had prevented it (1:13; 15:22). Now he is once again planning to go to Rome, after his trip to Jerusalem with the offering. But based on his past experience and the uncertainty about what would happen to him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-24), at this point he could not be certain that he would ever reach Rome in person.

This led Paul to the conclusion that if he was ever going to preach the gospel in Rome, perhaps the only way he would be able to do so was in writing . Thus he takes the time, while staying in Corinth just before traveling to Jerusalem, to prepare a well-thought-out essay on the gospel as every Christian needs to hear it; and he sends it on to Rome in advance of his intended trip there. Thus it seems likely, says Campbell, that "the letter is the written equivalent of the oral presentation which Paul would have delivered to the congregation had he himself been present" ("Key," 258).

According to this view, then, Romans is not just a basic presentation of the gospel, written in order to provide the Roman Christians with a missing apostolic foundation. And as Nygren (7) rightly notes, "it is a misunderstanding of Romans to see in it a typical example of Paul's missionary preaching." This is contrary to those who think Paul was just introducing himself to the Roman church, hoping to win their support for his mission to Spain by rehearsing the gospel as he usually preached it. Stuhlmacher rightly notes that how Paul "preached and taught as a missionary cannot be simply inferred from the outline of Romans" ("Purpose," 242).

According to this view, then, the primary purpose for Romans is not related to some need within Paul himself (e.g., his concern for defending himself; his missionary plans); nor is it related to some negative situation in the Roman church (e.g., Jew-Gentile disunity). It is motivated rather by Paul's loving concern for his fellow-Christians at Rome, and his desire to bless their hearts and lives with this written version of the deeper aspects of the gospel of grace. This point is brought out very well by Hendriksen (I:24):

Paul, being an intensely warm and loving person, desires to go to Rome in order to be a blessing to his friends (Rom. 1:10, 11) and to be refreshed by them (15:32). Moreover, it is for this same reason that he, now that it is impossible for him to go to Rome immediately , communicates with the Roman church by means of this letter. He writes to the Romans because he loves them. They are his friends "in Christ," and by means of this letter he imparts his love to them . . . .

It is strange that this deeply personal reason . . . , a reason clearly brought out by the apostle himself, is often overlooked. At times the emphasis is placed entirely on theological motivation or on mission incentive: Paul wants to correct errors of the antinomians and/or wants to make Rome the headquarters for the evangelization of Spain. To be sure, these matters are important, but we should begin with the reason first stated by Paul himself in this very epistle.

D. CONCLUSION

We have surveyed the main reasons why Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans. It should be obvious that some of these reasons may overlap or be combined; so we need not focus narrowly upon just one of them. Jewett, for example, says the immediate reason was to resolve the Jew-Gentile tensions, but this was sought in order to gain a strong and unified backing for the mission to Spain ("Argument," 266). After summarizing the missionary, apologetic, and pastoral purposes, Dunn concludes that "all three of these main emphases and purposes hang together and indeed reinforce each other when taken as a whole" (I:lviii).

In my opinion, though, the dominant reason is the last one discussed above: Paul's desire to preach the gospel to the Romans, and his decision to do so in the form of an epistle. This is the factor that Paul stresses in the introductory section of the letter, where we would expect him to say what is closest to his heart. It seems inappropriate to give priority to ch. 15 on this matter, and to pass over what Paul himself chooses to mention first of all. Just because he tells the Romans about his plans in ch. 15 is no reason to assume that his purpose for writing to Rome is specifically or directly related to these plans.

We may conclude, then, that Romans is indeed an occasional letter, that it was occasioned by the need of the Roman Christians to hear Paul's gospel and by the circumstances that made it expedient for him to send it to them in written form at this particular time. Thus Romans is by design a clear presentation of the deeper implications of the gospel, written not for Paul's sake but for the sake of the church at Rome. The references to Paul's own plans and needs in ch. 15 are secondary.

At the same time, just because of the nature of the situation that caused Paul to write this epistle, the purpose for Romans includes the first view discussed above, namely, that it was intended to be a kind of doctrinal essay focusing on the meaning of salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. As noted above, it is a systematic presentation of the gospel : not necessarily the gospel as proclaimed in an evangelistic situation, but the gospel as unfolded to mature Christians.

When this point is understood, we can see that the epistle to the Romans is intended not just for the saints in Rome in the middle of the first century A.D., but for all Christians in all ages. It is relevant for all since it deals with salvation from sin through God's grace. As Moo rightly says (I:21),

That Paul was dealing in Romans with immediate concerns in the early church we do not doubt. But, especially in Romans, these issues are ultimately the issues of the church - and the world - of all ages: the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, security in the face of suffering and death.

The circumstances contributing to the writing of this letter were far broader than the immediate situation in Rome and Paul's own immediate travel plans. They included Paul's own pre-Christian life as a Jew who sought acceptance with God on the basis of his own righteousness. They included Paul's twenty years of preaching to sinners of all types, Jews and Gentiles. They included his dealings with new Christians and new churches with all their weaknesses and problems. His experience and knowledge of human nature and human need were personal and comprehensive; thus the gospel of Romans is generic and timeless.

In most of the discussions of the purpose of Romans, a forgotten factor is the role of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture. It is Paul himself who tells us that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Whatever circumstances led Paul to compose his letter to the Romans, the choice to write and the message he wrote were not his alone. The Holy Spirit worked through Paul to produce this letter (see 2 Pet 1:20-21), and the Holy Spirit knows more than any man what is needed by every sinner and by every Christian seeking peace and power. In the final analysis it is the Spirit of God, and not just the Apostle Paul, who speaks to our hearts in the epistle to the Romans.

