02.16. I. Israel’s Failure and Rejection acknowledged (Chapter 9.)
I. Israel’s Failure and Rejection acknowledged (Rom 9:1-33)
1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart (Rom 9:1-2). The change from the triumphant strain of the preceding chapter is startling. Dr. Stifler suggests that it may be accounted for psychologically. The apostle, says he, had just been contemplating the certainty of the glory of the sons of God; his heart goes now to the other extreme, the failure and misery of his own countrymen. The vehement language was necessary, because in giving the gospel to the heathen Paul was looked upon by the Jew as the enemy of his own nation. Some of the Roman church, knowing as they did the exclusiveness of the Jews, might be persuaded that Paul was an apostate rather than an apostle of God. He must defend himself. He is about to outline Israel’s shame. Let it be seen that the picture is drawn not by an enemy, but by a loving friend, whose heart is breaking as he paints.
2. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom 9:3). Many and varied are the comments on this verse, the writers often shrinking from the obvious meaning of the words as they stand. Wakefield cuts the troublesome knot at one stroke by reading: I have great grief and continual sorrow of heart (for I also was once an alien from Christ) on account of my brethren, etc. In a note he 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 euchomai einai of Homer—I profess myself to be. This solution makes the passage rational and plain. Alford holds that the literal reading is, I was wishing, etc., and says: This imperfect tense is not historical, alluding to his days of Pharisaism, as some have supposed, but implies, as very often, a half-expression of a desire: ‘I was wishing, had it been possible.’ Darby reads, For I have wished, I myself, to be a curse from Christ for my brethren, and remarks: Moses, in his anguish, had said, ‘Blot me out of Thy book.’ Paul had not been behind him in his love. In his New Testament in Braid Scots, William Wye Smith renders: There is muckle dool to me, and constant sorrow i’ my heart, for I mysel’ coud hae wiss’t mysel’ devotit by Christ, for my brethren’s sake, my kin eftir the flesh. In a note he says: Sinder’t frae ony common use; as was an offeran i’ the temple. The sense is obscure: and we haena Paul to expone it. While it may mean torn frae a’ things in this life, and frae life itsel’, it disna mean sinder’t frae Christ for eternity. And John Wesley, in his Notes on the New Testament, says of the passage:
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. The language, says Stifler, is startling and has troubled many; but it is in the very spirit of Israel’s great leader, Moses (Exo 32:32), and may we not say, though the word is different, in the spirit of Christ (Gal 3:13)? Besides, this is not the language of deliberation, but of heart-breaking passion, in which he says, I could (were it permitted or were it possible) wish myself accursed (away) from (not ‘by’) Christ.’ It is this grief at the loss of men, this intense yearning for their salvation, that made Paul the preacher he was.
3. Who are Israelites (Rom 9:4). In Rom 3:1-31 the question was raised, What advantage then hath the Jew? And the answer was ready: Much every way. That answer is amplified in the sevenfold summary found in our 9th chapter. Surely, Israel’s position before God was one to be coveted; for to this people pertaineth:
(1) The adoption. They were adopted as God’s people from among the nations. Their adoption, as spoken of here, is not individual, but national. It is a different thing from the New Testament adoption, but it is yet a thing to be greatly desired, and a thing for which to be deeply grateful.
(2) And the glory. The Shekinah cloud of glory led them and followed them in their wilderness wanderings. Thus they had been made companions of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:4).
(3) And the covenants. The Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant—all were theirs, and all are yet theirs, despite their failure. The Gentiles, on the contrary, are aliens from the commonwealth, and therefore strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world (Eph 2:12).
(4) And the giving of the law. The Gentiles have not the law (Rom 2:14). If others boasted of their Solons and Lycurguses, how far juster ground of boasting is there of the Lord as lawgiver {Calvin).
(5) And the service. They alone, among all the nations of the world, had an authorized form of worship; they were taught the way of approach to God.
(6) And the promises. Even the promise of the Redeemer was peculiarly Israel’s, though it was first given to the whole race in Eden, for it was ultimately confined to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the tribe of Judah, and house of David. Let it not be forgotten that the Lord Jesus Christ was primarily a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, and that the showing of mercy to the Gentiles was a thing that came afterwards (Rom 15:8-9). In Heb 7:6, Abraham is described as him that had the promises.
