Romans 9

Romans 9:1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit,—Paul having shown that the works of the Jewish law could not save sinners, but that they must be saved by the obedience of faith, by walking in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, and that the Jews and Gentiles alike stand condemned without faith in Christ Jesus, lest the Jews might think Paul had been estranged from them, he calls Christ and the Holy Spirit to witness the truth of the assurance of his love for them. [Some claim that this is a solemn oath, but this interpretation is not supported by the best exegetes, as is attested by the following: Moses E. Lard says: “ The expression is no oath, but merely a strong form of asseverating truth. The meaning is: ‘ I speak the truth as in Christ and accountable to him. As much as to say: those who are in Christ are under the most solemn obligations, whenever they speak at all, to speak the truth; and now I speak under a full sense of this obligation.’ ” Philip Schaff: “ The asseveration of the apostle is threefold, and is introduced abruptly, without a conjunction, in accordance with the feeling which prompts it. ‘ In Christ’ is not an adjuration (the form of an oath in Greek would be entirely different), but means in fellowship with Christ, the element in which he lives. Such fellowship with him who is the truth implies the sincerity of one who enjoys it.” H. A.

W. Meyer: “ The explanation adopted by most of the older commentaries of ‘ en’ in the sense of adjuration is a perfectly arbitrary departure from the man­ner of the apostle, who never swears by Christ, and also from Greek usage.” Charles Hodge: “ These words are not to be taken as an oath.” ]Romans 9:2that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.—The cause of Paul’ s sorrow and anguish of heart for the Jews was because they rejected Christ and were not in a saved state. [How noble Paul appears here, with his hearty love for those who from the day of his conversion had perse­cuted him with relentless hatred!]Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ—It is not possible that Paul really desired to be accursed from God to save the Jewish people, had it been possible for this to save them.

The mother sometimes in anguish for the loss of a child says: “ O, I could die to save my child!” She does not mean that she really desires to do this; but if she were led only by her feeling of love for her child, she would give her life for it. But there are other considerations that hinder her willingness to do this. There are other children and dear ones to live for. The obligations she is under to her friends and to God and to herself hinder the doing what the love for the child alone made her feel she would do. So, were Paul to act from his intense love for his Jewish brethren alone, it would prompt him to give up Christ himself, if thereby he could save them. But there are other considerations that would hinder his acting on these, even if that would save them (which it would not).

Paul was expressing the intensity of his love for them.for my brethren’ s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:—[Notice the tender way in which the apostle characterizes the Jews. His sorrow for them had its basis in the fact that apart from Christ they were exposed to the wrath of God and on the road to eternal death.

It was this grief at the loss of men, this intense yearning for their salvation, that made Paul the preacher that he was.]Romans 9:4who are Israelites;—They were the children of Israel and heirs of the promises made to him. The name “Israelite” was for the Jew his especial badge and title of honor. To be de­scendants of Abraham, this honor they must share with the Ishmaelites (Genesis 16:15); of Abraham and Isaac, with the Edomites (Genesis 25:26); but none except themselves were the seed of Jacob, such as in this name of Israelite they were de­clared to be. Nor was this all, but, more gloriously still, their descent was herein traced up to him, not as he was Jacob, but as he was Israel, who, as a Prince, had power with God and with men, and prevailed (Genesis 32:28). That this title was accounted the noblest we have ample proof. When Paul uses this name, he reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above all the Messiah was to come, who, when he has come, are apparently cut off from all share in the privileges of his kingdom.whose is the adoption,—They had been adopted as chil­dren of God. [Out of all nations God chose Israel to stand in a special relation to him as his children.

Of this adoption the deliverance from Egypt was the immediate result. Je­hovah said to Moses: “ And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus said Jehovah, Israel is my son, my firstborn: and I have said unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me.” (Exodus 4:22-23).

Sonship with an Israelite was purely na­tional, not individual, and, therefore, no guarantee of salva­tion. Its mark was in the flesh, not in the spirit; and though a peculiar distinction within itself, and implying much, it is entitled to no honor under Christ. To his hereditary son­ship an Israelite had still to add sonship in Christ, as really as the humblest Gentile; otherwise he was lost.]and the glory,—[The supernatural brightness in which God manifested his presence on Sinai. (Exodus 24:16-17). This glory appeared to Moses, and communicated itself, in a measure, to him; so that when he came down from the mountain his face shone (Exodus 34:29-35), and at times on the tent of meeting (Exodus 29:43; Exodus 40:34-35), and on the mercy seat of the ark (Leviticus 16:2). These were peculiar to the Israelites.]and the covenants,—The covenants which God made with Abraham (Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:2; Genesis 17:4; Genesis 17:7-11), and afterwards renewed to Isaac (Genesis 26:24), to Jacob (Genesis 28:13; Genesis 28:15), and to the whole people of Israel (Exodus 24:7-8). [These gracious cove­nants, expressing God’ s purposes and plans, were renewed upon each successive occasion, with growing fullness and definiteness.]and the giving of the law,—The law of Moses was given to them. [The reference here, no doubt, alludes not only to the contents of the law, but to the manner in which God gave it. Never before was the Supreme Being manifested with such outward signs of terror and majesty. “ Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?” (Deuteronomy 4:33).]and the service of God,—[It was an especial honor that God had bestowed upon them that he prescribed their service in the tabernacle and temple even to the minutest particulars.

He showed Moses the pattern of the tabernacle, and he raised up men specially endowed by his Spirit with wisdom to carry out his directions. (Exodus 35:30-35). He ordained the priests and the ministry, the sacrifices, the altar, and all the vessels of the service.]and the promises;—They were the heirs of the promises made through Abraham for the salvation of the world. [The promise of the Messiah was a possession of Israel in the sense that it was to be fulfilled exclusively through, though not exclusively for, Israel.]Romans 9:5whose are the fathers,—The reference is probably espe­cially to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom God delighted to honor and whose names have been preserved for all ages. [To have sprung from such forefathers was one of the most cher­ished thoughts of an Israelite. (2 Corinthians 11:22).

These sacred persons are now mentioned, after the previous sacred things, so as to usher in the mention of the Christ himself.]and of whom is Christ—[This is placed as the crowning and most exalted privilege: that their nation had given birth to the long-expected Messiah, the hope of the world.]as concerning the flesh,—[This implies, of course, that he had another nature besides his human, or that while he was a man, he was also something else; that there was a nature in him which was not descended from “the fathers.” That this is the meaning will still further appear by noticing the im­portant distinctions so carefully expressed by Paul’ s words and even by their exact order— “of whom is Christ as con­cerning the flesh.” Christ is not in the same sense as the patriarchs the peculiar property of the Israelites, “whose are the fathers.” He springs, indeed, from their race, but he “is over all” ; and not only is his Israelitish origin thus con­trasted with his universal supremacy, but it is expressly lim­ited by his human nature. The closing emphasis of the clause falls upon the words, “as concerning the flesh,” which points onward to their natural contrast in the aspect of his person, who is “God blessed forever.” ]who is over all,—In this view of the passage, as a testi­mony to the supreme divinity of Christ, the whole revelation of God attests, as the following clearly shows: God, the Father, is the basis of all life (1 Corinthians 8:6); and “as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself: and he gave him authority to execute judg­ment, because he is a son of man.” (John 5:26-27). The “image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Still, even as the image of God, the Son is perfectly expressive of the divine being. “ In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9). He is “in the form of God” and “on an equality with God.” (Philippians 2:6). He is expressly called “God our Saviour” (Titus 1:3) and “the great God and our Sav­iour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Accordingly, the Son is also the object of adoration to angels and men. (Philippians 2:10). These Scriptures, with many others, declare that Jesus Christ was with the Father, in the bosom of the Godhead, before the worlds were created; that he was the counselor of the God­head; that he was God, as divine and necessarily of the same nature and being as God, the Father.

All power and might that pertain to the Godhead were delivered to the Son. He was clothed with all authority “ in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18). All the power of the Father is concentrated in him.God blessed for ever. Amen.—[An ascription of praise to Christ is here especially suitable, in view of his being set at naught by the Israelites, and is exactly in line with Paul’ s method, as indicated in chapter 1:25, where, in contrast with the dishonor heaped upon God by the Gentiles, the affirmation is made that he “ is blessed for ever.” A doxology to God would not fit in with the anguish at Israel’ s rejection, to which Paul gives utterance in this paragraph; on the other hand, the words, referred to Christ, whom the Israelites re­jected in spite of his dignity, give a reason for his anguish.]

Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought.—The Israelites, having received the word of God and these privileges and honors, then having rejected Jesus Christ, does not prove that the word of God had taken no effect. [The word of God here must be taken comprehensively of all the promises to Abraham and to his seed.]For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:—All those who were of the family of Abraham after the flesh did not belong to his true family, and were not the children of the promises.

Romans 9:7neither, because they are Abraham’ s seed, are they all children:—Neither does their being of his family make them all the true children according to the promise. [Paul’ s object is to show that the promises made to the children of Abraham were not made to his natural descendants as such.]but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.—The promise was to the seed of Isaac, not to the children of Ishmael or to the sons of Keturah. Abraham had many descendants of these families to whom the promise was not made. Only to the children of Isaac were the promises.

Romans 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God;—All the children of Abraham after the flesh were not children of God. [This explains the principle on which God acted in making Isaac, but not Ishmael, the heir of Abra­ham’ s promise. The children merely of the flesh were not in the past accepted of God as his children. On the contrary, they were cast out, as was the case with Ishmael.]but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.— Only those who came through Isaac are counted as seed. [All other children of Abraham were children of the flesh. Their only relation to him was outward and according to natural laws. Physical connection with him was not in itself a ground of inheriting the promise.]Romans 9:9 For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.—The promise as made to Abraham was made to the son of Sarah, born at the time appointed. [In verse 6 the unbelieving Israelites are sup­posed to claim the blessings of the covenant, on the ground that these blessings were promised to Abraham’ s children, and to say if they are excluded from the kingdom of God, the word of God will fall to the ground. This claim rests on the assumption that all Abraham’ s descendants have a right to the covenant; but Paul proves that this right was not ad­mitted by God in the case of Abraham’ s children.

There­fore, the claim made based upon it by the Israelites is invalid. Nay, more, the claim of the unbelieving Israelites is precisely the same as that of Ishmael; but believers have a position similar to that of Isaac.

The gospel being true, God is only acting in reference to Israel’ s son as he acted of old in refer­ence to the sons of Abraham; for the gospel announces that only believers are heirs of the promise, for “ they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7); “ and if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’ s seed, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:29).]Romans 9:10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac—The promise was not only re­stricted to the son of Sarah, but when Rebecca had conceived by Isaac, there was still further restriction of the promise to Jacob and not to Esau, as set forth in the next verse. [This case is more significant than the former. We are now in the pure line of Abraham by Isaac, the ancestor from whom is the promised seed; and yet his wife sees the divine selection which had been exercised to the sons of Abraham reproduced as between her own children. The expression, “ by one,” is occasioned by the contrast here to the case of Isaac and Ish­mael. Then there were two mothers, which might justify the preference accorded to Isaac. Here, where the children were of the same mother, the only possible difference would have been on the father’ s side. But as the case was one of twins, the commonness of origin was complete.

No external motive of preference could, therefore, influence the divine choice.]Romans 9:11for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,—Before the twins were born God said that the older should serve the younger. The natural and usual order was re­versed.

