[Above: A Christmas card image (from ‘Jews for Jesus’, 2012.)]
FOREWORD
It is
extraordinary how our Lord’s return, and the “Thousand Years” reign to follow, can be openly denied today by countless Churches. Dr. G. E. Gill once asked Pastor
William Anderson, of
“O that the thought, the
glorious hope of Millennial blessedness may animate me to perfect holiness in
the fear of God, that I may be accounted worthy to escape the terrible
judgments, which will prepare its way, to stand before the Son of man.”
– FLETCHER, of Madeley.
“O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the
midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy” (Hab. 3: 2).
The test of the
last days, which may yet try us all, is now happening in some parts of
the world, sharply dividing overcomers from those overcome.
“They that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus lived [again], AND REIGNED WITH
CHRIST A THOUSAND YEARS” (Rev. 20: 4).
-------
ROMANS
CHAPTER NINE
By
JAMES M. STIFLER, D.D.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis
-------
(1)
[Romans 9:] 1-3,
“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not.”
The transition from the eighth chapter is abrupt. The sudden change may be accounted for
psychologically. The apostle had just been
contemplating the certainty of the glory of the sons of God; his heart goes now
to the other extreme, the failure and misery of his own countrymen.
This vehement language was necessary, because in giving the
Gospel to the heathen Paul was looked upon by the Jew as an enemy of his own
nation. Some of the Roman church,
knowing as they did the exclusiveness of the Jews, might be persuaded that Paul
was an apostate rather than an apostle of God.
He must defend himself. He is about to outline
“Accursed from Christ.”
This language is startling and has troubled many; but it is in the very
spirit of
4, 5. “Who are
Israelites,” or
being such as are Israelites, a term of the highest honour, God’s princes (Gen. 32: 28).
He enumerates seven particulars which belong especially to them: (a)
they were adopted as God’s people; (b) they alone had the Shekinah “glory”; (c) the “covenants,” made with the fathers (Gen. 6: 18; 15: 18; Exod. 2: 24) and renewed from time to time (hence the plural), were theirs alone; (d)
the “law” amid imposing splendours was given to them; (e) the temple “service” was divinely prescribed for them; no
other nation had an authorized worship; (f) they were the only people who had “promises” of the Messiah and of direct
blessings through him; the other nations received them through Israel; (g) the “fathers” - Abraham, the head of many nations,
Isaac, and Jacob - were theirs; other nations had great ancestors, but Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob have the honour of being not merely natural, but divinely
chosen chiefs.
Besides these seven all their own, the Israelites had one
other honour in which they shared, an honour that overtops all the rest. The “whose” changes now to “of whom!”
The fathers are theirs, but the Christ, though He came from them in His
human relation, belongs to the world. To
show the greatness of this honour Christ is declared to be God over all,
blessed forever. Sanday (Commentary, in loc.),
after an exhaustive examination of all the arguments bearing on the punctuation
of this passage, “with some slight, but only slight,
hesitation,” admits that Paul here applies the name God to Christ. No other view gives the passage its climactic
point.
Paul mentions all these things not only to set forth the
Israelites’ pre-eminence, but to show the painfulness and difficulty of the
problem now in hand. They had the
promises and the Christ sprang from them, and yet these covenant people were
reaping nothing from these advantages.
Jesus belonged to them, but they did not belong to Jesus. Could Paul’s doctrine of an elective
justification for all nations be true?
6.
Paul abruptly lays hold of the question.
The Jews have failed, but God’s Word has not. The emphasis is on the phrase “the Word of
God.” The proof of no failure is that the promises
were made to
7. That the real
8. This verse shows the significance of
the promise, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
If God limited the promise to one of Abraham’s children, excluding
Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, it follows that “they which
are the children of the flesh are not the children of God.”
God’s children are not the product of nature; they are not begotten by
man, but by Him. Who, then, are His own,
to whom the promises were spoken? Not
even the natural descendants of Isaac; for the principle already given, that
the children of the flesh as such are excluded, excludes Isaac’s fleshly
descent, excludes Esau. God’s children
are those of whom Isaac is a type. He was born not by the energy of nature, but
was a supernatural creation in accordance with a divine promise. Hence “the children
of the promise are counted [are reckoned, equal to “called”
in v. 7] for the seed [or “as seed”]” (John 1: 13).
“Children of promise” is not equivalent to promised children. The word is almost personified. God’s promise is a potent energy, quickening
those to whom His covenant pertains.
Thus the seed is found “in Isaac,” in his line.
They are all his offspring, but not all the offspring are “counted for
the seed.”
9. If the children of the promise are
the only ones “counted,” of whom Isaac is the apt type, it is necessary to show
that he was a child of promise, as this verse does. The original order brings out the force
better: “For of promise is this word,” the quotation which follows. The emphatic word is “promise.”
Accordingly, as Meyer
strikingly observes, “We see that not the bodily
descent, but the divine promise, constitutes the relation of belonging to
Abraham’s fatherhood.” But he
fails to observe a subtle point in the quotation. The child was to be not only the gift of
God’s power, “will I come,” but given in His own time: “At this time will I come.” The happy season for the realization
of the promise was not yet. He selected
the time as well as the child, and the time was when he should come with
quickening power. Paul intimates that
10-12. “And not only this [or, fully expressed, “And not only Sarah
received a divine promise concerning her son”]; but when Rebecca ..!”
In Rebecca’s case the divine action is still more pointed. In saying that she was with child “by one,” Paul is not calling attention to the unity
of the fatherhood, which would be absurd.
It does not mean by one man (Meyer), as though there might be two. The “one” focuses the attention on him in whom
the seed was called, “even our father Isaac.” He is
significantly called “our,” that is,
The “for” (v. 11) bears on this clearly implied
limitation, and brings in the statements that illustrate it. The children were not yet born; they had done
neither good nor evil; the selection, then, was not made either on the ground
of their character or on the ground of their works. To say that God foresaw the good character
and good works of Jacob is to import an idea that is repugnant to the logic of
the statement here made by Paul and contradicted by the subsequent facts. Jacob’s history does not show him to be a
better man morally than his brother; his very name indicates his character.
(See below on v. 14.) Human merit, present or foreseen, does not
enter into God’s choice. Again, if God
chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael it might be said mistakenly that the selection
was made because of the latter’s irregular parentage. That mistake is not possible in the case of
Jacob and Esau. Isaac and Ishmael had
only one parent in common; Jacob and Esau had both and the children were twins.
We are next told the reason for dealing thus with the twins: “that the
purpose of God according to election might stand.”
It is an according-to-election purpose.
Paul finds the source of salvation in God alone. He had a “purpose” to save. This purpose cannot be of “none effect,” but must “stand,” because, first, it is not universal,
but is limited to an “election,” a selection, as in the case of Isaac against Ishmael. The one elected was the one He promised. The idea of promise, with which Paul began,
is the same as that in the word “election.”
And, second, God’s elective purpose will “stand” because it is
determined “not by [or “of”] works, but by [or “of”] him that calleth,” that is, God himself.
Now, in order that God might show this purpose, a purpose that was
elective and based on His own will, He said before the twins were born, “The elder
shall serve the younger.” By His own will He
reversed the order of nature and took but one of the twin sons of Isaac, in
whom the seed was promised.