(7) Whose are the fathers. What other nation ever had such fathers? Abraham, the head of many nations, Isaac, and Jacob, were theirs; other nations had great ancestors, but Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have the honor of being not merely natural, but divinely chosen chiefs (Stiller).
4. And of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came (Rom 9:5). Besides these seven all their own, the Israelites had one other honor in which they shared, an honor that overtops all the rest. The ‘whose’ changes to ‘of whom.’ The fathers were theirs, but the Christ, though He came from them in His human relation, belongs to the world (Stiller). The expression (‘and of whom is Christ, so far as regards the flesh’) implies that He was not entirely sprung from them, but had another nature; ‘on His human side,’—’as far as pertains to His human body’ (Alford).
5. Who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen (Rom 9:5). There has been much controversy over the punctuation and application of this Scripture. Those who deny our Lord’s deity insist that we should read here, Blessed forever be the God Who is over all! and that the words are to be understood as a doxology to the Father. By the early church, however, it was generally rendered as in our English Bible, and applied to Christ. This rendering, says Dean Alford, is not only that most agreeable to the usage of the apostle, but the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement. It also admirably suits the context: for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks far higher than all,—that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He Who is God over all, blessed forever.
A. W. Meyer, though opposing this view, yet acknowledges that the words may be interpreted as referring to Christ; and both Weiss and Dwight, Meyer’s editors, agree with Alford’s conclusions as above. Stifler says that Sanday, after an exhaustive examination of all the arguments bearing on the punctuation of this passage, ‘with some slight, but only slight, hesitation,’ admits that Paul here applies the name God to Christ. The claim is made that Paul does not anywhere else call Christ God. But this is an error, for Paul calls Christ God in Acts 20:28; in Col 1:16 he declares that all things were made by Him and for Him; and in Col 2:9 he writes that in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. In addition to this, there is little doubt that Hebrews was written by Paul, and in the first chapter of that epistle Christ is repeatedly called by names of deity.
However, no one who really knows Christ denies or doubts His deity. By His supernatural birth (Isa 7:13-14; Mat 1:22-23), and by His supernatural resurrection from the dead (John 8:46; Rom 1:4), as well as by all that lay between, He was shown to be God in the flesh. We receive Him as such, and adore Him as such, bowing before Him with His disciple Thomas, and worshipping Him as our Lord and our God.
6. Not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect (Rom 9:6-13). There had been failure, but the failure was not God’s. The people had broken down, but the great promises of the covenant were not conditional promises, they were not made to depend upon the faithfulness of the people. The Word of God must be fulfilled. If we are faithless, He abideth faithful; for He cannot deny Himself (2Ti 2:13, R. V.). In the paragraph before us, all this is brought out in answer to the natural questionings that would arise in regard to God’s dealings with Israel. The case is not as though the Word of God hath taken none effect, or as though it hath come to nought (R. V.), or as though it had failed (1911 Bible). The Word of God still remained unbroken. The promise of God had not been set aside. The proof of this is in what follows:
(1) For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Rom 9:6). The promise was not for all the nation of Israel. The apostle is making a distinction here between natural Israelites and those among them who were men of faith. Believing Gentiles are not in view just now, though they are elsewhere called Abraham’s spiritual seed. In the passage before us, he is considering only the two kinds of Israelites, the natural and the spiritual Israel (compare Rom 4:1-3; Gal 3:6-7; John 8:37-39).
(2) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called (Rom 9:7). Abraham had other children besides Isaac. Ishmael was born before Isaac, and there were many sons born afterward of Keturah (Gen 25:1-4), and yet the Messianic promise was confined to Isaac and his seed. The principle of God’s sovereign elective grace is thus established at the outset. The Jew could not deny this principle, and thus shut out the Gentiles from the promise, unless he was willing to include the Ishmaelites and the descendants of Keturah with himself in the promise. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son (Rom 9:8-9, compare Gen 21:12; Gen 18:10).
