Romans 9

Chap. IX. Ver. 1—16. Paul’s deep concern for the salvation of his countrymen:—believers Abraham’s true seed.—In the opening of this chapter all commentators are agreed that the apostle meant to express, in the strongest terms, his attachment to his Jewish brethren, though they are much divided in their interpretations of his phraseology. We shall mention here only two or three of them, which we consider as the most probable. Dr. John Edwards, taking the words as they lie in our translation, thus paraphrases them: ‘For such is my affection, that, if it were lawful and consistent, I could wish that I myself were anathema, that is, separated from Christ, (so Marg.;) or (after his example) subjected to all temporal miseries, or even eternal, for the salvation of my brethren.”

This, however, must be considered as a strong hyperbole; for surely nothing could reconcile Paul to the idea of eternal separation from his Lord and Master. (See on (Exodus 32:33).) Others therefore, confine the anathema to temporal calamities united with ecclesiastical excommunication, a punishment which the Jews considered in a light so serious, that their relations fasted and went into mourning for them. (Orient. Lit. No. 1464.) Many, however, render the words more literally, and, by enclosing part of them in a parenthesis, read the passage thus— “I have…. continual sorrow in my heart (for I once did wish myself anathema from Christ) for my brethren, my kinsmen,” &c., thus making the recollection of his past state before conversion, when he gloried in his opposition to Christ, and probably imprecated on himself the most dreadful curses if ever he should believe in him, the ground both of his distress and of his supplications on their behalf.

St. Paul now enumerates the peculiar privileges of the Hebrews, (more fully than in (Romans 3),) among which he reckons the shechinah, or the glory which attended the tabernacle and temple in ancient time, but of which they had long since been deprived by their sins; and crowns the climax by a reference to the Messiah, as descended from their fathers: “Of (or from) whom Christ came, (or descended,) who is over all, God blessed for ever: Amen.” In this his object appears to be, to turn their attention from the crucified Nazarene, whom they despised, to the exalted Saviour whom he adored, and recommended to their faith. The inspired writer now returns to his former topic, (Romans 3:3). ‘‘What (said he) if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?”

So here, ‘‘Now it is not possible that the word of God should have failed” of its effect; but ‘‘they are not all Israel,’ in the true sense of the word, that are of the posterity of Jacob; nor “because they are the seed of Abraham, are they therefore all children” of the promise, for the promise was limited to the seed of Isaac, saying, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.’ And, again, when Isaac had two children, the younger was preferred: ‘‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” We have, however, before had occasion to observe, on (Luke 14:26), that the term hate is not always to be taken absolutely, for no man is bound “to hate his own flesh;” but the text before us is quoted from (Malachi 1:3), where it evidently means that God loved Jacob in a sense in which he did not love Esau; and gave to his posterity the land of Canaan, with many privileges that were given to no other nation. And this preference of Jacob to Esau, was declared before the birth of either, that it might not be supposed dependent on the conduct of the individual; but the result of mere favour. This instance of the divine conduct is here given to show, that neither the blessings of providence nor grace are given in consideration of human merit; but according to his own words, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” So God bestows or withholds his favours as he thinks proper; and salvation is ‘‘not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth;”

that is, the blessings of providence, and, by analogy, those of grace also, depend not on man, but on God only. To apply this doctrine to the argument before us, the dispensation of the gospel was given neither to Jews nor Gentiles under any consideration of their merits or deserts; but merely because such was the good pleasure of God, who claims the right to confer his blessings as he pleases. Ver. 17—33. God’s judgments on Pharaoh and the unbelieving Jews, and his mercy to the Gentiles.—Another case, of a nature somewhat different, is now brought forward in the person of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. There were possibly other kings as wicked as Pharaoh, and equally meriting the divine displeasure; but as Jehovah had selected Jacob to display his gratuitous mercy to himself and his posterity, so Pharaoh was raised up by the Almighty, in order to display in him the divine power as superior to the highest throne on earth, and the divine wisdom as confounding even that of Egypt: that thus the name of Jehovah might be “declared throughout all the (then known habitable) earth.”

And comparing this instance with that of Jacob above mentioned, in the one, (Jacob,) the God of Israel exhibited his sovereignty in showing mercy to whom he pleased, and preparing him as a vessel of mercy for his glory; and in the other, (Pharaoh,) by making his power known, after much long-suffering, in executing his wrath on those who had previously fitted themselves for destruction, as was the case with Pharaoh. It is indeed said of the Lord, in verse 18, that “whom he will he hardeneth; and in the history of Pharaoh, it is repeatedly remarked, (in Exodus, ch. ix. 12; x. 1, &c.,) that the Lord “hardened Pharaoh’s heart.’ In addition to what we have there remarked on this event, we now add the following observations from the late judicious Mr.

Fuller. ‘‘God is said to do that which is done upon the minds of men by the ordinary influence of second causes, which causes would not have been productive of such effects but for their depravity. The hardness of clay, no less than the softness of wax, is ascribed to the sun; yet the sun’s producing either of these effects is entirely owing to the qualities of the object on which it shines. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, by so ordering things in his providence, that certain considerations should present themselves to his mind when under certain circumstances, and which (he being righteously given up of God) would be certain to provoke his pride and resentment, and to determine him to run all risks, for the sake of having his will.