If Paul began this chain of reasoning under the proposition (v. 6) that the Word of God has not failed
in the case of the Jew, and now concludes it with the proposition that His
purpose has not failed, but must “stand,” there is only an apparent shifting of
terms. It is the Word of God that
embodies the purpose, and in speaking of the latter Paul means no other purpose
but the one disclosed in the “Word.” The propositions are
logically identical. The Jews erred, not
knowing the Scripture. They stuck to
their baseless notion that because they were the natural descent of Abraham
they were heirs of salvation, a notion against which Jesus solemnly warned
them. He admitted that they were
Abraham’s natural “seed,” but denied that they were His promised “children” (John 8: 37, 39).
13. “As it is
written, Jacob
[have] I loved, but Esau [have] I hated.” Omit “have” in both cases.
This scripture, which looks only logically at the original two, but
directly at their descendants (Mal. 1: 1-4), is quoted to corroborate the original choice. God’s motive in it was neither love of the
one nor hate of the other, but simply “of him that calleth.”
But, the choice once made, God’s love followed Jacob’s seed, showing the
reality of His election, and His hate followed Esau’s, showing the reality of
His rejection. The word “hated” need not be softened.
Paul has now so far vindicated God’s Word despite the failure
of
14. “Is there unrighteousness with God?”
This question could not arise unless Paul wished himself to be
understood as teaching that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau for no assignable
reason outside His own will. If God chose Jacob because He foresaw his faith or
his virtue, and rejected Esau for an opposite character, reason would approve
and the question of this verse could not he asked. But when it is taught that God chose Jacob
for no good in him, and rejected (“hated”) Esau
for no bad in him, man’s narrow heart feels that an injustice has been
done. This sentiment Paul repels: “God forbid.”
15, 16.
Paul finds the argument for his vehement denial of injustice in God not
by abstract reasoning about the idea of justice, but in the Scriptures. The quotation is from Exodus 33: 19.
The great Jewish captain is earnestly seeking grace from God. It might be supposed that he could attain it
on the ground of his office and merit; but even “to Moses,” God saith, He gives mercy not because
he is Moses, or because he seeks it, but just because it is God’s “will” to do so. It is a bold, crisp assertion of the divine
freedom in bestowing grace. “In any case through human
history wherein I shall be seen to have mercy, the one account I give of the
radical cause is this - I have mercy” (Moule). Mercy is the outward manifestation of the
feeling of compassion.
The conclusion follows. God’s mercy is not the response to
human desire nor to human effort. It is
not of him that “willeth” or wishes it, as Moses did, and not of him who “runneth” in the path of right.
Willing and running may indicate the possession of grace, but they are
not the originating cause. They may be
the channel, but they are not the fountain.
The source of grace is God’s own will, that goes out to whom He
will. Mercy is “of God, that showeth mercy” independent of any motive in man.
17. “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh!”
Moses’ history bears on the election of Jacob; Pharaoh’s on the
rejection of Esau. The latter is cited
for the same purpose as the former - to show God’s freedom and sovereignty in
dealing with men. As He grants mercy
after His own will, so also He withholds it, and hardens whom He will. Ten times in the Scripture about Pharaoh it
is said he hardened himself; but Paul makes no account of this, for his clear
intention is to account for Pharaoh’s overthrow by the free purpose of
God. And yet God did not harden him for
the sake of the hardening, but that the divine power might have a field of
display and that the divine name might become known. If Pharaoh had willingly and sweetly allowed
the people to depart, there could have been no miracles “in
In selecting Pharaoh as an example of God’s hardening Paul
shows his skill. Pharaoh was a
detestable heathen oppressor, and undue prejudice would not be excited against
the doctrine in illustrating it by his case.
18.
This gives the solemn and awful conclusion of the section beginning at verse 14, or even as far back as verse 7.
The word “whom” is singular. The subject is not one
about nations, but about individuals, not one about ethnic supremacy or
leadership, but about personal [eternal] salvation. “Therefore
hath he mercy on what man he will, and what man he will he hardeneth.”
God is absolute sovereign, allowing nothing to direct His activity but
His own will. His Word is true, as true
as He is, but He has never uttered a word to abridge His freedom, nor can His
Word, like a promissory note, be pleaded against His freedom. This hardening process is going on today; it
can be read as clearly in current history as in God’s Word. And yet man is also free in choosing God and
free in refusing Him. The reconciliation
of these two is a question of philosophy, and philosophy fails in the
effort. The Bible does not attempt it,
but stops with asserting that both are realities.
19. “Why doth he yet find fault?”
This puts the query of verse 14 in a more aggravated form. There it
is a question about the justice of God; here it is virtually a charge of
injustice. He hardened Pharaoh; He
willed to harden him. Pharaoh did just
what God willed; he did not resist His will; no one does whom He hardens. “Why doth he yet find fault” and visit dire punishment upon
sinners?
20. “Nay but, 0 man.”
Paul has already answered this question as far as possibly it ever can
be answered. The answer is to the point
and practical. It is that God is free to
do as He will; He is a sovereign; and what is the idea of absolute sovereignty
but that He who has it is under no obligation to give a reason for anything
which He does? If He must give a reason
for His actions He is no longer sovereign, but the reason given enjoys that
distinction, not to say the persons to whom it must be given. This matter is not peculiar to the Gospel; it
belongs to every religion that owns a personal God. A God is one whose will is free, whose will
is law.
The question, then, “Why doth he
yet find fault?”
is not only impious, but blasphemous.
The man sets himself up to condemn not only the decree of God, but to
claim a higher justice for himself; he replies not merely against God’s
judgment, but against the only possible conception given in the word “God.”
In complaining against God for hardening a man to do a wicked thing and
then finding fault with that man for doing it, the complainant says, “There ought not to be such a God; that is, there ought to be
what is really no God, one with such notions of justice toward men as I have!” The man exalts himself above God in sitting
in judgment upon the divine acts. The
fallacy is in his idea of what constitutes a God. Godet
weakens Paul’s rejoinder, “Who art thou that repliest?” by saying that he means “a reply to a reply.”
No; Paul’s whole argument is drawn from the nature of God. His opponent is more than a debater; he is
well-nigh atheistic. Shedd’s
exposition here is better than Godet’s: “An irreverent equalizing
of man with God.”
It must not be forgotten that whatever
God does is necessarily just; because, if there is anything outside His own
will by which to measure the actions
of that will, that thing is higher than God.
For human reason or human sense of right to sit in judgment on God’s
acts is as foolish as it is wicked.
Again, he who replies against God must mean, if he means
anything, that it is God’s hardening that deprives a soul of salvation; that if
God did not interpose with an election, and take some and leave others to be
hardened, all men would at least have an equal opportunity of salvation. This is false. If God did not elect, none would be saved, for
there is “none that seeketh after God” (3:
11). And men are not lost because they are
hardened; they are hardened because they are lost; they are lost because they
are sinners (1: 21).
God is not responsible for sin. He is under no obligation to save
anyone. Obligation and sovereignty
cannot both be predicated of God. If He
saves anyone it is a sovereign act of mercy, and for that very reason His
justification is tantamount to [eternal] salvation.