(3) And not only this (Rom 9:10). The apostle now cites the case of Jacob and Esau, the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca. While these children were yet in their mother’s womb, before they had done any good or evil, It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger (Rom 9:12, compare Gen 25:23). The reason given for this decree is simply, that the purpose of God...might stand. It is according to election ... not of works, but of him that calleth (Rom 9:11). In the case of Ishmael, it might be objected, that, being born of a slave woman, he was set aside on that account, but this objection cannot stand as touching the case of Esau and Jacob. Though they were twins, Esau was yet the first-born, and God decreed that this first-born should be subject to his younger brother, and, as we have observed, the only reason given for it is that it was according to the purpose of God. The decree itself went far beyond the persons of Esau and Jacob, as will be seen by reference to the Scripture cited, Gen 25:23 : And Jehovah said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger (R. V.). On this Dean Alford says: But the nations must be considered as spoken of in their progenitors, and the elder nation is in fact that sprung from the elder brother. History 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, compare 2Ki 16:6-7)—and continued free, as prophesied in Gen 27:40, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorporated among the Jews: as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (there is no necessity here to soften the ‘hated’ into ‘loved less’: the words in Malachi proceed on the fullest meaning of hate, see Rom 9:4, ‘The people against whom Jehovah hath indignation forever’).
7. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? (Rom 9:14-18). The apostle’s exclamatory reply, God forbid! is the language of faith, for faith cannot for a moment tolerate the insinuation that there is unrighteousness with God:
(1) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Rom 9:15). Paul finds the argument for his vehement denial of injustice in God, says Dr. Stifler, not by abstract reasoning about the idea of justice, but in the Scriptures. The quotation is from Exo 33:19. The great Jewish captain is earnestly seeking grace from God. It might be supposed that he could attain it on the ground of his office and merit; but even ‘to Moses’ God saith, He gives mercy not because he is Moses, or because he seeks it, but just because it is God’s ‘will’ to do so. It is a bold, crisp assertion of the divine freedom in bestowing grace. In any case through human history wherein I shall be seen to have mercy, the one account I give of the radical cause is this—I have mercy’ (Moule). Mercy is the outward manifestation of the feeling of compassion. And according to Dean Alford, The meaning apparently is, ‘Whenever I have mercy on any, it shall be pure mercy, no human desert contributing;’ which agrees better with the next verse than the ordinary rendering, which lays the stress on the ‘whomsoever’ and is not inconsistent with Rom 9:18, ‘he hath mercy on whom he will;’ because if God’s mercy be pure mercy without any desert on man’s part, it necessarily follows that He has mercy on whom He will, His will being the only assignable cause of the selection.
(2) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Rom 9:16). The human element is simply excluded. Mercy is shown not according as men will to receive it, or run after it, but according to God’s own purpose. We shall return to this a little further on in the chapter.
(3) For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth (Rom 9:17). The quotation here is from Exo 9:16, and it leads to the conclusion of Rom 9:18 : Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.
Ten times in the Scripture, says Dr. Stifler, about Pharaoh it is said he hardened himself; but Paul makes no account of this, for his clear intention is to account for Pharaoh’s overthrow by the free purpose of God. And yet God did not harden him for the sake of the hardening, but that the divine power might have a field of display and that the divine name might become known. If Pharaoh had willingly and sweetly allowed the people to depart, there could have been no miracles ‘in Egypt and in the Red Sea’ (Acts 7:36), and the children of Israel would have had no fame as God’s own chosen, a fame that endured for centuries (1Sa 5:8)…God is absolute sovereign, allowing nothing to direct His activity but His own will. His Word is true, as true, as He is, but He has never uttered a word to abridge His freedom. This hardening process is going on to-day; it can be read as clearly in current history as in God’s Word. And yet man is also free in choosing God and free in refusing Him. The reconciliation of these two is a question of philosophy, and philosophy fails in the effort. The Bible does not attempt it, but stops with asserting that both are realities.
Augustine says:
Let it be enough for the Christian, living as yet by faith, and not yet seeing what is perfect, but knowing it only in part, to know, or to believe, that God acquits none except of His free mercy, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and condemns none, except of most equitable justice, through the same our Lord Jesus Christ. But why He acquits or does not acquit one rather than another, let him who can, search into the so great deep of His judgments: but—let him beware of the precipitous descent.
