26-Israel and the mystery of election
Israel and the mystery of election With the end of chap. 8, as S. remarks, we have reached the end of the main argument. But there still is much to discuss. The writer still had in mind things he desired to say. For instance Israel-what about Israel? To the student of the Old Testament, it is a highly absorbing question; above all, to a Jew. Taking accordingly a new start (there is no connexion whatever, such as Greek usage insists upon, between this chapter and the last), St Paul says what he has in his heart about the matter. Incidentally we have given us that list of Israel’s “advantages” we looked for in chap. 3; but then were disappointed.
9:1-3. “I speak truth, as a Christian man, I do not lie; my conscience bears me out, in the Holy Spirit. I have great pain and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could have wished to be myself ‘cut off, from Christ, for my brothers’ sake, my kinsmen ‘after the flesh’.…”1 [Note: Cf. Exodus 32:32.] The ἐν Χριστῷ and ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ of this solemn opening are very hard to define and also to reproduce in straightforward English. The συνείδησις, it will be seen, is detached from the man, as is only natural; seeing it is the faculty which passes judgment on his actions. The form ηὐχόμην implies that the wish is impossible. But the spirit of the Apostle is as spirit of Moses. He is fain to sacrifice himself for the good of his countryman. Ἀνάθεμα in LXX (especially Joshua 6, 7) is the accepted rendering for the ‘accursed (or, ‘devoted’) thing.’ This term has already appeared in Pauline Scriptures (Galatians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 16:22) in the same sense it bears here, “Let him be devoted to destruction.” In later days it became only too freely used in the Church. Ἀνάθεμα … ἀπό … means, literally, “accursed and cut off from.” Now follows the full list of Israel’s exceptional privileges, setting off in heightened colour the amazing paradox of the Nation’s apparent rejection:
9:4, 5. “… people, who are Israelites; to whom belongs the Sonship, and the Presence, and the Covenants, and the Law-giving, and the Ritual, and the Promises;1 [Note: Cf. Exodus 16:10.] whose are the Patriarchs and of whom in earthly descent is God’s Anointed One-He that is God supreme, blessed to all eternity. Amen.” In their own speech Jews were called the ‘Sons of Israel’ (represented by Ἰσραηλῖται). Now ‘Israel’ was a name of solemn significance, closely associated with one of the Nation’s most cherished traditions. Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel (Genesis 32:28); so had said the mysterious stranger that wrestled at Peniel. And ‘Israelite’ is surely a name of unique significance. The ‘Sonship’ of Israel is stated, in very decisive language, in the prophecy of Hosea, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν Μου; though that is not the form preserved in LXX: for there it is not My Son, but his children; μετεκάλεσα τὰ τὲκνα αὐτοῦ. From which we may perhaps conclude that the words so familiar to us from the quotation in our first Gospel were not in the writer’s mind. However, more striking still is the statement in Exodus 4 (to which a reference is all but certain). In that passage it runs; And thou shalt say to Pharaoh, Israel is my firstborn son; and I have said to thee, Send forth my people, that they may worship Me. If then thou wilt not send them forth, lo, I will slay thy firstborn son (LXX). The Δόξα is, of course, the Shekinah. The plural ‘Covenants’ covers the various covenants with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, as well as the national covenant of which Moses was ‘mediator.’ In regard to ἡ λατρεία S. quotes a Rabbinic saying of much interest. The ‘Promises’ reach their climax in the Messianic hope. For us, the foremost of all is that one which affirms. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed-interpreted, be it understood, on LXX lines; for of the meaning of that version, as distinguished from the Hebrew, there can be very little doubt; καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς, Genesis 22:18. The question that arises with regard to the application of the closing words of Romans 5:5 is discussed by S. with sa lucidity altogether admirable. His conclusion is that they do refer to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. At this, he says, he arrives ‘with slight hesitation.’ St Paul’s teaching about Christ’s Person is unmistakeable. He was always ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ (Phil.); He is εἰκών τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου; He is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. But is He ever called distinctly ‘God’? The Vatican MS. has a colon here. That would make the clause a doxology. On the other hand, in Rabbinic use, a doxology of the kind is properly employed only after the mention of God; so that this would be abnormal, if it were indeed a doxology. Moreover this very verse was quoted by Cyril Alex. in answer to Julian’s avowal that St Paul never called Christ ‘God.’ Again, an ascription of glory to Christ, not unlike this in general character, is found in 2 Timothy 4:18.