It must not be supposed (with Sanday,
apparently) that Paul’s argument through this section is an ad hominem drawn from the Jew’s Old Testament
conception of God. It is drawn from the
nature of sovereignty, the necessary conception of God. Neither does Paul lay his hand on the mouth of
the objector and cry, “Stop!” He confutes him with one single logical
shaft: God is God.
“Shall the thing formed say.” Note that Paul does
not say, “Shall the thing created say to him that
created it.” It is not a question of original creation, but of
subsequent destination. What would the
ability to fashion be worth if it were under the dictation of that which is to
be fashioned?
21. “Hath not the potter power over the
clay,” from the
same lump to make one part a vessel to honour and another to dishonour? (Isa. 45: 9; 64: 8; Jer. 18: 1-10.) This illustration
enforces the idea of God’s sovereignty.
To be sure, men are not senseless clay but beings of feeling and will;
and yet, with all feeling and will and intelligence, they are as helpless,
being sinners, to fit themselves to please God as clay left to itself is
helpless to become an ornamental vase.
The potter does not make the clay.
He takes it as he finds it and fashions out of the same lump - the “clay” and the “lump” are identical in character and quantity
- one part a vessel to ornament the house and another part a vessel for some
base use. Originally the two were the
same thing - clay; the potter determined their destination. Pharaoh and Moses originally belonged to the
same guilty lump of humanity. Moses was
inherently no better than the Egyptian king.
God had mercy on one and fashioned him into a glorious instrument of
deliverance for His people; the other He hardened, and to deny God’s justice in
so doing is as absurd as to deny that the potter has a right to turn base clay
into a slop jar. Why it is that men are
sinners neither Paul nor the Bible anywhere teaches; but sinners under God’s
wrath they are, and He is not responsible that they are sinners, and from the
lump of sinful humanity may choose for His service whom He will and may harden
at His pleasure. To confess this is the
very highest exercise of reason.
22. Now, after Paul has vindicated the idea of
God in vindicating His sovereignty - for a God who is not absolutely free to do
as He will is no God - he shows next and in addition how graciously He
exercised his freedom. Though “willing to
show his wrath
[today], and to
make his power known,” as in Pharaoh’s case, He, after all,
endured in much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Paul does not now say that God fitted
them. He bore with them.
This sentence, embracing verses 22-24, is not complete. It is almost a worshipful exclamation, but
may be read as in the King James Version, “What if,” or “What shall we say if.”
23.
Closely connected with the last verse by means of the word “endured.”
The “vessels of mercy” called also for endurance.
The writer of the epistle could not forget that, had God’s just wrath
fallen upon the Jews at the time that they earned it, he himself would have
been lost. But God with much
long-suffering restrains His wrath against sinners, “and [he does so] that he might make known [by calling and justification] the riches of his glory on
the vessels of mercy [the
elect], which he had afore prepared unto
[eternal] glory!” They are not vessels of favour, but of “mercy,” in that He showed them mercy. These, it is said, “he prepared
afore.” Paul is
doubtless referring to 8: 29 in
the word “afore.”
Men, being sinners, have no rights remaining before God; in
His justice He might destroy them all. But
He chooses to save some sinners in the exercise of mercy, and for the time
restrains His wrath toward the rest. These two verses bear on the idea of His
sovereignty in showing how He exercises it; the next one with the quotations
following shows toward whom He exercises it.
24. “Even us [the “vessels
of mercy”], whom he hath called.”
This is His own sovereign call.
The rest heard the Gospel, but were not called by Him. Unless the word has this special meaning here
and in 1:
6; 8: 28, 30, it has no meaning. The “called” were found not among the Jews only,
but also among the Gentiles. This is by
no means the ultimate, but only the present, exhibition of His
sovereignty. Paul keeps the two classes
separate here, for he still has God’s dealing with the Jew in mind, to whom the
thought returns exclusively at verse 31 below. The promise of [eternal] salvation
was not conditioned on nationality, but is “of him that calleth” (v. 11 above) and may extend to all nations: “Even us, ... not of the Jews only, but also of the
Gentiles.”
He supports this statement chiastically* from
the Scriptures.
* Chiasmus: an
inversion of the order of words in two corresponding parallel phrases or
clauses, or of words when repeated. - Editor’s note.
25, 26. These quotations from Hosea 2: 23 and 1: 10 are combined, and predict the call of Gentiles. The phrase “and it shall come to pass”
(v. 26) is not Paul’s, but the prophet’s. “Call” and “called” do not mean invited or named, but
called with the call (v. 11
above and 8:
30). The “place” is indefinite, and means any place in
the world. The prophecy originally seems
to refer to the ten tribes, but as they had been excluded from the nation and
were practically heathen, Paul refers to them as a type of the call of the
Gentiles.
27-29. These verses look at the case of
The apostle makes one more quotation (Isa. 1: 9), that brings his teaching about God’s
sovereign and electing grace to a startling climax. But for the divine interference
30-33. “What shall
we say then?” (See
(4) above.) What are the facts so far as
this discussion is concerned, the facts as seen wherever the Gospel has
gone? Not that the Word of God has
failed, but that the prophecy has now become history, to be seen in
history. First, some Gentiles, who were
making no effort (reminding the reader of verse 16 above, “it is not of him that runneth”) after righteousness, reached
it. They did not will, but God did. Since these Gentiles had no works, God
bestowed [His]
righteousness upon them, that is, they had a righteousness of faith. The article “the”
before “Gentiles” in the King James Version is an error, strangely repeated in
the Revised Version. Paul, with the fact of election in his mind,
could not and he did not write this illogical “the.” That some Gentiles, those who believed, were
righteous, was attested by their living. They had abandoned idolatry, worshiped
God, and claimed no merit for themselves (Phil. 3: 3).
A second fact in accord with the argument above was (and is)
that Israel as a whole, though following the (Mosaic) law of righteousness, the
law that is connected with righteousness, did not attain to that law. Omit “of
righteousness” in the second instance.
That
“Wherefore?”
Why did
It is at this point that Paul passes from the sovereignty of
God to the responsibility of man. The
two cannot be harmonized in the human understanding, except as the Scriptures
harmonize them; that is, by insisting on and holding to both. The Scriptures and reason assert the absolute
sovereignty of God, and Scripture and the human conscience assert with equal
force the responsibility of man; so that the practical error arises when either
one of these is denied or when one is explained in a way to exclude the
other. It must also be remembered that,
while man cannot save himself, moral inability does not relieve from responsibility. Man’s inability lies in his sinful nature (8: 7), and God cannot be made responsible
for sin. The sinner’s inability to do
right, to do God’s will, is the acme of his sin.
A world of sin is a world of confusion. Sin introduced confusion between God and man,
and confusion cannot be explained. The
real difficulty between God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s responsibility is
metaphysical and not Biblical. How can there
be one sovereign free will and other free wills? And when Fritzsche says that Paul’s view
is “absolutely contradictory,” he is virtually
demanding that Paul cease preaching and turn philosopher to solve the
insoluble. But Paul leaves the question
where he found it, and goes on now in this and the next chapter to show that
“They stumbled at that stumbling stone.”
The “for” is probably not genuine, but it
shows the correct relation of the sentences.
They failed to believe because the Christ came in a way which their
works disqualified them to approve (1 Pet. 2: 7, 8).