God saw the characters of the two children, and chose the younger to become the head of the chosen race because he would trust God rather than the other. It was not on account of the works of their own that either might do, but Jacob would trust God and obey him. Those who do this, God always selects as his beloved. But the restriction of the promise to the family of Jacob is here the point.Romans 9:12it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.—[There is no account of Esau’ s ever having personally served Jacob. The reference, then, must be to their respective pos­terities, and with this agree the facts of history. It is said of David that he put garrisons throughout Edom, and that “ all the Edomites became servants of David.” (1 Chronicles 18:13).

Under Joram they revolted (2 Kings 8:20), but were defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7), and Elath was taken from them by Azariah (2 Kings 14:22). Indeed, the Edomites were long subject to the kings of Israel, the latter often slaying them in great numbers.

They seem to have taken special delight in cultivating Esau’ s hatred of Jacob, and they never let pass an opportunity to display it. From the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Edomites, as a separate people, disappear from the pages of history.]Romans 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.—Many think this was written before the children were born, but this is not correct. Yet it is true that God foretold that Esau, the older, should serve Jacob, the younger, before they were born. This was, no doubt, made because God, seeing the end from the beginning, saw that Jacob would trust and serve him and that Esau would not. To “ love” and “ hate” as God uses the terms means to approve or disapprove, to bless or curse.Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

God forbid.—Because God chose Jacob before he was born, shall we say that he is unrighteous? Did he deal by partiality or favoritism and not by the rule of right which he revealed through Peter when he said: “ Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him” ? (Acts 10:34-35). [Paul now shows that the Scrip­tures approve this liberty, and these Scriptures, reverenced by the Israelitish objector to whom he is writing, would not as­sign injustice to God.

The argument is wholly scriptural.]Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have com­passion.—This language was spoken to Moses (Exodus 33:19), and is quoted to prove that selection is not after the flesh nor according to the inventions and works of men, but according to the will of God; and God wills to elect these who trust and follow him, not those who trust their fleshly relations nor their own wise works. When the people trusted and obeyed God, he had mercy on them; when they refused to trust and follow him, he refused to have mercy upon them. This was so universally understood to be the law of God that Solomon put it in a proverb: “ He that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13). The whole dealings of God with man under the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations illus­trate and enforce this truth. When God says, “ I will have mercy on whom I will,” he means that he will have mercy on those who confess and turn from their sins and transgressions, and nothing that others may do will turn him from it.Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that run­neth, but of God that hath mercy.—He illustrates what he means by the case of Jacob and Esau. Isaac willed that Esau should inherit the blessing, and Esau ran with haste to obtain the venison for his father that he might have the blessing; but neither Isaac’ s will nor Esau’ s running could defeat the purpose of God to bless Jacob.

If Esau had possessed the character approved by God, God would have willed to bless him; but as he did not possess the character approved by God, his father’ s anxiety for him to have the blessing could not secure it.Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very pur­pose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power,—God never raised up nor caused Pharaoh to do what he did, or any wickedness, in the sense of making him wicked. “ But in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand, to show thee my power.” (Exodus 9:16). This does not say that God raised him up that Pharaoh should do anything, but that God might show his power in destroying one so wicked as was Pharaoh, and in destroying him he might give clear evidence that he will destroy every one who so sins against him, and in punishing in so clear and unmistakable a manner one so powerful for his sins against God’ s humble people.

After Pharaoh of his own will had done evil, been wicked, com­mitted high crimes against God and God’ s people, God made a public example of him, punished him in a public way, and raised him up before the world, so that the whole world could see the punishment was inflicted by God and for Pharaoh’ s wickedness. So he raised the wicked Pharaoh up before the world to show that all the power of all the Egyptian throne could not defeat his purpose.and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.—Thus did God cause his name to be declared through­out the whole earth as the avenger of his own people. [The judgment of God on the Egyptians consisted in the plagues, whereby the nation was well-nigh destroyed; and the fame of these plagues, and the safe passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, and the destruction of the Egyptians therein, struck terror to the nations around, as is indicated by the many references to them. The words sung after the passage of the Red Sea: “ The peoples have heard, they tremble: pangs have taken hold on the inhabitants of Philistia. Then were the chiefs of Edom dismayed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling taketh hold upon them: all the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away.” (Exodus 15:14-15). Also the words of Rahab to the spies sent by Joshua: “ The fear of you is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. For we have heard how Jehovah dried up the water of the Red Sea before you, when ye came out of Egypt. . . .

For Jehovah your God, he is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath.” (Joshua 2:9-11). So also the words of the Gibeonites: “ From a very far country thy servants are come because of the name of Jehovah thy God: for we have heard the fame of him, and all that he did in Egypt.” (Joshua 9:9).

Thus it was that the catastrophe which distinguished the going out of Egypt, provoked by Pharaoh’ s blind resistance, paved the way for the conquest of Canaan. And even to the present day, wherever throughout the world Exodus is read, the divine intention is realized: “ To show my power, and make known my name throughout all the earth.” ]Romans 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will,—God has mercy on those who trust him that they may be saved.and whom he will he hardeneth.—Pharaoh is an example of those that are hardened that they may be destroyed. [From this example is deduced the principle that no man can say: “ I am, whatever I may do, safe from the judgment of God, or such another, whatever he may do, is unworthy of the divine favor.” The Israelites thought that in no case could they be abandoned by God, and in no case could the Gentiles be received by him. Paul here shows that they are grievously mistaken. The history of the hardening of Pharaoh was, no doubt, well fixed in the minds of all the Israelites. God, in raising him up, foresaw his proud resistance, and has in re­serve to chastise it afterwards by a complete blindness which was to be the means of reaching the desired result. To harden is to take from a man the sense of the true, the just, and even the useful, so that he is no longer open to the wise admonitions and significant circumstances which should turn him aside from the evil way on which he has entered.

The word “ harden” cannot signify, in the account (Exodus 4:1 to Exodus 14:9), anything else as God’ s act than it signifies as the act of Pharaoh when it is said he hardened himself. But what must not be forgotten, and what appears distinctly from the whole narrative, is that Pharaoh’ s hardening was at first his own act.

Five times it is said of him that he himself hardened his heart (Exodus 7:13-14; Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:15; Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:7), before the time when at last it is said that God hardened his heart (Exodus 9:12) ; and even after that, as if a remnant of liberty still re­mained to him, it is said for the last time that he hardened himself (Exodus 9:34-35). Then at length, as if by way of a terrible retribution, God hardened him five times. (Exodus 10:1; Exodus 10:20; Exodus 10:27; Exodus 11:10; Exodus 14:8). Thus he at first closed his heart obstinately against the influence exercised on him by the summonses of Moses and the first chastisements which over­took him— that was his sin; and thereafter, but still within limits, God rendered him deaf not merely to the voice of justice, but that of sound sense and simple prudence— that was his punishment. Far, then, from its having been God who urged to evil, God punished him with the most terrible chastisements for the evils to which he voluntarily gave him­self up.In this expression, “ hardening,” we find the same idea as in “ God gave them up,” by which the apostle expressed God’ s judgment on the Gentiles, “ because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God.” (Romans 1:21). When man has willfully quenched the light he has received and the first rebukes of divine mercy, and when he persists in giving him­self up to his evil course, there comes a time when God with­draws from him the beneficent action of his grace. The man becomes insensible even to the counsels of prudence.

He has rejected salvation for himself; he was free to do so; but he cannot prevent God from now making use of him and of his ruin to advance the salvation of others. From being the end he is degraded to the rank of means.

Such was the lot of Pharaoh. Egypt saw clearly whither his mad resistance tended. His magicians told him: “ This is the finger of God.” (Exodus 8:19). His servants said to him: “ How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go.” (Exodus 10:7). He himself, after every plague, felt his heart relent. He even went the length of exclaiming: “ I have sinned this time: Jeho­vah is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.” (Exodus 9:27). Now was the decisive instant; for the last time after this moment of softening he hardened himself. (Exodus 9:34). Then the righteousness of God took hold of him.

He had refused to glorify God actively; he must glorify him passively. The Israelites of Paul’ s day did not disapprove of this conduct on God’ s part as long as it concerned only Pharaoh or the Gentiles; but what they affirmed, in virtue of their having been chosen to be God’ s peculiar people, was that never, and on no condition, could they themselves be the objects of such a judgment. They restricted the liberty of divine judgment on themselves, as they restricted the liberty of grace toward the Gentiles. In the verse before us he reestablishes both liberties, vindicating God’ s sole right to judge whether this or that man possesses the conditions on which he will think fit to show him favor, or those which will make it suitable for him to punish by hardening him.]Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? —Then some will say: “ If all are hardened or forgiven accord­ing to the will of God, why does God find fault with any ?”For who withstandeth his will?—[God does not make men just what they are and then find fault with them for being what he makes them. Morally, men make themselves what they are, which at the first is generally what they should not be. For this only God finds fault with them.

It is true that God sometimes makes choice, as in the case of Jacob and Esau; but he finds fault with no one for being what his choice makes him. God sometimes hardens men, as in the case of Pharaoh; but he finds no fault with them for being hard when he hardens them.

He found fault with Pharaoh for hardening his heart and wickedly resisting his will.]Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?—This is a sharp reproof of the captious complaint against the Creator. Man, with a just understanding of his own weakness and shortsightedness, and God’ s wisdom and good­ness, would say, “ God knows all things, God is good, and the Judge of all the earth will do right” ; so recognize that God understands, while man does not, and trust God even when he does not see the way. Indeed, this is the only frame of true faith.Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?—[The intent in this is to stop the mouth of the objector who leaves an implication of wrong on the part of God in bestowing favors on some which he with­holds from others.]Romans 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?—This refers to the parable of the potter, and is so significant that I quote it in full: “ The word which came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter’ s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’ s house, and, behold, he was making a work on the wheels. And when the vessel that he made of the clay was marred in the hand of the potter, he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.” (Jeremiah 18:1-4). In this it is clearly seen that the potter proposed to make of the clay a vessel unto honor, and it was only when the day marred in his hand and showed its unfit­ness to be so made “ that he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.” As the clay marred in his hands, it was unfit for a vessel of honor; so he made a common vessel unto dishonor.Now, bear in mind the point to be illustrated in the figure, and you will find that the way of God’ s dealing with Israel was conditional: “Then the word of Jehovah came to me, say­ing, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith Jehovah.

Behold, as the clay in the potter’ s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concern­ing a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jeremiah 18:5-10). All this is explanatory of the expression: “ As the clay in the potter’ s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.” It is clear that it does not mean that as the clay is passive in the hands of the potter, so Israel is destitute of all power in the hands of Jehovah; but that as the clay is subject to the power of the potter, who will make of it a vessel of honor or dishonor, according to the fitness of the material, so will the God of Israel deal with his people according to the proper use or the sinful abuse of their free agency, in either doing good or evil in his sight. Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:—Why should it be thought strange if God, in order to show his hatred of sin and his deter­mination to punish it, should endure for a long time those Israelites, who, like Pharaoh, fitted themselves as vessels of wrath for destruction, and then visited ruin upon them, so that the whole world should see it? This he applies to the Israel­ites, who, under the dealing of God, had so marred their char­acters as to fit themselves for destruction? Concerning God’ s exercising long-suffering unto these same vessels of wrath Paul says: “ Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” (Romans 2:4-5). Here we see that these persons became vessels of wrath in spite of God’ s effort to save them through the exer­cise of his goodness and long-suffering, which was intended to lead them to repentance.To make this still clearer, let us read the comment of Peter on Paul’ s understanding of the purpose of God in the exercise of long-suffering: “ The Lord is not slack concerning his prom­ise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9). In this he gives his own in­spired interpretation of God’ s purpose in the exercise of long- suffering. He refers to Paul’ s use of the term as identical with the way in which he himself explains it; hence, he adds: “ Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved Brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things.” (2 Peter 3:14-16). Unquestionably, then, we see that, according to Peter’ s inspired exposition of Paul’ s teaching of God’ s long-suffering, God was striving to save these vessels of wrath by leading them to repentance, while they on their part were treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath by despising “ the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering.” Accordingly, when Paul’ s opponent is sup­posed to ask, “ Why doth he still find fault?