Moreover grammar lends her aid, and suggests that, had the words been a doxology addressed to the Father, their form is unusual. The ὤν should be omitted. As it stands, it would naturally be taken as equivalent to a relative clause, ὄς ἐστιν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός. The probabilities are very nicely balanced. On the whole, however, the evidence bears out the rendering of our own English versions, which take the words as belonging to Christ, and not to the Father. Compare the Johannine statements; θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. The κατὰ σάρκα here seems to call for a like antithesis. All this (the student will know) is just abbreviated ‘S.’ For the rest, Israel’s grandest privilege is unmistakeably this. From Israel was to come the Hope of the world. Was there, then, no hope for Israel? To that topic we shall return in the course of argument. Meanwhile there are other ideas that must engage attention. For instance, this one. There is ‘Israel’ and ‘Israel.’ The formula introducing v. 6 is wholly unexampled. To say so is to put it mildly. There is no other use of οἷος even remotely analogous. The neuter singular οἷον is found in no other place. Accordingly we must guess what it may mean. At first one wonders whether a classical οἷον may be lurking in hiding. But such a use is wholly unknown to the New Testament The Vulgate says, non autem quod exciderit verbum Dei, which at least possesses the merit of being even more unintelligible, if possible, than the Greek. Our English is probably right; “But it is not as though.…”
9:6-9. “Of course, I do not pretend that the Word of God has failed. Not all that are from Israel, you know, are Israel. Nor, because they are Abraham’s ‘seed,’ are they all ‘children.’1 [Note: Genesis 21:12 (LXX).] No! In Isaac shall a seed be named thee. That is to say, not the children ‘of the flesh’ are the children of God; but the children of the Promise are reckoned as the ‘seed.’2 [Note: Cf. Galatians 4:28.] For this saying is matter of promise. About this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.”3 [Note: Genesis 18:10-14 (exact LXX).]
Ἐκπίπτειν (in LXX) is a word that is employed especially of flowers. As in Isaiah 40:7-8 ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσε, τὸ δὲ ῥήμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (the quotation of 1 Peter). This is the only use of the kind in N.T. In 1 Cor. 13 it should be ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει. The Isaianic passage probably suggested the word. Κληθήσεται (in v. 7) means little more than. In classical Greek κέκλημαι sometimes means only ‘I am.’ The point of the citation from Gen. 18 we must take to be, If you come to think of it, even Isaac was not born naturally. He was not a τέκνον σαρκός. From the beginning of the race mere ‘natural’ descent was thus depreciated.
However another idea is contained in the section also, though it is not emphasised. Abraham had another son; he had Ishmael. But Ishmael was set aside; he was not recognised as being the σπέρμα. Here we see ‘election’ working. It is even more prominent in the instance that follows after.
9:10. “Not only so, but Rebecca also, brought to bed at one time of Isaac our father.…” At this point the sentence breaks off, and when Rebecca next reappears, she is in the dative (αὐτῇ). The word κοίτη in N.T. is always suggestive of marriage. But κοίτην ἔχειν is apparently unique. Ἐξ ἑνός, one would imagine, must be corrupt. The idea that underlies must be not one husband, but two children at one birth.