VII. THE THEME OF ROMANS

Almost everyone today rejects the idea that Romans is a compendium or summary of Christian theology as such. It is nevertheless generally recognized that the content of the epistle is doctrinal in nature. Its main body is an essay or treatise with a strong doctrinal emphasis and seems to be built around a particular theme. The question now is, exactly what is the theme of Romans? Several answers have been proposed.

A. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

The Reformation established a way of looking at Romans that still has considerable support among Protestants, namely, that the main theme of the epistle is stated in 1:16-17. It can be summed up in the familiar phrase, "justification by faith," i.e., justification or righteousness before God comes through faith alone. John Calvin (xxix) states succinctly that "the main subject of the whole Epistle" is "justification by faith."

Boers says this is the theme that "currently almost universally controls the interpretation of the letter" ( Justification , 77). This is surely an exaggeration, but the justification view is still very popular. Concerning the principal content of Romans, Nygren says (16), "From the beginning evangelical Christianity has spoken clearly on that point: justification by faith. That answer is correct." Defining "theme" as "central topic" rather than as exclusive topic, Hendriksen agrees that justification by faith, "spread out into 'justification by grace through faith'. . . , is clearly the theme of Romans" (I:29). Edwards (3) says that "the driving concern throughout is salvation - that righteousness comes as a free gift of God and is received by faith alone." Stott (35) says two themes are woven together in the epistle. "The first is the justification of guilty sinners by God's grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, irrespective of either status or works."

Many scholars today have rejected this traditional approach. Though justification by faith is a main topic in Romans, says Boers (88), it "never becomes thematic." Too much of its subject matter simply does not relate to this subject, he says (78). Moo agrees (I:26-27). (See Stott, 24-31.)

B. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

Those who are not satisfied with justification by faith as the theme for Romans sometimes opt for one that is very similar, namely, the righteousness of God (1:17). Beker says this is "the key term for the letter as a whole" ("Faithfulness," 331). Jewett says the thesis of Romans is that the gospel is "the 'power of God' to achieve the triumph of divine righteousness (Rom. 1:16-17)" ("Argument," 266).

Since the righteousness of God is integrally related to justification by faith, the two themes are sometimes confused. This is because one aspect of the theme of divine righteousness is that the righteousness of God is the basis for the personal justification of individual sinners. This is the sense in which Nygren says that the righteousness of God - in the sense of righteousness from God - is "the fundamental concept" and "the very foundation thought" of the epistle (9, 14-15), even though he says the "principal content" of the letter is justification by faith (16).

But most of those today who say that the righteousness of God is the theme of Romans are using the expression in a broader, more comprehensive sense. For them it includes the idea of the divine righteousness as the basis for individual justification, to be sure. For example, Stuhlmacher says the theme of Romans is "the gospel of the divine righteousness in Christ for those who believe from among the Jews and Gentiles" ("Theme," 334, 337). But in Romans, they say, the theme is more inclusive than this. It includes God's righteousness as the basis not only of his dealings with individual believers, but also of his dealings with mankind in general and especially with the Jewish nation in the context of redemptive history.

The question raised by the indiscriminate offer of justification by faith to both Jews and Gentiles is whether God is being fair with the Jews, in view of all the special treatment he has already bestowed upon them and the special promises he has given them. Does the gospel's "no partiality" principle bring God's justice or righteousness into question? "What is at stake is nothing less than the faithfulness of God," says Beker ("Faithfulness," 330); and this is what Paul is dealing with especially in Rom 9-11. Stuhlmacher explains that the "righteousness of God" refers to "the entire redemptive activity of God in Christ from creation to redemption" ("Theme," 341).

Thus according to this view the theme of Romans is not just the salvation of man but the defense of God, with perhaps the greater emphasis falling on the latter. As Fiensy says (227), "Romans is then a theodicy or defense of God in light of the Jewish-Gentile problem in the church." Gaertner says that the kinds of questions Paul raises in Romans (e.g., 3:3; 3:5; 3:29; 9:14) inquire into the nature of God's dealings with sinners, especially with his fairness and faithfulness. Thus Gaertner labels Romans "the gospel of God's fairness" ("Fairness," 1:14).

C. THE EQUALITY OF JEWS AND GENTILES

A third view is that the theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles in God's plan of salvation. This is currently a popular view. It stems mainly from the reconstruction of the origin and development of the Roman church as described earlier in this introduction. It goes hand in hand with the idea that the letter is intended to deal with certain specific circumstances existing in Rome, especially the apparent disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It recognizes that "the entire letter to the Romans is . . . permeated with Jew-Gentile issues" (Fiensy, Introduction , 230).

In its most general form this view says that the main emphasis of Romans is the universality of the gospel: there is just one way of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. The transcendent gospel goes beyond the Jew-Gentile distinction. God's salvation is given to both groups equally, favoring neither and offering favor to both.

Boers is an example of this view. He says the consistent theme of the main body of Romans is "salvation of Jews and gentiles, and the relationship between them" ( Justification , 80). This theme is stated in Rom 1:16, "that the gospel is the power of God for all who believe, to the Jews first, and to the Hellenes" (80). That salvation is offered to the Jews first is important, but so is the idea that "there is no difference between Jews and gentiles" (81-82).