“As it is written.”
The quotation is a combination of Isaiah 8: 14 and 28: 16. That which was applicable in the prophet’s
time Paul sees to be applicable also in his time. God’s enemies stumbled then because of Him;
they stumble now at His gift of
Christ. At the same time Christ is a
security for him that believeth on Him. The “whosoever” in the King James Version is not
genuine and mars the sense. Paul is quoting
this Scripture not to show the universality of salvation, which the word “whosoever” would suggest, but in proof that the
Jews failed by lack of faith. The word “believeth” carries the main idea. He that believeth shall not make haste to
some other refuge for salvation, or, what is the same, he shall not be put to
shame by trusting in this Stone.*
[* Acts 4: 10-12.]
The substance of the chapter is that, in spite of Israel’s
rejection, in spite of the present mixed following of Jews and Gentiles as the
Lord’s people, God’s Word has not failed, for God never pledged away His
sovereignty in it, but, on the other hand, predicted that [eternal] salvation
turned on His will and call.
* * *
ROMANS CHAPTER 10
MESSIAH] THEIR OWN FAULT
Though God did not elect the mass of Israel for salvation at
this time, their present rejection is not to be explained by His withholding
grace, which was freely offered them, but by their sinful lack of discernment (Luke 12:
56; 19: 44; 21: 24).
The chapter contains four topics: (1) Israel failed to see
that Christ was the end of the law (vv. 1-4); (2) the free character of salvation (vv. 5-11); (3) its universal character (vv. 12-18); and (4) they failed to see that all
this, as well as their own rejection, was the prediction of their own
Scriptures (vv. 19-21).
1. “Brethren, my heart’s desire …”
“Good pleasure” is preferable to the word “desire.”
It will be noticed that each one of the three chapters in this theodicy
begins with a warm expression of the apostle’s own feeling. He will not let it
be forgotten, in bringing these heavy charges against those of his own blood,
that he is writing in pity and not in anger.
He is not an enemy of
2. It was because Paul saw
3. “For they, being ignorant.”
Here are given the contents of their ignorance: “ignorant of
God’s righteousness [by faith in Christ], and going about [seeking] to establish their own righteousness [by works of law, in zeal for the
latter, they] have
not submitted themselves” to the former. Here the two kinds of righteousness are set
in contrast. These two are the sum of
all on earth, and they are mutually exclusive in the human heart. The Jews at this time were not unacquainted
with the righteousness of God, but they were “ignorant” of it.
4. “For Christ is the end of the law.”
The Revised Version retains
both articles. “End” means termination. It is true that he is also the aim and the
fulfilment of the law. Tholuck combines
the two ideas of termination and aim; Alford
stands for the latter. But the sharp
contrast here, as well as the (original) word, requires the meaning
termination. The law is no longer a
means of righteousness.
Sanday
surely errs in saying that this verse is a proof that the Jews were “wrong” in not submitting themselves to the
righteousness of God. It is not a
question of right or wrong, but of fact.
The Jews claimed that in following the law they were submitting to God,
for He gave the law. No, says, Paul; in
so doing you are not submitting to the righteousness of God. “For Christ [whom God gave and you reject] is the end of the law for [with a view to] righteousness to every one
that believeth.” The Jew’s system was one of doing; but God’s
was one of believing, one of grace. Law
and grace are mutually exclusive and antagonistic systems (4: 4, 5;
11: 6). Because the Jew held to law he was not in
subjection to God. The proof that he was
not is this great principle of grace recorded in this fourth verse.
5. That Christ ends the law in making
nothing but faith necessary to righteousness is confirmed in the further
contrast of the two systems. (See (2) above.)
Moses describes the righteousness of the law as one of doing – “the man that
doeth those things!” The point made here is not that no
man can do those things prescribed by Moses, but that, in case he did do them,
it would be his “own righteousness” and not God’s, which is next described at length.
6, 7.
“But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise.”
Paul does not say that Moses describes this righteousness; he does not
set Moses against Moses. He says the
righteousness itself speaks; it is self-descriptive.
It must be carefully noted what Paul is after. The points are just two: first, that the
Jew’s intense religious zeal in devotion to the law, a zeal that touches the
apostle’s heart, is, after all, not God’s
righteousness, but in flat contradiction to it.
This is seen in the nature or character of the two. A faith-righteousness in Christ must end
law-righteousness, for Moses describes the latter as one of doing. But now arises just at this point a second
question. Admitting, as the Jew would,
that the two are antagonistic, he would not admit that the righteousness in
Christ was genuine; he would make that claim for his own. Hence, beginning at this sixth verse, Paul
not only completes his contrast between the righteousness by law and the
righteousness by faith, but to the end of the section at verse 11 adds the other argument, that nothing
but righteousness by faith is God’s.
“Say not in thy heart.” This is a quotation from Deuteronomy 30: 11-14, with Paul’s interjected explanations
by means of the equating phrase “that is!”
The difficulty that stands here is that Paul takes words that Moses
seems to use of the law, and makes them descriptive of the righteousness of
faith.
Two considerations relieve the difficulty. First, the contrast is not between the law and
faith, but between the righteousness proceeding from the two. The law bears testimony to both kinds. The righteousness of faith is witnessed by
the law and the prophets (3: 21, 22).
The second consideration is that Paul interprets this passage
in the original Mosaic intent of it.
This intent after the Gospel came was not difficult to see. The
thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy refers to the ultimate gathering of all
This difference between singular and plural must not be
overlooked. It speaks both of keeping
the commandments and also of turning to the Lord with the heart. The Gospel gave Paul the key to the latter,
and he quotes the passage as not applicable to the righteousness of the law,
but descriptive only of the Gospel. When, therefore, Sanday implies that “words used by Moses of the
law” are applied by Paul to the Gospel “as
against the law” (Commentary on Romans, p. 288), and denies to Paul a “true interpretation” of this and similar passages (p.
306, id.), the only question is, Which is the safer expositor of the Old
Testament, the professor or the apostle?
“The righteousness of the law is defined in terms that imply
doing. The passage quoted here by Paul defines
the righteousness of faith in terms which shut out all doing. No man need attempt the impossible thing of
ascending to Heaven, which means to bring Christ down; He has already come. And no one need go over the sea or, what is
the same thing, descend to its depths, the abyss [i.e., ‘Hades’
/ ‘Sheol’], to
bring Christ again from the dead; He
is already raised. God’s “command” (Deut. 30: 11), His work, is not “hidden from thee”; it is already done (John 6:
29).
8. “But what saith it?”
This little question belongs not to the quotation, but is Paul’s, and
serves both to pass from the negative to the positive side of the description
of true righteousness [of God] and to call attention a second time to it. It declares that God’s righteousness is not
distant and difficult, but “the word [Moses did not say “commandments”]
is nigh thee [like the air of heaven], in thy mouth, and in thy
heart: that is, the word of faith [referred to in Moses], which we [apostles] preach.” It is a word or command not for doing, but for believing.
9, 10.
These two verses give the contents of the “word of faith!”
“That” is equivalent neither to “in order that” nor to “because.”
