Romans 9 commentary

Being about to discuss the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, and to show that the whole agrees with the sovereign electing love of God, the apostle expresses strongly his affection for his people. He solemnly appeals to Christ; and his conscience, enlightened and directed by the Holy Spirit, bore witness to his sincerity. He would submit to be treated as “accursed,” to be disgraced, crucified; and even for a time be in the deepest horror and distress; if he could rescue his nation from the destruction about to come upon them for their obstinate unbelief. To be insensible to the eternal condition of our fellow-creatures, is contrary both to the love required by the law, and the mercy of the gospel. They had long been professed worshippers of Jehovah. The law, and the national covenant which was grounded thereon, belonged to them. The temple worship was typical of salvation by the Messiah, and the means of communion with God. All the promises concerning Christ and his salvation were given to them. He is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever.

The rejection of the Jews by the gospel dispensation, did not break God's promise to the patriarchs. The promises and threatenings shall be fulfilled. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits always found with outward church privileges. Not only some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will. God foresaw both Esau and Jacob as born in sin, by nature children of wrath even as others. If left to themselves they would have continued in sin through life; but for wise and holy reasons, not made known to us, he purposed to change Jacob's heart, and to leave Esau to his perverseness. This instance of Esau and Jacob throws light upon the Divine conduct to the fallen race of man. The whole Scripture shows the difference between the professed Christian and the real believer. Outward privileges are bestowed on many who are not the children of God. There is, however, full encouragement to diligent use of the means of grace which God has appointed.

Whatever God does, must be just. Wherein the holy, happy people of God differ from others, God's grace alone makes them differ. In this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own. None have deserved it; so that those who are saved, must thank God only; and those who perish, must blame themselves only, Hos 13:9. God is bound no further than he has been pleased to bind himself by his own covenant and promise, which is his revealed will. And this is, that he will receive, and not cast out, those that come to Christ; but the drawing of souls in order to that coming, is an anticipating, distinguishing favour to whom he will. Why does he yet find fault? This is not an objection to be made by the creature against his Creator, by man against God. The truth, as it is in Jesus, abases man as nothing, as less than nothing, and advances God as sovereign Lord of all. Who art thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so unable to judge the Divine counsels? It becomes us to submit to him, not to reply against him. Would not men allow the infinite God the same sovereign right to manage the affairs of the creation, as the potter exercises in disposing of his clay, when of the same lump he makes one vessel to a more honourable, and one to a meaner use? God could do no wrong, however it might appear to men. God will make it appear that he hates sin. Also, he formed vessels filled with mercy. Sanctification is the preparation of the soul for glory. This is God's work. Sinners fit themselves for hell, but it is God who prepares saints for heaven; and all whom God designs for heaven hereafter, he fits for heaven now. Would we know who these vessels of mercy are? Those whom God has called; and these not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles. Surely there can be no unrighteousness in any of these Divine dispensations. Nor in God's exercising long-suffering, patience, and forbearance towards sinners under increasing guilt, before he brings utter destruction upon them. The fault is in the hardened sinner himself. As to all who love and fear God, however such truths appear beyond their reason to fathom, yet they should keep silence before him. It is the Lord alone who made us to differ; we should adore his pardoning mercy and new-creating grace, and give diligence to make our calling and election sure.

The rejecting of the Jews, and the taking in the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament. It tends very much to the clearing of a truth, to observe how the Scripture is fulfilled in it. It is a wonder of Divine power and mercy that there are any saved: for even those left to be a seed, if God had dealt with them according to their sins, had perished with the rest. This great truth this Scripture teaches us. Even among the vast number of professing Christians it is to be feared that only a remnant will be saved.

The Gentiles knew not their guilt and misery, therefore were not careful to procure a remedy. Yet they attained to righteousness by faith. Not by becoming proselytes to the Jewish religion, and submitting to the ceremonial law; but by embracing Christ, and believing in him, and submitting to the gospel. The Jews talked much of justification and holiness, and seemed very ambitious to be the favourites of God. They sought, but not in the right way, not in the humbling way, not in the appointed way. Not by faith, not by embracing Christ, depending upon Christ, and submitting to the gospel. They expected justification by observing the precepts and ceremonies of the law of Moses. The unbelieving Jews had a fair offer of righteousness, life, and salvation, made them upon gospel terms, which they did not like, and would not accept. Have we sought to know how we may be justified before God, seeking that blessing in the way here pointed out, by faith in Christ, as the Lord our Righteousness? Then we shall not be ashamed in that awful day, when all refuges of lies shall be swept away, and the Divine wrath shall overflow every hiding-place but that which God hath prepared in his own Son.

In this chapter he begins to remove the offences which might have diverted the minds of men from Christ: for the Jews, for whom he was appointed according to the covenant of the law, not only rejected him, but regarded him with contempt, and for the most part bated him. Hence one of two things seemed to follow, — either that there was no truth in the Divine promise, — or that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was not the Lord’s anointed, who had been especially promised to the Jews. This twofold knot Paul fully unties in what follows. He, however, so handles this subject, as to abstain from all bitterness against the Jews, that he might not exasperate their minds; and yet he concedes to them nothing to the injury of the gospel; for he allows to them their privileges in such a way, as not to detract anything from Christ. But he passes, as it were abruptly, to the mention of this subject, so that there appears to be no connection in the discourse. The connection seems to be this: he had been speaking of the impossibility of separating God’s people from the protecting influence and preserving power of his love; he had clearly shown, that no divorce or separation can take place through any possible circumstances. Then the Jews might say, “If this be true, then we are safe, we are still God’s people.” Hence he proceeds to remove this objection, and in order to prepare their mind to receive what he is going to say and to prove, he speaks first of his deep concern for their welfare: and then he resumes the doctrine he touched upon in Romans 8:28, 29, and 30, and illustrates it by a reference to the past dealings of God with the Jews, and proves it by passages from the ancient Prophets. He shows that God’s people are the called according to his purpose, and not all who wear the outward symbol of his covenant — Ed. He, however, so enters on this new subject, as though he had before referred to it. It so happened in this way, — Having finished the doctrine he discussed, he turned his attention to the Jews, and being astonished at their unbelief as at something monstrous, he burst forth into this sudden protestation, in the same way as though it was a subject which he had previously handled; for there was no one to whom this thought would not of itself immediately occur, — “If this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets, how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?” And further, it was everywhere known, that all that he had hitherto spoken of the law of Moses, and of the grace of Christ, was more disliked by the Jews, than that the faith of the Gentiles should be assisted by their consent. It was therefore necessary to remove this obstacle, lest it should impede the course of the gospel.

1. The truth I say in Christ, etc. As it was an opinion entertained by most that Paul was, as it were, a sworn enemy to his own nation, and as it was suspected somewhat even by the household of faith, as though he had taught them to forsake Moses, he adopts a preface to prepare the minds of his readers, before he proceeds to his subject, and in this preface he frees himself from the false suspicion of evil will towards the Jews. And as the matter was not unworthy of an oath, and as he perceived that his affirmation would hardly be otherwise believed against a prejudice already entertained, he declares by an oath that he speaks the truth. By this example and the like, (as I reminded you in the first chapter,) we ought to learn that oaths are lawful, that is, when they render that truth credible which is necessary to be known, and which would not be otherwise believed.

The expression, In Christ, means “according to Christ.” “Idem valet ac secundum Christum, — it is the same with According to Christ;” “λέγω ἐν Χριστῳ — I speak in Christ,” that is, as a Christian; to be in Christ and to be a Christian is the same. This idea bears on the import of the passage more than any other. It is as though he said, “Though I am in Christ or a Christian, yet I tell you this as the truth or the fact, and I have the testimony of conscience enlightened by the Spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing sorrow on your account.” The Jews had the impression that the Apostle, having become the follower of Christ, must have necessarily entertained hatred towards them, and must have therefore felt no concern for them; for this is really the case with all real apostates, that is, with those who leave the truth for error, but not with them who leave error for the truth. To obviate this impression seems to have been the object here. How the idea of an oath comports with what follows it is difficult to see. It is no argument to say that what is here means the same as in Matthew 5:34, where it follows the verb “to swear.” There is a passage similar to this in Ephesians 4:17; but ἐν κυρίῳ there clearly signifies “by the Lord’s authority.” We may add, that to swear by Christ would have had no influence on the Jews. — Ed. By adding I lie not, he signifies that he speaks without fiction or disguise. My conscience testifying to me, etc. By these words he calls his own conscience before the tribunal of God, for he brings in the Spirit as a witness to his feeling. He adduced the Spirit for this end, that he might more fully testify that he was free and pure from an evil disposition, and that he pleaded the cause of Christ under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of God. It often happens that a person, blinded by the passions of the flesh, (though not purposing to deceive,) knowingly and wilfully obscures the light of truth. But to swear by the name of God, in a proper sense of the word, is to call him as a witness for the purpose of confirming what is doubtful, and at the same time to bind ourselves over to his judgment, in case we say what is false.

2. That I have great sorrow, etc. He dexterously manages so to cut short his sentence as not yet to express what he was going to say; for it was not as yet seasonable openly to mention the destruction of the Jewish nation. It may be added, that he thus intimates a greater measure of sorrow, as imperfect sentences are for the most part full of pathos. But he will presently express the cause of his sorrow, after having more fully testified his sincerity.

But the perdition of the Jews caused very great anguish to Paul, though he knew that it happened through the will and providence of God. We hence learn that the obedience we render to God’s providence does not prevent us from grieving at the destruction of lost men, though we know that they are thus doomed by the just judgment of God; for the same mind is capable of being influenced by these two feelings: that when it looks to God it can willingly bear the ruin of those whom he has decreed to destroy; and that when it turns its thoughts to men, it condoles with their evils. They are then much deceived, who say that godly men ought: to have apathy and insensibility, (ἀπάθειαν καὶ ἀναλγησίαν) lest they should resist the decree of God.

3. For I could wish, etc. He could not have expressed a greater ardour of love than by what he testifies here; for that is surely perfect love which refuses not to die for the salvation of a friend. But there is another word added, anathema, which proves that he speaks not only of temporal but of eternal death; and he explains its meaning when he says, from Christ, for it signifies a separation. And what is to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the hope of salvation? It was then a proof of the most ardent love, that Paul hesitated not to wish for himself that condemnation which he saw impending over the Jews, in order that he might deliver them. It is no objection that he knew that his salvation was based on the election of God, which could by no means fail; for as those ardent feelings hurry us on impetuously, so they see and regard nothing but the object in view. So Paul did not connect God’s election with his wish, but the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the salvation of the Jews.

Many indeed doubt whether this was a lawful desire; but this doubt may be thus removed: the settled boundary of love is, that it proceeds as far as conscience permits; “Ut ad aras usque procedat.” Ainsworth gives a similar phrase and explains its reason, “Usque ad aras amicus — As far as conscience permits,” Gell., because in swearing they held the horns of the altar. — Ed. if then we love in God and not without God’s authority, our love can never be too much. And such was the love of Paul; for seeing his own nation endued with so many of God’s benefits, he loved God’s gifts in them, and them on account of God’s gifts; and he deemed it a great evil that those gifts should perish, hence it was that his mind being overwhelmed, he burst forth into this extreme wish. Most of those who take this view of the passage express the implied condition more distinctly than is done here. They have regarded the wish in this sense, “I could wish were it right or lawful.” So thought Chrysostom, Photius, Theophlylact, Luther, Parcus, Beza, Estius, Lightfoot, Witsius, Mode, Whitby, and others. The words of Photius are given by Wolfius, “He says not, I wish to be separated, but I could wish, that is, were it possible — ἠυχόμην ἂν τουτ ἐστιν εἰ δυνατὸν ἦν,” Stuart and Hodge adopt the same view. “It was a conditional wish,” says Pareus, “like that of Christ in Matthew 26:39. Christ knew and Paul knew that it could not be granted, and yet both expressed their strong desire.” See Exodus 32:32

Almost all critics agree that the Vulgate is wrong in rendering the verb optabam — “I did wish,” as though the Apostle referred to the time, as Ambrose supposed, when he was a Pharisee; but this is wholly inconsistent with the tenor of the passage. Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, and most others regard the verb as having an optative meaning; ἂν being understood after it, as the case is with ἐβουλόμην in Acts 25:22, and ἤθελον in Galatians 4:20

There are two other opinions which deserve notice. The first is, that “anathema“ here means excommunication, and that “from Christ” signifies from his Church, Christ the head being taken for his body the Church, as in 1 Corinthians 12:12, and in Galatians 3:27, according to the manner of the Hebrews, as Grotius says, who called the wife by the name of the husband, Isaiah. 4:1. This is the view taken by Hammond, Grotius, and some of the Lutheran divines. But the word “anathema“ has not in Scripture this meaning, though in after-ages it had attained it both in the Church and among the Rabbins. In the New Testament it occurs only here and in Acts 23:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 16:22; and Galatians 1:8, 9; and the verb ἀναθεματίζω is found in Mark 14:71; Acts 23:12, 14, 21; and with κατὰ prefixed in Matthew 26:74. The corresponding word in Hebrew, הרם, rendered “anathema“ by the Septuagint, means two things: what is separated for a holy purpose and wholly devoted to God, incapable of being redeemed, Leviticus 27:28; and what is set apart and devoted to death or destruction, Joshua 6:17; Ezra 10:8. It never means excommunication, but cutting off by death. Compare Exodus 22:20, and Deuteronomy 13:1-11. It has hence been applied to designate a man that is execrable and accursed, deserving death. So the Apostle uses it in 1 Corinthians 16:22, and Galatians 1:8, 9

The other view is more in accordance with the meaning of the term. It is thought that “anathema“ means an ignominious death, and that of one apparently separated from Christ; or that he wished to be made “an anathema” by Christ, or for the sake of Christ, or after Christ, that is, his example. The words ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ create all the difficulty in this case. This is the explanation given by Jerome, Locke, Limborch, Doddridge, and Scott The first meaning, however, as materially given by Calvin, is the most obvious and natural.

Both Haldane and Chalmers follow the Vulgate, and put the clause in a parenthesis, as expressing the Apostle’s wish when unconverted; but there is altogether an incongruity in the terms he employs to express this wish; he surely would not have said that he wished to be separated from Christ as an accursed thing, for that is the meaning of anathema; for while he was a Pharisee he deemed it a privilege and an honour even to persecute Christ. And we cannot suppose that the Apostle would now describe his former wish in terms unsuitable to what it really was, but as he now regarded it. — Ed.

Thus I consent not to the opinion of those who think that Paul spoke these words from regard to God only, and not to men; nor do I agree with others, who say, that without any thought of God, he was influenced only by love to men: but I connect the love of men with a zeal for God’s glory.

I have not, however, as yet explained that which is the chief thing, — that the Jews are here regarded as they were adorned with those singular tokens, by which they were distinguished from the rest of mankind. For God had by his covenant so highly exalted them, that by their fall, the faithfulness and truth of God himself seemed also to fail in the world: for that covenant would have thus become void, the stability of which was promised to be perpetual, as long as the sun and moon should shine in heaven. (Psalm 72:7.) So that the abolition of this would have been more strange, than the sad and ruinous confusion of the whole world. It was not therefore a simple and exclusive regard for men: for though it is better that one member should perish than the whole body; it was yet for this reason that Paul had such a high regard for the Jews, because he viewed them as bearing the character, and, as they commonly say, the quality of an elect people; and this will appear more evident, as we shall soon see, from what follows.

The words, my kinsmen according to the flesh, though they contain nothing new, do yet serve much for amplification. For first, lest any one should think that he willingly, or of his own accord, sought cause of quarrel with the Jews, he intimates, that he had not put off the feeling of kindred, so as not to be affected with the destruction of his own flesh. And secondly, since it was necessary that the gospel, of which he was the preacher, should go forth from Sion, he does not in vain pronounce an eulogy in so many words on his own kindred. For the qualifying expression, according to the flesh, is not in my view added for the sake of extenuation, as in other places, but, on the contrary, for the sake of expressing his faith: for though the Jews had disowned Paul, he yet concealed not the fact, that he had sprung from that nation, the election of whom was still strong in the root, though the branches had withered. What Budoeus says of the word anathema, is inconsistent with the opinion of Chrysostom, who makes ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα, to be the same.

4. Who are Israelites, etc. Here the reason is now more plainly given, why the destruction of that people caused him so much anguish, that he was prepared to redeem them by his own death, namely because they were Israelites; for the relative pronoun is put here instead of a causative adverb. In like manner this anxiety took hold on Moses, when he desired that he should be blotted out of the book of life, rather than that the holy and chosen race of Abraham should be reduced to nothing. (Exodus 32:32.) Then in addition to his kind feeling, he mentions also other reasons, and those of a higher kind, which made him to favor the Jews, even because the Lord had, as it were, by a kind of privilege, so raised them, that they were separated from the common order of men: and these titles of dignity were testimonies of love; for we are not wont to speak thus favorably, but of those whom we love. And though by their ingratitude they rendered themselves unworthy to be esteemed on account of these gifts of God, yet Paul continued justly to respect them, that he might teach us that the ungodly cannot so contaminate the good endowments of God, but that they always deserve to be praised and admired: at the same time, those who abuse them acquire thereby nothing but a greater obloquy. But as we are not to act in such a manner as to contemn, through a detestation of the ungodly, the gifts of God in them; so, on the other hand, we must use prudence, lest by our kind esteem and regard for them we make them proud, and especially lest our praises bear the appearance of flattery. But let us imitate Paul, who conceded to the Jews their privileges in such a manner, that he afterwards declared that they were all of no worth without Christ. But it was not in vain that he mentioned this as one of their praises, — that they were Israelites; for Jacob prayed for this as a great favor, that they should be called by his name. (Genesis 48:16.)

Whose are the adoption, etc. The whole drift of Paul’s discourse is to this purpose, — that though the Jews by their defection had produced an ungodly divorce between God and themselves, yet the light of God’s favor was not wholly extinguished, according to what he had also said in Romans 3:3. They had indeed become unbelievers and had broken his covenant; but still their perfidy had not rendered void the faithfulness of God; for he had not only reserved for himself some remnant seed from the whole multitude, but had as yet continued, according to their hereditary right, the mime of a Church among them.

But though they had already stripped themselves of these ornaments, so that it availed them nothing to be called the children of Abraham, yet as there was a danger, lest through their fault the majesty of the gospel should be depreciated among the Gentiles, Paul does not regard what they deserved, but covers their baseness and disgraceful conduct by throwing vails over them, until the Gentiles were fully persuaded, that the gospel had flowed to them from the celestial fountain, from the sanctuary of God, from an elect nation. For the Lord, passing by other nations, had selected them as a people peculiar to himself, and had adopted them as his children, as he often testifies by Moses and the prophets; and not content simply to give them the name of children, he calls them sometimes his first-begotten, and sometimes his beloved. So the Lord says in Exodus 4:22, —

“My first-begotten son is Israel; let my son go, that he may serve me.”

In Jeremiah 31:9, it is said,

“I am become a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-begotten:”

and again, “Is not my son Ephraim precious to me? Is he not a delightful child? Hence troubled for him are my bowels, and I will yet pity him.” By these words he means, not only to set forth his kindness towards the people of Israel, but rather to exhibit the efficacy of adoption, through which the promise of the celestial inheritance is conveyed.

Glory means the excellency into which the Lord had raised up that people above all other nations, and that in many and various ways, and especially by dwelling in the midst of them; for besides many other tokens of his presence, he exhibited a singular proof of it in the ark, where he gave responses, and also heard his people, that he might show forth his power in helping them: and for this reason it was called “the glory of God.” (1 Samuel 4:22.) Vitriaga thinks that “the glory” was the pillar of fire and the cloud in the wilderness: but Beza, Grotius, and Hammond agree with Calvin, that the ark is meant. See Psalm 78:61. It seems to refer to those manifestations made in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple, by peculiar brightness or splendour. See Exodus 40:34; and I Kings 8:11. This splendour or glory signified God’s presence, a privilege peculiar to the Israelites. — Ed.

As he has distinguished here between covenants Why he mentions “covenants,” αἱ διαθὢκαι, in the plural number, has been variously accounted for, — “there were various things included — the land of Canaan, prosperity, and the priesthood, — there were three laws — the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, — there were several repetitions of the covenant made to the patriarchs;” but if we read Galatians 3:17, we shall see the true reason, for the Apostle there makes a distinct difference between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenant; but both these belonged to the Jews. See also Ephesians 2:12. — Ed. and promises, we may observe this difference, — that a covenant is that which is expressed in distinct and accustomed words, and contains a mutual stipulation, as that which was made with Abraham; but promises are what we meet with everywhere in Scripture; for when God had once made a covenant with his ancient people, he continued to offer, often by new promises, his favor to them. It hence follows, that promises are to be traced up to the covenant as to their true source; in the same manner as the special helps of God, by which he testifies his love towards the faithful, may be said to flow from the true fountain of election. And as the law was nothing more than a renewal of the covenant, and more fully sanctioned the remembrance of it, legislation, or the giving of the law, seems to be here peculiarly applied to the things which the law decreed: for it was no common honor conferred on the Jewish people, that they had God as their lawgiver. For if some gloried in their Solons and Lycurguses, how much more reason was there to glory in the Lord? of this you have an account in Deuteronomy 4:32. By worship he understands that part of the law in which the legitimate manner of worshipping God is prescribed, such as rites and ceremonies. These ought to have been deemed lawful on account of God’s appointment; without which, whatever men devise is nothing but a profanation of religion.

5. Whose are the fathers, etc. It is indeed of some importance to be descended from saints and men beloved of God, since God promised to the godly fathers mercy with regard to their children, even to thousand generations, and especially in the words addressed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as we find in Genesis 17:4, and in other passages. It matters not, that this by itself, when separated from the fear of God and holiness of life, is vain and useless: for we find the same to have been the case as to worship and glory, as it is evident everywhere in the prophets, especially in Isaiah 1:11; Isaiah 60:1; and also in Jeremiah 7:4. But, as God dignified these things, when joined with attention to godliness, with some degree of honor, he justly enumerated them among the privileges of the Jews. They are indeed said to be the heirs of the promises for this very reason, — because they descended from the fathers. (Acts 3:25.)

From whom, is Christ, etc. They who apply this to the fathers, as though Paul meant only to say that Christ had descended from the fathers, have no reason to allege: for his object was to close his account of the pre-eminence of the Jews by this encomium, — that Christ proceeded from them; for it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed, to have been united by a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world; for if he had honored the whole human race, in joining himself to us by a community of nature, much more did he honor them, with whom he had a closer bond of union. It must at the same time be always maintained, that when this favor of being allied by kindred is unconnected with godliness, it is so far from being an advantage, that on the contrary it leads to a greater condemnation.

But we have here a remarkable passage, — that in Christ two natures are in such a manner distinguished, that they are at the same time united in the very person of Christ: for by saying that Christ had descended from the Jews, he declared his real humanity. The words according to the flesh, which are added, imply that he had something superior to flesh; and here seems to be an evident distinction made between humanity and divinity. But he at last connects both together, where he says, that the Christ, who had descended from the Jew’s according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever.

We must further observe, that this ascription of praise belongs to none but only to the true and eternal God; for he declares in another place, (1 Timothy 1:17,) that it is the true God alone to whom honor and glory are due. They who break off this clause from the previous context, that they may take away from Christ so clear a testimony to his divinity, most presumptuously attempt, to introduce darkness in the midst of the clearest light; for the words most evidently mean this, — Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever Stuart has in a most convincing manner vindicated the true and obvious meaning of this clause. There is no reading of any authority, nor any early version, that affects the genuineness of the received text: and it is amazing what ingenuity has been exercised by various critics to evade the plain construction of the passage, — a remarkable instance of the debasing power of preconceived notions. It is somewhat singular too, that some who professed at least the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, such as Erasmus, Whitby, and Locke, have attempted to make changes in the text, and those for the most part conjectural, by which the obvious meaning is wholly altered.

It is very clearly shown by Stuart, that the very position of the words, and their connection with the context, will admit of no other construction than that which our version contains.

It is well known, that in Hebrew the word “blessed” is always placed before “God,” or Jehovah, when it is an ascription of praise; and it appears that the Septuagint has in more than thirty instances followed the same order, and, indeed, in every instance except one, (Psalm 68:19,) and that evidently a typographical mistake. The same is the case with all the examples in the New Testament. So that if the phrase here was a doxology, it must have been written εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός. In the Welsh language, which in many of its idioms is identically the same with the Hebrew, the order of the words is the same: when it is a doxology, the word “blessed” invariably precedes the word “God;” and when otherwise it follows it.

The opinion of Chrysostom on this sentence, to which Erasmus attaches some importance, is of no value whatever, as he did not understand Hebrew; and Paul, for the most part, wrote as a Hebraist.

The participle ὢν, being put for ἐστι, is what is common in Hebrew and in the New Testament. See a remarkable instance of two participles and a verb in the middle, in Revelation 1:4. It has been said, that “amen” unsuitably follows a declarative sentence; but see an instance in Romans 1:25

It is justly observed by Stuart, that the context requires the application of this sentence to Christ, as otherwise there would be no antithesis to the words “according to the flesh.” — Ed. And I doubt not, but that Paul, who had to contend hard with a reproach urged against him, did designedly raise up his own mind to the contemplation of the eternal glory of Christ; nor did he do this so much for his own sake individually, as for the purpose of encouraging others by his example to raise up their thoughts.

Romans 9:6-9

6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

6. Neque tamen, quasi exciderit verbum Dei: non emro omnes qui sunt ex Israele sunt Israelitae:

7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

7. Nec qui sunt semen Abrabae, ideo omnes filii; sed in Isaac voca-bitur tibi semen:

8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

8. Hoc est, non qui sunt filii car-nis, ii filii sunt Dei; sed qui sunt filii promissionis, censebuntur in semen:

9. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

9. Promissionis enim verbum hoc est, Secundum hoc tempus veniam, et erit Sarae filius.

6. Not however, etc. Paul had been carried away by the ardour of his wish, as it were, into an excess of feeling, (in ecstasin,) but now, returning to discharge his office as a teacher, he adds what may be viewed as somewhat qualifying what he had said, as though he would restrain immoderate grief. And inasmuch as by deploring the ruin of his own nation, this inconsistency seems to follow, that the covenant made by God with the seed of Abraham had failed, (for the favor of God could not have been wanting to the Israelites without the covenant being abolished,) he reasonably anticipates this inconsistency, and shows, that notwithstanding the great blindness of the Jews, the favor of God continued still to that people, so that the truth of the covenant remained firm.

Some read, “But it is not possible,” etc., as though it were in Greek οἷον τε Were this the case, the verb which follows, as Wolfius says and proves by an example, must have been in the infinitive mood. Piscator says the same. But Pareus and Beza take this to be the meaning; and so does Macknight, “Now it is not possible that the promise of God hath fallen.” — Ed. but as I find this reading in no copy, I adopt the common reading, Not however that it had failed, etc., and according to this sense, “That I deplore the destruction of my nation is not because I think the promise, given formerly by God to Abraham, is now void or abolished.”

For not all, etc. The statement is, — that the promise was so given to Abraham and to his seed, that the inheritance did not belong to every seed without distinction; it hence follows that the defection of some does not prove that the covenant does not remain firm and valid.

But that it may be more evident on what condition the Lord adopted the posterity of Abraham as a peculiar people to himself, two things are to be here considered. The first is, That the promise of salvation given to Abraham belongs to all who can trace their natural descent to him; for it is offered to all without exception, and for this reason they are rightly called the heirs of the covenant made with Abraham; and in this respect they are his successors, or, as Scripture calls them, the children of the promise. For since it was the Lord’s will that his covenant should be sealed, no less in Ishmael and Esau, than in Isaac and Jacob, it appears that they were not wholly alienated from him; except, it may be, you make no account of the circumcision, which was conferred on them by God’s command; but it cannot be so regarded without dishonor to God. But this belonged to them, according to what the Apostle had said before, “whose are the covenants,” though they were unbelieving; and in Acts 3:25, they are called by Peter, the children of the covenants, because they were the descendants of the Prophets. The second point to be considered is, That the children of the promise are strictly those in whom its power and effect are found. On this account Paul denies here that all the children of Abraham were the children of God, though a covenant had been made with them by the Lord, for few continued in the faith of the covenant; and yet God himself testifies, in the sixth chapter of Ezekiel, that they were all regarded by him as children. In short, when a whole people are called the heritage and the peculiar people of God, what is meant is, that they have been chosen by the Lord, the promise of salvation having been offered them and confirmed by the symbol of circumcision; but as many by their ingratitude reject this adoption, and thus enjoy in no degree its benefits, there arises among them another difference with regard to the fulfilment of the promise. That it might not then appear strange to any one, that this fulfilment of the promise was not evident in many of the Jews, Paul denies that they were included in the true election of God.

Some may prefer such a statement as this, — “The general election of the people of Israel is no hinderance, that God should not from them choose by his hidden counsel those whom he pleases.” It is indeed an illustrious example of gratuitous mercy, when God deigns to make a covenant of life with a nation: but his hidden favor appears more evident in that second election, which is confined to a part only.

But when he says, that all who are of Israel are not Israelites, and that all who are of the seed of Abraham are not children, it is a kind of change in the meaning of words, (παρονομασία); for in the first clause he includes the whole race, in the second he refers only to true sons, who were not become degenerated.

7. But, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Paul mentions this, to show that the hidden election of God overrules the outward calling, and that it is yet by no means inconsistent with it, but, on the contrary, that it tends to its confirmation and completion. That he might then in due order prove both, he in the first place assumes, that the election of God is not tied to the natural descendants of Abraham, and that it is not a thing that is included in the conditions of the covenant: and this is what he now confirms by a most suitable example. For if there ought to have been any natural progeny, which fell not away from the covenant; this ought to have been especially the case with those who obtained the privilege at first: but when we find, that of the first sons of Abraham, while he was yet alive, and the promise new, one of them was separated as the seed, how much more might the same thing have taken place in his distant posterity? Now this testimony is taken from Genesis 17:20, where the Lord gives an answer to Abraham, that he had heard his prayer for Ishmael, but that there would be another on whom the promised blessing would rest. It hence follows, that some men are by special privilege elected out of the chosen people, in whom the common adoption becomes efficacious and valid.

8. That is, They are not, etc. He now gathers from God’s answer a proposition, which includes the whole of what he had in view. For if Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the seed, though the one as well as the other was Abraham’s son, it must be that all natural sons are not to be regarded as the seed, but that the promise is specially fulfilled only in some, and that it does not belong commonly and equally to all. He calls those the children of the flesh, who have nothing superior to a natural descent; as they are the children of the promise, who are peculiarly selected by the Lord.

9. For the word of promise is this, etc. He adds another divine testimony; and we see, by the application made of it, with what care and skill he explains Scripture. When he says, the Lord said that he would come, and that a son would be born to Abraham of Sarah, he intimated that his blessing was not yet conferred, but that it was as yet suspended. Genesis 18:10. The quotation is not from the Septuagint, but is much nearer a literal version of the Hebrew: the only material difference is in the words, “at this time,” instead of “according to the time of life.” The words in different forms occur four times, — Genesis 17:21; Genesis 18:10,14; Genesis 21:2; we meet with the same words in 2 Kings 4:16,17. It appears that the Apostle here took this expression, “at this time,” from Genesis 17:21, while he mainly followed the text in Genesis 18:10. The meaning of the phrase, “according to the time of life,” as given in Genesis and in Kings, evidently is the time of child-bearing, what passes between conception and the birth. This was repeatedly mentioned in order to show that the usual course of nature would be followed, though the conception would be miraculous; the child to be born was to be nourished the usual time in the womb, — “according to the time of producing life,” or of child-bearing.

The exposition of Gesenius, adopted by Tholuck and Stuart, “when the time shall be renewed,” does not comport with the passage, as it introduces a tautology. Hammond says, that the Hebrews interpret the expression in Kings as meaning the time between the conception and the birth. — Ed. But Ishmael was already born when this was said: then God’s blessing had no regard to Ishmael. We may also observe, by the way, the great caution with which he proceeds here, lest he should exasperate the Jews. The cause being passed over, he first simply states the fact; he will hereafter open the fountain.

Romans 9:10-13

10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

10. Non solum autem hic, sed et Rebecca, quae ex uno conceperat, patre nostro Isaac:

11. (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

11. Qunm enim nondum nati es-sent pueri, nec quidpiam boni aut mali egissent, ut secundum electio-nem propositum Dei maneret,

12. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

12. Non ex operibus, sed ex vo-cante, dictum est ei, Major serviet minori;

13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

13. Quemadmodum scriptum est, Jacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui.

10. And not only, etc. There are in this chapter some broken sentences, such as this is, — But Rebecca also, who had conceived by one, our father Isaac; for he leaves off in the middle, before he comes to the principal verb. The meaning, however, is, that the difference as to the possession of the promise may not only be seen in the children of Abraham, but that there is a much more evident example in Jacob and Esau: for in the former instance some might allege that their condition was unequal, the one being the son of an handmaid; but these were of the same mother, and were even twins: yet one was rejected, and the other was chosen by the Lord. It is hence clear, that the fulfilment of the promise does not take place in all the children of the flesh indiscriminately.

And as Paul refers to the persons to whom God made known his purpose, I prefer to regard a masculine pronoun to be understood, rather than a neuter, as Erasmus has done: for the meaning is, that God’s special election had not been revealed only to Abraham, but also to Rebecca, when she brought forth her twins. Here is a striking instance of a difficulty as to the construction, while the meaning of the whole passage is quite evident. The ellipsis has been variously supplied; “and not only this,” i.e., what I have stated; “and not only he,” i.e., Abraham to whom the first communication was made; “and not only she,” i.e., Sarah, mentioned in the preceding verse; “but Rebecca also is another instance.” But it may be thus supplied, — “and not only so,” i.e., as to the word of promise; “but Rebecca also had a word,” or a message conveyed to her. That the verse has a distinct meaning in itself is evident, for the next begins with a γὰρ, “for;” and to include Romans 9:11, in a parenthesis, seems by no means satisfactory. The three verses may be thus rendered, —

10. And not only so, but Rebecca also received a message, when she conceived by the first, (i.e., son or seed,) even our father Isaac:

11. for they being not yet born, and having not done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not

12. through works, but through him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder shall serve the younger.”

The words ἐξ ἑνὸς, rendered commonly “by one,” have never been satisfactorily accounted for. It. seems to be an instance of Hebraism; the word אחד, “one,” means also “first.” We have other instances of this in the New Testament; εἰς μίαν των σαββάτων — “on the first (i.e., day) of the week,” Matthew 28:1; see also Mark 16:2; John 20:19. “The first day” in Genesis 1:5, is rendered by the Septuagint, ἡμέρα μία. Isaac was the first son or seed of promise: and a difference was made in the children of the very first seed. But this meaning of εἰς is said by Schleusner to be sanctioned by Greek writers, such as Herodotus and Thucydides There is no necessity of introducing the word “children,” at the beginning of Romans 9:11; the antecedent in this case, as it sometimes happens, comes after the pronoun; and it is the “elder” and “younger” at the end of Romans 9:12. — Ed.

11. For when the children, etc. He now begins to ascend higher, even to show the cause of this difference, which he teaches us is nowhere else to be found except in the election of God. He had indeed before briefly noticed, that there was a difference between the natural children of Abraham, that though all were adopted by circumcision into a participation of the covenant, yet the grace of God was not effectual in them all; and hence that they, who enjoy the favor of God, are the children of the promise. But how it thus happened, he has been either silent or has obscurely hinted. Now indeed he openly ascribes the whole cause to the election of God, and that gratuitous, and in no way depending on men; so that in the salvation of the godly nothing higher (nihil superius) must be sought than the goodness of God, and nothing higher in the perdition of the reprobate than his just severity.

Then the first proposition is, — “As the blessing of the covenant separates the Israelitic nation from all other people, so the election of God makes a distinction between men in that nation, while he predestinates some to salvation, and others to eternal condemnation.” The second proposition is, — “There is no other basis for this election than the goodness of God alone, and also since the fall of Adam, his mercy; which embraces whom he pleases, without any regard whatever to their works.” The third is, — “The Lord in his gratuitous election is free and exempt from the necessity of imparting equally the same grace to all; but, on the contrary, he passes by whom he wills, and whom he wills he chooses.” All these things Paul briefly includes in one sentence: he then goes on to other things.

Moreover, by these words, When the children had not yet been born, nor had done any good or evil, he shows, that God in making a difference could not have had any regard to works, for they were not yet done. Now they who argue on the other side, and say, that this is no reason why the election of God should not make a difference between men according to the merits of works, for God foresees who those are who by future works would be worthy or unworthy of his grace, are not more clear-sighted than Paul, but stumble at a principle in theology, which ought to be well known to all Christians, namely, that God can see nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, to induce him to manifest his favor. When therefore he says, that neither of them had then done any good or evil, what he took as granted must also be added, — that they were both the children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no particle of righteousness.

I do not dwell thus long on explaining these things, because the meaning of the Apostle is obscure; but as the Sophists, being not content with his plain sense, endeavour to evade it by frivolous distinctions, I wished to show, that Paul was by no means ignorant of those things which they allege.

It may further be said, that though that corruption alone, which is diffused through the whole race of man, is sufficient, before it breaks out, as they say, into action, for condemnation, and hence it follows, that Esau was justly rejected, for he was naturally a child of wrath, it was yet necessary, lest any doubt should remain, as though his condition became worse through any vice or fault, that sins no less than virtues should be excluded. It is indeed true, that the proximate cause of reprobation is the curse we all inherit from Adam; yet, that we may learn to acquiesce in the bare and simple good pleasure of God, Paul withdraws us from this view, until he has established this doctrine, — That God has a sufficiently just reason for electing and for reprobating, in his own will. Archbishop Usher asks this question, “Did God, before he made man, determine to save some and reject others?” To this he gives this answer, — “Yes, surely; before they had done either good or evil, God in his eternal counsel set them apart.” It is the same sentiment that is announced here by Calvin But to deduce it from what is said of Jacob and Esau, does not seem legitimate, inasmuch as they were in a fallen condition by nature, and the reference is evidently made to anything done personally by themselves. Election and reprobation most clearly presuppose man as fallen and lost: it is hence indeed, that the words derive their meaning. That it was God’s eternal purpose to choose some of man’s fallen race, and to leave others to perish, is clearly taught us: but this is a different question from the one touched upon here, — that this purpose was irrespective of man’s fall, — a sentiment which, as far as I can see, is not recognised nor taught in Scripture. And not only Calvin, but many other divines, both before and after him, seem to have gone in this respect somewhat beyond the limits of revelation; it is true, by a process of reasoning apparently obvious; but when we begin to reason on this high and mysterious subject, we become soon bewildered and lost in mazes of difficulties. — Ed.

That the purpose of God according to election, etc. He speaks of the gratuitous election of God almost in every instance. If works had any place, he ought to have said, — “That his reward might stand through works;” but he mentions the purpose of God, which is included, so to speak, in his own good pleasure alone. And that no ground of dispute might remain on the subject, he has removed all doubt by adding another clause, according to election, and then a third, not through works, but through him who calls. Let us now then apply our minds more closely to this passage: Since the purpose of God according to election is established in this way, — that before the brothers were born, and had done either good or evil, one was rejected and the other chosen; it hence follows, that when any one ascribes the cause of the difference to their works, he thereby subverts the purpose of God. Now, by adding, not through works, but through him who calls, he means, not on account of works, but of the calling only; for he wishes to exclude works altogether. We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the purpose of God alone: here merits avail nothing, as they issue in nothing but death; no worthiness is regarded, for there is none; but the goodness of God reigns alone. False then is the dogma, and contrary to God’s word, — that God elects or rejects, as he foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of his favor. Nothing can be conceived more conclusive in argument than what is contained here. The idea of foreseen works, as the reason or the ground of election, is wholly excluded. The choice is expressly denied to be on account of any works, and is as expressly ascribed to the sovereign will of God.

“He does not oppose works to faith, but to him who calls, or to the calling, which precedes faith, that is, to that calling which is according to God’s purpose. Paul means, that the difference between Jacob and Esau was made through the sole will and pleasure of God, not through their wills or works, existing or foreseen.” — Poli. Syn.