Mr. Darby says, that God’s sovereignty is the first of all rights. But in what case had He exercised this right? In a case that concerned that right of Israel to blessing, of which the Jews sought to avail themselves. All Israel would have been cut off, if God had dealt in righteousness; there was nothing but the sovereignty of God which could be a door of escape. God retreated into His sovereignty in order to spare whom He would, and so had spared Israel (justice would have condemned them all alike, gathered round the golden calf which they set up to worship)—this, on the side of mercy; on that of judgment, Pharaoh served for an example. The enemy of God, and of His people, he had treated the claims of God with contempt, exalting himself proudly against Him—’Who is Jehovah that I should obey Him? I will not let His people go.’ Pharaoh being in this state, Jehovah uses him to give an example of His wrath and judgment. So that He shows mercy to whom He will, and hardens whom He will. Man complains of it, as he does of the grace that justifies freely.
8. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? (Rom 9:19-24). The objector has taken an advanced step here. Up to this point he has been content merely to call God’s justice into question, but now he practically charges God with injustice:
(1) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? (Rom 9:20). Such replying, as Mr. Grant points out, must necessarily be in vain. Could one succeed in establishing his cause against Him, what could it be? It would be the ruin of everything. Think of being able to show that God was not the righteous, holy, gracious God He is! Think of the disaster everywhere which would result from such a thing! The moment we speak of God, we must be still and know that He is God; and the apostle insists upon this in the first place.
(2) Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Rom 9:20-21). The word power, in this passage, the Revision changes to right—”Hath not the potter a right over the clay?” There is reference here to Isa 29:16, where it is written: Shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Again, in Isa 45:9, we read: Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work. He hath no hands? In the apocryphal book of Sir 33:13, there is similar language: As the clay is in the potter’s hand to fashion it at his pleasure, so man is in the hand of Him that made him to render to them as liketh Him best. Again, in the book of Wisdom, Wis 15:7, it is written: For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort the potter himself is the judge. There is a word from Jehovah in Jer 18:6, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith Jehovah. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in Mine hand, O house of Israel. The same figure is employed in 2Ti 2:20-21, though with a different purpose in view. What we have in Rom 9:1-33 is the free sovereignty of God. It is well to remember this, and to follow Dean Alford’s example. He says:
I must pause here to remind the student, that I purposely do not enter on the disquisition so abundant in some commentaries on this part of Scripture, by which it is endeavored to reconcile the sovereign election of God with our free will. We shall find that free will asserted strongly enough for all edifying purposes by this apostle, when the time comes. At present, he is employed wholly in asserting the divine sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. It is in parts of Scripture like this, that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written: not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of God’s Spirit for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us.
(3) What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Rom 9:22-24). The word willing, in Rom 9:22, should be read, wishing, or purposing. The meaning of the passage is, that, while God has a perfect right to destroy all sinners at once, He has also a right to show mercy where He wills, and to restrain His wrath where He wills, in order to fulfill His purpose.
9. As he saith (Rom 9:25-29):
Two quotations from Hosea (Hos 2:23; Hos 1:10) are cited in Rom 9:25-26. By referring to the prophecy itself, it will be seen that, in both cases, the direct application was to Israel, while the citation in Romans has reference to the Gentiles. Both passages, Mr. Grant remarks, refer to God’s purposes with regard to Israel in the time to come, but as a principle they equally show how He is acting and how He has title to act in His present grace. The men of the Gentiles, who were not His people, He is calling His people; and where He had said unto them, ‘Ye are not My people,’ there they are now called of Him His children. The apostle does not say that this is an exact fulfillment of Hosea’s words.
It is a fulfillment in principle, and that is all that is implied in his quotation.
Two quotations from Isaiah are also found here. They are from Isa 10:22, ff., and Isa 1:9; and the apostle quotes them to prove that it is only by God’s grace that even the remnant out of Israel is saved.
10. What shall we say then? (Rom 9:30-33). The question raised finds its answer in the words following:
(1) That Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, have obtained righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith (Rom 9:30, 1911 Bible). The article the, before Gentiles, is wrongly found in both the King James and the Revised Versions. The statement would not be true as applied to the Gentiles en masse. It is true, however, of certain Gentiles that they have, by the sovereign grace of God, attained unto a righteousness which is of faith. In this and the next verse, we have a commentary upon the 16th verse above: It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. These Gentiles who have attained to righteousness have not attained thereto through their own willing, or their own running, but through the sovereign, elective grace of God.
