Romans 9

9. Israel’s rejection of the Gospel (a great grief and incessant pain to S. Paul and (Romans 9:4) a great problem in the economy of redemption), (Romans 9:6) is not due to a failure of GOD’S word, for the condition of acceptance was not a carnal descent but a spiritual, and depended upon GOD’S selection of men for special purposes. (Romans 9:14) This selection was righteous, because it was directed to the execution of His purpose of mercy and was the effect of mercy, by revealing to men His power and character, and (Romans 9:19) acted in accordance with qualities exhibited by men, in their response, as creatures, to the purpose of their creation, shown in the case of Israel, (Romans 9:24) as diagnosed by the prophets, (Romans 9:30) partly succeeding and partly failing to grasp the true nature of righteousness and the means of its attainment.

Romans 9:1

1. ἀλήθειαν, κ.τ.λ. Cf. 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Corinthians 11:31; 2 Corinthians 7:14; 2 Corinthians 12:6; Galatians 1:20: in all cases a strong assertion of his personal truthfulness, in a statement which would be challenged. Here his deep personal interest in Israel is asserted; his championship of the Gentiles had no doubt been interpreted as hostility to Jews.

ἐνΧριστῷ = as a Christian; cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 12:19; Philemon 1:8. In this anarthrous and simple form the phrase is confined to S. Paul (all except 2 Thes. and Pastorals) and 1 Pet.; and seems simply to mark the Christian position.

συνμαρτυρούσης. Romans 2:15, Romans 8:16 only. In Romans 2:15 and here the συν is perhaps simply perfective; cf. Moulton, p. 113. Otherwise the conscious reflection is cited as a confirming witness to the uttered statement.

τῆςσυνειδήσεώςμου. Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 5:11. = all that I know of myself; cf. Romans 2:15 n.

ἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ. Cf. 1 Corinthians 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 12:3. Not merely ‘in my spirit as consecrated,’ but ‘in the light of or under the control of the Holy Spirit.’ |[172] ἐνΧριστῷ. 1 Corinthians 12:3 is decisive for this meaning.

[172] | parallel to

Romans 9:2

2. ἀδιάλειπτος. 2 Timothy 1:3 only. Adv. Romans 1:9 and 1 Thes. (3) only.

Romans 9:3

3. ηὐχόμην. Cf. Acts 25:22; Galatians 4:20; Philemon 1:13. Here of an impracticable wish, ‘I could have prayed if it had been possible’; Blass, p. 207. Contrast Acts 26:29.

ἀνάθεμα, lit. a thing set up in a temple and so destroyed as far as use by man goes (LXX[173] Leviticus 27:28); then devoted to destruction (Deuteronomy 13:15), cursed (LXX[174] Joshua 7 alibi); cf. Nägeli, p. 49. Followed by ἀπὸ only here; cf. Romans 7:2, κατήργηταιἀπὸ; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9.

[173] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

[174] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

αὐτὸςἐγὼ. Romans 7:25, Romans 15:14; 2 Corinthians 10:1; 2 Corinthians 12:13. ? = instead of them.

ἀπὸτοῦχριστοῦ = so as to lose all that the Messiah means to a Jew and to a Christian. For ὁχρ. cf. Romans 7:4, Romans 8:35, Romans 9:5. The reference when the article is present (except perhaps where it is due to an article with a governing word) seems always to be to the office of Messiah as exhibited and interpreted in Jesus.

ὑπὲρ—κατὰσάρκα, to distinguish them from the spiritual family of Christ: the Church is now the true Israel. τ. σ. μ. κ. σ. explains τ. ἀ. μ.

Romans 9:4

4. οἵτινες. This form of the relative marks the characteristic which is the occasion of his feeling; cf. Moulton, p. 91 f.; Blass, 172; Hort, 1 Peter 2:1 f. ‘Never absolutely convertible with δς,’ M., ‘seeing that they are.’

εἰσιν, they still are in spite of what has happened.

Ἰσραηλεῖται, the name which marks the religious privilege of the nation; cf. John 1:48; below Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22: and for Ἰσραὴλ cf. below 6; 1 Corinthians 10:18; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12; closely connected with the expectation of the Messiah and His kingdom, Acts 1:6. The following enumeration gives the details which are all involved in this name, and emphasises the paradox of the rejection of the Gospel by a people so prepared.

ἡυἱοθεσία. Not LXX[176] or class, but common in inscriptions; cf. Deissmann, B. S. II. p. 66. In N.T. Rom., Gal. (1), Eph. (1) only. This is the only place in which it refers to the sonship of Israel. Was it current among the Jews? cf. Exodus 4:22; Hart, Ecclus. p. 302 f.