For who with- standeth his will?” it is clear that the argument in the passage before us is intended to show that the captious question of the opponent is founded on a false assumption— that the actual ground of his objection is the very fact that he persists in withstanding the will of God. The apostle forcibly illustrates the long-suffering of God and the perverse resistance on the part of Israel when he says: “ All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” (Romans 10:21).Romans 9:23and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,—Is it strange that he, while rejecting these vessels of wrath, should show the riches of his glory to the vessels fitted to receive his mercy? He had prepared them for glory when, in consequence of their obedience to the gospel, he forgave their sins.Romans 9:24even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?—Both Jews and Gentiles, whom he called through the gospel, are the vessels of mercy, fitted to receive the riches of the grace in Jesus Christ. [This was a direct and primary purpose of God’ s long-suffering toward vessels of wrath. “ Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22) ; and, therefore, the chosen race, notwithstanding all its trans­gressions, was preserved in order that the promise might em­brace in its accomplishment both the remnant of the Jews and the fullness of the Gentiles. The destruction of the Jews predicted by Jesus (Matthew 24:15-28) was delayed in mercy until the thousands of Israelites and Gentiles accepted Christ. The whole passage shows that God suffered the sins of the Jewish race without cutting them off, because its existence was essential in his plans for saving the world.]Romans 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call that my people, which was not my people; and her beloved, that was not be­loved.—He quotes from Hosea to show that it had been the purpose of God from the beginning to call the Gentiles, who at that time were not the children of God and were not beloved for their trust in God; they would become faithful, and so be called the beloved.Romans 9:26 And it shall be, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called sons of the living God.—This he quotes to show that God had from the beginning purposed to bring the Gentiles into Christ. [Paul quotes these words, which refer primarily to the ten tribes, in proof that God, when he called men from the midst of the Gentiles to be vessels of mercy, acted on the principles announced by Hosea. The Gentiles could not be more com­pletely aliens than those whom God declared to be neither his people nor objects of his mercy.

But he foretold that in days to come he would speak again to the outcasts and call them his children. In the gospel this prophecy is fulfilled, and the fulfillment, though wider than the promise, exactly accords with its spirit.

The passage quoted was probably chosen because it is a clear promise, not only of the blessings of the gospel, but of the actual announcement (Romans 1:2) of the good tidings. What in the days of Hosea God promised to say in days then future, he actually said (Romans 8:14) in the gospel. To be called the sons of God is a most honorable and distinguished appellation. No higher favor can be conferred on mortals than to be the sons of the living God, members of his family, en­titled to his protection, and secure of his watch and care. The reception of the Gentiles being now established by Hosea, Paul proceeds to prove from Isaiah that only a remnant of Israel will be saved.]Romans 9:27 And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the rem­nant that shall be saved:—He quotes Isaiah 10:22-23 to show that the children of Israel, though “ as the sand of the sea,” went into captivity, only a remnant of them were faith­ful to God and returned. This was quoted as a prophetic illustration of their rejection of Christ.

Of the multitude, only a remnant would receive him and be preserved from destruction and dispersion that awaited them. All would not be cast aside; a remnant would be saved, now as then.Romans 9:28for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finish­ing it and cutting it short.—God, after long forbearance, will finish the work of dealing with the Jews, and in righteousness and fidelity he will speedily punish them as their sins demand.Romans 9:29 And, as Isaiah hath said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had become as Sodom, and had been made like unto Gomorrah.—And as Isaiah had said of their former captivity, unless the Lord of hosts had spared a few as a seed, they would have been utterly destroyed, as had been the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God had proposed to save Sodom, if only a few righteous persons could be found. The remnant in Israel saved it from the utter destruction that came upon Sodom.Romans 9:30 What shall we say then?—[What conclusion shall we draw from the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, and from the previous train of remarks thereon? To what conclusion have we come concerning the Israelites and Gentiles?]That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith;—The Gentiles, who formerly refused to follow God and to seek the righteousness required in the law of Moses, have now attained to that righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus. This brings out the reason why the Jews have rejected the gospel and the Gentiles have accepted it. The Jews sought righteousness by an outward observance without purification of their hearts by faith ; the Gentiles sought it by faith, which purifies the heart and works by love.Romans 9:31but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.—Israel, who, confiding in their own merit and good works, betook themselves for righteousness to their own supposed complete obedience to the law of Moses, have not found or attained to such a law of righteousness.Romans 9:32 Wherefore?—Why is it that the Israelites who sought it failed to attain it?Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. —Because they sought it, not through believing with the heart and so purifying the heart by faith, but only regulated the outward actions.They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;—They were not led by faith, else they would not have stumbled at Jesus Christ. The law of Moses regulated the outward actions and failed to reach the heart.

The prophet foretold that God would make a new covenant with the house of Israel: “ Be­hold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).Romans 9:33even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence:—It had been foretold that God would lay in Zion a stone of stumbling. That stone of stumbling is the Lord Jesus Christ. [There was never a prophecy more literally fulfilled. When he spoke plainly, they were offended; and when he spoke in parables, they were dis­pleased. When he healed, they took offense; when he did not heal and refused to give a sign, they were dissatisfied. If he came to the feast, they sought his life; if he did not come, they busied themselves searching for him. Nothing that he did or failed to do pleased.

His whole earthly life developed an ever-increasing dislike for him and bitter animosity for his claims.]and he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.—Whosoever believes on him shall not be brought to shame at the judgment seat of Christ. [The man who believes in Jesus Christ with his whole heart shall not be agitated or thrown into commotion by fear or want of success, shall not be disappointed in his hope, and shall never be ashamed that he consecrated his life to God through Jesus Christ. They who do not believe in Jesus Christ shall be agitated, fall, and sink into eternal shame and contempt. (Daniel 12:2).] “THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS”

Chapter Nine IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To appreciate why and how God could choose to reject the nation of Israel (except for a remnant) and accept people from among the Gentiles

SUMMARY With the conclusion of chapter eight Paul has completed his description of how God’s righteousness was manifested in Christ, and the results of such justification. However, some of Paul’s readers may have received the impression that God’s plan of saving man in Christ apart from the Law (Romans 3:21-22) implies that God has rejected His people of Israel and the promises made to them. In chapters nine through eleven, Paul explains that God has not rejected His people.

Paul first expresses his own concern for his fellow Israelites (Romans 9:1-2). If it would do any good, Paul would gladly be condemned in order to save his brethren who had been the recipients of so many blessings (Romans 9:3-5).

But Paul quickly states that God’s promises had not failed. He reminds them that true Israel is not simply the physical descendants of Israel, any more than the promises to Abraham were to be carried out through all of Abraham’s descendants just because they are his physical descendants. Rather, it depends upon what God has chosen according to His Divine purpose. This is illustrated by contrasting what the Scriptures reveal about Isaac and Ishmael, and then about Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:6-13).

That God has made such distinction is illustrated further with the example of Pharaoh, where God chose to show mercy to some while He hardened others [who had already persistently rejected God’s mercy, MAC] (Romans 9:14-18). That God has the right to make such choices is His as the potter over the clay (Romans 9:19-21).

So God chose to endure “vessels of wrath” with much longsuffering, that He might make known His glorious riches to “vessels of mercy” [a point expanded upon further in chapter eleven, MAC] (Romans 9:22-23). And who are these “vessels of mercy”? They consist of Gentiles, and a remnant of Israel, as foretold by Hosea and Isaiah (Romans 9:24-29).

Paul’s conclusion? That God’s words of promise were not just to the fleshly descendants of Abraham (as the Jews would have it), but to the faithful remnant of Israel and to the Gentiles who accepted the righteousness which is by faith. The only reason any of the Israelites were rejected by God was because of their rejection of the Messiah, even as Isaiah foretold (Romans 9:30-33).

OUTLINE I. PAUL’S CONCERN FOR HIS OF ISRAEL (Romans 9:1-5) A. HIS GREAT CONCERN (Romans 9:1-3)1. His conscience and the Holy Spirit bear witness to his great sorrow and grief (Romans 9:1-2) 2. He would even be willing to be cut off from Christ for their sakes (Romans 9:3)

B. FOR ISRAEL, OF MANY (Romans 9:4-5)1. Including the covenants, the Law, the promises (Romans 9:4) 2. Of whom are the patriarchs, and of course, Christ Himself (Romans 9:5)

II. THE TRUE OF GOD (Romans 9:6-29) A. ARE OF PROMISE, NOT OF FLESH (Romans 9:6-13)1. They are not all Israel who have descended from Israel (Romans 9:6) 2. As illustrated with Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:7-13) 3. According to God’s purpose, whose choice was not based upon works (Romans 9:11)

B. ARE THE OBJECTS OF GOD’S MERCY (Romans 9:14-23)1. Possible only through His Mercy (Romans 9:14-16) 2. Just as Pharaoh was the object of His Wrath (Romans 9:17-18) 3. God’s right to choose the objects of His mercy and His wrath (Romans 9:19-23)

C. ARE OF BOTH THE JEWS AND THE (Romans 9:24-29)1. Not of Jews only, as foretold by Hosea (Romans 9:24-26) 2. But only a remnant of Israel, as foretold by Isaiah (Romans 9:27-29)

III. THE BASIS OF GOD’S CHOICE: FAITH vs. NO FAITH (Romans 9:30-33) A. FOR THE (Romans 9:30)1. Though they had not actively been looking for it (Romans 9:30 a) 2. Yet many have attained righteousness through faith (Romans 9:30 b)

B. FOR ISRAEL (Romans 9:31-33)1. Though diligent for the Law, did not have the attitude of faith (Romans 9:31-32 a) 2. And therefore stumbled over Christ, as foretold by Isaiah (Romans 9:32-33)

WORDS TO PONDER harden - to make callous, to make strong; can be accomplished in two ways: 1) , by providing occasion to repent or resist (eg: as when judgment is delayed, Romans 2:4-5), and 2) , by strengthening those who rebel so as to contrast power, mercy, or judgment (for example, a) Pharaoh, to show God’s power, Exodus 9:12-16; b) Israel, to show God’s mercy, Romans 11:7-11 Romans 11:31; c) those who disbelieve, to show God’s judgment, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 remnant - a small portion of the whole; Isaiah foretold only a remnant of Israel would be saved (Romans 9:27-29)

the Stumbling Stone - a reference to Jesus (cf. 1 Peter 2:6-8)

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. List the main points of this chapter- Paul’s Concern For His Brethren Of Israel (Romans 9:1-5)

• The True Children Of God (Romans 9:6-29)
• The Basis Of God’s Choice: Faith vs. No Faith (Romans 9:30-33)

2. How much love did Paul have for the nation of Israel? (Romans 9:2-3)- Enough to be lost if it would do any good

3. Who are the true children of God? (Romans 9:8)- Children of promise, not children of flesh

4. What does God have the right to do? (Romans 9:18)- To show mercy on who He wills, and to harden who He wills

5. What O.T. prophet foretold that Gentiles would be a part of the people of God? (Romans 9:25-26)- Hosea 6) What did Isaiah say would happen to the nation of Israel (Romans 9:27)- Only a remnant would be saved

6. Why are Gentiles among the saved? (Romans 9:30)- Because of faith

7. Why are some Israelites going to be lost? (Romans 9:31-33)- They trusted more in the keeping of the Law, and did not believe in Christ