(2) But Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law (Rom 9:31, R. V.). Here was a nation pursuing after a law of righteousness and failing in the pursuit. They said, when the covenant of law was proposed to them, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do (Exo 19:8).
(3) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law (Rom 9:32). Rom 10:1-21 takes up this subject and works it out in detail, showing the difference between the righteousness which is of the law and the righteousness which is of faith (compare Rom 10:5-6). Chrysostom and others think that, in these final verses of the chapter, there is a solution of the whole doctrinal difficulty raised by the chapter, but Alford dissents from these, and says: This solution is simply in the creative right of God, as declared in Rom 9:18;—but they are a comment on Rom 9:16, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth: the same similitude of running being here resumed, and it being shown that, so far from man’s running having decided the matter, the Jews, who pressed forward to the goal, attained not, whereas the Gentiles, who never ran, have attained. If this is lost sight of, the connection of the whole is much impaired, and, from doctrinal prejudice, a wholly wrong turn given to the apostle’s line of reasoning,—who resolves the awful fact of Israel’s exclusion not into any causes arising from man, but into the supreme will of God.
Stifler says:
It is at this point that Paul passes from the sovereignty of God to the responsibility of man. The two cannot be harmonized in the human understanding, except as the Scriptures harmonize them; that is, by insisting on and holding to both. The Scriptures and reason assert the absolute sovereignty of God, and Scripture and the human conscience assert with equal force the responsibility of man; so that the practical error arises when either one of these is denied or when one is explained in a way to exclude the other. It must also be remembered that, while man cannot save himself, moral inability does not relieve from responsibility. Man’s inability lies in his sinful nature (Rom 8:7), and God cannot be made responsible for sin. The sinner’s inability to do right, to do God’s will, is the acme of his sin. A world of sin is a world of confusion. Sin introduced confusion between God and man, and confusion cannot be explained. The real difficulty between God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s responsibility is metaphysical and not Biblical. How can there be one sovereign free will and other free wills? And when Fritzsche says that Paul’s view is ‘absolutely contradictory,’ he is virtually demanding that Paul cease preaching and turn philosopher to solve the insoluble. But Paul leaves the question where he found it, and goes on now in this and the next chapter to show that Israel’s failure was their own fault.
(4) They stumbled at that stumblingstone (Rom 9:32). The word for, found here in the King James Version, is omitted by the best authorities, and confuses the sense, making it appear that Israel had failed to pursue by faith because of their stumbling over the stumblingstone, which of course is Christ. Now, the fact is just the opposite from this. They stumbled at the stumblingstone because they were not pursuing righteousness by faith (compare 1Co 1:23). As the R. V. footnote has it, Because doing it not by faith, but as it were by works, they stumbled.
(5) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed (Rom 9:33). The quotation is from Isa 28:1-29 :
Peter uses the same Scripture in 1Pe 2:6, along with other Scriptures employing the same figure of Christ (compare Psa 118:22 and Isa 8:14). This chapter is a test of faith, and a reasonable test. Faith trusts God. She believes that God is not only omnipotent, that is, all-powerful, but also all-wise and altogether righteous. She believes this in spite of everything, and to her the suggestion is intolerable that the Judge of all the earth should ever fail to do right. She reads in God’s Word, that He hardeneth whom He will, and also that God is not willing that any should perish. These things may be irreconcilable to human reason, and they probably are, but human reason has no authority over faith. Faith believes God. In the very nature of the case, it is of necessity that finite man should fail at some point to comprehend the infinite God. Faith follows on, walking with God, even when reason fails to comprehend. Faith trusts God in the dark. That is, after reason has entered into darkness and obscurity, faith goes on, walking not in darkness, but in the light of God, because she trusts God. Otherwise, faith need not be at all, for to walk by faith is essentially opposed to walking by sight. When sight comes in, there is no further need for faith. Let us thank God for the privilege of trusting Him, and of walking quietly with Him, leaving our hand in His, for, though we may not know, it is always true that He knoweth the way that we take.