[176] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

ηδόξα. Cf. Luke 2:32; 2 Corinthians 3:7 f. The reference is to the Shechinah, the visible sign of the presence of GOD among His people.

αἱδιαθῆκαι. The plural marks the successive repetitions and ratifications of the covenant from Abraham to Moses; cf. Acts 3:25; Luke 1:72; for the plural Ephesians 2:12.

ἡνομοθεσία, the legislation—the positive revelation of GOD’S will which distinguished Israel from all other nations. Only here in N.T. and LXX[177] canon: 2Ma 6:23; 4Ma 5:35.

[177] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

ἡλατρεία, the ordered services of the Temple; cf. Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:6.

αἱἐπαγγελίαι, primarily of the promises made to Abraham; of. Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 7:6, but including the whole prophetic revelation as touching the Messiah, cf. 2 Corinthians 1:20; Acts 13:32: Hart, Ecclus. p. 306.

Romans 9:5

5. οἱπατέρες. Cf. Romans 11:28, Romans 15:8; 1 Corinthians 10:1; Hebrews 1:1; Hebrews 8:9 (qu.); Luke 11:47; John 6:49; Acts 13:32. On the Jewish insistence on the merits of the fathers cf. S. H., p. 330. The term includes the whole ancestry of Israel, not merely the Patriarchs.

ἐξὧν, with τὸκατὰσάρκα. ὁχρ. the Messiah. τὸκ. ς.; as regards merely human origin, cf. Romans 1:3; Romans cf.1 Clem. xxxii. 2 (F. C. Burkitt, J. T. S., v. p. 455). On the constr. cf. Blass, p. 94, cf[178] Hebrews 2:17; below Romans 12:18, Romans 15:17: “the accus. of reference has already become an adverbial accus.”

[178] confert

ὁὢνἐπὶπάντων, κ.τ.λ. I adopt the stopping of W. H. margin (σάρκαὁὢνκ.τ.λ.). This clause is an ascription of blessing to GOD, in His character as supreme ruler of all things, the author and director of all the dispensations of His Providence, tr. ‘He who is over all, even GOD, is blessed for ever, Amen.’ See Add. Note, p. 219.

NOTES

F. Romans 9:5

ὁὣἐπὶπάντωνθεὸςεὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςἀμήν

The insertion of the participle throws emphasis on ὁ … ἐπὶπάντων and shows that it must be taken as subject and θεὸς as in apposition. Otherwise we should expect ὁἐπὶπάντωνθεός. ἐπὶπάντων implies not mere superiority (which seems never to be indicated by ἐπὶ with gen.) but authority and government, = He who is supreme governor of all things, a periphrasis for κύριος. πάντων is probably neuter and refers to the whole process, in sum and in detail, of the ordered government and dispensations of the ages. The only other occurrence of ἐπὶπάντων in N.T. is in Ephesians 4:6. The question, therefore, whether the phrase can be applied to ὁχριστός depends not on any strict parallel, but on the analogy of the use of κύριος: for this cf. Romans 10:9 with 12; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:10-11; and esp. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5; and generally the application of κύριος, with its O.T. associations, to Christ; see Hort, 1 Pet. p. 30 f. It still remains open to question whether S.

Paul would name, as an attribute of the Christ, the management of the dispensations; Hebrews 1:3 (φέρωνκ.τ.λ.) is only partly paralleled by Colossians 1:17; and S. Paul himself seems to reserve this function of providential government to GOD as creator.

The term κύριος seems to be applied to Christ rather as sovereign over the present dispensation, than as the director of all the dispensations, the Son being the agent of the operations of the Father: cf. Romans 16:25-26. It was probably some such consideration as this that led Hort to say (Appendix, ad loc[348]) that the separation of this clause from ὁχρ. τ. κ. σ. “alone seems adequate to account for the whole of the language employed.” Neither S. H. nor Giff. elucidate this point. The question is not whether the term θεὸς as predicate or the verbal εὐλογητὸς would be used of Christ by S. Paul (there is strong evidence for an affirmative answer); but whether he would assign to Him this function of deity.

It is to be observed that it is generally agreed that the form of the phrase ὁὢνἐπὶπάντων throws the stress exactly on this function. These considerations point to a separation of this clause from the preceding; cf. 1 Clem. xxxii. 2.

[348] ad loc. ad locum

Two questions remain: (1) is the insertion of the clause, if separated from the preceding, natural in the context? (2) does the run of the whole sentence allow of such separation?