Verse 1 With this chapter, one section of Romans ends and another begins. The eighth chapter concluded Paul’s outline of the complete acceptance of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom. He extended to them the most extravagant assurance of their justification and providential support leading to their ultimate glorification in the presence of God himself, such blessings being far superior to anything ever known before, by either Jews or Gentiles; and now that Paul had finished speaking of those good things, the thought of his own people, the Jews, in their condition of rebellion against God and of rejecting the Messiah, pressed upon his heart. The Jews, who should have been the first to receive those great blessings, and who should have led all the world in their acceptance of them, had, through their leaders, rejected the Saviour; and the great majority of them had followed the blind leadership. Paul’s overwhelming emotion of grief and sorrow bursts through in the moving words of the first paragraph (Romans 9:1-5). This and the two following chapters deal with the problem of Israel’s rejection of the Christ. This chapter may be outlined thus: (1) Paul skillfully introduced the problem of Israel’s attitude of rejection toward Christ, affirming his love for his own nation, and showing his appreciation of what God had done through them (Romans 9:1-5). (2) God’s rejection of Israel, due to their rejection of the Messiah, was shown to be consistent with God’s promises and his sovereignty (Romans 9:6-24). (3) The rejection of Israel was specifically foretold by the Jewish prophets (Romans 9:25-29). (4) Conclusions from this line of reasoning (Romans 9:25-30). Lard called this chapter “emphatically the artistic chapter of the Letter."[1]Paul’s subject, the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles, was repugnant as any that could be imagined for Jewish minds, and this necessitated great skill and tact on his part in daring to launch into a discussion of it. Paul’s discernment, knowledge of God’s word, and skill in presenting such painful disclosures are apparent in every line. Every word of Paul’s message was adorned by the evidence of his rich and overflowing love for his race and nation. ENDNOTE: [1] Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 291. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 9:1) Although in no sense an oath, Paul here spoke in the most dogmatic and convincing manner possible, thus emphasizing the utmost accuracy and solemnity of what he was about to say. The use of both positive and negative statements for the sake of emphasis is common in scripture. For example, Isaiah has this: “Thou shalt die and not live” (Isaiah 38:1). Likewise, in the New Testament, there is this: “He confessed and denied not” (John 1:20). In Christ … in the Holy Spirit … These terms are synonymous, a person never being “in” Christ or the Holy Spirit unless he is in both. David Lipscomb stressed the certainty of this verse’s being in no sense an oath, quoting Hodge, Meyer, Lard, and Schaff in the technical arguments making it. impossible to view it as a form of oath.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] David Lipscomb, A Commentary on New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1967), p. 164. Verse 2 That I have great sorrow, and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh.Paul had more than sufficient reason, if he had been of a mean and vindictive spirit, to hold bitterness against his Jewish kinsmen because of their unrelenting persecutions and harassment of his ministry and apostleship. Forty of them, on occasion, had bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had murdered him; and emissaries from the Jews in Jerusalem had dogged his every step on the mission field. They had preferred charges against him before kings and governors; and yet, despite all this, his love for Israel was undiminished. How noble are Paul’s thoughts in such a context as that which frames them here. Lard and others have pointed out that Paul here omitted a clause which is essential to his meaning, that being “I have great grief and continual sorrow in my heart ON ACCOUNT OF MY .” For Paul, that was the unspeakable thing, and he could not, at that point in this letter, bring it out; and thus he approached it from a different angle. Lard has this with reference to this amazing fact: His countrymen had repudiated Christ; that was the fact which caused his grief and sorrow; that any person should do this is painful enough; that one’s own kin should do it is exquisitely so. The apostle does not yet name the fact that gave him pain, but conceals it until he can bring it out with better effect.[3]I could wish … is the key to understanding Romans 9:3. As Hodge wrote: The expression is evidently hypothetical and conditional, “I could wish, were the thing allowable, possible, or proper."[4]Paul’s grief was like that of Jesus who “had compassion on the multitude “(Matthew 9:6), and like that of Moses who said, “Blot me out of thy book, I pray thee” (Exodus 32:32); and yet it was not possible for Paul to do the thing which he mentioned, nor should his statement here be viewed as a true expression of what he actually desired to do. That this is true appears from God’s response to the similar request of Moses. The Lord said, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book (Exodus 32:33). That Moses truly felt such a desire and expressed it to God in prayer is a scripturally-authenticated fact; and we may credit Paul with exactly the same emotion here. How great is such love! Anathema … is used only five times in the New Testament, the other instances of its use being in Acts 23:14,1 Corinthians 12:3 1 Corinthians 16:22, and Galatians 1:8-9. It means “accursed” and implies eternal death as well as physical death. After a careful and critical study of the New Testament texts where this word is used, Hedge declared that An anathema was a person devoted to death as accursed.[5][3] Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 292. [4] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 297. [5] Ibid., p. 296. Verse 4 Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.Paul mentioned such things as these to show his appreciation for the position that Israel had indeed enjoyed in God’s plan of redemption. Paul loved Israel, and the fact of his becoming a Christian had not diminished this love nor his appreciation for the part Israel had had in bearing witness to God’s will on earth. Israelites … is an extension of the word “Israel,” which means “prince of God,” or “one who contends with God,” the same being the name given to Jacob by an angel of heaven at Peniel (Genesis 32:28-30). This God-given name implied more than membership in the covenant race, imputing to them status as God’s children (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 31:9); but the sonship of Israel was of an inferior kind, compared to that of Christians, although sufficiently significant to stand as a type of the latter. “Israelites,” as Paul used it here, included, by implication, the other privileges enumerated. The adoption … refers to the sonship of Israel. In a very real and paternal manner, God made the Israelites his children and looked after them, despite their sins and rebellions, until the purpose of bringing in the Messiah was realized. The glory … might not refer to any specific thing, such as the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, or the halo that glowed upon the face of Moses, but would seem to signify the prosperity and progress of Israel through the long centuries of their enjoyment of the providential care and blessing of the Almighty. And the covenants … The use of the plural is similar to Paul’s usage in Ephesians 2:12 and takes into account the many covenants that God made with Israel, especially including the one called in Hebrews “the covenant” (Hebrews 9:1), or “the first covenant.” And the giving of the law … brings into view the exceedingly impressive events at Sinai when the decalogue was given. A reading of the Biblical account of the wonders connected with the giving of the law of Moses will convince anyone that the events there enacted were as spectacular and impressive as any ever seen on earth. And the service of God … refers to the entire liturgical and sacerdotal system of the Hebrews, especially the great religious ceremonials connected with occasions such as the Day of Atonement, the Passover, etc. And the promises … These were that great body of testimony looking to the advent of the Christ, and the hope of universal redemption in him. These great promises, sometimes called merely “the promise,” were repeated, emphasized, and typified by numerous devices in the Mosaic system. Through: (1) the prophetic word; (2) the lives of typical people; (3) the typical meaning of the ceremonies and sacrifices, and through (4) architecture, furniture, the plan, and the arrangement of the tabernacle, and temple, etc. - in all these things there was only one purpose, that of foretelling the Christ and making certain of his identification when he should come. Significantly, all these were of Israel; and, for the great apostle who believed so intensely in Jesus Christ, the glory of the Lord as it had been prophetically witnessed in Israel intensified his love and appreciation for the great people through whom the witness had come. Verse 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.One cannot but be ashamed of such a rendition of this verse, in which the translators stooped to the device of making the name of the ineffable God a common adverb, as when one might say, “This is a God beautiful day! … God blessed for ever”! Godet translated this verse thus: Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.[6]There is absolutely no doubt that Godet has the true meaning of this verse. The objections that people have to this rendition stem not from critical reasons, nor from gradations in the meaning of Greek words, but from theological reasons on the part of some who are reluctant to admit identification of Jesus Christ with deity, notwithstanding the fact that Christ is called “God” no less than ten times in the Greek New Testament, the other nine passages where this is done being John 1:1; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Hebrews 1:8; Philippians 2:8;Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; and 1 John 5:20. Objectors to the obvious meaning here allege that Paul nowhere else makes such a statement of Christ’s deity. Barrett, for example, wrote: Nowhere else in any epistle does Paul call Christ God.[7]Barrett’s view is almost incredible when it is considered that no less than three of the passages cited above were written by Paul; and if, as we think probable, Paul authored Hebrews, then four places are found in Paul’s writings in which deity is unequivocally ascribed to the Lord Jesus - this passage (Romans 9:5) making five! Space forbids any lengthy analysis of the objections people make to the rendition in the English Revised Version (1885) (where the true meaning is clear enough, despite the ridiculous punctuation), where the words “over all” are unequivocally applied to Christ, thus affirming his godhead, and permitting the truth to glow even through the punctuation. The English Revised Version (1885) translators made only one concession to the objectors (that being the punctuation), but even that was too much to concede. Godet’s rendition above may be viewed with absolute certainty as the correct one. Whose are the fathers … No people ever had more distinguished ancestors than the Jewish patriarchs. Such men as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were so noble, and so excessively beyond other men in character and integrity, that God himself deigned to identify himself as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 4:5). Abraham, especially, stands upon the horizon of pre-Christian history like a great monolith casting its shadow over centuries and millenniums of history. Three great religions, like streams coursing down from some mighty mountain and finding their issuance in various oceans, descend from Abraham; Muslims, Jews and Christians all alike hailing Abraham as their father. Paul truly appreciated the heritage that was his and Israel’s in such distinguished progenitors of their magnificent race. Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh … Even the Saviour of all the world was a descendant (in the fleshly sense) from Abraham, the first verse of the New Testament hailing the fact. That it was a signal honor for any race to be commissioned as the flesh-bearer for the Messiah, is evident from the exclamation in Hebrews: For verily not of angels doth he (God) take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16, alternate rendition). Christ who is over all … Independently of the punctuation already discussed, and the attempt to pass the name of God off as an adverb, this expression thunders the message of the deity of Christ. The greatest of the Greek scholars are dogmatic and positive about the meaning here. Hodge, with reference to the words “over all,” wrote: There is but one interpretation of this passage which can, with the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained. The words “over all” mean “over all things,” not “over all persons,” being neuter, and not masculine (as in Acts 10:36,1 Corinthians 15:28). It is supremacy over the universe that is here expressed …. Paul evidently declares that Christ, who, he had just said was, as to his human nature, or as a man, descended from Israelites, is, in another respect the supreme God, or God over all, and blessed for ever.[8]Amen … This word is hardly noticed by any of the commentators; but the impression prevails that this word was intended to affirm Paul’s dogmatic reference to the deity of Christ. If Paul did not mean to ascribe deity to Jesus Christ, why this “Amen”?