Dunn says, "It is precisely the tension between 'Jew first but also Greek' (1:16), which . . . provides an integrating motif for the whole letter." Paul's "repeated emphasis on 'all'" underscores the theme of universality. Even the emphasis on the righteousness of God "is primarily an exposition of the same Jew/Gentile theme," i.e., it is Paul's way of arguing that Gentiles are full recipients of the saving grace of God as much as Jews are (I:lxii-lxiii).

As noted earlier, Stott says two themes are woven together in Romans, the first being justification by faith. But since this applies equally to all people, it is the "fundamental basis of Christian unity." This provides the second theme of Romans, that "'there is no difference' now between Jews and Gentiles. . . . Indeed, 'the single most important theme of Romans is the equality of Jews and Gentiles'" (35-36).

Interpreters differ as to the nature of the circumstances that led Paul to emphasize the theme of equality. Some say the Gentile Christians at Rome did not want to fully accept the Jewish Christians, so Romans is basically defending the right of the latter to full status in the Kingdom of God. This is how Boers understands the "Jews first" theme, as noted above. Jewett says, "Nowhere else in Paul's writings are the concerns of Jewish Christians taken up in so systematic and friendly a manner, thus counterbalancing the prejudices of the Gentile majority of Roman Christians" ("Argument," 276). The development of this theme in Rom 9-11 "is relevant to the situation in Rome," says Bruce. Here Paul "warns the Gentiles among his readers not to despise the Jews, . . . because God has not written them off" ("Debate," 183-184).

On the other hand, some say the problem in Rome was the status of the Gentile Christians. W. Williams says (19-20), "The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation." More specifically, Romans is Paul's "defense of the rights of the Gentiles against the Jewish assumption that excluded them from the Church, and from the chance of salvation." Thus "the sole intent of the apostle was to maintain the equality of the Gentiles against the assumption of the Jews." Stendahl agrees that Paul's concern is the salvation of the Gentiles. Even the subject of justification serves the purpose of "defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel" ( Paul , 2-4).

Either way the subject is approached, the main point is the same: the principal theme of Romans is to demonstrate the equality of Jews and Gentiles with regard to the saving grace of God.

D. SINNERS ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT LAW

All of the themes discussed above are certainly present in Romans, and all are important. All of them contribute significantly to the main theme. But I believe none of them as such is the main point Paul is communicating to us in the epistle. Rather than seeing 1:16-17 as the thesis statement for Paul's treatise, I see it more or less as the starting point leading up to the thesis, which is 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

In the most general sense Paul's thesis relates to the gospel , since his desire to preach the gospel in Rome (1:15) is what led him to compose the epistle as a written version of his gospel. In this sense Moo is correct: "What, then, is the theme of the letter? If we have to choose one - and perhaps it would be better not to - we would choose 'the gospel.'" Romans is simply "Paul's statement of 'his' gospel" (I:28).

But since the gospel is the good news about salvation, also in a general sense the theme of Romans is salvation . As Harrison says (7), "Salvation is the basic theme of Romans (cf. 1:16) - a salvation presented in terms of the righteousness of God, which, when received by faith, issues in life (1:17)." Or as Hendriksen says, the basic doctrine at stake (especially in 1:16-8:39) is " the manner in which sinners are saved" (I:25). And the manner in which sinners are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, is the same: justification by faith.

But the theme of Romans is more precise than this. Yes, sinners are justified by faith, but this means they are not justified by works of law, which is the only alternative. It is just as important to include the negative statement in the theme as the positive one.

In actuality, then, the basic theme of Romans is the contrast between law and grace as ways of salvation. This contrast is seen especially in 3:28, which (literally translated) says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." The contrast is stated succinctly in 6:14, "You are not under law, but under grace." This is the gospel, the good news of salvation. Certainly it is good news to know that God justifies us by faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ. But in a real sense it is also good news to know that we are not justified by law-keeping: a way of salvation which is not only futile but which sinners in their hearts know is futile, and which thus leads only to self-deception or to despair.

Commenting on Romans, Grubbs says, "The Gospel versus the Law is the one theme of which he [Paul] never loses sight in the elaboration of the details of this wonderful production" (9). Though this is a very common way of speaking - "gospel versus law" - it is not altogether accurate. The real contrast is grace versus law, and this message as a whole is the gospel.

Thus Paul's theme is indeed that we are saved by grace, not by law. Law is not a viable option as a means of salvation; the only way for sinners to be counted righteous before God is by grace. Yes, we are justified by faith, but not by works of law. Yes, the righteousness of God figures prominently in our justification, but in contrast to the righteousness of man. Yes, Romans does emphasize full equality regarding this way of salvation; Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. Both are saved by grace and justified by faith as provided by the righteousness of God, but in contrast with every false way.

This contrast between law and grace as competing ways of salvation is not a matter of OT versus NT nor Old Covenant versus New Covenant, as if law were the way to be saved prior to Christ and grace is the way to be saved now that Christ has come. Also, the contrast between law and grace - THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - is not simply the Law of Moses versus the grace of Jesus Christ. No sinner has ever been saved nor can be saved by the law that applies to him, whether it be the Law of Moses for Jews under the Old Covenant, or some other comparable set of God's commandments for anyone else in any other time. Every sinner who has been saved since the time of Adam has been saved by grace and not by law, and this will always be the case.