The first is forbidden by the original word (hote), and the second in that
there is no need to prove the express assertion that “the word is
nigh thee.” Paul would not attempt to prove Scripture by
his own assertion; but he may tell what it means. This “word” by the preaching of it is brought to
the mouth and the heart of the sinner as the atmosphere comes to the
lungs. Man does not make it; he breathes
it and lives.
Since Christ has already come down from above, has died, and
has been raised from the dead, nothing remains for the Jew or for anyone else
to do but to confess it with his mouth and believe it in his heart. Paul specifies the vital element in Christian
faith, “that God hath raised him [out] from the dead.” He was raised for our justification (4: 25).
The faith that leaves this out, although it may accept everything else
in the Christian’s creed, is not Christian and is not saving. The Jew’s “doing”
[to be justified]
denied it. The “for” of the tenth verse does not introduce
a proof, but an analytic explanation, of the [eternal] salvation just mentioned – “thou shalt be
saved.” If one believes with the heart, that belief
brings him into righteousness, right standing before God, and if now he
confesses openly in his life his adherence to Jesus, that confession leads on
to the final salvation. Thus salvation
is resolved into its two elements, a heart trust that provokes a true
confession of His name. And yet the two
are one; for confession without belief is either self-deception or hypocrisy,
while trust without confession may be cowardice (John
19: 38).
It sounds a little odd, in view of Paul’s words, “with the mouth confession is made,” to hear Sanday say the confession “is made in baptism.”
Paul links [water] baptism with faith (Col. 2: 12).
If the order of the words “mouth”
and “heart” in verse 9 is reversed to “heart”
and “mouth” in verse 10, this occurs because in the former Paul is following
Moses’ order, who presents the “word” rather as
a creed and climactically, not only in thy mouth, but in thy very heart. The tenth verse
presents the words in the order of experience.
11. This quotation from Isaiah 28: 16, with the expansion of “he” into “whosoever,”
clearly implied in the original, is in proof of the last verse that [eternal] salvation
is by faith. The two words about believing
and confessing in the last verse are here reduced to one, “believeth.”
(For “ashamed” see on 9: 33.)
Perhaps none but an apostle’s eyes could see salvation by faith in the
quotation above from Deuteronomy 30. But we must think the zealous Jews
either obstinate or blind that could not see it in this verse in Isaiah, were
it not for the same lack of perception attending men still. Salvation by works, even in evangelical
circles, is pursued today by all such as cannot unquestioningly, like a little
child (Mark
10: 15), accept this same
word in its sublime simplicity.
12. “For there
is no difference.” As
13. “For, whosoever ...”
This, from Joel 2: 32, is the scriptural proof of the universality of God’s mercy. The quotation is very much like that in verse 11 above, but there is a difference in use:
there it confirms the believing, here the universality. Hence here in the original it is not simply
whosoever, but everyone whosoever. The
apostle seems fond of repeating the noble Gospel sentiment that believing
prayer from any heart of man receives an answer rich in righteousness.
14. “How then shall they call?”
With these verses begins an argument extending through several verses,
to prove from another point of view the universality of the Gospel. If this Gospel is general and designed for all,
if its language is that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”
(v. 13), it is then inevitable from the word “call” that the Gospel must be preached
everywhere. If such general preaching is
predicted (v. 15) and has been accomplished, there is thereby evidence of the
Gospel’s universal character; and if it is found that Israel has heard this
world-wide Gospel and has not believed it, the responsibility of their
rejection is upon themselves. Says Cifford, “From the nature of the salvation just described (v. 13), it follows that the
Gospel must be preached to all without distinction” (Speaker’s Com., in loc.). If the universal condition of salvation is to
call on the Lord, only the general spread of the Gospel can make such a call
possible.
By successive steps Paul argues from Joel’s cardinal words, “Whosoever
shall call,” to
the sending out of the preachers. Men,
cannot call on Him in whom they have not believed, and, to be sure, they cannot
believe in Him of whom they never heard.
And how can they ever hear without a preacher? The spread of the Gospel is dependent on the
living messenger. The sending forth of
Bibles is not sufficient;
15. “And how
shall they preach, except they be sent,” sent by God?
The first heralds who formally and definitely went out either to the
Jews or to the Gentiles were commissioned by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2; 10; 8: 2-4).
There is no clearer passage for the call into the ministry than this: “How shall
they preach, except they be sent?”
(Gal. 1: 15, 16).
No matter how well a man be qualified otherwise, if he is not divinely “sent”
he is a profane intruder. No matter how humble and lacking in
brilliance, if he has this credential he need not be discouraged. The Father sends the Son, and the Son sends the preachers (John 17: 18).
Paul has now argued backward from the nature of the Gospel,
which demands that men call on the name of the Lord, to that which this call implies, a general sending forth of
ministers. That such would be sent forth
is confirmed by a passage from Isaiah 52: 7 (see Nahum
1: 15): “How beautiful
are the feet of them [how welcome is their coming] that preach ... peace, that [not “and”]
bring glad
tidings of good things!”
There was a partial fulfilment of Isaiah’s words in the return from the
captivity which the prophet foresaw.
Paul sees a deeper meaning, which points to the mission of the Gospel
messengers, and now his argument so far is complete. A Gospel intended for all requires ministers
sent to all, and this harmonizes with the prediction that they would be sent.
16. “But they
have not all obeyed the gospel” - the “glad tidings” mentioned
above. Paul restrains himself, as in 3: 3.
He might have said, “How few believed!” This general disbelief, however, does not
disprove that the “sent” messengers were God’s. It actually
confirms their authority. For Isaiah
foresaw this unbelief and predicted it in the sad words, “Lord, who
hath believed our report?” or, “Who hath believed thy message heard from us?”
The prophet (Isa. 53: 1) is now speaking of the Messianic times, as the connection
shows clearly. Paul says “they” have not obeyed. The
word is general, but he has
17. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the [spoken] word of God.”
Paul is not referring to the act of listening as the source of
faith. Listening is itself faith, and
all men listen to something. Saving faith, of which he is speaking,
comes from heeding saving doctrine; this is his vital point. This verse can be paraphrased thus: Genuine
faith comes by a message heard (from us [from
God]), and the message heard (is) by means of
the “Word of God,” the Word given the messenger, the Gospel. The “Word of God,” or, as some read
here, “of Christ,”
does not mean His command to preach.
But why does Paul utter the words of this verse? It is the logical conclusion of everything
from verse
13 above. The “call” that brings [eternal] salvation demands faith,
and this faith comes from the Word of God sent through His messengers. But, while this conclusion looks back to the
beginning of this little section, it is drawn directly from the quotation
immediately preceding, which itself comprehends what
has gone before.
18. It being now shown that the Gospel
which is necessary to faith has been universally given, could it be that they
who have not obeyed (v. 16)
did not hear? “But I say, Have they not heard?” The answer to
this is a quotation from Psalm 19: 4. The quotation refers to the silent
but effective message of the stars: “Their sound went into all the earth,
and their words unto the ends of the [inhabited] world.” Paul is not quoting these words in proof that
men have heard. In the verses
immediately preceding there is already sufficient proof of the opportunity to
hear. By quoting the Psalmist it is
beautifully suggested how vain would be the excuse that men have not
heard. The very stars declare God’s
glory the world around (1: 20), and how much more must the preachers mentioned in verse 15 above! Paul in using the Psalmist’s words does not
mention him, and uses no formula of quotation.