As regards (1) the immediate context deals with GOD’s dispensation to and through Israel suggested by the strange paradox that the dispensation of the Gospel, expounded in the preceding chapters and in full climax in ch. 8, finds Israel alien. That the Gospel should have been prepared for in Israel, and that in spite of Israel’s opposition the Gospel should now be in full course in its comprehensive universality, are both the results of GOD’s government or management of the dispensations: it is not unnatural that when the climax of the description of Israel’s past has been reached, while the climax of ch. 8 is still in mind, S. Paul should turn to bless Him who directs and orders all, GOD worthy to be blessed for ever. The emphatic position and phrasing of ὁὢνἐπὶπάντων suits the turn of thought exactly. Nor is this assumption out of place here, in view of the great sorrow spoken of in Romans 9:2 (as Giff.): that sorrow does not even for a moment suspend S. Paul’s trust in the just and merciful government of GOD.

(2) It is no doubt true that the change of subject is abrupt: but it is of the very nature of an interjectional ascription to be abrupt: and the formal abruptness is compensated by the naturalness of the interjection.

Two further points require to be noticed. (1) It is argued that in ascriptions of blessing εὐλογητὸς always comes first in the sentence. But no order of words is so fixed that it cannot be changed for emphasis’ sake: and the emphasis on ὁὢἐπὶπάντων is amply sufficient to account for the order here; cf. Psalms 67 (68):2 LX[349]. (2) It is argued that τὸκατὰσάρκα. requires the statement of the other side of the nature of the Christ. But this argument ignores the reason for the mention of the Christ here at all, namely, to complete the enumeration of the privileges of Israel.

[349] LXX the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

On the whole I conclude that the most natural interpretation is to place the stronger stop after σάρκα and to translate ‘He that governs all, even GOD, be blessed for ever. Amen.’

It is perhaps necessary to observe that this comment is not influenced by the consideration that S. Paul was not likely to apply the term θεὸς predicatively to Christ. The possibility of his doing so ought not to be denied in view of 2 Thessalonians 1:12, Philippians 2:6, 2 Corinthians 13:13, and other passages in which the Father and the Son are coordinated.

Prof. Burkitt (J. T. S. v. p. 451 ff.) argues that the ἀμὴν marks the clause as an ascription of blessing to GOD, not a description of nature. The ascription is here made, as an appeal for GOD’s witness to the truth and sincerity of his statement in 1–4; cf. Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31.

He takes ὁὢν (cf. Exodus 3:14-15; Revelation 1:4) as representing the ‘Name of the Holy One,’ the mere utterance of which with the necessarily accompanying benediction is an appeal to the final court of truth. So he connects “Romans 9:1; Romans 9:5 b, οὐψεύδομαι … ὁὤν, ἐπὶπάντωνθεός, εὐλογητὸςεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας, ἀμήν: I lie not. The Eternal (Blessed is His Name!) I call Him to witness.” While this argument seems to me conclusive as to the main connexion and intention of the clause, and the reference in ὁὢν to Exodus seems very probable, I still feel that the context and the Greek order point to connecting ἐπὶπάντων with ὁὢν, nor does this seem inconsistent with such a reference. If ἐπὶπάντων had been meant as epithet to θεὸς, I should have expected the avoidance of ambiguity by a change of order—θεὸςἐπὶπάντων.

A conjectural emendation of the text (ὧνὁ for ὁὢν) has occurred to commentators from time to time. Jonas Schlicting in his commentary on the Romans (1656) mentions it, as likely to suggest itself, and points out the suitability of the climax, but rejects it as giving an unscriptural phrase. John Taylor (of Norwich, 1754) makes the same suggestion and justifies it as giving a proper climax. Wetstein refers to these and others, without comment. Bentley (Crit. Sacr. ed. Ellis, p. 30) mentions it, apparently with favour. John Weiss (op. cit[350] p. 238) adopts it, referring to Wrede, Lic. Disp., a work which I have not seen. Hart, J. T. S. xi. p. 36 n., suggests the same emendation.

[350] op. cit. opus citatum

Mr Hart supports the emendation, in a letter to me, as follows: “St Paul is writing here if anywhere as a Jew, and the relation of Israel to the GOD of Jacob forms the proper climax: Christian scribes altered the text because in their view that privilege was forfeited and had lapsed to the Church. I think this passage from Philo clinches the matter—de praemiis § 123 (M. ii. p. 428) (Leviticus 26:12) τούτουκαλεῖταιθεὸςἰδίωςὁτῶνσυμπάντωνθεὸς, καὶλαὸςἐξαιρετὸςπάλινοὗτοςοὐτῶνκατὰμέροςἀρχόντωνἀλλὰτοῦἑνὸςκαὶπρὸςἀλήθειανἄρχοντος, ἁγίουἅγιος.—So St Paul says ‘to whom belongs the supreme GOD, blessed be He for ever and ever, Amen.’ But his reporters did not sympathise and desiderated an antithesis to κατὰσάρκα, having identified the (abstract) Messiah with our Lord.”