Would the mild statement that Christ was God blessed (!) have called forth a word like this? Read again the glorious final paragraph of the eighth chapter, and consider that not even that called for Paul’s solemn “Amen”; therefore, this word proves that the world-shaking truth had just been uttered; and that truth could not possibly have been anything other than a statement of the deity of Christ. For those interested in an extensive study of this verse as a witness of Christ’s deity, John Murray’s Appendix A of Volume II, New International Commentary on the New Testament, is a lengthy treatise in which every critical aspect of the problem is examined exhaustively and the conclusion maintained that here indeed is a statement that Christ is God. Aside from the plain texts of the New Testament which affirm Christ’s deity, the implication of it is in every line of the New Testament. For example, who but God could say (in reference to himself), But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-32). And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:29). It is no exaggeration to say that hundreds of New Testament passages carry the mandatory meaning that Christ is God come in the flesh. Amen! [6] F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 341. [7] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 179. [8] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 300. Verse 6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to naught. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel.Paul had not yet spoken plainly that Israel, through their rejection of Christ, was at that time itself rejected by God, although that thought dominated his mind. Before saying that unsayable thing, he would move to soften it by showing that what he was about to say did not apply to every Israelite. Paul stressed the fact that not all of Abraham’s children were Jews, that some were associated with Israel who were not really Israelites in the true sense, and that such a condition had extended back all the way to Abraham, Ishmael not being counted as Abraham’s seed at all, a fact which he would immediately stress. Verse 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.Abraham had many children besides Isaac, their number running perhaps into the hundreds, since he had a plurality of concubines, besides Hagar; and after Sarah’s death he was married to Keturah, thought by many to have already borne the sons attributed to her, during the period of her concubinage. From whatever source, the Bible states that 318 servants were born in his house (see more on this in my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 271). At the very least, all of the sons of Keturah and Hagar were among the “sons of Abraham” but were not so reckoned among the Jews, hence the validity of Paul’s reasoning here to the effect that mere fleshly connection with Abraham did not make one an Israelite. Paul had preparing to announce God’s rejection of Israel from being a favored nation, because of their rejection of Christ, and the great corollary of God’s calling all people (Jews and Gentiles) into His kingdom, without regard to physical descent from Abraham; and Paul knew the vehemence with which the Jews in general would reject such an idea. He knew the grounds on which they would base their utter rejection of such a concept, the principal one being that they were the children of Abraham, to the exclusion of all others, and that they alone were heirs of the great promise to Abraham. Both Christ and John the Baptist had addressed themselves to that same adamant Jewish position. They trusted in being Abraham’s seed, the Rabbis going so far as to say that no circumcised person could ever enter hell, regardless of life or character. Paul, in this verse, was showing tactfully (and tenderly, at first) that Abraham had sons, notably Ishmael, who were not regarded as the seed of Abraham, as indicated by the quotation from Genesis 21:12, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” and thus laying down the premise that, even from the very first, it was Abraham’s spiritual seed, as distinguished from his mere posterity, who were to receive the blessing and who were the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic promise. To the Jews of Paul’s day, any suggestion to the effect that God would reject Israel would have been vociferously refused on the ground that such a rejection of themselves would have brought God’s word to naught, hence Paul’s introductory proposition that “It is not as though the word of God hath come to naught.” Before Paul was through with this line of reasoning, he would show that, on the contrary, the word of God itself taught both the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles. The specific argument from this verse is that, just as God had rejected Ishmael who was a son of Abraham, so God was also free to reject the Jews of Paul’s day (for due cause, of course), although they too are Abraham’s sons (as was Ishmael), the determinator being something other than fleshly descent. Verse 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.With what deliberate caution Paul approached the dreadful announcement he was obligated to deliver to his beloved kinsmen! He first laid the logical support of what he had to say by citations from the Old Testament scriptures, and then built up the premises upon which he would rest his conclusion. This verse spells out the deduction to be made from the history of Abraham’s sons, only one of which, namely, Isaac, was his true seed, all the others being rejected. Just so it is today, Paul was saying, not merely the fleshly children of Abraham are his seed, but the children of the promise, this reference to the promise pointing to Genesis 12:3, where not Jews only, but “all the families of the earth” were to be blessed. Children of promise … has in view the fact that Isaac was not born in the due course of nature, but in respect of God’s promise, which was providentially fulfilled when both Abraham and Sarah were long past the age of child production. This fact regarding Isaac is typical of Christians who, in another sense, are children of Abraham, by promise, as stated thus by Paul: Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise …. And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise (Galatians 4:28 Galatians 3:29). Paul’s argument from this, of course, was that, just as Ishmael did not inherit, though a literal son, the Jews of Paul’s day might not inherit, unless their claim was founded on something else, other than fleshly descent from Abraham. Only those who received and accepted God’s promise to Abraham of the Seed which is Christ, and honored and obeyed him, now that he had appeared upon the earth only those persons (the Christians) were the true children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise. Verse 9 For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.In distinction from all the other sons of Abraham, Isaac was the child of promise; and Paul here left nothing unsaid with reference to it, citing the very passage that recorded God’s promise (Genesis 18:10). Now, Christ is the antitype of Isaac (my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 277); and therefore Jesus Christ (along with the spiritual seed who are “in him”) has the same preference over all the fleshly descendants of Abraham that Isaac had over his fleshly brothers. God’s righteousness, the great theme of Romans, was ever before Paul’s mind; and his purpose in these verses was to show that God’s actions in the calling of the Gentiles and rejection of Israel were in no degree blameworthy, but righteous. Even the rejection of Israel as a favored nation and the admission of Gentiles to the kingdom of God did not, in any sense whatever, exclude Jews, the only injury to them in such actions being the destruction of their sinful pride. All of the marvelous blessings of the kingdom of Christ were available to all Jews and Gentiles alike, without preference, and upon the same terms; and the blessings and privileges of the new kingdom were far superior in every way to anything the Jews had enjoyed under the old system. Verse 10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even our father Isaac - for the, children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.This passage details another restriction upon the identification of who are, or are not, children of Abraham, all of the posterity of Esau being cut off, despite the fact that they were not merely children of Abraham, but of Isaac as well; and their being cut off did not derive from some visible reason for it, such as a rebellion, or refusal to honor Isaac; they were totally excluded even before the birth of Jacob and Esau. The proposition Paul was establishing by presenting these facts is that it was not by natural descent alone that the Jews themselves were reckoned to be children of Abraham, because the group identified as Jews were far from being his only natural descendants. There was a separation in the immediate family of Abraham when Ishmael was cut off, and there was another separation in Isaac’s immediate family when the Edomites (children of Esau) were cut off. But a dramatic new factor was involved in the separation of Esau and his descendants from the recognized posterity of Abraham. The Jews could have justified the exclusion of the Ishmaelites, etc., and the preference for Isaac; upon the premise that Isaac was the only legitimate son, the only son of his true wife, the only son of a free woman, or such; but, in the exclusion of part of Isaac’s posterity, no such distinctions were visible, Esau being not merely the son of Isaac’s lawful wife, but his firstborn at that! This shows that the choice of Jacob was altogether a sovereign act of God, not dependent upon anything that either Jacob or Esau had either done or left undone, the election coming before either of them was born. Before discussing the doctrine of election, as it is called, which surfaces in these verses, it is important to note exactly what the Lord said with reference to the election of Jacob in preference to Esau. And the Lord said unto her (Rebekah), Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger (Genesis 25:23). There is no problem whatever regarding what God did. The problem lies in the reasons people suppose God had for doing it. God’s sovereign act of choice between Rebekah’s twins took place before their birth; but God’s decision was absolutely not capricious. Paul had already pointed out that God “foreknew” all people; and that foreknowledge on the part of God is revealed in the above citation from Genesis to have been the reasonable and righteous basis of God’s election of Jacob. God foreknew everything concerning the unborn twins, but he chose to tell Rebekah a part of what was foreknown. First, two kinds of people were about to be launched into the stream of history, one weak, the other .