If men have not believed it is not because they have not heard. The opportunity of hearing was as wide as the
star-studded heavens. The believing was
limited to a “few” (Matt. 7: 14).
19. “But I say, Did not
He answers the question, “Did not
20. “But Isaiah
is very bold” in
what he utters against
21. The third quotation, immediately
following the one above from Isaiah, brings the matter of their guilt to a
climax. God never ceased to plead with
them; but they were “disobedient and gainsaying.”
But even in this rebellious state he calls them “people,” a hopeful word
with which to begin the next chapter.
* *
*
ROMANS CHAPTER ELEVEN
NOT
COMPLETE
This chapter from the historical point of view is logically
necessary. The Old Testament clearly promises
Paul’s thought in this chapter moves
around two points: (1) that the present rejection of
Under (2) there are four items: (1) the rejection of Israel
had a twofold aim, (a) to turn the stream of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and
(b) by this means to provoke Israel to emulation (vv. 11-15); (2) the likelihood of Israel’s
restoration should move the Gentiles to humility and maintenance of faith (vv. 16-24); (3) the apostle’s prediction of
Israel’s restoration (vv. 25-32); and (4) the worshipful doxology (vv. 33-36).
1. “I say then,
Hath God cast away his people?” The preceding verse shows
to whom Paul refers. It is “gainsaying” and rejected
2. “God hath
not cast off his people whom he foreknew.” In the word “his” and the phrase “whom he
foreknew” there is
a double proof that
3, 4. And even for the present the case of
5. “Even so
then at this present time.” Paul was better
acquainted with his days than the prophet had been with the period to which he
belonged; for the apostle had the prophet’s experience to guide him and better
means of observation. He knew that in
every church from
While the nation lies fallen and faithless, elect individuals
are being brought into the Church, where, if they lose the national “advantage,” they get sweet access to God in the
forgiveness of sins.
6. “And if by
grace, then it is no more of works.” The “no more” is not temporal, but logical. Grace and works are mutually exclusive
methods. If the remnant was selected on
the ground of grace, their legal works had no part whatever in the selection,
else (the) grace would have lost its character as grace. In this second mention of grace there is no
article in the original.
This verse expands the phrase “election of grace.”
It serves also to show that the election, fully vindicated in chapter 9, is by means of grace. This, which was implied before, is now
clearly stated. The Old Testament
promised a remnant; it is shown now that nothing but grace secures it. The latter half of this verse, “but if of works ...” is rejected by all modem editors.
7. “What then?”
How does the case now stand? “
8-10.
Scripture is quoted not only in confirmation of the hardening of the “rest” of Israel, but also as descriptive of
their sad spiritual condition during the time of their rejection (Isa. 29: 10;
Deut. 29: 4; Ps. 69: 22, 23). The parentheses in
the King James Version in verse 8 must be
removed. The words “unto this day” are not Paul’s, but a part of the
quotation. What was true in their
author’s day remained so in Paul’s, and is yet sadly true. In the word “table” there is a picture of men feasting, eating
and drinking, unconscious that their enemies are just upon them. The Jew’s carnal security while trusting in
the law proved his spiritual ruin. But
the quotation is poetic, and need not be rigidly defined. “And bow [thou] down their back always” under the heavy legal yoke (Acts 15:
10). The “always” does not mean forever, or the whole
discussion concerning
11.
From this verse to the end of the discussion Paul considers the case of
the great fallen mass of
“I say then, Have they stumbled that
they should fall?” The question is put negatively and
deprecatingly, as in the first verse above.
They did not stumble that they might fall, did they? Was this the whole and only purpose? They are fallen, but is this the intended
outcome of their history? “God forbid.”
There was a gracious, far-reaching aim in
their rejection. The early preachers of
the Gospel were so full of the Spirit that they must preach; the Gospel was
like a fire in their bones; and since the Jews would not receive it, they
turned elsewhere (Acts 11: 20; 13: 46, 47).
Through the Jews’ fall salvation went to the Gentiles, to provoke the
former to emulation. “Jealousy” is not the best word. In time
12. “Now if the [sinful] fall of them is the riches
of the world [in that by
the fall the world got the gospel], and [to repeat the same question in another form, if] the diminishing of them [is] the riches of the Gentiles; how much more
their fullness?” Three words here demand attention. Twice Paul calls the Gospel sent to the
Gentiles their “riches.” It was not their territory,
not their armies, not their culture, not their treasures, that constituted
their wealth (Rev. 2: 9; 3: 17). Again, the
word “diminishing” has had various renderings, “loss,” “diminution,” “defeat.” It occurs in only one
other instance in the New Testament (1 Cor. 6: 7), where it is translated “fault.”
Furthermore, has the word a moral or a numerical sense? Sanday stands for the meaning “defeat,” which Godet says is impossible. On
the whole, the word seems to be numerical, and signifies diminution.
Again, the meaning of this word determines that of the last
one, “fullness.” The latter is also
numerical. It denotes that which fills
out or fills full an empty space.
13, 14. “I am the
apostle of the Gentiles,” or, as the Revised
Version, “I am an apostle of Gentiles.”
Paul has shown such an ardent desire for the welfare of the Jews, and
has now, beginning at chapter 9, devoted so
much of his epistle to them, that an explanation is due to the Roman church,
which, as this passage implies, was Gentile.
Whatever Jews were in it had lost Jewish caste. “I speak to you”
(the whole Roman church), you, the “Gentiles,”
about
The “for” introducing these two
verses is not genuine; the approved reading is “but.” The verses are not a parenthesis, but a
logical part of Paul’s argument, answering an objection that might arise in the
minds of his Gentile readers because he says so much about the Jews. He is labouring for the Gentiles, glorifying
his office to them, but with the salvation of at least “some” Jews in view. For Gentile salvation cannot be accomplished
directly, cannot be reached, without the “fullness” of the Jews. Therefore he is interested in the Jews for
the Gentiles’ sake, and the Romans ought to be interested in them for the same
reason. If Paul can in labouring for the
Gentiles save “some” Jews, he has accomplished so much toward the “fullness” necessary to the completion of
Gentile or world salvation.
15. “For if the
casting away of them …” This verse gives the grand reason (“for”)
for Paul’s labouring to reach the Jew through his Gentile ministry. It is a kind of ministry little thought of
today. The condition of Gentile
Christianity is not such now as to impress the Jew with its superiority.
The verse repeats the idea of the twelfth and brings this
section of the argument to its climax.
The “casting away” is equivalent to “their fall” or “diminution”; the “reconciling of the world” is equivalent to the “riches of the
world” or “of the
Gentiles”; the “receiving of
them” is
tantamount to “their fullness”; and the “life from the dead” to the “how much more.”
For the significance of the phrase “reconciling of the world” see 2 Corinthians 5: 19.
In the verse before us it means that on the Jews’ rejection God was
pleased to send the Gospel to the Gentiles.
This reconciliation on God’s part became the “riches of the
Gentiles.” The difficult point in the verse is in the
words “life from the dead.” The question is
twofold: Who receives this life, and what is it?