It will be seen that here again the justification of the conjecture depends on the propriety of the climax. The quotation from Philo does not, I think, carry us far. He is there emphasising the establishment of a personal relation between the GOD of all men and the individual saint, and he calls this single person a λαὸςἐξαιρετός. Such language could of course be used by any Jew or Christian. We have a parallel in Hebrews 11:16: οὐκἐπαισχύνεταιὁθεὸςθεὸςἐπικαλεῖσθαιαὐτῶν, ἡτοίμασενγὰραὐτοῖςπόλιν. But the point need not be laboured.

Against this suggestion the following points may be urged:—(1) It ignores the effect of the ἀμήν in making the whole clause an ascription: see above. (2) The question is raised whether the idea embodied in the term ‘The GOD of Israel’ is naturally to be expected as the climax of the enumeration here made. It may be premised that that term is never used by S. Paul in his Epistles, or indeed in the N. T. except in Matthew 15:31, Luke 16:18, Acts 13:17. It does not occur, either explicitly or implicitly, in the other enumerations of the privileges of Israel (Romans 2:17; Romans 3:3, 2 Corinthians 11:22). Further, in this Epistle the whole argument has been based on the universal relation of GOD to man; and the very phrase ἐξὧνὁχριστὸςτὸκατὰσάρκα seems to exclude the divine relation of the Christ, and a fortiori the relation of man to GOD, from the list of the special privileges of Israel.

Finally, the phrase ἐπὶπάντων (see above), as referring directly to the governing and dispensing operations of GOD gives, almost necessarily, a wider range of reference than to the relations to Israel alone.

Romans 9:6

6. οὐχοἷον—ὅτι. A unique combination: cf. Field, ad loc[180] He decides that οὐχοἶον is in vulgar use a strong negative = nequaquam, ne minimum: ‘It is by no means the fact that.…’

[180] ad loc. ad locum

δὲ contrasts with the implicit thought of Rom 9:4-5: this wonderful dispensation has not ended in failure on GOD’S part.

ἐκπέπτωκεν. Absolute use not common. Here = to fail of its purpose (cf. Polyb. IV. 82. 8); cf. Sir 31:7, slightly different.

ὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦ = the utterance of the purpose of GOD, as given in promises and covenants to Israel; cf. John 10:35: a rare, perhaps unique (S. H.), use in N.T.; for the thought cf. Romans 4:14 = Galatians 3:17.

οὐγὰρπάντεςκ.τ.λ., blood relationship does not of itself admit to the spiritual position.

Romans 9:7

7. οὐδ’ ὅτικ.τ.λ., nor does descent of flesh make children, in the sense of the promise, as witness Ishmael’s case; cf. John 8:33 f.

σπέρμα, sc. κατὰσάρκα.; cf. 11 τέκνα, sc. ἐπαγγελίας or τοῦθεοῦ. ἀλλ’ ἘνἸς. Genesis 21:12.

Romans 9:8

8. τοῦτ’ ἔστινκ.τ.λ., the principle of selection is seen at work in the choice of lines and persons for the execution of GOD’S purpose: the starting point is GOD’S promise to Abraham, including both the birth of a son and the blessing of the Gentiles.

λογίζεταιεἰςσπέρμα, are reckoned as seed, sc. of Abraham for the purposes of the promise: n. σπέρμα is applied here more narrowly than in 7, as the quotation in that verse suggests.

Romans 9:9

9. ἐπαγγελίαςκ.τ.λ. This utterance, which was directly connected with the blessing (Genesis 28:10), is a matter of promise.

Romans 9:10

10. οὐμόνονδέ, κ.τ.λ. The same principle is seen in the selection of one of two sons, born at one birth of one father and mother, even before birth or any act on their part.

Romans 9:11

11. ἵναἡκατ’ ἐκλογὴνκ.τ.λ. The purpose of GOD (the execution of His promise to bless the Gentiles) is carried out by a principle of selection, not as a matter of favour bestowed on merit but as a choice of fit instruments for attaining the end. πρόθεσις, cf. Romans 8:28, here primarily of the purpose indicated in the promise. ἐκλογή, cf. Hebrews 9:15 (below Romans 9:21), selection: GOD selects nations and individuals not primarily for their own interest, but for work to be done for Him: the ἐκλογὴ becomes definite in a ‘call,’ κλῆσις; both are subservient to His purpose; men and nations are His σκεύη; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Peter 1:10: infra Romans 11:5; Hort, 1 Peter 1:1.