In the light of such knowledge, could God have chosen the weaker? And what is meant by “two manner of people”? Esau’s life quickly followed the pattern God had foreseen. He was a profane person and a fornicator (Hebrews 12:16). Thus, Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen because of God’s foreknowledge of what would take place in the lives of both of them. When Isaac blessed his sons, the scriptures relate that he did so “by faith concerning things to come” (Hebrews 11:20); and it is arbitrary and contrary to reason for anyone to suppose that God made choice between those brothers without taking into account the “things to come.” Nothing in the election of Jacob and the exclusion of his brother had any bearing at all upon the eternal destiny of either, each individual having still been left free to choose the direction of his life; but it was concerned primarily, if not indeed totally, with the building of the nation of the covenant people. It appears impossible to view Paul’s words here as teaching that God determines the destinies of people before they are born, as taught by some, For example, Murray stated: We are compelled, therefore, to find in this word a declaration of the sovereign counsel of God as it is concerned with the ultimate destinies of men.[9]It should be remembered that Paul’s entire argument here is to the effect that other factors besides fleshly descent had always been involved in determining the seed of Abraham. God’s election was a factor in it; but that factor entered into the determination as a consequence of other factors. Esau was rejected because of what God knew he would become and of what Esau’s character would produce in the lives of his posterity. Not of works … means “not of fleshly descent,” as noted by Murray: “Not of works” and “not of natural descent” are correlative and point to the same principle. Thus the apostle can adduce the one in an argument that is mainly concerned with the other without any sense of incongruity.[10]This expression is just another way of saying that God’s election of Jacob came without regard to deeds of the unborn twins, there having been none at the time of the election. It cannot mean that the election was decided without any regard to deeds they would perform in the future, which deeds were truly foreknown of God and plainly formed the righteous basis of the election. If the election was “not of works,” what was it of? It was of the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God. David Lipscomb has this further thought on the meaning of “not of works”: It was not on account of works of their own that either might do, but Jacob would trust God and obey him. Those who do this God always selects as his beloved.[11]Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated … was not written of Isaac’s sons before they were born, but centuries afterward, this being a quotation, not from Genesis, but from Malachi 1:2 f. God’s foreknowledge of what the Edomites would become was proved to be accurate by the sins and excesses of that people who came, in time, to deserve the denunciation recorded by Malachi. Jacob and Esau, as individuals, were not the principal concern of the election, but the nations which they would produce. Despite that, the election had to begin with individuals. As Whiteside noted, The selection of Jacob was the selection of a people rather than an individual.[12]This harmonizes with Genesis 25:23, where the “manner of people” looms as God’s great consideration. If Esau had been made the patriarch instead of Jacob, Israel would never have continued long enough to deliver the Messiah to mankind; but the overruling providence of the all-wise God interposed to prevent such a thing from taking place. God’s choice did not determine the eternal destiny of either twin, their subsequent lives determining that; but God’s choice did determine which would be the patriarch of Israel. The idea is here rejected that God ever chose any man to eternal life or death before he was born. [9] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 2p. 25. [10] Ibid., p. 14. [11] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 172. [12] R.L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Epistles to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945). p. 199. Verse 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.Paul’s great theme of God’s righteousness was never far from his thoughts; and his letter, in its entirety, has that theme constantly in focus. What he had just said of God’s election of Jacob might have raised some question of God’s rectitude; and, if the doctrine of election is what some affirm it to be, it would indeed indicate God’s lack of righteousness, thus making it necessary to reject all such views of that doctrine. But there was another phase of the rectitude of God that Paul had in mind here, and that is the fact that God has mercy upon some, and not upon others. Upon the uniformly wicked populations of earth, God has decided to show mercy to those who have accepted through obedient faith the mercy which is freely offered to all; but the salvation of those thus receiving God’s grace does no injustice to the wicked who never obey the truth and are therefore lost. Paul explained why in the next verse. Verse 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.This quotation is from Exodus 33:19, and it affirms the sovereign right of Almighty God to save whomsoever he will. No basis of any kind is there stated as an explanation of God’s saving some and rejecting others; but any understanding whatever of God’s dealings with his human children demands the assumption that there is a just and rational foundation for everything that God does. This quotation from Exodus simply does no of a totally blind man separating a box of black and white marbles in a cellar at midnight without any light! Some say, of course, that it does. Thus, the choosing of Jacob was an act of grace and was not influenced by the moral character of Jacob or the immorality of Esau. On the other hand, Esau was discriminated against and made to serve his brother through no fault of his own.[13]That God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not depend upon anything in them …. The choice depended solely on God’s gracious will.[14]Such opinions as these clearly go far beyond anything the word of God says and should be rejected unless they can be proved. Furthermore, there is abundant proof in God’s word that it was something “in men” that entered into God’s election of them. For example, God elected Abraham, and why? If God is to be understood as either rational or just, there had to be a reason why. Human intelligence demands to know what it is; and the gracious and righteous God deigned to reveal to his human children just what the reason was, thus: And the Lord said, For I know him (Abraham) that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him (Genesis 18:19). In this epic passage of God’s word, God stated his reasons for the choice of Abraham. God categorically stated, that he knew that Abraham would command his posterity after him, that they would keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, “that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him,” the latter clause being a dogmatic affirmation that without the qualities God foreknew in Abraham, the fulfillment of the promise would have been impossible. Thus they greatly err who fancy that it “was nothing in” Abraham that entered into God’s election. That there was indeed something “in” Abraham that formed the basis of God’s just and righteous act should have been assumed, even without the statement of what it was; but such is the perversity of human thought that it is even denied AFTER the statement of it! Going a bit further, this example of why God chose Abraham is clearly applicable to the rejection of Esau. God saw in him a different “manner” of people from Abraham, making the fulfillment of the promise through Esau an utter impossibility; and that is something “in” Esau that resulted in God’s rejection of him. The insinuation that God “discriminated” against Esau capriciously is ridiculous. And to carry this postulate even further, in every case of election, there has to be an element in the elected that distinguishes him from those not elected; and to deny this is to make election to be a totally immoral and capricious thing, unworthy even of people, much less of God. Nor can such a certainty as this bear the slightest resemblance to any theory of anyone’s ever meriting salvation. Even when the election occurs, at least partially upon the basis of what is “in” the elected distinguishing them from the non-elected, the election is still without the merit of the elected and founded in God’s love and grace, but not upon “grace alone,” the proof of this being that God’s grace has come alike upon the totality of mankind (Titus 3:11), which includes the non-elected. Factors others than grace are therefore involved in election. How could a so-called election, based on grace alone, discriminate between the elected and the non-elected, if no other factor was involved? The blind man in the cellar, maybe? [13] Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: The R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 125. [14] William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: The Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 204. Verse 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.Paul’s words were still being directed at the Jews, primarily. Supposing that they were entitled to salvation, that God owed it to them, the nation as a whole, and the Pharisees as conspicuous examples of it, were wallowing in an arrogant self-righteousness that Paul struck down in the considerations brought forward here. No man merits salvation. In the last analysis, it is the gracious outflowing of God’s loving grace and mercy that makes salvation possible for any person whomsoever. This is the conclusion Paul drew from the quotation from Exodus, and the only conclusion. Godet understood this verse thus: When God gives, it is not because a human will (“he that willeth”) or a human work (“he that runneth”) lays him under obligation, and forces him to give, in order not to be unjust by refusing. It is in himself that the initiative and the efficacy are (“him that calleth”) - it is from him that the gift flows.[15]The quotation from Exodus 33:19 given in the preceding verse and made the basis of the conclusion stated here, relates to a request by Moses that God would show him his glory. God did so, not because he would have been unjust in refusing, but upon the basis stated in that verse of being free to show mercy upon whomsoever he would. Thus Moses received the glimpse of divine glory, not through merit, but from God’s gracious compliance with his request. Note, however, that the scriptures do not say that God’s compliance had nothing to do with Moses’ request, or with his life and character, or with his service as the great lawgiver; nor can it be believed that “nothing in” Moses was considered by God in granting him a glimpse of the glory. Certainly, the REQUEST was considered, and that was something in Moses; and, therefore, all that is taught here is that Moses’ great life and character, noble and outstanding as they were, could not have earned such a boon as that which God freely gave, nor could such admirable qualities in Moses have made it wrong for God to have denied his plea. ENDNOTE: [15] F. Godet, op. cit., p. 352. Verse 17 For the scriptures saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth. So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.The most careful attention should here be directed to what is not said by Paul in this appeal to Exodus 9:16. God did not say to Pharaoh that he had raised him up in order to destroy him, or to drown his army in the Red Sea, but that God had raised him up for the purpose of showing his power in Pharaoh and of having God’s name published throughout the earth. Just HOW God’s purpose would be fulfilled in Pharaoh, at the time God spoke, still remained within the circumference of Pharaoh’s free will to choose, whether by his own submission to God commands or by his rebellion against them, would be realized God’s purpose. If Pharaoh had submitted to God’s will, God’s name would have been magnified all over the world and his power would have been demonstrated in Pharaoh just as gloriously in that manner as it was in the manner of its actual occurrence. Pharaoh had the free choice of obeying or not obeying God; but God had purposed, either way, to use him as a demonstration of God’s power and a means of publishing the divine name all over the world; but the choice of HOW this would come about remained with Pharaoh until he was . See more on the latter under Romans 11:7. What happened to the king of Nineveh, following the preaching of Jonah, should be remembered in the connection here. Both Pharaoh and the ruler of Nineveh heard the word of God, the one by Moses, the other by Jonah. Nineveh received mercy; Egypt did not. God had a perfect right to spare one and punish the other; but it is a falsehood to allege that God’s doing so was capricious and unrelated to what was in the two monarchs or to their response to God’s word. It definitely was related to their response. Pharaoh repeatedly to Nineveh, on the other hand, called his whole nation to sackcloth and ashes, leading the way in penitence himself, with all of his royal court.

A mere glance at the two monarchs reveals why one was spared, the other not. And note too that even in the case of Nineveh, it was even there a matter of God’s grace; for God owed absolutely nothing to either monarch, either to the one who hardened his heart or to the one that repented - hence the propriety of Paul’s remark that God had mercy upon whom he would, and whom he would he hardened. But there was a dark and threatening shadow of doom for Israel in Paul’s introduction of the case of Pharaoh whose repeated triflings with God’s word had resulted, at last, in God’s judicial hardening of the evil monarch’s heart (after Pharaoh himself had hardened it ten times!). This was exactly what God had done to Israel, and the awful knowledge of it was almost breaking Paul’s heart. The thrust of that terrible word “hardened” at the end of Rom 9:18 was pointed squarely at Israel; and Paul would announce it formally inRomans 11:25, but here it was only mentioned. Before the dreadful truth would be thundered in the oracle of the eleventh chapter, Paul would continue to build the logical foundations leading up to it; and it cannot be doubted that herein lies the purpose of bringing Pharaoh into these verses. Verse 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?Again the familiar diatribe raises a theoretical objection, described by Greathouse thus: If God treats men as Paul has explained, they have no moral responsibility. God has no right to condemn a sinner whom he himself has hardened.[16]Paul might have replied to such a theoretical objection in a number of ways; but he apparently did not consider that such an objection was even worthy of any direct or detailed answer. That human beings are responsible for what they do appears plainly enough in Romans 9:22 where Israel’s responsibility for refusing God’s call is sharply stated. As a response to the objection raised by means of the diatribe, Paul selected a surprisingly different reply, that being stated in the next verse. ENDNOTE: [16] Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 206. Verse 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?Man has no right to arraign God in his thoughts and to charge him with unrighteousness and dispute his decisions. Even if, by the feeble lamp of human knowledge, no adequate reason appears as to “why” God did certain things, the creature is in no sense a judge of the Creator. The most fundamental of all considerations relative to God is that God is altogether righteous, holy, and good; and that, whatever of his decisions may appear to people as otherwise, the fact of their righteousness and justice remains unimpaired. It was a part of the honor of Abraham that he had such a conviction of God’s righteousness. In that patriarch’s great intercessory prayer for Sodom, he prayed, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). Abraham’s prayer was founded in the deepest of inner convictions that God is good and righteous. Jesus himself expounded this same principle in the parable of the talents, wherein the one-talent man viewed God (his lord in the parable) as “a hard man” (Matthew 25:24). God’s response to that accusation was the expulsion of the wicked and slothful servant. In the same manner here, Paul did not argue the point but cited the wickedness of the heart which will raise such a question, such a questioner being clearly one who interposes his own will as antithetical to that of God, vainly supposing that finite intelligence is capable of judging the actions of God. The evil judgment uttered by the one-talent man in the parable was the child of his own wicked heart and not due to any wrong doing on the part of his Lord. Paul taught here that any allegation to the effect that God would condemn a sinner that God had hardened himself can originate in none other than a wicked heart. Verse 21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?Paul taught here that man has no more right to question God than a pot has to criticize the potter; but here is exactly where the problem lies. Man is not a pot, and he does diligently strive to understand the workings of the divine government; and it is precisely because of such human strivings that works like Romans were provided by the Spirit of God. God’s mercy is extended to man, even in this, that his desire to know is honored through the sacred revelations of God’s will. The bearing of this analogy on the Jewish question, still in the forefront of Paul’s thought, was stated by Godet, thus: The lump represents the whole of humanity …. Let not Israel therefore say to God, “Thou hast no right to make of me anything else than a vessel of honor; and thou hast no right to make of that other body, the Gentiles, anything else than a base vessel.” It belongs to God himself to decide, according to his wisdom.[17]The figure of the two kinds of vessels, honorable and dishonorable, made from the same lump is most instructive and was extended by Paul in his letter to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:20-21). Paul’s instruction from the same figure there reveals that caprice is not the determining factor in selecting which vessels are to be honorable; because Paul granted to those who will “purge themselves of wickedness” the precious promise that they should be made into vessels of honor, suitable for the Master’s use. The hardening of Israel and God’s rejection of that nation from having any further place as a favored portion of humanity is the great announcement Paul was leading up to, as noted by Locke, thus: By “the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” (mentioned in Romans 9:22) he manifestly means the nation of the Jews, who were now grown ripe, and fit for the destruction he was bringing upon them. And by “vessels of mercy” he means the Christian church gathered out of a small collection of convert Jews, and the rest made up of Gentiles, who were together from thenceforward to be the people of God in the room of the Jewish nation, now cast off, as apparent in Romans 9:24.[18]Thus, Paul’s use of the analogy of honorable and dishonorable vessels from the same lump is a parallel argument and supplemental to the judgment of Pharaoh, both being applicable to the hardening of Israel, already a fact, and the subject throughout this whole section of Romans. Locke applied the example of Pharaoh to Israel, thus: How darest thou, O man, to call God to account, and question his justice, in casting off his ancient people, the Jews? What if God, willing to punish that sinful people, and do it so as to have his power known and taken notice of, in the doing of it: (for why may not God raise them to that purpose, as well as he did Pharaoh and the Egyptians?) What, I say, if God bore with them a long time, as he did with Pharaoh, that his hand might be the more eminently visible in their destruction; and that also, at the same time, he might with the more glory, make known his goodness and mercy to the Gentiles.[19][17] F. Godet, op. cit., p. 353. [18] John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 342. [19] Ibid. Verse 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory.The sense of these words is clearly presented in Locke’s paraphrase, above. Much longsuffering … God’s almost endless patience with the repeated rebellions and departures of the chosen people is the burden of the Old Testament and the theme of many a prophetic message. In a sense, God was trapped by the promise of the Messiah’s revelation through the seed of Abraham, which holy intention necessitated the preservation of the covenant people (regardless of what they did) until the Messiah should at last appear. The Jews had absolutely no doubt whatever of the validity of the promise of the Messiah; and their leaders were accustomed to stabilize the people and allay their fears and apprehensions in the presence of any threatened calamity by saying, “The Messiah has not come, so we are safe!” They also extended this confidence to a state of presumption in regard to their sins. God judicially hardened the ten northern tribes and cast four-fifths of the whole Jewish nation into the ash can of history; but not even that quelled the overconfidence and self-righteousness in which Israel continued stubbornly in a course of sin against God. But the Messiah had indeed come at last; and, upon Israel’s rejection and murder of the Anointed One, no further reason existed for their perpetuation.