On the surface the answer to the first question seems
plain. In the first member of the
sentence the clause “reconciling of the world” must mean the Gentiles. The parallel demands the same meaning for
this second clause. The casting away of
the Jews was the “reconciling of the world”; the receiving of the Jews into
favour again will be “life from the dead” extending over the world.
Of course the phrase in question must mean something vastly more than
the action contained in the words “reconciling of the world,” or there is no climax. But what is that “how much more”?
Meyer contends that the words
must have their literal meaning and that they refer to actual bodily
resurrection. If Paul says “life from the
dead” instead of “resurrection
from the dead,” it
is because his eye is fixed upon the
permanent and blessed state beyond the act which leads to it. This answers Alford’s objection based on this word “life.”
Meyer’s view is favoured by Sanday, and “so many have understood it.” (
16. “For if the first-fruit be holy.” The “for” is not in the original. It ought to be “now” or “but.” (See 2 under (2) above.) Paul has not yet asserted that
“First fruit.”
For the figure see Numbers 15: 21. The handful of dough offered to
the Lord was evidence of the worthiness of the whole mass from which it was
taken. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob are the first fruits, and neither Christ nor the first Jewish Christians
at Pentecost, for branches could not be said to be broken off from these.
“Holy,” not in the moral sense, but as consecrated to God for
His own purpose. For this technical
sense see Deuteronomy
7: 6 and 1 Corinthians 7: 14.
The “lump” is the whole lineal descent from the patriarchs. The “root.” He changes his figure from a lump of dough to
that of a tree, because the latter is easier of expansion in argument. The root, again, is Abraham not merely as a
man, but as one having the promises; and the branches are his descendants, the
fleshly Israel, called “holy” in the sense given above.
What Paul is after in this discussion under the figure of the
olive tree must be clearly kept in mind, or his parable dazzles without helping
sight. (a) He is not considering Abraham
as the ground or root of salvation, for this is Christ. The failure to understand Paul here has led
some (Origen,
Theodoret)
to call Christ the “root.” (b) It is not a question of fruit-bearing, but of dependence, or his
figure would not be true to nature. Fruit is in accord with the engrafted
scion, and not with the nature of the root.
(c) It is not a question of the continuity of the Church. Sanday’s statement, “The olive
tree, the
17. “And if [But if] some of the branches [the “rest” in verse 7 above] be broken off [denied the covenant salvation of Abraham], and thou [the Gentile believer, addressed
directly for emphasis], being a wild olive [not “tree,” but branch, a
member of an alien race having no direct promise of salvation (cf. Eph. 2:12 with 19)],
wert grafted in
among them [made by faith
a child of the covenant and of God], and with them [the believing Jews, the branches left standing] partakest [didst become a partaker] of the root and fatness of the
olive tree!” Some by rejecting the “and” read “partaker of the root of the
fatness.” The root is Abraham, not as a mere physical
progenitor of
18. The “if” beginning the last verse extends over
the first part of this one. [But] If some (a miosis) were broken off and thou wast grafted in, “boast not
against the branches” that were broken off and are fallen.
The boasting of the Gentile in this case would be most painful to him
who could wish himself accursed for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the
flesh. “But if thou boast” thou art absurd, for “thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee.” The covenant of salvation made with Abraham is not sustained by the Gentile, he is sustained and saved by the covenant. It was clearly promised that the nations
should be blessed, but blessed in Abraham (Gen. 22: 18).
19, 20. From Paul’s admonition the Gentile believer
would deduce (“then”) a reply: “Branches [omit “the”]
were broken
off, that I [emphatic] might be grafted in.”
Paul admits the fact (“well”), but warningly directs the proud Gentile’s
attention to another side of it: by want of faith they we broken off, and only
by faith do you stand as a wild branch on the good
stock. You stand not because they
fell and not because you are a Gentile, but solely by faith, having no direct
covenant. It might be well for Gentile Christianity to lay
this to heart today. When simple
trust in God fails, what better is a Gentile church member than the wrongly
despised Jew? The admonition suits every
age. “Be not high-minded, but fear.”
21. Why fear? Because “if God spared not the natural branches,” to whose ancestors the promises were
made, and who were “his people” (v. 1
above) - if He spared not them because
of their unbelief, why should He spare you, a wild branch, if you become
faithless, as they are? Why should
God have any more regard for a faithless
Gentile Christianity than for
faithless Judaism? The italic words
in the King James Version add nothing to the sense, rather hinder. (See the Revised Version.)
22. “Behold therefore.”
Because the Gentile stands solely by his faith, let him “therefore” avoid boasting, and cease from
high-mindedness, and stop saying “I,” to look rather at the action of
God. “Severity” and “goodness.”
On them which fell came severity, and on “thee, goodness
[the Gentile merited nothing], if thou continue in his goodness.” The contingency must not be overlooked. This continuance depended largely on God’s
favour toward the Gentile believer, but
also upon his own conduct. The
relation of the two here, as elsewhere, is not given. The
Gentile is responsible for his conduct, and if he fails to honour God he will
fall as did the Jew. (See the letters addressed to the churches in Rev. 2: 3.) “Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off!” For why should God spare a hollow
faithless Church that fails to appreciate its ineffable mercy (Eph. 2: 4, 5), when He spared not “his people”?
23, 24. “And they
also, if they abide not still in unbelief.”
When God’s purpose in breaking them off is served their blindness will
be removed (2 Cor. 3: 14-16), and they will come into the blessed “advantage” mentioned in 3: 2.
Here again there is a contingency.
God does all, but He acts also on the human conscience and will mediately. He would
influence the Gentile by fear lest he be broken off; He would move
What is gained in the figure lies in its suggestion. “Nature” seems to mean here the established
course of things in the kingdom. Its course lay through
25. With this verse begins (see (2) 3 above) the direct prediction of fallen
“That blindness [hardness] in part has happened to
The phrase may mean (so Govett) that the void made in
The explanation of the phrase is not to be found in any numerical,
but in the temporal view. “Until” suggests time. The whole context brings up the notion of
time.
26. “And so all
27.
A second Scripture proof of
28, 29. Paul now
reviews and sums up the previous discussion.
That
30, 31. “For” introduces these two verses not as a
proof, but as indicating how the general principle just mentioned will be
realized by
32. The “for”
introducing this verse is hardly argumentative; it confirms nothing. Verses 30
and 31 practically restate everything from verse 11 in a single sentence. The verse before us puts these two verses,
especially the thirty-first, in another form, almost that of a general
principle of God’s dealing with men. His
whole action with both Jew and Gentile comes to this, that he “hath
concluded [locked
up as in a prison] them all in unbelief
[with this grand purpose], that he might have mercy upon all.”
There is nothing richer than His mercy.
If the Jews, for instance, had obeyed Him they could have experienced
only His fidelity. Mercy, which wholly
excludes privilege or merit, is the grand idea (Eph. 2: 4, 5).
The Jew will find His gifts and calling, but then come to Him as a
matter of mercy - mercy that excludes “boasting” (3: 27). Authorities are
divided on the meaning of “all.” It certainly does not refer to the elect; the whole
context forbids that. But does it mean
all men, all individuals (Meyer, Alford), or all nations, the Jews and the
Gentiles about whom Paul has been speaking?
The context is decisive for the latter.
This general principle, as some have failed to notice,
describes God’s attitude toward men, and not the outcome of that attitude.