οὐκἐξἕργωνκ.τ.λ., with ἐρρέθη. The word which determined their position was not the result of works already done by them by way of reward, but the result of GOD’S call to service.

Romans 9:12

12. ὁμείζωνκ.τ.λ., Genesis 25:23, where it is the nations represented by their founders rather than or at least as much as the founders themselves that are under consideration: throughout S. Paul is speaking of GOD’S purpose as dealing with nations; cf. S. H. ad lo[181].

[181] ad loc ad locum

Romans 9:13

13. Malachi 1:2, where the words describe the several fates of Israel and Edom, the disappearance of the latter and the desolation of their land being contrasted with the wideness of GOD’S love for Israel. That is to say, history confirms the selection: Israel, with all its faults, served GOD’S purpose; Edom did not.

The object, then, of these references is to show the character and object of the call of GOD—it is a choice of instruments for a definite purpose; and the call has not failed because of the failure of individuals, provided that there are still real instruments of His purpose doing His service (Romans 9:21), and forming a remnant through which His work is carried on (27, Romans 11:5). That S. Paul was combating an actual position—of the irreversible validity of the call of. Israel after the flesh—is shown by S. H. p. 249. But the question arises as to the justice of GOD in this discrimination; and this question is handled in the next section.

καθάπεργέγραπται. The words of the prophet are quoted to show that the actual course of history bore out the statement made to Rebecca. Jacob and his descendants had proved to be objects of GOD’S love, Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, objects of GOD’S hate. Malachi, as Genesis, refers to the nations.

ἐμίσησα. Only here in N.T., and here as a quotation, is the verb used to describe GOD’S attitude to a man or men; cf. Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 2:6. S. Paul uses the natural language of the Jew, in enforcing an argument based upon Jewish conceptions. It is essentially not Christian language. The truth underlying it is the necessary hatefulness of the character and conduct embodied in the history of Edom.

Romans 9:14

14. τίοὖνἐροῦμεν; introduces a difficulty, as in Romans 6:1.

μὴ …; Can there be unrighteousness in GOD? is this choice of persons mere προσωπολημψία? (Romans 2:11)? Cf. Romans 3:5, where the problem here worked out is just stated.

παρὰτῷθεῷ. Cf. Hort, S. James 1:17 = in GOD; παρὰ being used instead of ἐν from an instinct of reverence; cf. Mark 10:27; Romans 2:11.

μὴγένοιτο. Cf. Romans 3:4, Romans 6:1.

Romans 9:15

15. τῷΜωυσεῖγὰρκ.τ.λ = LXX[182] Exodus 33:19. In the original the force lies in the assertion of effective mercy. S. Paul applies it as asserting selective mercy (cf. 18). The mercy of GOD depends upon His Will. But how does this exclude the charge of unrighteousness, as γὰρ implies that it does?

It can only do so, on the unexpressed assumption that GOD’S Will is essentially and necessarily righteous; cf. Romans 3:6. But this is the very point raised by the objector: and we should have expected it to be expressed in the most explicit form. The context however shows that it is not the general mercy of GOD ‘over all His works’ which is here being considered, but His mercy in selecting human instruments for carrying out His work of redemption; ἔλεος is closely connected with χάρις (cf. Hort, 1 Pet. p. 30). Cf.

Romans 11:30 f.

[182] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

Romans 9:16

16. ἄραοὖν. It follows therefore on a consideration of the whole circumstances—a combination very frequent in Rom. (8) and once each in Gal., Ephesians , 1 and 2 Thes. only.

οὐτοῦθέλοντοςκ.τ.λ. Sc. ἡἐκλογήἐστιν: the choice for the particular service depends not on man’s will or effort, but on GOD’S mercy.

τρέχειν. Metaph. only in S. Paul and Hebrews 12:1. Cf. περιπατεῖν.

Romans 9:17

17. λέγειγὰρκ.τ.λ. Exodus 9:16 (LXX[183] ἕνεκεντούτουδιετηρήθηςἵνα … ἰσχύν …): apparently an independent translation of the Hebrew. εἰςτοῦτο points forward to ὅπως: ἐξήγειρα, “used of GOD calling up the actors on the stage of history; cf. Habakkuk 1:6; Zechariah 11:16; Jeremiah 27:21,” S. H. So Lipsius, Zahn, alibi Cf. ἀνέστησεν, Acts 9:41. Giff. takes ἐξηγ. = ‘I raised thee from thy sickness.’ Pharaoh is cited as an unwilling instrument of GOD’S mercy: in his case and person the purposes of GOD’S mercy and the revelation of His character (ὄνομα.) are secured, although the process involves for him a ‘hardening’: that is due to his attitude towards GOD’S purpose.