God hardened them, as indeed they were already hardened for generations; and Paul was warning them in this letter that their doom was as certain as that of Pharaoh. In all revealed instances of God’s hardening, as in the case of Pharaoh (and now Israel), total destruction was the immediate and summary result. True, Israel was to be destroyed also, even their capital razed and burned, but there was to be a startling difference. That difference is the great mystery announced in Romans 11:25. Fitted for destruction … Israel rejected Moses, their great deliverer, murmured against him, despised the manna, fainted in the wilderness, cried for a king like the nations around them, went a whoring after the gods of the Canaanites, slew God’s prophets, despised his mercies, and at last slew the King himself when he came. Such a nation had long been ripe for destruction; but, as noted above, God was, in a sense, “stuck with them” until Jesus came. The extent of Israel’s deserving God’s rejection is implicit in the fact that the prophet Jeremiah categorically stated that they were worse than Sodom and worse than the ten northern tribes. Thus, there was absolutely nothing unjust on God’s part in his rejection of Israel and the calling of all people (including Israel, of course) in Christ. Verse 24 Even us whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call that my people, which was not my people; And her beloved that was not beloved.Romans 9:24 concludes the long question that began back in Romans 9:22 with the words “What if …” The import of this long interrogation is “Who should think it extraordinary, or something to wonder about, that God would at last reject that nation which had so long been rejecting him?” Paul at this point proceeded to show, by the quotation of a number of prophecies, that just these very things, the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of Israel had been exactly foretold by God’s prophets. The verse quoted here is from Hosea 2:23 and can be understood in no other way except as a promise that Gentiles will finally become God’s people. Verse 26 And it shall be, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, There shall they be called sons of the living God.This prophecy is also from Hosea (Hosea 1:10) and is a clear promise of the coming of the Gentiles into the relationship with God as “sons.” Hosea made this development to lie in the future, as it indeed was when he wrote; but under the preaching of the gospel this had already begun to be fulfilled, the letter to the Romans itself being proof that Gentiles were indeed called “sons of God,” thus making them to share in the highest and holiest blessing life on earth has ever afforded. How incredible it seems that Israel’s leaders did not heed these prophecies, nor even the fulfillment of them taking place at that moment before their eyes! But Paul was by no means finished; he would pile prophecy upon prophecy. Verse 27 And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved; for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short. And, as Isaiah hath said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We had become as Sodom, and had been made like unto Gomorrah. The first two verses of this passage are from Isaiah 10:22-23, which in the KJV reads thus: For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of the land. Paul’s use of that scripture is interesting. He quoted it giving the sense, not the exact words. Paul used Isaiah’s prophecy that only a remnant of Israel should return from captivity as an argument that only a small part of Israel would be saved. All of this fitted perfectly into Paul’s reasoning that merely being a Jew was insufficient grounds for expecting salvation. Paul next quoted Isaiah 1:9, thus: Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Paul’s quotation in the English Revised Version (1885) has “Lord of Sabaoth” for “Lord of hosts,” the meaning being the same. Hodge’s comment on the actual meaning of this expression is interesting: As the word “host” is used in reference to any multitude arranged in order, as of men in an army, of angels, of the stars, or of all the heavenly bodies, including the sun and moon, so the expression “Lord of hosts” may mean Lord of armies, Lord of angels, Lord of heaven, or of the universe as a marshaled host …. It is most probable, therefore, that God is called Lord of hosts being equivalent to the Lord of the universe.[20]Of particular significance, it seems, is the root meaning that clings to the expression “arranged in order.” God is always to be understood as a God of order; and, as Paul said in another place, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:13). Moule explained Paul’s use of Isaiah’s words in this place, thus: Here again is a first and second incidence of the prophecy. In every stage of the history of sin and redemption, the apostle, in the Spirit, sees an embryo of the Great Development. So in the woefully limited number of the exiles who returned from the old captivity, he sees an embodied prophecy of the fewness of the sons of Israel who shall return from the exile of incredulity to their true Messiah.[21][20] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 328. [21] H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 257. Verse 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness which is of faith: but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.Concerning the meaning of “righteousness” as repeatedly used in this place, Hodge declared: The word “righteousness” as expressing the sum of the divine requisitions, that which fulfills the law, retains its meaning (throughout).[22]These two verses state the conclusion from previous argument, to the effect that the incredible has happened. The Gentiles whose history had been one long, miserable story of debauchery, godlessness, and shame, but whose debased condition was here rather mildly stated by Paul as following “not after righteousness” (!) - even the Gentiles, such Gentiles, had, by their belief of the gospel and their acceptance of it by means of obedient faith, “attained unto righteousness.” Here is proof that the Gentiles had attained to an acceptable degree of righteous living; there had truly been a transformation in their lives. On the other hand, Israel, despite their possession of Moses’ law and their pride in all the privileges and prerogatives of the covenant people, described here as “following after a law of righteousness,” had nevertheless failed to attain any acceptable degree of godly living. They “did not arrive.” The Gentiles did! The reason why Israel failed, Paul would explain in the next chapter; but the thing in view here is that, in the rejection of Christ and in their refusal to accept his proffered mercy through loving, obedient faith, they, as a nation, were cut off from being any longer God’s people. Of course, any Israelite was still eligible, as were all people, to accept and obey the gospel of Christ, Paul himself being an outstanding example of the remnant that did so. Yet no Israelite, AS SUCH, was received into that kingdom of Christ, in which all such distinctions as Jew and Gentile, male and female, Greek and barbarian, bond and free, etc., were blotted out, and all people considered as “one” in Christ Jesus. ENDNOTE: [22] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 329. Verse 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling.For the true meaning of “as it were by works” see under Romans 9:11, where it means “not of fleshly descent” just as it certainly does here. That is the very thing Paul had been writing of throughout this portion of Romans, the Jews thinking to have salvation through fleshly descent from Abraham. Any attempt to view “works” here as the efforts of the Jews at keeping the law of Moses is incorrect. The total unrighteousness of the vast majority of that nation, called in scripture “worse than Sodom,” and worse than the northern tribes, makes any such interpretation of “works” here to be absolutely untenable.

The law of God given through Moses is precisely what they did not keep. They relied solely upon fleshly descent, as taught by John the Baptist, Christ, and Paul. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling … refers to their rejection of Christ; and for a full discussion of this subject, see below. Verse 33 Even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense: He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.This quotation is a fusion of two passages from Isaiah. They read thus in the Old Testament: Therefore, thus saith the Lord, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste (Isaiah 28:16). And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Isaiah 8:14). Hodge commented on the manner of Paul’s using these two quotations thus: In both these passages, mention is made of a stone; but the predicates of this stone, as given in the latter passage, are transferred to the other, and those there are omitted.[23]To be sure, such was permissible and right for Paul to do, because the stone in both passages is the Lord Jesus Christ. The great significance of Paul’s introduction of these quotations is the clear and emphatic prediction that Israel would stumble upon it. It was foretold in the most dramatic form that “both the houses of Israel would find this precious corner stone, not only a rock of stumbling and offense, but a gin and a snare.” Again, the blindness of the religious hierarchy to such stark and dreadful warnings must ever remain a mystery. CHRIST; THE LIVING STONEIf ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; and A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient (1 Peter 2:3-8). With reference to this metaphor itself, a stone is among the most interesting things on earth; and every stone has a life story, the mystery of which encompasses the most fantastic dimensions of time and space. Compared to the life story of a stone, the lives of the most interesting men seem dull and commonplace. Take, as an example, the Star of Africa, which adorns the scepter of England’s queen. It is old by millenniums and eons of time, but seems as little affected by the receding centuries as the stars themselves. And yet, at one time, it was a lump of black carbon, folded and pressured by the undulating layers of prehistoric earth; and how it came to be a jewel in a monarch’s regalia is a romance as exciting as the story of the earth itself. Again, glance at the seared residue of Ahnighito (79,000-pound meteorite in Museum of Natural History, New York). Like the angels cast out of heaven, it has fallen from its first estate, having once coasted through measureless reaches of the universe at thousands of miles an hour for numberless thousands of years; it was snared, at last, by the tricky atmosphere of the earth and sank in flaming robes of fire upon a mountain side, from whence it journeyed to its place as a gazingstock in a museum. And look at that great boulder, a mighty erratic, speaking of the ice age, the distinctive markings of its serrated surface witnessing to the power of the great glacier that plowed it up from the bed of a continent and floated it upon a sea of ice for a thousand miles to where it now rests in isolated splendor, a grey sentinel of yesterdays which preceded the race of people. That chalk-like limestone with its arms full of seashells (the San Jacinto Monument) was once the bottom of the ocean floor and was formed by innumerable generations of marine life that sank to the cold oblivion of its midnight depths, where it waited half an eternity for the buckling of the earth’s crust to lift it upward to the light and to the interest of a being called man. The same exciting story is everywhere a stone is found. That lump of lava that cooled only yesterday, as geologists count time, was boiling hot for five hundred centuries. Those flat pebbles on the beach were machined and polished by ocean waves and tides, not merely of centuries, but of millenniums. A grain of sand has a history that staggers the imagination. In the petrified forest of Arizona, one stands in amazement and awe. That stone forest was once a flourishing mantle of green growth; songbirds built their nests there; and God’s myriad children of the out-of-doors dwelt there through ages and cycles of time. But NOW, those great trees are stone, hard as flint, with the dead weight of time upon them, incredible things, lying stark and still there in the desert sun, but with a message in their stone branches that brings a catch in the throat and unwilling mist in the eyes. It is little wonder, therefore, that the sacred writers seized upon such a metaphor as that provided by the stone, in order to convey eternal truth concerning Jesus Christ: for Christ is many kinds of stone, as a glance at the scripture text just cited quickly reveals. Christ is the “living stone”; and, in this, our Lord infinitely surpasses the metaphor without in any manner diminishing the effectiveness of it, because the Living Stone partakes of the likeness of many other types of stones. Like the meteorite, he is a visitor from another sphere. The Dayspring from on High came from above and beyond our poor earth to bring redemption and eternal life to people. Like the diamond, he is exceedingly precious and is “the same yesterday, today, yea and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8). Like the glacial boulder, he bears upon himself the record of the infinite past and the prophecy of something yet to be. Surely, it could have been none other than the Spirit of God who gave the sacred writers so apt a metaphor of the Son of God. He is truly the Living Stone. This living stone is the foundation stone, as Isaiah said. He is the foundation of all that is good and desirable in human civilization. Especially of the church, he is the foundation. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). What is built upon Christ will endure. As he himself revealed, to build upon the rock is to keep the sayings of the Master (Matthew 7:24). If people would only build upon the living stone, they would no longer be discouraged by the collapse of all that they build elsewhere. This living stone is a tried stone, as stated in both Testaments. He was in all points tempted as people are (Hebrews 4:5). The fact of our Lord’s being tried brings to the Christian supreme confidence in two important particulars, these being the infallibility of Christ and the perfect sympathy he has for his children. We know that he cannot fail, for he has already been tried and tested, and we know that he is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. This living stone is a precious stone (1 Peter 2:7), precious by any standard of determination, precious because of his beauty (though his beauty is not of an earthly type, Isaiah 53:2), precious because of the love he showed to people, precious because of the hope he brings, and precious in every way. We shall see “the King in his beauty” (Isaiah 33:17). Whatever criteria people have ever used to determine value, or the quality of being precious, all of them are exhausted in Christ. He is unique, there being none other. He alone provides salvation. The ties of the heart’s highest and best affection attain their ultimate strength in Christ. This living stone is a corner stone (Isaiah 28:16), an appropriate designation indeed. In him law ended and grace began; in him God submitted to his deepest humiliation and humanity attained its greatest exaltation; in him time and eternity struck hands together; in him the Old Testament was fulfilled and the New Testament was established; in him the righteous shall be glorified and the wicked frustrated; he is a savor of life unto life in them that believe and a savor of death unto death in them that believe not; in him is the corner of all human destiny, those on the left departing from his presence forever, and those on the right entering into his joy forever! This living stone is a growing stone. In the dream of the mighty king of Babylon, centuries before Christ was born, he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without hands, which struck the kingdoms of this world upon their feet of clay, overcame them, ground them to powder, and grew until it filled the whole world. That growing stone is Christ, and the growth is still in progress, nor shall it ever cease until the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. Amen. The living stone is a refuge, or sanctuary. As it is written: And he shall be a sanctuary (Isaiah 8:14). A man shall be a hiding place from the wind and a covert from the tempest, as rivers of water in a dry place, and as the shadow of a mighty rock in a weary land (Isaiah 32:2). Christ is our Rock and our Redeemer; blessed be the name of the Lord. In this concept of Christ as a sanctuary, or refuge, it is well to remember that none ever enjoyed a refuge in a sanctuary without being in it. This living stone is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. It was this particular aspect of him that prompted Paul’s introduction of this metaphor into this part of Romans. Christ’s being foretold as “a rock of stumbling” by Isaiah was a prophecy of Israel’s rejection of Christ. And how did they stumble on Christ? Peter explained it thus: They stumbled at the word, being disobedient. People stumbled upon Christ (and they still do), accounting his commandments as “hard sayings” (John 6:60); people stumble through pride which is offended at the lowliness of Jesus’ birth, and draw back from following one born in a stable, laid in a manger, nursed under the palms of Egypt, schooled in a carpenter’s shop, attended by fishermen, mocked by the soldiers in the common hall, crucified between two thieves, and buried in a borrowed grave. Christ has ever been, in such things as those, a stumbling stone to the proud. Paul said: We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24). How strange that it should be thus with people in regard to spiritual things, but who nevertheless do not reject a diamond because God wrapped it in the mud of Africa, nor a lily because its roots take hold of the mire. Oh, then to the Rock let me fly, To the Rock that is higher than I! The living stone is also the rejected stone. This phase of this extensive metaphor is founded upon an historical incident, described by Dean Plumptre thus: The illustration seems to have been drawn from one of the stones used in the building of the great temple in Jerusalem, quarried, hewn, and marked away from the site of the temple, which the builders, ignorant of the head architect’s plans, had put to one side, as having no place in the building, but which was found afterwards to be that upon which the completeness of the structure depended, that on which, as the chief corner stone, the two walls met, and were bonded together.[24]In this analogy, the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem were the builders who rejected the Christ who is the head of the corner. May all people labor in all their lives, day and night, in prayers and devotions, in patient waiting and loving service, that they might avoid, at whatever cost, the folly of rejecting the Lord. [23] Ibid., p. 330. [24] Dean Plumptre, as quoted by R. Tuck, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 18 (i), p. 356.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Romans 91. What did Paul’ s conscience bear him? 2. Through what instrument did it bear this? 3. State the condition of his heart. 4. What wish did he express? 5. To whom does he refer by his brethren? 6. What pertained to them? 7. Why ascribe the giving of the law to them ? 8. And why the covenants? 9. Of whom did Christ come? 10. Why specify “ according to the flesh” ? 11. Who is it that is “ over all” ? 12. Had God’ s Word been altogether without effect? 13. How could some be of Israel and yet not Israel? 14. Were all Abraham’ s seed counted in the promise? 15. Which strain did the line come through? 16. Why Isaac’ s seed not counted as of the flesh? 17. Was anything unusual in the motherhood of Kebecea? 18. State prediction made to her of her sons. 19. Was this based on their conduct? 20. What reason is here stated for the conclusion? 21. Through which of the sons did the law come? 22. State the declaration of God as to his mercy. 23. Does this teach he is a respecter of persons? 24. For what was Pharaoh raised up ? 25. Eaised up to what ? 26. What does God do to those not given mercy? 27. Does this relieve man of responsibility ? 28. State the rebuke here given those replying to God. 29. What power does the potter have over the clay? 30. Who is illustrated by the potter ? 31. Does the clay mean the Jews only? 32. Why did God endure with much longsuffering ? 33. Make known what on vessels of mercy? 34. Unto what were they before prepared ? 35. What book is meant by Osee? 36. Who is meant by “ my people” verse 25 ? 37. What prediction did Isaiah make about this? 38. State what portion was to be saved. 39. In what will the Lord cut short his work ? 40. Who should take courage by this prediction? 41. What favor given the Jews by Lord of Sabaoth? 42. Had it not been given what the result? 43. What had happened to these cities? 44. Who “ followed not after righteousness” ? 45. What hindered them from doing so? 46. What had Israel not attained to? 47. Tell the reason they did not. 48. At whom did they stumble? 49. When did this occur ? 50. Where was this stone laid?