The problem that Paul addresses in the book of Romans is not one that confronts Jews only, nor Gentiles only. It is not a problem faced only by those who are under the Mosaic Law, nor only by those to whom the Mosaic Law does not apply. The problem being addressed is this: As a sinner, how can I be saved? It is a problem faced by Jews and Gentiles alike, and the solution is the same for both.

Perhaps even more significantly, the problem addressed in Romans is not one confronted only by unbelieving sinners. It is a problem that believers often wrestle with as well (e.g., the Judaizers). When we state the problem thus - "As a sinner, how can I be saved?" - we can break it down into two separate problems. First is the unbeliever's problem: "How can I become saved?" The answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law. Second is the believer's continuing problem: "How can I stay saved?" And the answer is: by grace through faith, not by works of law.

This is why the epistle to the Romans has always been and always will be in a class by itself with regard to its impact on individuals and upon the church as a whole. Its basic theme is one that is always needed and always applicable, and one that will result in the highest praise to God the Redeemer once it is understood.

PREFACE TO VOLUME 2

The introductory issues regarding the book of Romans have been discussed in Vol. 1 of this work (pp. 21-55). Also, the outline for chs. 1-8 of Romans is included in that volume (pp. 55-58).

References to passages in the book of Romans itself are usually limited to chapter and verse data only. For my policy regarding quotations from other sources, see the note at the beginning of the bibliography.

I wish to express my thanks to my wife, Barbara, for her patience in accepting my writing schedule while this work has been in production. My thanks go also to College Press for inaugurating this project, and especially to College Press editor John Hunter for adjusting to a writer who suffers from incurable prolixity. Another special word of thanks is due to my employers at the Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary who encourage my writing in many ways, especially through their regular sabbatical policy.

Above all, thanks be to God for his saving grace, for his Holy Word, and especially for the letter to the Romans with its incomparable beauty and power.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given.

I. COMMENTARIES

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans , 2 ed. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1957.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Bartlett, C. Norman. Right in Romans: Studies in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.

Batey, Richard A. The Letter of Paul to the Romans . Austin: R.B. Sweet, 1969.

Black, Matthew. Romans , 2 ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Boice, James Montgomery. Romans , 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991ff.

Brokke, Harold J. Saved by His Life . Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1964.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Tr. by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, new series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans. 2 vols. Volume 38 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle to the Romans: An Exposition . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1925.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Tr. by A. Cusin. Ed. by Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Greathouse, William M. Romans . Vol. 6 of Beacon Bible Expositions. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1975.

Grubbs, Isaiah Boone. An Exegetical and Analytical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Ed. by George A. Kingman. 6th ed. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, n.d.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary . Volume 10. Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Pp. 1-171.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lipscomb, David. Romans . Vol. I in A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles. 2nd ed. Ed. by J. W. Shepherd. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1965.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3.20-4.25-Atonement and Justification . London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 6-The New Man . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7.1-8.4-The Law: Its Functions and Limits . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & tr. by Wilhelm Pauck. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. XV. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God's Grace . Ed. by Herman A. Hoyt. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

Mitchell, John G., with Dick Bohrer. Right with God: A Devotional Study of the Epistle to the Romans . Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1990.

Moo, Douglas. Romans . 2 vols. The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moser, K.C. The Gist of Romans , revised ed. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1958.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newell, William R. Lessons on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . No publisher given, 1925.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Tr. by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Moberly, MO: Scripture Exposition Press, 1987.

Robertson, A.T. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. IV in Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1931.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, old series. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God . Tr. by Siegfried Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Shields, Bruce. Romans . Standard Bible Studies. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1988.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979); and Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stedman, Ray C. From Guilt to Glory, Volume I: Romans 1-8 . Waco: Word Books, 1978.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994.

Williams, William G. An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1902.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Augustine, The Confessions of St. Augustine . Vol. XIV in The Works of Aurelius Augustine. Ed. by Marcus Dods. Tr. by J.G. Pilkington. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876.

Balz, Horst. "ajpokaradokiva." Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament . Ed. by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. I:132-133.

Bartchy, S. Scott. MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, #11. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973.

Beker, J.C. "The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul's Letter to the Romans." RomDeb , 327-332.

Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Bornkamm, Günther. "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament." RomDeb , 16-28.

Boswell, John. Christianity , Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Bruce, F.F. "The Romans Debate -Continued." RomDeb , 177-194.

Campbell, William S. "Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter." RomDeb , 251-264.

Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Table Talk and Omniana of Samuel Taylor Coleridge . London: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Cooper, John W. Body , Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Corson, John. " Faith Alone Involves Obedience, Too!" Christian Standard . (10/2/77), pp. 5-6.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 39-81.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins . Ed. by David W. Fletcher. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990. Pp. 17-38.

. " Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1971.

. " Faith , History, and the Resurrection Body of Jesus," The Seminary Review (Dec. 1982): 28:143-160.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Gender Roles and the Bible: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

. His Truth . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. Thirteen Lessons on Grace . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1988.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, G. "lambavnw, etc." TDNT, IV:5-15.

DeYoung, James B. "The Meaning of 'Nature' in Romans 1." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society , 31 (December 1988): 429-441.

Donfried, Karl P. "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans." RomDeb , 102-125.

, ed. The Romans Debate . Revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Erickson, Millard J. The Evangelical Mind and Heart . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Fiensy, David A. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Foerster, Werner. "swvzw, etc." TDNT, VII:965-1024.