Yet some of the Fathers, as Chrysostom and Theodoret, as well as some modern divines, ascribe election to foreseen works. How this is reconcilable with the argument of the Apostle, and with the instances he adduces, it is indeed a very hard matter to see. One way by which the Apostle’s argument is evaded, is, that the election here is to temporal and outward privileges. Be it so: let this be granted; but it is adduced by the Apostle as an illustration — and of what? most clearly of spiritual and eternal election. He refers both to the same principle, to the free choice of God, and not to anything in man. “God foresaw the disposition of each.” — Theodoret and Chrysostom “His election corresponds with the foreseen disposition of men.” — Theodoret “It was done by the prescience of God, whereby he knew while yet unborn, what each would be.” — Augustine These are quotations made by a modern writer (Bosanquet) with approbation: but surely nothing could be suggested more directly contrary to the statements and the argument of the Apostle. There is a mistake, I apprehend, as to the last quotation; perhaps similar to that made in quoting Augustine on the latter part of the 7th chapter of this Epistle, where the writer quotes a sentiment of Augustine, which he afterwards retracted, a thing which has been often done by the advocates of Popery, but by no means becoming a Protestant. — Ed.

12. The elder shall serve the younger See how the Lord makes a difference between the sons of Isaac, while they were as yet in their mother’s womb; for this was the heavenly answer, by which it appeared that God designed to show to the younger peculiar favor, which he denied to the elder. Though this indeed had reference to the right of primogeniture, yet in this, as the symbol of something greater, was manifested the will of God: and that this was the case we may easily perceive, when we consider what little benefit, according to the flesh, Jacob derived from his primogeniture. For he was, on its account, exposed to great danger; and to avoid this danger, he was obliged to quit his home and his country, and was unkindly treated in his exile: when he returned, he tremblingly, and in doubt of his life, prostrated himself at the feet of his brother, humbly asked forgiveness for his offence, and lived through the indulgence shown to him. Where was his dominion over his brother, from whom he was constrained to seek by entreaty his life? There was then something greater than the primogeniture promised in the answer given by the Lord.

13. As it is written, Jacob I loved, etc. He confirms, by a still stronger testimony, how much the heavenly answer, given to Rebecca, availed to his present purpose, that is, that the spiritual condition of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and servitude of Esau, and also that Jacob obtained this favor through the kindness of God, and not through his own merit. Then this testimony of the prophet shows the reason why the Lord conferred on Jacob the primogeniture: and it is taken from the first chapter of Malachi, where the Lord, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude, mentions his former kindness to them, — “I have loved you,” he says; and then he refers to the origin of his love, — “Was not Esau the brother of Jacob?” as though he said, — “What privilege had he, that I should prefer him to his brother? None whatever. It was indeed an equal right, except that by the law of nature the younger ought to have served the elder; I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus led by my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. I therefore chose you for my people, that I might show the same kindness to the seed of Jacob; but I rejected the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Ye are then so much the worse, inasmuch as the remembrance of so great a favor cannot stimulate you to adore my majesty.” The meaning of the words “loving” and “hating” is here rightly explained. It is usual in Scripture to state a preference in terms like these. See Genesis 29:31; Luke 14:26; John 12:25 — Ed. Now, though earthly blessings are there recorded, which God had conferred on the Israelites, it is not yet right to view them but as symbols of his benevolence: for where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where his love is, there is life.

Romans 9:14-18

14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

14. Quid ergo dicemus? num in-justitia est apud Deum? Absit:

15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

15. Moses enim dicit, Miserebor cujus miserebor, et miserebor quem miseratus fuero.

16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

16. Ergo non volentis neque cur-rentis, sed miserentis est Dei.

17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

17. Dieit enim Scriptura Phara-oni, In hoc ipsum excitavi te, ut os-tendam in te potentiam meam, et ut praedicetur nomen meum in universa terra.

18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

18. Ergo cujus vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat.

14. What then shall we say? etc. The flesh cannot hear of this wisdom of God without being instantly disturbed by numberless questions, and without attempting in a manner to call God to an account. We hence find that the Apostle, whenever he treats of some high mystery, obviates the many absurdities by which he knew the minds of men would be otherwise possessed; for when men hear anything of what Scripture teaches respecting predestination, they are especially entangled with very many impediments.

The predestination of God is indeed in reality a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately, through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea. What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing concerning it, except what Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us hear from Paul how they are to be met.

Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.

But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.

15. For he saith to Moses, etc. The quotation is from Exodus 33:19, and literally from the Septuagint. The verb ἐλεέω is to be taken here in the sense of showing favour rather than mercy, according to the meaning of the Hebrew word; for the idea of mercy is what the other verb, οἰκτείρω, conveys. Schleusner renders it here and in some other passages in this sense. The rendering then would be — “I will favour whom I favour,” that is, whom I choose to favour; “and I will pity whom I pity,” which means whom I choose to pity. The latter verb in both clauses is in Hebrew in the future tense, but rendered properly in Greek in the present, as it commonly expresses a present act. — Ed. With regard to the elect, God cannot be charged with any unrighteousness; for according to his good pleasure he favors them with mercy: and yet even in this case the flesh finds reasons for murmuring, for it cannot concede to God the right of showing favor to one and not to another, except the cause be made evident. As then it seems unreasonable that some should without merit be preferred to others, the petulancy of men quarrels with God, as though he deferred to persons more than what is right. Let us now see how Paul defends the righteousness of God.

In the first place, he does by no means conceal or hide what he saw would be disliked, but proceeds to maintain it with inflexible firmness. And in the second place, he labours not to seek out reasons to soften its asperity, but considers it enough to check vile barkings by the testimonies of Scripture.

It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none, Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he prayed for the salvation of the whole people, “I will show mercy,” was God’s answer, “on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all. The words indeed mean as much as though he had said, “From him to whom I have once purposed to show mercy, I will never take it away; and with perpetual kindness will I follow him to whom I have determined to be kind.” And thus he assigns the highest reason for imparting grace, even his own voluntary purpose, and also intimates that he has designed his mercy peculiarly for some; for it is a way of speaking which excludes all outward causes, as when we claim to ourselves the free power of acting, we say, “I will do what I mean to do.” The relative pronoun also expressly intimates, that mercy is not to all indiscriminately. His freedom is taken away from God, when his election is bound to external causes.

The only true cause of salvation is expressed in the two words used by Moses. The first is חנן, chenen, which means to favor or to show kindness freely and bountifully; the other is רחם, rechem, which is to be treated with mercy. Thus is confirmed what Paul intended, that the mercy of God, being gratuitous, is under no restraint, but turns wherever it pleases. These two words clearly show that election regards man as fallen; for favour is what is shown to the undeserving, and mercy to the wretched and miserable, so that the choice that is made is out of the corrupted mass of mankind, contemplated in that state, and not as in a state of innocency. Augustine says, “Deus alios facit vasa irae secundum meritus; alios vasa miserieordiae secundum gratiam — God makes some vessels of wrath according to their merit; others vessels of mercy according to his grace.” In another place he says, “Deus ex eadem massa damnata originaliter, tanquam figulus, fecit aliud vas ad honorem, aliud in contumeliam — God, as a potter, made of the same originally condemned mass, one vessel to honor, another to dishonor.” “Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind.” — Henry

16. It is not then of him who wills, etc. From the testimony adduced he draws this inference, that beyond all controversy our election is not to be ascribed to our diligence, nor to our striving, nor to our efforts, but that it is wholly to be referred to the counsel of God. That none of you may think that they who are elected are elected because they are deserving, or because they had in any way procured for themselves the favor of God, or, in short, because they had in them a particle of worthiness by which God might be moved, take simply this view of the matter, that it is neither by our will nor efforts, (for he has put running for striving or endeavour,) that we are counted among the elect, but that it wholly depends on the divine goodness, which of itself chooses those who neither will, nor strive, nor even think of such a thing. And they who reason from this passage, that there is in us some power to strive, but that it effects nothing of itself unless assisted by God’s mercy, maintain what is absurd; for the Apostle shows not what is in us, but excludes all our efforts. It is therefore a mere sophistry to say that we will and run, because Paul denies that it is of him who wills or runs, since he meant nothing else than that neither willing nor running can do anything.

They are, however, to be condemned who remain secure and idle on the pretence of giving place to the grace of God; for though nothing is done by their own striving, yet that effort which is influenced by God is not ineffectual. These things, then, are not said that we may quench the Spirit of God, while kindling sparks within us, by our waywardness and sloth; but that we may understand that everything we have is from him, and that we may hence learn to ask all things of him, to hope for all things from him, and to ascribe all things to him, while we are prosecuting the work of our salvation with fear and trembling.

Pelagius has attempted by another sophistical and worthless cavil to evade this declaration of Paul, that it is not only of him who wills and runs, because the mercy of God assists. But Augustine, not less solidly than acutely, thus refuted him, “If the will of man is denied to be the cause of election, because it is not the sole cause, but only in part; so also we may say that it is not of mercy but of him who wills and runs, for where there is a mutual cooperation, there ought to be a reciprocal commendation: but unquestionably the latter sentiment falls through its own absurdity.” Let us then feel assured that the salvation of those whom God is pleased to save, is thus ascribed to his mercy, that nothing may remain to the contrivance of man. The terms “willing” and “running” are evidently derived from the circumstances connected with the history of Esau. “In vain,” says Turrettin, “did Esau seek the blessing. In vain did Isaac hasten to grant it, and in vain did Esau run to procure venison for his father; neither the father’s willingness nor the running of the son availed anything; God’s favour overruled the whole.” But the subject handled is God’s sovereignty in the manifestation of his favour and grace. Esau was but a type of the unbelieving Jews, when the gospel was proclaimed, and of thousands of such as are in name Christians. There is some sort of “willing,” and a great deal of “running,” and yet the blessing is not attained. There was much of apparent willing, and running in the strict formality and zeal of Pharisaism, and there is much of the same kind still in the austerities and mechanical worship of superstition, and also in the toils and devotions of self-righteousness. The word or the revealed will of God is in all these instances misunderstood and neglected.

Isaac’s “willingness” to give the blessing to Esau, notwithstanding the announcement made at his birth, and Rebecca’s conduct in securing it to Jacob, are singular instances of man’s imperfections, and of the overruling power of God. Isaac acted as though he had forgotten what God had expressed as his will; and Rebecca acted as though God could not effect his purpose without her interference, and an interference, too, in a way highly improper and sinful. It was the trial of faith, and the faith of both halted exceedingly; yet the purpose of God was still fulfilled, but the improper manner in which it was fulfilled was afterwards visited with God’s displeasure. — Ed.

Nor is there much more colour for what some advance, who think that these things are said in the person of the ungodly; for how can it be right to turn passages of Scripture in which the justice of God is asserted, for the purpose of reproaching him with tyranny? and then is it probable that Paul, when the refutation was at hand and easy, would have suffered the Scripture to be treated with gross mockery? But such subterfuges have they laid hold on, who absurdly measured this incomparable mystery of God by their own judgment. To their delicate and tender ears this doctrine was more grating than that they could think it worthy of an Apostle. But they ought rather to have bent their own stubbornness to the obedience of the Spirit, that they might not surrender themselves up to their gross inventions.

17. For the Scripture saith, etc. He comes now to the second part, the rejection of the ungodly, and as there seems to be something more unreasonable in this, he endeavours to make it more fully evident, how God, in rejecting whom he wills, is not only irreprehensible, but also wonderful in his wisdom and justice. He then takes his proof from Exodus 9:16, where the Lord declares that it was he who raised up Pharaoh for this end, that while he obstinately strove to resist the power of God, he might, by being overcome and subdued, afford a proof how invincible the arm of God is; to bear which, much less to resist it, no human power is able. See then the example which the Lord designed to exhibit in Pharaoh! “For,” at the beginning of this verse, connects it with Romans 9:14; it is the second reason given for what that verse contains: this is in accordance with Paul’s manner of writing, and it may be rendered here, moreover, or besides, or farther. Macknight renders it “besides.” Were γὰρ rendered thus in many instances, the meaning would be much more evident. — Ed.

There are here two things to be considered, — the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden counsel of God, — and then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God; and on this does Paul primarily dwell: for if this hardening was of such a kind, that on its account the name of God deserved to be made known, it is an impious thing, according to evidence derived from the contrary effect, to charge him with any unrighteousness.

But as many interpreters, striving to modify this passage, pervert it, we must first observe, that for the word, “I have raised,” or stirred up, (excitavi,) the Hebrew is, “I have appointed,” (constitui,) by which it appears, that God, designing to show, that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent him to deliver his people, not only affirms, that his fury had been foreseen by him, and that he had prepared means for restraining it, but that he had also thus designedly ordained it, and indeed for this end, — that he might exhibit a more illustrious evidence of his own power. It is somewhat remarkable, that Paul, in quoting this passage, Exodus 9:16, substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the Septuagint: instead of “ἓνεκεν τούτο διετηρήθης on this account thou hast been preserved,” he gives, “εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε — for this very end have I raised thee.” The Hebrew is, “And indeed for this end have I made thee to stand, העמדתיך” The verb used by Paul is found only in one other place in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:14; where it refers to the resurrection. In the Septuagint it often occurs, but never, as Stuart tells us, in the sense of creating, or bringing into existence, but in that of exciting, rousing from sleep, or rendering active. References are made to Genesis 28:16; Judges 5:12; Psalm 7:7; Jeremiah 50:41; Joel 3:9, etc. Hence it is by him rendered here, “I have roused thee up.” But to make the Hebrew verb to bear this sense is by no means easy: the three places referred to, Nehemiah 6:7, and Daniel 11:11 and 13, do not seem to afford a satisfactory proof. Psalm 107:25, is more to the point. Its first meaning is, to make to stand, and then, to present persons, Numbers 13:6, — -to establish or make strong a kingdom or a city, 1 Kings 15:4, — to fix persons in office, 2 Chronicles 35:2, — to set up or build a house, Ezra 9:9, — to appoint teachers, Nehemiah 6:7, — and to arrange or set in order an army, Daniel 11:13. Such are the ideas included in this verb. “I have made thee to stand,” established, or made thee strong, may be its meaning in this passage. To establish or to make one strong, is more than to preserve, the word used by the Septuagint: and hence it was, it may be, that Paul adopted another word, which conveys the idea, that Pharaoh had been elevated into greater power than his predecessors, which the Hebrew verb seems to imply.

Venema, as well as Stuart, thought that the idea of exciting, rousing in to action, or stimulating, is to be ascribed to the verbs here used, and that what is meant is, that God by his plagues awakened and excited all the evil that was in Pharaoh’s heart for the purposes here described, and that by this process he “hardened” him; and the conclusion of Romans 9:28 seems to favour this view, for the hardening mentioned there can have no reference to anything in the context except to what is said in this verse.

But the simpler view is that mentioned by Wolfius — that reference is made to the dangers which Pharaoh had already escaped. God says, “I have made thee to stand,” i.e., to remain alive in the midst of them. We hence see the reason why Paul changed the verb; for “preserve,” used by the Septuagint, did not fully express the meaning; but to “raise up,” as it were from the jaws of death, conveys more fully what is meant by the original. — Ed. Absurdly then do some render this passage, — that Pharaoh was preserved for a time; for his beginning is what is spoken of here. For, seeing many things from various quarters happen to men, which retard their purposes and impede the course of their actions, God says, that Pharaoh proceeded from him, and that his condition was by himself assigned to him: and with this view agrees the verb, I have raised up. But that no one may imagine, that Pharaoh was moved from above by some kind of common and indiscriminate impulse, to rush headlong into that madness, the special cause, or end, is mentioned; as though it had been said, — that God not only knew what Pharaoh would do, but also designedly ordained him for this purpose. It hence follows, that it is in vain to contend with him, as though he were bound to give a reason; for he of himself comes forth before us, and anticipates the objection, by declaring, that the reprobate, through whom he designs his name to be made known, proceed from the hidden fountain of his providence.

18. To whom he wills then he showeth mercy, etc. Here follows the conclusion of both parts; which can by no means be understood as being the language of any other but of the Apostle; for he immediately addresses an opponent, and adduces what might have been objected by an opposite party. There is therefore no doubt but that Paul, as we have already reminded you, speaks these things in his own person, namely, that God, according to his own will, favors with mercy them whom he pleases, and unsheathes the severity of his judgment against whomsoever it seemeth him good. That our mind may be satisfied with the difference which exists between the elect and the reprobate, and may not inquire for any cause higher than the divine will, his purpose was to convince us of this — that it seems good to God to illuminate some that they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish: for we ought particularly to notice these words, to whom he wills, and, whom he wills: beyond this he allows us not to proceed.

But the word hardens, when applied to God in Scripture, means not only permission, (as some washy moderators would have it,) but also the operation of the wrath of God: for all those external things, which lead to the blinding of the reprobate, are the instruments of his wrath; and Satan himself, who works inwardly with great power, is so far his minister, that he acts not, but by his command. Much has been unnecessarily written on this subject of hardening. Pharaoh is several times said to have hardened his own heart, and God is said also several times to have hardened him too. The Scripture in many instances makes no minute distinctions, for these may be easily gathered from the general tenor of its teaching. God is in his nature holy, and therefore hardening as his act cannot be sinful: and as he is holy, he hates sin and punishes it; and for this purpose he employs wicked men, and even Satan himself, as in the case of Ahab. As a punishment, he affords occasions and opportunities to the obstinate even to increase their sins, and thus in an indirect way hardens them in their rebellion and resistance to his will; and this was exactly the case with Pharaoh. This, as Calvin says, was the operation or working of his wrath. The history of Pharaoh is a sufficient explanation of what is said here. He was a cruel tyrant and oppressor; and God in his first message to Moses said, “I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.” God might indeed have softened his heart and disposed him to allow them to depart: but it pleased him to act otherwise, and to manifest his power and his greatness in another way: so that “whom he wills, he favours, and whom he wills, he hardens;” and for reasons known only to himself.

Reference is at the end of this section made to Proverbs 16:4. The creation mentioned can be understood in no other sense than the continued exercise of divine power in bringing into existence human beings in their present fallen state. But “creation” is not the word used, nor is the passage correctly rendered. It is not ברא nor עשה, but פעל; and it is not a verb but a substantive. Literally rendered the passage is the following —

Every work of Jehovah is for its (or, his) purpose, And even the wicked is for the day of calamity.

The Rev. G. Holden is very indignant that this text has been applied to support the doctrine of reprobation. Be it, that it has been misapplied; yet the doctrine does not thereby fall to the ground. If Paul does not maintain it in this chapter and in other passages, we must hold that words have no meaning. The history of God’s providence is an obvious confirmation of the same awful truth. — Ed. Then that frivolous evasion, which the schoolmen have recourse to respecting foreknowledge, falls to the ground: for Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will; and Solomon teaches as the same thing, — that not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end — that they may perish. (Proverbs 16:4.)

Romans 9:19-21

19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

19. Dices itaque mihi, Quid adhuc conqueritur? voluntati ejus quis re-stitit?

20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

20. Atqui, O homo, tu quis es qui contendis judicio cum Deo! hum dicit fictile figulo, cur me sic fecisti?

21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

21. An non habet potestatem fi-gulus luti ex eadem massa, faciendi, aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam?

19. Thou wilt then say, etc. Here indeed the flesh especially storms, that is, when it hears that they who perish have been destined by the will of God to destruction. Hence the Apostle adopts again the words of an opponent; for he saw that the mouths of the ungodly could not be restrained from boldly clamouring against the righteousness of God: and he very fitly expresses their mind; for being not content with defending themselves, they make God guilty instead of themselves; and then, after having devolved on him the blame of their own condemnation, they become indignant against his great power. The clause rendered by Calvin, “Quid adhuc conqueritur — why does he yet complain?” is rendered by Beza, “quid adhuc suecenset — why is he yet angry?” Our common version is the best, and is followed by Doddridge, Macknight, and Stuart The γὰρ, in the next clause, is omitted by Calvin, but Griesbach says that it ought to be retained. — Ed. They are indeed constrained to yield; but they storm, because they cannot resist; and ascribing dominion to him, they in a manner charge him with tyranny. In the same manner the Sophists in their schools foolishly dispute on what they call his absolute justice, as though forgetful of his own righteousness, he would try the power of his authority by throwing all things into confusion. Thus then speak the ungodly in this passage, — “What cause has he to be angry with us? Since he has formed us such as we are, since he leads us at his will where he pleases, what else does he in destroying us but punish his own work in us? For it is not in our power to contend with him; how much soever we may resist, he will yet have the upper hand. Then unjust will be his judgment, if he condemns us; and unrestrainable is the power which he now employs towards us.” What does Paul say to these things?

20. But, O man! who art thou? etc. “But” is not sufficiently emphatical here; μενοῦνγε; “yes, verily,” in Romans 10:18; “yea, rather,” in Luke 11:28; “doubtless,” in Philippians 3:8; it may be rendered here, “nay, rather.” — Ed. As it is a participle in Greek, we may read what follows in the present tense, who disputest, or contendest, or strivest in opposition to God; for it is expressed in Greek according to this meaning, — “Who art thou who enterest into a dispute with God?” But there is not much difference in the sense. “Quis es qui contendas judicio cum Deo;” τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῳ Θεῳ “that repliest against God,” is the rendering of Macknight and Stuart; “who enterest into a debate with God,” is what Doddridge gives. The verb occurs once in another place, Luke 14:6, and “answer again” is our version. Schleusner says that ἀντὶ prefixed to verbs is often redundant. In Job 16:8, and 32:12, this compound is used by the Septuagint simply in the sense of answering, for ענה He renders it here, “cure Deo altercari — to quarrel, or, dispute with God.” — Ed. In this first answer, he does nothing else but beat down impious blasphemy by an argument taken from the condition of man: he will presently subjoin another, by which he will clear the righteousness of God from all blame.

It is indeed evident that no cause is adduced higher than the will of God. Since there was a ready answer, that the difference depends on just reasons, why did not Paul adopt such a brief reply? But he placed the will of God in the highest rank for this reason, — that it alone may suffice us for all other causes. No doubt, if the objection had been false, that God according to his own will rejects those whom he honors not with his favor, and chooses those whom he gratuitously loves, a refutation would not have been neglected by Paul. The ungodly object and say, that men are exempted from blame, if the will of God holds the first place in their salvation, or in their perdition. Does Paul deny this? Nay, by his answer he confirms it, that is, that God determines concerning men, as it seems good to him, and that, men in vain and madly rise up to contend with God; for he assigns, by his own right, whatever lot he pleases to what he forms.

But they who say that Paul, wanting reason, had recourse to reproof, cast a grievous calumny on the Holy Spirit: for the things calculated to vindicate God’s justice, and ready at hand, he was at first unwilling to adduce, for they could not have been comprehended; yea, he so modifies his second reason, that he does not undertake a full defence, but in such a manner as to give a sufficient demonstration of God’s justice, if it be considered by us with devout humility and reverence.

He reminds man of what is especially meet for him to remember, that is, of his own condition; as though he had said, — “Since thou art man, thou ownest thyself to be dust and ashes; why then doest thou contend with the Lord about that which thou art not able to understand?” In a word, the Apostle did not bring forward what might have been said, but what is suitable to our ignorance. Proud men clamour, because Paul, admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God, alleges no cause; as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason, and not rather, that by his silence he reminds us, that a mystery which our minds cannot comprehend ought to be reverently adored, and that he thus checks the wantonness of human curiosity. Let us then know, that God does for no other reason refrain from speaking, but that he sees that we cannot contain his immense wisdom in our small measure; and thus regarding our weakness, he leads us to moderation and sobriety.

Does what is formed? etc. We see that Paul dwells continually on this, — that the will of God, though its reason is hid from us, is to be counted just; for he shows that he is deprived of his right, if he is not at liberty to determine what he sees meet concerning his creatures. This seems unpleasant to the ears of many. There are also those who pretend that God is exposed to great reproach were such a power ascribed to him, as though they in their fastidiousness were better divines than Paul, who has laid down this as the rule of humility to the faithful, that they are to admire the sovereignty of God, and not to estimate it by their own judgment.

But he represses this arrogance of contending with God by a most apt similitude, in which he seems to have alluded to Isaiah 45:9, rather than to Jeremiah 18:6; for nothing else is taught us by Jeremiah, than that Israel was in the hand of the Lord, so that he could for his sins wholly break him in pieces, as a potter the earthen vessel. But Isaiah ascends higher, “Woe to him,” he says, “who speaks against his maker;” that is, the pot that contends with the former of the clay; “shall the clay say to its former, what doest thou?” etc. And surely there is no reason for a mortal man to think himself better than earthen vessel, when he compares himself with God. We are not however to be over-particular in applying this testimony to our present subject, since Paul only meant to allude to the words of the Prophet, in order that the similitude might have more weight. The words in Romans 9:20 are taken almost literally from Isaiah 29:16, only the latter clause is somewhat different; the sentence is, “μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι αὐτὸ οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας — shall what is formed say to its former, Thou hast not formed me?” This is a faithful rendering of the Hebrew.

Then the words in Romans 9:21 are not verbally taken from either of the two places referred to above; but the simile is adopted. — Ed.

21. Has not the worker of the clay? etc. The reason why what is formed ought not to contend with its former, is, that the former does nothing but what he has a right to do. By the word power, he means not that the maker has strength to do according to his will, but that this privilege rightly and justly belongs to him. For he intends not to claim for God any arbitrary power but what ought to be justly ascribed to him.

And further, bear this in mind, — that as the potter takes away nothing from the clay, whatever form he may give it; so God takes away nothing from man, in whatever condition he may create him. Only this is to be remembered, that God is deprived of a portion of his honor, except such an authority over men be conceded to him as to constitute him the arbitrator of life and death. The metaphor in these verses is doubtless to be interpreted according to the context. Not only Calvin, but many others, have deduced from it what is not consistent with what the next verse contains, which gives the necessary explanation. By the “mass” or the lump of clay, is not meant mankind, contemplated as creatures, but as fallen creatures; or, as Augustine and Pareus call them, “massa damnata — the condemned mass;” for they are called in the next verse vessels of wrath, that is, the objects of wrath; and such are all by nature, according to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:3; “we were,” he says, “by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

“The words, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’ imply that all deserved wrath; so that the lump of clay in the hands of the potter must refer to men already existing in God’s foreknowledge as fallen creatures.” — Scott

In all the instances in which this metaphor is used by Isaiah and Jeremiah, it is applied to the Jews in their state of degeneracy, and very pointedly in Isaiah 64:8: where it is preceded, in the 6th verse, by that remarkable passage, “We are all as an unclean thing,” etc. The clay then, or the mass, is the mass of mankind as corrupted and depraved. — Ed.

Romans 9:22-23

22. What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

22. Quid autem si Deus volens demonstrare iram, et notam facere potentiam suam, sustinuit in multa patientia vasa irae, in interitum ap-parata;

23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

23. Ut notas quoque faceret divi-tins gloriae sum in vasa misericordiae, quae preparavit in gloriam?

22. And what, etc. A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.

The particles, εἰ δὲ, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what if? so that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be more evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this as being understood, — “Who then can charge him with unrighteousness, or arraign him?” for here appears nothing but the most perfect course of justice. Critics have in various ways attempted to supply the ellipsis, but what is here proposed is most approved. Beza considered the corresponding clause to be at Romans 9:30, and viewed the intervening verses as parenthetic, “And if God,” etc., — “What then shall we say?” Grotius subjoined, “Does God do any wrong?” Elsner,” Has he not the power?” and Wolfius,” What canst, thou say against God?” Stuart proposes to repeat the question in Romans 9:20, “Who art thou?” etc. Some connect this verse with the question in Romans 9:20, and include the latter part of it and Romans 9:21 in a parenthesis. Whatever way may be adopted, the sense is materially the same. It has also been suggested that εἰ δὲ is for εἴπερ, since, seeing, 2 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Peter 2:3. In this case no apodosis is necessary. But we may take εἰ as meaning since, and δὲ as an iliatire, and render the three verses thus, —

22. “Since then God willed (or, it was God’s will) to show His wrath and to make known his power, he endured with much forbearance the vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction;

23. So he willed to make known the riches of his glory towards the vessels of mercy, whom he has fore-prepared for glory,

24. Even us, whom he has called not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.”

The verb ἐστι, or ἦν, is often understood after participles, especially in Hebrew; and καὶ has the meaning of ‘so’ in some instances, Matthew 6:10; Acts 7:51; Galatians 1:9; and in some cases, as Schleusner says, without being preceded by any particle of comparison, such as Matthew 12:26, and 1 John 2:27, 28; but εἰ; here stands somewhat in that character.

The beginning of Romans 9:23 presents an anomaly, if, with Stuart and others, we consider “willing:” or wills to be understood, as it is followed in the preceding verse by an infinitive, and here by a subjunctive mood. But Beza, Grotius, and Hammond, seem to regard the verb “endured,” to be here, as it were, repeated, which gives the same meaning to the passage as that which is given to it by Calvin — Ed.

But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be examined. He then argues thus, — There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth; — what is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behoves us rather to adore than to scrutinize.

And he has mentioned vessels, as commonly signifying instruments; for whatever is done by all creatures, is, as it were, the ministration of divine power. For the best reason then are we, the faithful, called the vessels of mercy, whom the Lord uses as instruments for the manifestation of his mercy; and the reprobate are the vessels of wrath, because they serve to show forth the judgments of God.

23. That he might also make known the riches of his glory, etc. I doubt not but the two particles καὶ ἵνα, is an instance of a construction, where the first word is put last; (ὕστερον πρότερον) and that this clause may better unite with the former, I have rendered it, That he might also make known, etc. (Ut notas quoque faceret, etc.) It is the second reason which manifests the glory of God in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known; for how do they differ from them except that they are delivered by the Lord from the same gulf of destruction? and this by no merit of their own, but through his gratuitous kindness. It cannot then be but that the infinite mercy of God towards the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not his wrath.

The word glory, which is here twice mentioned, I consider to have been used for God’s mercy, a metonymy of effect for the cause; for his chief praise or glory is in acts of kindness. So in Ephesians 1:13, after having taught us, that we have been adopted to the praise of the glory of his grace, he adds, that we are sealed by the Spirit of promise unto the praise of his glory, the word grace being left out. He wished then to show, that the elect are instruments or vessels through whom God exercises his mercy, that through them he may glorify his name.

Though in the second clause he asserts more expressly that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot.

Romans 9:24-29

24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

24. Quos etiam vocavit, nimirum nos, non solum ex Iudaeis, sed etiam ex Gentibus:

25. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

25. Quemadmodum et in Osee dicit, Vocabo populum meum eum qui non est populus, et dilectam cam quae non est dilecta:

26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto than, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

26. Et erit in loco ubi dictum est eis, Non populus meus ves, illie vocabuntur filii Dei viventis.

27. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

27. Iesaias autem clamat super Israel, Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel ut arena maris, reliquiae servabuntur:

28. For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

28. Sermonem enim consummans et abbrevians, “In righteousness,” left out. The word rendered “matter” is “sermo,” But it is explained in this sense in the comment. — Ed. quoniam sermonem abbreviatum faciet Dominus in terra:

29. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

29. Et quemadmodum prius dix erat Iesaias, Nisi Dominus Sabbaoth. Reliquisset nobis semen, instar Sodorate facti essemus, et Gomorrhae essemus assimilati.

24. Whom he also called, etc. From the reasoning which he has been hitherto carrying on respecting the freedom of divine election, two things follow, — that the grace of God is not so confined to the Jewish people that it does not also flow to other nations, and diffuse itself through the whole world, — and then, that it is not even so tied to the Jews that it comes without exception to all the children of Abraham according to the flesh; for if God’s election is based on his own good pleasure alone, wherever his will turns itself, there his election exists. Election being then established, the way is now in a manner prepared for him to proceed to those things which he designed to say respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and also respecting the rejection of the Jews; the first of which seemed strange for its novelty, and the other wholly unbecoming. As, however, the last had more in it to offend, he speaks in the first place of that which was less disliked. He says then, that the vessels of God’s mercy, whom he selects for the glory of his name, are taken from every people, from the Gentiles no less than from the Jews.

But though in the relative whom the rule of grammar is not fully observed by Paul, It is an instance of Hebraism, the use of a double pronoun — whom and us, governed by the same verb. — Ed. yet his object was, by making as it were a transition, to subjoin that we are the vessels of God’s glory, who have been taken in part from the Jews and in part from the Gentiles; and he proves from the calling of God, that there is no difference between nations made in election. For if to be descended from the Gentiles was no hinderance that God should not call us, it is evident that the Gentiles are by no means to be excluded from the kingdom of God and the covenant of eternal salvation.

25. As he says in Hosea, Hosea 2:23. See 1 Peter 2:10. etc. He proves now that the calling of the Gentiles ought not to have been deemed a new thing, as it had long before been testified by the prediction of the prophet. The meaning is evident; but there is some difficulty in the application of this testimony; for no one can deny but that the prophet in that passage speaks of the Israelites. For the Lord, having been offended with their wickedness, declared that they should be no longer his people: he afterwards subjoined a consolation, and said, that of those who were not beloved he would make some beloved, and from those who were not a people he would make a people. But Paul applies to the Gentiles what was expressly spoken to the Israelites.

They who have hitherto been most successful in untying this knot have supposed that Paul meant to adopt this kind of reasoning, — “What may seem to be an hinderance to the Gentiles to become partakers of salvation did also exist as to the Jewish nation: as then God did formerly receive into favor the Jews, whom he had cast away and exterminated, so also now he exercises the same kindness towards the Gentiles.” But as this interpretation, though it may be supported, yet seems to me to be somewhat strained, let the readers consider this, — Whether it would not be a more suitable view to regard the consolation given by the prophet, as intended, not only for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles: for it was not a new or an unusual thing with the prophets, after having pronounced on the Jews God’s vengeance on account of their sins, to turn themselves to the kingdom of Christ, which was to be propagated through the whole world. And this they did, not without reason; for since the Jews so provoked God’s wrath by their sins, that they deserved to be rejected by him, no hope of salvation remained, except they turned to Christ, through whom the covenant of grace was to be restored: and as it was based on him, so it was then renewed, when he interposed. And doubtless, as Christ was the only refuge in great extremities, no solid comfort could have been brought to miserable sinners, and such as saw God’s wrath impending over them, except by setting Christ before their eyes, it was usual with the prophets, as we have reminded you, after having humbled the people by pronouncing on them divine vengeance, to call their attention to Christ, as the only true asylum of those in despair. And where the kingdom of Christ is erected there also is raised up that celestial Jerusalem, into which citizens from all parts of the world assemble. And this is what is chiefly included in the present prophecy: for when the Jews were banished from God’s family, they were thus reduced to a common class, and put on a level with the Gentiles. The difference being taken away, God’s mercy is now indiscriminately extended to all the Gentiles. We hence see that the prophet’s prediction is fitly applied to the present subject; in which God declares, that after having equalized the Jews and the Gentiles, he would gather a Church for himself from aliens, so that they who were not a people would begin to be so.

26. I will call them my people which are not a people This is said with respect to the divorce, which God had already made with the people, by depriving them of all honor, so that they did not excel other nations. Though they indeed, whom God in his eternal counsel has destined as sons to himself, are perpetually his sons, yet Scripture in many parts counts none to be God’s children but those the election of whom has been proved by their calling: and hence he teaches us not to judge, much less to decide, respecting God’s election, except as far as it manifests itself by its own evidences. Thus Paul, after having shown to the Ephesians that their election and adoption had been determined by God before the creation of the world, shortly after declares, that they were once alienated from God, (Ephesians 2:12,) that is, during that time when the Lord had not manifested his love towards them; though he had embraced them in his eternal mercy. Hence, in this passage, they are said not to be beloved, to whom God declares wrath rather than love: for until adoption reconciles men to God, we know that his wrath abides on them.

The feminine gender of the participle depends on the context of the prophet; for he had said, that a daughter had been born to him, to whom he gave this name, Not beloved, in order that the people might know that they were hated by God. Now as rejection was the reason for hatred, so the beginning of love, as the prophet teaches, is, when God adopts those who had been for a time strangers. The quotation is from Hosea 2:23, and is not literal either from the Hebrew or from the Septuagint. The order of the verse is reversed; and the word “beloved” is taken from the Septuagint. “Not beloved,” in Hebrew, is lo-ruhamah, i.e., one not pitied, or one who has not received mercy: which is the same in meaning.

In Romans 9:26, the words are taken from Hosea 1:10 and are not verbatim either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, but the difference is very trifling. — Ed.

27. And Isaiah exclaims, etc. He proceeds now to the second part, with which he was unwilling to begin, lest he should too much exasperate their minds. And it is not without a wise contrivance, that he adduces Isaiah as exclaiming, not, speaking, in order that he might excite more attention. But the words of the Prophet were evidently intended to keep the Jews from glorying too much in the flesh: for it was a thing dreadful to be heard, that of so large a multitude, a small number only would obtain salvation. For though the Prophet, after having described the devastation of the people, lest the faithful should think that the covenant of God was wholly abolished, gave some remaining hope of favor; yet he confined it to a few. But as the Prophet predicted of his own time, let us see how could Paul rightly apply this to his purpose. It must be in this sense, — When the Lord resolved to deliver his people from the Babylonian captivity, his purpose was, that this benefit of deliverance should come only to a very few of that vast multitude; which might have been said to be the remnant of that destruction, when compared with the great number which he suffered to perish in exile. Now that temporal restoration was typical of the real renovation of the Church of God; yea, it was only its commencement. What therefore happened then, is to be now much more completely fulfilled as the very progress and completion of that deliverance.

28. For I will finish and shorten the matter, etc. Sermonem enim consummans et abbrevians,” etc.; Λόγον γὰρ, etc. It is literally the Septuagint except in two instances: Paul puts in γὰρ, and substitutes ἐπὶ τὢς γὢς for ἐν τὣ οἰκουμένὟ ὅλὟ. It is a difficult passage in Hebrew: but the following rendering will make it materially consistent with the words of the Apostle, who evidently did not intend to give the words literally.

A destruction, soon executed, Shall overflow in righteousness; For completed and soon executed shall it be; The Lord, Jehovah of hosts, shall do it, In the midst of the whole land.

The word rendered above “soon executed,” means literally, abbreviated or cut short, signifying the quick execution of a thing or work. “Shall overflow in righteousness,” imports, “shall justly or deservedly overflow.” — Ed. Omitting various interpretations, I will state what appears to me to be the real meaning: The Lord will so cut short, and cut off his people, that the residue may seem as it were a consumption, that is, may have the appearance and the vestige of a very great ruin. However, the few who shall remain from the consumption shall be a proof of the work of God’s righteousness, or, what I prefer, shall serve to testify the righteousness of God throughout the world. As word often in Scripture means a thing, the consummated word is put for consumption. Many interpreters have here been grossly mistaken, who have attempted to philosophize with too much refinement; for they have imagined, that the doctrine of the gospel is thus called, because it is, when the ceremonies are cut off, a brief compendium of the law; though the word means on the contrary a consumption. There are many venerable names in favour of this opinion, such as Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc. Not knowing the Hebrew language, they attached a classical meaning to the expression, λόγον συντετμημένον, wholly at variance with what the Hebrew means, as Calvin justly observes. The word, συντετμημένον, in this passage, as Schleusner says, bears a meaning different from what it has in the classics; it imports what is cut short, that is, quickly executed. — Ed. And not only here is an error committed by the translator, but also in Isaiah 10:22, 23; Isaiah 28:22; and in Ezekiel 11:13; where it is said, “Ah! ah! Lord God! wilt thou make a completion of the remnant of Israel?” But the Prophets meant to say, “Wilt thou destroy the very remnant with utter destruction?” And this has happened through the ambiguity of the Hebrew word. For as the word, כלה, cale, means to finish and to perfect, as well as to consume, this difference has not been sufficiently observed according to the passages in which it occurs.

But Isaiah has not in this instance adopted one word only, but has put down two words, consumption, and termination, or cutting off; so that the affectation of Hebraism in the Greek translator was singularly unseasonable; for to what purpose was it to involve a sentence, in itself clear, in an obscure and figurative language? It may be further added, that Isaiah speaks here hyperbolically; for by consumption he means diminution, such as is wont to be after a remarkable slaughter.

29. And as Isaiah had before said, etc. Isaiah 1:9. The words of the Septuagint are given literally, and differ only in one instance from the Hebrew; “seed” is put for “remnant;” but as “seed” in this case evidently means a small portion reserved for sowing, the idea of the original is conveyed. Schleusner refers to examples both in Josephus and Plato, in which the word “seed,” is used in the sense of a small reserved portion. Its most common meaning in Scripture is posterity.