9:11-13. “For the children being not yet born, and having done nothing good or evil, that the purpose of God might abide, which works by election-not depending on things done, but on (the will of) the Caller-it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it stands in Holy writ, Isaac I have loved, Esau I have hated.”1 [Note: Genesis 25:23 (LXX).] The word ἐκλογή is not in LXX.2 [Note: Malachi 1:2.] But the idea of ‘choosing out’ is everywhere. In N.T. only in ‘Romans’ has ἐκλογή this meaning. ‘Conduct’ (ἔργα), the Apostle avers, has nothing to do with ‘election.’ There is no ‘merit’ in it (in modern phrase); it rests wholly on God’s will. This conception appears to us a somewhat perilous doctrine: but, as S. points out, St Paul was controverting the contemporary Rabbinic notion that somehow Israel was chosen for exceptional worth in him. For us the ‘Jacob’ type, if we stop to think, commends itself conclusively, as compared with the ‘Esau’ type; and we feel that, though the creature must not argue with the Creator, it is only on the assumption that He is holier and wiser and more just in every way. If you push the Pauline conception, set forward in this passage, you will find yourself with a God on a level with Mahomet’s-a God for whom right and wrong simply do not exist, a Being of unlimited power and measureless caprice. Yet, plainly, when man claims ‘merit,’ he must be put in mind that before God he can have none. The passage, cited from Malachi, contains a late conception in its attitude to Esau’ or ‘Edom.’ In Deut. 23 it is expressly said, Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother. But the famous Psalm bears witness to a growing enmity of Israel towards this ‘brother,’ based upon unbrotherly conduct (Psalms 137:7).
St Paul has now stated the dogma of ‘election,’ in its naked simplicity. He forthwith proceeds to reply to the objection that arises unbidden.
9:14-16. “What then are we to say? Is there injustice with God? Nay, nay, impossible!”
“To Moses, He says, you know, I will pity, whomsoever I pity; and will have mercy on whomsoever I have mercy.”1 [Note: Exodus 33:19 (LXX).] “So then, it is not a matter of human wish, nor human exertion, but of the pity of God.” For ἀδικία the Vulgate very rightly says iniquitas. Why our version has “unrighteousness,” I cannot tell. The quotation from Exodus is curiously used. The emphasis is laid on the ‘whomsoever’: in the original it lies on the futures ἐλεήσω and οἰκτειρήσω. Whom God pities, He will pity; to whom He shows mercy, He will show mercy. It is really a proclamation of the essential ‘graciousness’ that is Jehovah’s attribute. In v. 16, so far as I know, no adequate explanation of τοῦ τρέχοντος has been discovered. ‘Running a race,’ or ‘a desperate race,’ is an idea familiar enough. But to ‘run’ for to ‘exert oneself’ is a wholly different matter. Maybe, if the word is correct, it is merely due to assonance.
9:17, 18. “Why? The Scripture says to Pharaoh, Just for this I have raised thee up, that in thee I might display my power, and that my name might be noised abroad in all the earth.”1 [Note: Exodus 9:16 (not close to LXX).] “Accordingly, whom He will, He pities; and whom He will, He hardens.”
Reference to the text of Exodus will show that the message of the Almighty to the proud king of Egypt (of the North land and of the South) is that, whereas he might have been slain outright with the sword of pestilence, he has been, for God’s own purpose, allowed to recover from the evils, with which his people have been plagued. This is, in the original text, the nature of the ‘raising up.’ Our R.V. says, have I made thee to stand. The A.V. rendering is apparently affected by the citation of St Paul. Such another use of ‘raise’ we have in St James 5:15. The compound verb is used in Habakkuk and Zachariah in the sense which the writer postulates. In any case, Pharaoh is a mere instrument in God’s hand. The σκληρύνει of v. 18 is the LXX term for ‘harden.’ S. is plainly very right in declaring too much must not be built up on the handling by the Apostle of his citation. Here the school of Calvin errs. At this point the figure of Pharaoh recedes into the background. We have instead the petulant objection of some unknown, arraigning in general terms the Providence of God. To this the Apostle makes reply that God is God, and men are but His creatures.