[183] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

Romans 9:18

18. σκληρύνει. Cf. Exodus 7:3; Exodus 7:22 alibi: the only place in N.T. where the hardening is directly attributed to GOD. Cf. Acts 19:9; Hebrews 3:8 alibi The ‘hardening,’ which is immediately the result of man’s own attitude, is so by reason of the conditions imposed in creation on man’s nature and consequently is an act of GOD; cf. Romans 1:24, Romans 11:8.

Romans 9:19

19. ἐρεῖςμοιοὖνκ.τ.λ. You will say to me, In this case what room is still left for faultfinding? If men are thus appointed to be instruments of GOD’S use whether for mercy or hardening, how can they be responsible? how can GOD find fault? The answer is, on the one hand, that the question cannot be properly raised by man as against GOD, because man has to accept the conditions of his creation, and on the other hand that the revelation of GOD’S wrath is itself turned by the patience of GOD into a revelation of mercy. The answer does not seem to us sufficient, for it still leaves the fundamental point unsolved—why are some men to be the subjects of the revelation of wrath in order that the mercy may be revealed in others? If moral responsibility is to be maintained, the cause of this difference must be seen to lie in the man himself.

But this is not brought out until we get to Romans 9:31 where the cause of Israel’s failure is named as want of faith. Can we use this particular instance to interpret the whole argument? If we are meant to, it is strange that it should be left so late, and unapplied to the general problem. The reason for this perhaps is that S. Paul’s mind is really absorbed in the particular problem of Israel, and does not attempt to elucidate, perhaps did not feel the weight of, the general problem. See Add.

Note, p. 222.

τῷγὰρβουλήματικ.τ.λ. The question assumes that the hardening is the primary purpose of GOD. The use of the term βούλημα slightly exaggerates the statement δνθέλεικ.τ.λ.; βούλομαι involving “volition guided by choice and purpose; θέλει expressing the mere fact of volition” (Hort, James, p. 32): but the distinction cannot be used to help the situation here.

ἀνθέστηκεν has ever succeeded in resisting (cf. Romans 13:12): if the hardening is GOD’S will, how can a man help it?

Romans 9:20

20. ὦἄνθρωπε. Cf. Romans 2:1; Romans 2:3; cf. James 2:20 only (Romans 9 :1 Timothy 6:11), thou that art mere man. For the idea cf. Wis 12:12.

μενοῦνγε. Cf. Romans 10:18; Philippians 3:8 only; μενοῦν, Luke 11:28. Corrective, ‘rather than put such a question consider …,’ Blass, p. 270.

ἀνταποκρινόμενος. Luke 14:6 only.

μὴἐρεῖτὸπλάσμακ.τ.λ. Isaiah 29:16; Isaiah 45:9; cf. Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 18:1-6; Sir 33:13; 2 Timothy 2:20-21. The metaphor emphasises the absurdity of the creature who quarrels with the conditions of his creation: and it brings out also again the point that man and, in particular here, nations are made for use and must subserve that use. It must not be pressed to the denial of spontaneity in man, which would be contrary to all S. Paul’s ethical teaching. Men are living or personal instruments.

Romans 9:21

21. εἰςτιμὴν for honourable use, εἰςἀτιμίαν for dishonourable use; of. 2 Tim. l.c[187]

[187] l.c. locus citatus

Romans 9:22

22. εἰδὲ.… No apodosis follows: the current is broken by the introduction of prophetic passages Romans 9:25 f. What apodosis was intended? The thought passes from the abstract relation of Creator to created to GOD’S actual government of men, as seen in His dealings with those who oppose and those who obey His Will: the principles of government are declared in the words ἤνεγκεν and προητοίμασεν, the attitude in π. μακροθυμία, the end in the revelation of GOD’S power and character, whether by wrath or mercy. The apodosis required, then, is some such appeal as ‘what fault can we find here?’ It should be remembered that the revelation of wrath is just as necessary for the moral education of man as the revelation of mercy. They are in fact the two sides of the shield.

θέλων = in willing, or while willing: the clear exhibition of wrath is one side of GOD’S revelation to man, and is given in the fact and consequences of sin; cf. Romans 1:18 f. The wrath of GOD towards sin is as true an outcome of His loving purpose for man, as is His pleasure in righteousness. The participle describes not the reason (because) nor a contrast (although), but the general condition under which the action of the main verb takes place.