Romans 9:1-2

1-2 Romans 9:1-2. See the comments at Acts 24:16 for the meaning of conscience. Witness in the Holy Ghost means his conscience had the testimony of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), recorded in the scripture. The great heaviness refers to his great concern.

Romans 9:3

9:3 Romans 9:3. Paul had said so much in criticism of his Jewish brethren that some might think it was prompted by a personal grudge against them. To offset such an impression, he refers to evidences of the past that showed his personal love for them. I could wish is all from . The Englishman’s Greek New Testament translates it, “I was wishing,” thus putting it in the past tense as it should be. It is just another expression in Paul’s effort to show his Jewish kinsmen how devoted he had been to their interests. (See the comments on the preceding paragraph, also the passage in Acts 26:9-10.) Accursed means to be separated from Christ–having nothing to do with him except to oppose him as shown in the passage cited in Acts.

Romans 9:4

9:4 Romans 9:4. This is virtually the same as chapter 3:1, 2.

Romans 9:5

9:5 Romans 9:5. Whose are the fathers means the Israelites descended from the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Christ came from them as regards his fleshly ancestry.

Romans 9:6

9:6 Romans 9:6. Word . . . taken none effect is explained at chapter 3:3. Not all Israel . . . of Israel. There are two Israels being considered, the fleshly and the spiritual.

Romans 9:7

9:7 Romans 9:7. Not all of Abraham’s descendants were children or in the line coming down to Christ; only those who descended from Abraham through Isaac.

Romans 9:8

9:8 Romans 9:8. Flesh and promise refers to Ishmael and Isaac. The regular law of fleshly reproduction was all that was necessary to produce Ishmael (Genesis 16:1-3). But Sarah was barren and a ,miracle was needed to produce Isaac, which God promised to do for her.

Romans 9:9

9:9 Romans 9:9. At this time. God worked a miracle to enable Sarah to conceive, then let nature go through the usual time of expectancy for the forming of the child.

Romans 9:10

:10 Romans 9:10. We learned at chapter 3:9-18 that God did not choose any particular nation because of its personal goodness, for all were corrupt as nations. His choice, then, was solely because He so willed it, as he certainly had the right to do. Paul is making the same argument in several verses, beginning with our present one.

Romans 9:11

:11 Romans 9:11. As an illustration of God’s practice of making official selections regardless of personal merit, Paul cites the case of the twin brothers where God made the choice before they were born and before they could have done anything, good or evil.

Romans 9:12

:12 Romans 9:12. Elder and younger are changed to “greater” and “lesser” in the margin. That is proper, for while Esau was elder in the order of their births and thus of greater age, yet God decreed that he and his descendants should give place to Jacob in His plans.

Romans 9:13

:13 Romans 9:13. The original word for hated is defined by Thayer in this place, “to love less,” hence it does not mean a feeling against Esau as if He detested him.

Romans 9:14

:14 Romans 9:14. Since no personal injury was done to Esau by this choice, there was no unrighteousness on the part of God in making this official selection.

Romans 9:15

:15 Romans 9:15. The mercy and compassion of this verse does not refer to the personal treatment of the individuals, but to selecting them for national or official purposes.

Romans 9:16

:16 Romans 9:16. The selection is not left to the person to do his own choosing, since it was not for personal advantage, but to God whose will is supreme.

Romans 9:17

:17 Romans 9:17. In some cases the selection did result in the personal welfare or fate of the one selected, and then God selected one who was already fitted by character for the place. Pharaoh was brought to the throne of Egypt by the Lord at the right time to go through the humiliating experiences related in Exodus, but he was a wicked character to begin with (Exodus 1:8), so the experience did him no injustice.

Romans 9:18

:18 Romans 9:18. Verses 15 and 17 should be considered with this one.

Romans 9:19-20

Romans 9:19-20. To criticize God for using his divine right of choice would be like a vessel complaining against the one who formed it. It would be similar to the foolish argument about deliberately sinning in chapter 6:1, 15.

Romans 9:21

:21 Romans 9:21. A potter is the one to decide what kind of vessel is to be made out of a lump of clay. The facts that determine it are such as the case of Pharaoh.

Romans 9:22-23

Romans 9:22-23. A potter might delay his decision about a vessel, when an onlooker would think it very clear as to which vessel deserved to be retained and which discarded. Yet he would not know the mind of the potter, neither would it be his affair.

Romans 9:24

:24 Romans 9:24. The apparent unwise action of the potter in the preceding paragraph refers to the Jews and Gentiles. Each of these nations thought the other should have been discarded as an undesirable vessel. (See the comments at chapter 3:9-12.)

Romans 9:25-26

Romans 9:25-26. Osee means Hosea, and it is a prediction that the Gentiles were to become God’s people, even though the Jews thought them unworthy of it.

Romans 9:27

:27 Romans 9:27. Esaias is Isaiah, whose prophecy was concerning the Jews also. But this prediction was not so complimentary for this nation, although it was the vessel at first selected by the Potter. Notwithstanding its number was as the sand of the sea, a remnant only was to be salvaged because of unbelief of the majority.

Romans 9:28

:28 Romans 9:28. The first application of this verse as well as the preceding one, is that only a remnant of the Jewish nation was to return from the Babylonian captivity. The context of the passage cited in Isaiah 10:22-23 shows clearly that such is the meaning. Then later the nation was reduced still more by the wars with the Romans.

Romans 9:29

:29 Romans 9:29. Lord of Sabaoth means Lord of hosts. Left us a seed applies to the remnant of verse 27, and to the “elect” for whose sake the days of the siege of Jerusalem were to be shortened according to Matthew 24:22. The reference to Sodoma and Go-morrha is to show how complete the destruction of Israel would have been had it not been for the mercy of God.

Romans 9:30-31

Romans 9:30-31. Followed not after righteousness. The Gentiles were not under the law of Moses and did not profess to follow the life of righteousness. The Gentiles were not under the law of Moses and did not profess to follow the life of righteousness that it prescribed. Yet when the righteousness set forth by faith (the Gospel) was offered to them, they were more ready to accept it than was Israel. (Chapter 8:4 and Acts 13:42 Acts 13:46.)

Romans 9:32

:32 Romans 9:32. Paul explains that the failure of the Jews came because they did not seek to attain to righteousness by faith (the Gospel). Instead, while professing to accept the preaching of the apostles, they insisted on clinging to the merits of the works of the law. The apostle gives an additional explanation of their failure which is in the fact that they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.

Romans 9:33

:33 Romans 9:33. The stumbling of the people of Israel had been predicted, and Paul cites it which is in Isaiah 8:14 Isaiah 28:16. It is also in Psalms 118:22 and 1 Peter 2:6-8. The Jews’ prejudice against Christ caused them to reject His system or righteousness.