In other words, God led him into temptation, and there, in just judgment, left him to its influence.” But here arises an objection—If God hardens the hearts of sinners, “Why doth he yet find fault?”—“The apostle had justly concluded (says Cox) that God might bestow his favours on whom and according to what terms he judged fit, and permit those who rejected such terms to be hardened. A caviller might, however, object that the continuance of the Jews in a state of disobedience, was the consequence of the determination of God to leave them to themselves; and hence might arrogantly demand, How God could still find fault with them? To such an objector the apostle indignantly rejoins. ‘Nay, but, O man, who art thou,’ with all thy imagined wisdom and discernment, ‘who enterest into a debate with God?

If God for a season spare wicked persons, who, by filling up the measure of their iniquities, have fitted themselves for destruction, that he may deduce greater good for those who, by his grace are prepared for glory, viz. for the believing Gentiles, as well as for the remnant of believers among the Jews,—have the repudiated Jews any reason to complain? May not a sovereign, without injustice, delay the execution of a criminal, if such delay appear to him likely to be beneficial to his obedient subjects, and calculated to subserve some important purpose for the welfare of his kingdom in general? God had thus acted in the case of Pharaoh, and He was about to do the same in the case of the Jews.

The apostle then shows that the calling of the Gentiles in general, and the rejection of many of the Jews for their unbelief, had been plainly predicted by the prophets, so that any objections and the Jews might raise against the equity of the divine proceedings in these respects, would at once be futile and anti-scriptural. Some learned men, indeed, wish to confine all that is here said to the dealings of Providence with nations only, on which Scott remarks—“It is wonderful that the great Locke should confidently assert, that the apostle here speaks of men nationally and not personally, in reference to their eternal estate; when the rejection of the Jewish nation, with the reservation of ‘a remnant, according to the election of grace,’ was the apostle’s main subject, to illustrate which all the other examples are introduced.

‘This remnant consisted of a small number of individuals, not of a nation; and the Gentile converts were individuals out of their several nations, forming, with the Jewish converts, the Christian church: and not whole nations, or one whole nation, chosen, as a collective body, to succeed to the external advantages, which the nation of Israel had forfeited: and surely ‘the vessels of mercy before prepared unto glory,’ which the apostle next mentions, must have been chosen, not to external advantages, but to eternal life.”

Notes on the verses

Ver. 33. Who shall lay any thing, &c.—Doddridge, ‘‘Who shall lodge any accusation against,’’ &c.—It is God.—Dr. S. Harris (who is followed by Doddridge, Newcome, Boothroyd, &c.) renders the whole of this and the following verse interrogatively, as follows—*Who shall lodge any accusation against the elect of God? Shall God who justifieth? Who is he that condemneth? Shall Christ who died?” &c.. Ver. 37. More than conquerors—i.e. we enjoy a triumph, with which none but conquerors of the first class were honoured. The following passage has been quoted from Demosthenes, (De Corona, § 92,) as somewhat parallel with this of St. Paul, ver. 38. “‘As for me,” says Demosthenes, “neither tempting opportunity, nor insinuating speech, nor great promises; nor hope, nor fear, nor favour, nor any other thing, has ever induced me to betray my country, or to forbear doing what I thought would contribute to its advancement and cause.

IX. Ver. 1. I say the truth in Christ—i.e. I speak as a Christian, and as an apostle of Christ. But Smith explains this as an appeal to Christ in the nature of an oath. Ver. 3. [could wish—i.e.] “If it were lawful and consistent,” says Edwards, ‘supposing the indicative to be here used for the optative, of which there are some examples. Waterland, who is followed by Doddridge, approves this, but instead of rendering the Greek preposition (apo) “from,” renders it, “after the example of Christ;” for which, however, we think 1 Tim. i, 3 (the only text cited) very insufficient authority. Taking the words in the indicative, we may remark, that the verb (ewcomai) is used for to wish, desire, pray, vow, and even glory; (see Jones’s (Leviticus 10);) all which apply to St.

Paul’s state of enmity to Christ prior to his conversion, when he gloried in his opposition to our Saviour. See an elaborate article in defence of this interpretation in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor for April, 1815, i p. Ver. 4. To whom pertaineth.—Doddridge, “Whose (is) the adoption;” that is, the privilege of being reckoned the children of Abraham and of God.—The glory—i.e. the shechinah, or pillar of light and fire, which resided first on the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple.—The service of God.—Doddridge, “the (temple) service.” Ver. 5. As concerning the flesh.—Greek, ‘According to the flesh.” See (Romans 1:3). For a suitable defence of this passage against the Unitarians, see Smith’s Messiah, vol.

ii. - Ver. 6. Not as though, &c.—That is, “I speak not as though &c. Macknight,“Now it is possible that the promise of God hath fallen.” It is a metaphor taken from ships missing their port, &c. Ver. 11. Neither because they are the seed, &c. brs (Romans 4:12, 14), Ver. 21. Hath not the potter.—Doddridge remarks, that Plutarch has used the same similitude. But see (Jeremiah 18:6). Ver. 22. What if God, &c.—This (says Pres. Edwards) is spoken of as the end of the day of judgment, which is the time appointed for the highest exercise of God’s authority as moral governor of the world, and is the day of the consummation of God’s moral government with respect to all his subjects in heaven, earth, or hell.”——Fitted.—The original, being in the middle voice, implies, that they fitted themselves.—Macknight.

[The Apostle, by employing the appellation of the vessels of wrath, carries on the similitude of the potter, by which he had illustrated the sovereignty of God.]—Bagster. Ver. 28. Finish the work.—Doddridge, “cutting short his account,” &c.—Upon the earth—Or ‘‘land;” namely of Israel, Ver. 30. Which followed not after.—The terms here used are agonistical. To “follow after,” or pursue, was to engage in the races—to attain, was to gain the prize, which was righteousness, or justification; which the unbelieving soul lost by stumbling, verse 32.