ἐνδείξασθαιτὴνὀργὴν exactly |[188] Romans 1:18 = to give an instance of …; cf. Romans 3:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:16.

[188] | parallel to

γνωρίσαιτὀδυνατὸναὐ. γνωρίσαι = to bring to the knowledge of men. τὸδυνατὸν, His power seen in combating sin no less than in effecting righteousness.

ἤνεγκενσκεύηὀργῆς. Jeremiah 50 (27):25; Isaiah 13:5 (Heb.), but in both these passages the meaning is ‘brought out weapons by which to inflict His purpose of wrath.’ Here = ‘bore with … instruments of wrath’; cf. Romans 2:4, Romans 3:25-26; 2 Peter 3:9; 2 Peter 3:15 (Mayor cf[189] 1 Peter 3:20; Psalms 86:15; Isaiah 30:18 alibi). Cf. Exodus 34:6.

[189] confert

σκεύηὀργῆς. Instruments whose only use now is for the wrath of GOD. The image of the preceding verse is continued but the form is changed (ὀργῆς not εἰςὀργήν) = not ‘destined for wrath’ but fit only to exhibit or effect wrath (cf. S. H.). They have become so fit, by their own neglect of what they could know of GOD (cf. Romans 1:18 f.). So

κατηρτισμέναεἰςἀπώλειαν marks that their present state is the result of a course of preparation, and this must be found (again in accordance with Romans 1:18 f.) in their own conduct. Cf. Luke 6:40; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:12 (-μός). ἀπώλειαν )[191] σωτηρίαν, cf. Romans 1:32; Matthew 7:13; Philippians 3:19; 1 Timothy 6:9.

[191] )( opposed to

Romans 9:23

23. ἵναγνωρίσῃ. The object of the patience of GOD is to bring home to men’s minds ‘the wealth of His glory’; cf. Romans 11:32-33. ἵνα depends on ἤνεγκεν. The patience effected this object, because the mercy was revealed in spite of the opposition of sinners, such as Pharaoh or unfaithful Israel; and was recognised as all the more abundant because of that opposition. The redemption of Israel from Egypt, and the saving of a remnant and call of the Gentiles, were all the more signal triumphs of GOD’S purpose for the opposition that was overcome. Hence the emphatic τὸνπλ. τ. δ.

If καὶ is read before ἵνα, (as S. H.), we may take the final clause either (1) as practically connected with ἐνπολλῇμακροθυμίᾳ ‘bore with much long-suffering and with the object of making known’ (so S. H.); but the sequence is disjointed; or (2) as connected with ἐνδείξασθαι, wishing to give an instance of His wrath and to make known His grace; where we have the same combination of constructions as in 1 Corinthians 14:5; and the sequence is good: but the intervention of the main clause makes this very difficult, though perhaps not impossible.

τὸνπλοῦτοντῆςδόξης. πλ. specially characteristic of Eph. and Col.: but cf. also Romans 2:4, Romans 11:33; Philippians 4:19: = the inexhaustible abundance. δόξα here of the revelation of GOD’S character in His dealings with man, in thought closely |[192] Ephesians 2:7: the great acts of redemption reveal GOD to man. Cf. Ephesians 1:18.

[192] | parallel to

ἐπί. Towards or over as in Ephesians 2:7: depends on the whole of the preceding phrase.

σκεύηἐλέους |[193] σκεύηὀργῆς, instruments fit for the use of His mercy; such as He can use for His merciful purposes.

[193] | parallel to

ἃπροητοίμασεν. Which instruments He prepared beforehand for bringing about this revelation of Himself. For the word cf. Ephesians 2:10 only. The σκ. ἐλ. are prepared by GOD Himself; the σκ. ὀργῆς make themselves so, by rejecting His methods of preparation. The reference is to the training through history and life, not to ‘election,’ Gift.

εἰςδόξαν. δ. must have the same meaning as in the preceding clause = for revelation of His purpose and character. The thought of final glorification is not included here; cf. Romans 8:30.

Romans 9:24

24. οὓςκαὶἐκάλεσεν. The attraction of οὓς (to ἡμᾶς) marks the turn of thought from regarding the persons as instruments to regarding the instruments as persons: the personal agency of men comes out.

ἡμᾶς. Even us, or in us—or perhaps—which He actually called us to be.

οὐμόνονκ.τ.λ. Here the underlying thought of the whole passage becomes explicit: and its importance is marked by the anacoluthon: instead of finishing his sentence S. Paul goes on at once to illustrate the fact of this call from prophetic sayings. It may also be that he shrank from enforcing his argument that the unbelieving Jews were σκεύηὀργῆς.