Paul has given “Sabaoth” from the Septuagint, which is the Hebrew untranslated. This word, in connection with God, is variously rendered by the Septuagint: for the most part in Isaiah, and in some other places, it is found untranslated as here; but in the Psalms and in other books, it is often rendered τῶν δυναμέων, that is, Jehovah or Lord “of the powers,” and often παντοκράτωρ, “omnipotent;” and sometimes ὁ ἃγιος “the holy one.” But our version, “Jehovah” or “Lord of hosts,” is the proper rendering. It means the hosts of animate and inanimate creatures; in fact, the whole universe, all created things; but, according to the context, it often specifically refers to material things, or to things immaterial. — Ed. He brings another testimony from the first chapter, where the Prophet deplores the devastation of Israel in his time: and as this had happened once, it was no new thing. The people of Israel had indeed no pre-eminence, except what they had derived from their ancestors; who had yet been in such a manner treated, that the Prophet complained that they had been so afflicted, that they were not far from having been destroyed, as Sodom and Gomorrah had been. There was, however, this difference, that a few were preserved for a seed, to raise up the name, that they might not wholly perish, and be consigned to eternal oblivion. For it behoved God to be ever mindful of his promise, so as to manifest his mercy in the midst of the severest judgments.

Romans 9:30-33

30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

30. Quid ergo dicemus? Quod gentes quae non sectabantur justitiam, adeptae sunt justitiam, justi-tiam autem ex fide:

31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

31. Israel autem sectando legem justitiae, ad legem justitiae non per-venit.

32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

32. Quare? Quid non ex fide, sed quasi ex operibus; offenderunt enim ad lapidem offensionis:

33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

33. Quemadmodum scriptum eat, Ecce pono in Sion lapidem offensionis et petram offendiculi: et omnis qui crediderit in eum non pudefiet.

30. What then, etc. That he might cut off from the Jews every occasion of murmuring against God, he now begins to show those causes, which may be comprehended by human minds, why the Jewish nation had been rejected. But they do what is absurd and invert all order, who strive to assign and set up causes above the secret predestination of God, which he has previously taught us is to be counted as the first cause. But as this is superior to all other causes, so the corruption and wickedness of the ungodly afford a reason and an occasion for the judgments of God: and as he was engaged on a difficult point, he introduced a question, and, as though he were in doubt, asked what might be said on the subject.

That the Gentiles who did not pursue, etc. Nothing appeared more unreasonable, or less befitting, than that the Gentiles, who, having no concern for righteousness, rolled themselves in the lasciviousness of their flesh, should be called to partake of salvation, and to obtain righteousness; and that, on the other hand, the Jews, who assiduously laboured in the works of the law, should be excluded from the reward of righteousness. Paul brings forward this, which was so singular a paradox, in such a manner, that by adding a reason he softens whatever asperity there might be in it; for he says, that the righteousness which the Gentiles attained was by faith; and that it hence depends on the Lord’s mercy, and not on man’s own worthiness; and that a zeal for the law, by which the Jews were actuated, was absurd; for they sought to be justified by works, and thus laboured for what no man could attain to; and still further, they stumbled at Christ, through whom alone a way is open to the attainment of righteousness.

But in the first clause it was the Apostle’s object to exalt the grace of God alone, that no other reason might be sought for in the calling of the Gentiles but this, — that he deigned to embrace them when unworthy of his favor.

He speaks expressly of righteousness, without which there can be no salvation: but by saying that the righteousness of the Gentiles proceeded from faith, he intimates, that it was based on a gratuitous reconciliation; for if any one imagines that they, were justified, because they had by faith obtained the Spirit of regeneration, he departs far from the meaning of Paul; it would not indeed have been true, that they had attained what they sought not, except God had freely embraced them while they were straying and wandering, and had offered them righteousness, for which, being unknown, they could have had no desire. It must also be observed, that the Gentiles could not have obtained righteousness by faith, except God had anticipated their faith by his grace; for they followed it when they first by faith aspired to righteousness; and so faith itself is a portion of his favor.

31. But Israel, by pursuing, etc. Paul openly states what seemed incredible, — that it was no wonder that the Jews gained nothing by sedulously following after righteousness; for by running out of the way, they wearied themselves in vain. But in the first place it seems to me that the law of righteousness is here an instance of transposition, and means the righteousness of the law; There seems to be no necessity for this transposition. “A law (not the law) of righteousness” means a law which prescribes righteousness, and which, if done, would have conferred righteousness. But the Jews following this did not attain to a law of righteousness, such a law as secured righteousness. The Apostle often uses the same words in the same verse in a different sense, and leaves the meaning to be made out by the context. Grotius takes “law” as meaning way, “They followed the way of righteousness, but did not attain to a way of righteousness.”

What follows the question in the next verse stands more connected with Romans 9:30 than with Romans 9:31; and we must consider that the word righteousness, and not law, is referred to by “it” after the verb “pursue,” which is evidently to be understood before the words, “not by faith,” etc., as the sentence is clearly elliptical.

The verb διώκω, rendered “sector“ by Calvin, means strictly to pursue what flees away from us, whether a wild beast or an enemy; it signifies also to follow a leader, and to run a race, and further, to desire, to attend to, or earnestly to seek a thing: and in this latter sense Paul often uses it. See Romans 12:13; Romans 14:19; 1 Corinthians 14:1. Similar is the application of the corresponding verb, רדף in Hebrew. See Deuteronomy 16:20; Psalm 34:14 “Quaero — to seek,” is the word adopted by Grotius

But Pareus and Hammond consider that there are here three agonistic terms, διώκων κατέλαβε, and ἔφθασε. The first signifies the running; the third, the reaching of the goal; and the second, the laying hold on the prize: and with this corresponds the stumbling afterwards mentioned. The Gentiles did not run at all, but the Jews did, and in running, they stumbled; while the Gentiles reached the goal, not by running, or by their own efforts, but by faith, and laid hold on the prize of righteousness. — Ed. and then, that when repeated in the second clause, it is to be taken in another sense, as signifying the model or the rule of righteousness.

The meaning then is, — “That Israel, depending on the righteousness of the law, even that which is prescribed in the law, did not understand the true method of justification.” But there is a striking contrast in the expression, when he teaches us that the legal righteousness was the cause that they had fallen away from the law of righteousness.

32. Not by faith, but as it were by works, etc. As false zeal seems commonly to be justly excused, Paul shows that they are deservedly rejected, who attempt to attain salvation by trusting in their own works; for they, as far as they can, abolish faith, without which no salvation can be expected. Hence, were they to gain their object, such a success would be the annihilation of true righteousness. You farther see how faith and the merits of works are contrasted, as things altogether contrary to each other. As then trust in works is the chief hinderance, by which our way to obtain righteousness is closed up, it is necessary that we should wholly renounce it in order that we may depend on God’s goodness alone. This example of the Jews ought indeed justly to terrify all those who strive to obtain the kingdom of God by works. Nor does he understand by the works of the law, ceremonial observances, as it has been before shown, but the merits of those works to which faith is opposed, which looks, as I may say, with both eyes on the mercy of God alone, without casting one glance on any worthiness of its own.

For they have stumbled at the stone, etc. He confirms by a strong reason the preceding sentence. There is indeed nothing more inconsistent than that they should obtain righteousness who strive to destroy it. Christ has been given to us for righteousness, whosoever obtrudes on God the righteousness of works, attempts to rob him of his own office. And hence it appears that whenever men, under the empty pretence of being zealous for righteousness, put confidence in their works, they do in their furious madness carry on war with God himself.

But how they stumble at Christ, who trust in their works, it is not difficult to understand; for except we own ourselves to be sinners, void and destitute of any righteousness of our own, we obscure the dignity of Christ, which consists in this, that to us all he is light, life, resurrection, righteousness, and healing. But how is he all these things, except that he illuminates the blind, restores the lost, quickens the dead, raises up those who are reduced to nothing, cleanses those who are full of filth, cures and heals those infected with diseases? Nay, when we claim for ourselves any righteousness we in a manner contend with the power of Christ; for his office is no less to beat down all the pride of the flesh, than to relieve and comfort those who labour and are wearied under their burden.

The quotation is rightly made; for God in that passage declares that he would be to the people of Judah and of Israel for a rock of offence, at which they should stumble and fall. Since Christ is that God who spoke by the Prophets, it is no wonder that this also should be fulfilled in him. And by calling Christ the stone of stumbling, he reminds us that it is not to be wondered at if they made no progress in the way of righteousness, who through their wilful stubbornness stumbled at the rock of offence, when God had showed to them the way so plainly. “Error is often a greater obstacle to the salvation of men than carelessness or vice... Let no man think error in doctrine a slight practical evil. No road to perdition has ever been more thronged than that of false doctrine. Error is a shield over the conscience and a bandage over the eyes.” — Professor Hodge But we must observe, that this stumbling does not properly belong to Christ viewed in himself; but, on the contrary, it is what happens through the wickedness of men, according to what immediately follows.

33. And every one who believes in him shall not be ashamed. He subjoins this testimony from another part for the consolation of the godly; as though he had said, “Because Christ is called the stone of stumbling, there is no reason that we should dread him, or entertain fear instead of confidence; for he is appointed for ruin to the unbelieving, but for life and resurrection to the godly.” As then the former prophecy, concerning the stumbling and offence, is fulfilled in the rebellious and unbelieving, so there is another which is intended for the godly, and that is, that he is a firm stone, precious, a corner-stone, most firmly fixed, and whosoever builds on it shall never fall. By putting shall not be ashamed instead of shall not hasten or fall, he has followed the Greek Translator. It is indeed certain that the Lord in that passage intended to strengthen the hope of His people: and when the Lord bids us to entertain good hope, it hence follows that we cannot be ashamed. The citation in this verse is made in a remarkable manner. The first part, “Behold I lay in Zion,” is taken from Isaiah 28:16; what follows, “a stone of stumbling and rock of offense,” is taken from Isaiah 8:14; and then the last words, “and whosoever believes in him shall not be ashamed,” are given from the preceding passage in Isaiah 28:16. The subject is the same.

With respect to the last clause Paul has followed the Septuagint, “shall not be ashamed.” But the Hebrew word, rendered in our version “shall not make haste,” will bear a similar meaning, and may be translated, shall not hurry or be confounded. — Ed. See a passage like this in 1 Peter 2:10

CHAPTER 10

Romans 10:1-4

1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

1. Fratres, benevolentia certe cordis mei, et deprecatio ad Deum super Israel, est in salutem.

2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

2. Testimonium enim reddo illis, quod zelum Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam:

3. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

3. Ignorantes enim Dei justitiam, et propriam justitiam quaerentes statuere, justitiae Dei subjecti non fuerunt;

4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

4. Finis enim Legis Christus in justitiam omni credenti. The γὰρ, “for,” at the beginning of Romans 10:4, connects it with the latter part of the preceding, as the γὰρ, “for,” in the preceding connects it with the latter part of Romans 10:2; and γὰρ also in Romans 10:5 expresses a reason for what Romans 10:4 contains. So that we have a regular chain; the following sentence gives a reason for the one immediately preceding in four instances. — Ed.

CHAPTER 9

Ro 9:1-33. The Bearing of the Foregoing Truths upon the Condition and Destiny of the Chosen People--Election--The Calling of the Gentiles.

Too well aware that he was regarded as a traitor to the dearest interests of his people (Ac 21:33; 22:22; 25:24), the apostle opens this division of his subject by giving vent to his real feelings with extraordinary vehemence of protestation.

1-2. I say the truth in Christ--as if steeped in the spirit of Him who wept over impenitent and doomed Jerusalem (compare Ro 1:9; 2Co 12:19; Php 1:8).

my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost--"my conscience as quickened, illuminated, and even now under the direct operation of the Holy Ghost."

3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for--"in behalf of"

my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh--In proportion as he felt himself severed from his nation, he seems to have realized all the more vividly their natural relationship. To explain away the wish here expressed, as too strong for any Christian to utter or conceive, some have rendered the opening words, "I did wish," referring it to his former unenlightened state; a sense of the words too tame to be endured: others unwarrantably soften the sense of the word "accursed." But our version gives the true import of the original; and if it be understood as the language rather of "strong and indistinct emotions than of definite ideas" [Hodge], expressing passionately how he felt his whole being swallowed up in the salvation of his people, the difficulty will vanish, and we shall be reminded of the similar idea so nobly expressed by Moses (Ex 32:32).

4. Who are Israelites--See Ro 11:1; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5.

to whom pertaineth--"whose is"

the adoption--It is true that, compared with the new economy, the old was a state of minority and pupilage, and so far that of a bond-servant (Ga 4:1-3); yet, compared with the state of the surrounding heathen, the choice of Abraham and his seed was a real separation of them to be a Family of God (Ex 4:22; De 32:6; Is 1:2; Jr 31:9; Ho 11:1; Mal 1:6).

and the glory--that "glory of the Lord," or "visible token of the Divine Presence in the midst of them," which rested on the ark and filled the tabernacle during all their wanderings in the wilderness; which in Jerusalem continued to be seen in the tabernacle and temple, and only disappeared when, at the Captivity, the temple was demolished, and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. This was what the Jews called the "Shekinah."

and the covenants--"the covenants of promise" to which the Gentiles before Christ were "strangers" (Ep 2:12); meaning the one covenant with Abraham in its successive renewals (see Ga 3:16, 17).

and the giving of the law--from Mount Sinai, and the possession of it thereafter, which the Jews justly deemed their peculiar honor (De 26:18, 19; Psa 147:19, 20; Ro 2:17).

and the service of God--or, of the sanctuary, meaning the whole divinely instituted religious service, in the celebration of which they were brought so nigh unto God.

and the promises--the great Abrahamic promises, successively unfolded, and which had their fulfilment only in Christ; (see He 7:6; Ga 3:16, 21; Ac 26:6, 7).

5. Whose are the fathers--here, probably, the three great fathers of the covenant--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--by whom God condescended to name Himself (Ex 8:6, 13; Lu 20:37).

and--most exalted privilege of all, and as such, reserved to the last.

of whom as concerning the flesh--(See on Ro 1:3).

Christ came--or, "is Christ"

who is over all, God--rather, "God over all."

blessed for ever. Amen--To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted: (1) To place a period, either after the words "concerning the flesh Christ came," rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father--"God who is over all be blessed for ever"; or after the word "all"--thus, "Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.", &c. [Erasmus, Locke, Fritzsche, Meyer, Jowett, &c.]. But it is fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies the word "Blessed" precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: "Blessed be God," Psa 68:35; "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel," Psa 72:18). Besides, any such doxology here would be "unmeaning and frigid in the extreme"; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ's Incarnation [Alford]. (2) To transpose the words rendered "who is"; in which case the rendering would be, "whose (that is, the fathers') is Christ according to the flesh" [Crellius, Whiston, Taylor, Whitby]. But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as is also the conjecture of Grotius and others, that the word "God" should be omitted from the text. It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israelitish nation "as concerning the flesh," He is, in another respect, "God over all, blessed for ever." (In 2Co 11:31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered "who is," is used in the same sense; and compare Ro 1:25, Greek). In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur [Bengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Olshausen, Philippi, Alford, &c.]

6. Not as though the word of God had taken none effect--"hath fallen to the ground," that is, failed: compare Lu 16:17, Greek.

for they are not all Israel which are of Israel--better, "for not all they which are of Israel are Israel." Here the apostle enters upon the profound subject of Election, the treatment of which extends to the end of the eleventh chapter--"Think not that I mourn over the total loss of Israel; for that would involve the failure of God's word to Abraham; but not all that belong to the natural seed, and go under the name of 'Israel,' are the Israel of God's irrevocable choice." The difficulties which encompass this subject lie not in the apostle's teaching, which is plain enough, but in the truths themselves, the evidence for which, taken by themselves, is overwhelming, but whose perfect harmony is beyond human comprehension in the present state. The great source of error here lies in hastily inferring (as Tholuck and others), from the apostle's taking tip, at the close of this chapter, the calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of Israel, and continuing this subject through the two next chapters, that the Election treated of in the body of this chapter is national, not personal Election, and consequently is Election merely to religious advantages, not to eternal salvation. In that case, the argument of Ro 9:6, with which the subject of Election opens, would be this: "The choice of Abraham and his seed has not failed; because though Israel has been rejected, the Gentiles have taken their place; and God has a right to choose what nation He will to the privileges of His visible kingdom." But so far from this, the Gentiles are not so much as mentioned at all till towards the close of the chapter; and the argument of this verse is, that "all Israel is not rejected, but only a portion of it, the remainder being the 'Israel' whom God has chosen in the exercise of His sovereign right." And that this is a choice not to mere external privileges, but to eternal salvation, will abundantly appear from what follows.

7-9. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children--"Not in the line of mere fleshly descent from Abraham does the election run; else Ishmael, Hagar's child, and even Keturah's children, would be included, which they were not."

but--the true election are such of Abraham's seed as God unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in that promise.

in Isaac shall thy seed be called--(Ge 21:12).

10-13. And not only this; but when Rebecca, &c.--It might be thought that there was a natural reason for preferring the child of Sarah, as being Abraham's true and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah's maid, and to the children of Keturah, his second wife. But there could be no such reason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac's only wife; for the choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother and of the younger in preference to the elder, and before either of them was born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of preference: and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God--"not of works, but of Him that calleth."

14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid--This is the first of two objections to the foregoing doctrine, that God chooses one and rejects another, not on account of their works, but purely in the exercise of His own good pleasure: "This doctrine is inconsistent with the justice of God." The answer to this objection extends to Ro 9:19, where we have the second objection.

15. For he saith to Moses--(Ex 33:19).

I will have mercy on whom I will have--"on whom I have"

mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have--"on whom I have"

compassion--"There can be no unrighteousness in God's choosing whom He will, for to Moses He expressly claims the right to do so." Yet it is worthy of notice that this is expressed in the positive rather than the negative form: not, "I will have mercy on none but whom I will"; but, "I will have mercy on whomsoever I will."

16. So then it is not of him that willeth--hath the inward desire

nor of him that runneth--maketh active effort (compare 1Co 9:24, 26; Php 2:16; 3:14). Both these are indispensable to salvation, yet salvation is owing to neither, but is purely "of God that showeth mercy." See on Php 2:12, 13, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God which, out of His own good pleasure, worketh in you both to will and to do."

17. For the scripture saith to Pharaoh--observe here the light in which the Scripture is viewed by the apostle.

Even for this same--"this very"

purpose have I raised--"raised I"

thee up, &c.--The apostle had shown that God claims the right to choose whom He will: here he shows by an example that God punishes whom He will. But "God did not make Pharaoh wicked; He only forbore to make him good, by the exercise of special and altogether unmerited grace" [Hodge].

that I might--"may"

show my power in thee--It was not that Pharaoh was worse than others that he was so dealt with, but "in order that he might become a monument of the penal justice of God, and it was with a view to this that God provided that the evil which was in him should be manifested in this definite form" [Olshausen].

and that my name might--"may"

be declared--"proclaimed"

in all the earth--"This is the principle on which all punishment is inflicted, that the true character of the Divine Lawgiver should be known. This is of all objects, where God is concerned, the highest and most important; in itself the most worthy, and in its results the most beneficent" [Hodge].

18. Therefore hath he--"So then he hath." The result then is that He hath

mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth--by judicially abandoning them to the hardening influence of sin itself (Psa 81:11, 12; Ro 1:24, 26, 28; He 3:8, 13), and of the surrounding incentives to it (Mt 24:12; 1Co 15:38; 2Th 2:17).

Second objection to the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty:

19. Thou shalt say then unto me, Why--"Why then" is the true reading.

doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted--"Who resisteth"

his will?--that is, "This doctrine is incompatible with human responsibility"; If God chooses and rejects, pardons and punishes, whom He pleases, why are those blamed who, if rejected by Him, cannot help sinning and perishing? This objection shows quite as conclusively as the former the real nature of the doctrine objected to--that it is Election and Non-election to eternal salvation prior to any difference of personal character; this is the only doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated, and to this doctrine the objection is plausible. What now is the apostle's answer? It is twofold. First: "It is irreverence and presumption in the creature to arraign the Creator."

20-21. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made--"didst thou make"

me thus?--(Is 45:9).

22-23. What if God, willing to show--"designing to manifest"

his wrath--His holy displeasure against sin.

and to make his power--to punish it

known endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath--that is, "destined to wrath"; just as "vessels of mercy," in Ro 9:23, mean "vessels destined to mercy"; compare Ep 2:3, "children of wrath."

fitted for destruction--It is well remarked by Stuart that the "difficulties which such statements involve are not to be got rid of by softening the language of one text, while so many others meet us which are of the same tenor; and even if we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge an omnipotent and omniscient God we cannot abate in the least degree from any of the difficulties which such texts make." Be it observed, however, that if God, as the apostle teaches, expressly "designed to manifest His wrath, and to make His power (in the way of wrath) known," it could only be by punishing some, while He pardons others; and if the choice between the two classes was not to be founded, as our apostle also teaches, on their own doings but on God's good pleasure, the decision behooved ultimately to rest with God. Yet, even in the necessary punishment of the wicked, as Hodge observes, so far from proceeding with undue severity, the apostle would have it remarked that God "endures with much long-suffering" those objects of His righteous displeasure.

24. even us, whom he hath called, &c.--rather, "Whom he hath also called, even us," &c., in not only "afore preparing," but in due time effectually "calling us."

not of the Jews, &c.--better, "not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Here for the first title in this chapter the calling of the Gentiles is introduced; all before having respect, not to the substitution of the called Gentiles for the rejected Jews, but to the choice of one portion and the rejection of another of the same Israel. Had Israel's rejection been total, God's promise to Abraham would not have been fulfilled by the substitution of the Gentiles in their room; but Israel's rejection being only partial, the preservation of a "remnant," in which the promise was made good, was but "according to the election of grace." And now, for the first time, the apostle tells us that along with this elect remnant of Israel, it is God's purpose to "take out of the Gentiles a people for His name" (Ac 28:14); and that subject, thus introduced, is now continued to the end of the eleventh chapter.

25. As he saith also in Osee--"Hosea."

I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved--quoted, though not quite to the letter, from Ho 2:23, a passage relating immediately, not to the heathen, but to the kingdom of the ten tribes; but since they had sunk to the level of the heathen, who were "not God's people," and in that sense "not beloved," the apostle legitimately applies it to the heathen, as "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise" (so 1Pe 2:10).

26. And--another quotation from Ho 1:10.

it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children--"called sons"

of the living God--The expression, "in the place where ... there," seems designed only to give greater emphasis to the gracious change here announced, from divine exclusion to divine admission to the privileges of the people of God.

27-29. Esaias also crieth--"But Isaiah crieth"--an expression denoting a solemn testimony openly borne (Joh 1:15; 7:28, 37; 12:44; Ac 23:6; 24:21).

concerning Israel, Though the number of the children--"sons"

of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a--"the"

remnant--that is, the elect remnant only shall be saved.

30-31. What shall we say then?--"What now is the result of the whole?" The result is this--very different from what one would have expected.

That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained--"attained"

to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith--As we have seen that "the righteousness of faith" is the righteousness which justifies (see on Ro 3:22, &c.), this verse must mean that "the Gentiles, who while strangers to Christ were quite indifferent about acceptance with God, having embraced the Gospel as soon as it was preached to them, experienced the blessedness of a justified state."

32-33. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were--rather simply, "as"

by the works of the law--as if it were thus attainable, which justification is not: Since, therefore, it is attainable only by faith, they missed it.

for--it is doubtful if this particle was originally in the text.

they stumbled at that stumbling-stone--better, "against the stone of stumbling," meaning Christ. But in this they only did.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not - This is one of the most solemn oaths any man can possibly take. He appeals to Christ as the searcher of hearts that he tells the truth; asserts that his conscience was free from all guile in this matter, and that the Holy Ghost bore him testimony that what he said was true. Hence we find that the testimony of a man's own conscience, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost, are two distinct things, and that the apostle had both at the same time.

As the apostle had still remaining a very awful part of his commission to execute, namely, to declare to the Jews not only that God had chosen the Gentiles, but had rejected them because they had rejected Christ and his Gospel, it was necessary that he should assure them that however he had been persecuted by them because he had embraced the Gospel, yet it was so far from being a gratification to him that they had now fallen under the displeasure of God, that it was a subject of continual distress to his mind, and that it produced in him great heaviness and continual sorrow.

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ - This and the two preceding verses are thus paraphrased by Dr. Taylor: I am so far from insisting on the doctrine (of the rejection of the Jews) out of any ill-will to my countrymen, that I solemnly declare, in the sincerity of my heart, without the least fiction or dissimulation - and herein I have the testimony of my own conscience, enlightened and directed by the Spirit of God - that I am so far from taking pleasure in the rejection of the Jewish nation, that, contrariwise, it gives me continual pain and uneasiness, insomuch that, as Moses formerly (when God proposed to cut them off, and in their stead to make him a great nation, Exo 32:10) begged that he himself should rather die than that the children of Israel should be destroyed, Exo 32:32, so I could even wish that the exclusion from the visible Church, which will happen to the Jewish nation, might fall to my own share, if hereby they might be kept in it and to this I am inclined by natural affection, for the Jews are my dear brethren and kindred.

Very few passages in the New Testament have puzzled critics and commentators more than this. Every person saw the perfect absurdity of understanding it in a literal sense, as no man in his right mind could wish himself eternally damned in order to save another, or to save even the whole world. And the supposition that such an effect could be produced by such a sacrifice, was equally absurd and monstrous. Therefore various translations have been made of the place, and different solutions offered. Mr. Wakefield says: "I see no method of solving the difficulty in this verse, which has so exercised the learning and ingenuity of commentators, but by the ευχομαι ειναι of Homer, I profess myself to be; and he translates the passage in a parenthesis, thus: (for I also was once an alien from Christ) on account of my brethren, etc. But how it does appear that Saul of Tarsus was ever an alien from Christ on account of his kinsmen, is to me perfectly indiscernible. Let us examine the Greek text. Ηυχομην γαρ αυτος εγω αναθεμα ειναι απο του Χριστου ὑπερτων αδελφων μου, 'For I did wish myself to be an anathema From Christ (ὑπο, By Christ, as some ancient MSS. read) for my brethren.' As ηυχομην is the 1st per. sing. of the imperfect tense, some have been led to think that St. Paul is here mentioning what had passed through his own mind when filled with the love of God, he learned the rejection of the Jews; and that he only mentions it here as a thing which, in the effusions of his loving zeal, had been felt by him inconsiderately, and without any Divine afflatus leading him to it; but that he does not intimate that now he felt any such unreasonable and preposterous wish." I am afraid this is but ill calculated to solve the difficulty.

The Greek word αναθεμα, anathema, properly signifies any thing devoted to God, so as to be destroyed: it answers to the Hebrew חרם cherem, which the Septuagint translate by it, and means either a thing or person separated from its former state or condition, and devoted to destruction. In this sense it is used, Deu 7:25, Deu 7:26; Jos 6:17, Jos 6:18; Jos 7:12.

It is certain that the word, both among the Hebrews and Greeks, was used to express a person devoted to destruction for the public safety. In Midrash hanneelam, in Sohar Chadash, fol. 15, Rabbi Chaijah the elder said: "There is no shepherd found like unto Moses, who was willing to lay down his life for the sheep; for Moses said, Exo 32:32, If thou wilt not pardon their sin, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." Such anathemas, or persons devoted to destruction for the public good, were common among all ancient nations. See the case of M. Curtius and Decius among the Romans. When a plague took place, or any public calamity, it was customary to take one of the lowest or most execrable of the people, and devote him to the Dii Manes or infernal gods. See proofs in Schleusner, and see the observations at the end of the chapter, (Rom 9:33 (note), point 1.). This one circumstance is sufficient to explain the word in this place. Paul desired to be devoted to destruction, as the Jews then were, in order to redeem his countrymen from this most terrible excision. He was willing to become a sacrifice for the public safety, and to give his life to redeem theirs. And, as Christ may be considered as devoting them to destruction, (see Matthew 24), Paul is willing that in their place Christ should devote him: for I could wish myself, αναθεμα ειμαι απο (or, as some excellent MSS. have it, ὑπο) του Χριστου, to be devoted By Christ, to that temporal destruction to which he has adjudged the disobedient Jews, if by doing so I might redeem them. This, and this alone, seems to be the meaning of the apostle's wish.

Who are Israelites - Descendants of Jacob, a man so highly favored of God, and from whom he received his name Israel - a prince of God, Gen 32:28; from which name his descendants were called Israelites, and separated unto God for his glory and praise. Their very name of Israelites implied their very high dignity; they were a royal nation; princes of the most high God.

The adoption - The Israelites were all taken into the family of God, and were called his sons and first-born, Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; and this adoption took place when God made the covenant with them at Horeb.

The glory - The manifestation of God among them; principally by the cloud and pillar, and the Shekinah, or Divine presence, appearing between the cherubim over the mercy-seat. These were peculiar to the Jews; no other nation was ever thus favored.

The covenants - The covenants made with Abraham, both that which relates to the spiritual seed, and that which was peculiar to his natural descendants, Gal 3:16, Gal 3:17; which covenants were afterwards renewed by Moses, Deu 29:1. Some suppose that the singular is here put for the plural, and that by covenants we are to understand the decalogue, which is termed ברית berith, or covenant, Deu 4:13. But it is more likely that the apostle alludes to the great covenant made with Abraham, and to its various renewals and extensions at different times afterwards, as well as to its twofold design - the grant of the land of Canaan, and the rest that remains for the people of God.

The giving of the law - The revelation of God by God himself, containing a system of moral and political precepts. This was also peculiar to the Jews; for to no other nation had he ever given a revelation of his will.

The service - Λατρεια. The particular ordinances, rites, and ceremonies of their religious worship, and especially the sacrificial system, so expressive of the sinfulness of sin and the holiness of God.

The promises - The land of Canaan, and the blessings of the Messiah and his kingdom; which promises had been made and often repeated to the patriarchs and to the prophets.

Whose are the fathers - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, etc., etc., without controversy, the greatest and most eminent men that ever flourished under heaven. From these, is an uninterrupted and unpolluted line, the Jewish people had descended; and it was no small glory to be able to reckon, in their genealogy, persons of such incomparable merit and excellency.

And of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came - These ancestors were the more renowned, as being the progenitors of the human nature of the Messiah. Christ, the Messiah, κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, sprang from them. But this Messiah was more than man, he is God over all; the very Being who gave them being, though he appeared to receive a being from them.

Here the apostle most distinctly points out the twofold nature of our Lord - his eternal Godhead and his humanity; and all the transpositions of particles, and alterations of points in the universe, will not explain away this doctrine. As this verse contains such an eminent proof of the deity of Christ, no wonder that the opposers of his divinity should strive with their utmost skill and cunning to destroy its force. And it must be truly painful to a mind that has nothing in view but truth, to see the mean and hypocritical methods used to elude the force of this text. Few have met it in that honest and manly way in which Dr. Taylor, who was a conscientious Arian, has considered the subject. "Christ," says he, "is God over all, as he is by the Father appointed Lord, King, and Governor of all. The Father hath committed all judgement to the Son, Joh 5:22; has given all things into his hands, Mat 28:18; he is Lord of all, Act 10:36. God has given him a name above every name, Phi 2:9; above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and has put all things (himself excepted, 1Cor 15:27) under his feet and given him to be head over all things, Eph 1:21, Eph 1:22. This is our Lord's supreme Godhead. And that he is ευλογητος, blessed for ever, or the object of everlasting blessing, is evident from Rev 5:12, Rev 5:13 : Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power - and blessing and honor be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Thus it appears the words may be justly applied to our blessed Lord." Notes, p. 329. Yes, and when we take other scriptures into the account, where his essential Godhead is particularly expressed, such as Col 1:16, Col 1:17 : For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created By him, and For him: and he is Before all things, and By him do all things consist; we shall find that he is not God by investiture or office, but properly and essentially such; for it is impossible to convey in human language, to human apprehension, a more complete and finished display of what is essential to Godhead, indivisible from it, and incommunicable to any created nature, than what is contained in the above verses. And while these words are allowed to make a part of Divine revelation, the essential Godhead of Jesus Christ will continue to be a doctrine of that revelation.

I pass by the groundless and endless conjectures about reversing some of the particles and placing points in different positions, as they have been all invented to get rid of the doctrine of Christ's divinity, which is so obviously acknowledged by the simple text; it is enough to state that there is no omission of these important words in any MS. or version yet discovered.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect - A Jew might have objected, as in Rom 3:3 : "Is not God bound by his faithfulness to continue the Jews as his peculiar Church and people, notwithstanding the infidelity of the major part of them? If they are brought to a level with the Gentiles, will it not follow that God hath failed in the performance of his promise to Abraham? Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8 : I will establish my covenant between me and thee for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee." To which it may be answered: This awful dispensation of God towards the Jews is not inconsistent with the veracity of the Divine promise; for even the whole body of natural born Jews are not the whole of the Israelites comprehended in the promise. Abraham is the father of many nations; and his seed is not only that which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, Rom 4:16, Rom 4:17. The Gentiles were included in the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Jews; and therefore the Jews have no exclusive right to the blessings of God's kingdom.

Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, etc. - Nor can they conclude, because they are the natural descendants of Abraham, that therefore they are all of them, without exception, the children in whom the promise is to be fulfilled.

But, in Isaac shall thy seed be called - The promise is not confined to immediate natural descent, but may be accomplished in any part of Abraham's posterity. For Abraham had several sons besides Isaac, Gen 25:1, Gen 25:2, particularly Ishmael, who was circumcised before Isaac was born, and in whom Abraham was desirous that the promise should be fulfilled, Gen 17:18, and in him God might have fulfilled the promise, had he so pleased; and yet he said to Abraham, Gen 21:12 : Not in Ishmael, but in Isaac, shall thy seed be called.

That is, They which are the children of the flesh - Whence it appears that not the children who descend from Abraham's loins, nor those who were circumcised as he was, nor even those whom he might expect and desire, are therefore the Church and people of God; but those who are made children by the good pleasure and promise of God, as Isaac was, are alone to be accounted for the seed with whom the covenant was established.

For this is the word of promise, etc. - That is, this is evidently implied in the promise recorded Gen 18:10 : At this time I will come, saith God, and exert my Divine power, and Sarah, though fourscore and ten years old, shall have a son; which shows that it is the sovereign will and act of God alone, which singles out and constitutes the peculiar seed that was to inherit the promise made to Abraham.

It should be considered that the apostle, in this and the following quotations, does not give us the whole of the text which he intends should be taken into his argument, but only a hint or reference to the passages to which they belong; directing us to recollect or peruse the whole passage, and there view and judge of the argument.

That he is so to be understood appears from the conclusion he draws, Rom 9:16 : So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. In his arguments, Rom 9:7, Rom 9:8, etc., he says not one word of Abraham's willing Ishmael to be the seed in whom the promise might be fulfilled; nor of Isaac's willing Esau; nor of Moses' willing and interceding that the Israelites might be spared; nor of Esau's running for venison; but by introducing these particulars into his conclusion, he gives us to understand that his quotations are to be taken in connection with the whole story, of which they are a part; and without this the apostle's meaning cannot be apprehended.

The same may be said of his conclusion, Rom 9:18 : Whom he will he hardeneth: hardeneth is not in his argument, but it is in the conclusion. Therefore hardening is understood in the argument, and he evidently refers to the case of Pharaoh. The generality of the Jews were well acquainted with the Scripture, and a hint was sufficient to revive the memory of a whole passage. - Taylor, p. 330.

And not only this - A Jew might object: "Ishmael was rejected, not by the sovereign will of God, but because he was the son of the handmaid, or bond-woman, and therefore unworthy to be the peculiar seed; but observe, this was not the only limitation of the seed of Abraham with regard to inheriting the promise, for when Rebecca was with child by that one person of Abraham's issue to whom the promise was made, namely, our father Isaac, she went to inquire of the Lord, Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23 : And the Lord said unto her, 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. That is, the posterity of the younger shall be a nation much more prosperous and happy than the posterity of the elder.

For the children being not yet born - As the word children is not in the text, the word nations would be more proper; for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers.

Neither having done any good - To merit the distinction of being made the peculiar people of God; nor evil, to deserve to be left out of this covenant, and the distinguishing national blessings which it conferred; that the purpose of God according to election might stand - that such distinctions might appear to depend on nothing but God's free choice, not of works, or any desert in the people or nations thus chosen; but of the mere purpose of him who calleth any people he pleases, to make them the depositories of his especial blessings, and thus to distinguish them from all others.

The elder shall serve the younger - These words, with those of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, are cited by the apostle to prove, according to their typical signification, that the purpose of God, according to election, does and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; that is, that the purpose of God, which is the ground of that election which he makes among men, unto the honor of being Abraham's seed, might appear to remain unchangeable in him; and to be even the same which he had declared unto Abraham. That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Gen 32:4; Gen 33:8, Gen 33:13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacob's posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esau's posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Mal 1:2, Mal 1:3, fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Moses concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachi's time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Mal 1:2-5. To this the Lord answers: Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

1. It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste. Now, if the prophet speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle speaks of them in the same way.

2. If neither the prophet nor the apostle speaks of the persons of Jacob or Esau, but of their posterity, then it is evident that neither the love of God to Jacob, nor the hatred of God to Esau, were such, according to which the eternal states of men, either in happiness or misery, are to be determined; nor is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavored to build on these scriptures. For,

1. It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity.

2. The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esau's posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacob's posterity elected.

3. Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation.

4. Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob.

5. Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity.

6. The scope of the apostle's reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.

Therefore,

1. He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.

2. When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.

3. He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained Only by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are Now laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.

7. That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses, was no mean proof that God had forgiven him. See our Lord's words, Mat 6:14. Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity.

8. And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favor, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; two manner of nations are in thy womb - and the elder shall serve the younger.

9. There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands. See Goodwin's Exposition: and see my notes on Genesis 27 (note).

What shall we say then? - To what conclusion shall we come on the facts before us? Shall we suggest that God's bestowing peculiar privileges in this unequal manner, on those who otherwise are in equal circumstances, is inconsistent with justice and equity? By no means. Whatever God does is right, and he may dispense his blessings to whom and or what terms he pleases.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy, etc. - The words of God to Moses, Exo 33:19, show that God has a right to dispense his blessings as he pleases; for, after he had declared that he would spare the Jews of old, and continue them in the relation of his peculiar people, when they had deserved to have been cut off for their idolatry, he said: I will make all my goodness pass before thee; and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. As if he had said: I will make such a display of my perfections as shall convince you that my nature is kind and beneficent; but know, that I am a debtor to none of my creatures. My benefits and blessings are merely from my own good will: nor can any people, much less a rebellious people, challenge them as their due in justice or equity. And therefore I now spare the Jews; not because either you, who intercede for them or they themselves have any claim upon my favor, but of my own free and sovereign grace I choose to show them mercy and compassion. I will give my salvation in my own way and on my own terms. He that believeth on my Son Jesus shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned. This is God's ultimate design; this purpose he will never change; and this he has fully declared in the everlasting Gospel. This is the grand Decree of reprobation and election.

So then it is not of him that willeth, etc. - I conclude, therefore, from these several instances, that the making or continuing any body of men the peculiar people of God, is righteously determined; not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by the will and wisdom of God alone. For Abraham judged that the blessing ought, and he willed, desired, that it might be given to Ishmael; and Isaac also willed, designed, it for his first-born, Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping that it might be his, readily went, ran a hunting for venison, that he might have the blessing regularly conveyed to him: but they were all disappointed - Abraham and Isaac, who willed, and Esau who ran: for God had originally intended that the blessing of being a great nation and distinguished people should, of his mere good pleasure, be given to Isaac and Jacob, and be confirmed in their posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostasy they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses' willing, nor any prior obligation God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued it to them.

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh - Instead of showing the Israelites mercy he might justly have suffered them to have gone on in sin, till he should have signalized his wisdom and justice in their destruction; as appears from what God in his word declares concerning his dealings with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, Exo 9:15, Exo 9:16 : For now, saith the Lord, I had stretched forth my hand, (in the plague of boils and blains), and I had smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence; and thou hadst (by this plague) been cut off from the earth; (as thy cattle were by the murrain); but in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up - I have restored thee to health by removing the boils and blains, and by respiting thy deserved destruction to a longer day, that I may, in thy instance, give such a demonstration of my power in thy final overthrow, that all mankind may learn that I am God, the righteous Judge of all the earth, the avenger of wickedness. See this translation of the original vindicated in my notes on Exo 9:15 (note), Exo 9:16 (note); and, about the hardening of Pharaoh, see the notes on those places where the words occur in the same book.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will - This is the apostle's conclusion from the facts already laid down: that God, according to his own will and wisdom, in perfect righteousness, bestows mercy; that is to say, his blessings upon one part of mankind, (the Jews of old, and the Gentiles of the present time), while he suffers another part (the Egyptians of old, and the Jews of the present day) to go on in the abuse of his goodness and forbearance, hardening themselves in sin, till he brings upon them a most just and exemplary punishment, unless this be prevented by their deep repentance and general return to God through Jesus the promised, the real Messiah.

Why doth he yet find fault? - The apostle here introduces the Jew making an objection similar to that in Rom 3:7 : If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, that is, if God's faithfulness is glorified by my wickedness, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? Why am I condemned for that which brings so much glory to him? The question here is: If God's glory be so highly promoted and manifested by our obstinacy, and he suffers us to proceed in our hardness and infidelity, why does he find fault with us, or punish us for that which is according to his good pleasure?

Nay but, O man, who art thou - As if he had said: Weak, ignorant man, darest thou retort on the infinitely good and righteous God? Reflect on thyself; and tell me, after thou hast abused the grace of God, and transgressed his laws, wilt thou cavil at his dispensations? God hath made, created, formed the Jewish nation; and shall the thing formed, when it hath corrupted itself, pretend to correct the wise and gracious Author of its being, and say, Why hast thou made me thus? Why hast thou constituted me in this manner? Thou hast done me wrong in giving me my being under such and such conditions.

Old John Goodwin's note on this passage is at least curious: "I scarce (says he) know any passage of the Scripture more frequently abused than this. When men, in the great questions of predestination and reprobation, bring forth any text of Scripture which they conceive makes for their notion, though the sense which they put upon it be ever so uncouth and dissonant from the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, yet, if any man contradict, they frequently fall upon him with - Nay but, O man; who art thou? As if St. Paul had left them his heirs and successors in the infallibility of his spirit! But when men shall call a solid answer to their groundless conceits about the meaning of the Scriptures, a replying against God, it savours more of the spirit who was seen falling like lightning from heaven, than of His, who saw him in this his fall."

Hath not the potter power over the clay - The apostle continues his answer to the Jew. Hath not God shown, by the parable of the potter, Jer 18:1, etc., that he may justly dispose of nations, and of the Jews in particular, according as he in his infinite wisdom may judge most right and fitting; even as the potter has a right, out of the same lump of clay, to make one vessel to a more honorable and another to a less honorable use, as his own judgment and skill may direct; for no potter will take pains to make a vessel merely that he may show that he has power to dash it to pieces? For the word came to Jeremiah from the Lord, 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 wrought a work upon the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. It was not fit for the more honorable place in the mansion, and therefore he made it for a less honorable place, but as necessary for the master's use there, as it could have been in a more honorable situation. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, 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 - to build and to plant it; is it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them. The reference to this parable shows most positively that the apostle is speaking of men, not individually, but nationally; and it is strange that men should have given his words any other application with this scripture before their eyes.

What if God, willing to show his wrath - The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah's parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath - persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows. As the Jews of the apostle's time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation. But even in this case there is not a word of their final damnation; much less that either they or any others were, by a sovereign decree, reprobated from all eternity; and that their very sins, the proximate cause of their punishment, were the necessary effect of that decree which had from all eternity doomed them to endless torments. As such a doctrine could never come from God, so it never can be found in the words of his apostle.

And that he might make known - God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath:

1. To show his wrath, and to make his power known. And also,

2. That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy.

Which he had afore prepared unto glory - The Jews were fitted for destruction long before; but the fittest time to destroy them was after he had prepared the believing Gentiles unto glory. For the rod of the Messiah's strength was to be sent out of Zion, Psa 110:2. The Jewish nation was to supply the first preachers of the Gospel, and from Jerusalem their sound was to go forth into all the earth. Therefore the Jewish state, notwithstanding its corruptions, was to be preserved till the Messiah came, and even till the Gospel preached by the apostles had taken deep root in the Gentile world. Another thing which rendered the time when the Jewish polity was overthrown the most proper, was this, because then the immediate occasion of it was the extensiveness of the Divine grace. They would not have the Gentiles admitted into the Church of God; but contradicted, and blasphemed, and rejected the Lord that bought them: thus, then, the extensiveness of the Divine grace occasioned their infidelity, Rom 9:33; Rom 10:3; Rom 11:11, Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15, Rom 11:28, Rom 11:30. Thus the Jews were diminished by that abundance of grace which has enriched the Gentiles. And so the grace of God was illustrated; or, so God made known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy - the apostles and primitive believers among the Jews, and the Gentile world, which received the Gospel by the preaching of the apostles and their successors.

Even us, whom he hath called - All the Jews and Gentiles who have been invited by the preaching of the Gospel to receive justification by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have come to the Gospel feast on this invitation.

As he saith also in Osee - It is a cause of not a little confusion, that a uniformity in the orthography of the proper names of the Old and New Testaments has not been preserved. What stranger to our sacred books would suppose that the Osee above meant the Prophet Hosea, from whom, Hos 2:23, this quotation is taken: I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people. The apostle shows that this calling of the Gentiles was no fortuitous thing, but a firm purpose in the Divine mind, which he had largely revealed to the prophets; and by opposing the calling of the Gentiles, the Jews in effect renounced their prophets, and fought against God.

And it shall come to pass, etc. - These quotations are taken out of Hosea, Hos 1:10, where (immediately after God had rejected the ten tribes, or kingdom of Israel, Hos 1:9, then saith God, Call his name Lo-ammi; for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God), he adds, yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered: and it shall come to pass, that in the place in which it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. As if he had said: The decrease of numbers in the Church, by God's utterly taking away the ten tribes, (Hos 1:6), shall be well supplied by what shall afterwards come to pass, by calling the Gentiles into it. They, the rejected Jews, which had been the people of God, should become a Lo-ammi - not my people. On the contrary, they, the Gentiles, who had been a Lo-ammi - not my people, should become the children of the living God. Again, Hos 2:23 : I will sow her (the Jewish Church) unto me in the earth, (alluding probably to the dispersion of the Jews over all the Roman empire; which proved a fruitful cause of preparing the Gentiles for the reception of the Gospel), and, or moreover, I will have mercy upon her, the body of the believing Gentiles, that had not obtained mercy. See Taylor.

Esaias also crieth - The apostle pursues his argument, which had for its object the proof that God, for their infidelity, had rejected the great body of the Jews, and that but a few of them would embrace the Gospel, and be saved from that besom of destruction which was now coming to sweep them and their state away. Dr. Taylor paraphrases this and the following verses thus: And that but a small remnant of the Jews shall now be taken into the Church, is agreeable to former dispensations; for the Prophet Isaiah expressly declares concerning the Israelites, Isa 10:22, Isa 10:23 : Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, (for the promise to Abraham has been amply fulfilled), only a remnant shall be saved; the consumption decreed shall overflow in righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined in the midst of all the land.

For he will finish the work, and cut it short, etc. - These appear to be forensic terms, and refer to the conclusion of a judicial proceeding; the Lord has tried and found them guilty, and will immediately execute upon them the punishment due to their transgressions.

And as Esaias said before - What God designs to do with the Jews at present, because of their obstinacy and rebellion, is similar to what he has done before, to which the same prophet refers, Isa 1:9 : 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 Gomorrha: i.e. had not God, who commands and overrules all the powers in heaven and earth, in mercy preserved a very small remnant, to keep up the name and being of the nation, it had been quite cut off and extinct, as Sodom and Gomorrha were. Thus we learn that it is no new thing with God to abandon the greatest part of the Jewish nation, when corrupt, and to confine his favor and blessing to a righteous, believing few.

Instead of remnant, שריד sarid, both the Septuagint and the apostle have σπερμα, a seed, intimating that there were left just enough of the righteous to be a seed for a future harvest of true believers. So the godly were not destroyed from the land; some remained, and the harvest was in the days of the apostles.

What shall we say then? - What is the final conclusion to be drawn from all these prophecies, facts, and reasonings? This: That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, etc. This, with the succeeding verses, together with what belongs to the same subject in the beginning of the following chapter, I have explained at large in the notes on Rom 1:17, to which I must refer the reader; and shall content myself in this place with Dr. Taylor's general paraphrase. We may suppose the apostle to express himself to the following effect. Thus I have vindicated the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, with regard to the Divine veracity and justice. Now let us turn our thoughts to the true reason and state of the affair considered in itself. And, in the first place, what just notion ought we to have of the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews? I answer: The true notion of the calling or inviting of the Gentiles is this: whereas they had no apprehension of being reinstated in the privileges of God's peculiar kingdom, and consequently used no endeavors to obtain that blessing, yet, notwithstanding, they have attained to justification, to the remission of sins, and the privileges of God's people: not on account of their prior worthiness and obedience, but purely by the grace and mercy of God, received by faith on their part. And so, by embracing the scheme of life published by the Gospel, they are adopted into the family and Church of God. Thus the Gentiles are called or invited.

But Israel, which followed after - But the Jews, who have hitherto been the people of God, though they have been industrious in observing a rule by which they supposed they could secure the blessings of God's peculiar kingdom, yet have not come up to the true and only rule by which those blessings can be secured.

Wherefore? - And where lies their mistake? Being ignorant of God's righteousness - of his method of saving sinners by faith in Christ, they went about to establish their own righteousness - their own method of obtaining everlasting salvation. They attend not to the Abrahamic covenant, which stands on the extensive principles of grace and faith; but they turn all their regards to the law of Moses. They imagine that their obedience to that law gives them a right to the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom. But, finding that the Gospel sets our special interest in God and the privileges of his Church on a different footing, they are offended, and refuse to come into it.

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion - Christ, the Messiah, is become a stone of stumbling to them: and thus what is written in the prophecy of Isaiah is verified in their case, Isa 8:14; Isa 28:16 : Behold, I lay in Sion, i.e. I shall bring in my Messiah; but he shall be a widely different person from him whom the Jews expect; for, whereas they expect the Messiah to be a mighty secular prince, and to set up a secular kingdom, he shall appear a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs; and redeem mankind, not by his sword or secular power, but by his humiliation, passion, and death. Therefore they will be offended at him and reject him, and think it would be reproachful to trust in such a person for salvation.

And whosoever believeth on him - But so far shall any be from confusion or disappointment who believes in Christ; that on the contrary, every genuine believer shall find salvation - the remission of sins here, and eternal glory hereafter. See the notes on Rom 1:16, and Rom 1:17 (note), and Dr. Taylor's paraphrase and notes.

1. On the subject of vicarious punishment, or rather the case of one becoming an anathema or sacrifice for the public good, in illustration of Rom 9:3, I shall make no apology for the following extracts, taken from an author whose learning is vast, and whose piety is unblemished. "When mankind lost sight of a beneficent Creator, the God of purity, and consecrated altars to the sun, the moon, the stars; to demons; and to hero gods, under the names of Moloch, Ashtaroth and Baalim; these objects of their worship led them to the most horrid acts of cruelty, and to every species of obscenity; even their sons and their daughters they burnt in the fire to their gods, more especially in seasons of distress. Such was the conduct of the king of Moab; for, when he was besieged in his capital, and expected he should fall into the hands of his enemies, he took his eldest son, who should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall.

With these facts thus related from the Scriptures, all accounts, ancient and modern, exactly correspond. Homer, who it must be recollected wrote more than nine hundred years before the Christian era, although he describes chiefly the common sacrifices of quadrupeds, yet gives one account of human victims. But in succeeding generations, when it was conceived that one great and most malignant spirit was the proper object of their fear, or that subordinate provincial gods, equally malignant, nesciaque humanis precibus mansuescere corda, disposed of all things in our world, men bound their own species to the altar, and in circumstances of national distress presented such as they valued most, either their children or themselves. Herodotus informs us that, when the army of Xerxes came to the Strymon, the magi offered a sacrifice of white horses to that river. On his arrival at the Scamander, the king ascended the citadel of Priam; and having surveyed it, he ordered a thousand oxen to be sacrificed to the Trojan Minerva. But on other occasions he chose human victims; for we are informed that, when, having passed the Strymon, he reached the nine ways, he buried alive nine young men and as many virgins, natives of the country. In this he followed the example of his wife, for she commanded fourteen Persian children, of illustrious birth, to be offered in that manner to the deity who reigns beneath the earth. Thus, in the infancy of Rome we see Curtius, for the salvation of his country, devoting himself to the infernal gods, when, as it appears, an earthquake occasioned a deep and extensive chasm in the forum, and the augurs had declared that the portentous opening would never close until what contributed most to the strength and power of the Romans should be cast into it; but that by such a sacrifice they would obtain immortality for their republic. When all men were at a loss how to understand this oracle, M. Curtius, armed as for battle, presented himself in the forum, and explained it thus: 'What is more valuable to Rome than her courage and her arms?' So saying, he urged forward his impetuous steed, and buried himself in the abyss. His grateful countrymen admired his fortitude, and attributed the increasing splendor of their state to the sacrifice he made. Animated by this example, Decius, in the war between Rome and Latium, having solemnly offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice, rushed single into the thickest ranks of the astonished Latins, that by his death he might appease the anger of the gods, transfer their indignation to the enemy, and secure the victory to Rome. Conspectus ab utroque acie aliquanto augustior humano visu, sicut Caelo missus, piaculum omnis deorum irae, qui pestem ab suis aversam in hostes ferret.

Here we see distinctly marked the notion of vicarious suffering, and the opinion that the punishment of guilt may be transferred from the guilty to the innocent. The gods call for sacrifice - the victim bleeds - atonement is made - and the wrath of the infernal powers falls in its full force upon the enemy. Thus, while Themistocles at Salamine was offering sacrifice, three captives, the sons of Sandance, and nephews to Xerxes, all distinguished for their beauty, elegantly dressed and decked, as became their birth, with ornaments of gold, being brought on board his galley, the augur, Euphrantides, observing at the very instant a bright flame ascending from the altar, whilst one was sneezing on the right, which he regarded as a propitious omen, he seized the hand of Themistocles, and commanded that they should all be sacrificed to Bacchus, (ωμηστῃ Διονυσῳ - cruel and relentless Bacchus! Homer has the same expression), predicting, on this occasion, safety and conquests to the Greeks. Immediately the multitude with united voices called on the god, and led the captive princes to the altar, and compelled Themistocles to sacrifice them.

So when Aeneas was to perform the last kind office for his friend Pallas, he sacrificed (besides numerous oxen, sheep, and swine) eight captives to the infernal gods. In this he followed the example of Achilles, who had caused twelve Trojans of high birth to bleed by the sacerdotal knife, over the ashes of his friend Patroclus.

A hundred feet in length, a hundred wide,

The glowing structure spreads on every side,

High on the top the manly course they lay,

And well-fed sheep and sable oxen slay;

Achilles covered with their fat the dead,

And the piled victims round the body spread;

Then jars of honey and of fragrant oil

Suspends around, low bending o'er the pile.

Four sprightly coursers with a deadly groan

Pour forth their lives, and on the pyre are thrown

Of nine large dogs, domestic at his board,

Fell two, selected to attend their lord:

The last of all, and horrible to tell,

Sad sacrifice! twelve Trojan captives fell;

On these the rage of fire victorious preys,

Involves and joins them in one common blaze.

Smeared with the bloody rites, he stands on high,

And calls the spirit with a cheerful cry,

All hail, Patroclus! let thy vengeful ghost

Hear, and exult on Pluto's dreary coast.

Pope's Homer, Il. xxiii. ver. 203

How much was it to be lamented, that even civilized natures should forget the intention for which sacrifices were originally instituted! The bad effects, however, would not have been either so extensive or so great, had they not wholly lost the knowledge of Jehovah; and taken, as the object of their fear, that evil and apostate spirit whose name, with the utmost propriety is called Apollyon, or the destroyer, and whose worship has been universally diffused at different periods among all the nations of the earth.

The practice of shedding human blood before the altars of their gods was not peculiar to the Trojans and the Greeks; the Romans followed their example. In the first ages of their republic they sacrificed children to the goddess Mania; in later periods, numerous gladiators bled at the tombs of the patricians, to appease the manes of the deceased. And it is particularly noticed of Augustus, that, after the taking of Perusia, he sacrificed on the ides of March, three hundred senators and knights to the divinity of Julius Caesar.

The Carthaginians, as Diodorus Siculus informs us, bound themselves by a solemn vow to Chronus that they would sacrifice to him children selected from the offspring of their nobles; but in process of time they substituted for these the children of their slaves, which practice they continued, till, being defeated by Agathocles, tyrant of Sicily, and attributing their disgrace to the anger of the god, they offered two hundred children, taken from the most distinguished families in Carthage; besides which, three hundred citizens presented themselves, that by their voluntary death they might render the deity propitious to their country. The mode of sacrificing these children was horrid in the extreme, for they were cast into the arms of a brazen statue, and from thence dropped into a furnace, as was practised among the first inhabitants of Latium. It was probably in this manner the Ammonites offered up their children to Moloch. The Pelasgi at one time sacrificed a tenth part of all their children, in obedience to an oracle.

The Egyptians, in Heliopolis, sacrificed three men every day to Juno. The Spartans and Arcadians scourged to death young women; the latter to appease the wrath of Bacchus, the former to gratify Diana. The Sabian idolaters in Persia offered human victims to Mithras, the Cretans to Jupiter, the Lacedemonians and Lusitanians to Mars, the Lesbians to Bacchus, the Phocians to Diana, the Thessalians to Chiron.

The Gauls, equally cruel in their worship, sacrificed men, originally to Eso and Teutate, but latterly to Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva. Caesar informs us that, whenever they thought themselves in danger, whether from sickness, or after any considerable defeat in war, being persuaded that unless life be given for life the anger of the gods can never be appeased, they constructed wicker images of enormous hulk, which they filled with men, who were first suffocated with smoke, and then consumed by fire. For this purpose they preferred criminals; but when a sufficient number of these could not be found, they supplied the deficiency from the community at large.

The Germans are said to have differed from the Gauls in having no druids, and in being little addicted to the service of the altar. Their only gods were the sun, Vulcan, and the moon; yet, among the objects of their worship was Tuisco their progenitor and Woden the hero of the north. It is true that neither Caesar nor Tacitus say any thing of their shedding blood in sacrifice; yet the probability is, that, like the Saxons and other northern nations, they not only offered blood, but took their choicest victims from the human race.

In Sweden the altars of Woden smoked incessantly with blood: this flowed most abundantly at the solemn festivals celebrated every ninth year at Upsal. Then the king, attended by the senate and by all the great officers about his court, entered the temple, which glittered on all sides with gold, and conducted to the altar nine slaves, or in time of war nine captives. These met the caresses of the multitude, as being about to avert from them the displeasure of the gods, and then submitted to their fate: but in times of distress more noble victims bled; and it stands upon record that when Aune their king was ill, he offered up to Woden his nine sons, to obtain the prolongation of his life.

The Danes had precisely the same abominable customs. Every ninth year, in the month of January, they sacrificed ninety-nine men, with as many horses, dogs, and cocks; and Hacon, king of Norway, offered his own son to obtain from Woden the victory over Harold, with whom he was at war.

In Russia the Slavi worshipped a multitude of gods, and erected to them innumerable altars. Of these deities Peroun, that is, the thunderer, was the supreme, and before his image many of their prisoners bled. Their god of physic, who also presided over the sacred fires, shared with him; and the great rivers, considered as gods, had their portion of human victims, whom they covered with their inexorable waves. But Suetovid, the god of war, was the god in whom they most delighted; to him they presented annually, as a burnt offering, three hundred prisoners, each on his horse; and when the whole was consumed by fire, the priests and people sat down to eat and drink till they were drunk. It is worthy of remark, that the residence of Suetovid was supposed to be in the sun.

To this luminary the Peruvians, before they were restrained by their Incas, sacrificed their children.

Among the sacred books of the Hindoos, the Ramayuna demands particular attention, because of its antiquity, the extent of country through which it is revered, and the view which it exhibits of the religion, doctrine, mythology, customs, and manners of their remote progenitors.

In this we have a golden age of short duration, succeeded by a state of universal wickedness and violence, which continued till the deity, incarnate, slew the oppressors of the human race, and thus restored the reign of piety and virtue.

This poem contains a description of the Ushwamedha, or most solemn sacrifice of the white horse, instituted by Swuymbhoo, that is, by the self-existent. At the celebration of this festival, the monarch, as the representative of the whole nation, acknowledged his transgressions; and when the offerings were consumed by the sacrificial fire, he was considered as perfectly absolved from his offenses. Then follows a particular account of a human sacrifice, in which the victim, distinguished for filial piety, for resignation to his father's will, and for purity of heart, was bound by the king himself and delivered to the priest; but at the very instant when his blood was to have been shed, this illustrious youth was by miracle delivered; and the monarch, as the reward of his intended sacrifice, received virtue, prosperity, and fame.

It is well known that the Brahmins have in all ages had their human victims, and that even in our days thousands have voluntarily perished under the wheels of their god Jaghernaut." - Townsend's character of Moses, p. 76.

Though in the preceding notes I have endeavored to make every point as clear and plain as possible; yet it may be necessary, in order to see the scope of the apostle's design more distinctly, to take a general survey of the whole. No man has written with more judgment on this epistle than Dr. Taylor, and from his notes I borrow the principal part of the following observations.

The principal thing that requires to be settled in this chapter is, what kind of election and reprobation the apostle is arguing about: whether election, by the absolute decree and purpose of God, to eternal life; and reprobation, by a like absolute decree, to eternal misery; or only election to the present privileges and external advantages of the kingdom of God in this world; and reprobation, or rejection, as it signifies the not being favored with those privileges and advantages. I think it demonstrably clear that it is the latter election and rejection the apostle is discoursing on, and not the former; as the following considerations appear to me to demonstrate.

I. The subject of the apostle's argument is manifestly such privileges as are enumerated, Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5 : Who are Israelites, to whom pertains the adoption, etc. From these privileges he supposes the Jews had fallen, or would fall; or, that for a long time they would be deprived of the benefit of them. For it is with regard to the loss of those privileges that he was so much concerned for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom 9:2, Rom 9:3. And it is with reference to their being stripped of these privileges that he vindicates the word and righteousness of God, Rom 9:24. Not as though the word of God had taken no effect, or failed, etc.; proving that God, according to his purpose of election, was free to confer them upon any branch of Abraham's family: consequently, those privileges were the singular blessings which by the purpose of God according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth, were conferred upon Jacob's posterity. But those privileges were only such as the whole body of the Israelites enjoyed in this world, while they were the Church and people of God, and such privileges as they might afterwards lose, or of which they might be deprived; therefore the election of Jacob's posterity to those privileges was not an absolute election to eternal life.

II. Agreeably to the purpose of God according to election, it was said unto Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger, meaning the posterity of the elder and the younger; Gen 25:23 : The Lord said unto her, 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. These are the words which signify the purpose of God according to election: therefore the election refers to Jacob's posterity, or the whole nation of Israel. But all the nation of Israel were not absolutely elected to eternal life: therefore the purpose of God according to election referred to temporal and not to eternal blessings, and was a privilege of which they might be deprived.

III. Agreeably to the purpose of God according to election, it was said to Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger; but to serve, in Scripture, never meant to be eternally damned in the world to come: consequently the opposite blessing, bestowed upon the posterity of the younger, could not be eternal salvation, but certain privileges in this life; therefore the purpose according to election refers to those privileges, and the servitude does not imply everlasting perdition.

IV. The election the apostle speaks of is not of works, Rom 9:11, but of the mere will of God, who calls and invites, and refers to no qualifications in the persons thus elected and called. But in no part of the sacred writings is final salvation said to be given to any who are not qualified by holiness to receive and enjoy it; therefore election to eternal glory cannot be what the apostle speaks of in this epistle.

V. The election of which the apostle speaks took place, first in Abraham and his seed, before his seed was born; and then (secluding Ishmael and all his posterity) in Isaac and his seed before they were born. And then, secluding Esau and all his posterity, in Jacob and his seed before they were born. But the Scripture no where represents eternal life as bestowed upon any family or race of men in this manner; therefore this election mentioned by the apostle cannot be an election unto eternal life.

VI. Vessels of mercy, Rom 9:23, are manifestly opposed to vessels of wrath, Rom 9:22. The vessels of mercy are the whole body of the Jews and Gentiles, who were called or invited into the kingdom of God under the Gospel, Rom 9:24; consequently, the vessels of wrath are the whole body of the unbelieving Jews. So in Rom 9:30, Rom 9:31, the whole body of believing Gentiles, who, according to God's purpose of election, had attained justification, are opposed to the whole body of the Israelites, who came short of it. But men shall not be received into eternal life or subjected to eternal damnation at the last day in collective bodies, but according as particular persons in those bodies have acted well or ill; therefore, this election is not of these particular bodies unto eternal life, etc.

VII. Whoever carefully peruses the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters, will find that those who have not believed, Rom 11:31, are the present rejected Jews, or that Israel to whom blindness hath happened in part, Rom 11:25; the same who fell, and on whom God hath shown severity, Rom 11:22; the same with the natural branches whom God spared not, Rom 11:21; who were broken off from the olive tree, Rom 11:20, Rom 11:19, Rom 11:17; who were cast away, Rom 11:15; who were diminished and fallen, Rom 11:12; who had stumbled, Rom 11:11; who were a disobedient and, gainsaying people, Rom 10:21; who, being ignorant of God's righteousness, went about to establish their own, Rom 10:3; because they sought righteousness, not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law, Rom 9:32, and therefore had not attained to the law of righteousness, Rom 9:31; the same people spoken of in all these places, are the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, Rom 9:22, and the same for whom Paul had great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart, Rom 9:2, Rom 9:3; - in short, they are the unbelieving nation, or people of Israel; and it is with regard to the reprobation or rejection of this people that he is arguing and vindicating the truth, justice, and wisdom of God in this ninth chapter. Now, if we turn back and review those three chapters, we shall find that the apostle, Rom 11:1, heartily desired and prayed that those same reprobated and rejected people of Israel might be saved; he affirms that they had not stumbled so as to fall finally and irrecoverably, Rom 11:11; that they should have again a fullness, Rom 11:12; that they should be received again into the Church, Rom 11:16; that a holiness still belonged to them, Rom 11:16; that if they did not still abide in unbelief, they should be grafted into their own olive tree again, Rom 11:23, Rom 11:24; that blindness had happened unto them only for a time, till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, Rom 11:25; and then he proves from Scripture, that all Israel - all those nations at present under blindness, shall be saved, Rom 11:26, Rom 11:27; that, as touching the (original) election, they were still beloved for the fathers', the patriarchs', sake, Rom 11:28; that, in their case, the gifts and calling of God were without repentance, Rom 11:29; that through our (the believing Gentiles') mercy, they shall at length obtain mercy, Rom 11:31. All these several things are spoken of that Israel, or the body of people concerning whose rejection the apostle argues in the ninth chapter. And therefore the rejection which he there argues about cannot be absolute reprobation to eternal damnation, but to their being, as a nation, stripped of those honors and privileges of God's peculiar Church and kingdom in this world, to which, at a certain future period, they shall again be restored.

VIII. Once more: whoever carefully peruses those three chapters will find that the people who in times past believed not God, but have Now obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Jews, Rom 11:30, are the whole body of the believing Gentiles; the same who were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted, contrary to nature, into the good olive tree, Rom 11:24, Rom 11:17; the same to whom God hath shown goodness, Rom 11:22; the World that was reconciled, Rom 11:15; the Gentiles who were enriched by the diminishing of the Jews, Rom 11:12; to whom salvation came through their fall, Rom 11:11; the Gentiles who had attained to righteousness, (justification), Rom 9:30; who had not been God's people, nor believed; but now were his people, beloved, and children of the living God, Rom 9:25, Rom 9:26; even US whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, out also of the Gentiles, Rom 9:24, who are the vessels of mercy, on whom God has made known the riches of his glory, Rom 9:23; the vessels made unto honor, Rom 9:21. He speaks of the same body of men in all these places; namely, of the believing Gentiles principally, but not excluding the small remnant of the believing Jews, who were incorporated with them. And it is this body of men, whose calling and election he is proving, in whose case the purpose of God according to election stands good, Rom 9:11, and who are the children of the promise that are counted for the seed, Rom 9:8 : these are the election, or the elect.

Now, concerning this called or elect body of people, or any particular person belonging to this body, the apostle writes thus, Rom 11:20-22 : Well, because of unbelief, they (the Jews) were broken off, (reprobated, rejected), and thou standest (in the Church among God's called and elect) by faith; be not high minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, (the Jews), take heed, lest he also spare not thee, (the Gentiles.) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them (the Jews) which fell, severity; but towards thee (believing Gentiles) goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, rejected, reprobated. This proves that the calling, and election, for which the apostle is arguing in the ninth chapter, is not absolute election unto eternal life, but to the present privileges of the Church - the honors and advantages of God's peculiar people; which election, through unbelief and misimprovement, may be rendered void and come to nothing. See Dr. Taylor, p. 330, etc.

From thus carefully considering the apostle's discourse, and taking in his scope and design, and weighing the different expressions he uses, in connection with the Scripture facts and Scripture phrases employed in describing those facts, we must be fully convinced that the doctrines of eternal, absolute, unconditional election and reprobation have no place here, and that nothing but a pre-established creed, and a total inattention to the apostles scope and design, could ever have induced men to bend these scriptures to the above purpose, and thus to endeavor to establish as articles of faith, doctrines which, far from producing glory to God in the highest, and peace and good will among men, have filled the Church of God with contention, set every man's sword against his brother, and thus done the work of Apollyon in the name of Christ. If men will maintain these and such like for Scriptural doctrines, it is but reasonable to request that it be done in the spirit of the Gospel.

In Christ - This seems to imply an appeal to him. In the Holy Ghost - Through his grace.

I have great sorrow - A high degree of spiritual sorrow and of spiritual Joy may consist together, Rom 8:39. By declaring his sorrow for the unbelieving Jews, who excluded themselves from all the blessings he had enumerated, he shows that what he was now about to speak, he did not speak from any prejudice to them.

I could wish - Human words cannot fully describe the motions of souls that are full of God. As if he had said, I could wish to suffer in their stead; yea, to be an anathema from Christ in their place. In how high a sense he wished this, who can tell, unless himself had been asked and had resolved the question? Certainly he did not then consider himself at all, but only others and the glory of God. The thing could not be; yet the wish was pious and solid; though with a tacit condition, if it were right and possible.

Whose is the adoption, &c. - He enumerates six prerogatives, of which the first pair respect God the Father, the second Christ, the third the Holy Ghost. The adoption and the glory - That is, Israel is the first - born child of God, and the God of glory is their God, Deut 4:7; Psalm 106:20. These are relative to each other. At once God is the Father of Israel, and Israel are the people of God. He speaks not here of the ark, or any corporeal thing. God himself is "the glory of his people Israel." And the covenants, and the giving of the law - The covenant was given long before the law. It is termed covenants, in the plural, because it was so often and so variously repeated, and because there were two dispositions of it, Gal 4:24, frequently called two covenants; the one promising, the other exhibiting the promise. And the worship, and the promises - The true way of worshipping God; and all the promises made to the fathers.

To the preceding, St. Paul now adds two more prerogatives. Theirs are the fathers - The patriarchs and holy men of old, yea, the Messiah himself. Who is over all, God blessed for ever - The original words imply the self - existent, independent Being, who was, is, and is to come. Over all - The supreme; as being God, and consequently blessed for ever. No words can more dearly express his divine, supreme majesty, and his gracious sovereignty both over Jews and, gentiles.

Not as if - The Jews imagined that the word of God must fail if all their nation were not saved. This St. Paul now refutes, and proves that the word itself had foretold their falling away. The word of God - The promises of God to Israel. Had fallen to the ground - This could not be. Even now, says the apostle, some enjoy the promises; and hereafter "all Israel shall be saved." This is the sum of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. For - Here he enters upon the proof of it. All are not Israel, who are of Israel - The Jews vehemently maintained the contrary; namely, that all who were born Israelites, and they only, were the people of God. The former part of this assertion is refuted here, the latter, Rom 9:24, &c. The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the "children of the promise," while unbelievers are rejected, though they are "children after the flesh." All are not Israel - Not in the favour of God. Who are lineally descended of Israel.

Neither because they are lineally the seed of Abraham, will it follow that they are all children of God - This did not hold even in Abraham's own family; and much less in his remote descendants. But God then said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called - That is, Isaac, not Ishmael, shall be called thy seed; that seed to which the promise is made.

That is, Not the children, &c. - As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the children of the flesh, the lineal descendants of Abraham, but the children of the promise, they to whom the promise is made, that is, believers, are the children of God. Gen 21:12

For this is the word of the promise - By the power of which Isaac was conceived, and not by the power of nature. Not, Whosoever is born of thee shall be blessed, but, At this time - Which I now appoint. I will come, and Sarah shall have a son - And he shall inherit the blessing. Gen 18:10.

And that God's blessing does not belong to all the descendants of Abraham, appears not only by this instance, but by that of Esau and Jacob, who was chosen to inherit the blessing, before either of them had done good or evil. The apostle mentions this to show, that neither were their ancestors accepted through any merit of their own. That the purpose of God according to election might stand - Whose purpose was, to elect or choose the promised seed. Not of works - Not for any preceding merit in him he chose. But of him that called - Of his own good pleasure who called to that privilege whom he saw good.

The elder - Esau. Shall serve the younger - Not in person, for he never did; but in his posterity. Accordingly the Edomites were often brought into subjection by the Israelites. Gen 25:23.

As it is written - With which word in Genesis, spoken so long before, that of Malachi agrees. I have loved Jacob - With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob. And I have, comparatively, hated Esau - That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the scriptures themselves, it had actually happened. He now introduces and refutes an objection. Mal 1:2,3.

Is there injustice with God - Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only. God forbid - In no wise. This is well consistent with justice; for he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy, according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had committed idolatry with the golden calf. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy - According to the terms I myself have fixed. And I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion - Namely, on those only who submit to my terms, who accept of it in the way that I have appointed.

Ex 33:19.

It - The blessing. Therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth - It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and man's running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.

Moreover - God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in scripture, For this very thing have I raised thee up - That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, (as indeed it was, by overwhelming him and his army in the sea,) and my name declared through all the earth - As it is at this day. Perhaps this may have a still farther meaning. It seems that God was resolved to show his power over the river, the insects, other animals, (with the natural causes of their health, diseases, life, and death,) over the meteors, the air, the sun, (all of which were worshipped by the Egyptians, from whom other nations learned their idolatry,) and at once over all their gods, by that terrible stroke of slaying all their priests, and their choicest victims, the firstborn of man and beast; and all this with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest. Ex 9:16.

So then - That is, accordingly he does show mercy on his own terms, namely, on them that believe. And whom he willeth - Namely, them that believe not. He hardeneth - Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Why doth he still find fault - The particle still is strongly expressive of the objector's sour, morose murmuring. For who hath resisted his will - The word his likewise expresses his surliness and aversion to God, whom he does not even deign to name.

Nay, but who art thou, O man - Little, impotent, ignorant man. That repliest against God - That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus - Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only by believing?

Hath not the potter power over the clay - And much more hath not God power over his creatures, to appoint one vessel, namely, the believer, to honour, and another, the unbeliever, to dishonour? If we survey the right which God has over us, in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views, as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all; or, as their moral Governor, and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Therefore, though "He hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth," that is, suffers to be hardened in consequence of their obstinate wickedness; yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy. Jer 18:6,7

What if God, being willing - Referring to Ro 9:18,19. That is, although it was now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief, To show his wrath - Which necessarily presupposes sin. And to make his power known - This is repeated from the seventeenth verse. Yet endured - As he did Pharaoh. With much longsuffering - Which should have led them to repentance. The vessels of wrath - Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy. Fitted for destruction - By their own wilful and final impenitence. Is there any injustice in this ?

That he might make known - What if by showing such longsuffering even to "the vessels of wrath," he did the more abundantly show the greatness of his glorious goodness, wisdom, and power, on the vessels of mercy; on those whom he had himself, by his grace, prepared for glory. Is this any injustice?

Even us - Here the apostle comes to the other proposition, of grace free for all, whether Jew or gentile. Of the Jews - This he treats of, Ro 9:25. Of the gentiles - Treated of in the same verse.

Beloved - As a spouse. Who once was not beloved - Consequently, not unconditionally elected. This relates directly to the final restoration of the Jews. Hosea 2:23

There shall they be called the sons of God - So that they need not leave their own country and come to Judea. Hosea 1:10

But Isaiah testifies, that (as many gentiles will be accepted, so) many Jews will be rejected; that out of all the thousands of Israel, a remnant only shall be saved. This was spoken originally of the few that were saved from the ravage of Sennacherib's army. Isa 10:22,23

For he is finishing or cutting short his account - In rigorous justice, will leave but a small remnant. There will be so general a destruction, that but a small number will escape.

As Isaiah had said before - Namely, Isa 1:9, concerning those who were besieged in Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah. Unless the Lord had left us a seed - Which denotes, The present paucity: The future abundance. We had been as Sodom - So that it is no unexampled thing for the main body of the Jewish nation to revolt from God, and perish in their sin.

What shall we say then - What is to be concluded from all that has been said but this, That the gentiles, who followed not after righteousness - Who a while ago had no knowledge of, no care or thought about, it. Have attained to righteousness - Or justification. Even the righteousness which is by faith. This is the first conclusion we may draw from the preceding observations. The second is, that Israel - The Jews Although following after the law of righteousness - That law which, duly used, would have led them to faith, and thereby to righteousness. Have not attained to the law of righteousness - To that righteousness or justification which is one great end of the law

And wherefore have they not? Is it because God eternally decreed they should not? There is nothing like this to be met with but agreeable to his argument the apostle gives us this good reason for it, Because they sought it not by faith - Whereby alone it could be attained. But as it were - In effect, if not professsedly, by works. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone - Christ crucified.

As it is written - Foretold by their own prophet. Behold, I lay in Sion - I exhibit in my church, what, though it is in truth the only sure foundation of happiness, yet will be in fact a stumblingstone and rock of offence - An occasion of ruin to many, through their obstinate unbelief. Isa 8:14; Isa 28:16

1. I Say the truth in Christ , I lye not , my conscience also bearing me witness in the holy Ghost .

Or by Christ: So the word (in) is taken, Mat. 5.34, 35, 36. This is the Form of an Oath, which the Scripture elsewhere useth in matters of Importance, vid. Gen. 22.16. Dan. 12.7. and Ephes. 4.17.

This is added for Confirmation, or to gain the greater Credit to what he said or swore. It was the manner of the Hebrews to an Affirmative, to add a Negative, vid. 1 Sam. 3.18. Iohn 1.20.

As being for this purpose placed in Man by God, and is instead of a thousand Witnesses.

i. e. In the presence of the Holy Ghost, who is Privy to what I say, and who is a Witness also to the Truth thereof; Or, as some by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost, who cannot Lye.

The Apostle being about to Treat of the Rejection of the Iews, and the Calling of the Gentiles: Before he enters upon it, he premiseth a Preface to prepare the Minds of the Iews, to a patient Reading or Hearing the same: And in this Preface, he solemnly Protesteth his Love to his Nation; and his hearty Grief for their Rejection, that so it might the better appear, that these things were not Written out of any Spleen or Malice, but out of Conscience towards God and the Truth.

Marginal references: Chap. 1.9. 2 Cor. 1.23. & 11.31. Gal. 1.20. Phil. 1.8. 2 Tim. 2.7.

2. That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart .

His grief for his Nation and People, he expresseth, 1. By the greatness of it; it was such as a Woman hath in Travail; so the Word imports. 2. By the continuance of it; It was continual, or without intermission. 3. By the seat of it; It was in his Heart, and not outward in his [illegible: 2 letters]ce. The Cause he doth not here set down, but it is easily gathered from what follows, viz. The Obstinacy and Infidelity, together with the Rejection of the Iews.

Marginal references: Chap. 1[illegible: 1 letter].

3. For I could wish that my self were accursed from Christ , for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh .

Or Separated from Christ. This Verse hath greatly vexed Interpreters. Some read it, I did wish my self accursed from Christ, q. d. Before my Conversion, I was willing to be accursed from Christ, to be a violent Persecutor of the Christians; and so to be held of them as accursed for my Brethrens sake. The vulgar Latine ▪ and many Romanists thus render the word [non-Latin text not transcribed] in the Text: But the generality of Interpreters Read it as we do; not Indicatively, but Potentially; and they make an Ellepsis in the words ([non-Latin text not transcribed]) the like is frequent, vid. Act. 25.22. 1 Cor. 2.8. 2 Cor. 11.1. But then still the difficulty is, How, and in what Sence the Apostle wisht himself accursed or separated from Christ. The received Opinion is, That out of Zeal to the Glory of God, and Love to his Brethren; he was willing to be damned, that they all might be saved. Many of the Ancients did thus Expound this place. Christ become a curse for us; And what Marvel is it (sayes one) if the Lord would be made a curse for the Servants, that a Servant should be willing to become an Anathema for the Brethren. He doth not wish (sayes another) for his brethrens sake, to be Separated from the love and grace of Christ, but from the comforts of Christ, and the future happiness that we have by him: He is content to lose his part in the heavenly Glory, if that might promote the Glory of Christ, which would be more Illustrated by the saving a whole Nation, than a particular Person, q. d. If this might be the Fruit of it, if it would to this end, I could methinks be content to part with all my hopes in Christ, even my eternal Happiness, upon condition my Brethren might be Partakers thereof; so Passionate, and abundant Love have I to and for them. This Exposition is not Satisfactory. Therefore some think, the Apostle here speaks of being accurst only for a Season, or of being an Anathema in this World. An Anathema sometimes signifieth Corporal Death and Destruction; of old, in times of common Calamity, they were wont to Sacrifice Men to their Idols, and infernal gods, for the pacifying of their Anger: Such a Sacrifice they called Anathema, which is a word here used, q. d. For my Brethrens sake, that so they might be Saved; I could be content to be cut off, to be made a Sacrifice, to Dye the worst of Deaths. But if this be admitted, How then is that Clause to be understood (from Christ?) 'Tis not, I could wish my self an Anathema, but an Anathema from Christ; to this, they Answer that favour this Interpretation; that instead of from Christ, you may read by Christ. q. d. I could be content to be cut off or destroyed by Christ, that my Brethren might be saved. This Sence of the words suits well with the Zeal and Kindness of Moses to his Brethren, Exod. 32.32. rather than they should not be pardoned and Spared, he prays, That God would blot him out of the book that he had written, vid. Annot. there. There is yet another, and a more probable Interpretation of this Wish of the Apostle. 'Tis as if he had said, I could be willing to be Separated or Excommunicated from the Church of Christ, for the Sake and Salvation of my Country and Nation. Anathema (sayes he Hesychius) signifies [non-Latin text not transcribed], Excommunicate, 1 Cor. 16.22. If any Man love not the Lord Iesus Christ, let him be Anathema: Let him be removed from the Christian Assemblies; deprived of those Christian Priviledges that are afforded there, Gal. 1.8, 9. Let him be an Anathema, that teacheth another Gospel, i. e. Turned out of the Church of Christ, and avoided by all true Christians; If this Sence be admitted, then (from Christ) must signify from the body of Christ; and so the word Christ is used, 1 Cor. 12.12. Gal. 3.27. Christ being the Head of the Body; he that is cut off from the body, may be truly enough said, to be cut off from Christ. Thus the Apostle Paul, who was Accused and Persecuted by the Iews, for having made a Defection from the Law of Moses, and setting up Christian Assemblys, in opposition to their Iudaical Service; doth fi[illegible: 1 letter]ly express his Kindness and Love to them, in wishing himself depraved of those most valuable Priviledges, on condition they might be Partakers thereof. To this it may be added, That in the Primitive Times, this Anathematizing or Excommunicating, was attended with delivering up to Satan, and that with Destruction of the Flesh, with very sharp and severe Punishments upon the Bodyes of Men: And so Anathemae in this Notion, may be taken with this Improvement, and may contain all those Temporal Calamities, that he was willing to endure and undergo for their Good (vid. D. H. in Loc.)

So the Iews ▪ were by natural Descent, vid. Gen. 29.14.

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 span] them[illegible: 1 letter] Or, [illegible: 1 span].

4. Who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adoption , and the glory , and the covenants , and the giving of the law , and the service of God , and the promises ;

i. e. The Offspring of that Holy Patriark Israel; this was the Iews first Title of Honour; that they descended from him, who by God himself was sir-named Israel, or a Prince that had Power with God, and prevailed, Gen. 32.28.

Adoption is not here to be understood as before, in chap. 8.15. or as in Eph. 1.5. (& alibi.) But thereby we must understand the peculiar Priviledge of the Seed of Iacob; that they, of all the Nations of the Earth, were pitch't upon to be nearly Related to God, to be his Children (as they are called) and his First-born, vid. Exod. 4.22. Deut. 14.1. Ier. 31.9, 20. Mat. 15.26.

The Ark and the Temple; so called, because in them God did manifest his Glorious Presence, 1 Sam. 4.21.22. Psal. 26.8. and 78.61.

Some understand by Covenants, the Tables of the Law, vid. Heb. 9.4. Others rather understand the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 15.8. and 17.2.7. and with the Iewish Nation, Exod. 24.7.8. and 34.27. &c. Circumcision also may be intended, for that is called God's Covenant, Gen. 17.10.

The Iudicial, Ceremonial, but especially the Moral Law. This is spoken of as a great Priviledge, Deut. 4.8, 32. It my refer both, to the Law its self, and to the Circumstances also, with which the Law was given.

The true manner of Worshipping God, which was a great Priviledge: Other Nations knew there was a God, and that He must be Worshipped, but they knew not how; and so they ran into Superstition and Idolatry.

Of this Life, and that to come. Particularly of the Messiah, and of the Benefits and Blessings by Him. This are found in Moses and the Prophets, and were entailed upon the Iews, and their Children, Act. 2.39. Eph. 2.12. till God at last Cut off the Entail.

In this and the following Verse, he rehearseth the Priviledges and Advantages the Iewes had from God, above all other Nations of the Earth; and this he doth to shew, that he had good Reason to make such a Wish, as in the foregoing Verse: As also, That what he should declare concerning the Iews, and their Ejection, did not proceed from any disrespect or disesteem of them.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 7.6.; Or, [illegible: 1 span]; [illegible: 1 word] 147.19.; [illegible: 1 word]. 3.2.

5. Whose are the fathers , and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came , who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Who are Lineally descended of the Holy Patriarks, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, with other Holy Fathers and Prophets, and of the same Blood. This was also a great Priviledge, of which the Iews boasted.

Or out of whom, understand the People of the Iews, not the Fathers. The meaning is, Christ took his humane Nature of their Stock. 'Tis the great Honour of Mankind, that Christ took not the nature of Angels, but of Man; and 'tis a great Honour to the Nation of the Iews, that He took the Seed of Abraham their Father.

This is the fullest place to express the two Natures that are in the Person of our Redeemer the Lord Iesus Christ; He was God as well as Man: Yea, this is the Title by which the One and Supream God, was known amongst the Iews.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] 3.23. [illegible: 1 word] 13.6.; [illegible: 1 word] 1.1. Act. [illegible: 1 span]. Heb. [illegible: 1 letter]

6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel .

An Objection is here obviated: The Iews might object and say; If they were cast off and rejected, then God is unfaithful, and all his Promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and their Seed, are ineffectual. To this he Answers by a Destinction of Israelites. Some are Israelites only, in respect of their Carnal Generation; and Others again, are true Israelites, Children of the Promise, and of the Faith of Abraham, vid. Chap. 2.28, 29. Now the Promises of God were made to the true Israelites, and in all such it is Effectual: And under the Name of Israel, or true Israelites, all those are comprehended, who imitate the Fai[illegible: 1 letter]h of Abraham, and walk in his Steps, whether they descended from him, by fleshly Generation or not: This he farther Asserts in the following Verse.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] is not [illegible: 1 word].; [illegible: 1 word] 3.3.; [illegible: 1 word] 4.12▪ [illegible: 1 word] 6.

7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called .

He had before made a difference of Israelites, and now he makes a difference of the Seed of Abraham. This was ever and anon in the Mouths of the Iews, We are Abraham's Seed, Iohn 8.33. But here he tells them, That all Abraham's Seed were not the Children of the promise; for it was said to Sarah, Gen. 21.12. That the promised Seed should be confined to Isaac's time; of his Issue should the Messiah come, and all the true Seed of Abraham, who are born after the manner of Isaac, by the Word and Promise of God. And as Ishmael, though Abraham's natural Seed, was cast out; and therein was a Type of those, who are Born only according to the Flesh: So Isaac is a Type of Abraham's spiritual Seed, who are Born, not of the Power of Nature, but by vertue of the Promise of God.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 paragraph]; [illegible: 1 paragraph]

8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed .

q. d. That I may speak more plainly, all those that are the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh, are not therefore the Adopted Children of God; it is not their Blood, but their Faith must make them such. There are some of Abraham's Seed, that are Selected from the rest, to whom the Promise was made; who are therefore called children of the Promise: And of this sort are all they, who are Born after the Spirit, (as Isaac is said to be, Gal. 4.23.) whether Iews or Gentiles. The Sence of this Verse is fully exprest, Gal. 3.8, 14. and 3.29. vid. Gal. 4.28.

9. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son .

The Birth of Isaac was a Thing extraordinary; for which, neither Abraham nor Sarah had any Ground to hope, but only that Promise made, Gen. 18.10. in these words, At this time, or according to this time, i. e. The Time of bearing Children after Conception, I will come, and Sarah shall have a Son, i. e. I will manifest my Power, in fulfilling my Promise of giving thee a Son. By which 'tis clear, that the Birth of Isaac was an Effect of God's promise, and nothing else. So that they to whom the Promise belong (whosoever they be) they are the Seed of Abraham, and upon the Obedience of Faith, shall be accepted for the Children of God. The Apostle Peter tells Women (whether Iews or Gentiles it matters not) that by well-doing, they become the Daughters of Sarah.

10. And not only this , but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac ,

Some read it, and not only she (The Particle This is not in the Greek.)

This Instance is added, because there might be some Objection against the former; as if there were some reason why God chose Isaac, and refused Ishmael. Isaac was Born of a Free-woman, and when Abraham was circumcised; but Ishmael was Born of a Bond-woman, and when Abraham was uncircumcised: Besides, Ishmael no sooner came to Years, but he shewed some Tokens of Perversness, and of a wicked Spirit. Therefore, in this, and the Three following Verses, he doth give another, which was beyond all Exception; and that is in Esau and Iacob, betwixt whom there was no Disparity, either in Birth or in Works: They had both one and the same Mother; Rebecca Conceived with them at one and the same time; and that by no other Person, than our Father Isaac; and yet the one of these is Chosen, and the other Refused. This now was an undeniable Proof, that the promise belongs not to all the Children of Abraham, or of Isaac, according to the Flesh; All the Seed of neither are the Children of the promise.

Marginal references: Gen. 25.21.

11. (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil , that the purpose of God according to election might stand , not of works , but of him that calleth) .

q. d. As there was nothing in the Birth of those Twins, so neither in their Works, that occasioned the Difference that God made bewixt them; For when God spake of what should happen to them, they were Unborn, and had done neither Good nor Evil.

He means, Actual good or evil; such as might Difference them one from another. As for Original Sin, they were both alike tainted therewith.

This Purpose of God is to be understood about Reprobation, or (if you will) Rejection, or Praeterition, as well as about Election.

Be Firm or Stable.

Either done or foreseen.

i. e. Of the good Pleasure and undeserved Favour of God, who also effectually Calleth those that He Hath Elected, as chap. 8.30. See a Parallel place, 2 Tim. 1.9.

12. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger .

This Verse is to be Read with the Tenth. The whole Eleventh Verse being a Parenthesis. Then when She resorted to the Lord for Counsel, about the Strugling of the Children in her Womb; it was told her, or revealed to her of God, that The Elder should serve the Younger: Of the Sence of which words, see Annot. on Gen. 25.23. where they are Recorded.

Marginal references: Or, greater.; Or, lesser.

13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated .

The foregoing Oracle is expounded by another taken out of Malachi. 1.2, 3. see the Annot. there. Because the foregoing passage of Esau his serving Iacob, doth not seem so full and clear, to betoken the Election of Iacob, and the Rejection of Esau in the purpose of God; therefore the Apostle brings this place to Explain the former; and proves that the service or subjection of Esau to Iacob, was accompanied with Gods Eternal and undeserved Love of the one, and his Iust and Righteous hatred of the other. There are some, that by Esau and Iacob, do understand their Posterity, and not their Persons; that say, the Love and Hatred of God, in the forecited Text, doth only or chiefly respect Temporal things; God loved Iacob, i. e. He gave him the Land of Promise; but hated Esau, i. e. He gave him a Dry and Barren Country, and made his Mountain wast; That by Gods hating Esau, is only meant he Loved him less than Iacob, &c. Such should consider, That the scope of the Apostle is, to shew, That some are the Children of God, and of the Promise, and not others; and they must not make him Cite Testimonys out of the Old Testament impertinently. Much is Written pro and con upon this Argument. But I remember, he that writes a Commentary, must not too far involve himself in Controversy.

14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid .

Another Anticipation of an Objection. Some might Object and say, if God Elect some, and Reject others, their case being the same, or their Persons being in themselves equal and alike, then he is Unjust and Partial: To this he Answers, 1. More generally, with his repeated Note of Detestation, God forbid; the Syriake Translator Reads it God forgive; Noteing thereby, the hainousness of such a thought, and then He Answers this Cavil more particularly; shewing 1. That God is not unjust in Electing some, v. 15, 16. And 2. That he is not unjust in Rejecting others, ver. 17.

Marginal references: Deut. 32.4. 2 Chron. 19.7. Job 34.10.

15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion .

q. d. God is not chargeable with any injustice in Electing some, and not others; for this is an Act of meer mercy and compassion, and that can be no violation of Justice. To prove this, he cites a Testimony out of Exod. 33.19. vid. locum. There He tells Moses, That the good Pleasure of His Will, was the only Rule of all his favourable and merciful Dealings with the Children of Men. The same thing is intended and expressed in Two several Phrases: And the Ingemination imports the Freeness of God's Mercy; nothing moves Him thereunto, but his own gracious Inclination; and also the Arbitrariness thereof; it depends only upon his good Will and Pleasure. The Sum is, if God shew Mercy to some, and not to others, He cannot be accused of injustice, because He injures none; nor is He obliged or indebted to any.

16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy .

q. d. God's Election is not of Iacob's, or of any other Man's willing or running, i. e. It is not from his good Desires or Deeds, his good Inclinations of Actions, or from the fore-sight thereof; but it is of God's meer mercy and good pleasure. This Text wounds Pelagianism under the fifth Rib. Nec volenti, nec volanti, was the Motto of a Noble Personage.

17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh , Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up , that I might shew my power in thee , and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

This Verse shews, That God is not unjust in Rejecting others of equal Condition with the Elect: For the Proof of which, he cites a Testimony out of Exod. 9.16. This Verse must be joyn'd with the 14. God forbid, for the Scripture saith, i. e. God saith in the Scripture.

i. e. I have created or promoted thee to be King in Egypt. Or, (as some) I have raised or stirred thee up to oppress my People: Or, I have hardened thee, a[illegible: 1 letter] it follows in the next Verse, and given thee up to thy own rebellious and obstinate Mind.

q. d. I have done what I have done for this very end, that the whole World may Ring of my Power and Glory. And this shews, that it is not unjust in God to reject Sinners of the Children of Men, because thereby he farthers his own Glory. For this end all things are made, and all things are accordingly ordered and disposed, Prov. 16.4.

Marginal references: Or, raised thee.

18. Therefore] hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy , and whom he will, he hardeneth .

This Verse is a short Repetition of the fore-going Argument.

See ver. 15. and the Notes there.

i. e. In a judicial way. Besides natural hardness, which is in all men, and is Hereditary to them; and habitual hardness, which is Contracted by a Custome in Sin. As a Path is hardened by the continual trampling of Passengers; there is judicial or judiciary hardness, which is inflicted by God as a Punishment. Men harden their own hearts sinfully (so 'tis thrice said of Pharaoh in Exodus, That He hardened his own heart, Exod. 8.15. and 9.34.) and then God hardens their hearts judicially; so 'tis often said of God in Exodus, That He hardened Pharaoh's heart, Exod. 7.13. and 9.12. and 10.1, 20, 37. and 14.8. God is not said properly to harden the hearts of men, i. e. He doth not make their soft hearts hard, nor doth he put hardness into the hearts of Men (as our Adversaries slanderously report us to Affirm) nor doth he barely permit or suffer them to be hardened, (which is the Opinion of the Papists, about this matter;) but Two wayes may He be said to harden sinners. 1. By forsaking them, and not softning their Hearts; As darkness follows upon the Sun's with-drawing of his light; so doth hardness upon God's with-holding his softning Influence. 2. By Punishing them, He inflicts farther hardness, as a Punishment of former hardness; and this he infuseth not; but it is Effected, Either 1. By Satan, to whom hardned sinners are delivered up: Or 2. By themselves, they being given over to their own hearts Lusts. Or 3. By God's word and works, which accidentially harden the hearts of Men, as might be shewn.

Marginal references: Or, so [illegible: 1 word]

19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will ?

Here he obviates a Third Objection or Cavil. The First was, That God is unfaithful, ver. 6. The Second, That God is unjust, ver. 14. Now the Third is, That God is severe and cruel. Some might object and say, If God, in those Courses which He takes with Men and Sinners, doth follow only his own will and pleasure; and all things are done thereafter. Why then doth He complain of Sinners▪ and find Fault with them? It seems it is his will to reject them; and, Who hath Resisted, or can make Resistance thereunto? It seems to be a common Saying amongst the Hebrews, That none can withstand God, vid. 2. Chron. 20.6. (& alibi.)

20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?

Here follows the Answer to this Cavil; which is either Personal to the Caviller in this, and the next Verse, or real to the Cavil in the two following Verses.

The Apostle seems to speak these words with some warmth, as if his Spirit and Zeal was stirred at the sawciness of the Caviller. q. d. Dost thou consider what thou art? Thou art but a Man, a piece of living Clay, a little breathing Dust, a contemptible Worm in comparison; and darest thou to word it with God, to dispute with thy Maker; to question or call Him to an account? You may argue Matters with your fellow Creatures, but not with your Creator, See Isa. 45.9, 10. from whence this seems to be borrowed, vid. Io[illegible: 1 letter]. 40.2.

q. d. Shall the Wood quarrel with the Carpenter, the Iron with the Smith; or as 'tis in the next Verse, the Clay with the Potter?

Marginal references: Or, to Go[illegible: 1 letter] Or, [illegible: 1 word] again, or [illegible: 2 letters] putest with God.; Isa. 64.[illegible: 1 word]

21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour ?

He Argueth from the Less to the Greater, That if a Potter hath power over his Clay, to Form it as he pleaseth, then God hath much more power over his Creatures, to Form them, or order them as He listeth. God's Authority over his Creature is Greater, than that of a Power over his Clay. The Potter made not his Clay; but both Clay and Potter are made by God. Here is something implied, that as there is no difference in the matter or lump, out of which the Potter frameth diversity of Vessels: So there is no difference in Man-kind; all Men are alike by Nature, and in the same corrupt State; both those who are Elected, and those who are Rejected, that are made vessels of mercy, or vessels or wrath. And here is this expressed, That as the Potter maketh vessels of honour or dishonour, of nobler or viler Use, out of the same lump, as he listeth; and is not bound to give a Reason of his so doing to his Pots. So God may chuse some, and reject others, and give no Account thereof unto his Creatures. The Potter takes nothing from the Clay, of what Form soever he makes it; and the Creator doth no Wrong to the Creature, however he doth dispose of it.

Marginal references: Je[illegible: 1 letter]. 18.[illegible: 2 letters]; 2 Tim. [illegible: 1 word]

22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction ?

q. d. What hast thou to answer or object against God, if He take a severe Course with some? Seeing, 1. He thereby Manifesteth his great displeasure against Sin, and his Power to take Vengeance of Sinners: Seeing, 2. He bears long with them in their Sins; exerciseth great Patience towards them, in the midst of their Provocations; giving them space to Repent, if they can or will: And seeing, 3. They are Vessels of wrath, fitted to Destruction: Partly by themselves, and their own sensual Courses; Partly by God's Righteous Iudgment, who gives them up thereunto.

In this, and the next Verse, is a real Answer to the Cavil, in ver. 19. The Apostle having spoken before of God's absolute Right and Power over his Creatures, to dispose of them at his Pleasure, as the Potter doth his Clay. Lest any should tax God with Tyranny and Partiality towards his Creatures, He sub-joyneth the Reasons of his different proceedings with the one, and with the other.

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 span]

23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory .

q. d. Again, on the other side, What hast thou to say, if he proceed more Mercifully with others? Seeing, 1. He thereby Manifesteth the Riches of his Glory, or his glorious Grace: And seeing, 2. They are Vessels of Mercy, which he had afore prepared unto Glory, i. e. He had done it by Election from Eternity, and by Regeneration, and Sanctification of the Spirit in time. He speaks here of Two sorts of Vessels, some of wrath, and some of mercy, as he had before spoken of Vessels of honour, and of dishonour: Concerning the Latter, he speaks Passively, That they are fitted to destruction, vid. ver. 22. Concerning the Former, he speaks Actively, That God hath prepared them unto glory.

24. Even, us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles .

Hitherto he hath been shewing, That the Promise was never made or meant to the Carnal Seed of Abraham. This Argument he began ver. 6, 7. and he continues it (using several Apostrophes and Amplifications, which were to his purpose) till he comes to these words; and here he tells you plainly, who are the True Seed of Abraham, and the Children of the Promise; even the called of God of all Nations, whether Iews or Gentiles. And he takes occasion to fall into it, by speaking of some in the foregoing Verse, that were Vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory; Now here, in this Verse, he tells you who these are (and to be sure they are the Persons he is enquiring after, viz. The Spiritual Seed of Abraham, and the Children of the promise) He sayes, They are such as God called, i. e. Effectually called, not of the Iews only, but of the Gentiles also; and that this is so, he farther proves in the following Verse.

25. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her, Beloved, which was not beloved .

Here the Apostle proves, That the Gentiles were children of the promise, or that the promise belonged to them, as well as to the Iews: And because the Iews could not endure to hear of this, he cites Two Testimonyes out of Hosea, to convince them: One is in this Verse, and it is taken out of Hosea 2.23. The other is in the following Verse.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 span] 2.10.

26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called, The children of the living God .

This Testimony is taken out of Hosea 1.10. And 'tis as if he had said; This that I Affirm concerning the Conversion, and calling of the Gentiles, is nothing else but what the Prophet Hosea long ago did Preach to our Fathers. Some think, these places in Hosea do speak primarily of the Iewes, and but secundarily, or by consequence of the Gentiles. Others think, that they speak chiefly of the Gentiles: Those Terms (not beloved, and not a people) being in Scripture mostly used of them.

27. Esaias also cryeth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea , a remnant shall be saved .

Hereby is noted the Prophets Zeal, or his openness and plainness. The Testimony Recorded, is found in Isa. 10.22, 29.

For Number or Multitude, for so the promise was to Abraham, Gen. 22.17. and 32.12.

Isaiah saith, Shall return, i. e. From the Captivity, or from Sin (as 'tis Isai. 10.21.) This shews, none can be saved, but they which Return and Repent.

In this, and the Two next Verses, he proves, That it was foretold of old, by Esaias the Prophet, That God should pass by the greatest part of the Iews, and save only a remnant, or a few of them.

Marginal references: C[illegible: 2 letters]p. 11.5.

28. For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth .

This Verse is also found in that forecited place, Isa. 10.22, 23. The Apostle in this, and in the other Citations, follows the Seventy, which was a received Translation, and had been in request about Three Hundred Years, though in this and in other Places, it is very different from the Hebrew Text; That which God is said to finish, and cut short is his work. The Greek is [non-Latin text not transcribed], which signifies his word, or the Account, as some read it. This is brought in as a Reason, why a remnant only should be saved; because God would shorten the Account, or (as we read it) make a short work in the Iewish world. He would bring a sudden Destruction upon that people. Senacherib, and the Assyrians, or Titus Vespatian, and the Romans, shall make a compleat and speedy Conquest of them; Few of them shall remain, the greater part being involved; First in Infidility, then in Destruction. The Apostle makes those few to be a Type of God's Elect among that People, that should be Saved by Faith in Iesus Christ.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 paragraph]

29. And as Esaias said before Except the Lord of sabaoth had left us a seed , we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha

In Isa. 1.9.

Or of Hosts: The Mighty God, whose Host all Creatures are, which Execute his Will, as Souldiers the Will of their Commander.

He means by a Seed, the same that he meant before by a Remnant; a small number. These were left as a little Seed, out of a great heap of Corn; that which is chosen, and left for Seed, is little in comparison of the whole Crop.

i. e. Utterly wasted and destroyed as they were, Ier. 50.40.

Marginal references: Lam. 3.22.; Isa. 13.19.

30. What shall we say then ? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness , have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith .

This is the Conclusion of the Apostles Discourse about the Election of some, and the Rejection of others; as also about the calling of the Gentiles, and the casting off the Iews.

That never minded or regarded it: Instead of following after it, they Fled from it. They were full of all Unrighteousness, chap. 1.18. to the end, Eph. 2.2, 3.

Viz. Gospel-Righteousness, or the Righteousness of Christ, which is received by true Faith.

31. But Israel which followed after the law of righteousness , hath not attained to the law of righteousness .

i. e. The unbelieving Iews, who paid great Reverence to the Law of God, regarding and observing the outward Precepts and Ceremonies thereof.

They came short of that Righteousness which the Law requires, which God will Accept; and which is to be attained, not by works, but by faith, as it follows in the next Verse.

Marginal references: Chap. 10.2. & 11.7.

32. Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law : For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone .

Here is the Reason of the foregoing seeming Paradox; why they, who followed after the Law of Righteousness, should not attain it, rather than other; because they sought it not aright; they sought it not in a way of Believing, but of Working: These Two are Opposed in the business of Iustification, as before at large, in Chap. 3. and 4.

i. e. As if they could have attained Righteousness or Iustification in that way, which was impossible to do.

i. e. The true Messiah. q. d. So far were they from seeking Righteousness by Christ, that on the contrary they took Offence at him, to their own Destruction, Mar. 6.3. 1 Cor. 1.23. They thought it impossible that he should give them a Righteousness better than their own. This happened to them according to the Prophecy that went before them: So it followeth;

Marginal references: Luk. 2.34.

33. As it is written , Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone , and rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him, shall not be ashamed .

viz. in Isa. 8.14. and 28.16. to which Prophecy also, the Apostle Peter refers, in 1 Pet. 2.6, 7, 8.

Iesus Christ is properly a Corner Stone, Elect and Precious; but accidentally and eventually a Stumbling Stone, Luk. 2.34.

Or Confounded. Isaiah saith, He that believeth; the Apostle, Whosoever believeth; which is much the same: An indefinite Proposition is equivalent to an Universal: The Prophet saith, He that believeth shall not make hast; the Apostle, He shall not be ashamed. He that is Rash and Hasty will at last be ashamed and confounded.

Marginal references: Mat. 21.42.; Chap. 10.11.; Or, confoundded.

Paul's Anxiety for the Jews. (a. d. 58.)

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

We have here the apostle's solemn profession of a great concern for the nation and people of the Jews—that he was heartily troubled that so many of them were enemies to the gospel, and out of the way of salvation. For this he had great heaviness and continual sorrow. Such a profession as this was requisite to take off the odium which otherwise he might have contracted by asserting and proving their rejection. It is wisdom as much as may be to mollify those truths which sound harshly and seem unpleasant: dip the nail in oil, it will drive the better. The Jews had a particular pique at Paul above any of the apostles, as appears by the history of the Acts, and therefore were the more apt to take things amiss of him, to prevent which he introduces his discourse with this tender and affectionate profession, that they might not think he triumphed or insulted over the rejected Jews or was pleased with the calamities that were coming upon them. Thus Jeremiah appeals to God concerning the Jews of his day, whose ruin was hastening on (Jer. xvii. 16), Neither have I desired the woeful day, thou knowest. Nay, Paul was so far from desiring it that he most pathetically deprecates it. And lest this should be thought only a copy of his countenance, to flatter and please them,

I. He asserts it with a solemn protestation (v. 1): I say the truth in Christ, "I speak it as a Christian, one of God's people, children that will not lie, as one that knows not how to give flattering title." Or, "I appeal to Christ, who searches the heart, concerning it." He appeals likewise to his own conscience, which was instead of a thousand witnesses. That which he was going to assert was not only a great and weighty thing (such solemn protestations are not to be thrown away upon trifles), but it was likewise a secret; it was concerning a sorrow in his heart to which none was a capable competent witness but God and his own conscience.—That I have great heaviness, v. 2. He does not say for what; the very mention of it was unpleasant and invidious; but it is plain that he means for the rejection of the Jews.

II. He backs it with a very serious imprecation, which he was ready to make, out of love to the Jews. I could wish; he does not say, I do wish, for it was no proper means appointed for such an end; but, if it were, I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren—a very high pang of zeal and affection for his countrymen. He would be willing to undergo the greatest misery to do them good. Love is apt to be thus bold, and venturous, and self-denying. Because the glory of God's grace in the salvation of many is to be preferred before the welfare and happiness of a single person, Paul, if they were put in competition, would be content to forego all his own happiness to purchase theirs. 1. He would be content to be cut off from the land of the living, in the most shameful and ignominious manner, as an anathema, or a devoted person. They thirsted for his blood, persecuted him as the most obnoxious person in the world, the curse and plague of his generation, 1 Cor. iv. 13; Acts xxii. 22. "Now," says Paul, "I am willing to bear all this, and a great deal more, for your good. Abuse me as much as you will, count and call me at your pleasure; your unbelief and rejection create in my heart a heaviness so much greater than all these troubles can that I could look upon them not only as tolerable, but as desirable, rather than this rejection." 2. He would be content to be excommunicated from the society of the faithful, to be separated from the church, and from the communion of saints, as a heathen man and a publican, if that would do them any good. He could wish himself no more remembered among the saints, his name blotted out of the church-records; though he had been so great a planter of churches, and the spiritual father of so many thousands, yet he would be content to be disowned by the church, cut off from all communion with it, and have his name buried in oblivion or reproach, for the good of the Jews. It may be, some of the Jews had a prejudice against Christianity for Paul's sake; such a spleen they had at him that they hated the religion he was of: "If this stumble you," says Paul, "I could wish I might be cast out, not embraced as a Christian, so you might but be taken in." Thus Moses (Exod. xxxii. 33), in a like holy passion of concern, Blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written. 3. Nay, some think that the expression goes further, and that he could be content to be cut off from all his share of happiness in Christ, if that might be a means of their salvation. It is a common charity that begins at home; this is something higher, and more noble and generous.

III. He gives us the reason of this affection and concern.

1. Because of their relation to them: My brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. Though they were very bitter against him upon all occasions, and gave him the most unnatural and barbarous usage, yet thus respectfully does he speak of them. It shows him to be a man of a forgiving spirit. Not that I had aught to accuse my nation of, Acts xxviii. 19. My kinsmen. Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special engagements, and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and concerning them, and our usefulness to them, we must in a special manner give account.

2. Especially because of their relation to God (v. 4, 5): Who are Israelites, the seed of Abraham, God's friend, and of Jacob his chosen, taken into the covenant of peculiarity, dignified and distinguished by visible church-privileges, many of which are here mentioned:—(1.) The adoption; not that which is saving, and which entitled to eternal happiness, but that which was external and typical, and entitled them to the land of Canaan. Israel is my son, Exod. iv. 22. (2.) And the glory; the ark with the mercy-seat, over which God dwelt between the cherubim—this was the glory of Israel, 1 Sam. iv. 21. The many symbols and tokens of the divine presence and guidance, the cloud, the Shechinah, the distinguishing favours conferred upon them—these were the glory. (3.) And the covenants—the covenant made with Abraham, and often renewed with his seed upon divers occasions. There was a covenant at Sinai (Exod. xxiv.), in the plains of Moab (Deut. xxix.), at Shechem (Josh. xxiv.), and often afterwards; and still these pertained to Israel. Or, the covenant of peculiarity, and in that, as in the type, the covenant of grace. (4.) And the giving of the law. It was to them that the ceremonial and judicial law were given, and the moral law in writing pertained to them. It is a great privilege to have the law of God among us, and it is to be accounted so, Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. This was the grandeur of Israel, Deut. iv. 7, 8. (5.) And the service of God. They had the ordinances of God's worship among them—the temple, the altars, the priests, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the institutions relating to them. They were in this respect greatly honoured, that, while other nations were worshipping and serving stocks, and stones, and devils, and they knew not what other idols of their own invention, the Israelites were serving the true God in the way of his own appointment. (6.) And the promises—particular promises added to the general covenant, promises relating to the Messiah and the gospel state. Observe, The promises accompany the giving of the law, and the service of God; for the comfort of the promises is to be had in obedience to that law and attendance upon that service. (7.) Whose are the fathers (v. 5), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those men of renown, that stood so high in the favour of God. The Jews stand in relation to them, are their children, and proud enough they are of it: We have Abraham to our father. It was for the father's sake that they were taken into covenant, ch. xi. 28. (8.) But the greatest honour of all was that of them as concerning the flesh (that is, as to his human nature) Christ came; for he took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb. ii. 16. As to his divine nature, he is the Lord from heaven; but, as to his human nature, he is of the seed of Abraham. This was the great privilege of the Jews, that Christ was of kin to them. Mentioning Christ, he interposes a very great word concerning him, that he is over all, God blessed for ever. Lest the Jews should think meanly of him, because he was of their alliance, he here speaks thus honourably concerning him: and it is a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever. Therefore, how much sorer punishment were they worthy of that rejected him! It was likewise the honour of the Jews, and one reason why Paul had a kindness for them, that, seeing God blessed for ever would be a man, he would be a Jew; and, considering the posture and character of that people at that time, it may well be looked upon as a part of his humiliation.

The Divine Sovereignty. (a. d. 58.)

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The apostle, having made his way to that which he had to say, concerning the rejection of the body of his countrymen, with a protestation of his own affection for them and a concession of their undoubted privileges, comes in these verses, and the following part of the chapter, to prove that the rejection of the Jews, by the establishment of the gospel dispensation, did not at all invalidate the word of God's promise to the patriarchs: Not as though the word of God hath taken no effect (v. 6), which, considering the present state of the Jews, which created to Paul so much heaviness and continual sorrow (v. 2), might be suspected. We are not to ascribe inefficacy to any word of God: nothing that he has spoken does or can fall to the ground; see Isa. lv. 10, 11. The promises and threatenings shall have their accomplishment; and, one way or other, he will magnify the law and make it honourable. This is to be understood especially of the promise of God, which by subsequent providences may be to a wavering faith very doubtful; but it is not, it cannot be, made of no effect; at the end it will speak and not lie.

Now the difficulty is to reconcile the rejection of the unbelieving Jews with the word of God's promise, and the external tokens of the divine favour, which had been conferred upon them. This he does in four ways:—1. By explaining the true meaning and intention of the promise, v. 6-13. 2. By asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, v. 14-24. 3. By showing how this rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, v. 25-29. 4. By fixing the true reason of the Jews' rejection, v. 30, to the end.

In this paragraph the apostle explains the true meaning and intention of the promise. When we mistake the word, and misunderstand the promise, no marvel if we are ready to quarrel with God about the accomplishment; and therefore the sense of this must first be duly stated. Now he here makes it out that, when God said he would be a God to Abraham, and to his seed (which was the famous promise made unto the fathers), he did not mean it of all his seed according to the flesh, as if it were a necessary concomitant of the blood of Abraham; but that he intended it with a limitation only to such and such. And as from the beginning it was appropriated to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau, and yet for all this the word of God was not made of no effect; so now the same promise is appropriated to believing Jews that embrace Christ and Christianity, and, though it throws off multitudes that refuse Christ, yet the promise is not therefore defeated and invalidated, any more than it was by the typical rejection of Ishmael and Esau.

I. He lays down this proposition—that they are not all Israel who are of Israel (v. 6), neither because they are, &c., v. 7. Many that descended from the loins of Abraham and Jacob, and were of that people who were surnamed by the name of Israel, yet were very far from being Israelites indeed, interested in the saving benefits of the new covenant. They are not all really Israel that are so in name and profession. It does not follow that, because they are the seed of Abraham, therefore they must needs be the children of God, though they themselves fancied so, boasted much of, and built much upon, their relation to Abraham, Matt. iii. 9; John viii. 38, 39. But it does not follow. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privileges, though it is common for people thus to stretch the meaning of God's promise, to bolster themselves up in a vain hope.

II. He proves this by instances; and therein shows not only that some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but that God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will; and not with regard to that law of commandments to which the present unbelieving Jews were so strangely wedded.

1. He specifies the case of Isaac and Ishmael, both of them the seed of Abraham; and yet Isaac only taken into covenant with God, and Ishmael rejected and cast out. For this he quotes Gen. xxi. 12, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, which comes in there as a reason why Abraham must be willing to cast out the bond-woman and her son, because the covenant was to be established with Isaac, Gen. xvii. 19. And yet the word which God had spoken, that he would be a God to Abraham and to his seed, did not therefore fall to the ground; for the blessings wrapt up in that great word, being communicated by God as a benefactor, he was free to determine on what head they should rest, and accordingly entailed them upon Isaac, and rejected Ishmael. This he explains further (v. 8, 9), and shows what God intended to teach us by this dispensation. (1.) That the children of the flesh, as such, by virtue of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, are not therefore the children of God, for then Ishmael had put in a good claim. This remark comes home to the unbelieving Jews, who boasted of their relation to Abraham according to the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, and looked for justification in a fleshly way, by those carnal ordinances which Christ had abolished. They had confidence in the flesh, Phil. iii. 3. Ishmael was a child of the flesh, conceived by Hagar, who was young and fresh, and likely enough to have children. There was nothing extraordinary or supernatural in his conception, as there was in Isaac's; he was born after the flesh (Gal. iv. 29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness. (2.) That the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Those that have the honour and happiness of being counted for the seed have it not for the sake of any merit or desert of their own, but purely by virtue of the promise, in which God hath obliged himself of his own good pleasure to grant the promised favour. Isaac was a child of promise; this his proves, v. 9, quoted from Gen. xviii. 10. He was a child promised (so were many others), and he was also conceived and born by force and virtue of the promise, and so a proper type and figure of those who are now counted for the seed, even true believers, who are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God—of the incorruptible seed, even the word of promise, by virtue of the special promise of a new heart: see Gal. iv. 28. It was through faith that Isaac was conceived, Heb. xi. 11. Thus were the great mysteries of salvation taught under the Old Testament, not in express words, but by significant types and dispensations of providence, which to them then were not so clear as they are to us now, when the veil is taken away, and the types are expounded by the antitypes.

2. The case of Jacob and Esau (v. 10-13), which is much stronger, to show that the carnal seed of Abraham were not, as such, interested in the promise, but only such of them as God in sovereignty had appointed. There was a previous difference between Ishmael and Isaac, before Ishmael was cast out: Ishmael was the son of the bond-woman, born long before Isaac, was of a fierce and rugged disposition, and had mocked or persecuted Isaac, to all which it might be supposed God had regard when he appointed Abraham to cast him out. But, in the case of Jacob and Esau, it was neither so nor so, they were both the sons of Isaac by one mother; they were conceived hex henos—by one conception; hex henos koitou, so some copies read it. The difference was made between them by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any good or evil. Both lay struggling alike in their mother's womb, when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen, that the purpose of God according to election might stand—that this great truth may be established, that God chooses some and refuses others as a free agent, by his own absolute and sovereign will, dispensing his favours or withholding them as he pleases. This difference that was put between Jacob and Esau he further illustrates by a quotation from Mal. i. 2, 3, where it is said, not of Jacob and Esau the person, but the Edomites and Israelites their posterity, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. The people of Israel were taken into the covenant of peculiarity, had the land of Canaan given them, were blessed with the more signal appearances of God for them in special protections, supplies, and deliverances, while the Edomites were rejected, had no temple, altar, priests, nor prophets—no such particular care taken of them nor kindness shown to them. Such a difference did God put between those two nations, that both descended from the loins of Abraham and Isaac, as at first there was a difference put between Jacob and Esau, the distinguishing heads of those two nations. So that all this choosing and refusing was typical, and intended to shadow forth some other election and rejection. (1.) Some understand it of the election and rejection of conditions or qualifications. As God chose Isaac and Jacob, and rejected Ishmael and Esau, so he might and did choose faith to be the condition of salvation and reject the works of the law. Thus Arminius understands it, De rejectis et assumptis talibus, certa qualitate notatis—Concerning such as are rejected and such as are chosen, being distinguished by appropriate qualities; so John Goodwin. But this very much strains the scripture; for the apostle speaks all along of persons, he has mercy on whom (he does not say on what kind of people) he will have mercy, besides that against this sense those two objections (v. 14, 19) do not at all arise, and his answer to them concerning God's absolute sovereignty over the children of men is not at all pertinent if no more be meant than his appointing the conditions of salvation. (2.) Others understand it of the election and rejection of particular person—some loved, and others hated, from eternity. But the apostle speaks of Jacob and Esau, not in their own persons, but as ancestors—Jacob the people, and Esau the people; nor does God condemn any, or decree so to do, merely because he will do it, without any reason taken from their own deserts. (3.) Others therefore understand it of the election and rejection of people considered complexly. His design is to justify God, and his mercy and truth, in calling the Gentiles, and taking them into the church, and into covenant with himself, while he suffered the obstinate part of the Jews to persist in unbelief, and so to un-church themselves—thus hiding from their eyes the things that belonged to their peace. The apostle's reasoning for the explication and proof of this is, however, very applicable to, and, no doubt (as is usual in scripture) was intended for the clearing of the methods of God's grace towards particular person, for the communication of saving benefits bears some analogy to the communication of church-privileges. The choosing of Jacob the younger, and preferring him before Esau the elder (so crossing hands), were to intimate that the Jews, though the natural seed of Abraham, and the first-born of the church, should be laid aside; and the Gentiles, who were as the younger brother, should be taken in in their stead, and have the birthright and blessing. The Jews, considered as a body politic, a nation and people, knit together by the bond and cement of the ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood, the centre of their unity, had for many ages been the darlings and favourites of heaven, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, dignified and distinguished by God's miraculous appearances among them and for them. Now that the gospel was preached, and Christian churches were planted, this national body was thereby abandoned, their church-polity dissolved; and Christian churches (and in process of time Christian nations), embodied in like manner, become their successors in the divine favour, and those special privileges and protections which were the products of that favour. To clear up the justice of God in this great dispensation is the scope of the apostle here.

The Divine Sovereignty. (a. d. 58.)

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The apostle, having asserted the true meaning of the promise, comes here to maintain and prove the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, with reference to their eternal state. And herein God is to be considered, not as a rector and governor, distributing rewards and punishments according to his revealed laws and covenants, but as an owner and benefactor, giving to the children of men such grace and favour as he has determined in and by his secret and eternal will and counsel: both the favour of visible church-membership and privileges, which is given to some people and denied to others, and the favour of effectual grace, which is given to some particular persons and denied to others.

Now this part of his discourse is in answer to two objections.

I. It might be objected, Is there unrighteousness with God? If God, in dealing with the children of men, do thus, in an arbitrary manner, choose some and refuse others, may it not be suspected that there is unrighteousness with him? This the apostle startles at the thought of: God forbid! Far be it from us to think such a thing; shall not the judge of all the earth do right? Gen. xviii. 25; ch. iii. 5, 6. He denies the consequences, and proves the denial.

1. In respect of those to whom he shows mercy, v. 15, 16. He quotes that scripture to show God's sovereignty in dispensing his favours (Exod. xxxiii. 19): I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. All God's reasons of mercy are taken from within himself. All the children of men being plunged alike into a state of sin and misery, equally under guilt and wrath, God, in a way of sovereignty, picks out some from this fallen apostatized race, to be vessels of grace and glory. He dispenses his gifts to whom he will, without giving us any reason: according to his own good pleasure he pitches upon some to be monuments of mercy and grace, preventing grace, effectual grace, while he passes by others. The expression is very emphatic, and the repetition makes it more so: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. It imports a perfect absoluteness in God's will; he will do what he will, and giveth not account of any of his matters, nor is it fit he should. As these great words, I am that I am (Exod. iii. 14) do abundantly express the absolute independency of his being, so these words, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, do as fully express the absolute prerogative and sovereignty of his will. To vindicate the righteousness of God, in showing mercy to whom he will, the apostle appeals to that which God himself had spoken, wherein he claims this sovereign power and liberty. God is a competent judge, even in his own case. Whatsoever God does, or is resolved to do, is both by the one and the other proved to be just. Eleeso on han heleo—I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. When I begin, I will make an end. Therefore God's mercy endures for ever, because the reason of it is fetched from within himself; therefore his gifts and callings are without repentance. Hence he infers (v. 16), It is not of him that willeth. Whatever good comes from God to man, the glory of it is not to be ascribed to the most generous desire, nor to the most industrious endeavour, of man, but only and purely to the free grace and mercy of God. In Jacob's case it was not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; it was not the earnest will and desire of Rebecca that Jacob might have the blessing; it was not Jacob's haste to get it (for he was compelled to run for it) that procured him the blessing, but only the mercy and grace of God. Wherein the holy happy people of God differ from other people, it is God and his grace that make them differ. Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him, the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God's free grace that made that difference. The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness, Matt. iv. 16. In darkness, therefore not willing what they knew not; sitting in darkness, a contented posture, therefore not running to meet it, but anticipated with these invaluable blessings of goodness. Such is the method of God's grace towards all that partake of it, for he is found of those that sought him not (Isa. lxv. 1); in this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own. Our eye therefore must not be evil because his is good; but, of all the grace that we or others have, he must have the glory: Not unto us, Ps. cxv. 1.

2. In respect of those who perish, v. 17. God's sovereignty, manifested in the ruin of sinners, is here discovered in the instance of Pharaoh; it is quoted from Exod. ix. 16. Observe,

(1.) What God did with Pharaoh. He raised him up, brought him into the world, made him famous, gave him the kingdom and power,—set him up as a beacon upon a hill, as the mark of all his plagues (compare Exod. ix. 14)—hardened his heart, as he had said he would (Exod. iv. 21): I will harden his heart, that is, withdraw softening grace, leave him to himself, let Satan loose against him, and lay hardening providences before him. Or, by raising him up may be meant the intermission of the plagues which gave Pharaoh respite, and the reprieve of Pharaoh in those plagues. In the Hebrew, I have made thee stand, continued thee yet in the land of the living. Thus doth God raise up sinners, make them for himself, even for the day of evil (Prov. xvi. 4), raise them up in outward prosperity, external privileges (Matt. xi. 23), sparing mercies.

(2.) What he designed in it: That I might show my power in thee. God would, by all this, serve the honour of his name, and manifest his power in baffling the pride and insolence of that great and daring tyrant, who bade defiance to Heaven itself, and trampled upon all that was just and sacred. If Pharaoh had not been so high and might, so bold and hardy, the power of God had not been so illustrious in the ruining of him; but the taking off of the spirit of such a prince, who hectored at that rate, did indeed proclaim God glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders, Exod. xv. 11. This is Pharaoh, and all his multitude.

(3.) His conclusion concerning both these we have, v. 18. He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. The various dealings of God, by which he makes some to differ from others, must be resolved into his absolute sovereignty. He is debtor to no man, his grace is his own, and he may give it or withhold it as it pleaseth him; we have none of us deserved it, nay, we have all justly forfeited it a thousand times, so that herein the work of our salvation is admirably well ordered that those who are saved must thank God only, and those who perish must thank themselves only, Hos. xiii. 9. We are bound, as God hath bound us, to do our utmost for the salvation of all we have to do with; but God is bound no further than he has been pleased to bind himself by his own covenant and promise, which is his revealed will; and that is that he will receive, and not cast out, those that come to Christ; but the drawing of souls in order to that coming is a preventing distinguishing favour to whom he will. Had he mercy on the Gentiles? It was because he would have mercy on them. Were the Jews hardened? It was because it was his own pleasure to deny them softening grace, and to give them up to their chosen affected unbelief. Even so, Father, because it seemed good unto thee. That scripture excellently explains this, Luke x. 21, and, as this, shows the sovereign will of God in giving or withholding both the means of grace and the effectual blessing upon those means.

II. It might be objected, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? v. 19. Had the apostle been arguing only for God's sovereignty in appointing and ordering the terms and conditions of acceptance and salvation, there had not been the least colour for this objection; for he might well find fault if people refused to come up to the terms on which such a salvation is offered; the salvation being so great, the terms could not be hard. But there might be colour for the objection against his arguing for the sovereignty of God in giving and withholding differencing and preventing grace; and the objection is commonly and readily advanced against the doctrine of distinguishing grace. If God, while he gives effectual grace to some, denies it to others, why doth he find fault with those to whom he denies it? If he hath rejected the Jews, and hid from their eyes the things that belong to their peace, why doth he find fault with them for their blindness? If it be his pleasure to discard them as not a people, and not obtaining mercy, their knocking off themselves was no resistance of his will. This objection he answers at large,

1. By reproving the objector (v. 20): Nay but, O man. This is not an objection fit to be made by the creature against his Creator, by man against God. The truth, as it is in Jesus, is that which abases man as nothing, less than nothing, and advances God as sovereign Lord of all. Observe how contemptibly he speaks of man, when he comes to argue with God his Maker: "Who art thou, thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so short-sighted, so incompetent a judge of the divine counsels? Art thou able to fathom such a depth, dispute such a case, to trace that way of God which is in the sea, his path in the great waters?" That repliest against God. It becomes us to submit to him, not to reply against him; to lie down under his hand, not to fly in his face, nor to charge him with folly. Ho antapokrinomenos—That answerest again. God is our master, and we are his servants; and it does not become servants to answer again, Tit. ii. 9.

2. By resolving all into the divine sovereignty. We are the thing formed, and he is the former; and it does not become us to challenge or arraign his wisdom in ordering and disposing of us into this or that shape of figure. The rude and unformed mass of matter hath no right to this or that form, but is shaped at the pleasure of him that formeth it. God's sovereignty over us is fitly illustrated by the power that the potter hath over the clay; compare Jer. xviii. 6, where, by a like comparison, God asserts his dominion over the nation of the Jews, when he was about to magnify his justice in their destruction by Nebuchadnezzar.

(1.) He gives us the comparison, v. 21. The potter, out of the same lump, may make either a fashionable vessel, and a vessel fit for creditable and honourable uses, or a contemptible vessel, and a vessel in which is no pleasure; and herein he acts arbitrarily, as he might have chosen whether he would make any vessel of it at all, or whether he would leave it in the hole of the pit, out of which it was dug.

(2.) The application of the comparison, v. 22-24. Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind:—[1.] Vessels of wrath—vessels filled with wrath, as a vessel of wine is a vessel filled with wine; full of the fury of the Lord, Isa. li. 20. In these God is willing to show his wrath, that is, his punishing justice, and his enmity to sin. This must be shown to all the world, God will make it appear that he hates sin. He will likewise make his power known, to dynaton autou. It is a power of strength and energy, an inflicting power, which works and effects the destruction of those that perish; it is a destruction that proceeds from the glory of his power, 2 Thess. i. 9. The eternal damnation of sinners will be an abundant demonstration of the power of God; for he will act in it himself immediately, his wrath preying as it were upon guilty consciences, and his arm stretched out totally to destroy their well-being, and yet at the same instant wonderfully to preserve the being of the creature. In order to this, God endured them with much long-suffering—exercised a great deal of patience towards them, let them alone to fill up the measure of sin, to grow till they were ripe for ruin, and so they became fitted for destruction, fitted by their own sin and self-hardening. The reigning corruptions and wickedness of the soul are its preparedness and disposedness for hell: a soul is hereby made combustible matter, fit for the flames of hell. When Christ said to the Jews (Matt. xxiii. 32), Fill you up then the measure of your father, that upon you may come all the righteous blood (v. 35), he did, as it were, endure them with much long-suffering, that they might, by their own obstinacy and wilfulness in sin, fit themselves for destruction. [2.] Vessels of mercy—filled with mercy. The happiness bestowed upon the saved remnant is the fruit, not of their merit, but of God's mercy. The spring of all the joy and glory of heaven is that mercy of God which endures for ever. Vessels of honour must to eternity own themselves vessels of mercy. Observe, First, What he designs in them: To make known the riches of his glory, that is, of his goodness; for God's goodness is his greatest glory, especially when it is communicated with the greatest sovereignty. I beseech thee show me thy glory, says Moses, Exod. xxxiii. 18. I will make all my goodness to pass before thee, says God (v. 19), and that given out freely: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. God makes known his glory, this goodness of his, in the preservation and supply of all the creatures: the earth is full of his goodness, and the year crowned with it; but when he would demonstrate the riches of his goodness, unsearchable riches, he does it in the salvation of the saints, that will be to eternity glorious monuments of divine grace. Secondly, What he does for them he does before prepare them to glory. Sanctification is the preparation of the soul for glory, making it meet to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light. This is God's work. We can destroy ourselves fast enough, but we cannot save ourselves. Sinners fit themselves for hell, but it is God that prepares saints for heaven; and all those that God designs for heaven hereafter he prepares and fits for heaven now: he works them to the self-same thing, 2 Cor. v. 5. And would you know who these vessels of mercy are? Those whom he hath called (v. 24); for whom he did predestinate those he also called with an effectual call: and these not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles; for, the partition-wall being taken down, the world was laid in common, and not (as it had been) God's favour appropriated to the Jews, and they put a degree nearer his acceptance than the rest of the world. They now stood upon the same level with the Gentiles; and the question is not now whether of the seed of Abraham or no, that is neither here nor there, but whether or no called according to his purpose.

Conversion of the Gentiles. (a. d. 58.)

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

Having explained the promise, and proved the divine sovereignty, the apostle here shows how the rejection of the Jews, and the taking in of the Gentiles, were foretold in the Old Testament, and therefore must needs be very well consistent with the promise made to the fathers under the Old Testament. It tends very much to the clearing of a truth to observe how the scripture is fulfilled in it. The Jews would, no doubt, willingly refer it to the Old Testament, the scriptures of which were committed to them. Now he shows how this, which was so uneasy to them, was there spoken of.

I. By the prophet Hosea, who speaks of the taking in of a great many of the Gentiles, Hos. ii. 23 and Hos. i. 10. The Gentiles had not been the people of God, not owning him, nor being owned by him in that relation: "But," says he, "I will call them my people, make them such and own them as such, notwithstanding all their unworthiness." A blessed change! Former badness is no bar to God's present grace and mercy.—And her beloved which was not beloved. Those whom God calls his people he calls beloved: he loves those that are his own. And lest it might be supposed that they should become God's people only by being proselyted to the Jewish religion, and made members of that nation, he adds, from Hos. i. 10, In the place where it was said, &c., there shall they be called. They need not be embodied with the Jews, nor go up to Jerusalem to worship; but, wherever they are scattered over the face of the earth, there will God own them. Observe the great dignity and honour of the saints, that they are called the children of the living God; and his calling them so makes them so. Behold, what manner of love! This honour have all his saints.

II. By the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of the casting off of many of the Jews, in two places.

1. One is Isa. x. 22, 23, which speaks of the saving of a remnant, that is, but a remnant, which, though in the prophecy it seems to refer to the preservation of a remnant from the destruction and desolation that were coming upon them by Sennacherib and his army, yet is to be understood as looking further, and sufficiently proves that it is no strange thing for God to abandon to ruin a great many of the seed of Abraham, and yet maintain his word of promise to Abraham in full force and virtue. This is intimated in the supposition that the number of children of Israel was as the sand of the sea, which was part of the promise made to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 17. And yet only a remnant shall be saved; for many are called, but few are chosen. In this salvation of the remnant we are told (v. 28) from the prophet, (1.) That he will complete the work: He will finish the work. When God begins he will make an end, whether in ways of judgment or of mercy. The rejection of the unbelieving Jews god would finish in their utter ruin by the Romans, who soon after this quite took away their place and nation. The assuming of Christian churches into the divine favour, and the spreading of the gospel in other nations, was a work which God would likewise finish, and be known by his name Jehovah . As for God, his work is perfect. Margin, He will finish the account. God, in his eternal counsels, has taken an account of the children of men, allotted them to such or such a condition, to such a share of privileges; and, as they come into being, his dealings with them are pursuant to these counsels: and he will finish the account, complete the mystical body, call in as many as belong to the election of grace, and then the account will be finished. (2.) That he will contract it; not only finish it, but finish it quickly. Under the Old Testament he seemed to tarry, and to make a longer and more tedious work of it. The wheels moved but slowly towards the extent of the church; but now he will cut it short, and make a short work upon the earth. Gentile converts were now flying as a cloud. But he will cut it short in righteousness, both in wisdom and in justice. Men, when they cut short, do amiss; they do indeed despatch causes; but, when God cuts short, it is always in righteousness. So the fathers generally apply it. Some understand it of the evangelical law and covenant, which Christ has introduced and established in the world: he has in that finished the work, put an end to the types and ceremonies of the Old Testament. Christ said, It is finished, and then the veil was rent, echoing as it were to the word that Christ said upon the cross. And he will cut it short. The work (it is logos—the word, the law) was under the Old Testament very long; a long train of institutions, ceremonies, conditions: but now it is cut short. Our duty is now, under the gospel, summed up in much less room than it was under the law; the covenant was abridged and contracted; religion is brought into a less compass. And it is in righteousness, in favour to us, in justice to his own design and counsel. With us contractions are apt to darken things:— ————Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio———— I strive to be concise, but prove obscure. 2. Another is quoted from Isa. i. 9, where the prophet is showing how in a time of general calamity and destruction God would preserve a seed. This is to the same purport with the former; and the scope of it is to show that it was no strange thing for God to leave the greatest part of the people of the Jews to ruin, and to reserve to himself only a small remnant: so he had done formerly, as appears by their own prophets; and they must not wonder if he did so now. Observe, (1.) What God is. He is the Lord of sabaoth, that is, the Lord of hosts—a Hebrew word retained in the Greek, as James v. 4. All the host of heaven and earth are at his beck and disposal. When God secures a seed to himself out of a degenerate apostate world, he acts as Lord of sabaoth. It is an act of almighty power and infinite sovereignty. (2.) What his people are; they are a seed, a small number. The corn reserved for next year's seedings is but little, compared with that which is spent and eaten. But they are a useful number—the seed, the substance, of the next generation, Isa. vi. 13. It is so far from being an impeachment of the justice and righteousness of God that so many perish and are destroyed, that it is a wonder of divine power and mercy that all are not destroyed, that there are any saved; for even those that are left to be a seed, if God had dealt with them according to their sins, had perished with the rest. This is the great truth which this scripture teacheth us.

Reception of the Gentiles and Rejection of the Jews. (a. d. 58.)

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

The apostle comes here at last to fix the true reason of the reception of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews. There was a difference in the way of their seeking, and therefore there was that different success, though still it was the free grace of God that made them differ. He concludes like an orator, What shall we say then? What is the conclusion of the whole dispute?

I. Concerning the Gentiles observe, 1. How they had been alienated from righteousness: they followed not after it; they knew not their guilt and misery, and therefore were not at all solicitous to procure a remedy. In their conversion preventing grace was greatly magnified: God was found of those that sought him not, Isa. lxv. 1. There was nothing in them to dispose them for such a favour more than what free grace wrought in them. Thus doth God delight to dispense grace in a way of sovereignty and absolute dominion. 2. How they attained to righteousness, notwithstanding: By faith; not by being proselyted to the Jewish religion, and submitting to the ceremonial law, but by embracing Christ, and believing in Christ, and submitting to the gospel. They attained to that by the short cut of believing sincerely in Christ for which the Jews had been long in vain beating about the bush.

II. Concerning the Jews observe, 1. How they missed their end: they followed after the law of righteousness (v. 31)—they talked much of justification and holiness, seemed very ambitious of being the people of God and the favourites of heaven, but they did not attain to it, that is, the greatest part of them did not; as many as stuck to their old Jewish principles and ceremonies, and pursued a happiness in those observances, embracing the shadows now that the substance was come, these fell short of acceptance with God, were not owned as his people, nor went to their house justified. 2. How they mistook their way, which was the cause of their missing the end, v. 32, 33. They sought, but not in the right way, not in the humbling way, not in the instituted appointed way. Not by faith, not by embracing the Christian religion, and depending upon the merit of Christ, and submitting to the terms of the gospel, which were the very life and end of the law. But they sought by the works of the law; as if they were to expect justification by their observance of the precepts and ceremonies of the law of Moses. This was the stumbling-stone at which they stumbled. They could not get over this corrupt principle which they had espoused, That the law was given them for no end but that merely by their observance of it, and obedience to it, they might be justified before God: and so they could by no means be reconciled to the doctrine of Christ, which brought them off from that to expect justification through the merit and satisfaction of another. Christ himself is to some a stone of stumbling, for which he quotes Isa. viii. 14; xxviii. 16. It is sad that Christ should be set for the fall of any, and yet it is so (Luke ii. 34), that ever poison should be sucked out of the balm of Gilead, that the foundation-stone should be to any a stone of stumbling, and the rock of salvation a rock of offence; so he is to multitudes; so he was to the unbelieving Jews, who rejected him, because he put an end to the ceremonial law. But still there is a remnant that do believe on him; and they shall not be ashamed, that is, their hopes and expectations of justification by him shall not be disappointed, as theirs are who expect it by the law. So that, upon the whole, the unbelieving Jews have no reason to quarrel with God for rejecting them; they had a fair offer of righteousness, and life, and salvation, made to them upon gospel terms, which they did not like, and would not come up to; and therefore, if they perish, they may thank themselves—their blood is upon their own heads.

CHAP. IX. Verſe 1. I ſay the truth, &c.]

AS any one is more aſſured of his own ſalvation, the more he deſireth the ſalvation of others. Charity is no churl; as we ſee herein Paul.

Verſe 2. Continuall ſorrow] Such as a woman in travail hath. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. So Gal. 4 19.

Verſe 3. Were accurſed,] Devoted to deſtruction, as thoſe malefactours among the Heathens were, that in time of common calamity were ſacrificed to their infernall gods, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. for pacifying their diſpleaſure, that the plague might ceaſe. Out of greateſt zeal to God, and love to his countrey-men, the Apoſtle wiſheth himſelf Anathema, that is, not to be ſeparated from the Spirit and grace of Chriſt (for ſo he ſhould have ſinned) but from the comforts of Chriſt, the happineſſe that comes in by Chriſt, as one well interpreteth it.

Verſe 4. The adoption] For Iſrael was Gods firſt-born, and ſo higher then the Kings of the earth, Pſ. 89 27.

And the glory] The Ark of the Covenant, 1 Sam. 4.21. whence Judea is called the glorious land, Dan. 11.41.

The Covenants] The morall law in two tables.

The giving of the law] The judiciall law.

The ſervice] The ceremoniall law. [illegible: 1 word]

The promiſes] Of the Goſpel made to Abraham, and his ſeed for ever. Theſe promiſes are a precious book, every lear whereof drops myrth and mercy.

Verſe 5. Of whom is Christ] This is as great an honour to all mankinde (how much more to the Jews?) as if the King ſh[illegible: 1 letter]uld marry into ſome poor family of his Subjects.

Verſe 6. Not as though the word] That word of promiſe, v. 4. which is ſure-hold, Ye[illegible: 1 letter] and Amen.

For they are not all Iſrael] Multi ſacerdotes & panci ſacer dotes, ſaith Chryſostom, multi in nominc, & panci in opere. So here.

Verſe 7. Neither becauſe they are] This profiteth them no more then it did Dives, that Abraham called him Son.

Verſe 8. The children of the promiſe] Abraham by beleeving Gods promiſe, begat, after a ſort, all beleevers, yea Chriſt himſelf, the head of his ſeed, his Son according to the fleſh, but more according to the faith.

Verſe 9. At this time] See the Note on Gen. 18.10.

Verſe 10. But when Rebecca] She, and not Iſaac is named, becauſe ſhe received the Oracle; whether from the mouth of Melchiſedech, or ſome other way, I have not to determine.

Verſe 11. For the children, &c.] Here the Apoſtle wadeth into that profundum ſine fundo, Predeſtination.

Being not yet born] Sapores ſon of Miſdates, King of Perſia, began his raign before his life. For his father dying left his mother with childe, and the Perſian Nobility ſet the Crown on his mothers belly, acknowledging thereby her iſſue for their Prince, before ſhe as yet had felt her ſelf quick. God elects not of fore-ſeen faith or works, but of free-grace.

Verſe 12. Shall ſerve] Servitude came in with a curſe, and figureth reprobation, Gen. 9 25. Joh. 8 34 35. Gal. 4.30.

Verſe 13. Eſau have I hated] i. e. I have not loved him, but paſſed him by: and this praecerition is properly oppoſed to election.

Verſe 14. Is there] Carnall reaſon dares reprehend what it does not comprehend.

Verſe 15. Bonavent. in lib. 1. ſent. diſt. 41. [illegible: 1 letter] q. [illegible: 1 letter]. I will have mercy, &c.] Dei voluntas eſt ratio rationum, nec tantùm recta, ſed regula.

Verſe 16. So then it is not, &c.] Nec volentis, nec volantis (as a Noble-man gave it for his Motto) though a man could run as faſt as a bird can fire.

Verſe 17. Raiſed thee up] For a veſſel of wrath, and an inſtance of my juſtice.

Verſe 18. Therefore] God being a free agent, cannot be unjuſt: he is bound to none.

Verſe 19. Why doth he yet finde fault?] Queritur, ſaith the Vulgar: which interpretation cozened Aquinas, as if it had been written Quaeritur. So Luk. 15.8. Gregory the great and others, for Everrit, reade Evertit: which miſtake produced many groundleſſe gloſ[illegible: 1 letter]es.

Verſe 20. That repliest against God] Gr. That chatteſt and wordest it with him? [non-Latin text not transcribed].

Verſe 21. Of the ſame lump] The Apoſtle alludeth to mans creation, and therehence aſcendeth to Gods eternall decree of predeſtination.

Verſe 22. Fitted to deſtruction] Non dicit Deum eos aptaſſe ad interitum, ne videretur dicere Deum eis indidiſſe peccatum, quo ad exitium praeparentur. Molinaeus in Anat. Armin.

Verſe 23. And that he might] He rejected ſome, that his mercy might the more appear in the election of others.

Verſe 24. Even us] Not me Paul only hath he aſſured of vocation, and ſo conſequently of election to eternall life.

Verſe 25. And her beloved] Jer. 12.7. God cals the Church, the beloved of his ſoul, or (as the Septuagint and Vulgar reade it) his beloved ſoul. [non-Latin text not transcribed].

Verſe 26. The children, &c.] This is ſuch a royalty, John 1.12. as the Apoſtle worthily wondereth at, and ſets an Ecce upon it.

Verſe 27. Aremnant] Reſerved for royall uſe. Diaconos, paucitas honorabiles fecit, ſaith Hierom: Sic & ſanctos, ſay I.

Verſe 28. A ſhort work] When once he ſets to work to cut off hypocrites.

Verſe 29. Except the Lord of Sabaoth] That is, Of Hoſts. God is Commander in chief of all creatures. The Rabbins well obſerve that he hath Magnleh Cheloth, and Matteh Cheloth, Kim[illegible: 1 letter]b[illegible: 1 letter], two generall troops, as his horſe and foot, the upper and lower troops ready preſt.

Verſe 30. Which is of faith] Faith wraps it ſelf in the righteouſnes of Chriſt, and ſo juſtifieth us.

Verſe 31. The law of righteouſnes] That is, The righteouſnes of the law.

Verſe 32. For they ſtumbled] So they doe to this day. Jo. Fox Chriſt. Triumphans [illegible: 1 letter]piſt. So do Papiſts and carnall Proteſtants. Non fruſtrà Lutherus in libris totiès vaticinatus videtur, ſeſe vereri dictitans, ne ſe extincto verailla juſtificationis diſciplina prorſus apud Chriſtianos exoleſcat.

Verſe 33. See the Note on 1 Pet. 2.6.

I say the truth. In what I am about to affirm respecting my attachment to the nation and people.

In Christ. Most interpreters regard this as a form of an oath, as equivalent to calling Christ to witness. It is certainly to be regarded, in its obvious sense, as an appeal to Christ as the searcher of the heart, and as the judge of falsehood. Thus the word translated "in" (εν) is used in the form of an oath in Mt 5:34-36, Rev 10:6, Greek. We are to remember that the apostle was addressing those who had been Jews; and the expression has all the force of an oath by the Messiah. This shows that it is right, on great and solemn occasions, and in a solemn manner, AND THUS ONLY, to appeal to Christ for the sincerity of our motives, and for the truth of what we say. And it shows, further, that it is right to regard the Lord Jesus Christ as present with us, as searching the heart, as capable of detecting insincerity, hypocrisy, and perjury, and as therefore Divine.

My conscience. Conscience is that act of judgment of the mind by which we decide on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our actions, and by which we instantly approve or condemn them. It exists in every man, and is a strong witness to our integrity or to our guilt.

Bearing me witness. Testifying to the truth of what I say.

In the Holy Ghost. He does not say that he speaks the truth by or in the Holy Ghost, as he had said of Christ; but that the conscience pronounced its concurring testimony by the Holy Ghost; that is, conscience as enlightened and influenced by the Holy Ghost. It was not simply natural conscience, but it was conscience under the full influence of the Enlightener of the mind and Sanctifier of the heart. The reasons of this solemn asseveration are probably the following:

(1.) His conduct and his doctrines had led some to believe that he was an apostate, and had lost his love for his countrymen. He had forsaken their institutions, and devoted himself to the salvation of the Gentiles. He here shows them that it was from no want of love to them.

(2.) The doctrines which he was about to state and defend were of a similar character; he was about to maintain that no small part of his own countrymen, notwithstanding their privileges, would be rejected and lost. In this solemn manner, therefore, he assures them that this doctrine had not been embraced because: he did not love them, but because it was solemn, though most painful-truth. He proceeds to enumerate their privileges as a people, and to show to them the strength and tenderness of his love.

Great heaviness. Great grief.

Continual sorrow. The word rendered continual here must be taken in a popular sense. Not that he was literally all the time pressed down with this sorrow, but that whenever he thought on this subject he had great grief; as we say of a painful subject, it is a source of constant pain. The cause of this grief, Paul does not expressly mention, though it is implied in what he immediately says. It was the fact that so large a part of the nation would be rejected and cast off.

For I could wish, etc. This passage has been greatly controverted. Some have proposed to translate it, "I did wish," as referring to a former state, when he renounced Christ, and sought to advance the interests of the nation by opposing and defying him. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1.) The object of the apostle is not to state his former feelings, but his present attachment to his countrymen, and willingness to suffer for them.

(2.) The proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not I did wish, but I could desire; that is, if the thing were possible. It is not I do wish, or did wish, but I could desire, (ηυχομην) implying that he was willing now to endure it; that his present love for them was so strong, that he would, if practicable, save them from the threatened ruin and apostasy.

(3.) It is not true that Paul ever did wish before his conversion to be accursed by Christ, i.e. by the Messiah. He opposed Jesus of Nazareth; but he did not believe that he was the Messiah. At no time would he have wished to be devoted to destruction by the Messiah, or by Christ. Nothing would have been more terrible to a Jew; and Saul of Tarsus never doubted that he was the friend of the promised Messiah, and was advancing the true interests of his cause, and defending the hopes of his nation against an impostor. The word, therefore, expresses a feeling which the apostle had, when writing this epistle, in regard to the condition and prospects of the nation.

Were accursed from Christ. Might be anathema by Christ (αναθεμαειναιαποτουχριστου). This passage has been much controverted. The word rendered accursed (anathema) properly means,

(1.) anything that was set up, or set apart, or consecrated to the gods in the temples, as spoils of war, images, statues, etc. This is its classical Greek meaning. It has a similar meaning among the Hebrews. It denoted that which was set apart or consecrated to the service of God, as sacrifices or offerings of any kind. In this respect it is used to express the sense of the Hebrew word , anything devoted to Jehovah, without the possibility of redemption, Lev 27:21,28,29 Nu 18:14, De 7:26, Josh 6:17,18, 7:1, 1Sam 15:21, Eze 44:29.

(2.) As that which was thus dedicated to Jehovah was alienated from the use of him who devoted it, and was either burnt or slain, and devoted to destruction as an offering, the word came to signify a devotion of anything to destruction, or to complete ruin. And as whatever is devoted to destruction may be said to be subject to a curse, or to be accursed, the word comes to have this signification, 1Kgs 20:42; Isa 34:5. But in none of these cases does it denote eternal death. The idea, therefore, in these places is simply, "I could be willing to be destroyed, or devoted to death, for the sake of my countrymen." And the apostle evidently means to say that he would be willing to suffer the bitterest evils, to forego all pleasure, to endure any privation and toil, nay, to offer his life, so that he might be wholly devoted to sufferings, as an offering, if he might be the means of benefiting and saving the nation. For a similar case, see Ex 32:32. This does not mean that Paul would be willing to be damned for ever. For,

(1.) the words do not imply that, and will not bear it.

(2.) Such a destruction could in no conceivable way benefit the Jews.

(3.) Such a willingness is not and cannot be required. And,

(4.) it would be impious and absurd. No man has a right to be willing to be the eternal enemy of God; and no man ever yet was, or could be, willing to endure everlasting torments.

From Christ. By Christ. Grotius thinks it means from the church of Christ. Others think it means "after the example of Christ;" and others, from Christ for ever. But it evidently means that he was willing to be devoted by Christ; i.e. to be regarded by him, and appointed by him, to suffering and death, if by that means he could save his countrymen. It was thus the highest expression of true patriotism and benevolence. It was an example for all Christians and Christian ministers. They should be willing to be devoted to pain, privation, toil, and death, if by that they could save others from ruin.

My kinsmen, etc. My countrymen; all of whom he regarded as his kinsmen, or relations, as descended from the same ancestors.

According to the flesh. By birth. They were of the same blood and parentage, though not now of the same religious belief.

(w) "could wish" Ex 32:32 (1) "accursed" or, "separated"

Who are Israelites. Descended from Israel, or Jacob; honoured by having such an ancestor, and by bearing a name so distinguished as that of his descendants. It was formerly the honourable appellation of the people of God.

To whom pertaineth. To whom it belongs. It was their elevated external privilege.

The adoption. Of the nation into the family of God, or to be regarded as his peculiar people, De 7:6.

And the glory. The symbol of the Divine presence that attended them from Egypt, and that finally rested over the ark in the first temple --the Shekinah, Ex 13:21,22, 25:22.

And the covenants. The various compacts or promises which had been made from time to time with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and with the nation; the pledges of the Divine protection.

The giving of the law. On Mount Sinai, Ex 20:1. Comp. Ps 147:19.

And the service of God. The temple service; regarded by them as the pride and ornament of their nation.

And the promises. Of the Messiah; and of the spread of the true religion from them as a nation.

(x) "adoption" De 7:6 (y) "glory" Ps 90:16, Isa 60:19 (1) "covenants" or, "testaments" (z) "covenants" Gen 17:2, De 29:14, Jer 31:33 (a) "law" Ps 147:19, Rom 3:2 (b) "service of God" Ex 12:25 (c) "promises" Eph 2:12

Whose are the fathers. Who have been honoured with so illustrious an ancestry. Who are descended from Abraham, Isaac, etc. On this they highly valued themselves, and, in a certain sense, not unjustly. Comp. Mt 3:9.

Of whom. Of whose nation. 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. So far as his human nature was concerned. The use of this language supposes that there was a higher nature, in respect to which he was not of their nation. Rom 1:3.

Christ came. He had already come; and it was their high honour that he was one of their nation.

Who is over all. This is an appellation that belongs only to the true God. It implies supreme Divinity; and is full proof that the Messiah is Divine. Much effort has been made to show that this is not the true rendering, but without success. There are no various readings in the Greek MSS. of any consequence; and the connexion here evidently requires us to understand this of a nature that is not "according to the flesh," i.e., as the apostle here shows, of the Divine nature.

God blessed for ever. This is evidently applied to the Lord Jesus; and it proves that he is Divine. If the translation is fairly made,--and it has never been proved to be erroneous,--it demonstrates that he is God as well as man. The doxology "blessed for ever" was usually added by the Jewish writers after the mention of the name God, as an expression of reverence. (See the various interpretations that have been proposed on this passage examined in Prof Stuart's Notes on this verse.)

(d) "fathers" Rom 11:28 (e) "as concerning" Lk 3:23 (f) "is over all" Jn 1:1

Not as though, etc. Not as though the promise of God had entirely failed. Though I grieve thus, (Rom 9:2,3) though I am deeply apprehensive for the nation, yet I do not affirm that all the nation is to be destroyed. The promise of God will not entirely fail.

Not all Israel. Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term. Rom 2:28,29.

(g) "none effect" Isa 55:11 (h) "for they are not" Rom 2:28,29

Are they all children. Adopted into the true family of God. Many of the descendants of Abraham were rejected.

But in Isaac. This was the promise, Gen 21:12.

Shall thy seed, etc. Thy true people. This implied a selection, or choice; and, therefore, the doctrine of election was illustrated in the very commencement of the history of the nation; and as God had then made such a distinction, he might still do it. As he had then rejected a part of the natural descendants of Abraham, so he might, still do it. This is the argument which the apostle is pursuing.

(i) "In Isaac" Isa 55:11

They which are the children of the flesh. The natural descendants.

These are not the children of God. Are not of necessity the adopted children of God; or are not so in virtue of their descent merely. This was in opposition to one of the most settled and deeply-cherished opinions of the Jews. They supposed that the mere fact of being a Jew entitled a man to the blessings of the covenant, and to be regarded as a child of God. But the apostle shows them that it was not by their natural descent that these spiritual privileges were granted; that they were not conferred on men simply from the fact that they were Jews; and that consequently those who were not Jews might become interested in those spiritual blessings.

But the children of the promise. The descendants of Abraham on whom the promised blessings would be bestowed. The sense is, that God at first contemplated a distinction among the descendants of Abraham, and intended to confine his blessings to such as he chose; that is, to those to whom the promise particularly appertained, to the descendants of Isaac. The argument of the apostle is, that the principle was thus established that a distinction might be made among those who were Jews; and as that distinction had been made in former times, so it might be under the Messiah.

Are counted. Are regarded, or reckoned. God reckons things as they are; and therefore designed that they should be his true children.

As the seed. The spiritual children of God; the partakers of his mercy and salvation. This refers, doubtless, to spiritual privileges and to salvation; and therefore has relation not to nations as such, but to individuals.

(k) "children of the promise" Gal 4:28

For this is the word of promise. This is the promise made to Abraham. The design of the apostle, in introducing this, is doubtless to show to whom the promise appertained; and by specifying this, he shows that it had not reference to Ishmael, but to Isaac.

At this time. Greek, According to this time. See Gen 8:10,14. Probably it means at the exact time promised; I will fulfil the prediction at the very time. Comp. 2Kgs 4:16.

(l) "At this time" Gen 18:10,14

And not only this. Not only is the principle of making a distinction among the natural descendants of Abraham thus settled by the promise, but it is still further seen and illustrated in the birth of the two sons of Isaac. He had shown that the principle of thus making a distinction among the posterity of Abraham was recognized in the original promise, thus proving that all the descendants of Abraham were not of course to be saved; and he now proceeds to show that the principle was recognized in the case of his posterity in the family of Isaac. And he shows that it is not according to any natural principles that the selection was made; that he not only made a distinction between Jacob and Esau, but that he did it according to his good pleasure, choosing the younger to be the object of his favour, and rejecting the elder, who, according to the custom of the times, was supposed to be entitled to peculiar honour and rights. And, in order to prove that this was done according to his own pleasure, he shows that the distinction was made before they were born; before they had formed any character; and, consequently, in such a way that it could not be pretended that it was in consequence of any works which they had performed.

But when Rebecca. The wife of Isaac. See Gen 25:21,23.

(m) "Rebecca" Gen 25:21,23

For the children being not yet born. It was not, therefore, by any works of theirs. It was not because they had formed a character and manifested qualities which made this distinction proper. It was laid back of any such character, and therefore had its foundation in the purpose or plan of God.

Neither having done any good or evil. That is, when the declaration (Rom 9:12) was made to Rebecca. This is a very important passage in regard to the question about the purposes of God.

(1.) They had done nothing good or bad; and when that is the case, there can be, properly speaking, no moral character, for "a character is not formed when the person has not acquired stable and distinctive qualities." Webster.

(2.) That the period of moral agency had not yet commenced. Comp. Gen 25:22,23. When that agency commences we do not know; but here is a case of which it is affirmed that it had not commenced.

(3.) The purpose of God is antecedent to the formation of character, or the performance of any actions, good or bad.

(4.) It is not a purpose formed because he sees anything in the individuals as a ground for his choice, but for some reason which he has not explained, and which in the Scripture is simply called purpose, and good pleasure, Eph 1:5.

(5.) If it existed in this case, it does in others. If it was right then, it is now. And if God then dispensed his favours on this principle, he will now. But

(6) this affirmation respecting Jacob and Esau does not prove that they had not a nature inclined to evil; or a corrupt and sensual propensity; or that they would not sin as soon as they became moral agents. It proves merely that they had not yet committed actual sin. That they, as well as all others, would certainly sin as soon as they committed moral acts at all, is proved everywhere in the sacred Scriptures.

The purpose of God. Rom 8:28.

According to election. To dispense his favours according to his sovereign will and pleasure. Those favours were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals, but according to a wise plan lying back of the formation of their characters, and before they had done good or evil. The favours were thus conferred according to his choice, or election.

Might stand. Might be confirmed; or might be proved to be true. The case shows that God dispenses his favours as a sovereign. The purpose of God was thus proved to have been formed without respect to the merits of either.

Not of works. Not by anything which they had done either to merit his favour or to forfeit it. It was formed on other principles than a reference to their works. So it is in relation to all who shall be saved. God has good reasons for saving those who shall be saved. What the reasons are for choosing some to life he has not revealed; but he has revealed to us that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.

But of him that calleth. According to the will and purpose of him that chooses to dispense those favours in this manner. It is not by the merit of man, but it is by a purpose having its origin with God, and formed and executed according to his good pleasure. It is also implied here, that it is formed in such a way as to secure his glory as the primary consideration.

It was said unto her. By Jehovah. See Gen 25:23.

The elder. The eldest son, which was Esau. By the law of primogeniture among the Hebrews, he would have been entitled to peculiar honours and privileges. But it was said that in his case this custom should be reversed, and that he should take the rank of the younger.

Should serve. Shall be subject to; shall not have the authority and priority, but should be inferior to. The passage in Gen 25:23 shows that this had reference particularly to the posterity of Esau, and not to him as an individual. The sense is, that the descendants of Esau, who were Edomites, should be inferior to, and subject to the descendants of Jacob. Jacob was to have the priority; the promised land; the promises; and the honour of being regarded as the chosen of God. There was reference here, therefore, to the whole train of temporal and spiritual blessings which were to be connected with the two races of people. If it be asked how this bears on the argument of the apostle, we may reply,

(1.) that it settles the principle that God might make a distinction among men, in the same nation, and the same family, without reference to their works or character.

(2.) That he might confer his blessings on such as he pleased.

(3.) If this is done in regard to nations, it may be in regard to individuals. The principle is the same, and the justice the same. If it be supposed to be unjust in God to make such a distinction in regard to individuals, it is surely not less so to make a distinction in nations. The fact that numbers are thus favoured does not make it the more proper, or remove any difficulty.

(4.) If this distinction may be made in regard to temporal things, why not in regard to spiritual things? The principle must still be the same. If unjust in one case, it would be in the other. The fact that it is done in one case proves also that it will be in the other; for the same great principle will run through all the dealings of the Divine government. And as men do not and cannot complain that God makes a distinction among them in regard to talents, health, beauty, prosperity, and rank, neither can they complain if he acts also as a sovereign in the distribution of his spiritual favours. They, therefore, who regard this as referring only to temporal and national privileges, gain no relief in respect to the real difficulty in the case, for the unanswerable question would still be asked, why has not God made all men equal in everything? Why has he made any distinction among men? The only reply to all such inquiries is, "Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight," Mt 11:26.

(1) "elder" or, "greater" (2) "younger" or, "lesser"

As it is written. Mal 1:2,3. That is, the distribution of favours is on the principle advanced by the prophet, and is in accordance with the declaration that God had, in fact, loved the one and hated the other.

Jacob. This refers, doubtless, to the posterity of Jacob.

Have I loved. I have shown affection for that people; I have bestowed on them great privileges and blessings, as proofs of attachment. I have preferred Jacob to Esau.

Esau. The descendants of Esau, the Edomites. See Mal 1:4.

Have I hated. This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Mal 1:3, "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness," Comp. Jer 49:17,18, Eze 35:3. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms love and hatred in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely as a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection. Comp. Gen 29:30,31, Prov 13:24. "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Mt 6:24. "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc. Lk 14:26, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother," etc.

(n) "Jacob" Mal 1:2,3

What shall we say then? What conclusion shall we draw from these acknowledged facts, and from these positive declarations of Scripture?

Is there unrighteousness with God? Does God do injustice or wrong? This charge has often been brought against the doctrine here advanced. But this charge the apostle strongly repels. He meets it by further showing that it is the doctrine explicitly taught in the Old Testament, (Rom 9:15,17,) and that it is founded on the principles of equity, and on just views of the sovereignty of God, Rom 9:19-23.

God forbid. Rom 3:4.

(o) "unrighteousness" De 32:4

For he saith to Moses. Ex 33:19.

I will have mercy. This is said by God when he declared expressly that he would make all his goodness pass before Moses, (Ex 33:19) and when, therefore, it was regarded not as a proof of stern and inexorable justice, but as the very proof of his benevolence, and the highest which he thought proper to exhibit. When men, therefore, under the influence of an unrenewed and hostile heart, charge this as an unjust and arbitrary proceeding, they are resisting and perverting that which God regards as the very demonstration of his benevolence. The sense of the passage clearly is, that he would choose the objects of his favour, and bestow his mercies as he chose. None of the human race deserved his favour; and he had a right to pardon whom he pleased, and to save men on his own terms, and according to his sovereign will and pleasure.

On whom I will have mercy. On whom I choose to bestow mercy. The mode he does not explain. But there could not be a more positive declaration of these truths,

(1.) that he does it as a sovereign, without giving an account of the reason of his choice to any.

(2.) That he does it without regard to any claim on the part of man; or that man is regarded as destitute of merit, and as having no right to his mercy.

(3.) That he will do it to any extent which he pleases, and in whatever time and manner may best accord with his own good pleasure.

(4.) That he has regard to a definite number; and that on that number he intends to bestow eternal life; and,

(5.) that no one has a right to complain. It is proof of his benevolence that any are saved; and where none have a claim, where all are justly condemned, he has a right to pardon whom he pleases. The executive of a country may select any number of criminals whom he may see fit to pardon, or in consistency with the supremacy of the laws and the welfare of the community, and none has a right to murmur; but every good citizen should rejoice that any may be pardoned with safety. So in the moral world, and under the administration of its holy Sovereign, it should be a matter of joy that any can be pardoned and saved; and not a subject of murmuring and complaint that those who shall finally deserve to die shall be consigned to woe.

(p) "I will have mercy" Ex 33:19

So then. It follows as a consequence from this statement of God to Moses. Or, it is a doctrine established by that statement.

Not of him that willeth. This does not mean that he that becomes a Christian, and is saved, does not choose eternal life; or is not made willing; or that he is compelled to enter heaven against his own choice. It is true that men by nature have no desire of holiness, and do not choose eternal life. But the effect of the influences of God's Spirit on the heart is to make it "willing in the day of his power," Ps 110:3. The meaning here is, evidently, that eternal life is not bestowed because man had any original willingness or disposition to be saved; it is not because he commences the work, and is himself disposed to it; but it is because God inclines him to it, and disposes him to seek for mercy, and then confers it in his own way. The word willeth here denotes wish or desire.

Nor of him that runneth. This denotes strenuous, intense effort, as when a man is anxious to obtain an object, or hastens from danger. The meaning is not that the sinner does not make an effort to be saved; nor that all who become Christians do not in fact strive to enter into the kingdom, or earnestly desire salvation; for the Scriptures teach the contrary, Lk 16:16; 13:24. There is no effort more intense and persevering, no struggle more arduous or agonizing, than when a sinner seeks eternal life. Nor does it mean that they who strive in a proper way, and with proper effort, shall not obtain eternal life, Mt 7:7. But the sense is,

(1.) that the sinner would not put forth any effort himself. If left to his own course he would never seek to be saved.

(2.) That he is pardoned, not on account of his effort; not because he makes an exertion; but because God chooses to pardon him. There is no merit in his anxiety, and prayers, and agony, on account of which God would forgive him; but he is still dependent on the mere mercy of God to save or destroy him at his will. The sinner, however anxious he may be, and however much or long he may strive, does not bring God under an obligation to pardon him, anymore than the condemned criminal, trembling with the fear of execution, and the consciousness of crime, lays the judge or the jury under an obligation to acquit him. This fact it is of great importance for an awakened sinner to know. Deeply anxious he should be, but there is no merit in his distress. Pray he should, but there is no merit in his prayers. Weep and strive he may, but in this there is no ground of claim on God for pardon; and, after all, he is dependent on his mere sovereign mercy, as a lost, ruined, and helpless sinner, to be saved or lost at his will.

But of God that sheweth mercy. Salvation, in its beginning, its progress, and its close, is of him. He has a right, therefore, to bestow it when and where he pleases. All our mercies flow from his mere love and compassion, and not from our deserts. The essential idea here is, that God is the original fountain of all the blessings of salvation.

For the Scripture saith. Ex 9:16. That is, God saith to Pharaoh in the Scriptures, Gal 3:8,22. This passage is designed to illustrate the doctrine that God shows mercy according to his sovereign pleasure by a reference to one of the most extraordinary cases of hardness of heart which has ever occurred. The design is to show that God has a right to pass by those to whom he does not choose to show mercy; and to place them in circumstances where they shall develop their true character, and where in fact they shall become more hardened and be destroyed, Rom 9:18.

Unto Pharaoh. The haughty and oppressive king of Egypt: thus showing that the most mighty and wicked monarchs are at his control. Comp. Isa 10:5-7.

For this same purpose, for the design, or with the intent that is immediately specified. This was the leading purpose or design of his sustaining him.

Have I raised thee up. Margin, in Ex 9:16, "made thee stand," i.e. sustained thee. The Greek word used by the apostle (εξηγειρα) means, properly, I have excited, roused, or stirred thee up; but it may also have the meaning, "I have sustained or supported thee." That is, I have kept thee from death; I have preserved thee from ruin; I have ministered strength to thee, so that thy full character has been developed. It does not mean that God had infused into his mind any positive evil, or that by any direct influence he had excited any evil feelings, but that he had kept him in circumstances which were fitted to develop his true character. The meaning of the word and the truth of the case may be expressed in the following particulars:

(1.) God meant to accomplish some great purposes by his existence and conduct.

(2.) He kept him, or sustained him, with reference to that.

(3.) He had control over the haughty and wicked monarch. He could take his life, or he could continue him on earth. As he had control over all things that could affect the pride, the feelings, and the happiness of the monarch, so he had control over the monarch himself.

(4.) He placed him in circumstances just fitted to develop his character. He kept him amidst those circumstances until his character was fully developed.

(5.) He did not exert a positive influence on the mind of Pharaoh; for,

(6.) in all this the monarch acted freely. He did that which he chose to do. He pursued his own course. He was voluntary in his schemes of oppressing the Israelites. He was voluntary in his opposition to God. He was voluntary when he pursued the Israelites to the Red Sea. In all his doings he acted as he chose to do, and with a determined choice of evil, from which neither warning nor judgment would turn him away. Thus he is said to have hardened his own heart, Ex 8:15.

(7.) Neither Pharaoh nor any sinner can justly blame God for placing them in circumstances where they shall develop their own character, and show what they are. It is not the fault of God, but their own fault. The sinner is not compelled to sin; nor is God under obligation to save him contrary to the prevalent desires and wishes of the sinner himself.

My power in thee. Or, by means of thee, By the judgments exerted in delivering an entire oppressed people from thy grasp. God's most signal acts of power were thus shown in consequence of his disobedience and rebellion.

My name. The name of Jehovah, as the only true God, and the deliverer of his people.

Throughout all the earth. Or throughout all the land of Egypt. Lk 2:1. We may learn here,

(1.) that a leading design of God in the government of the world is to make his power, and name, and character known.

(2.) That this is often accomplished in a most signal manner by the destruction of the wicked.

(3.) That wicked men should be alarmed, since their arm cannot contend with God, and since his enemies shah be destroyed.

(4.) It is right that the incorrigibly wicked should be cut off. When a man's character is fully developed; when he is fairly tried; when, in all circumstances, he has shown that he will not obey God, neither justice nor mercy hinders the Almighty from cutting him down, and consigning him to death.

(q) "saith unto Pharaoh" Ex 9:16

Therefore hath he mercy, etc. This is a conclusion stated by the apostle as the result of all the argument.

Whom he will he hardeneth. This is not stated in what the Scripture said to Pharaoh, but is a conclusion to which the apostle had arrived, in view of the case of Pharaoh. The word hardeneth means only to harden in the manner specified in the case of Pharaoh. It does not mean to exert a positive influence, but to leave a sinner to his own course, and to place him in circumstances where the character will be more and more developed. Jn 12:40. It implies, however, an act of sovereignty on the part of God in thus leaving him to his chosen Course, and in not putting forth that influence by which he could be saved from death. Why this is, the apostle does not state. We should, however, not dispute a fact everywhere prevalent; and should have sufficient confidence in God to believe that it is in accordance with infinite wisdom and rectitude.

Thou wilt say then unto me. The apostle here refers to an objection that might be made to his argument. If the position which he had been endeavouring to establish were true; if God had a purpose in all his dealings with men: if all the revolutions among men happened according to his decree, so that he was not disappointed, or his plan frustrated; and if his own glory was secured in all this, why could he blame men?

Why doth he yet find fault? Why does he blame men, since their conduct is in accordance with his purpose, and since he bestows mercy according to his sovereign will? This objection has been made by sinners in all ages. It is the standing objection against the doctrines of grace. The objection is founded,

(1.) on the difficulty of reconciling the purposes of God with the free agency of man.

(2.) It assumes, what cannot be proved, that a plan or purpose of God must destroy the freedom of man.

(3.) It is said that if the plan of God is accomplished, then that which is best to be done is done, and, of course, man cannot be blamed. These objections are met by the apostle in the following argument.

Who hath resisted his will? That is, who has successfully opposed his will, or frustrated his plan? The word translated resist is commonly used to denote the resistance offered by soldiers or armed men. Thus, Eph 5:13, "Take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand (resist, or successfully oppose) in the evil day." See Lk 21:15, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist." See also Acts 6:10, 13:8, "But Elymas-- withstood them," etc. The same Greek word, Rom 13:2, Gal 2:11. This does not mean that no one has offered resistance or opposition to God, but that no one had done it successfully. God had accomplished his purposes in spite of their opposition. This was an established point in the sacred writings, and one of the admitted doctrines of the Jews. To establish it had even been a part of the apostle's design; and the difficulty now was to see how, this being admitted, men could be held chargeable with crime. That it was the doctrine of the Scriptures, see 2Chr 20:6, "In thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee? Dan 4:35, "He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" See also the case of Joseph and his brethren, Gen 1:20, "As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good."

(r) "who hath resisted his will" 2Chr 20:6, Dan 4:35

Nay but, O man, etc. To this objection the apostle replies in two ways; first, by asserting the sovereignty of God, and affirming that he had a right to do it, (Rom 9:20,21) and, secondly, by showing that he did it according to the principles of justice and mercy, or that it was involved of necessity in his dispensing justice and mercy to mankind, Rom 9:22-24.

Who art thou, etc. Paul here strongly reproves the impiety and wickedness of arraigning God. This impiety appears,

(1.) because man is a creature of God, and it is improper that he should arraign his Maker.

(2.) He is unqualified to understand the subject. "Who art thou ?" What qualifications has a creature of a day,--a being just in the infancy of his existence; of so limited faculties; so perverse, blinded, and interested as man--to sit in judgment on the doings of the Infinite Mind? Who gave him the authority, or invested him with the prerogatives of a judge over his Maker's doings?

(3.) Even if man were qualified to investigate those subjects, what right has he to reply against God, to arraign him, or to follow out a train of argument tending to involve his Creator in shame and disgrace? Nowhere is there to be found a more cutting or humbling reply to the pride of man than this. And on no subject was it more needed. The experience of every age has shown that this has been a prominent topic of objection against the government of God; and that there has been no point in the Christian theology to which the human heart has been so ready to make objections as to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

Repliest against God. Margin, "Answerest again; or, disputest with God." The passage conveys the idea of answering again; or of arguing to the dishonour of God. It implies, that when God declares his will, man should be still. God has his own plans of infinite wisdom, and it is not ours to reply against him, or to arraign him of injustice, when we cannot see the reason of his doings.

Shall the thing formed, etc. This sentiment is found in Isa 29:16. See also Isa 45:9. It was peculiarly proper to adduce this to a Jew. The objection is one which is supposed to be made by a Jew, and it was proper to reply to him by a quotation from his own Scriptures. Any being has a right to fashion his work according to his own views of what is best; and as this right is not denied to men, we ought not to blame the infinitely wise God for acting in a similar way. They who have received every blessing they enjoy from him, ought not to blame him for not making them different.

(1) "repliest" or, "answerest again" or, "disputest with God." (s) "shall the thing formed" Isa 29:16.

Hath not the potter, etc. This same sovereign right of God the apostle proceeds to urge from another illustration, and another passage from the Old Testament, Isa 64:8, "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." This passage is preceded in Isaiah by one declaring the depravity of man. Isa 64:6, "We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." As they were polluted with sin, as they had transgressed the law of God, and had no claim and no merit, God might bestow his favours as he pleased, and mould them as the potter did the clay. He would do no injury to those who were left, and who had no claim to his mercy, if he bestowed favours on others, any more than the potter would do injustice to one part of the mass, if he put it to an ignoble use, and moulded another part into a vessel of honour. This is still the condition of sinful men. God does no injustice to a man if he leaves him to take his own course to ruin, and makes another, equally undeserving, the recipient of his mercy, he violated none of my rights by not conferring on me the talents of Newton or of Bacon; or by not placing me in circumstances like those of Peter and Paul. Where all are undeserving, the utmost that can be demanded is, that he should not treat them with injustice. And this is secured even in the case of the lost. No man will suffer more than he deserves; nor will any man go to perdition feeling that he has a claim to better treatment than he receives. The same sentiment is found in Jer 18:6, "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation," etc. The passage in Isaiah proves that God has the right of a sovereign over guilty individuals; that in Jeremiah, that he has the same right over nations: thus meeting the whole case as it was in the mind of the apostle. These passages, however, assert only the right of God to do it, without affirming anything about the manner in which it is done, In fact, God bestows his favours in a mode very different from that in which a potter moulds his clay. God does not create holiness by a mere act of power, but he produces it in a manner consistent with the moral agency of men; and bestows his favours not to compel men, but to incline them to be willing to receive them. Ps 110:3, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." It should be further remarked, that the argument of the apostle here does not refer to the original creation of men, as if God had then made them one for honour and another for dishonour, he refers to man as fallen and lost. His argument is this: "Man is in ruins; he is fallen; he has no claim on God; all deserve to die. On this mass, where none have any claim, he may bestow life on whom he pleases, without injury to others; he may exercise the right of a sovereign to pardon whom he pleases; or of a potter to mould any part of the useless mass to purposes of utility and beauty."

Potter. One whose occupation it is to make earthen vessels.

Power. This word denotes here not merely physical power, but authority, right. See Mt 7:29, translated "authority;" Mt 21:23, 2Thes 3:9, Mk 2:10, Lk 5:24, "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," etc.

Lump. Mass. It denotes anything that is reduced to a fine consistency, and mixed, and made soft by water; either clay, as in this place, or the mass produced of grain pounded and mixed with water. Rom 11:16, "If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy." 1Cor 5:6, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"

One vessel. A cup, or other utensil, made of clay.

Unto honour. Fitted to an honourable use, or designed for a more useful and refined purpose.

Unto dishonour. To a meaner service, or more common use. This is a common mode of expression among the Hebrews. The lump here denotes the mass of men, sinners, having no claim on God. The potter illustrates God's right over that mass, to dispose of it as seems good in his sight. The doctrine of the passage is, that men have no right to complain if God bestows his blessings where and when he chooses.

What if God, etc. If God does what the apostle supposes, what then? Is it not right? This is the second point in the answer to the objection in Romm 9:19. The answer has respect to the two classes of men which actually exist on the earth--the righteous and the wicked. And the question is, whether in regard to these two classes God does In Fact do wrong? If he does not, then the doctrine of the apostle is established, and the objection is not valid. It is assumed here, as it must be, that the world is in fact divided into two classes--saints and sinners. The apostle considers the case of sinners in Rom 9:22.

Willing. Being disposed; having an inclination to. It denotes an inclination of mind towards the thing proposed. If the thing itself was right; if it was proper to "show his wrath," then it was proper to be WILLING to do it. If it is right to do a thing, it is right to purpose or intend to do it.

His wrath, (τηνοργην) This word occurs thirty-five times in the New Testament. Its meaning is derived from the idea of earnestly desiring or reaching for an object, and properly denotes, in its general sense, a vehement desire of attaining anything. Hence it comes to denote an earnest desire of revenge, or of inflicting suffering on those who have injured us, Eph 4:31, "Let all bitterness and wrath," etc.; Col 3:8, 1Timm 2:8. Hence it denotes indignation in general, which is not joined with a desire of revenge, Mk 3:5, "He looked round about on them with anger." It also denotes punishment for sin--the anger or displeasure of God against transgression. Rom 1:18; Lk 3:7; Lk 21:23, etc. In this place it is evidently used to denote severe displeasure against sin. As sin is an evil of so great magnitude, it is right for God to be willing to evince his displeasure against it; and just in proportion to the extent of the evil. This displeasure, or wrath, it is proper that God should always be willing to show; nay, it would not be right for him not to show it, for that would be the same thing as to be indifferent to it, or to approve it. In this place, however, it is not affirmed,

(1.) that God has any pleasure in sin, or its punishment; nor

(2.) that he exerted any agency to compel man to sin. It affirms only that God is willing to show his hatred of incorrigible and long-continued wickedness when it actually exists.

To make his power known. This language is the same as that which was used in relation to Pharaoh, ro 9:17; Ex 9:16. But it is not probable that the apostle intended to confine it to the Egyptians only. In the following verse he speaks of "the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory;" which cannot be supposed to be language adapted to the temporal deliverance of the Jews. The case of Pharaoh was one instance, or illustration, of the general principle on which God would deal with men. His government is conducted on great and uniform principles; and the case of Pharaoh was a development of the great laws on which he governs the universe.

Endured. Bore with; was patient, or forbearing, Rev 2:3, "And hast borne, and hast patience," etc. 1Cor 13:7, "Charity (love) beareth all things." Lk 18:7

"Shall not God avenge his own elect, though he bear long with them?"

With much long-suffering. With much patience. He suffered them to live, while they deserved to die. God bears with all sinners with much patience; he spares them amid all their provocations, to give them opportunity of repentance; and though they are fitted for destruction, yet he prolongs their lives, and offers them pardon, and loads them with benefits. This fact is a complete vindication of the government of God from the aspersions of all his enemies.

Vessels of wrath. The word vessel means a cup, etc., made of earth. As the human body is frail, easily broken and destroyed, it comes to signify also the body. 2Cor 4:7: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels." 1Thes 4:4, "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour" that every one should keep his body from the indulgence of unlawful passions. Comp. Rom 9:3. Hence also it means the man himself. Acts 9:15, "He is a chosen vessel unto me," etc. Comp. Isa 13:3. In this place there is, doubtless, allusion to what he had just said of clay in the hands of the potter. The phrase "vessels of wrath" denotes wicked men against whom it is fit or proper that wrath should be shown; as Judas is called "the son of perdition." Jn 17:12. This does not mean that men by their very creation, or their physical nature, are thus denominated; but men who, from long continuance in iniquity, deserve to experience wrath; as Judas was not called "son of perdition" by any arbitrary appointment, or as an original designation, but because, in consequence of his avarice and treason, this was the name which in fact actually described him, or fitted his case.

Fitted, (κατηρτισμενα). This word properly means to restore; to place in order; to render complete; to supply a defect; to fit to, or adapt to, or prepare for. See Mt 4:21, "Were mending theft nets." Gal 6:1, "Restore such an one," etc. In this place it is a participle, and means those who are fitted for or adapted to destruction--those whose characters are such as to deserve destruction, or as to make destruction proper. See the same use of the word in Heb 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed"---beautifully fitted up in proper proportions, one part adapted to another--" by the word of God." Heb 10:5, "A body hast thou prepared for me;" fitted, or adapted to me. Comp. Ps 68:10, 74:16. In this place there is not the semblance of a declaration that God had PREPARED them, or FITTED them for destruction. It is a simple declaration that they were IN FACT fitted for it, without making an affirmation about the manner in which they became so. A reader of the English Bible may, perhaps, sometimes draw the impression that God had fitted them for this. But this is not affirmed; and there is an evident design in not affirming it, and a distinction made between them and the vessels of mercy which ought to be regarded. In relation to the latter it is expressly affirmed that God fitted or prepared them for glory. See Rom 9:23, "Which HE had afore prepared unto glory." The same distinction is remarkably striking in the account of the last judgment in Mt 25:34-41. To the righteous, Christ will say, "Come, ye blessed of my rather, inherit the kingdom prepared FOR YOU," etc. To the wicked, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS;" not said to have been originally prepared for them. It is clear, therefore, that God intends to keep the great truth in view, that he prepares his people by direct agency for heaven; but that he exerts no such agency in preparing the wicked for destruction.

For destruction, (ειςαπωλειαν). This word occurs in the New Testament no less than twenty times. Mt 7:13, "Which leadeth to destruction." Jn 17:12, "Son of perdition." Acts 8:20, "Thy money perish with thee;" Greek, be for destruction with thee; Acts 25:16. Php 1:28, "Token of perdition;" Php 3:19, "Whose end is destruction:" 2Thes 2:3, "The son of perdition." 1Timm 6:9, "Which drown men in destruction and perdition." Heb 10:39, "Who draw back unto perdition." See also 2Pet 2:1,3, 3:7,16, etc. In these places it is clear that the reference is to the future punishment of wicked men, and in no instance to national calamities. No such use of the word is to be found in the New Testament; and this is further clear from the contrast with the word "glory" in the next verse. We may remark here, that if men are fitted or prepared for destruction; if future torment is adapted to them, and they to it; if it is fit that they should be subjected to it; then God will do what is fit or right to be done, and, unless they repent, they must perish. Nor would it be right for God to take them to heaven as they are; to a place for which they are not fitted, and which is not adapted to their feelings, their character, or their conduct.

(u) "if God" Prov 16:4 (v) "vessels of wrath" 2Ti 2:20 (1) "fitted to destruction" or, "made up"

And that he might make known. That he might manifest or display. The apostle had shown (Rom 9:22) that the dealings of God towards the wicked were not liable to the objection made in Rom 9:19. In this verse he proceeds to show that the objection could not lie against his dealings with the other class of men--the righteous. If his dealings towards neither were liable to the objection, then he has met the whole case, and the Divine government is vindicated. This he proves by showing that for God to show the riches of his glory towards those whom he has prepared for it cannot be regarded as unjust.

The riches of his glory. This is a form of expression common among the Hebrews, meaning the same as his rich or his abundant glory. The same expression occurs in Eph 1:18.

On the vessels of mercy. Men towards whom his mercy was to be displayed, (Rom 9:22) that is, on those towards whom he has purposed to display his mercy.

Mercy. Favour, or pity shown to the miserable. Grace is favour to the undeserving; mercy, favour to those in distress. This distinction is not, however, always strictly observed by the sacred writers.

Which he had afore prepared. We are here brought to a remarkable difference between God's mode of dealing with them and with the wicked. Here it is expressly affirmed that God himself had prepared them for glory. In regard to the wicked, it is simply affirmed that they were fitted for destruction, without affirming anything of the agency by which it was done. That God prepares his people for glory--commences and continues the work of their redemption-- is abundantly taught in the Scriptures, 1Thes 5:9, "God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." 2Ti 1:9, "Who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." See also Eph 1:4,5,11, Rom 8:28,29,30; Acts 13:48; Jn 1:13. As the renewing of the heart and the sanctifying of the soul is an act of goodness, it is worthy of God, and of course no objection could lie against it. No man could complain of a course of dealings designed to make men better; and as this is the sole design of the electing love of God, his dealings with this class of men are easily vindicated. No Christian can complain that God has chosen him, renewed him, and made him pure and happy. And as this was an important part of the plan of God, it is easily defended from the objection in Rom 9:19.

Unto glory. To happiness; and especially to the happiness of heaven. Heb 2:10, "It became him, in bringing many sons unto glory," etc. Rom 5:2, "We rejoice in hope of the glory of God." 2Cor 4:17, "Our light affliction worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." 2Thes 2:14, 2Ti 2:10, 1Pet 5:4. This eternal state is called "glory," because it blends together everything that constitutes honour, dignity, purity, love, and happiness. All these significations are in various places attached to this word, and all mingle in the eternal state of the righteous. We may remark here,

(1.) that this word "glory" is not used in the Scriptures to denote any external national privileges; or to describe any external call of the gospel. No such instance is to be found. Of course the apostle here, by vessels of mercy, meant individuals destined to eternal life, and not nations externally called to the gospel. No instance can be found where God speaks of nations called to external privileges, and speaks of them as "prepared unto glory."

(2.) As this word refers to the future state of individuals, it shows what is meant by the word "destruction" in Rom 9:22. That term stands contrasted with glory; and describes, therefore, the future condition of individual wicked men. This is also its uniform meaning in the New Testament. On this vindication of the apostle we may observe, (1.) that all men will be treated as they ought to be treated. Men will be dealt with according to their characters at the end of life.

(2.) If men will suffer no injustice, then this is the same as saying that they will be treated justly; But what is this? That the wicked shall be treated as they deserve. What they deserve God has told us in the Scriptures: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment."

(3.) God has a right to bestow his blessings as he chooses. Where all are undeserving, where none have any claim, he may confer his favours on whom he pleases.

(4.) He actually does deal with men in this way. The apostle takes this for granted. He does not deny it, He most evidently believes it, and labours to show that it is right to do so. If he did not believe it, and meant to teach it, he would have said so. It would have met the objection at once, and saved all argument. He reasons as if he did believe it; and this settles the question that the doctrine is true. (w) "riches of his glory" Eph 1:18 (x) "which he had afore" 1Thes 5:9

Even us, etc. See Rom 1:16, 2:10, 3:29,30. To prove that the Gentiles might be called as well as the Jews, was a leading design of the epistle.

Us. Christians, selected from both Jews and Gentiles. This proves that he did not refer to nations primarily, but to individuals chosen out of nations. Two things are established here.

(1.) That the grace of God was not confined to the Jewish people, as they supposed, so that it could be conferred on no others.

(2.) That God was not bound to confer grace on all the descendants of Abraham, as he bestowed it on those selected from the mass, according to his own will, and not of necessity on the mass itself.

As he saith also. The doctrine which he had established he proceeds now to confirm by quotations from the writings of Jews, that he might remove every objection. The doctrine was,

(1.) that God intended to call his people from the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

(2.) That he was bound by no promise and no principle of obligation to bestow salvation on all the Jews.

(3.) That therefore it was right for him to reject any or all of the Jews, if he chose, and cut them off from their privileges as a people, and from salvation.

In Osee. This is the Greek form of writing the Hebrew word Hosea. It means in the book of Hosea, as in David means in the book of David, or by David, Heb 4:7. The passage is found in Hoss 2:23. This quotation is not made according to the letter, but the sense of the prophet is preserved. The meaning is the same in Hosea and in this place, that God would bring those into a covenant relation to himself, who were before deemed outcasts and strangers. Thus he supports his main position that God would choose his people from among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, or would exercise towards both his right as a sovereign, bestowing or withholding his blessings as he pleases.

(y) "Osee" Hoss 2:23

And it shall come to pass. It shall happen, or take place. This is a continuation of the quotation from the prophet Hosea, (Rom 1:10) designed to confirm the doctrine which he was establishing. Both these quotations have the same design, and are introduced for the same end. In Hosea they did not refer to the calling Of the Gentiles, but to the recalling the rejected Jews. God says, after the Jews had been rejected and scattered for their idolatry; after they had forfeited his favour, and been cast off as if they were not his people, he would recall them, and bestow them again the appellation of sons. The apostle does not quote this as having original reference to the Gentiles, but for the following purposes:--

(1.) If God formerly purposed to recall to himself a people whom he had rejected; if he bestowed favours on his own people after they had forfeited his favour, and ceased to be entitled to the name of "his people " then the same thing was not to be regarded as absurd if he dealt in a similar manner with the Gentiles, also a part of his original great family--the family of man--but long since rejected and deemed strangers.

(2.) The dealings of God towards the Jews in the time of Hosea settled a general principle of government. His treatment of them in this manner was a part of his great plan of governing the world. On the same plan he now admitted the Gentiles to favour. And as this general principle was established; as the history of the Jews themselves was a precedent in the case, it ought not to be objected in the time of Paul that the same principle should be carried out to meet the case also of the Gentiles.

In the place. The place where they may be scattered, or where they may dwell. Or rather, perhaps, in those nations which were not regarded as the people of God, there shall be a people to whom this shall apply.

Where it was said unto them. Where the proper appellation of the people was, that they were not the people of God; where they were idolatrous, sinful, aliens, strangers; so that they had none of the marks of the children of God.

Ye are not my people. People in covenant with God; under his protection, as their Sovereign, and keeping his laws.

There shall they be called. That is, there they shall be. The verb to call, in the Hebrew writings, means often the same as to be. It denotes that this shall be the appellation which properly expresses their character. It is a figure perhaps almost peculiar to the Hebrews; and it gives additional interest to the case. Instead of saying coldly and abstractedly, "they are such," it introduces also the idea that such is the favourable judgment of God in the case. See Mt 5:9, "Peacemakers--shall be called the children of God." Mt 5:9; also Rom 9:19, Mt 21:13, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." Mk 11:17, Lk 1:32, 35, 76, Isa 56:7.

The children of, etc. Greek, Sons. Mt 1:1.

Living God. Called living God in opposition to dead idols. Mt 16:16 also Mt 26:63; Jn 6:69, Acts 14:15; 1Thes 1:9, "Turn from idols to serve the living and true God " Jer 10:10. This is a most honourable and distinguished appellation. No higher favour 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. This was an object of the highest desire with the saints of old. See Ps 42:2, 84:2, "My soul thirsteth for God, the living God;" "My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God."

(z) "it shall come" Hoss 1:10

Esias. The Greek way of writing the word Isaiah.

Crieth. Isa 10:22,23. Exclaims, or speaks aloud or openly. Comp. Jn 1:15. Isaiah brings forth the doctrine fully, and without any concealment or disguise. This doctrine related to the rejection of the Jews; a far more difficult point to establish than was that of the calling of the Gentiles. It was needful, therefore to fortify it by some explicit passage of the Scriptures.

Concerning Israel. Concerning the Jews. It is probable that Isaiah had reference primarily to the Jews of his own time; to that wicked generation that God was about to punish, by sending them captive into other lands. The case was one, however, which settled a general principle of the Jewish government; and therefore it was applicable to the case before the apostle. If the thing for which he was contending--that the Jews might be rejected---existed in the time of Isaiah, and was settled then as a precedent, it might exist also in his time and under the gospel.

As the sand of the sea. This expression is used to denote an indefinite or an innumerable multitude. It often occurs in the sacred writings. In the infancy of society, before the art of numbering was carried to a great extent, men were obliged to express themselves very much in this manner. Gen 22:17, "I will multiply thy seed--as the sand which is upon the sea-shore;" Gen 32:12.- Isaiah doubtless had reference to this promise: "Though all that was promised to Abraham shall be fulfilled, and his seed shall be as numerous as God declared, yet a remnant only," etc. The apostle thus shows that his doctrine does not conflict at all with the utmost expectation of the Jews drawn from the promises of God. See a similar use of the term sand in Jud 7:12, 1Sam 13:5, 2Sam 17:11, etc. In the same manner great numbers were denoted by the stars of heaven, Gen 22:17, 15:5.

A remnant shall be saved. Meaning a remnant only. This implies that great multitudes of them would be cast off, and be not saved. If only a remnant was to be saved, many must be lost; and this was just the point which the apostle was endeavouring to establish. The word remnant means that which is left, particularly what may remain after a battle or a great calamity, 2Kgs 19:31, 10:11, Jud 5:13 Isa 14:22. In this place, however, it means a small part or portion. Out of the great multitude there shall be so few left as to make it proper to say that it was a mere remnant. This implies, of course, that the great mass should be cast away or rejected. And this was the use which the apostle intended to make of it. Comp. the Wisdom of Sirach xliv. 17, "Noah--was left unto the earth as a remnant when the flood came."

Shall be saved. Shall be preserved, or kept from destruction. As Isaiah had reference to the captivity of Babylon, this means that only a remnant should return to their native land. The great mass should be rejected and cast off. This was the case with the ten tribes, and also with many others who chose to remain in the land of their captivity. The use which the apostle makes of it is this: In the history of the Jews, by the testimony of Isaiah, a large part of the Jews of that time were rejected, and cast off from being the peculiar people of God. It is clear, therefore, that God has brought himself under no obligation to save all the descendants of Abraham. This case settles the principle. If God did it then, it was equally consistent for him to do it in the time of Paul, under the gospel. The conclusion, therefore, to which the apostle came, that it was the intention of God to reject and cast off the Jews as a people, was in strict accordance with their own history and the prophecies. It was still true that a remnant was to be saved, while the great mass of the people was rejected. The apostle is not to be understood here as affirming that the passage in Isaiah had reference to the gospel, but only that it settled one great principle of the Divine administration in regard to the Jews, and that their rejection under the gospel was strictly in accordance with that principle.

(a) "Esias also crieth" Isa 10:22,23

He will finish the work. This is taken from the Septuagint translation of Isa 10:23. The Hebrew is, "The Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land." Or, as it may be rendered, "Destruction is decreed which shall make justice overflow; yea, destruction is verily determined on; the Lord Jehovah will execute it in the midst of all the land." (Stuart.) The Septuagint and the apostle adhere to the sense of the passage, but do not follow the words. The phrase, will finish the work, means, he will bring the thing to an end, or will accomplish it. It is an expression applicable to a firm purpose to accomplish an object. It refers here to his threat of cutting off the people; and means that he will fulfil it.

Cut it short. This word here means to execute it speedily. The destruction shall not be delayed.

In righteousness. So as to manifest his own justice. The work, though apparently severe, yet shall be a just expression of God's abhorrence of the sins of the people.

Because a short work. The word here rendered "short" means, properly, that which is determined on or decreed. This is the sense of the Hebrew; and the phrase here denotes the purpose which was determined on in relation to the Jews.

Upon the earth. Upon the land of Israel. Mt 5:5; Mt 4:8. The design for which the apostle introduces this passage is to show that God of old destroyed many of the Jews for their sin; and that, therefore, the doctrine of the apostle was no new thing, that the Jews might be excluded from the peculiar privileges of the children of God.

(1) "the work" or, "the account" (a) "because a short work" Isa 28:22

And as Esaias said. Isa 1:9.

Before. The apostle had just cited one prediction from the tenth chapter of Isaiah. He now says that Isaiah had affirmed the same thing in a previous part of his prophecy.

Except the Lord of Sabaoth. In Isaiah, the Lord of Hosts. The word Sabaoth is the Hebrew word rendered hosts. It properly denotes armies or military hosts organized for war. Hence it denotes the hosts of heaven, and means

(1.) the angels, who are represented as marshalled or arranged into military orders, Eph 1:21, 3:10, 6:12, Col 1:16, 2:15, Jude 1:6 1Kgs 22:19, "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him" Ps 103:21, 148:2.

(2.) The stars, Jer 33:22, "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered," etc.; Isa 40:26, De 4:19, etc. God is called the Lord of hosts, as being at the head of all these armies; their King and their Commander. It is a phrase properly expressive of his majesty and power, and is appropriately introduced here, as the act of saving "the seed" was a signal act of power in the midst of great surrounding wickedness.

Had left. Had preserved, or kept from destruction. Here their preservation is ascribed to God, and it is affirmed that if God had not interposed, the whole nation would have been cut off. This fully establishes the doctrine of the apostle, that God might cast off the Jews, and extend the blessings to the Gentiles.

A seed. The Hebrew in Isaiah means one surviving or escaping, corresponding with the word remnant. The word seed commonly means, in the Scriptures, descendants, posterity. In this place it means a part, a small portion; a remnant, like the small portion of the harvest which is reserved for sowing.

We had been as Sodoma. The nation was so wicked, that unless God had preserved a small number who were pious from the general corruption of the people, they would have been swept off by judgment, like Sodom and Gomorrah. We are told that ten righteous men would have saved Sodom, Gen 18:32. Among the Israelites, in a time of great general depravity, a small number of holy men were found who preserved the nation. The design of the apostle here was the same as in the previous verses--to show that it was settled in the Jewish history that God might cast off the people, and reject them from enjoying the peculiar privileges of his friends. It is true that in Isaiah he has reference to the temporal punishment of the Jews. But it settles a great principle, for which Paul was contending, that God might cast off the nation consistently with his promises and his plans.--We may learn here,

(1.) that the existence of religion among a people is owing to the love of God. "Except the Lord had left us," etc.

(2.) It is owing to his mercy that any men are kept from sin, and any nation from destruction.

(3.) We see the value of religion and of pious men in a nation. Ten such would have saved Sodom; and a few such saved Judea. Comp. Mt 5:13,14.

(4.) God has a right to withdraw his mercies from any other people, however exalted their privileges, and leave them to ruin; and we should not be high-minded, but fear, Rom 10:20.

(c) "Except the Lord" Isa 1:9, Lam 3:22 (d) "we had been as" Gen 19:24,25, Isa 13:19

What shall we say then? What conclusion shall we draw from the previous train of remarks? To what results have we come by the passages adduced from the Old Testament? This question is asked prepatory to his summing up the argument; and he had so stated the argument that the conclusion which he was about to draw was inevitable.

The Gentiles. That many of the Gentiles; or that the way was open for them, and many of them had actually embraced the righteousness of faith. This epistle was written as late as the year 57, (see Introduction,) and at that time multitudes of heathens had embraced the Christian religion.

Which followed not after righteousness. The apostle does not mean that none of the pagans had any solicitude about right and wrong, or that there were no anxious inquiries among them; but he intends particularly to place them in contrast with the Jew. They had not made it their main object to justify themselves; they were not filled with prejudice and pride as the Jews were, who supposed that they had complied with the law, and who felt no need of any other justification; they were sinners, and they felt it, and had no such mighty obstacle in a system of self-righteousness to overcome as the Jew had. Still it was true that they were excessively wicked, and that the prevailing characteristic among them was that they did not follow after righteousness. See Rom 1:1 and following. The word "followed" here often denotes to pursue with intense energy, as a hunter pursues his game, or a man pursues a flying enemy. The Jews had sought righteousness in that way; the Gentiles had not. The word righteousness here means the same as justification. The Gentiles, which sought not justification, have obtained justification.

Have attained to righteousness, have become justified. This was a matter of fact; and this was what the prophet had predicted. The apostle does not say that the sins of the Gentiles, or their indifference to the subject, was any reason why God justified them, or that men would be as safe in sin as in attempting to seek for salvation. He establishes the doctrine, indeed, that God is a sovereign; but still it is implied that the gospel had not the peculiar obstacle to contend with among the Gentiles that it had among the Jews. There was less pride, obstinacy, self-confidence; and men were more easily brought to see that they were sinners, and to feel their need of a Saviour. Though God dispenses his favours as a sovereign, and though all are opposed by nature to the gospel, yet it is always true that the gospel finds more obstacles among some men than among others. This was a most cutting and humbling doctrine to the pride of a Jew; and it is no wonder, therefore, that the apostle guarded it as he did.

Which is of faith. Justification by faith in Christ. Rom 1:17,31.

(e) "the Gentiles" Rom 10:20 (f) "the righteousness which is of faith" Rom 1:17, Php 3:9

But Israel. The Jews. The apostle does not mean to affirm that none of the Jews had obtained mercy, but that as a people, or acting according to the prevalent principles of the nation to work out their own righteousness, they had not obtained it.

Which followed after the law of righteousness. The phrase, "the law of righteousness," means the law of justice, or the just law. That law demands perfect purity; and even its external observance demanded holiness. The Jews supposed that they rendered such obedience to that law as to constitute a meritorious ground of justification. This they had followed after; that is, pursued zealously and unremittingly. The reason why they did not obtain justification in that way is fully stated in chapters 1-3., where it is shown that the law demands perfect compliance with its precepts; and that Jews, as well as Gentiles, had altogether failed in rendering such compliance.

Hath not attained to the law of righteousness. They have not come to yield true obedience to the law, even though imperfect; not such obedience as to give evidence that they have been justified. We may remark here,

(1.) that no conclusion could have been more humbling to a Jew than this. It constituted the whole of the prevalent religion, and was the object of their incessant toils.

(2.) As they made the experiment fully, and failed; as they had the best advantages for it, and did not succeed, but reared only a miserable and delusive system of self-righteousness, (Php 3:4-9); it follows, that all similar experiments must fail, and that none now can be justified by the law.

(3.) Thousands fail in the same attempt. They seek to justify themselves before God. They attempt to weave a righteousness of their own. The moral man does this. The immoral man attempts it as much as the moral man, and is as confident in his own righteousness. The troubled sinner does this; and this it is which keeps him so long from the cross of Christ. All this must be renounced; and man must come as a poor, lost, ruined sinner, and throw himself upon the mere mercy of God in Christ for justification and life.

(g) "which followed after the law" Rom 10:2, 11:7

Wherefore? Why. The apostle proceeds to state the reason why so uniform and remarkable a result happened.

They sought it not by faith, etc. They depended on their own righteousness, and not on the mercy of God to be obtained by faith.

By the works of the law. By complying with all the demands of the law, so that they might merit salvation. Their attempted obedience included their prayers, fastings, sacrifices, etc., as well as compliance with the demands of the moral law. It may be asked here, perhaps, how the Jews could know any better than this? How should they know anything about justification by faith. To this I answer,

(1.) that the doctrine was stated in the Old Testament. See Hab 2:4. Comp. Rom 1:17. Ps 32; Ps 130; Ps 14. Comp. Rom 3, Job 9:2.

(2.) The sacrifices had reference to a future state of things, and were doubtless so understood. See the epistle to the Hebrews.

(3.) The principle of justification, and of living by faith, had been fully brought out in the lives and experience of the saints Of old. See Rom 4, Heb 11.

They stumbled. They fell; or failed; or this was the cause why they did not obtain it.

At that stumbling-stone. To wit, at that which he specifies in the following verse. A stumbling-stone is a stone or impediment in the path, over which men may fall. Here it means that obstacle which prevented their attaining the righteousness of faith; and which was the occasion of their fall, rejection, and ruin. That was the rejection and the crucifixion of their own Messiah; their unwillingness to be saved by him; their contempt of him and his message. For this God withheld from them the blessings of justification, and was about to cast them off as a people. This also the apostle proceeds to prove was foretold by the prophets.

As it is written. See Isa 8:14, 28:16. The quotation here is made up of both these passages, and contains the substance of both. Comp. also Ps 118:22, 1Pet 2:6.

Behold I lay in Sion. Mount Zion was the hill or eminence in Jerusalem, over against Mount Moriah, on which the temple was built. On this was the palace of David, and this was the residence of the court, 1Chr 11:5-8. Hence the whole city was often called by that name, Ps 48:12, 69:35, 87:2. Hence also it came to signify the capital, the glory of the people of God, the place of solemnities; and hence also the church itself, Ps 2:6, 51:18, 102:13, 137:3, Isa 1:27, 52:1 Isa 59:20; etc. In this place it means the church. God will place or establish in the midst of that church.

A stumbling-stone and rock of offence. Something over which men shall fall. Mt 5:29. This is, by Paul, referred to the Messiah. He is called rock of stumbling, not because it was the design of sending him that men should fall, but because such would be the result. The application of the term rock to the Messiah is derived from the custom of building, as he is the cornerstone or the immovable foundation on which the church is to be built. It is not on human merits, but by the righteousness of the Saviour, that the church is to be reared. See 1Pet 2:6, "I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone." Ps 118:22, "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head stone of the corner." Eph 2:20, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." This rock, designed as a corner-stone to the church, became, by the wickedness of the Jews, the block over which they fall into ruin, 1Pet 2:8.

Shall not be ashamed. This is taken substantially from the Septuagint translation of Isa 28:16, though with some variation. The Hebrew is, "shall not make haste," as it is in our English version. This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew word; but it means also to be afraid, as one who makes haste often is; to be agitated with fear or fright; and hence it has a signification nearly similar to that of shame. It expresses the substance of the same thing, Viz., failure of obtaining expected success and happiness. The meaning here is, that the man who believes shall not be agitated, or thrown into commotion, by fear of want of success; shall not be disappointed in his hopes; and: of course, he shall never be ashamed that he became a Christian. They who do not believe in Christ shall be agitated, fall, and sink into eternal shame and contempt, Dan 12:2. They who do believe shall be confident; shall not be deceived, but shall obtain the object of their desires. It is clear that Paul regarded the passage in Isaiah as referring to the Messiah. The same also is the case with the other sacred writers who have quoted it, 1Pet 2:5-8. See also Mt 21:42, Lk 20:17,18, 2:34. The ancient Targum of Jonathan translates the passage, Isa 28:16, "Lo, I will place in Zion a king, a king strong, mighty, and terrible;" referring doubtless to the Messiah. Other Jewish writings also show that this interpretation was formerly given by the Jews to the passage in Isaiah.

In View of this argument of the apostle we may remark,

(1.) that God is a Sovereign, and has a right to dispose of men as he pleases.

(2) The doctrine of election was manifest in the case of the Jews as an established principle of the Divine government, and is therefore true,

(3.) It argues great want of proper feeling to be opposed to this doctrine. It is saying, in other words, that we have not confidence in God; or that we do not believe that he is qualified to direct the affairs of his own universe as well as we.

(4.) The doctrine of election is a doctrine which is not arbitrary; but which will yet be seen to be wise, just, and good. It is the source of all the blessings that any mortals enjoy; and, in the case before us, it can be seen to be benevolent as well as just. It is better that God should cast off a part of the small nation of the Jews, and extend these blessings to the Gentiles, than that they should always have been confined to Jews. The world is better for it, and more good has come out of it.

(5.) The fact, that the gospel has been extended to all nations, is proof that it is from heaven. To a Jew there was no motive to attempt to break down all the existing institutions of his nation, and make the blessings of religion common to all nations, unless he knew that the gospel system was true. Yet the apostles were Jews; educated with all the prejudices of the Jewish people.

(6.) The interests of Christians are safe. They shall not be ashamed or disappointed, God will keep them, and bring them to his kingdom.

(7.) Men still are offended at the cross of Christ. They contemn and despise him. He is to them as a root out of dry ground, and they reject him, and fall into ruin. This is the cause why sinners perish; and this only. Thus as the ancient Jews brought ruin on themselves and their country, so do sinners bring condemnation and woe on their souls. And as the ancient despisers and crucifiers of the Lord Jesus perished, so will all those who work iniquity and despise him now.

(h) "As it is written" Ps 118:22, Isa 8:14.

Observe here, 1. The apostle's solemn asseveration or oath; he calls Christ and the Holy Ghost to witness for the truth of what he says, which is the very formality of an oath.

Learn thence, That it is not barely lawful, but in some cases expedient and necessary to assert and confirm by oath the truth and certainty of what we speak; in cases of great moment, which cannot otherwise be sufficiently confirmed a Christian may establish his saying by an oath.

Observe, 2. The persons whom the apostle swears by, Christ and the Holy Ghost; he calls them to be witness of the sincerity of his conscience in what he doth assert: I say the truth in Christ, &c.

But why doth the apostle swear by the name of Christ, and not rather by the name of God, seeing the Jews did not believe his divinity, and so were not like to give any whit the more credit to what was attested by him?

I answer, Probably to assert the Godhead of Christ, which the Jews generally denied, and therefore wanted that honour which was and is due unto it. None but God was to be sworn by; the apostle swearing by Christ, proves him to be truly and really God; as also the Holy Ghost; for an oath being an act of religious worship, and the apostle swearing by divinity, according to the words of Moses in Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Deut 6:13

Observe, 3. As the apostle appeals to Christ and the Holy Ghost, so also to his own conscience, as the avoucher and witness of the truth of what he says, My conscience also bearing me witness.

Learn thence, That God has placed a conscience in every man, whose office it is to bear witness of all his words and actions; yea, of all his thoughts and inward affections. Conscience is God's register, to record whatever we think, speak, or act; and happy he whose conscience bears witness for him, and doth not testify against him; who can say with the apostle here, My conscience beareth me witness, that I lie not, but say the truth in Christ.

The original word signifies such sorrow as is found with women in travail; a sorrow continually affecting his heart, and afflicting his spirit, for his countrymen and kinsmen the Jews, upon the account of their obstinate infidelity, obduration of heart, and spirit of slumber which was fallen upon them, which had provoked God to resolve to cast them off, to reject their nation, and to scatter them up and down throughout the world.

Behold here, 1. What are the dismal effects and dreadful consequences of obstinate unbelief, under the offers of Christ tendered to persons in and by the dispensation of the gospel, without timely repentance; the issue will be final rejection, inevitable condemnation, and unutterable.

Behold, 2. The true spirit of Christianity: it puts men upon mourning for the sins and calamities of others in a very sensible and affectionate manner. Good men ever have been, and are men of tender and compassionate dispositions; a stoical apathy, an indolency of heart, or want of natural affection, is so far from being a virtue, or matter of just commendation unto any man, that the deepest sorrow and heaviness of soul, in some cases, well becomes persons of the greatest piety and wisdom.

Learn, 3. That great sorrow and continual heaviness of heart of the miseries of others, whether imminent or incumbent, but especially for the sins of others, is an undoubted argument, sign, and evidence of a strong and vehement love towards them. The apostle's great heaviness and continual sorrow for the Jews, his brethren, was a great instance and evidence of his unfeigned love and affection to them.

That is, "So great is my concern for the salvation of my brethren the Jews, that I could undergo the greatest misery and evil that can befall myself, to prevent their destruction."

This wish of St. Paul is plainly an hyperbolical expression of his great affection to his countrymen the Jews, and his zeal for their salvation, which was so intense and vehement, that were it a thing reasonable and lawful, were it proper, and could avail to the procuring their salvation, he could have wished the greatest evil to himself; for their sakes, not only to be excommunicated from communion with the church of Christ, but to be separated from Christ himself.

If it be said, that such a wish is sinful and unnatural, to desire the salvation of others, with our own damnation; I answer, True: And therefore the apostle's words are not an absolute and positive wish: He doth not say, I wish; but, I could wish: Just as we are wont to say, when we would express a thing to the height, which is not fit nor intended to be done by us; "I could wish so or so: I could even be content to do this or that."

Which kind of expressions no man takes for a strict and precise declaration of our minds, but for figurative expressions of a very great vehement passion. Thus here, the apostle says not, I wish, but I could even wish. Were it proper to make such a wish, I could even wish so great a blessing to my brethren, though with the loss of my own happiness.

Hence learn, 1. That it is neither lawful nor reasonable for any man to renounce his own eternal salvation, and to be willing to be damned upon any account whatever, be it for the good of the brethren, or for the glory of God himself. The very thought of such a thing is enough to make human nature tremble at its very foundation; for the desire of our own happiness is the deepest principle that God has planted in our natures: And to pretend a reason from the glory of God, is impossible,; because our damnation cannot make for the glory of God, unless by our own impenitency and willful obstinacy, we have deserved damnation.

Learn, 2. That such may be the ardency of a saint's affection towards others, and so fervent his desires for their conversion and salvation, that he may be willing to sacrifice himself, and all that is dear unto him in this world, for the accomplishing of that end: I could wish I were accursed from Christ for my brethren, &c.

Our apostle, to vindicate himself for bearing such a passionate affection to the Jews, and for being so highly concerned for their eternal welfare, doth in these two verses recount and sum up the high privileges and prerogatives belonging to the Jews above any other nation under heaven: namely these, They were Israelites, that is, the seed and posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

To whom pertaineth the adoption; that is, national adoption, not personal; God adopting the nation of the Jews to be an holy people to himself, and Jews to be an holy people to himself, and calling them his sons and his first-born.

And the glory; that is, the covenant made with Abraham and Moses, the old and new covenant, And the giving of the law Jer 31:32: it was the prerogative of this people, that all their laws, ceremonial, judicial, and moral were composed and delivered to them by God himself.

And the service of God: that is, they only had the true worship of God amongst them, and no other nation could have the like, but by being a debtor to them for it.

And the promise; that is, in general, all the blessings promised to them in the land of Canaan; and in particular, the promise of the Messiah, or God's gracious purpose and intention to send his Son into he world to accomplish its redemption.

Whose are the fathers; that is, the beloved fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were their ancestors, and they their offspring.

Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, that is, of which Israelites Chrsit came; the promsied Messias, according to the flesh or human nature, was their offspring even he who, according to his divine nature, was over all, God blessed for evermore.

Note here, 1. How the apostle reserves the greatest privilege for the last: Christ's being born one of their nation, and according to the flesh descended from the Jewish stock, this was the topping privilege.

Note, 2. That this restrictive clause, according to the flesh, plainly supposeth another nature in Christ, according to which he came not from the Israelites, which can be no other but the Divine Nature of Godhead, which in the following words is attributed to him: Who is over all, God blessed for evermore.

Which glorious title given to Christ as it highly exalts the prerogative of the Jews as being a people of whom so blessed and great a Person descended, so on the other hand it aggravates their sin and condemnation, in rejecting a person of such infinite worth and dignity, notwithstanding he descended from them.

Now from the whole, learn, 1. That a fullness or richness of instituted means of grace, for the true knowledge and worship of God, is matter of high dignation and gracious condescension from God to man: here the glory, the covenants, the service of God, &c. are numbered amongst the great and gracious respects vouchsafed by God to the Jews.

Learn, 2. That the highest privileges and vouchsafements from God may be conferred upon a people who are neither pleasing ot God, nor accepted with him. Such were the Jews, to whom the fore-mentioned privileges did belong: a people rejected by God for their obduracy and unbelief.

Learn, 3. That it is no small honour to be of the race of kindred of such as have been holy saints and faithful servants of the most high and holy God. The Jews here were very honourable, as they were the seed of Abraham; but much more so, had they trod in the steps, and done the works, of their father Abraham.

Learn, 4. That Jesus Christ, who was the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, was yet, according to his divine nature, Lord over all, God blessed for evermore; he is over all, that is, over all things, and over all persons; and he is blessed for evermore, which is the constant title given to him that is God, and to none but him.

The Socinians, to avoid the force of this text, which fully proves the divinity of Chrsit, turn the words into a thanksgiving for Christ, and read them thus: Of whom Christ was according to the flesh; God, who is over all, be blessed forever.

A manifest perversion of the sense of the apostle's words, which was to show that according to the flesh he descended from Abraham: but that he had another nature, which was not derived from Abraham, even a Divine nature, according to which he was over all, God blessed for evermore.

Here the apostle answers an objection against the rejection of the Jews: "If they cast off by God, what will become of the promise of God, made to Abraham, saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed?

He answers, by distinguishing a two-fold seed that Abraham had. Some were only his carnal seed, or the children of his flesh; others were his spiritual seed, or the children of his faith.

Now the carnal seed of Abraham, born according to the course of nature, were not the children of God to whom the promise was made, but the children represented by Isaac, born by the supernatural power of the Spirit of God; these are to be accounted the true seed of Abraham, mentioned in the covenant, when God says, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

So that the force of the apostle's argument lies thus: The rejection of such Jews, or such of Abraham's seed only who were so according to the flesh, cannot make the word or promise of God to Abraham and his seed of no effect, becuase he made no absolute promise to them as such.

But, says the apostle, none of those Jews, whose rejection I speak of, have any such promise made to them; therefore the rejection of some of Abraham's natural seed doth not, cannot make void the word and promise of God.

Learn hence, 1. That the promises of God to his children and people are firm and stable; they shall not be made void, but be accomplished and made good to those that have a title to them, and interest in them, and fulfill the conditions of them: not as though the word or promise of God has taken no effect, all are not Israel that are of Israel.

Learn thence, 2. That as all were not true Israelites of old that did bear the name of Israelites; so all are not true Christians at this day, who take upon them the name of Chrsit, and bear the name of Christians.

Learn, 3. That men are very prone to bear up themselves upon the piety of their ancestors, though strangers, in practice, to their piety; as the Jews boasted they were the seed of Abraham, but did not the works of Abraham, but did not the works of Abraham; whereas men are so far from being God's children, because they had godly parents, that Christ told the Jews, who came forth out of Abraham's own loins, that they were of their father the devil. Joh 8:44.

Our apostle having in the foregoing verses proved, from what was done in Abraham's family, that it was the purpose and pleasure of God to account only those for Abraham's seed who were the children of his faith, and to reject the rest for their unbelief; in these verses he prosecutes the same argument, by insisting upon another special dispensation of God in the family of Isaac, whose wife Rebecca had twins, namely Jacob and Esau, and had neither of them anything in them to move God to love the one and dislike the other: yet a preference was given to the one before the other.

So that the apostle's argument runs thus: "As Jacob and Esau were begotten of the same father, born of the same mother, laid together in the same womb, and had neither of them done anything at all to oblige or disoblige Almighty God; yet he was pleased to make a difference between them and their posterity after them, giving the beloved Canaan to Jacob and his seed, which by birth-right belonged to Esau and his offspring: so in like manner is it the will and pleasure of God, that the believing Gentiles should become heirs of the promise by faith in Christ, and that the unbelieving Jews should be rejected and cast off for their infidelity."

Learn hence, 1. That Almighty God chooses persons to the participation of divine favours.

Learn, 2. That the choice which God makes of men to the enjoyment of that special favour of being his peculiar people is not according to their external privileges or works, but according to his own free pleasures.

Learn, 3. That as Jacob's and Esau's being unborn, and having done neither good nor evil, is used as an argument to prove, that the choice of the one before the other could not be of works; so it is a strong argument against the preexistence of souls, and their being sent into bodies by way of punishment for former sins. For upon that supposition it could not be true, that the children had done neither good nor evil before they were born, seeing they might both have sinned in that state of pre-existence.

Learn, 4, and observe, That the apostle doth not say, That before the children had done either good or evil, God said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated: but only the elder shall serve the younger.

Hatred here may be taken two ways, either,

1. For a less degree of love; God preferring the seed of Jacob before the posterity of Essau, giving the former the good land of Canaan, to the latter the barren mountains of Seir.

Or, 2. If hatred be taken in the strictest sense, the God is said to hate Esau, that is, the Edomites, after their wicked and unnatural behaviour towards their brethren the Israelites; and upon that occaion see For thy violence against thy brother, Jacob, shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever Obad 1:10.

Nothing renders a person the object of God's hatred but sin; he doth not hate the devil himself, as he is his creature, but only as he is a sinner. God adjudges none to eternal perdition, but with respect to sin.

Observe, 5. That Jacob and Esau are not here to be considered personally, but collectively; for the Israel that descended from Jacob, and for the Edomites which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did which sprang from Esau: for Esau in his own person did not serve Jacob, but the Edomites did serve the Israelites. Thus the elder did serve the younger.

Again, it appears that Job and all his friends were of the posterity of Esau: God did not then hate the person of all the posterity of Esau, but only those of them who by their violence and wickedness rendered themselves the object of his hatred.

The apostle having by the two foregoing instances asserted his doctrine, concerning the purpose and decree of God to justify those that should believe in his Son, be they Gentiles or Jews: and consequently made it good, that no word or promise of God falls to the ground by the rejection of the unbelieving Jews; proceeds in this verse to demonstrate the righteousness of God in the execution of this his purpose.

Is there then, says he, unrighteousness or injustice with God? God forbid. As if the apostle had said, "Is there any cause to say, That God, who preferred the posterity of Isaac before that of Ishmael, and the seed of Jacob before the numerous offspring of Esau; is there any just reason to say, that God is no unjust in calling the Gentiles, and upon their faith owning them for his people, the spiritual seed of Abraham, and rejecting the Jews because of their unbelief? God forbid that we should accuse him of unrighteous dealing upon this account."

Learn hence, That God is just, infallibly and inflexibly just and righteous, in all his dealings with, and dispensations towards the children of men: Is there unrighteousness with God? That is, there is none, there can be none.

Learn, 2. That all such tenets or doctrines which reflect any manner of unrighteousness upon God, or charge him with hard dealing, ought to be disclaimed with the utmost abhorrency and detestation: Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Observe next, How the apostle proves that there is no unrighteousness in this dispensation of God, in rejecting the Jews and calling the Gentiles, because he had said to Moses, he would show mercy, where, when, and to whom, or to what people, he pleased. If therefore, upon the infidelity of the Jews, he will call the idolatrous Gentiles, and receive them to be his people, who can accuse him of any injustice upon that account? Shall not Almighty God dispense his favours where and upon whom he pleases? May he not confer his kindness upon some, which he owes to none?

Learn hence, That God is absolutely and ultimately resolved to follow the counsel of his own will, in and about the justification of sinners; and whatsoever he doth, or resolves to do, his will being the rule of righteousness, is for that reason exactly just and undeniably righteous.

As if the apostle had said, "The foregoing instances abundantly show, That it is not of him that willeth; for Abraham willed that Ishmael might live to be partaker of the blessing promised to his seed, when he said, O that Ishmael might live before thee! Gen 17:18 Nor is it of him that runneth: for when Esau ran to fetch venison for his father, that he might receive the blessing, Gen 25:28 the wisdom of God saw fit to have it otherwise, and to confer the blessing upon Jacob; but it is of God that showeth mercy, that any one is chosen to be the seed to which the promise made to Abraham belongs, and so to be his church and people."

Learn hence, That it is of God's mere grace and mercy, that any sinners are called and admitted to the privilege of justification and adoption, upon any terms and conditions whatsoever. The reason why the sinful and unworthy Gentiles were called to be a people who were not a people, while the Jews were left out, and cast off for their obstinate unbelief, was not because the Gentiles were either more worthy or more willing, but from God's discriminating grace and mercy: It is not of him that willeth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Our apostle here proceeds to remove another objection, namely, the seeming injustice or severity of rejecting the Jews, and reserving them to wrath, giving them up to an obdurate heart, because they would not accept of the way which the wisdom of God had appointed for their justification; namely, faith in his Son Jesus Christ. This he clears by another instance; to wit, that of Pharoah, who had so often hardened his own heart obstinately, and provoked God at last to harden him judicially. For this cause, says God, have I raised thee up; in the original it is, I have made thee stand; that is, "I have sustained thee, and kept thee alive, when thou deservedst, and mightest justly have expected, to be cut off by the several plagues inflicted on thee for thy obstinate hardness of heart, that I might shew my power in thee, &c.

Or, "I have patiently borne thy stubbornness for a long time, that my power and justice might more illustriously appear at last in that conspicuous judgment, which I will execute upon thee in the sight of all the nations of the earth."

Learn hence, That some sinners, whom the patience of God has long waited upon, are preserved of him, and raised out of great and imminent dangers by him, for this end; namely, to make them examples of his just indignation against stubborn and obdurate rebels, and that in the most illustruous and signal manner. For this cause have I raised thee up, that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

As if he had said, "From these scripture instances we may gather and conclude, that God may without the least injustice magnify his mercy, in sparing and pardoning some sinners, and render his justice glorious in punishing others; yea, in punishing sin with sin, hardening them judicially, who had hardened themselves obstinately."

Here observe, That God did not harden Pharaoh's heart by any positive act or influx upon it, by infusing any evil into it; for this would make God the author of sin; but he was hardened by way of judiciary tradition, after he had long hardened himself.

First, He was delivered up into the hand of Satan, who deluded him by the magicians counterfeiting the same miracle that Moses wrought; and this hardened him against the belief of any thing that Moses either did or said.

Secondly, He was delivered up to his own lusts, particularly idolatry, ambition, and covetousness; and these hardened Pharaoh's heart. As an idolater, he was loath to receive a message from the God of Israel, whom he knew not: Who is the Lord, says he, that I should obey him? I know not the Lord.

As an ambitious prince, it went to his very heart, to hear so mean a man as Moses control him in his own dominions, saying, Let the people go, that they may serve the Lord. This enraged him, to hear of any lord over that people but himself; and as a covetous man, he was loath to hear of parting with a people, by whose pains, in making brick, he had so great an income. Thus Pharaoh's affected hardness was followed with inflicted hardness.

Learn hence, That God doth justly deliver that man up to hardness of heart by way of punishment, who has often hardened his own heart against God by repeated acts of sin.

Juste toties cor ejus obduratur in paenam, Quoties ipse cor suum obduravit in culpam. Lightfoot.

Here the apostle brings in the unbelieving and rejected Jews making an objection against God: "If the case be thus, that God doth sometimes, and that justly, leave abdurate sinners to harden themselves, why is he offended at it, and complains of it? If God hardeneth us because he will, why doth he find fault with us for our hardness of heart? For who hath at any time resisted his will? How is it in our power to avoid being hardened, it it be his will that we should be hardened?"

Learn hence, That guilty sinners are full of hard thoughts of God, and very prone to think the divine dispensations unreasonable, if not unrighteous; but upon false and mistaken grounds: Why doth he find fault? Who hath resisted his will? To this objection the apostle returns a very smart answer, saying, Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall, &c.

In which answer, Observe, 1. A vehement objurgation or reproof.

2. A substantial vindication of the righteousness and wisdom of God in his proceedings with men.

Note, 1. The objurgation or reproof, drawn up in an interrogative form, which argues great intenseness of mind in the person speaking: Nay but, O man, who art thou?

As if the apostle had said, "What bold and unheard-of presumption is this, that man, blind and ignorant man, guilty, sinful man, obnoxious to wrath and eternal death, that he should undertake to reprove and censure, to judge and condemn the actions and dispensations of the most high and holy God, as if they were crooked and perverse, defective either in justice or wisdom!"

Learn hence, that it is no less than horrid and horrible presumption for so weak, sinful, and worthless a creature, as man is, to contest or dispute with the most high God about the wisdom or righteousness of any of his ways: O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Note, 2. How the apostle vindicates the wisdom and righteousness of God in his proceedings with men in general, and against the Jews in particular; showing that there is no more cause to make this objection against God for rejecting the unbelieving Jews, and showing favour to the believing Gentiles, than for the pitcher to contend with him that formed it, why he made it of such a shape, and not of another figure; or for the clay, when it is marred and broken, to complain of the potter for making of one part of it a vessel unto honour, and the other unto dishonour.

Learn hence, That men who have made themselves obnoxious to the justice of God by a long-continued course of sin and disobedience against God, (as the unbelieving Jews here spoken of evidently did,) have no cause either to complain of God's severe proceedings against themselves, or of his favourable dispensations towards others. What just cause had the Jews, rejected for their own unbelief and hardness of heart, to murmur against God for showing mercy to the Gentiles, who submitted to the terms of mercy?

As if the apostle had said, "What though God doth not presently punish the obstinate and unbelieving Jews according to their desert, but beareth with them, and exercises forbearance towards them, and they go on by their continual rebellions to make themselves fit objects of his wrath; but he is pleased still with great gentleness and patience to bear with them as he did with Pharaoh; and if after all they be more hardened, as he was, by God's forbearance, what show of injustice, I pray, is it, of he punishes them at last with greater severity, as God did him? If he swallow up their nation, destroy their temple, ruin thier city, what injustice is it to destroy those, who, by making themselves objects of God's wrath, are fitted for destruction?"

Here note, That the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, are such as, the apostle sayeth, God endured with much long suffering; and therefore they were not made vessels of wrath by God, but by themselves; after they had filled up the measure of their sins, and thereby fitted themselves as vessels for destruction. God endured them with much long-suffering, though judgment at last took hold upon them to the uttermost.

Learn hence, That Almighty God may, without the least suspicion of injustice or unrighteousness, punish with the utmost severity such a person or a people, whom he hath long endured with much forbearance, to go on in course of sinning, if at last they repent not. This was the manner of God's dealing with the Jews here. His lenity towards the Gentiles is next expressed, ver. 22 That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, &c.

As if the apostle had said, Can God be taxed with unrighteousness, in showing the riches of his glorious grace and mercy towards the despised Gentiles, whom he hath called to the faith of Christ, and thereby fitted and prepared them to be vessels of mercy? Hath he not just right to show his mercy to such persons who have submitted to the terms upon which he hath promised favour and acceptance, and to own them as his peculiar people, although they be not the natural seed of Abraham, seeing they are his spiritual?

Note here, That as the unbelieving Jews were called, in the former verse, vessels of wrath; so the believing Gentiles are called, in this verse, vessels of mercy; because as vessels are fitted and formed by the hand of the artificer for the use to which they are designed, in like manner are believers wrought by God and framed by his Holy Spirit, and made meet to receive the mercy of God, that is, the fruits and effects of his mercy, especially pardon of sin and peace with God.

Concerning the vessels of wrath, the apostle speaks passively; they are fitted for destruction: concerning the vessels of mercy, he speaks actively, that God has prepared them unto glory; that is, made them meet and fit by grace here for glory hereafter.

Learn thence, That the new creation of the saints, and all the spiritual workmanship that is found upon them, is to be ascribed unto God, and to the effectual working of his grace: He hath afore prepared them unto glory.

Learn, 2. That the fullest measures of glory hereafter shall be the portion of such, and only such, as are first prepared by grace and holiness to receive them here.

Learn, 3. That those only are vessels of mercy, prepared by God unto glory, who upon the evangelical call have been prevailed with, by faith and repentance, to answer the command and call of God: That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessesl of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us whom he hath called.

Our apostle having hitherto vindicated the wisdom and righteousness of God in the rejection of the Jews, and calling of the Gentiles; lest the Jews should stumble and take offence at it, in these and the following verses he proves, that the calling of the Gentiles was long before foretold, both by the prophet Hosea, and the prophet Isaiah; by the prophet Hosea,

I will call them my people, which were not my people. Hos 2:23

And, Instead of, ye are not my people, it shall be said, ye are the sons of the living God. Hos 1:10

Which expressions signify and import God's receiving the Gentiles into the church as an act of free and undeserved mercy, whom the Jews looked upon as castaways, as strangers, as dogs; accounting themselves only to be of his family and household. Next he produces the testimony of Isaiah.

Here the apostle shows how the reduction of the obdurate Jews was foretold by Isaiah as well as Hosea: That although the number of the Jews, according to the flesh, were as the sand of the sea, yet the greatest number of them would be passed by for their unbelief, and a remnant only saved. This the prophet speaks of those Jews who escaped into the hand of Sennacherib; and the apostle makes the deliverance of those few, a type of them that should believe in Christ, and be saved by him.

And the prophet farther adds, That God would finish his work, and cut it short in righteousness; that is, God will make quick work with that incorrigible and unreclaimable people; such swift destruction shall come upon the multitude of evil doers in the land of Israel as shall bring them very low, cut them short, lop them off, so that they shall be left as a tree, of which only the stump remaineth. They shall be reduced to a small remnant, and a remnant only of that remnant shall be converted.

Now first, from the literal import of those words, Though Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant only shall be saved, we learn, That a numerous people or nation, among whom God hath been truly worshipped, and this for a long season, may, notwithstanding, for their wickedness be destroyed, and reduced by God to a very small number.

Secondly, from the typical import of these words, together with the apostle's scope in citing of them, we gather, that amongst those multitudes who are called by the gospel to believe on our Lord Jesus Christ, and who make profession of his name and truth, the number of those who will be at last eternally saved, will be but comparatively small and little; A remnant shall be saved.

As if the apostle had said, "Lord, what shall we say to this great mystery of grace, the calling of the Gentile world, and the cutting off and casting away most of the present Jewish nation? That the Gentiles who lived in ignorance and blindness, in sin and unrighteousness, should attain to righteousness by faith in Christ; and that the Israelites, who had God's own righteous law amongst them, and trusted to be justified by the observation of it, yet should not attain to that rightness which God accepteth. And wherefore have they not attained it? but because they sought not justification by that faith which God prescribeth for that end, namely, faith in the Mediator; but thought it must be attained by the works of the law, keeping all the ceremonial precepts, by which no flesh can be justified: and the reason why they sought it not by faith was this, They stumbled at the stumbling stone; that is, at the Lord Jesus Christ, taking offence at his poverty and mean condition in the world, and at the spirituality of his kingdom."

Learn hence, That the great humiliation of Christ in the days of his flesh, did prove a snare and occasion to many persons to despise and reject him, to stumble at him, and fall foul upon him. But in what respects is Christ called a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence?

Answer Negatively; not because he was by God designed, either intentionally or accidentally, to be such. All stumbling and offence-taking at Christ are accidental, proceeding from the depravity of man, not from the design of God. Much less were the Jews fore-appointed and ordained by God to stumble at his Son; for God appoints no man to do that which he prohibits all men from doing.

And as no man is necessitated by the decree of God, so neither is he constrained or necessitated by Satan, by his corruption, or any other instrument, to stumble or take offence at Christ; for actions necessitated upon men are neither demeritorious nor punishable. But positively Christ is called a stone of stumbling because men, willingly ignorant and wilfully perverse, do take offence at him.

Though God never designed or desired any man's stumbling at Christ, yet he knew and foresaw that many, very many, would stumble at him: and accordingly expressed him by a prophetical character answering the event, and predicting that which in time came to pass: Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-block.

Observe here, 1. What use and office our Lord Jesus Christ is of to his church: he is a stone, a corner-stone, the chief corner-stone; a corner-stone for strength, the chief corner-stone for ornament and beauty. As the corner-stone bears the weight of the building, so doth Christ bear the weight of his church, and supports all the pillars and supporters of it; yet this precious corner-stone is accidentally and eventually a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence. Some are offended at the poverty of his person and the meanness of his condition, others at the sublimity and sanctity of his doctrine; some are offended at his cross, others at his free grace; but such as instead of being offended at him do believe on him, shall never be ashamed of, or confounded by, him.

Learn hence, That those who, according to the direction of the gospel, do believe on our Lord Jesus Christ, shall never have cause to be ashamed.

Here note, What they shall not be ashamed of, when and why they shall not be ashamed: 1. What the sincere believer shall not be ashamed of.

Answer He shall never be ashamed of his choice; he shall not be ashamed of his profession; he shall never be ashamed of the cause and interest of Christ, which he has owned and vindicated in the world: he shall never be ashamed of the work and service of Christ, nor of any time sincerely spent in that work and service; he shall never be ashamed of his reproaches and sufferings, tribulation and persecutions, for the sake of Christ.

In a word, he shall never be ashamed hereafter that he never was ashamed here, either of Christ and his gospel, his work and service, or his cause and interest.

Note, 2. When the believer shall not be ashamed; namely, when he is called forth to bear his testimony for Christ before the world, at the hour of death, and at the day of judgment: neither the dreadfulness of the day, nor the majesty of the judge, nor the number of the accusers, nor the impartiality of the sentence, nor the separation that shall then be made, will in the least cause him to be ashamed.

Note, 3. Why the believer shall never be ashamed.

Answer The cause of shame is removed and taken away, namely, sin; those only from whom he can reasonably fear shame, will never be ashamed of him; he can look God and Christ, his own conscience, and the whole world, in the face, without shame and blushing.

O! that sinners would now be ashamed of their unbelief, which otherwise will put them to eternal shame, and bring upon them everlasting confusion in the day of the Lord. Whosoever believeth on him shall never be ashamed; but he that believeth not in him, shame and the wrath of God abideth on him.