Friedrich, Gerhard. "eujaggelivzomai, etc." TDNT, II:707-737.

Fuller, Daniel P. The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Gaertner, Dennis. "Romans: Gospel of God's Fairness ." Christian Standard , part 1 (12/20/87), pp. 14-16; and part 2 (12/27/87), pp. 4-6.

Graber, Friedrich. "All, Many." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. I:94-97.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth : Doctrine of Deity . Nashville: Nelson, 1974.

Gundry, Robert H. Sôma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Harris, M.J. " Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament." Appendix. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Ed. by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. III:1171-1213.

Hobbs, A. I. " Conversion : What Is It, and How Produced?" In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 254-274.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Jervell, Jacob. "The Letter to Jerusalem." RomDeb , 53-64.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament . London: SCM Press, 1965.

Jewett, Robert. "Following the Argument of Romans." RomDeb , 265-277.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Tr. & ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Klein, Günter. "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans." RomDeb , 29-43.

Lamar, J.S. "The Ground of Man's Need of Salvation." In The Old Faith Restated . Ed. by J.H. Garrison. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company, 1891. Pp. 98-119.

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man . New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Luther, Martin. "Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings ." In Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by Lewis W. Spitz and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 327-338.

. " Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans." In Vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I . Luther's Works (American Edition). Ed. by E. Theodore Bachmann and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960. Pp. 365-380.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, "Follow Me"? Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Maurer, Christian. " ." TDNT, VIII:557-558.

. "pravssw, etc." TDNT, VI:632-644.

Milligan, Robert. Exposition and Defense of the Scheme of Redemption . St. Louis: Bethany Press, n.d.

Moreland, J.P., and David Ciocchi, eds. Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross . 3 ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam's Sin . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "kaqivsthmi, etc." TDNT, III:444-447.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts . 2nd ed. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1976.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "dou'lo", etc." TDNT, II:261-280.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul : An Outline of His Theology . Tr. by John R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Rueda, Enrique. The Homosexual Network : Private Lives and Public Policy . Old Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair, 1982.

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation : What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ . Wheaton: Scripture Press/Victor Books, 1989.

Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism . London: SCM, 1977.

Schaff, Philip. " Preface ." In John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Romans . Tr. by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan reprint, n.d.

Schneider, Johannes. "parabaivnw, paravbasi", etc." TDNT, V:736-744.

Schrenk, Gottlob. "iJerov", etc." TDNT, III:221-283.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . Tr. by James D. Ernest. 3 volumes. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. "The Purpose of Romans." RomDeb , 231-242.

. "The Theme of Romans." RomDeb , 333-345.

Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach . Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Thiessen, Henry. Introduction to the New Testament . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1944.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Tyndale, William. "A Prologe to the Epistle of Paule to the Romayns." In The New Testament, Translated by William Tyndale, 1534 . Ed. by N. Hardy Wallis. Cambridge: University Press, 1938. Pp. 293-318.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger's Bible Dictionary . 3rd ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

Vincent, Marvin R. The Epistles of Paul . Vol. III in Word Studies in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint of 1887 edition.

Watson, Francis. "The Two Roman Congregations : Romans 14:1-15:13." RomDeb , 203-215.

Wesley, John. Journal from October 14, 1735, to November 29, 1745 . Vol. I in The Works of John Wesley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint of 1872 ed.

Wedderburn, A.J.M. "The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again," RomDeb , 195-202.

Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity." RomDeb , 85-101.

Wiens, Delbert. "An Exegesis of Romans 5:12-21." Journal of Church and Society (Fall 1969): 5:42-54.

Williams, Philip R. "Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March 1971): 128:62-67.

Young, Richard. Intermediate N.T. Greek : A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach . Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO VOLUME 2

The following bibliography includes commentaries, books, and articles cited in the text and footnotes of this work. Citations include a minimum of information; the reader must use this list for full titles and bibliographical data.

When commentaries are cited, only the author's name and page number are given. When other sources are cited, usually just the author's name and an abbreviated title (in bold print below) are given. Some sources are cited with an even more abbreviated reference (see list of abbreviations).

I. COMMENTARIES

Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans . Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Black, Matthew. Romans . 2nd ed. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Brunner, Emil. The Letter to the Romans: A Commentary . Trans. H.A. Kennedy. London: Lutterworth Press, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . Trans. John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947 reprint.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans , Vol. 1. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, n.s. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975 (1990 corrected printing).

Denney, James. "St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans." In The Expositor's Greek Testament , ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, II:555-725. New York: George H. Doran, n.d.

DeWelt, Don. Romans Realized . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1959.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932.

Dunn, James D.G. Romans . 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

Earle, Ralph. Romans . Vol. 3 of Word Meanings in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edwards, James R. Romans . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Godet, Frederic L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . Trans. A. Cusin. Ed. Talbot W. Chambers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 reprint of 1883 ed.

Griffith Thomas, W.H. Romans: A Devotional Commentary . 3 vols. London: Religious Tract Society, n.d.

Haldane, Robert. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans . MacDill AFB: MacDonald Publishing, 1958.

Harrison, Everett F. "Romans." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 10, pp. 1-171. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980-1981.

Hughes, R. Kent. Romans: Righteousness from Heaven . Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Lard, Moses E. Commentary on Paul's Letter to Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945.

Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 9 - God's Sovereign Purpose . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Luther, Martin. Luther: Lectures on Romans . Ed. & Trans. Wilhelm Pauck. Vol. XV of The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Romans . 2 vols. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991, 1994.