Romans 9:25

25. Hosea 2:23. The original refers to the restoration of the ten tribes, who had fallen from their privileged state. S. Paul applies this to the inclusion in the privileged state of Gentiles who had not possessed it; on the principle that, if GOD could bring back the disowned, He could call in those who had not before been called. Cf. 1 Peter 2:10 (and Hort’s note).

Romans 9:26

26. Hosea 1:10 describes the reunion of Israel into one nation under one head: again S. Paul extends the reference.

ἐντῷτόπῳ = Palestine in Hosea: here = the countries of the Gentiles.

θεοῦζῶντος. Cf. Acts 14:15; Westcott on Hebrews 3:12.

Romans 9:27

27. The next two quotations justify the claim that Israel’s call survives in a remnant.

Isaiah 10:22. The context speaks of a remnant saved by trust in GOD. LXX[194] is followed but slightly altered; the first phrase is from Hosea 1:10, a clear proof that the quotations were from memory (or from a catena?).

[194] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

τὸὑπόλιμμα. Sc. only the remnant.

Romans 9:28

28. λόγονγὰρσυντελῶνκ.τ.λ. Cf. Isaiah 28:22 = LXX[195] πράγματα: λόγον w. ποιήσει, ‘shall effect a reckoning upon earth, completely and briefly.’

[195] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

Romans 9:29

29. Isaiah 1:9 = LX[196].

[196] LXX the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

Romans 9:30

30. τίοὖνἐροῦμεν; Cf. Romans 8:31.

ὅτικ.τ.λ. introduces the answer to the question: but the answer is incomplete till the second subsidiary question 32 διὰτί is answered.

διώκοντα … κατέλαβεν, pursuing … overtook; cf. Philippians 3:12; Exodus 15:9; Field, ad lo[197].

[197] ad loc ad locum

δικαιοσύνηνδὲκ.τ.λ. Corrective = a righteousness given by GOD in response to faith, not as a result of works nor as yet worked out in life; cf. Romans 1:17.

Romans 9:31

31. Ἰσραὴλ. The name of privilege; cf. on Romans 9:4.

νόμονδικαιοσύνης. A law embodying righteousness, almost = a legal righteousness; cf. Romans 2:23, Wis 2:11.

ἔφθασεν did not reach; of. 2 Corinthians 10:14; Philippians 3:16. Only in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 does the idea of anticipation certainly occur.

Romans 9:32

32. διὰτί; Sc. οὐκἔφθασεν.

ὅτι. Sc. ἐδίωκεν. ὡςἐξἔργων = with the idea that they could attain by starting from works.

τῷλίθῳτοῦπ. Allusion to Isaiah 8:14, LXX[198] λίθονπρόσκομμα. The sense in Isaiah is that the Lord of Hosts will be a sanctuary for Israel if they trust in Him; they will not then find Him as a stone to stumble against. The absence of faith makes Him so.

[198] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

Romans 9:33

33. Isaiah 28:16, LXX[199] with λιθ. π. κ. π. ς. substituted for λίθονπολυτελῆκ.τ.λ. and other slighter variations; cf. Romans 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 (see Hort).

[199] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

In the original, the stone is the Divine King or Kingdom of Israel (in contrast with alien alliances), the recognition of which is to steady the mind of the people: the trust in its divine mission will not be baffled by disappointment (cf. Hort, l.[200]). The Apostolic interpretation sees this ‘stone’ in the Messiah, recognising as so often in Christ the fulfilment of what had been said of the true Israel. A good instance of the re-interpretation of O.T. in the light of Christian experience (cf. Matthew 21:42 parallels; Acts 4:11 qu. Psalms 118:22).

S. H. refer to Justin M. (Dial. 36, p. 122 l. 34, p. 112 D, Otto) and suggest that λίθος was a name for the Messiah among the Jews from an early (? pre-Christian) date. The point of the quotation here is that the Jews instead of trusting in this stone (of foundation for the true Israel, cf. Ephesians 2:20) had taken offence at it as revealed in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:23) and trusting instead in their own works had come to grief. The tendency of Judaism at this time, in St Paul’s view, was to trust in their performances of law instead of drawing life from communion with the living GOD; the rejection of the Messiah was the culminating instance of this tendency. This reason, why Israel εἰςνόμονοὐκἔφθασεν, suggests that Christ is the fulfiller of law; so cf.

Romans 10:4; Matthew 5:17; James 1:25.

[200] l.c locus citatus

καταισχυνθήσεται. Shall not be shamed by being disappointed in the object of trust; cf. Romans 9:5; 2 Corinthians 7:14; 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 10:8.