It does not
contradict other plain Scriptures by teaching universal salvation, or salvation
without faith. “The Scripture
hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might
be given to them that believe” (Gal. 3: 22).
The principle says nothing about the outcome of the divine mercy toward
all. It simply declares that God has
actively and directly locked up all in sin so that He may have mercy toward
all; that if they are saved they are saved by mercy.
This is the final and complete explanation of the Jew’s
fall. He was by nature a sinner; God
hedged that nature about with a rigid law to show him what his real character
was. He tried to find liberty within its
iron bars, but gets only slavery. Mercy
alone can deliver him. The Gentile in
Paul’s day had no law, but sought liberty in wisdom, his own wisdom (1: 21, 22), and in his quest became a fool and a
slave to his lust.
God knows that man cannot save himself, that no form of civil
government and no system of ethics, even though it be
that of the Old or of the New Testament, can attain to liberty. But Man does not know it; he is in the rough
prison, shut up under sin to learn it, to learn that salvation cannot be
reached by human effort, that it comes down from God,
the absolute gift of His mercy.
This divine purpose of mercy is not
only the explanation of the Jew’s fall, but of the continuance of the world in
sin. It is the key to those terrible
first chapters of the epistle. Universal
condemnation leads to the universal principle of mercy. And what Paul saw in his world-wide view in
his day is still sadly true. The nations
are in sin;
33-36. Having completed his argument, Paul, in reviewing God’s plans and purposes as
they were unfolded to him, breaks forth in a lofty strain of adoration to Him
who is guiding the nations and the world to salvation. “We have learned Paul’s meaning only when we can join in this ascription
of praise” (M. B. Riddle). It is a hymn of faith not in man, but in
God. To be sure, there was a chain of
churches reaching from Jerusalem to Rome, but the world around was sunk in heathenish
darkness; Satan was god of the world (2 Cor.
4: 4), “the spirit that now worketh in the
children of disobedience” (Eph. 2: 2); false professors were many (Phil. 3:
18) and false
teachers were arising (Acts 20: 29, 30), while bonds and afflictions awaited the apostle
himself (Acts 20: 23); but he saw the
meaning of it all in seeing that God had an ultimate merciful purpose for all,
and hence this optimistic worship. (See
4 above under (2).)
“0 the depth!”
With most commentators, this should probably be translated, “0 the depth
of the riches and of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!” He unfolds these chiastically,
treating of the wisdom and knowledge to the end of verse 34, and of the riches in the remaining
two verses. The word “depth,” as Chrysostom suggests, is the
language of wondering admiration when one cannot see all. “Riches” is to be taken absolutely. It is not the riches of His grace, nor of any
one thing, but of all. God is
inexpressibly rich. “Wisdom” adapts means to ends, and “knowledge” sees both in all their
relations. Paul, from the mountain
height attained in his argument, beholds in one view the history of man from
the beginning in Adam to the triumphant end in Christ as King of kings. This history is not man’s,
but God’s in His dealing with man, a history of God’s own wisdom and
knowledge. Paul is the true historian of
the race as well as the true philosopher.
No man can be either who leaves God out.
Hence man’s history of himself is one of blood and failure. The Bible teaches more real knowledge about
mankind than is to be found in all other books.
“How unsearchable his judgments, and
his ways past finding out!” Mere human wisdom
cannot understand them and so pronounces them folly (1 Cor. 2: 14). His “judgments” are the product of His wisdom; His “ways” the mode of His procedure (Meyer) in
making His decrees effective. Here is
the secret of profound reverence and devout worship. This swelling doxology, this burst of praise,
comes forth as Paul scans the “ways” of God and sees something of His wide purposes for men. It comes not from a
contemplation of God’s infinitely tender heart, but of His infinitely
wise mind. Men know God’s acts; the
masters know His ways (Ps. 103: 7).
History and prophecy! Without
these, true reverence cannot be reached.
A mystery remains, for His judgments are unsearchable and His riches
have a depth that is lost in darkness.
But it is the mystery of intelligence and not of superstition, a mystery
that swathes reverence with a celestial glory.
Paul could not have worshiped here had he been able to see all; but he saw enough to console him for the
present rejection of his kinsmen according to the flesh; enough to satisfy him
that the Word of God had not failed, though Israel was not saved; enough to be
sure that, while only a meagre elect number from both Jew and Gentile was as
yet accepted, this was God’s way that ultimately He might have mercy on
all. Therefore, standing in the midst of
a world full of idolatry and woe, Paul adored.
34. “For who hath
known the mind of the Lord?” A proof (“for”) from the Septuagint Scriptures (Isa. 40: 13) that God’s judgments and decrees are
such as they are declared to be in the last verse. It is well-nigh a challenge to produce the man
outside the circle of the inspired prophets and apostles the wise man that
understood God or that could give Him advice. The religious element in uninspired history
and philosophy is folly, and Paul has already (1:
22) in this epistle called its authors fools (1
Cor. 2: 8; 3: 19, 20). This verse again looks chiastically
at what precedes, “the mind of the Lord corresponding to the mention of “knowledge” above, and the word “counsellor” to “wisdom.” God’s love explains God’s gifts, but His mind
and wisdom alone explain His providence or the manner in which He makes the
gifts of love effective.
Modern thought of the advanced sort
fails here. It attempts to explain
everything by love, with an inadequate notion even of what that is, and so belittles
the Book of divine history and prophecy by denying it any proper
inspiration. Who has known the mind of
the Lord, except as it was divinely
revealed to him? “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy mind” - study His ways.
35.
With this verse Paul enlarges on the word “riches”
above. The reference is to Job 35: 7 or 51: 11. No one ever gave to God. Salvation and the whole plan of its
administration are of grace. No one ever
receives God’s favour as a recompense for something done. The “Lord over all is rich unto all that
call upon him” (10: 12). They call not to give, but as beggars
(Matt. 5: 3) to receive out of His store.
36. “For of ... through ... to him, are all
things.” This verse is the proof that no one gives to
God and therefore receives a recompense. For “of him” are all things; He is their source,
the Creator. And “through him” are all things; He is the mediator of
their existence; He upholds, rules, and directs. And “to him are all things”; He is their final cause; they serve
ultimately not man’s, but God’s, ends.
To Paul this was not a dry statement of theologic fact, as a matter of
course, but a reason for worship. All
things, all events, are full of God. To
Him be the befitting glory to the ages. Amen.
(1) It is to be noticed in this momentous discussion that Paul
regards God’s covenant with Abraham as one embracing his natural seed and
perpetually valid; that he uses the words “Jacob”
and “
(2) Again, he keeps up the sharp distinction between Jew and
Gentile; but the ultimate salvation of both is vitally linked together, so that
neither party can be saved without the other.
Paul, though an apostle to the Gentiles, laboured also to save the Jews
on this very account. Missions to the Jews are eminently
scriptural. His own conception of the matter was “to the Jew
first.” (See on 1: 16.)
(3) Again, neither the unbelief of
(4) While Paul does not predict the breaking off of the
engrafted wild olive branch, the Church, he warns it ominously. It has no guaranty in a covenant, as has even
fallen
(5) And finally, Paul contents himself with predicting the
fact of
-------
MARANATHA
-------