McGarvey, J.W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.

McGuiggan, Jim. The Book of Romans . Lubbock, TX: Montex Publishing Company, 1982.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moule, H.C.G. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans . The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: The University Press, 1918.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans . Vol. 27 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965.

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans . London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans . Trans. Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, o.s. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.

Shedd, William G.T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 reprint of 1879 edition.

Smith, Sherwood. Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 1 (1979). Thirteen Lessons on Romans . Vol. 2 (1981). Joplin, MO: College Press.

Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Vanderlip, George. Paul and Romans . Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1967.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

II. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS AND ARTICLES

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bilezikian, Gilbert. Beyond Sex Roles . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "krivnw [etc.]." TDNT . III:921-954.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism : A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

. "Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition ." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 39-81. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. "The Biblical Consensus : Historical Backgrounds to Reformed Theology." In Baptism and the Remission of Sins , ed. David W. Fletcher, pp. 17-38. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

. Faith's Fundamentals : Seven Essentials of Christian Belief . Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1995.

. Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

. " 1 Timothy 2:12 and the Role of Women." Four parts. Christian Standard , January 10, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 17, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 24, 1993, pp. 4-6; January 31, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. " Priscilla , Phoebe, and Company." Christian Standard , December 12, 1993, pp. 4-5.

. " Response to My Critics." Three parts. Christian Standard , November 21, 1993, pp. 5-6; November 28, 1993, pp. 4-6; December 5, 1993, pp. 4-6.

. Tough Questions , Biblical Answers. Part Two. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1986.

. What the Bible Says about God the Creator . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983.

. What the Bible Says about God the Redeemer . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1987.

. What the Bible Says about God the Ruler . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984.

Delling, Gerhard. " , ." TDNT . VIII:523-524.

. "tavssw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:27-32.

Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate , revised & expanded edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

. "A Short Note on Romans 16." RomDeb , 44-52.

Forster, Roger T., and V. Paul Marston. God's Strategy in Human History . Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1974.

Fürst, Dieter. " Confess ." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology , ed. Colin Brown, I:344-348. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Gaertner, Dennis. Acts . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Hübner, Hans. "a[timo"." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testamen t, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, I:177. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. The Pentateuch . Trans. by James Martin. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . Trans. & ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Köster, Helmut. "tevmnw [etc.]." TDNT . VIII:106-112.

Lampe, Peter. "The Roman Christians of Romans 16 ." RomDeb , 216-230.

Lewis, C.S. The Four Loves . London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.

Michaelis, W. "mavcaira." TDNT . IV:524-527.

Nash, Donald A. "A Critique of the New International Version of the New Testament." Cincinnati: Christian Restoration Association, n.d.

Oepke, Albrecht. "zevw, zestov"." TDNT . II:875-877.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come . Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1958.

Pinnock, Clark H. "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology." In The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism , ed. Clark H. Pinnock, pp. 15-30. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Reicke, Bo. "proi?sthmi." TDNT . VI:700-703.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?" In vol. 1 of The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will , ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, pp. 89-106. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins . New York: Crossroad, 1987.

Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election . Springfield, MO: Westcott Publishers, 1970.

Sherlock, William. A Discourse Concerning the Divine Providence . Pittsburgh: J.L. Read, 1848.

Spencer, Aida B. Beyond the Curse : Women Called to Ministry . Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament . 3 vol. Trans. James D. Ernest. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Stählin, Gustav. " [etc.]." TDNT . IX:113-171.

. "skavndalon, skandalivzw." TDNT . VII:339-358.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

Walters, James. "' Phoebe ' and 'Junia(s)' - Rom. 16:1-2, 7." In Vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity , ed. Carroll D. Osburn, pp. 167-190. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993.

Weiss, K. "fevrw [etc.]." TDNT . IX:56-87.

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

. "The Messiah and the People of God." Oxford University: D.Phil. dissertation, 1980.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

AG Arndt and Gingrich, Greek lexicon

ASV American Standard Version

GC God the Creator, by Jack Cottrell

GRe God the Redeemer, by Jack Cottrell

GRu God the Ruler, by Jack Cottrell

KJV King James Version

LB Living Bible

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT)

MP McGarvey-Pendleton Romans commentary

NAB New American Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

RomDeb The Romans Debate, by Karl Donfried

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the NT, ed. Kittel

TEV Today's English Version

For fuller titles and publishing information on books, see the Bibliography.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Romans (Outline)

VIII. OUTLINE

PROLOGUE - 1:1-17

I. EPISTOLARY GREETING - 1:1-7

A. The Author Introduces Himself - 1:1

1. A Slave of Christ Jesus

2. Called to Be an Apostle

3. Set Apart for the Gospel of God

B. The Gospel and the Old Testament - 1:2

C. The Subject of the Gospel Is Jesus - 1:3-4

1. The Two Natures of Jesus

2. The Incarnation

3. Messiahship

4. The Two States of Jesus

5. The Resurrection of Jesus

6. The Son's Full Identity

D. Paul's Apostleship - 1:5

1. The Origin of Paul's Apostleship

2. The Character of Paul's Apostleship

3. The Focus of Paul's Apostleship

4. The Purpose of Paul's Apostleship

5. The Goal of Paul's Apostleship

E. The Recipients of Paul's Letter - 1:6-7a

F. The Blessing - 1:7b

II. PERSONAL REMARKS - 1:8-15

A. Paul's Prayers for the Romans - 1:8-10

B. Paul's Desires Regarding Rome - 1:11-13

C. Paul's Debt to the Romans - 1:14-15

III. TRANSITIONAL STATEMENT - 1:16-17

A. The Glory of the Gospel - 1:16a

B. The Power of the Gospel - 1:16b

C. The Scope of the Gospel - 1:16c

D. Faith and the Gospel - 1:16c

1. Faith Is a Condition for Salvation

2. Faith Is Not the Only Condition

E. The Heart of the Gospel - 1:17a

F. The Golden Text of the Gospel - 1:17b

PART ONE:

THE IMPOTENCE OF LAW AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 1:18-3:20

I. THE SINFULNESS OF THE GENTILES - 1:18-32

A. Universal Knowledge of God and His Law - 1:18-20

B. Universal Rejection of the True God - 1:21-25

C. The Utter Depths of Gentile Depravity - 1:26-32

II. THE SINFULNESS OF THE JEWS - 2:1-3:8

A. Jews Are Under the Wrath of God, No Less Than the Gentiles - 2:1-5

B. God Will Be Partial to No One in the Judgment - 2:6-11

C. Under Law, the Criterion of Judgment Is Obedience Alone- 2:12-16

D. Jews Who Look to the Law for Salvation Are Condemned by Their Own Disobedience - 2:17-24

E. True Jewishness Is Identified Not by Circumcision but by the Inward State of the Heart - 2:25-29

F. Such Equal Treatment of Jews and Gentiles Does Not Nullify But Rather Magnifies God's Righteousness - 3:1-8

III. UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS AND HOPELESSNESS UNDER LAW - 3:9-20

PART TWO:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE AS A WAY OF SALVATION - 3:21-5:21

I. GRACE AS JUSTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S BLOOD THROUGH FAITH - 3:21-31

A. Righteousness Through Faith Is Now Fully Revealed - 3:21-23

B. Sinners Are Justified by the Blood of Christ - 3:24-26

C. Sinners Are Justified by Faith Apart from Works of Law - 3:27-28

D. The Way of Grace Is Available to All - 3:29-30

E. Grace Lets Law Do Its Proper Work - 3:31

II. ABRAHAM: PARADIGM OF GRACE - 4:1-25

A. Abraham Was Justified by Faith Apart from Works - 4:1-5

B. David Explains and Confirms Justification by Faith Apart from Works - 4:6-8

C. Membership in Abraham's Family Is by Faith, Not by Circumcision - 4:9-12

D. The Inheritance Promised to Abraham Comes by Faith, Not by Law - 4:13-17a

E. Faith Means Giving Glory to God and Believing His Promises - 4:17b-22

F. Those Who Believe Like Abraham Are Justified Like Abraham - 4:23-25

III. GRACE AND ASSURANCE - 5:1-21

A. Assurance of Personal Salvation - 5:1-11

1. Justification by Faith Is the Key to Assurance - 5:1-2

2. Tribulations of Believers Do Not Nullify Assurance - 5:3-5

3. Christ Died for Us While We Were Still Sinners - 5:6-8

4. Our Hope Is Even More Secure Now That We Are His Friends - 5:9-11

B. The All-Sufficiency of the Death of Christ - 5:12-21

1. One Sin of One Man (Adam) Brought Sin and Death to All - 5:12-14

2. Christ and His Sacrifice Are Greater Than Adam and His Sin - 5:15-17

3. Christ's Cross Completely Cancels the Results of Adam's Sin - 5:18-19

4. Grace Triumphs over Sin and Death - 5:20-21

PART THREE:

THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 6:1-8:39

I. OBJECTIONS TO GRACE BASED ON A FEAR OF ANTINOMIANISM - 6:1-7:13

A. Does Grace Make Sin Irrelevant? NO! - 6:1-14

B. Does Freedom from Law Mean We Are Free to Sin? NO!- 6:15-7:6

1. We Are Slaves to God - 6:15-23

2. We Obey God from Our Hearts - 7:1-6

C. Does Grace Mean That Law Is Bad? NO! - 7:7-13

II. GRACE GIVES VICTORY OVER SIN - 7:14-8:13

A. The Christian Continues to Struggle Against Sin - 7:14-25

1. The Nature of the Struggle - 7:14-20

2. The Source of the Struggle - 7:21-25

B. Victory over Sin Comes Through the Holy Spirit - 8:1-13

1. God Frees Us from Sin's Penalty and Power - 8:1-4

2. Sin and Death Are Defeated in Us Through the Holy Spirit - 8:5-13

III. THE ASSURANCE OF FINAL AND TOTAL VICTORY OVER THE FALLEN WORLD - 8:14-39

A. The Holy Spirit Marks Us as Sons and Heirs - 8:14-17

B. The Redeemed Cosmos Is Our Inheritance - 8:18-25

C. God Promises to Bring His Family Through Earthly Trials - 8:26-30

D. God's Gracious Love Gives Us Unshakable Assurance - 8:31-39

PART FOUR:

THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD

IN HIS DEALINGS WITH THE JEWS - 9:1-11:36

I. THE PROBLEM OF ISRAEL: THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF THE JEWISH NATION - 9:1-5

A. Israel's Agony: They Are Accursed - 9:1-3

B. Israel's Ecstasy: They Are Recipients of Unspeakably Glorious Privileges - 9:4-5

II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHNIC AND SPIRITUAL ISRAEL - 9:6-29