9:19-21. “You will say then to me, What fault does He find now? No one withstands His will! Nay, but who art thou, O man, to bandy words with God? Shall the thing moulded say to the moulder, Why hast thou fashioned me so? Can it be the potter has not full power over his clay, to make out of the selfsame lump one vessel for honour, another for dishonour?”1 [Note: Cf. Isai. 29:16.] The thought in v. 19 is that man must be irresponsible. He is as he is made. The good are good, because He made them good; the evil likewise evil. The suggestion is that the maker must bear the blame and not the made. The answer is, in effect, that all such talk is blasphemous. The idea of ‘vessels for honour’ and ‘vessels for dishonour’ reappears in 2 Timothy 2:20. But there it is implied that it rests with a man’s own self, which sort, he is. Here the Potter’s power is unlimited. All depends upon His will. It is futile and irrational for mere man to dispute His power, His knowledge, or His wisdom. This hard doctrine is modified, in part, by what comes next. There may be a gracious purpose concealed from us, in what to us might seem to be unfair dealing.
9:22-29. “Suppose God, wishful to display His wrath (at sin) and to make known His power, has borne with much long-suffering abominable things, right fitted for destruction; as well as to make known the riches of His glory, in the case of things He pities, which He prepared long ago for glory.…”
“Even us, whom He hath called, not only from among the Jews, but also from the Gentiles; as indeed it says in Hosea, I will call my ‘not-people’, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved.1 [Note: Hosea 2:23 (freely cited).] And it shall be in the place, where it was said to them, Ye are not my people, even there they shall be called the sons of the Living God.”2 [Note: Hosea 1:10 (the there inserted).]
“Isaiah cries touching Israel; If the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved.1 [Note: Isai. 10:22 (possibly the correct LXX text: our reading being corrupt).] For a word complete and concise shall the Lord bring about on the earth.”
“Indeed, as Isaiah has said before. Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us behind a seed, we should have become as Sodom and been likened to Gomorrah.”2 [Note: Isai. 1:9 (LXX).] In all this there is very much to puzzle and divide interpreters. Plainly, the absolute will of God destroys man’s will altogether. On the other hand, if it belongs to the very nature of God to be ‘wrathful’ against sin, it is conceivable we must postulate the existence of sinful persons. But that does not condemn any given person ‘A,’ to be one of these σκεύη ὀργῆς. It is not said (as S. remarks) God made them to be so. It only says, He bore them. The truth is, v. 21 introduces the uncompromising image of the potter and his clay. The potter makes out of his clay precisely what he likes. We have, most of us, seen him doing it; and in the East it is a sight of every day. There could be no more apt illustration of power entirely unlimited. if it were not for the σκεύη ὀργῆς and σκεύη ἐλέους, we might have thought that in v. 22 we had left the potter behind. However in actual experience some are ‘bad’ men, some are ‘good’; and it is God that made them all. That is ex hypothesi. In v. 22 a reason, a theory, is put forward. It is not stated as fact, but as throwing light on things. The sentence containing this ‘theory’ (if a theory it be, as the εἰ would seem to indicate) unhappily is highly intricate, not to say entirely entangled, and we cannot unravel it. The first verse of the section perhaps is intelligible as it stands; Suppose God put up with σκεύη ὀργῆς, for a twofold purpose, to display His wrath at sin, which is one aspect of His Holiness, and to make known His Power. This is thrown out as a suggestion. The view of Aquinas (see S.) appears to state plainly and well the gist of it. The next verse (v. 25) has no construction, and we cannot be sure at all what St Paul intended. We can only assume it is this; As bad people exist, for the twofold purpose stated; so there are people who exist, that on them God may display the wonders of His Mercy. Only, the writer has not said so. His thoughts are carried off to identify the σκεύη ἐλέους with the people of the Lord Jesus Christ (ἡμᾶς), some of whom are actually Jews and some are Gentiles.
High Calvinism depends on a rigorous interpretation of σκεύη ὀργῆς and σκεύη ἐλέους, as human beings made by God, in His rôle as the Mighty Potter, expressly, in each case, for ‘wrath’ and for ‘mercy.’ The Apostle, I repeat, does not say so. They are all σκεύη, to be sure, for they are all of the Potter’s making. But we need not assume they are made to be respectively σκεύη ὀργῆς and σκεύη ἐλέους. That goes too far. Free will wholly disappears, and all created Mankind is reduced to a mere collection of hopeless automata. How Greek and Latin Fathers-how Origen and Chrysostom, or Augustine and his followers-have taken up the cudgels on the one side or the other of the endless controversy, can be seen excellently set forth in the pages of S.
All that we are concerned with here is the plain statement of what the writer does actually say. For that, what is needed is a more or less adequate rendering, together with some indication of the gaps in the original. A reverent modern mind would be inclined to urge that the image of the potter and the clay cannot cover the facts of creation; where the Creator is a Being of perfect Love and Holiness, the ‘Father’ that Christ revealed: and the creature is ‘rational,’ with power of free choice between good and evil. It only exhibits the truth of things as they are in part.
If one should say, ‘But I cannot accept your illustration as adequate,’ what is the answer? Is it, ‘Accept it, or burn’? I do not think so; nor do I believe that St Paul has either said it, or would have said it.
Towards the close of the chapter his thought is entirely diverted to prophecies foreshadowing a partial rejection of Israel. The first, in v. 25, is from Hosea 2:23. The οὐ λαός μου, in the original, does not mean ‘heathen’ people, but the ten tribes who will be restored. As S. says, ‘the writer applies the principle underlying the words.’ The next is from the same prophetic writer (Hosea 1:10). The original reference and the Pauline application are the same as in the other.
These two citations are employed to indicate the readiness of the All Father to accept as His children those who are not so by birth and begetting. The other quotations are brought forward to support the idea that all ‘Israel’ is not ‘Israel’; that it is only in some of the Nation that the promise will be realised. In the ‘LXX’ text, the first quotation runs;
Καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλιμμα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται· λόγον συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὄτι λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει Κύριος ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὄλῃ (Isai. 10:22, 23). The reading of the quotation in our text of Romans is compact and much more intelligible than the LXX text we have. Ἐὰν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλιμμα σωθήσεται-so far it is plainly a citation from memory-λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει Κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. An ‘only’ is wanting, to be sure; even badly wanting. But otherwise the sense is plain enough. In the latter part of the LXX is a palpable dittographia. In St Paul this disappears. How it ever got there, it is for LXX critics to say. Obviously λόγον συντέμνων ποιήσει Κύριος and λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει Κύριος are the same Hebrew text, rendered in two ways. The second quotation is from Isaiah 1:9. The προείρηκεν would seem to refer to its earlier position in the writings of the prophet. Isaiah 1, portrays a lamentable picture of desolation, which has overtaken the land. It is almost as completely destroyed as Sodom was, or Gomorrah. Here is not the quotation we should have chosen, to illustrate the ‘remnant’ doctrine. Indeed, the ‘LXX’ text departs from the Hebrew in reading σπέρμα instead of “remnant.” And no intelligible explanation of the citation appears unless “remnant’ was originally part of it as it left the writer’s hand. Therefore one would suspect that our σπέρμα is the correction of a Pauline ὑπόλιμμα.
9:30-33. “What then are we to say? Why, this. Gentiles that followed not after ‘righteousness,’ have attained to ‘righteousness’-the righteousness that comes by faith.1 [Note: Cf. Php 3:12.] Whereas Israel pursuing a Law to lead to ‘righteousness,’ has not succeeded in getting to its goal. Wherefore? Because they did not follow the way of faith, but the way of legal doings. They stumbled at the ‘stone of stumbling’; as it says in Holy Writ, Behold, I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; and everyone that ‘believeth’ on Him shall not be put to shame.”1 [Note: Isaiah (a conflate quotation).]
Verse 30 contains a statement, not a question. ‘Righteousness’ is technical throughout. It stands for ‘acceptance with God.’ The νόμον δικαιοσύνης (in v. 31) is very odd. We should have expected the two cases to be exactly reversed, νόμου δικαιοσύνην. That it is not so makes the latter clause exceptionally obscure. What can it signify to say in English “they did not reach the Law that leads to righteousness”? No paraphrase can be suggested for νόμον δικαιοσύνης which would make the matter really clear. Yet, “the law of righteousness” is the uniform rendering of our English versions. R.V. says “a law of righteousness”-which does not mend things much.
There are two Isaianic passages, worked in together, at the end of v. 32 and in v. 33. Isaiah 8:14, speaking of the God of Israel, says, Let him be your dread.… And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel.… In the second chapter of 1 Peter we have all the three “stones” of prophetic writ combined together: the precious corner stone of Isaiah 28:16 is identified with the stone which the builders rejected of Psalm 118, and also with the λίθος προσκόμματος of Isaiah 8. Our Lord Himself claimed to be the rejected “Stone” of the Psalm. It was inevitable the recognition should be extended by His followers to those two other “stones,” Isaiah’s “costly stone” and the same prophet’s λίθος προσκόμματος. In 1 Peter the Isaianic citations, though close together, are carefully kept distinct.
Here they are worked up together into one ‘conflate’ quotation.
Behold! I lay in Sion (Isaiah 28:16, but not clear LXX) a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence
(Isaiah 8:14 : in LXX λίθου προσκόμματι and πέτρας πτώματι) and he that believeth (Isaiah 28:16, LXX) (on Him)(a Pauline interpretative comment) shall not be ashamed.
(Isaiah 28, but not in the LXX form.)
It is well known our English says, “He that believeth shall not make haste.” At first sight it seems a far cry from “not being ashamed” to “not making haste.” Cheyne rejects “shall not make haste” in favour of “shall not give way.” I think I have heard it suggested that it is not impossible to bring into line the Hebrew and the Greek. But the method of it I only half recall. The explanation presented the LXX as being an interpretative paraphrase of the metaphor (‘slipping away,’ or the like) contained in the original. All we have now to note is that the two ‘stones’ are identified with one another, and with Christ: that the ἐπʼ αὐτῷ is inserted by St Paul to bring this teaching out-the teaching that Christ is the “precious stone” laid by the Lord in Sion: and, lastly, that ὁ πιστεύων, which need mean no more than “he that trusteth,” is definitely associated with the theologic virtue ‘faith’; faith having been mentioned just above, in vv. 31 and 32. S. remarks there may have been an early Christian catena on which both writers were drawing. That seems probable enough. For the rest, Christ clearly was a very real ‘stone of stumbling’ for the Jews. The great mistake made by Israel is developed in the next verses. But first the Apostle sets on record once again his bitter sorrow at it all.
10:1, 2. “Brothers, the desire of my heart at any rate, and my supplication towards God (are) for them, that they may be saved, I bear them witness they have a zeal for God; but an unintelligent zeal.” When a μέν has no answering δέ the omission of the antithesis is often expressed in English as above. The εἰς σωτηρίαν, which must mean what our version says, is without any parallel. Ἐπίγνωσις is not now thought to bear the ‘intensive’ sense that Lightfoot attached to it. Here such a sense is not required. What they lacked was spiritual discernment, nothing more. They simply did not understand things.
10:3. “Not knowing about God’s ‘righteousness,’ and going about to compass a ‘righteousness’ of their own, they failed to yield themselves to the ‘righteousness’ of God.…”
“God’s righteousness” is the method, of winning acceptance with God, Himself has appointed. In effect it was simply Christ. As Christ said, He is the “Way.” And so St Paul says here, but in other words;
10:4. “For Christ is the goal of Law; He is ‘righteousness’ for every believer.” My interpretation is that the ‘end’ of ‘Law’ is that, at which Law aimed. It aimed at securing God’s favour by the merit of perfect obedience. For men this was impossible: it could not be achieved. Only the Lord Jesus, of all mankind, ever compassed it. But the thought of His perfect obedience is not here. “Christ is Law’s end” means, I think-I cannot see how any other meaning carries quite enough-“Christ is ‘Righteousness.’ ” Εἰς δικαιοσύνην may only imply “so far as acceptance with God goes.” But, considering that, in Greek, things end ‘into’ and not ‘in,’ I suspect it is something more. Other interpretations of τέλος are; “end” (historical termination) of Law, as a system; or even “consummation,” “perfection.” Both are true, but neither is adequate.
If the sense of τέλος I would maintain is viewed as impossible, my alternative would be to paraphrase as follows:
“For Christ ends Law for ever, in regard to winning God’s favour, for everyone that believes.” That is to say, the way of Law, so painful and so ineffectual, is for all time superseded by the new way, which is Christ. Further, this ‘way’ is a very near way (μάλα δʼ ἐγγύθι ναίει).
10:5. “For Moses writes of the ‘righteousness,’ that comes by law; It is the man, that has achieved them, that shall live by them.…”1 [Note: Cf. Galatians 3:12.]
‘Life’ and ‘righteousness’ of course, are here identified. The man who achieves the commands in every particular is δίκαιος; he is in God’s ‘favour’; his name is written in God’s Book. The citation is from Levit. 18:5.
10:6-10. “But the ‘Righteousness,’ that comes by faith, speaks in another tone; Say not in thy heart, who shall ascend into Heaven (that is, to bring Christ down); or who shall go down into the depth (that is, to bring Christ from the dead). But what does it say? Nigh thee is the word, on thy lips and in thy heart (that is, the message of faith which we proclaim).1 [Note: Cf. 1 Peter 1:25.] For if thou shalt confess with thy lips Jesus as Lord, and if thou shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart one believes, and is ‘justified’; and with the lips one confesses, and is ‘saved.’ ” This passage is palpably based on a passage in Deuteronomy 30:11-14). Literally rendered that passage runs: for this command, that I command thee, is not exceeding burdensome, nor is it far from thee.
It is not in the heaven above, crying (λέγων), Who will ascend for us into heaven, and get it for us? and having heard it, we will do it.
No, nor is it beyond the sea, crying, Who shall cross over for us to the far side of the sea, and who is to get it (λάβῃ) for us, and make it audible for us? and we will do it. The Word (ῥῆμα) is very near thee, on thy lips and in thy heart and in thy hands to do it. Our own ‘R.V.’ is very near this, save for the omission of ‘and in thy hands.’ Otherwise the variation is exceedingly small. The writer applies the language to set forth the simplicity, the exceeding nearness, of his ‘righteousness’-the new and only way of finding peace with God.
He represents the new ‘righteousness’ as speaking for itself. The very curious λέγων in LXX (which has no particular grammar; for it ought to refer to ἐντολή) perhaps suggests this personification. The explanatory notes are unexpected. The simple questions, “Who shall ascend into heaven?” and “Who shall descend into the deep?” would have been enough by themselves. For the ‘Way’ is not hidden high overhead; nor is it deep underfoot. At first sight, one almost wonders if they can be ‘glosses.’ Yet such allegorical interpretations are not alien from the Pauline manner. The question “But what does it say?” (St Paul’s words, not Deuteronomy’s) introduces a close citation of the latter part of the same Pentateuchal section. But the ῥῆμα of LXX, the message of Moses to Israel, becomes the new ῥῆμα, the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. The mention of ‘lips’ and ‘heart’ the apostolic writer developes. Each member has its special part to play, its function to discharge. The ‘lips’ are for ‘confession’; the ‘heart’ is the seat of ‘belief.’ in v. 9 the single blessing, achieved by the double work of ‘heart’ and ‘lips,’ is given as σωθήσῃ. In v. 10 this one idea is presented in two forms. ‘Belief’ leads to ‘righteousness’; ‘confession’ is the pathway to ‘salvation.’ Are they then one thing or two? One, I should say, distinctly. But there is room for difference of opinion. The verbs πιστεύεται and ὁμολογεῖται are, of course, ‘impersonal passives.’ The importance of ‘faith’ in the matter is enforced and emphasised by a second reference to Isaiah 28:16. Only now we have a πᾶς added, as well as an ἐπʼ αὐτῷ.
10:11-13. “For the Scripture says, Everyone that believeth on Him shall not be put to shame. You see, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile; for the same Lord is Lord of (them) all, ‘rich’ towards all that call upon Him.1 [Note: Cf. Ephes. 3:8] For Everyone that shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.”1 [Note: Joel 3:5 (2:32).] The first πᾶς is St Paul’s insertion; so that it might almost seem he himself had brought about unsupported that abolition of all distinction of which he speaks. But as we pass on we find that the ‘open door for all’ rests on Christ’s universal Lordship for one thing, and on the Prophetic promise for another. And the Pentecostal promise has its πᾶς. There is no mistake about that.
We have seen there is one ‘way,’ one only way to σωτηρία, for Jew and Gentile alike. The question next arises, Have the Jews then had a fair chance? Has the message been made plain to them? The Gentiles’ turn will come; but the Jews’ comes first of right. Not till they have rejected God’s plan can the Gentiles be given their turn. They have had it, is the answer, couched in prophetic language. They have heard; the testimony of Holy Writ has been amply borne out in fact: they have ‘heard,’ but, with characteristic ‘hardness of heart,’ they have not ‘obeyed.’
10:14, 15. “How then shall people call on One, on whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, apart from a preacher? And how shall folks preach, except they be sent-as it stands in Holy Writ, How beautiful are the feet of them, that preach good news of Peace, that preach good tidings of good things.”1 [Note: Isai. 52:7 (not close to LXX).]
Verse 14 enumerates the conditions of effective ‘hearing’ which obtain in all cases. What we want to know is this, have all these conditions been fulfilled in Israel’s case? Whether we read ἐπικαλέσονται or ἐπικαλέσωνται makes very little difference. οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν ought to mean Him, whose voice they have not heard. But, I suspect, it does not here. Therefore, I should keep “of whom.” Ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσιν in the Vulgate merely becomes nisi mittantur. But the sense of legitimate ‘mission,’ of apostolic commission, is discovered in the text. The citation of Isaiah 52 is brought forward as a general answer to the question ‘Have they heard?’ It agrees closely with the Hebrew text, and is. associated originally with the deliverance from Captivity. But the Rabbis (S.) applied it to Messiah; and Christian folk with reason apply it to the Redemption of all redemptions.
Yes, there can be no doubt they have all been told. “This thing was not done in a corner.” indubitably the message of Christ was fully made known to His Nation. Many did not ‘heed’; and their failure is set forth in sundry prophetic sayings. There are five of these in all. We will take them in due order. The first, from Isaiah, follows closely on the assumption, based on the last citation, that there has been no defect in the ‘telling.’
10:16-21. “But they have not all heeded the Gospel…”
[It is to-day as it was of old.]
“… Isaiah says, you know (Lord), who has believed what he has heard from us?1 [Note: Isaiah 53:1 (LXX).] Belief, then, comes by hearing, and hearing comes through the message of Christ.”
“But, again, can it be they have not heard? Nay, indeed, Into all the land the sound of them has gone forth, and the words of them unto the utmost ends of the world.2 [Note: Psalms 19:5 (LXX).] Once more, can it be that Israel never knew? First of all then, Moses says, I will kindle you to jealousy over a nation that is none; over a nation void of understanding will I anger you.1 [Note: Deuteronomy 32:21 (LXX).] And Isaiah is very daring and says, I was found of them that never sought Me; I became manifest to them that asked not after Me.2 [Note: Isaiah 65:1 (LXX, but clauses reversed).] And, with regard to Israel, he says, All day long have I spread out my hands towards a disobedient and gain-saying people.”3 [Note: Isaiah 65:2 (LXX, with slightly altered order).] The ἀκοή, in Isaiah Isaiah 53:1, means ‘hearing,’ i.e. message; the Apostle takes it up in its other sense, the exercise of the gift of the ear. The ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ is the message, of which Christ is the subject. The αὐτῶν of the Psalm, in v. 18, refers to God’s great ποιήματα. Such an universal proclamation as they give forth is the telling of the Gospel. The Scripture from Deuteronomy, in v. 19, tells how the God of Israel, provoked by His faithless people, will surely deal with them as they have dealt by Him. They have forsaken Him for a ‘not-god’; He will forsake them for a ‘not-people.’ it is ample testimony to Israel’s disloyalty and consequent rejection. The last two citations are from Isaiah. The two verses come close together. They speak plainly for themselves and present no difficulty.