A. Israel's Situation and God's Faithfulness - 9:6-13

1. God's Word Concerning Israel Has Not Failed - 9:6a

2. The Key to the Puzzle: the Existence of Two Israels - 9:6b

3. Ethnic Israel Exists by God's Sovereign Choice - 9:7-13

a. The Choice of Isaac - 9:7-9

b. The Choice of Jacob - 9:10-13

B. God's Right to Choose and Use People without Saving Them - 9:14-18

1. God's Righteousness Is Challenged - 9:14

2. God's Sovereignty in Election for Service - 9:15-16

3. God's Purposes Can Be Served by the Unsaved - 9:17-18

C. God Used Ethnic Israel to Produce Spiritual Israel - 9:19-29

1. The Objection - 9:19

2. Paul's Initial Rebuke of the Objector's Attitude - 9:20-21

3. Beyond Ethnic Israel to Spiritual Israel - 9:22-24

a. The Calvinist View

b. Seeing Paul Through Non-Calvinist Eyes

4. Prophetic Confirmation of God's Purpose - 9:25-29

III. ISRAEL'S CHOICE OF LAW RATHER THAN GRACE 9:30-10:21

A. Personal Righteousness Versus the Righteousness of God- 9:30-10:3

1. The Reason for the Gentiles' Acceptance - 9:30

2. The Reason for the Jews' Lostness - 9:31-33

3. The Jews' Rejection of God's Righteousness - 10:1-3

B. Christ Alone Is the Source of Saving Righteousness - 10:4-13

1. An Either-Or Choice: Works-Righteousness, or Faith in Christ - 10:4

2. The Futility of Law-Righteousness - 10:5

3. Saving Righteousness Comes through Trusting Christ's Works, Not Our Own - 10:6-10

4. God's Righteousness Is Available Equally to Jews and Gentiles - 10:11-13

C. The Jews Have Not Believed in Christ, and Their Unbelief Is Inexcusable - 10:14-21

1. The Necessary Prerequisites to Saving Faith - 10:14-15

2. Most Jews Have Not Believed the Gospel Message - 10:16

3. The Jews' Problem Is Not Ignorance but Stubbornness of Will - 10:17-21

IV. THE SALVATION OF GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL - 11:1-32

A. God's True Israel Is the Remnant Chosen by Grace - 11:1-6

1. God Has Not Rejected His People - 11:1-2a

2. God Had a Remnant of Believers in the OT - 11:2b-4

3. Those under Grace Are God's New Covenant Israel - 11:5-6

B. Unbelieving Israel Has Been Hardened - 11:7-10

C. The Hardening of Unbelieving Israel Becomes a Blessing

for Both the Gentiles and the Jews - 11:11-16

D. The Olive Tree: A Metaphor of Judgment and Hope - 11:17-24

1. Words of Warning to Gentile Christians - 11:17-22

2. Words of Hope for Hardened Jews - 11:23-24

E. God's Plan for Israel's Salvation - 11:25-32

1. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation - 11:25-27

2. God's Continuing Love for Israel - 11:28-29

3. God's Ultimate Purpose Is Mercy - 11:30-32

V. DOXOLOGY: GOD'S WAY IS RIGHT - 11:33-36

PART FIVE:

LIVING THE SANCTIFIED LIFE - 12:1-15:13

I. A CATALOGUE OF VIRTUES - 12:1-13:14

A. Grace Demands a Transformed Life - 12:1-2

B. Using the Gifts of Grace for Unselfish Service - 12:3-8

C. Miscellaneous Moral Teaching - 12:9-16

D. Personal Vengeance Is Forbidden - 12:17-21

E. The Relation between Citizens and Government - 13:1-7

F. The Relation between Love and Law - 13:8-10

G. Walking in the Light - 13:11-14

II. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY IN MATTERS OF OPINION - 14:1-15:13

A. Do Not Judge Others in Matters of Opinion - 14:1-12

1. We Should Accept All Whom God Has Accepted - 14:1-3

2. We Answer to Our Lord and Not to Each Other - 14:4-9

3. Each of Us Will Be Judged by God - 14:10-12

B. The Stewardship of Christian Liberty 14:13-23

1. We Must Sacrifice Our Liberty for the Sake of the Weak - 14:13-15

2. Do Not Allow What You Consider Good to Be Spoken of as Evil - 14:16-18

3. We Must Do Only Those Things Which Build Others Up - 14:19-21

4. Each Christian Must Be True to His Own Convictions - 14:22-23

C. Living in Unity and Hope - 15:1-13

1. Selfless Service Produces a Unified Witness - 15:1-6

2. Through Christ's Selfless Service, Jews and Gentiles Glorify God Together - 15:7-12

3. A Prayer That All Believers May Abound in Hope - 15:13

PART SIX:

PERSONAL MESSAGES FROM PAUL - 15:14-16:27

I. PAUL'S MINISTRY AS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES - 15:14-33

A. Reflections on His Past Service - 15:14-22

B. His Plans for the Future - 15:23-29

C. His Request for Prayer - 15:30-33

II. PAUL AND HIS FELLOW WORKERS - 16:1-24

A. Commendation of Phoebe - 16:1-2

B. Greetings to Individual Acquaintances - 16:3-16

C. Warnings against False Teachers - 16:17-20

D. Greetings from Paul's Companions - 16:21-24

III. CONCLUDING DOXOLOGY - 16:25-27

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV