/

THE
RAhIDALLHOUSE
BIBLE
COMMENTARY

ROMAhIS
by
F. LEROYFORLINES

FIRSTEDMON

NAI\IDALL HOUSE PUBLICATIONS

NASHVII LE, TENNESSEE g7 217
9:l ROMANS

another all of us will partake of suffering
and difficulty in this life. However, as
believers we know that a glorious
eschatological future awaits us. When
we receive those blessings which God
has in store for us, all of the problems
of this life will fade into insignificance
(w. 17, 18).
14. Along with the full manifestation
of our redemption in the eschatological
future will be the redemption of cre-
ation, both animate and inanimate (w.
19-24).
15. In this life through Christ we
receive peace, joy, and happiness. But
this is not the only side of the picture.
"We groan within ourselves." Our
bodies have not been redeemed.
Everything is not all that itshould be.
We are waiting and yeaming for
something better. That something
better is the resurrection of the body.
At the resurrection we will experience
all that it means to be privileged, adult
sons of God. On the one hand we are
rejoicing in what we have. On the other
hand we are longing for something
better. We know that one day we will
than a mere quoting of the verse
people to get its message.
happens to us as believers, we can
assured that God will bring things i
bear upon our case that will help ui
through it.
18. We need not be afraid of
word "predestinate." ln fact, we
be encouraged by it. What it tells us
that God has before determined
believers willbe conformed to the i
of Christ (v. 29).
19. God's plan is eternal, but
salvation in time begins with a
When we respond to this call we
justified. In the eschatological future
will be glorified (see notes on v.
20. As Christians, we have a
going for us. With God on our side d
one can be successfully against us
31). If God spared not, but gave
Son for us, it follows that He will
for us and stand by us (v. 32).
God has said we are justified, no
else can make a charge against us
(v. 33). Since Christ is our i
no one can condemn us (v. 34).
21. In w. 35-39 two important
A. Paul Expressee Hie
Concern for Hie Kilr
According to thc 'j
(9:r-5). i
.i;i
I I say the trutb in
noe my consdencc dlo
mo wltneec ln tho Ho[r
Chapter 8 ended on a
note. While in this emoti
,-i; Paul suddenly thought of
men-the Jews. When he did
compassion and concem whi
for his kinsmen was
him. It is out of this deep
he speaks.
I say the truth in
not. The words which Paut.i
to utter in v.3 are words
people could in truth utter.
reason that Paul prefaces
with the most solemn co
truth possible. To speak
speak truth; as Cranfield
who speaks in a way thd
his union with Christ carq
truth" (U:u152). :

experience the resurrection of our are established: My coneciencs

bodies. Then things will be better (1) The Bible does not promise ; me witneee in thc'
beyond comparison. Because we know trouble-free life to Christians. i Lenski explains, "Paul's
that the day of full redemption is (2) We are not to interpret are one witness,
coming, we wait for it with steadfast when it comes, to mean that God another. The idea is
endurance (w. 23-25). not love us. As believers we will nevefi. ate sufficient to
16. If we stop to think about it, many be separated from God's love. It ii! Conscience is
times we do not know exactly what our God's love and presence with us that cannot be bribed,
need is. We do not know exactly what makes us "more than conquerort, independently and
it would take to meet that need. Even through him that loved us" (v. 37). tradicts us if we
when we think we know, we may be (582).
wrong. Verses 26, 27 ofter us Part Two Our conscience
encouragement. The Holy Spirit takes by the standard ol
every sincere prayer and desire and Ierael and the Gentilee in scribe to. Our
makes a perfect intercession to the God's Plan of Redemption as our convictiong
Father for us. This intercession is
(9:1-ll:36). may not always
perfectly understood by the Father (see the witness
notes on these verses).
I. GOD'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT'' Murray
17. The notes on v. 28 should be
IN REJECTING THE UN. , that he regards
studied thoroughly. There is great BELIEVING ISRAELITES the Holy Spirit.'
comfort in this verse, but it takes more (9zt-291. of the earher

248
 ROMANS
A. Paul Expresses His Deep
Concern for His Kinsmei
According to the Flesh
(9:r-5).
I I say the tnrt:h ln Ghrlst, I lle
not, my consclence also bearlna
me wltness ln the Hol5r Ghost. - 2 That I have grcd heavlness and
contlnual sorrow ln my' heaft
Chapter 8 ended on a triumphant
note. While in this emotion-filled itate,
Paul suddenly thought of his kins_ explains, "'Great heaviness, means
men-the Jews. When he did that, deep
compassion and concern which he had
for his kinsmen was activated within
him. It is out of this deep concern that
he speaks.
I say the truth in Christ, I lie
not. The words which Paul was going
to utter in v. 3 are words which very few
people could in truth utter. It is foi this
reason that Paul prefaces those words
with the most solemn commitment to
truth possible. To speak in Christ is to
speak truth; as Cranfield observes,,,One
who speaks in a way that is worihy of
his union with Christ cannot but speak
truth" (ll:452).
My conscience also bearing
me witness in the Holy Ghost.
Lenski explains, "Paul's own ltatements
are one witness, Paul's conscience is
another. The idea is that two witnesses
are sufficient to settle any point.
Conscience is another voice, bne that
cannot be bribed, one that speaks
independently and unhesitatingly' con-
tradicts us if we are wrong oi false',
(582).
.byOur
the
conscience judges our actions
standard of right that we sub-
scribe to. Our conscience is as accurate
as our convictions are. Our convictions
may not always be right. Concerning
!h" witness of
Murray
Paul's conscience]
explains,"lt is most significani
thathe regards this witness as blrne,in
the Holy Spirit.'Just as the certification
of the earlier assertion [l lie not] is
9:l-3
derived from union with Christ, so the
veracity of the witness of his conscience
is..certified by the Holy Spirit" (ll:2).
When the witness of the conscience .in
truthfully be said to be borne in the
Holy Spirit, its witness is true.
il
Concerning this verse picirilli
great grief. 'Continual sorrow, refers to
uninte-rrupted pain. The pangs of grief
Paul feels for Israel weigh f,eaviti on
him. He is never free from that buiden.
Weiss calls attention to the triple
intensity indicated here: from ,heav-
iness' to 'sorrow,' from ,great' to
'continual,' from'l' to'my heait,' (1741.
Moule remarks, "Vergwonderful and
profoundly true, is this expression of
intense grief just after the ,iov
unspeakable'of ch. 8" (162).
Joy is a positive vatue reaction.
Sorrow is a negative value reaction.
Value reactions are experienced in the
heart. These reactions are felt in the
heart which is the seat of the emotions.
(See comments on heart in the notes on
l:21.)
Paul's view of grace was the occasion
-
for some to misunderstand his attitude
toward the law. For that reason in
7:7-25 Paul defended the fact that the
law is good and that it has served a
useful purpose. Just as some misun-
derstood his view of law, some might
have felt that Paul had turned agaiist
the Jews (Acts 21:28 and 24:5). h;;il;
to deny the veracity of such a claim.
Paul comes forth with the strongesi
possible show of compassion ind
concern for his fellow Israelites whose
eyes were still blinded to the truth.
3 For I could wlsh tftat mysclf
were accurscd fTom Chrlst for myr
brethren, qr Hnsmen accordlni
249
9:3, 4 ROMANS

to thc f,csh. that they were the Covenant People Jews are Israelites-
God. He knew that Jesus Chrisi u that they are the cho
For. "For" indicates that Paul is the Jewish Messiah. It hurt him God (ll:1160, 116l).

going to give a reason for the deep to know that so many among To whom m
adoption. The
concern mentioned in v. 2. Covenant People of God were ab
I could wieh that myself were in unbelief. Any study of Romans (Greek huiofhesrl,a)
accursed from Christ. Concerning fails to comprehend the significance from the meaning in
etence, adoption
the word for accursed (Greek Israel in the history of redemption failc
New Covenant saintg.
anathema\, Sanday and Headlam to grasp a major contribution of thb
*'That mature sons, sons of
explain that it originally meant, great book.
in distinction from
which is offered or consecrated to God.'
immaturity of the Old
But the translators of the Old Testa- 4 Tho erc lslrcnta3i to (see notes on 8:15).
ment required an expression to denote pt frrr/dt tho adopfdon, .nd qa
:

Adoption, as it is r.n
that which is devoted to God for glolt, and thc covcnrntr, end that distinct privilegg
destruction, and adopted anathema as gfvlng of fhc ler' end thc r as being the
a translation of the Hebrew cherem" of W cnd tho pronleor. Collectively, they
(228\.
son" (see Ex. 4:22
Concerning the word for "l could Who arc Israelitec. Hos. 1:10 the
wish" (Greek euchomai), the vast gives us a good summary of individuals as the
majority take the meaning to be "l could meaning of Israel. He explains: God." They were
wish." Those who are interested in a In early times (e.9. Judg. 5:2,7) they were
discussion of the different ways it might the name of the sacred confed. ,;;i-'j
.. ilf l
People of God.
be understood should consult Cranfield eracy, 'lsrael' was from the first a i :::

(ll:454-457). His own translation is, "For sacred term, denoting the whole sood discussion
between adoption
I would pray" (ll:456). community of those chosen by, referredto in 8:tS
Paul is saying that if it were possible, and united in the worship of And the
in so doing, for him to bring about the Yahweh. From the division of the is to what the
salvation of the Jews, he would be kingdom until the fall of Samaria which was the
willing to be separated from Christ and it was limited to the northern Divine presence.
accept the eternal consequences of kingdom; but from 722 B.C. it was summary of what
such a separation. As Cranfield says, applied to the southern kingdom 'The glory'
"Nothing less than the eschatological of Judah (e.g. Isa. 5:7; 8:18; Mic. as referring to
sentence of exclusion from Christ's 3:1), though the hope of a upon and
presence (cf. Mt. 7:23; 25:41\ is
a1
restored whole Israel was still Sinai (Exod.
involved" (ll:458). Picirilli comments, cherished. In later Palestinian that covered
"Paul's feelings are deep and self- Judaism the name'lsrael'was the ernacle (Exod,'
sacrificing. He could go to Hell for his regular self-designation of the that
racial brethren were that possible!" Jews expressing their consciou+ seat in the
(174\. ness of being the people of God; 16:2), the
Many call attention to Moses' prayer the name 'Jew' was used by filled the
as being similar in nature to the deep foreigners and by the Jews IIChron. 7:
concern that Paul expresses in this themselves in their dealings with This Slory
verse. Moses said, "Yet now, if thou wilt foreigners. .ln the NT the presence
forgive their sin-; and if not, blot me, names 'lsrael' and 'lsraelite' con' that God
I pray thee, out of thy book which thou tinue to have a salvation-historical met with
hast written" (Ex. 32:32\. significance (cf. for example, the 29:42-46\"
My brethren, ny hinemen occurrences in the Fourth Gospel: And thc
according to the flesh. Paul knew 1:3L, 47,49; 3:10; 72:131. So here explains:
what it meant to be a Jew. He knew Paul, by saying that his fellow'

250
 ROMANS
Jews
-
are Israelites, is assertinq
that.they are the chosen
;;;il;?
r--r-- v'
God (ll:460, zt61).
To whom pertaineth the
adoption. The mlanins of adopilI
(Greek hurbfhesrie) herJ is dif6re-J
from the meaning in g:15. I" th;i-;i:
erence, adoption refers to tne position
New Covenant saints
"njov-"i-U"ir"
mature.sons, sons of legal- jge. That iI
- refer to the covenants ,from
in distinction from th; p-Gfi""
immaturity of the Old Covenant saints "I
(see notes on 8:15).
. Adoption, as it is used here, refers to
that distinct privilege enjoyed' bti;;J
as Derng the Covenant people of God.
Collectively_, they were .utj"a ;C-JI
son" (see Ex. 4:22
-and Hos. 11:l).
Hos. - 1:10 the reference -io 'if,"In
i.
individuals as the ,.sons of in"-firi"I
9od." They were called sons L;.;;;
they.were members of tht -C;;;;;;;
People
9j God, (See Murray II4,S f*';
gooo dtscussion
on the difference
between adoption here and
refened to in g:15 and Gal."a.ptil"'""
* uoncerntng the meaning of ,,cove.
4,3.i"
. A"{ the glory. The reference here
rs.to.what the Jews called the Shekinoh
which was the visible expression of the
Divine presence. Murray -gooJ
siue,
u theke) implied quality cin
summary of what is involved:
'!re glory, should be regarded
as referring to the glory that abode
upon .and appeared on Mount
smai (Exod. 24:16, 17). the qlorv
that covered and'fiMd the;-b'-
ernacle (Exod. 0:34-3g): the qlorv
that appeared upon t'lie mEr",i-
seat in the holy of holies (Lei,.
7.6:2), the glory of the Lord'that
niled the temple (l Kings g:10, 1l;
tl, phr.on. 7:i,2;'cf. t
I nls glory was the sign"i.-1'.ie)'.
of God's
presence with Israel and certified
that God dwelt among them inJ
Tet with them (cf. Exod.
29:42-46)" (lI:S).
4"d the covenantc. piper
explains:
924
There is no consensus among
commentators concerning whicfi
covenants are referred to. Murray
(Romong II, S) suggests
th;
covenants with Abraham, Moses
and David. Munck (Chiist -iii
Igr99l, 31), Alford 01. +OAi
Schlatter (G erechtigkeit, 2i?41, and
Yg$uy and Headlam (Romons,
2,3.0)
Abraham to Moses.' S.h6;
(Roemerbrief, 287), inctud;i ;h;
Uovenant with Noah. Barrett
(Romans, lTTf) foilows
"-;;;;
rabbinic reference (Strack-
Billerbeck, III, 262) to'-.til;
covenants within the great cove-
nant of the Exodus_a covenant
a! fl-orgb, a second in the plains
qf Moab, and a third at M;;i
Gerizim and Ebal., What we leim
fr-om this assortment of
Su""r"r-i.
that Paul's term ,cove-nunti;-
Rom. 9:4b is.open-ended (19).
in
nplt" (Greek diqtheke), hr"h"i
plains: "i-
. Since the ordinary
for 'contract'
Greek
,compact, word
or (sun-
the'pirt
of the contracting parties, the
Greek-speaking J-ews prefered
ctntheke (coming from dia-
ntnemai, (to make a disposition of
one's property') in the iense-oi a
unilateral enactment. In secular
.GrySk this word usually ,"ini
'ynll' or 'testament,, U-ut il;
glassical authors like Aristophines
(Br'rds 439) occasionally u""a
ii-of
a covenant wherein one of the two
parties had an overwhelming
superiority over the other anf
could dictate his own terms.
Hgnge the biblical diatheke sis_
nified (in a way much
-or""
specific than did berif [Hebrew for
covenantl) an arrangement made
by one party with plenary power,

251
9:4 ROMAI\IS
which the other party may accept
or reject but cannot alter
("Covenant" in Evangelical Dic-
tionary ol Theology 278; see
Galatians 3:15-18).
Vine points out that "The word dio-
fheke does not involve the idea of joint
obligation, but signifies that which is
undertaken by one person only. Hence
it is frequently interchangeable with the
word'promise,'as in Gal. 3:16, 18" (138,
13e).
It would be hard to overestimate the
importance of covenants in the devel-
opment of the program of redemption.
The major development of such is seen
in the covenants that God made with
Israel.
In my opinion the covenants that
Paul had in mind in this verse began
with Abraham and include all the
redemptive covenants since that time.
The basic redemptive covenant is the
Abrahamic. All others are either made
or promised to Israel. Later covenants
serve to broaden the understanding of
the Abrahamic Covenant by enlarging
our understanding of what was already
inherent in it. Or they help in the
implementation of it.
The fact that redemption is promised
only to the seed of Abraham makes it
important that we understand what Paul
means when he says in Romans 4 and
Galatians 3 that believing Gentiles are
the seed of Abraham. God has never
made a redemptive covenant with the
Gentiles (Eph. 2:11, 12). As Mi[s rightly
observes, "Every covenant that God
made with the sons of Jacob, from the
one with Abraham on, is the possession
of Israel, whether it be the Abrahamic,
Mosaic, Davidic, Palestinian, Messianic,
and even the New Covenant. These are
all the eternal possessions of the nation
Israel" (293). Wuest comments, "God
never makes any covenants with the
Gentiles. He made these covenants with
lsrael because that nation was to be
252
used as a channel to bring salvation to
the human race" (155). law is good.)
Any attempt to understand the And the
history of redemption that does not service of
come to Srips with the covenant rela- latreia. Piciri&
tionship between God and Israel is the priestly
greatly lacking. A grasp of the signifi- temple
cance of the covenant relationship rituals,
between God and Israel will help us to involved" (
understand: (1) why not all who are the Murray II:6; l
natural seed of Abraham are saved; (2) and Headlarn
why the Jews seemed to. think that
merely being the natural seed of meaning and.
Abraham guaranteed their standing should see
before God; (3) why Gentiles must Cranfield
become the seed of Abraham to be goes beyond
saved. If we are to understand chapters explains, "But
2, 4, 9 and 11 of Romans, we must gether un
understand the covenant relationship here, the
between God and Israel, and we must faithtul
see how the unbelieving Jews misun- agogue and,
derstood this relationship. including
And the siving of the law. reading of
Kasemann (2591 and Murray (ll:6) vation of the
understand the reference here to be to Shema, and,,i
the act of Siuing the law rather than the the phrase of
possession of the law. Bruce (185), with thy
Cranfield (fr:462, tl6|), Hanison (102), driksen 312,
Hodge (259), and Pipr (20-22) under. It seems
stand the meaning to be the possession servtce
of the law. It appears to me that Godet
may be correct in combining both of more
these ideas. He explains, "This term based on
embraces along with the gift of the law referring to ic
itself, the solemn promulgation of it on a direct gift of
Mount Sinai; comp. the saying of the was a later
psalmist 147:20:'He hath not dealt so result of a
with any nation"' (3a1). This would Mills, a
stress the fact that Israel had the law as The
a deposit of Divine revelation. the slory
The Pharisees placed tremendous this 'serui
value on the Torah (Hebrew for law). foundation
The Torah was as central to Pharisees Gospelof
as Jesus Christ is to Christianity. While God knowd
Paul did not accept some aspects of the thousands
Pharisees'idea of law, he did place great saved
value on the law. This he had made the
clear in 7:7-25. (See the comments there a picture of
for how Paul defended the fact that the and the
cross. My
 ROMANS
law is good.)
And the service of God. .The
service of God" is from the Greek word
latreia. Picirilli says, "This looks back to
the priestly ministry and tabernacle-
temple worship system, including allthe
rituals, cermonies, and sicrifices
involved" (175). (See also Hodqe 299:
Murray II:6; Piper 22, 28; and Sandav
and Headlam 231.) Those interested ii
a more thorough development of the
meaning and significance of latreia
should see Piper.
Cranfield suggests that the meaning
goes beyond the temple service. Hi
explains, "But it does not seem alto-
gether unlikely that, as used by paul
here, the term embraced abb the
faithful non-sacrificial worship of syn-
3sgsrlg and . pious Jews at home,
including such things as prayer, the
-
reading of the Scriptures, the obser_
vation of the Sabbath, the reciting of the
Shema, and, indeed, allthat is mEant bv
the phrase of Mic. 6:8, ,to walk humbli,
with thy God"' (ll:463. See also Heri_
driksen 312, 313.)
It seems to me that to limit the
service (Greek latreia) to the
tabernacle-temple worship would be the
more probable interpretation. This is
based on the idea that what paul is
referring to is that which was Israel's as
a direct gift of God. Synagogue worship
was a later development ritf,er tfi;lh;
result of a direct revelation from God.
Mills, a Hebrew Christian, remarks:
. The beauty, the majesiy, and
the glory that were portray'ed in
this 'service to God,, laid the
foundation for the preaching of the
Qospel of the Graie of GoI. Only
God knows how many countlesi
thousands of soub have been
saved. through the preaching of
the tabernacle and its sacrifice-s as
a picture of the work of the Savior
and the accomplishments of the
cross. My fellow Christians, do not
253
9:4
minimize 'the service of God' for
this service made it not oniy
possible but also easier for voi
and me to, preach the Gospei oi
s_alvation through faith in Jesus
Christ, and to see the atoning
sacrifice on the cross as the grand
foundation stone upon whicf, the
Gospel rests (294).
And the promieee. Most com-
mentaries do not give a developed
discussion on what is meant Uv ifr"
"promises." It is usually concluaej thii
the reference would beto the Messianic
promises. Some suggest that it
embraces all promises mide to Jews in
the O.T.
We miss the point that paul had in
mind if we do not take a more careful
!99k at what is meant by the prornir"r.
The promise of eternal iif" to'th" .""d
of Abraham is at the root of what paui
in
had mind. This is u n"."..ury
implication from Gen. 13:15 and 17:ld.
(See discussion about the Abrahamic
Covenant in the comments on 4:13.)
Abraham and his seed wil porr"r.
the land for etemity. This is u ,"f"re*"
to the eschatological future of the
redeemed. The redeemed are the seed
o_f Abraham. It is for this reason thai
Gentiles must become
the oi
"eed
Abraham as presented in Rom. 4 anJ
Gal. 3.
The promise of the Messiah is
involved also. The Messiah, by His
redemptive work, provides the basis for
the fulfillment of the eschatological
promise of Gen. 13:15 and 17:g. A
number of other promises were made to
Israel, but these promises are involved
in.the outworking and the implemen-
tation of the promise of the eschato-
logical future and the Messianic
promises.
Piper is on the right track when he
observes with regard to the Gentiles-
"They become fellow beneficiaries oi
the promises which already belong to
924, 5 ROMAITIS
the 'saints,' the 'household of God'
(Eph. 2:19). Only by being grafted into
the cultivated olive tree do the Gentiles
become heirs of the promise (Rom.
11:17). Therefore the salvation which
Gentile believers enjoy as beneficiaries
of the promise of God is a salvation
which belongs to Israel because 'theirs
are the promises' (Rom. 9:4b)" (24,25).
5 WhosG eru the f,athore' and of
whom ar concomlng tho f,cch
Chrlst etu.e. who b ovcr dlr God
blccrGd for evcn. AmGn.
Whoee ore the fathere. Every'
one agrees that Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob are included. Piper states that the
reference is limited to these patriarchs.
He explains, "The reference in Rom.
9:5a is probably to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob since the privilege would lose its
point if 'fathers' meant all the ancestors,
and since these patriarchs are alluded
to in 9:6-13" (25). (See also Hodge
299;
Lenski 585; Shedd 277; and Wuest 155.)
While agreeing that Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob were refened to by Paul,
Murray remarks, "lt would not appear
reasonable to exclude the father
expressly mentioned in 1:3 [David].
Thus we should have to extend the line
beyond Jacob and conclude that the
fathers of distinction in redemptive
history from Abraham onwards are in
view" (ll:6). (See also John Brown 304;
Cranfield fr:464; Hendriksen 314, 315;
and Plumer t158.)
I agree with those who restrict the
relerence to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.lt seems to me that it suits Paul's
purpose to use the restricted reference
to fathers since stress would be on the
fact that they were highly esteemed.
They were a great treasure. The fathers
of the nation seem to be in view rather
than a more general reference to the
Jew's forefathers.
And of whon ac concerning
2s4
the llesh Chriet came. As it relates definite article,'the,' ig
to the fathers, Paul says, "whose are the in the text with'God,, b
fathers." The fathers were the pos foregoing wor$p (liteiaryqi'
session of Israel. As it relates to Christ, being over all'), so Pi$ri
he was "from Israel," but not their trying to displace God
exclusive possession. As it relates tq, but is doing what John
His human nature, He was a Jew. But ,
saying that the word u
He belongs to all who believe in Him, (John 1:1), that is, trac
both Jew and Gentile. God. In any case, d
Who ie over all, God blegsGd i*.pli"9 in recognizing h
for ever. Amen. Opiniong differ over all'(it is very awkward
whether these words refer to Christ or to refer this to God d
to God the Father. If these words refer from Christ) (103).
to Christ, they constitute an acknowl- ,
(For other treatmenbi
edgment of the deity of Christ on th€, position, see Bruce
part of Paul. If they refer to God thc 180-185; Godet 342-345;
Father, they would neither affirm nor Lenski.5E*589; Munry:.:
deny the deity of Christ although in that ,
Appendix A, 2t15-248; airii
case these words could not be used to Headlam 233-235.')
argue for the deity of Christ. Denny (658, 659),
There are several good treatments of :i
260), and Meyer
these words which take them to refer
view that applies the
to Christ. Harrison gives a concise
5 to Christ. Rather,
treatment in favor of referring them tol them to refer to thc
Christ. He explains: words are taken to ba *i
Several considerations favor would read,"'God wl$,
the traditional wording, which .:'l blessed forever"'(
refers'God' to Christ: (1) Christ's There are two main
relationship to Israel on the human i taking the last pa* of
side has been stated in such a way to the Father rather
as to call for a complementary is said that Pauldoes
statement on the divine-side. This as God. (2) To use
is provided by the usual transla- "Besides the
tion, but not the other rendering. be introduced, that
(2) 'Who'can properly be coupled :t be called not merely
only with the foregoing subject [God], but even
(Christ). If another subject (God consequently would bG
[the Father]) is being introduced,
:i
theos pantokrator
there is no reason at all for the Ruler over alll,
'who.' (3) A doxology to God [the incompatible with the
Fatherl can hardly be intended N.T. as to the
since in doxologies the word on the Father. . ., I Coft
'blessed' is regularly placed before Eph. 4:5, 6; and
the one who is praised. Here it (362).
comes after. (4) A doxology to With regard to
God [the Father] would be sin' whether Paul elsewhere
gularly out of place in a passage as God, I would call
marked by sorrow over Israel's 2:13 where Paul says,
failure to recognize in Christ her
 ROMANS
crowning spiritual blessing. (5) The
definite article, 'the,' is not linked
in the text with'God,'but with the
foregoing words (literally, 'the one
being over all'), so Paul is not
trying to displace God with Christ,
but is doing what John does in
saying that the word was God
(John 1:1), that is, has the rank of
God. In any case, this is really
implied in recognizing him as'over
all'(it is very awkward, with NEB,
to refer this to God in distinction
from Christ) (103).
(For other treatments supporting this
position, see Bruce 186, I87; Earle
180-185; Godet 342-345; Hodge 300-302;
Lenski 585-589; Murray II:6, 7, and
Appendix A, 245-248; and Sanday and
Headlam 233-238.1
Denny (658, 659), Kasemann (259,
260), and Meyer (360-364) reject the
view that applies the closing words of v.
5 to Christ. Rather, they understand
them to refer to the Father. These
words are taken to be a doxology and
would read,"'God who is over all be
blessed forever"' (Denny 658).
There are two main reasons given for
taking the last part of the verse to refer
to the Father rather than Christ: (1) It
is said that Pauldoes not refer to Christ
as God. (2) To use Meyer's words,
"Besides the insuperable difficulty would
be introduced, that here Christ would
be called not merely and simply fheos
[God], but even God over oll, and
consequently would be designated as
theos pantokrator [the Almishty, the
Ruler over all], which is absolutely
incompatible with the entire view of the
N.T. as to the dependence of the Son
on the Father. . ., I Cor. 3:23; 8:6; 11:3;
Eph. 4:5, 6; and notably I Cor. 15:28"
(362).
With regard to the question of
whether Paulelsewhere refers to Christ
as God, I would call attention to Tit.
2:13 where Paul says, "The great God
9251 6
and Saviour Jesus Christ." Some may
insist that even this reference is to two
persons rather than one. Dana and
Mantey quote Granville Sharp, who
explains, "When the copulative koi
[and] connects two nouns of the same
case, if the article ho [the] or any of its
cases precedes the first of the said
nouns, or participles, and is not
repeated before the second noun or
participle, i.e., it denotes a farther
description of the first-named person"
(140). The application of this rule to
Titus 2:13 tells us that "the great God"
and "our Saviour Jesus Christ" refer to
the same person, thus affirming that
Paulcalls Christ "God." When this rule
is applied to Eph.5:5 the words "Christ"
and "God" at the end of the verse refer
to the same person again affirming that
Paul calls Christ "God."
With regard to Meyer's problem in
applying the words "over all" to Christ,
it may not be easy to explain all that is
said in the N.T. about the relationship
between the Son and the Father.
However, there should be no problem
in applying the words "over all" to
Christ. Jesus' words, "All power [Greek
exousia, authorityl is given unto me in
heaven and earth" (Mt. 28:18) are
saying essentially the same thing. First
Cor. 15:27,28 may not be easy to
explain in every respect, but the verses
clearly state that at the present all
things are now under Christ. Earle
comments, "But Meyer seems to miss
the point. Of course Paul would not
assert that Christ was over the Father.
The word 'all' means 'all things,' as
elsewhere. That Christ is over all things
is based on His creatorship of all things
(Col. 1:16)" (182, 183).
B. God'e Beiection of the
Unbelieving Israelites lg Not
to Be Tahen to Mean That
God le Not True to His
Promice (9:6).
926 NOMANS

6 llo't ar though ltc word of God For they cre not all lerael, Covenant People of
hath talen nonG GfrGG{" For thcy which are of lerael. In this part of the Covenant .q.
erc not all larael, urhlch are of the verse Paul is giving his explanation However, when it
Isracl. for saying that the covenant promise vidual, those who
that God made to Abraham and his promise are those
Not aa though the word of God seed had not failed. This passage as it This group ursul4
hath taken none effect. Paul had is developed through the chapter has are A, but not B,
B,
made it quite clear that he did not been called "The Justification of God." promse ot eternal ,

believe that the Jews who failed to It is Paul's defense of the fact that God The Covenant ri
believe in Jesus as the Messiah were is completely justified in not saving of the descendanie
saved. The Jews were not prepared for unbelieving Jews. This fact is in no way is made on the
such an observation because they were in contradiction to the promise God no violation of thC
(for the most part) of the opinion that made to Abraham and his seed. As made to the
since they were Abraham's seed, that Piper explains, "lf Paul can show that unbelievers do not
within itself guaranteed their relation- God's ultimate 'purpose according to Abraham "believedr
ship to God. This they felt was involved election' never included the salvation of he counted it to htri
in the promise of the eternal possession every Israelite, then the situation (Gen. 15:6). ,'u,
of the land to Abraham and his seed described in Rom. 9:1-5 would not so
(Gen. 13:14, 15 and 17:8). As Hodge easi$ jeopardize God's reliability" (33). C. God'e
explains, "lt was a commoh opinion Paul's words make it clear that there arche Ir
among the Jews, that the promise of are at least two uses of the word
God being made to Abraham and to his "lsrael." (1) It refers to all who have What follows in
seed, all hisnatural descendants, descended from Abraham through serve as an
sealed, as such, by the rite of cir- Jacob. (2) There is an Israel within God dealt with
cumcision, would certainly inherit the Israel which consists of those who will Jacob illustrates
blessings of the Messiah's reign. It was actually inherit the promise of the concept of
enough for them, therefore, to be able Abrahamic Covenant. This promise is include all who
to say, 'We have Abraham to our the everlasting possession of the land of ham. For that
father"'(304). Canaan in the eschatological future. understandable
It sounded to the unbelieving Jew as The following diagram will illustrate tion of the saved
if Paul were saying that God had failed what Paul is talking about. need not mean
in His covenant promise to Abraham the seed of
and his seed. Of course, Paul could not
entertain such a thought. In the light of 7 ilelthcr,
prevailing Jewish thought, it was nec- sGcd of
essary for Paul to explain why the fact chlldren: bd,
that many Jews were lost was not in seGd bG callo&;i,
conflict with the Abrahamic Covenant.
It is absolutely essential at this point Neither
that we understand both prevailing seed of
Jewish thought and the true meaning of children. The
the promise made to Abraham and to this part of the
his seed in the Abrahamic Covenant. descendants of
The reader may want to read the dren" refers to
introductory comments on chap. 2; the the "Covenant
comments on 2:25; and the notes on But, In lsaac
"The Abrahamic Covenant and the All who are descendants of Abraham called. Ishmael
Inheritance of Abraham and His Seed" through Jacob would be "A," but not all were, from a
in connection with 4:13. would be "8." All "A' would be the as much the seed

256
 ROMANS
Covenant People of God, r'.e., they are
the Covenant Seed of Abraham.
However, when it comes to the indi-
vidual, those who actually receive the
promise are those who respond in faith.
This group would be "B." Those who
are A, but not B, will not receive the
promise of etemal life on the new earth.
The Covenant promise is made to all
of the descendants of Abraham. But it
is made on the condition of faith. It is
no violation of the Covenant promise
made to the seed of Abraham if
unbelievers do not inherit the promise.
Abraham "believed in the LORD; and
he counted it to him for righteousness"
(Gen. 15:6).
C. God'a Choice of The Patri-
archa ls Discueeed (9:7-13).
What follows in these verses will
serve as an illustratrion that the way
God dealt with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob illustrates the fact that the
concept of Abraham's seed does not
include all who descended from Abra-
ham. For that reason it should be
understandable that the further limita-
tion of the saved to those who believe
need not mean that God's promise to
the seed of Abraham has failed. 9 For ^\lr lr thc wold of promlre,
f,! rhl tlmc wlll I como, and
7 llclther, becaucc tbe5r aro thc Sarrh ehall hre r ron
sced of Abrahrm, ere lfrry dl
chlldrcn: hil, In lraac ahdl thy The words, "but, In Isaac shall thy
sced bG called.
Neither because they are the
seed ol Abraham, ane they all
children. The "seed of Abraham" in
this part of the verse is equivalent to the
descendants of Abraham. The "chil-
dren" refers to those who were to be
the "Covenant Seed."
But, In lsaac shall thy seed be
called. Ishmael and his descendants
were, from a purely physical viewpoint,
as much the seed of Abraham as Isaac
257
9:6-lO
and his descendants. However, they
were not a part of the Covenant Seed
to whom the promise was made in Gen.
13:14, 15 and 17:8. The Covenant Seed
were to be called through Isaac.
I fhrt b, frry ufttch arc tho
chll&tn of tho f,csh, tholc are
not the children of God: but the
children of the promice are
counted for the seed.
That is, They which are the
children of the fleeh, theee ore
not the children of God. This
explains the first part of v. 7. Those who
merely descended from Abraham, as
was the case with Ishmael and his
descendants, are not the children of
God, r'.e., they are not the Covenant
Seed.
But the children of the
proniee are counted for thc
seed. This points to the narrowing
down of the Covenant Seed to Isaac by
the exclusion of Ishmael as is explained
in the next verse. Hodge (306, 307) sees
this passage as analogous to Gal.
4:22-3L.lt seems to me better to stick
to the simpler interpretation.
seed be called" (v. 7, from Gen.2l:12)
and the words here in v. 9 (from Gen.
18:10 and 14) make it clear that only
Isaac's descendants are the Covenant
Seed. In other words, not all of the seed
of Abraham are the Covenant Seed.
lO And nd on$r fJrlr; hrt ufton
Rcboccr dlo hrd concclvcd b5r
onc, eusn by our frthcr lr.tc.
And not only thic. The choice of
Isaac and the rejection of Ishmael
9:1O, 11 noMAhrs
clearly illustrates that natural descent However, to make the choice before he arch while Esau was not
from Abraham does not guarantee that was bom helps accent the fact that the 604).
a person is considered to be the choice was made without any consid. (2) This view in agreem€nt
Covenant Seed of Abraham. However, eration of works. If the choice had been first recognizes that the oae*
Paul will give even more evidence that announced after Jacob had proved with the election of Jaco6 a
this is true. himself more worthy than Esau, it would patriarchal head of the
But when Rebecca aleo had not have been convincing to say that of Abraham and that Esau war.
conceived by one, euen by our the choice in no way took their works However, it goes on to sau tl
father Isaac. While it is true that into account. Jacob and Esau, trke 6
Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of But of him that calleth. When it Ishmael, are fypes of turo
Abraham, they did not have the same is said that the choice was "not of that have been spoken oft
mother. Some might have wanted to works," that rules out any ionsideration 'children o{ lhe promisej
make a point of that. They might have that human merit was the basis of 'children of the flesh, (w*.
said that Ishmael was rejected because God's choice of Jacob. When it is said, theocratic election of
his mother was Abraham's handmaid. "but of him that calleth" the stress is on Jacob illustrates the
Isaac, they might have said, was the fact that it was God's free choice as ,r,,j
election of individuala;
accepted because his mother, Sarah, distinguished from a choice being theocratic reprobation d
was Abraham's wife. If such an argu- imposed on God. and Esau illustrates th*.
ment was developing in the mind of the The important observation in this,l.:i reprobation of individualll
Jew, Paul quickly silenced it. Jacob and verse is: What is "the purpose of God 285). . .,::1
Esau had the same father and mother. according to election'? No one needs to-.a:, This view goes on to
In fact, they were twins. Yet by Divine be informed of the fact that Calviniste,.ri:! doctrine of unconditional:
choice Jacob was chosen and Esau was insist that their view of unconditional individuals for salvation froruir
rejected. election is the only consistent and,r".i: sage. Hodge would also suDffi
adequate interpretation of this u"r.". l-'i! of thinking (306, 307,
11 (For ttrr dfrisrbGhg not yct think it is time that they faced a.,;rii (3) The more common
born, nolthcn hrrlng dorc an5l challenge. those who see unconditiond
good or GYll, tDrt ltc purpoeo of It seems that there have beefl" being taught in the passagtF
God accordng to clc'llon nbtt basically three interpretations given tO.r-+..;i take the passage to be
stand, nd, of wortl hrt of hlm w. 6-13. (1) The passage has nothing to:+$ cerned with
tbd c.lldh). do with election or rejection for indi+ffi rather than to support: it
it refers to tMi;
vidual salvation. Rather, (Hendriksen 323, 324; Mts
(For tlre childsen being not yet election of Jacob as the third of thg and Piper 48-52).
born, neither having done any partriarchal ancestors (the other twc After taking a look at w
sood or evil. This points out the time being Abraham and Isaac) of the nation deal with the question of
of tne statement about to be quoted in of Israel. Thus, the Covenant Seed d teach and how it relates tt
v. 12 from Gen. 25:23. The timing is Abraham were chosen through of election.
mentioned to support what follows in rather than Esau. Jacob was electd{i
tht hri;urtof ihe verse. Esau was rejected (Clarke LLL, Ll}i..: 12 It was rald unto hxf
That thethe purpose of God Godet 350, 351; and Sanday and']"11*f, and': rhall s€nG thc
according to elecfion night Headlam 245). Lenski's view is & ,r
stand, not of workcftlhe fact that modification of this view. He denies that :.:1.1 Cranfield explains:
God's choice of Jacob was made before Paul is de-aliqs here with etgmal sdti ;, i._.ii The interest of thb.l
he was bom does not within itself prove vation and damnation. At the sam 1il."i verse as a whole ig
that God's choice was not by works. time, he denies that Paul is including th*i.:,li Jacob and Esau not jtt*
God in His foreknowledge could have two nations that would descend fumf:f viduals but also, and
chosen Jacob on the basis of works if Jacob and Esau. He thinks Paulb;*l;".: as the ancestors of firta
He had desired to do so. He can foresee concem is to deal only with the fact th$,'. ,,i; for the part quoted ie
works as *ell u" He can other thi.gs. Jrc r the third pafilt, -,''
r* I would argue ttnt Forrines presupposition that God
e4ioys exhaustive definite
-- wo nations are in thY

foreknowledge (EDF) is mistaken. Forlines is correct

irrat paul,s argumeJhere wouto be
susceptible ifhe and/or his op.ponents berieved,
like Forlines, tir"t cio"":"v, ior.
Therefore, that paul levels this argument is evidence
does not share
lfrom ,il"*", g;;iJ.iiJat puut
Forlines' belief and does not berieve his opponents ;fr;"
F;il;, belief
 ROMANS
i
arch while Esau was not chosen (603,
6Ml.
(2) This view in agreement with the
first recognizes that the passage deals
with the election of Jacob as the third
patriarchal head of the Covenant Seed
of Abraham and that Esau was rejected.
However, it goes on to say that:
Jacob and Esau, like Isaac and
Ishmael, are fupes of two classes
that have been spoken of: viz: the
'children of the promise,' and the
'children of the flesh' (ver. 8). The
theocratic election of Isaac and
Jacob illustrates the spiritual
election of individuals; and the
theocratic reprobation of Ishmael
and Esau illustrates the spiritual
reprobation of individuals (Shedd
285).
This view goes on to develop the
doctrine of unconditional election of
individuals for salvation from this pas-
sage. Hodge would also support this line
of thinking (306, 307, and 312).
(3) The more common view (among
those who see unconditional election ai
being taught in the passage) seems to
take the passage to be directly con-
cerned with unconditional eiection
1a_theqthan to support it by analogy
(Hendriksen 323, 3i4; Murray II:15-i|
and Piper 48-52).
After taking a look at w. 12, 13, I will
deal with the question of what w. O-t3
teach and how it relates to the subject
of election.
12 lt war sald unto her, fhc clder
shall sene thc younger.
Cranfield explains:
The interest of this Genesis
verse as a whole is clearly in
Jacob and Esau not just as indi-
viduals but also, and particularly,
as the ancestors of two nations;
f.cr the part quoted is preceded by
'Two nations are in thy womb, and
259
9:ll, 12
two peoples shall be separated
even from thy bowels: and the one
people shall be stronger than the
other people.' It is important to
stress that neither as they occur
in Genesis nor as they are used by
Paul do these words refer to thl
eternal destinies either of two
persons or the individualmembers
of the nations sprung from them;
the reference is rather , to the
mutual relations of the two hations
in history. What is here in
question is not eschatological
salvation or damnation, but-the
historical function of those con-
cerned and their relations to the
development of the salvation-
history (ll:a7il.
Lenski would agree with Cranfield
that this verse does not deal with the
eternal destinies of Jacob and Esau.
However, he does not believe that paul
is intending to include a reference to the
two nations which descended from
Jacob and Esau: Israel and Edom. He
thinks the reference is limited to the fact
that God chose Jacob to be "the third
patriarch. As 'in Isaac' seed was to be
called for Abraham so also in Jacob.
Esau had the covenant in his twin
brother, and not that brother in Esau.
Jesus also said: 'salvation is of the
Jews,' John 4:22" (603, 604).
Lenski calls attention to the fact that
Paul, in quoting from Gen. 25:23, omits
the reference to two nations in
Rebecca's womb. He thinks the refer-
ence to the nations was purposely
omitted by Paul because he did no1
want to include a reference to the
nations.
I am sure that Paul's concern was
with the fact that Jacob, and not Esau,
was chosen as the one through whom
the Covenant Seed would bL cailed.
However, it seems that it would be
impossible in this verse to think of
Jacob as the last chosen partriarch
9:12, l3 ROMANS

without thinking also of the nation that Jacob includes the nation of Israel, Esau individual election out d
descended from him. However, no includes the nation of Edom. -
Murray explains:
matter what other things may be The purpose of v. 13 in Paul,s ihe ihesis that pard
involvedin the relationships and dif- thought is to show that the quotation merely with the
ferences between these two nations, the from Gen. 25:23, "Tlte elder shall serve collectively. . .urould, lri
central thought of Paul was that the the younger," was actually fulfilled. That precise situation.
Covenant Seed was called through is what is implied by the words, "As i1 posed for the apoed*
Jacob. is written." In addition to the fact that the covenant prombe
While seeing a reference to the Esau was not a part of the Covenant regarded as
nations as wellas the individuals, Shedd Seed, there would be other advantages mass of those w$'
says, "The theocratic election of Isaac that Jacob would have over Esau. The Israel, who are
and Jacob illustrates the spiritual quotation from Mal. 1:2, 3'support this elect nation. . .haw
election of individuals; and the theo- prediction from Gen. 25:23. unbelief and come
cratic reprobation of Ishmael and Esau We should avoid over-interpreting covenant
illustrates the spiritual reprobation of Paul's quotation from Malachi. The only would fail if it
individuals" (285. See also Hodge 311, purpose in the reference to the fact that appeal to the collecl$
372\. God loved Jacob and hated Esau is to theocratic election d
I will reserve my own comments on confirm the fact that the advantage Paul's answer is notd
how all this relates to the subject of spoken of in Gen. 25:23 actually came election of Israel b*
election after completing comments on to pass. The hating of Esau is illustrated are not all Israel,.
the next verse. by the fact that God "laid his mountains Israel.'And this
and his heritage waste for the dragons the stage of
13 Ar lt b rrftfcn, Jrcob hyG I of the wilderness" (Mal. 1:3). It is not we have now
lorrcd, but Esau hm I hltGd. said that this destruction was wrought not all elect, wlp:,1
upon the nation simply because God
Lenski, as in his comment on v. 12, did not include Esau and his de- that when Paul
does not think the reference here scendants among the Covenant Seed. of God
includes the nations which descended For the basis for judgment being speaking of the
from Jacob and Esau. He thinks the brought on Edom, see Am. 1:11, 12, and God in a discr
reference is "to the individual acts when Ob. 1-14. When we see that the tiating sense that
God took Jacob and did not take Esau" "hating" of Esau refers to God's all who were sfl
(604). judgment on the nation of Edom for cratic election
It is importani to remember that the their sins, we do not need to get Murray developo
choice of Jacob as the third patriarch involved in whether "hating" as used the doctrine of
is at the heart of what Paulhas in mind. refers to loving less. He says, "lt does not
However, that choice cannot be res- is it conditioned bnr
tricted in meaning to Jacob as an Vercec 5.13 and Election. by the determinate ull$
individual. Jacob, as patriarch, has 1:5, 11)" (ll:20). i
meaning only as it is understood that In commenting on v. 11 above, I I agree that Paul
he, not Esau, is the one through whom pointed out that some do not see the election of the n
Israel as the Covenant Seed was called. individual election for salvation in this 5-13. It is clear that
Once this is understood, there is no passage. Rather, they see it as dealing intended to deal
way to eliminate the nation of Israel only with the choice of Jacob as the one expressed in w. 1-3
from the mention by Malachi (from 1:2, through whom the Covenant Seed of that large numbert
3) referred to by Paul. Of course it is Abraham were chosen. Thus Israel as saved. ,',,,

the nation as the Covenant Seed that the Covenant Seed descended from It is important ts
descended from Jacob that would be in Jacob. Esau and his descendants were Paul's contention thd
focus-not simply the nation as a not a part of the Covenant Seed. Jews were not
nation. It should be obvious that if Others are not content in leaving such a serious

2ffi
 ROMANS
individual election out of the passage. thought. The problem
goes beyond the
Murray explains: question of why they are not iaved
The thesis that paul is dealinq or
how to reach them.
merely with the election of Israej To the.vast majority of Jews, it was
collectively. . .would not meet ttre unrtunkable that any Jew would be
precise situation. The question denied !9 purt in the
posed for the apostle is: hbw can inh#
tance. This is true because "ternJ thev
the covenant promise of God be believed in the unconditional
regarded as inviolate when the the Covenant Seed of Abraham:-is;"t".tior'Jf
mass of those who belong to quotation in notes on v. 6 from Hodge
Israel, who are comprised in- the along with other comments in the noiZs
elect nation. .have remained in on v. 6 that deal with the Jewish
unbelief and come short of the attitude about what was theirs ;;
covenant promises? His answer Abraham's seed..) All of their tf,i"f.i"s
would fail if it were simply on had not been fully harmonized, and foi
appeal to the collective, inilusive, that reason some of their comments on
theocratic election of lirael. . .-. works may not seem to fit the concent
Paul's answer is not the collective of unconditional election. Ho*"u"1.
election of Israel but rather ,thev there can be no doubt thai-ih;
are not all Israel, who are o'f unconditional election of the seed of
Israel.'And this means, in terms oi Abraham permeated Jewish thouqni.
the stage of discussion at which For this reason, the possibility th;iFrse
we have now arrived, ,Thev are numbers of the Jews might be un.uu"-d
not all elect, who are of - Isra_ war to them absolutely unthinkable.
el. . .'the conclusion, therefore, is To- think that large numbers oi j"*,
that when Paul says ,Th" purpo." would not be saved meant to them
of God according io election'ire is either one of two things: (t) God hiJ
spegkinS of the electing purpose of broken His covenant w-ith israel
God in a discriminatin!, aifferen- th;
s.eed o{ Abraham, or (2) ,in"" ". Cniir-
tiating sense that cannot apply to tianity did not concur with the iaea ihat
all who were embraced i,i'theo- all J,e1vs were saved, it coutd noi
cratic election (ll,lg). possibly be true.
. Murray develops-from this Dassaae
- More was involved than merely
the doctrine of unconditional electio-n. clarifuing
whether some or all Jewi
fle says, "lt does not proceed fiom ;;; would be saved. paul had to show-thai
is it.conditioned by the human will bui being the
Covenant
by the determinate will of God (cf. Eph. did not guarantee Seed of Abraliam
1:5, 11)" (ll:20). that everyon" *tio
descended from Abraham- thro;;h
. I agree that Paul does not stop with Jacob would be saved. Th" d#i
the-ele_ction of the nation of tsraet-i" uv.
would not be
6-13. It is clear that this pur"ug" i, unless this point received bv the- $w
was cleared up. It wis
intended to deal with til prolUi". this point
expressed in w. l-3 concerhing the fact sought _
of clarification that paul
to make in w. 6-13.
that large numbers of Jews ;"r; ;;; The following will clarifu what is
saved.
_ It- is important to understand whv Abpham.Tgalt by the Covenant Seed of
God entered into a.ouenani
Paul's contention that turg" nu.b"r, o'f with
Abraham in which n" pro.ir"J
Jews were not saved riould t the eternal possession of the land-;;
such a serious problem to Jewi"ii "*;; Palestine to the seed of Abraham (Gen.

261
 ROMAI\IS

13:14, 15, and 17:8). The Covenant always to work on the principle of cussion gf *lto made up th
Seed of Abraham are those to whom unconditional election (38-52). He Seed qf Abraham must ft;;
the promise was made. This promise explains, "The principle established is in dealing with the fact
was not made to all who could be that God's promised blessings are never the Covenant Seed of
considered in the literal sense the seed enjoyed on the basis of what a person sved. However, the
of Abraham. Ishmael's descendants, is by birth or by works, but only on the itself is not the ansl{rer.
those who descended from Abraham basis of God's sovereign, free predes- that in w. 613, Pauk.
through the children of Keturah, and tination (Rom. 9:11, 12). The ultimate address the Jewish cott *
those who descended from Esau could decision of who will experience God's fact that not all Jeun
all be considered as being the seed of grace or mercy is never based on a Let me restate the
Abraham in the literal sense. However, person's 'willing or running' (Rom. is dealing with in v. 6.
none of these were the Seed of 9:t6)" (46). how the rest of the
Abraham to whom the promises were Piper is not simply saying that the throws light on this
made. Those to whom the promises exegetical evidence supports the con. It is quite clear
were made were those who descended clusion that God operates on the indicate that large
from Abraham through Jacob. These principle of unconditional election. He is were unsaved (w.
were the Covenant Seed of Abraham. also saying that, theologically and log- serious problem to
Paul's point was that not even all ically, the only way God's Word could Such an idea was
Israel, who made up the Covenant Seed be effective is to operate on the prin- they thought that Godi
of Abraham, would be saved and ciple of unconditional election. tionally elected all d,.,
receive the eternal inheritance of the Unconditional election makes the work Abraham that
land of Palestine. Further, he was saying depend on nothing other than God. ham through Jacob. A*,
that the fact that not all of the Covenant Since the program of redemption Paul's approach woub,.,i
Seed of Abraham would actually be depends altogether on God, it must unconditional
saved and receive the land as an succeed. If God did not unconditionally Covenant Seed of Ahl
everlasting possession did not mean elect every individual Jew, that is all that come to pass. God's
that the promise which God made to is needed to explain how many were not would have failed.
the Covenant Seed of Abraham had saved and yet God's Word was not Obviously Paul did
proved to be ineffective. without effect. assumption that God",
The question that needs to be Is the case sewed up for uncondi- tionally elected all of th.
answered is: Why is it that not allof the tional election? Is that the only possible of Abraham fisrael).
Covenant Seed are saved? Those who way for us to understand why all of the edges in the last part
advocate the doctrine of unconditional Covenant Seed (lsrael) are not saved? ore not all Israel,
election say that it is because not every I think not. This implies that thc
member of the elect nation (lsrael) was I do agree with those who insist that used in two different
elected for individual salvation by God. w. 6-13 are not to be restricted to The first way of
Since this was the case, the fact that helping us understand that Jacob and is the all-inclusive
many in Israel were not saved does not his descendants made up the covenant who descended from
mean that the Word of God "hath taken Seed of Abraham while Esau and his
Jacob. These can be
none effect" (v. 6). It simply means that descendants were not included in the Covenant Seed of
God's unconditional election for salva- Covenant Seed of Abraham. These Covenant People of
tion did not embrace everyone who verses musf deal with the Jewish The second way d
Israel is to refer to
made up the Covenant Seed of concem that not all who descended are saved and win
Abraham. from Abraham through Jacob are promises of God ma&
Piper takes the position that in w. saved. The fact that Jacob's and not
Abraham that will be s*
6-13 Paul is talking about unconditional Esau's descendants make up the
eschatological futura (l
election allthe way through. As he sees Covenant Seed of Abraham, within
and 17:8).
it, the only way God's Word could itself, does not explain why some Jews Jewish thought dil
always be effective would be for God are not saved. Apparently, Paul's dis.

262
rl
I RoMANS
t

I cusion g{ *lto made up the Covenant distinction made by Paul. The only thing
I S".a of Abraham. must have some value that Paul had to do to prove hij poini
i in d"uling with the fact that not all of was to prove that it was possible for the
the covenant seed of Abraham are name Israel to be so used in a broad
i saved. However, the simple fact within and in a narrow use.
: itself is not the answer. Yet, it is obvious To prove his point, Paul itl'.:strates
that in w. 6-13, Paul intended to that the expression "seed of Abraham"
address the Jewish concern about the can indisputably be used in a broad and
fact that not all Jews are saved, in a narrow sense. In the broad sense,
Let me restate the problem thit Paul the seed of Abraham (the descendants
is dealing with in v. 6. Then I will show of Abraham) include Ishmael and his
how the rest of the passage (w. 7-13) descendants, those who descended
throws light on this problem. from Abraham through the sons he had
It is quite clear that for Paul to by Keturah, and Esau and his
indicate that large numbers of Jews descendants as well as those who
were unsaved (w. 1-3) presented a descended through Jacob.
serious problem to Jewish thought. While it is obvious that in the literal
Such an idea was intolerable because sense the seed of Abraham could be
they --thought that God had uncondi- understood in such a broad way, it is
tionalb elected all of the seed of equally obvious that when the se-ed of
Abraham that descended from Abra- Abraham is used in a theological sense
ham- through Jacob. _ As they saw it, it is not used in this broad sense. Every
Paul's approach would mean that the Jew would have known that.
unconditional election of all of the Paul's point is simply this. If there can
Covenant Seed of Abraham had not be a broad and a narrow use of the
come to pass. God's word in this case expression "the seed of Abraham,"
would have failed. there is no reason to reject the idea that
obviously Paul did not work on the in a similar way there'can be a broad
assumption that God had uncondi- and a narrow sense of the name Israel.
tionally elected all of the Covenant Seed It must be remembered that the
of. Abraham {lsrael). This he acknowl- Jewish problem grew out of the sig-
edges in ttre_ last part of v. 6: "For they nificance that thei gave to the fact thdt
q1e not all Israel, which are of Israel." they were the seed ol Abraham rather
This- implies that the name of "lsrael" is than that they were ihe descendants of
used in two different ways. Jacob (Mt. g:9 and Jn. 8:$-a0. Whv?
Th" first way of using the name Israel Because if u,ros to the seed of Abrahim
is the all-inclusive use. It refers to all that the promises were made (Gen.
who descended from Abraham through 3:14, lS, and l7:8).
Jacob. These can be rishtlv called the The Jewish case, if it were to stand,
covenant seed of Abraham or the would have to mean that "the seed oi
Covenant People of God. Abraham" in Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8
_ The second way of using the name was all-inclusive. The problem with this
Israel is to refer to those in Israel who is that it would include what Jewish
are saved and will thus inherit the thought would not include, i.e., it would
promises of God made to the seed of include all of the descendants of
Abraham that will be experienced in the Abraham, not just those who de-
eschatological future (Gen. 13:14, 15, scended through Jacob.
and 17:8). once it is conceded that not all the
Jewish thought did not recognize this seed of Abraham are the covenant

263
9:14 ROMANS

Seed of Abraham, it should not be too God? The negative (Greek me) means would not 1.".p His uorrd
hard to realize that not allthe Covenant that Paul expected a negative answer. abhorrent to Paul as it was to I
Seed of Abraham (those who de- It is not simply implied that the answer objector. n
scended from Abraham through Jacob) is to be negative. Paul emphatically Let me say at this point that,
are the heirs of the promises made to negates such an assumption by saying there actually was a Jewish
the seed of Abraham. Or to say it God forbid. (For comments on thi beside the point. In all
another way, "They are not all Israel, Greek construction used here, see had encountered some Jerlg
which are of Israel" (9:6). Once this notes on 3:4.) It was unthinkable both such a question. Whether
position is taken, the Jew should not to Paul and the Jew that God could be case or not, the question
have a theological difficulty in realizing unrighteous. raises is one that an
that some Jews would be lost. It is important to get a true picture would have had in
his
The question of whether election is of who it is among the objectors that reading or hearing what Paul
conditional or unconditional is not would raise such a question and why. in w. 1-13. Paul was wise to
decided by fhis possoge. What is Without doubt, the person who would question and deal with it.
decided by this passage is that not all think that Paul's statements (in w. 1-13) The view which I hawl
Jews were saved and that this is would reflect on the righteousness of concerling.why Paul raised:
consistent with Biblical thought. God would be a Jew who was abiding tion, "ls there unrighteors
So far as Paul's thought is con- still in unbelief. God?" is not the view
cerned, as it is set forth in Romans, it Why would the Jew think that Paul's commentaries. Haldane
is quite obvious why not all Jews are statements in w. 1-13 would reflect on Apostle anticipated the
saved. It is because they have failed to the righteousness of God? As a means camal mind in this doctrind
believe in Jesus as the Messiah (see of answering that question, it helps to loving Jacob and hatiqC E
9:30-33, especially v. 32). raise another. What is the Jew's chief they had done any giood or:
I will reserve further thoughts on concern as it relates to what Paul said that there is injustice with
election and how all this fits into the in w. 1-13? Harrison observes,'Godtg
sovereignty of God until it fits appro- It is obvious where the Jew's chief Jacob and Esau might bg
priately into the following verses. concern lay. He worked on the ,i arbitrary, on the ground
assumption that God unconditionally ,i the object of injusticer,
D. The Matter of Having Mercy elected oll of the seed of Abraham that .;: says, "The meaning is thi*
on Some and Hardening descended through Jacob. For that'l treatment of Isaac and
Others Is Based on God's reason, the Jew found Paul's view that' injustice to Ishmael and Et
Choice (9:14-f8). not all Jews would be saved highly Shedd explains, "The
objectionable and very puzzling. In fact,' that in such
14 Wtil ehall wc thcn? Ir since he thought that all Jews, as the
ea5r between Jacob and E*drff
flrcle unrlghtGousnec3 wlth God? Covenant Seed of Abraham, wer€ .; unjustly" (288). ,;
God forDld. unconditionally elected to receive the I believe it is quite
eternal inheritance (Gen. 13:14, 15, and ,: commentators (there b
What ehall we say then? In the 17:8), for him to think otherwise would sensus among the corur*
lisht of Paul's comments in w. L-13, it be casting reflection on the righteous" this viewpoint) have mbuix
is reasonable to assume that certain ness of God. God would be considered ., Paul raised this question:.
questions would arise in the mind of unrighteous in that He would not, in the i reading of w. 1-13 shouH
those Jews who were still under the eye of the Jew, be following through that in this passage Paul li'
power of unbelief. Following Paul's use with a promise, and that a covenant an objection or a conc€trn
of rhetorical questions in Rom. (3:L, 9, promise! have been raised in the
31; 6:1, 15; and 7:71, it is time again for If a person does not keep his word, who was still abiding in
Paul to pose a question which an he is unrighteous. To the Jew still is the case, let it be sairl
objector would likely be raising in his abiding in unbelief, it would appear that had no difficulty with
own mind. according to Paul's view God had failed Ishmael and Esau. This is
Is there unrighteoueness with to keep His word. The idea that God the concern was with

2&
 BOMANS
would not keep His word was as
ibhorrent to Paulas it was to his Jewish
"T:lT" say at this point that whether
there actually was a Jewish objector is
beside the point. In all likelihood Paul
had encountered some Jews who raised
such a question. Whether that be the
case or not, the question which Paul
raises is one that an unbelieving Jew
would have had in his mind after
reading or hearing what Paul had to say
in w. 1-13. Paul was wise to raise this
ouestion and deal with it.
The view which I have presented
concerning why Paul raised the ques-
tion, "ls there unrighteousness with
God?" is not the view given in the
commentaries. Haldane explains, "The
Apostle anticipated the objection of the
carnal mind in this doctrine. Does not
loving Jacob and hating Esau before
they had done any good or evil, imply
that there is injustice with God?" (467).
Harrison observes, "God's dealings with
Jacob and Esau might be challenged as
arbitrary, on the ground that Esau was
the object of injustice" (106). Plumer
says, "The meaning is this: Does God's
treatment of Isaac and Jacob display
injustice to Ishmael and Esau?" (473).
Shedd explains, "The objection is raised
that in such discrimination as that
between Jacob and Esau, God acts
unjustly" (288).
I believe it is quite obvious that these
commentators (there is almost a con-
sensus among the commentators with
this viewpoint) have misunderstood why
Paul raised this question. Any careful
reading of w. 1-13 should make it clear
that in this passage Paul is dealing with
an objection or a concern that would
have been raised in the mind of a Jew
who was still abiding in unbelief. If this
is the case, let it be said that the Jews
had no difficulty with the rejection of
Ishmael and Esau. This is true whether
the concern was with individual salva-
9:14, 15
tion or with the exclusion of Ishmael,
Esau, and their descendants from the
Covenant Seed of Abraham.
The only trouble that the Jews had
with unconditional election was that,
according to Paul, God had not
unconditionally elected oll Jews as they
had thought. The concern that the
unbelieving Jew would have had about
God's righteousness was that for God
not to follow through with the un-
conditional election of oll Jews meant
that God had not kept His word. For
God to fail to keep His word would
mean that He would be unrighteous.
Such a conclusion was unthinkable. Ihe
only hope of getting them to ac-
knowledge Jesus os fhe Messiah musf
be connected with evidence that God
had neuer said that all Jews utere
unconditionally elected. If they could
see fhis, then they could look at the
question ol their own salvation in the
lisht ol the lact that not all Jews are
saued. U in t'act God neuer said that all
Jews would be saued, Chrisf and
Christianity would not haue to be
written ofl without a hearing. Howeuer,
if God did unconditionally elect all Jews
and Christianitv denied that this was
the case, Christ qnd Christianity would
be written ofl without lurther inuesfi-
gation.
The problem with those who have
taken the view that the realdifficulty, as
it relates to the righteousness of God,
was with the rejection of Ishmael and
Esau is that they have interrupted w.
1-13 in the light of their own theological
encounters rather than the encounters
that Paul had with the Jews.
15 For he salth to llooes, I wltl
have merc5r on whom I wltr have
merqf, and I wlll have compas-
slon on whom I wllt have com.
passion.
How do vv. 15-18 relate to v. 74P
9:15 ROMAhIS
Since v. 15 is connected with v. 14 by
the conjunction "for" (Greek gor), we
need to take a look at how the con-
junction is used here. We naturally
expect a reason or proof to follow "for."
However, such is not the case here. It
is obvious that what follows does not
take on the form of an argument
defending the righteousness (or justice
of God) in not saving all Jews. As
Lenski explains, "The gor is not to
prove the statement that there is no
justice on the part of God in these
promises; for what follows is not proof
. .Gar is at times used simply to
confirm; it does so here: 'yea"' (607).
The question of whether God could
be unrighteous (or unjust) was not
debatable between Paul and the Jew.
One would reject such an implication as
quickly as the other. The difference
came in applying the truth of the
righteousness of God to the question of
whether all Jews were saved.
The Jews took the position that God
had unconditionally elected all Jews
since they were the Covenant Seed of
Abraham. To them the thought that
large numbers of Jews were not saved
would be a denial of the righteousness
of God. The righteousness of God
would require Him to keep the Cove-
nant promise made to Abraham and his
seed.
Paul's position was that God had
never promised that every member of
the Covenant Seed of Abraham would
be saved. The fact that eternal life on
this earth in the land of Palestine was
promised to the seed of Abraham in
Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8 is not to be
taken to mean that everybody who
descended from Abraham would be
saved. In w. 7-13 Paul clearly showed
that even though Ishmael and Esau
were descendants of Abraham, they
were not a part of the Covenant Seed
of Abraham.
When the Jew recognized that Ish-
26
mael and Esau were not a part of the
Covenant Seed of Abraham, they were age, the reply is
already recognizing the principle that the fact that. the cita&;
Paul wanted to make. The mere fact of neorew Dcnptures; td
being the seed of Abraham could not authority which the
guarantee the salvation of anybody. The own to have a bindft*l
Jew was already recognizing this when good Jew, or Jerrddr-
he did not hold the same hope for the can doubt that what
descendants of Ishmael and Esau that about .Himself in hb
-
he did for those who descended from must be_in harmorq,
Jacob. absolute Righteousn€;, I
Whenever a person will appb the Shedd,.after pointing ifi
principle that eliminates Ishmael's and to the authority of ScrLhi$
Esau's descendants from the Covenant "The argument runs
People of God, though being the seed into the idea and defir
of Abraham, he can see that the sal- absolutely perfect ffi
vation of every Jew is not guaranteed wrong" (288).
by the fact that they are the seed of Both Paul and the
Abraham. In principle the possibility were in agreement that h
exists that some Jews are not saved. unrighteousness be
Paul's position that a large number of God of the O.T. If
Jews are not saved cannot be ruled out O.T. support for the idel}
as being in contradiction to the cove- not promised that ever$:,
nant promise made to the seed of chosen for salvation, ffi
Abraham in Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8. the issue. ..
Such a position is not to be rejected on
For hc caith to
the grounds that it violates the right- have mercy on
eousness of God since God has never mercy, and I will
promised salvation to all Jews. sion on whon I
ln v. 1.4 Paulemphatically denied that
paeeion. See notes;
God was unrighteous. What follows in introductory notes on
is taken from the
v. 15 is not evidence that God is not
unrighteous. That was settled by an of Ex. 33:19. ':ti
These words of God
emphatic denial. What does follow is an
illustration from Scripture of how the it clear that God is in
pensing grace. He
action of God, who can do no wrong,
supports the principle that some, but whom He chooses.
not all, from among Israel are chosen on) is singular. The.
Greek is "whomever.o
for salvation.
That Paul is appealing to the the individual person.
lates it, "For He sayS
authority of Scripture rather than
have mercy on any
building an argument in v. 15 finds
have mercy on, and
broad agreement. Liddon explains,
man that I choose to
For the disputant with whom
Picirilli explains,
the Apostle conceives himself to
derness, when we mi
be arguing, who takes his stand on
nation was
the Jewish Scriptures, and ac- favor, he said: 'l will
cuses God of being unjust to the
whom I will show
majority of Israel in the Apostolic
words, He wanted it
 ROMANS 9:15

age, the reply is sufficient. It lies in
the fact that the citation is from
Hebrew Scriptures; that is an
authority which the objector must
own to have a binding force...no
good Jew, or Jewish Christian,
can doubt that what God says
about Himself in his own Law,
must be in harmony with this
absolute Righteousness (162, 163).
Shedd, after pointing out the appeal
the authority of Scripture, observes,
he argument runs back, ultimately,
o the idea and definition of God. The
solutely perfect Being can do no
ong" (288).
Both Paul and the unbelieving Jew
re in agreement that in no way could
righteousness be attributed to the
d of the O.T. If Paul could show
T. support for the idea that God had
t promised that every Jew had been
rsen for salvation, that should settle
r issue.
For he saith to Mocee, I will
ve mercy on whom I will have saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is
rrcy, and I witl have compae- in the potter's hand, so ore ye in mine
)n on whon I will have com- hand, O house of Israel" (18:6).
ssion. See notes on "for" in the God was saying to Israel, "You are
'oductory notes on v. 15. This verse
aken from the Septuagint translation
Ex. 33:19.
Ihese words of God to Moses make
:lear that God is in charge of dis-
sing grace. He will give grace to
cm He chooses. Whom (Greek hon
is singular. The meaning of the
uek is "whomever." The stress is on
individual person. Williams trans-
:s it, "For He says to Moses, 'l will
,e mercy on any that I choose to
'e mercy on, and take pity on any
n that I choose to take pity on."'
)icirilli explains, "Even in the wil-
ness, when we might think all the
ion was automatically entitled to His
>r, he said: 'l will show mercy on
lm I will show mercy.' In other
'ds, He wanted it clearly established
that neither Moses nor Israel had any
special claims on Him that took away
His sovereign right to act as He chose.
Nor will He show mercy to all of them,
just because they were Israelites in the
flesh" (183).
Since this verse tells us that God
shows mercy and compassion to
whomever He chooses, the Calvinist
thinks that this gives conclusive proof of
the doctrine of unconditional election. It
seems to me to be involved in the very
concept of God that He would be the
one who decides who is saved and who
is not saved. However, I do not believe
that such an observation automatically
decides on the side of unconditional
election.
In Jer. 18:1-4 Jeremiah observed the
work of the potter. The potter had
control over the clay to make it into a
vessel as it seemed good to the potter
to do so. After he made this obser-
vation, God said, "O house of Israel,
cannot I do with you as this potter?
in my hands. I can do with you what I
Or to put it another way, "l
choose."
will do with you as I choose." The
exercise of this right on the part of God
did not mean that He would not take
into consideration anything done by
Israel in deciding what He would do
with Israel. That he would take Israel's
action into account in deciding what to
do with Israel is clear in the context of
Jer. 18:6; see vv. 7-10.
The essence of what God said to
Jeremiah in these verses is as follows.
"lf a nation obeys me I will build it up.
If it disobeys me I will destroy it."
h should be obvious lrom Jer.
18:1-10 that the Diuine prerogative to
exercise His nLThf to do as He chooses
utith people does not mean that His
decisions must always be unconditional

267
9:15 ROMANS
choices. When we read that God will do
as He chooses, it will help if we will ask
a simple question: What does God
choose to do? When God told Jeremiah
that He could do with Israel what He
chose just as the potter could with the
clay, He followed that observation by
telling them what He wanted to do.
When we read in Rom.9:15 that God
will have mercy and compassion on
whomever He wills, it behooves us to
ask: On whom does God will to show
mercy and compassion? Once it is
decided that the mercy and compassion
under consideration is that shown in
salvation, the answer is easy.
God told Isaiah whom He wanted to
have mercy on when He said, "Let the
wicked forsake his wd9, and the
unrighteous man his thoughts: and let
him return unto the LORD, and he will
have mercy [italics mine] upon him; and
to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon" (55:7).
We certainly do not have to list an
array of references from the N.T. in
order to identifu those to whom God
wishes to give the mercy of salvation.
Let's take the answer given by Pauland
Silas to the question, "What must I do
to be saved?" "And they said, Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts
16:30,31).
When God chooses the one who
believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and
Savior to show His mercy in salvation,
He is choosing whom He wills. Such a
decision can in no way be viewed as a
decision that God is forced to make.
The whole idea of salvation was God's
idea from the outset. He could have
chosen to have left the whole human
race in sin without offering salvation had
He chosen to do so. He planned to
provide and offer salvation to lost
mankind long before (in eternity past)
man felt the pangs of being lost. It was
not even in response to man's pleading
26
(much less demanding) that God chose
to offer redemption.
The provision of salvation throug[.:,.:
the death and righteousness of Chrisf,.l
was totally God's idea and totally God'r. .,
provision. It came about as a result ot.,r,
His own free acts. The decision to offsft, i
salvation on the condition of faith inr:!
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior orgi.
nated with God and no one else. The,
decision to commissiori. believers to ,i
take the gospel into the world waai
God's decision, not man's. The decision
for the Holy Spirit to work in men'g,
hearts in connection with the preached
Word was God's decision.
The whole plan of salvation from
beginning to end is the work and plan,.l
of God. God is in charge. When sal.,
vation is offered on the condition of,j
faith in Christ, that in no way weakene,,',
the words, "l will have mercy on whom
I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have'
compassion." God's sovereignty is fully
in control in this view.
The problem arises in that the','.
Calvinist wants to view the relationship .,,
with God and man as if it were a cause
and effect relationship rather than an,,
influence and response relationship.
(See discussion in connection with
comments on election in notes on 8:29.)
The word "condition" creates a
problem for the Calvinist because a'
condition represents a response on the
part of man. On the one hand according,
to the Calvinist, election is viewed as
being unconditional. On the other handr
faith is recognized as the condition of
justification.
It seems to me that if we think of
conditional justification, we should also
be able to think of conditional election.
The Calvinist tries to get around this
problem by saying that faith is a gift
and, in effect, not really a condition. As
a means of trying to give the appear'
ance that faith is the work of God and
not in any true sense the resx
i man, Calvinism introduces the'c
of the effectual call. The
reggneration. Regeneration I
faith and gives birth to faith.
eration is designed to change
That is what sanctification c
puts Calvinism in conflict with
theologSr by putting sanctificati
to justification. (See more
of this thought in notes on 8:29
with election.)
I agree that faith is a grft,
human experience. 'Faith is
substance that exists outsids
is to be given to us. It is an
that must take place within
the only way we can have
is a gift in the sense that God-
us the aid that is
which we could not exercise
not a gift in the sense that it
exercise of our own
(Forlines, Sysfemotics, 2A41.
To try to drain the word !
of its meaning, or to try to
faith is the "condition" of
fruitless. The only way for
being to experience faith b t0
. faith. It is impossible for a
totally passive (to have faithr
thing done to him or for
in the experience of savirqi{'fi
is not only acted upon; tn"b.:
the experience ol faith, h t
otherwise. '" :i
To think so is to rob.
personhood. He would be.*.
machine. He is consciousllld
he has faith. He would. tr*
because he thinks he
Sauingfaith is o response di
to Divine influence
betng
ment- t:;
When God justifies a
exercises faith in Jesus
and Savior, He is shordtB-
whom He wills. He wills to
to those who respond to
:$
 ROMANS
not in any true sense the response of
nan, Calvinism introduces the concept
rf the effectual call. The effectual call is
regeneration. Regeneration precedes
iaith and gives birth to faith. Regen-
zration is designed to change behavior.
Ihat is what sanctification does. This
ruts Calvinism in conflict with its own
:heology by putting sanctification prior
:o justification. (See more development
rf this thought in notes on 8:29 that deal
rith election.)
I agree that faith is a gift, but it is a
tuman experience. "Faith is not some
;ubstance that exists outside of us that
s to be given to us. It is an experience
hat must take place within us. That is
:he only way we can have faith. Faith
s a gift in the sense that God gives to
rs the aid that is necessary, without
vhich we could not exercise faith. It is
rot a gift in the sense that it is not an
txercise of our own personality"
Forlines, Sysfemofr'cs, 204).
To try to drain the word "condition"
rf its meaning, or to try to deny that
aith is the "condition" of salvation, is
ruitless. The only way for a human
rcing to experience faith is to exercise
aith. It is impossible for a person to be
otally passive (to have faith as some-
hing done to him or for him by God)
n the experience of saving faith. Mon
s not only acted upon; he is active in
he experience of faith. It cannot be
rtherwise.
To think so is to rob man of his
prsonhood. He would be a deceived
nachine. He is consciously aware that
re has faith. He would be deceived
)ecause he thinks he responded in faith.
iaving laith is o response ol a personal
eing to Divine influence and enable-
nent.
When God justifies a person who
,xercises faith in Jesus Christ as Lord
nd Savior, He is showing mercy to
rhom He wills. He wills to show mercy
c those who respond to the gospel by
269
9:15, 15
exercising faith in Jesus Christ. This is
not a plan being imposed on God by
man. It is a plan provided by God, and
offered by God on God's terms to fallen
man. Surely the sovereignty ol God
does not hem God into o sysfem
uhereby He can only operate through
unconditional election!
The Calvinistic claim that for God to
require the response of faith is to place
salvation on the basis of works will not
stand. The contrast between works and
faith by Paul in Rom. 4:1-5 should lay
that argument to rest.
Some seem to fear, if faith is required
for salvation, that such a requirement
undercuts the idea that salvation is free.
Such fear is unfounded. When we say
that salvation is free (without cost), we
are saying that the grounds of our
justification is altogether God's provi-
sion. The righteousness of Christ to
satisfy the demand of God's law for
absolute righteousness, and the death
of Christ to satisfu the demand of God's
law that the full penalty of sin be paid,
is the only thing that gives us justifi-
cation. We participate in no way in that
provision. Nothing that I ever do will
ever make up the slightest bit of the
debt owed to God for my justification.
Justification is free to us. It was not free
to Jesus Christ. He paid for it dearly.
He earned the right to offer us free
salvation. He paid the only price that
was or will ever be fjaid for my sal-
vation. That is what makes it free.
f6 8o thcn & lc not of hlm th,at
wlllcth, nor of hlm t.hd nrnncth,
hrt of God tbat shewcth mcrqt
So then. These words show that
what follows is the logical consequence
of what is said in v. 15.
I1 is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth. Piper
takes the position that
Not the physical effort of the
9:15 ROMANS
Greek games, but the moral
to keep the law may well
resolve
be the background of Paul's meta-
phor. . . . gospel. He woos through the Holu
The allusion to'running the way
of the commandments' would
cohere very closely with Rom.
9:30f where the similar word drbko
[pursue] appears: 'The Gentiles
who did not pursue righteousness
attained righteousness, the right-
eousness from faith; but Israel,
though pursuing a law of right-
eousness did not reach the law'
(cf. also Phil. 3:14-15) (132).
Piper also cites sources from Jewish
writings for support for his interpreta-
tion (132).
But of God that sheweth
mercy. In order to see the meaning of
this verse, we must see what the
converse would be. What would it mean
if it were of him that wills and runs
rather than of God who shows mercy?
It would mean that a person would
merit or earn salvation. It would mean
that his merit would obligate God to
save him.
Such a concept is foreign to all that
Christianity stands for. Man was shut
off from God by his own sin. God was
under no obligation to save him or even
provide a way of salvation. It was out
of God's mercy that He provided the
death and righteousness of Christ for
our salvation. It was out of God's love
that He sent the Holy Spirit to woo us
to Christ. It was out of God's love that
He has commissioned believers to tell
unbelievers about Christ.
God has offered salvation on the
condition of faith. We must distinguish
between the "condition" and the
"ground" of salvation. Salvation is
grounded solely in the death and
righteousness of Christ provided
through atonement. It is conditioned on
the response of faith in Christ.
God has taken the initiative in
270
providing what man needs for salvation. ,,'
He has met the condition for salvation. . salvation. G-o{ is the one, no(
He sends the with the j
messenger has decreed that faith is thc
of salvation. When a persoft
Spirit. The personal response of faith as in farth, if is nof he who
the condition for salvation can in no :
God to save him. Rather, ith
way be considered in conflict with or in,' hos oblisated himsef bu*
violation of "So then if r's not of him that ; nghteous commitment to
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of to saue the person wlw
God that sheweth mercy." properly understood, thqg:
The CaMnist seems to be quite . remotest possibilify thot g
certain that this verse strikes a death .l can rightly be understd
blow to conditional election. Piper sees by u.rorks.
a parallel between the "willing" and the,,r Piper is aware of the
"running" of this verse to embrace the.r, salvation, but attempts te
"willing" and "working" of Phil. 2:13. He ./.,j with his concept of
explains, election. He observes,
God's mercy determines man's a sine quo non [the
willing and working Phil. 2:13). tionl of salvation; Rom. *
And since the'willing and working' necessarily implies that
referred to in Phil. 2:13 is not evil is ultimately owing to
'works'but the obedience of faith, grace of God" (137).
it follows that the assertion of I have no quarrelwith
Rom. 9:16 cannot be limited to "The act of faith is
only some kinds of willing and the prevenient grace o*ri
running. For these reasons Rom. problem is how it is i
9:16 should be construed so as to would say that without
sweep away forever the thought Holy Spirit (Jn. 6:tl4) nol
that over against God there is any believe in Christ, I
such thing as human self-
However, such a
determination in Pauline theolog 'l room for obedience or
(133, 134). As I perceive it, thic:
I think the real question that Piper interpretation of the.
needs to face is: How is he using the ;;;-f th" n"tv Splrlt
"f the responsc
"causes"
expression "self-determination"? If he
person to be coused to,
means that man's action is not the
couse or ground of his salvation, I could what it means to be a
not agree more. On the other hand, if a response of the
he means that man's action in believing sonal experience. It ie a
cannot be a determining factor in God's assistance and influenc*$
bestowal of salvation on the one who cause, no.
believes and withholding salvation from Experiences of the
personalaction is i
the one who does not believe, I cannot
passive only. There
agree. Such a view is in conflict with the
obvious and direct teaching of Scripture
involvement. The
(Jn. 3:16, 18, 36; Acts 16:31, etc.). faith is genuine. It can ind
Foifh os a condition (os distinguished to U"-tituifv the work d.
human involvement. Tha
lrom a cause or a ground) des a choice. It did not paY fu8
determine on whom God bestou,rs
A word needs to bg ril
Y
I

ROMANS 9216, 17
saluation. God is the one, not man, who Paul is giving attention
to a denial that
has decreed that faith is the condition a
person can establish his own riqht_
of salvation. When a person responds eousness before God. It seems that'we
in faith, if is nof he who is obliqofinq see.two
God to sque him. Rather, it is GoJ u,,hJ of thought-apparently contradictory lines
in Jewish thinking: (i) fne
hos obligated himsell by Hr's uery Jews were unconditionally eleited'when
righteous.commitment to His promisei, God made the Covenant with Abraham
to save the person who belieues. When (Gen. 13:14, 15, and t7:8). e) The Jews
properly understood, there is not the were seeking to establish their
right_
remotest possibility that such a uiew eousness by works (9:37,32, and 10:3).
con rightly be understood as saluation See the introduction to chap. 2 as well
by works. as the comments on 9:6-14.
Piper is aware of the place of faith in It appears that those two observa-
salvation, but attempts to make it fit tions are mutually exclusive. However-
with his concept of unconditional from all that I can gather, Jews were noi
election. He observes, "Faith is indeed as concented with harmonization as
a srne qua non [the necessary condi_ some of us are. They were more
tion] of salvation; Rom. 9:16, therefore, content to let some loose ends dangle
necessarily implies that the act of faith in their thought.
is ultimately owing to the prevenient
grace of God" (137). . Their concept of corporate, uncon-
ditional election of all Jews through
. _I
have no quarrel with his statement, Abraham was by far the most basic'of 'l
"The act of faith is ultimately owing to the t',vo thoughts. All the rest of their
rl

the prevenient grace of God.', the thoughts musr be weighed in the liqht
li

problem is how it is interpreted. If we of that foundational thought. (This is'an

would say that without the work of the
Holy Spirit (Jn. 6:44) no man will ever
b-elieve in Christ, I would agree.
However, such a statement still leaves
room for obedience or disobedience.
area where research needs to be done
so as to help us better understand the
seeming contradictions concerning the
Jewish attitude about salvation in the
N.T.)
l

. As I perceive it, this is not piper's

ii

interpretation of the statement. The 17 For the scrlpture saltfr unto 1,

work of the Holy Spirit "guarantees" or
"causes" the response of faith. For a
person to be coused to believe violates
what it means to be a person. Faith is
a response of the person. It is a per-
sonal experience. It is a choice. Divine
assistance and influence, yes. Divine
cause, no.
Experiences of the personality where
personal action is involved can never be
passive only. There is an active
involvement. The active response of
faith is genuine. It can in no way be said
to be totally the work of God- with no
human involvement. The person made
a choice. It did not pay for his salvation.
A word needs to be said about why
Pharaoh, Even for lfrls same
pJrpose have I ralsed thee up,
that I mtght shew rn5r power in
$":, aryd that rn5r name mlght bc
declared throughout all the-earth.
Just as vv. 15 and 16 show the
concept of God's sovereignty as it
relates to the showing of compassion,
vv. 17 and 18 show the relationship of
God's sovereignty as it relates to
hardening.
Even for this same purpose
have I raised thee up. Brucl e*-
plains, "The Hebrew uses the causative
conjugation of the verb amad,'stand,'
which Paul renders by-Greek exegeiro
(raise up).

271
9217, 18 ROMANS
(He translates here direct from the
Hebrew. LXX says 'thou hast pre-
served.') The reference may be not
merely to God's raising up Pharaoh to
be king, but to His patience in pre-
serving him alive, in spite of his dis-
obedience" (194). (For further discus-
sion on whether the reference is to
raising up Pharaoh to be king or
whether it was the preservation of his
life, or yet other views, see Cranfield
II:u185, 486; Earle 191; Godet 353, 354;
Harrison 106; Lenski 613,674; Sanday
and Headlam 255,256; and Shedd 290,
291. Shedd has a clear listing of different
views.) It is not easy to decide which
interpretation is correct. Probably, the
preference should be given to the view
which takes it to be raising up Pharaoh
to be king.
That I might shew my power in
thee, and that my name might be
declared throughout all the
earth. God had a world-wide purpose
in mind for Pharaoh. Nothing that
Pharaoh would do could thwart God's
purpose. Pharaoh's response could
affect the detailed manner in which God
would accomplish His purpose, but it
could not keep God's purpose from
being fulfilled. Neither obedience nor
disobedience could have interfered with
God's purpose to show His power or to
declare His name throughout the whole
earth.
As it was, Pharaoh resisted God and
hardened his heart. God responded by
the miracles of the ten plagues and the
parting of the waters of the Red Sea.
Delivering Israel through this means
brought glory to God's name and
caused His name to be declared
throughout the whole earth. If Pharaoh
had, without the pressure of the
plagues, let Israel go, that, too, would
have shown His power. It would have
been quite unusual if Pharaoh had freely
allowed this mass of slave labor to go
Ireel
18 fhcneforc hrth hc mGrqt on to be damned in the
urhon ho wlll fteec mcnqf ana future. Once this observation
urhom ho wltr hc hardencth. " this passage offers no help to
Some Calvinists show an
This verse in addition to restating v. that the word "harden' b''
15 adds, "and whom he will he hard- suited to their purposes. Tlu
eneth." "Mercy" and "hardening" are quotation from Hendriksen
not exact opposifes. It is important that he is struggling to make '"
this observation be made. "Mercy" iJlr ii his purpose. He explains,
this context refers to the bestowal of reason to doubt that the
salvation. "Hardeningl' in'fhis context which Pharaoh was the obj€ct
does not refer to the infliction of penal ,: It was a link in the
wrath. bation-wicked life-
In my opinion, the word "harden" is ,
lasting punishment. Thb
carefully chosen in this context. Those l mean, however, that divine
who were saved among the Jews w€r€ :: always final. See on 11:7b,llf;,;
already experiencing the saving mercy,'.r Piper is dealing with the
of God. Those who were lost werl :i culty when he says, 'Muqft;
hardened, but they were not already conclude, therefore, that tho
experiencing the penal wrath of God. , in 9:18 has reference, just 6.
That is reserved for the eschatological ,1 ening in 11:7, to the actiq&i
future. whereby a person is left in a
I think there would be general outside salvation and thus
agreement that "blinded" in 11:7 would destruction' (9:22\?" (159).,: :';t
mean the same as "harden" in 9:18. At John Brown, in
the moment of Paul's writing the Jews Calvinistic position, shoun
who had already received the saving even more clearly. He
mercy of God, would be considered the .: The introduction of
"elect" of 1l:5 and 7. The rest of the judicial hardening
Jews who had not experienced the l destroy the antithesis.
saving mercy of God would be con- rl
is not the natural
sidered the "hardened" or the "blinded." showing mercy. Had
It is important to observe that Paul l 'whom He wills He
did not consider all Jews who were at penitence, and whom He
that time hardened or blinded to be hardens into i
hopelessly locked by God in that state. antithesis would have
The burden of Paul's heart was for their plete; but the one
salvation (9:1-3; 10:1; 11:11-14, 28-321. antithesis, being
There was no hopd that all would come the other must
to Christ and be saved in the near it-He does not show
future, but saving work was taking place relents in reference to
among the Jews. Paul was using the does not relent in
words "to have mercy on" and "to another.
harden" to refer to the distinction at I am therefore
that time between believers and concur with those
unbelievers among the Jews. He was (and they are
not saying that all those who were for learning and judg
hardened at the time he wrote Romans consider the word
were predestined by God without hope 'harden,' as equivabnlI
 ROMANS
to be damned in the eschatological
future. Once this observation is mide.
this passage offers no help to Calvinism.
Some Calvinists show an awareness
that the word "harden" is not well
suitedto their purposes. The followino
quotation from Hendriksen shows hovi
he is struggling to make "harden', suit
his purpose. He explains, "There is no
reason to doubt that the hardening of
which Pharaoh was the object was fi-nal.
It was a link in the chain: repro-
bation-wicked life-hardening-ever-
lasting punishment. This does not
mean, h-oweve_r, that divine hardening is
always final. See on 11:7b,11" (826).
Piper is dealing with the ,u." diffi-
culty when he says, "Must we not
9oryl1dg, therefore, that the hardening
in 9:18 has reference, just as the hardl
ening in 11:7, to the action of God
whereby a person is left in a condition
outside salvation and thus ,prepared for
destruction' (9:22)?" (159).
John Brown, in defense of the
Calvinistic position, shows the problem
even more clearly. He explaini:
The introduction of the idea of
judicial hardening seems to
destroy the antithesis. Hardening
is not the natural antithesis oJ
-mercy. Had it been,
showing-
'whom He wills He melts into
penitence, and whom He wilts He
hardens into impenitence,' the
antithesis would have been com_
plete; but the one term in the
antithesis, being showing mercy,
the other must correJpond 6
it-He does not show mbrcy; He
relents in reference to one,' He
does not relent in reference to
another.
I am therefore disposed to
concur with those interpreters
(and they are distinguisnei Uotn
for learning and judgment) who
consider the word rendered
'harden,' as equivalent to ,treat
9:18
with severity' in withholdinq favors
and inflicting deserved -punish-
ments (338).
I Jhi,nk it is quite evident that the
word "harden" does not play into the
hands of the Calvinist. brl t *ouiJ
hasten to say that even if the passaoe
had read "whom He wills He suues and
whom He wills He condemns,,, the case
would still not be won for Calvinism.
To clear the matter up, all we have
to do is to ask two simple questions: (1)
Whom does He choose io savel (Zi
Whom does He choose to condemnl
The answer to the first accordin.q to
Scripture is those who believe in C6ri.t
(Jn. 3:16, 18, 36; Acts 16:31; norn. i,Zi
and others). The answer to the.".onJ
question is those who do not believe in
Christ (Jn.3:18 and 36). The souer"io"
choice of God of those *ho wlll- E"
saved and those who willbe condemned
does not require the doctrine
;l
unconditional election and reprobation.
The problem of hard-eninq is
admittedly not a simple one. Howlu"r.
the use of the word in this context dols
!9t play into the hands of the Calvinist.
The Calvinist is quite aware that haiJ-
ening is not in all cases without remedy.
The quotation from Hendriksen iU"""
acknowledges this fact. piper u.-
knowledges in end note 3l of 'chan.l-
"This does not imply that the condition
sometimes called hardness of heart
(Eph. +'tA) or mind (2 Cor.3:14) cannot
be altere{bV the merciful revivifying act
:f 9."9 Gph. 2:1-a)." In defense oT his
\-atvlnrsm, he goes on to say, ,,But it
does imply that God is the
-one
who
sovereignly decides who will be shown
such mercy and who will be decisivelv
and finally hardened. It is hardening ii
this decisive sense that meets -the
demands of the argument in 9:l-lg"
(275).
I- have already shown above in the
earlrer comments on this verse that the
Jews who were saved were called the
9:18 ROMAT\IS
elect. Those who did not believe and
thus were not saved were hardened or
as 11:7 says, "they were blinded." It is
quite obvious that Paulis considering all
the unbelieving Jews as hardened or
blinded. It is equally obvious that he
does not consider all hardened Jews as
chosen for reprobation without hope.
The Hardnesa of
Pharaoh'e Heart
In Ex. 4:21; 7:3, 13;9:12; 10:1, 20,27;
11:10; and 14:4 and 8, the reference is
to hardening of Pharaoh's heart by
God. In Ex. 8:15,32, and 9:34, the
reference is to Pharaoh's hardening of
his own heart. In Ex.7:14,22;8:L9; and
9:7 and 35, reference is made to the fact
that Pharaoh's heart is hardened.
Since we do not have a developed
explanation in Scripture of all that was
involved in the hardening of Pharaoh's
heart by God, we can only make a
conjecture which would seem to be
consistent with what we know about
God and man from the Bible. We can
attempt to come up with an explanation
that would fit with what we know about
God and man from a study of Sys-
tematic Theologl.
As a minister of the gospel, I preach
the gospel. Not all who hear the Word
preached respond favorably. Some
resist. Resistance over a period of time
hardens the heart. When a person
resists my preaching, it can be said that
he hardens his heart. Or it could be said
that my preaching hardens his heart. It
is not my desire that my preaching
should harden a person's heart, but I
will not fail to preach because it may
harden someone's heart. We are
reminded of the old saying, "The same
sun that melts the butter hardens the
clay."
God raised Pharaoh to show His
power and that His name might be
declared through all the earth. When
274
God moved upon Pharaoh, it would not this from Jesus' statement on
have hindered God's purpose if Ph6. spoke in parables.(lvlk. 4:11, i
bpssmg to Know
blessing know the truth. Ths
i'lv
raoh had complied rather than hard.
ened his heart. However, Pharaoh of knowing the truth is reear
responded negatively. He hardened his. those whose heart is right
part of the judgment of .
heart. Since he hardened his heart
against God's request through Mosel, heart is not right is that, in
of things, they will not
that he let the people go, it can be said,
the truth. Thql
that God hardened his heart. This understand
blinded.
would parallel preaching, which ig The Jewish attitude
designed to bring compliance with th€
gospel but contributes initead to the, ditional, corporate election
seed of Abraham through
hardening of a sinner's heart. ..l
them to be blinded to
If my reasoning is valid, God could which denied such
have said to Moses: porate election of all Jews.
Whileldesireapositive be said to be the one who
response from Pharaoh, I know
hardened them because it was
that Pharaoh will harden his heart
which denied that all
at my request. However, that will automatically saved. There
not keep me from making the
aspects of the truth that
request, neither will it keep me
mentioned that could have
from accomplishing my purpose to this blindness. (See
through Pharaoh. Since he will 11:8, 9.)
harden his heart, I will bring
judgment upon him through
Piper'e View of
miraculous plagues until he lets Election and
my people go. That will be the
means I will use in showing my Piper explains,
power and causing my name to be
The point then of
declared through all the earth. whom he wills, he has
Instead of grving a theological according to 9:16, that
explanation, God just said, "l wi[, wholly free in
harden Pharaoh's heart." Moses did not' beneficiaries of his
need a theological explanation. He decisions are not
needed confirmation that God wdg; ditioned by man's will or
sovereign. He got it! It follows, therefore,
identical formof 18b
The Hardening of the Jewr wills, he hardens'), that
asserts the same
As pointed out earlier in the com- dom in determining whom
ments on this verse, I take those who harden: his decisions
are hardened in the passage to be thoss ultimately conditioned by
Jews who were not saved at the timc. will or acts (153).
This is based on the view that in 11:7 In another place he
the saved are the elect. "The rest" are. evidently always acts this way
"blinded." I
take the blinded and the chooses to harden not
hardened to be the same. who have met the condition
In 11:7-10 it is obvious that the he wills"' (155).
blinding is judicial. Some light is shed on
 ROMATTS
this from Jesus' statement on why He
spoke in parables (Mk. 4:11, 12). It is a
blessing to know the truth. The blessing
of knowing the truth is reserved for
those whose heart is right (Jn.7:17). A
part of the judgment of those whose
heart is not right is that, in the nature
oI things, they will not properly
understand the truth. They will be
blinded.
The Jewish attitude toward uncon-
ditional, corporate election of all the
seed of Abraham through Jacob caused
them to be blinded to Paul's gospel
which denied such unconditional, cor-
porate election of all Jews. God could
be said to be the one who blinded or
hardened them because it was His truth
which denied that all Jews were
automatically saved. There are other
aspects of the truth that could be
mentioned that could have contributed
to this blindness. (See comments on
11:8, 9.)
Piper's View of Unconditional
Election and Reprobation
Piper explains,
The point then of 18a ('On
whom he wills, he has mercy') is,
according to 9:16, that God is
wholly free in determining the
beneficiaries of his mercy: his
decisions are not ultimately con-
ditioned by man's will or actions.
It follows, therefore, from the
identical form of 18b ('Whom he
wills, he hardens'), that God
asserts the same sovereign free-
dom in determining whom he will
harden: his decisions are not
ultimately conditioned by man's
will or acts (153).
In another place he says, "God
evidently always acts this way and thus
chooses to harden not simply those
who have met the condition'but whom
he wills"' (155).
275
9:18, 19
It seems to me that what comes
through in is that
Piper's treatment
God, as Sovereign, is absolutely free to
choose apart from conditions (and it
would appear without ground or cause)
to save or damn any human being. If
this be the case, his thinking has some
serious flaws, and not all Calvinists
would concur with his thinking.
Apparently Piper is saying that grace
is a prerogative of sovereignty. If that be
the case, God could have shown grace
apart from the atoning work of Christ.
This I take to be a serious error. I doubt
that Piper would really want to say that
grace could operate apart from
atonement, but that seems to be logi-
cally implied at times.
Grace is not a Divine right inherent
in God's nature. It is a Divinely pur-
chased right. It was absolutely netes-
sary that sin be punished. Sovereignty
could not ignore this necessity. Divine
justice would not tolerate such. Jesus
Christ purchased the right to bestow
grace when He paid the penalty for our
sin and lived an absolutely righteous life.
It is also a mistake to think about
unconditional reprobation. Sin is the
cause of condemnation. A holy God
cannot condemn without a cause. This
is not a matter of rights; it is a matter
of God's responsibility to be consistent
with His own attributeS.
E. God'e Sovereign Right le
Analogoue to The Potter'e
Right Over The Clay (9:19-
24r.
19 rhou wlh rry thcn unto mc,
Why doth hc yct flnd fault? For
who heth reoktcd hb wlll?
If God chooses whom He wills for
salvation and if He hardens whom He
wills, and if Pharaoh was unable to
interfere with God's purpose, the
question arises, "Why doth he yet find
9zl'9-23 NOMAI\IS

fault [or charge with blame]? For.who have already alluded to Jer.
15:7.) I thc rslrcb o[ nctrtgl
hath resisted his will?" The word for commentrng on 9:15. This
18:1-10 in hrd afonc prqmrd fr
passage is very instructive in inter'
"will" (Greek boulemo) means purpose
(see Earle 194). breting the passage before us. After Whod ilGod, uffi
' The verse does not suggest that a
havins Jeremiah observe the work of two points of concem: (
the potter, God said, "O house of Israel,
Derson cannot resist in the sense of using the word "willingf
bpposing God's PurPose' Rather, nocannot I do with You as this Potter? (2) What is the signifi
saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is ifthe verb he uses (a
orre can defeat God's Purpos€s' A
in the potter's hand, so ore ye in mine
person can disobeY God and will be Concerning the
hand. b house of Israel" (18:5).
ireld responsible for his disobedience' Shedd is on the right
Howevei, God has PurPos€s that are God was declaring His sovereign says:
riqht to do with Israel as He chose to The mere
carried out in spite of disobedience not meant; nor tlx
(Gen. 50:19, 20). a5. n w. 7-10 He told them what He
wanted to do. In essence He said, "l can God: which would
rho rrt thou do with a nation whatever I choose to leuon; but the deep
20 llr but' O mrn, desire: a will that war
ttt ripncrt qrlnrt Goe thdl do. I choose to build up the nation that
15s rhlig form-d rr5r to hlm ttlt obevs me and tear down the one that and intense as to
forncd -4, UtY hart thou mrdo d.;i;;-;": rtt"t" is no arbitrary self-restraint which is
sovereignty here. the patience and
mo thur? God (2:a). The phra*
God is also the Sovereign who
The maker has rights over that which chooses whom He wills for salvafion'r shew his wrath|
he has made (see lia. 29:16 and tl5:9)' and damnation. The arbitrariness is ,: spontaneity of the
This does not mean that Divine rights removed when we simPlY ask the 'the fierceness and:
include arbitrary rights or rights that ouestion and let Scripture answer. Almighty God'
"'Whom does God choose to save and 19:15), which is heH
ignore right and wrong. R9theL, the very
nature oJ God is such that He cannot whom does He choose to damn?" He divine compassion, .

chooses to save those who believe in

qround of hilosferbn,
do otherwise than right. Thiessen has the participle "willing
well said, "ln God we have PuritY of Christ (Jn.1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; and Acte
16:31). He chooses to damn those who might be rendered
being before purity of willing. God.does
fail to believe in Christ (Jn.3:18 and 36). desiring" (Greek: ca
not iill the sood because it is good,- nor
Cranfield is right when he observes, "although desiring' (
is the good-good because God wills it;
ebe thEre would be a good above God "A;J--it--;nnoi b" emphasized too :r: participle). "Although
strongly that there is naturally not th3 be preferred. (For
or the good would be arbitrary and is meant,
changea6le. Instead, God's t11[ i9 qhg sfiqhtEst suggestion that the pottet's see

exprission of his nature, which is holy" ftiao. is ttre freedom of caprice, and 664; Earle 195, 196;
-34; G
(12e1. that it is, therefore, perverse to suppose Murtuv II:33, and',
' God is absolute Sovereign. For that that what Paul wanted to assert was a Headlam 261.)
freedom of the Creator to deal with Hig Although God was
reason, we need to find out what He to show His wrath
has said and submit to it rather than creatures according to some indeter-
.init", capricioui, absolute will" were "vessels of
argue with Him. destruction," He
(ll:a92).
longsuffering' these "v(
21 Hdh d thc PoilfGr ItflGr 22 God' wtrllng to lhGt
f (objects of wrath, not
ovGr ttG d4l, ol thc rno lumP Wh.t
to mrla onc vcrral unto honort .ad to E LG hlr Porc
ftb mtilfb-cndurcd wrath) "that he might
and rnothcr unto drhonour? too-o, rlth much riches of his glory." If
lo""t"h"nhs thc vlrlclr d His wrath immediatelY,
would have been taken
There can be no doubt that Paul has trttcd-to dortrucdon:
in mind the account of the potter in Jer'
"rfib
29 And thil hc nlgfit mrl' etemal punishment. In
18:1-10. (See also Wisdom of Solomon hwn thc rlchcr of hlt gIorY on would have been no

276
 ROMAI\IS 9:28

thc rcsrclr of mc]c5r, urhlch hc (those who are saved by God's grace).
hrd aforc prcpard unto glory. However, instead of immediatefu
releasing His wrath, God throuqfr
Whort if God, willing. We have longsuffering withheld His wrath to qiie
two points of concern: (1) How is Paul people time to repent (Rom. 2:4). ihis
usingthe word (Greek
"willing" thelol? was done so that there would be those
(2) What is the significance of the form who. would respond to the gospel; thus
of the verb he uses (a Greek participle)? God can "make known the riches'of his
Concerning the meaning ..willing,',
of glory on fhe uessels of mercy, which he
Shedd is on the right track when he had alore prepared unto glory."
sys: It is generally agreed that, the lan-
The mere permission of God is guage of the expression ..ve6sels of
not meant; nor the purpose of wrath fitted to destruction" does not
God: which would require Bou- imply unconditional reprobation (see
leuon; but the deep and strong Harrison _1_07; Hodge 321; Munay II:36;
desire: a willthat was so profound and Shedd 299).
and intense as to require that
self-restraint which is denominated -Piper, however, would interpret the
reference to an unconditional iuing for
the patience and long-suffering of destruction of the vessels of wrat[ by
God (2:4). The phrase
[wiling to God. He develops his argument frori
shew his wrathl denotes -the the point of view that Paul has been
spontaneity of the divine holiness, dealing with double predestination in
'the fierceness and wrath oi chap. 9. He explains:
Almigtty God' against sin (Rev. It seems to me that, after the
1-9:15), which is held back by the clear and powerful statements of
divine compassion, upon the double predestination [uncondi-
sround of hilqsterion [S:2Sl (2981. tional election or predestination of
.
The participle "willing'r or r,desiring" who was to be saved and
might be rendered either ,,becauJe
unconditional predestination to
!e9iring", (Greek: causal participle) or reprobation of who was to be lostl
"although desiring" (Greek: concessive in Rom. 9, it is grasping at a straw
participle). "Although desiring,' seems to to argue that the passive voice of
be preferred. (For discussion on which katertismena proves that Paul
is mejmt, see Cranfield 494; Denney denied divine agency in fitting men
S; Earle L95, 196; Godet 3S9, 36q
Murr_ay II:33, 34; and Sanday and
for destruction . And since
Paul's inference from the Pharaoh
Headlam 261.) story is that'God hardens whom
Although God was strongly desiring he wills' (9:18), the most natural
to show His wrath toward those whJ suggestion from the context is that
were "vessels of wrath fitted to 'fitted for destruction' (9:22) rcfers
destruction," He "endured with much precisely to this divine hardening
longsuffering" these "vessels of wrath" (1e4).
(objects of wrath, not instruments of I think it has been conclusively
wrath) "that he might make known the shorun, in commenting on chap.
9 up to
riches of his glory." If God had released this point, that it is misconstruing
what
His wrath immediately, the human race Paul is saying to interpret it to
support
-
would have been taken immediately into either unconditional election
etemal punishment. In this case, ihere conditional reprobation. So far
oi un-
as w.22
would have been no vessels of mercy and 23 are concerned, I am
not

277
9:23-26 NOMANS

acquainted with anyone who would F. The Fact That Many of the It is true, of
insist that these two verses apart from Jews Were Unsaved le in Full apostle to the
the rest of the chapter must be Accord With the Old Testa- concemed about
interpreted in the Calvinistic frame- ment (9225-291. Gentiles. It is also
work. indicated that thercl
AfI misht say with reference to Piper's 25 As hc salth dso ln Osce' I wlll well as Jews among
double predestination, I am not averse call thcm my p@Plcr rrhlch wonc prepared unto qlor
to double predestination as such. What not qr pcoltlGi and hcr bcloYedt However, that is
I reject is uncondifrbnol double pre- rrhlch war not bclorcd.gncc' chap. 9.
destination. I believe in conditional 26 And lt shdl comc to tJret The burden of
double predestination. On the condition ln the plrcG whcrc lt was s.li had misunderstood
of foreknown faith in Christ, God has unto thcm, Yc eru no't, qy PeoPlc3 Abraham. They wetr
predestined believers to eternal life. He thorc ehall thcy bc catled tho ally saved. Salvation
has on the condition of foreknown sin clltdrcn of tbc llrllng God. faith in Jesus as the
and unbelief predestined unbelievers to Out of this
etemal damnation. Apart from such These two verses are taken from attention to the wordc
predestination, we cannot assure the Hosea. Murray explains, "Verse 26 is a references clearly
believer of eternal life or the unbeliever verbatim quotation of the LXX and with emphasized that there
of eternal damnation. I do not reject the exception of ekei [there], which who would come from
predestination. I reject the Calvinistic nevertheless is implied, is a literal into a saving relationr
interpretation of predestination. rendering of the Hebrew (Hosea 2:1 in reference should put
The words "afore prepared" (Greek both Hebrew and LXX). But verse 25 'all the idea of unc
proetoimazo) mean to Prepare be- does not exactly correspond to the to salvation of all
forehand. In one sense all of God's Hebrew.... Paul has retained the Barrett takes the
decisions are eternal. Based on His thought but has adapted the actual mainly to Gentiles, 1

foreknowledge He knows who will terms" (ll:38, note tl6). "possible that he is
believe in Christ and has chosen them There is an almost unanimous Hosea did) of the
in Christ (Eph. 1:4). Those who were agreement that while in Hosea the "not Israel and their
foreknown have been PrePared in my people" who are called "the children ' (1e1). Black (135)
eternity past for glory. For them, things oi in" fiving God" refers to Israd See also Harrison (
have been prearranged. As Picirilli says, (directed by Hosea to the ten northern " Lenski's position is
i
"They are headed for Heaven, tribes), Paul is using it to refer to ,
own that I have four
'prepared for glory"' (187). Gentiles. If this were demanded by the fulfillment to the ten
context, I could accept it, but it appearc to Gentiles (627).
that such is not the case.
24 Evcn ul, rtom hc hath cdled' It is very clear that w.27-29 refer to ,

not of thc Jcrr onl5r' bd dso of Israel and call attention to the fact that I
27 Eealrr dro
the Gcndlcc? Scripture should prepare the Jews to
lsracl, ftoryb tho n
understand that not all of them are,
r
chlldlcn of lrnol pe-'

saved. To Paul, the position that not all

of tho rcl, I
While God is through longsuffering ervcd:
withholding His wrath from the vessels Jews were saved was not a merelY' 28 For hc rltr ffrf
of wrath, He is withholding it to give an academic preservation of theological" .nd crrt & lhort h
opportunity for salvation for both Jews accuracy. It tore at his heart. He hauco e chott
and Gentiles. It is important to keep in wanted the Jews to know that theh Iod mafG qron tba
mind that while Paul is deePlY con- belief in the unconditional election of all
cerned that there were so many of his Jews in connection with Abraham wag
fellow Jews who were unsaved, he was false. That was the only way they would (For a discussion on
keenly aware and wanted others to entertain the idea of being saved 27, 28 correspond to tln
know that Jews were being saved. through faith in Jesus Christ. the LXX of ls. L0:22,23,

I believe that Forlines' is mistaken ontlis point. I believe scripture indicates that God
does zlot enjoy the exhaustive definite foreknowledge necessary to elect individuals base .

on foreseen faith. Further, I believe Scriptwe teaches corporate, not individual election.
 ROMANS 9226-29
le It is true, of course, that paul,'deeply
as the II:501, 502 and Sanday and Headlam
rll apostle to the Gentiles, was
a- -of 265.) Lenski observei, ,,Those *iio
concerned about the conversion refer v. 25, 26 to Gentiles naturallu
Gentiles. It is also true that he had just make de
indicated that there were Gentiles as and say that .["als_o"] adversative [,,but,!
llt ,,afore
Paul now turns io the
well as Jews among the vessels Jews; but since both Hosea and Isaiah
rt prepared unto glory" (w. 29, 24). speak of the Jews, and the latter
d, adds
However, that is not the burden of a vital po_int as to numbers, de
=
chap. 9. 'moreover"' (630).
rt The burden of chap. 9 is that Israel It is evident that Isaiah would not be
ld had misunderstood God's promise to surprised (disappointed, but not sur-
ei Abraham. They were not uncondition- prised) that large numbers of Jews
IG were
ally saved. Salvation was conditioned on not saved. It is clear that
faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
he was
stressing th-u! only a remnant among
Out of this burden, paul calls Israel would be saved (v. 27).
m attention to the words of Hosea. These Verse 28 sheds light on *hy only
a references clearly show that Hosea remnant willbe saved. The longsuffeiinga
th emphasized that there were Israelites that Paul mentioned in v.22
:h wilt not bI
who would come from an unsaved state extended forever. The
'al Lord will finish
into a saving relationship with God. This His work. He will
in reference should put away once and for righteousness." This
"cut it short in
Z5
'le
'all the idea of uncondiiional election will have waited too late. that manv means
to salvation of all Israelites.
te Barrett takes the reference to be 29 And as Esahs sald
:al
mainly to Gentiles, but says that it is Except the lord of
before,
Sabaoth had
"possible that he is also thinking (as left us a secd, we had
ts Hosea did) of the temporary laple'of Sodoma, and been
becn as
ot Israel and their subsequent return" unto Gomonha. made llhe
)n (191). Black (135) concurs with Barrett.
el
See also Harrison (107). Again, Paul refers to Isaiah. paul
:n
Lenski's position is the nearest to mv quotes the LXX on
to Is. 1:9. "Lord of
own that I have found. He applies the Sabaoth" means the "Lord
le of Hosts" or
fulfillment to the ten tribes raiher than the "Lord of Armies." (,,Sabaoth,,
rs is
to Gentiles (627). actually a Hebrew word, transliterated
!o into Greek and, in the KJV, into English
at 2? Es.lar also cdetlr concernlna letters.)
:o lsrael, Though Lhe number of t.hE . The Scripture is saying that only by
:e chlldrcn of l-sracl be as thc sand the mercy of God was a remnant of
ill of the sGa, a remnsnt sha[ b€ Iprryl even surviving. Certainly, the
ly saved: O.T. is opposed to the concept-of the
al 28 For he wlll flnlch tbc wor\ unconditional election of all who
le and crrt ft short ln rlghtcousncssi descended from Abraham through
ir becausc a sholt w6rk wlll the Jacob!
ilt Lrrfl mrle upon the carth.
rs Summary
di 9:t-29
d ^_(For a discussion on the way vv.
27, 28 correspond to the Hebreri and When Paul completed chap. g, he
the LXX of ls. 70:22, 23, see Cranfield was in a state of ecstasy. He was
279
 ROMANS

rejoicing over all of the things that God unconditionalsalvation to all who would ':; If it seemed to bother the
had done and was doing for him descend from Abraham through Jacob. '; think that God did not melt
through the glorious salvation which we Only those seed who were believers like ''.,, of every Jew to be a
have with God through Jesus the Abraham could be called Israel in the i Christianity was true, Paul
Messiah. In this state of elation, he was truest and fullest sense of the word. ;" that God had reserved to
suddenly and painfully reminded of the It should not be unthinkable to the.,l', right to harden whom
fact that the majority of his people, the Jew that a limitation would be placed on';.: according to the O.T. That,
Jews, were not saved. the descendants of Abraham who would',; adequate explanation that, in
The thought that so many Jews were be saved. As the Jews themselves knew.i being the Covenant People
unsaved produced great heaviness of well, there were a lot of people who many Jews were hardened in
heart on the part of Paul. Paul was so could in one sense be called the seed against Jesus Christ.
deeply burdened for their salvation that,of Abraham who were not a part of the
Instead of arguing with God;i
if it would have accomplished their Covenant Seed. Ishmael's and Esau'E
be better if the Jew recoqnli
salvation, he would have been willing to descendants were the seed of Abraham
too, but they were not the Covenant 1i God has the same rights over
have paid the price of being cut off from
a potter has over the clay. Go
Christ to have accomplished their sal- Seed of Abraham. The Covenant Seed
those whom He chooses and
vation. refers only to those who descended
those whom He chooses.
Paul recounted the special blessings from Abraham through Jacob. God had' j'i
that we should listen to Himl,
that were the Jews' as the Covenant made this clear in the choice of Isaag
chosen to save those who
,

People of God. It was tragic for a not Ishmael, and of Jacob, not Esau. Il '
Jesus Christ and will damn
people who had been so blessed of God the Jews could see that the limitation ofj.
do not.
as to have been the recipients of the the natural seed to those that de*,,'r
covenants, the law, and the promises, scended through Jacob did not con"r, While God will most
to miss salvation. To have had the tradict Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8, surely , His wrath on those who rei
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob they could see that a distinction among,:ll through much longsufferingi
as their fathers magnified the tragedy. those who descended from Jacob *ould':t- delaying His wrath. This delay,i
Worse yet, the Messiah, who brought not contradict these verses. If that be : He can give time for those
salvation to the world, had come to and the case, they should be able to see that unsaved to come to the
through them and in spite of this they a distinction between believers andr::r believing in Christ. During
were strangers to the very salvation he unbelievers among those whexr'' patient longsuffering God
brought. descended from Abraham through people from among Jews
When Paul took the position that Jacob need not destroy the Abrahamic for this glorious salvation. ,iit
large numbers of Jews were unsaved, Covenant.
this was diametrically opposed to pre- Paul raises the question: "Can God The Jews should have
vailing Jewish thought. It was their be charged with unrighteousnessP caught up with this idea
opinion that they had been uncondi' Both Paul and the unbelieving Jap* unconditional election by
tionally and corporately elected for abhorred such an idea. To say that Abraham anyway. Hosea
salvation by the promise made to some Jews were unsaved in no waY plain that there was such
Abraham in Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8. meant that God had shown Himself to.'i Jews "not being God's
They thought that such a view as Paul's be unrighteous. Both Paul and the Jewr-i
getting saved out of that
would suggest that God had been respected the authority of the O.T. so Isaiah had certainly made it
unfaithful to the promises He made to Paul made his appeal to the O.T. : not all Israelites were saved.
Abraham. If that was what Paul was God told Moses that He would have ' what Paul told them, the Jeq
have been able to set aside tha
saying, they did not want to have mercy on whomevet He chose for'r
anything to do with it. mercy. That applied to Israel. God's :t they were all unconditionall
Paul took on the responsibility of righteousness had not obligated Him to Thii for them would be such
trying to convince the Jews that they show saving mercy to every Jew. If it change of thought that theY
had misundeistood God's promise to had, God would not have talked that , able to consider believing
Abraham. God had never promised way to Moses. Christ for salvation.

280
r,
ROMANS
If it seemed to bother the Jews to
think that God did not melt the heart
of every Jew to be a believer if
Christianity was true, Paul pointed out
that God had reserved to Himself the
right to harden whom He willed
according to the O.T. That was an
adequate explanation that, in spite of
being the Covenant People of God,
many Jews were hardened in unbelief
against Jesus Christ.
Instead of arguing with God, it would
be better if the Jew recognized that
God has the same rights over them that
a potter has over the clay. God willsave
those whom He chooses and will damn
those whom He chooses. That means
that we should listen to Him. He has
chosen to save those who believe in
Jesus Christ and will damn those v.rho
do not.
While God will most definitely show
His wrath on those who reject Christ,
through much longsuffering He is
delaying His wrath. This delay is so that
He can give time for those who are still
unsaved to come to the point of
believing in Christ. During this time of
patient longsuffering God is calling
people from among Jews and Gentiles
for this glorious salvation.
The Jews should have never been
caught up with this idea of their
r,rnconditional election by God through
Abraham anyway. Hosea had made it
plain that there was such a thing as
Jews "not being God's people" and later
getting saved out of that condition.
Isaiah had certainly made it clear that
not all Israelites were saved. By taking
what Paul told thern, the Jews should
have been able to set aside the idea that
they were all unconditionally saved.
This for them would be such a drastic
change of thought that they should be
able to consider believing in Jesus
Christ for salvation.
Application: Teaching and
Preaching the Passage
1. The greatest example of human
compassion ever expressed is stated by
the Apostle Paul in vv. 1, 2. His
heaviness and sorrow were so strong
for the salvation of the Jews that he was
willing to be separated from Christ and
suffer eternal damnation for it.
2. Part of what bothered Paul was
that Israel was a privileged group in
God's program of redemption. It hurt to
see so many from this background who
were lost. (See comments on vv. 4, 5
on the privileged position of Israel.)
3. The very idea that Paul would
suggest that large numbers of Jews
were lost raised serious questions in the
minds of Jews. This is true because
they thought God unconditionally
elected all of the descendents of
Abraham through Jacob when He
called Abraham. Paul's point was that
such was not the case.
He explains, "For they are not all
Israel (the true and saved Israel), which
are of Israel (the descendants of
Jacob)" (v. 6). He then points out that
though Ishmael and Esau were
descendants of Abraham as much as
Isaac and Jacob, they were not a part
of the Covenant Seed. The Jews would
agree on this.
of this was to get
Paul's aim in all
them to see that if not all who
descended from Abraham became a
part of the Covenant Seed, it is not
necessary to believe that all who
descended from Jacob would auto-
rnatically be saved (w. 6-13).
4. Ihis passage (w. 6-24) is very
important to the doctrine of election.
The Calvinist has felt that this passage
is unquestionably on the side of
unconditional election. I believe my
comments on this passage make it clear
that Paul did n,:t propound the doctrine
of unconditional election. In fact what
9:3O
he was doing was challenging the
Jewish form of the doctrine of uncon-
I can point out a few
ditional election'
of the highlights here, but to really
BOMAI{S
justification and of the righteo
(6) These ideas, when studied well, ness securing it was not tl
should be of benefit today in helping us pursuit (ll:42, 4{}).
reach Jews for Christ' The time period in in whiclt
,'followed not after righteousnd '

understand the Passage from mY N. HUMAN RESPONSIBIL from the call of Abraham urd
viewpoint a person will need to make a ITY IN ACCEPTANCE oospel began to be preached ts
careiul study of mY comments on the AND REJECTION BY fil"r. Durlttg this time the Gentihi
-
passage. GOD (9:30-1O:21). Dagan. Except for a few rare't
Some of mY main observations are: iions, they were outside the rd
(1) When Paul in v. 14 raised the A. Paul Explaine WhY Sonc God's redemptive revelation.'lh{
o,r".iion of whether "there is unright- Gentilee Were Righteouo Bc" not in pursuit of a means of that
nou.n".. in God?" it was not: Is God fore God While Some lsra' would give them right standirt
unrighteous to unconditionalb choose elitee Were Not (9:3O-10:3). Yahweh. i
Jacol and reject Esau? A studY of the Have attained to
Dassaqe 30 Whst sbdl wc sa5r thon? lt*':,
will reveal that the significance nese. They had received
bf tnJ question is: Is God unrighteous thc Gcndloe, whlch followcd not'"', orovided righteousness made
if He does not save all unconditionallyafrcr rlghtoouencle, harG $,,,.i by the atoning _work of Chrir
who descended from Abraham through trlncd to-dgbtcou3rlerstr cvon thc,; Even the
Jacob? rlghtcousn-o wblch lc of frlth. ' ic of faith. The
(2) For God to saY, l'I w{l fave eousness has been received
compassion on whom I will have What shall we saY then? Paul Gentiles by faith in Jesus
compassion" (v. 15) does not put the raises this question to call attention to
side of unconditional the fact that what follows is the last
-utt'"t on the have 31 Bnt lgracl' xthlch
election. All we to do is ask the thinq that people would have expected.
'the Gentilee. Cranfield attcr thc f.r ofi
ouestion: On whom does God will to ihat brth not ddnod to tD.
huu" The answer is: on notes that in the Greek there is no rlghtoouencra
those "otnpussion?
who believe in Christ. Believing is article before Gentiles. He goes on to
a condition. say, "The refetence is not to Gentiles Though Israel, from the
(3) When Paulsaid "whom he willhe qinerallv. but just to some Gentiles, callof Abraham on, was the
hardeneth" (v. 18), that is not the same ;;;t,-'those who have believed God's redemptive revelatlcn I
as saying "whom he will he condemns (ll:506). unfolded, and manY, in a wa3l,
to etirnal death." The hardened may "-'iifricu followed not after after righteousness theY (t
still be led to Christ out of their riqhteoueneee. MurraY exPlains: it. While Paul has clearlY
hardness. When Gentiles are said to Gentiles into the Picture'
(4) Paul's aim was to get the Jews to follow righteousness, there is : burden of this Passage is
see t'hat not all of them would be saved' allusion to the fact that they were "
salvation of the Jews.
Some will be (those who believe) and outside the pale of sPecial reve' 'l

some will not be saved (those who do lation and had been abandoned to
'
12 Thcneforc?
not believe). A comparison of the work their own waYs (cf. 1:18-32; Acts rrlltrillf t not bv ffib I
of the potter in w' 21-23 with Jer' 14:16; 17:30). But thought.is wcr; by ttrc wortr ofitL
18:1-10 will show that we need not focused on what is central to the : thcy stmblGd il
interpret the work of the potter as being theme of the ePistle in the earlier blingetone.
unconditional and arbitrarY. chapters and again in ChaPter 10,
(5) The aim of Paul in the quotation namely, that theY did nof seek The reason so manY
from'the O.T' in w.25'29 is to get the after ihe righfeousness ol iushfi- cation was simPle. TheY
Jews to see that the message df the cahon. It is not that theY were works rather itran faith.
O.T. should be quite clear in saying that destitute of all moral interests (cf' cussion of the tension
not all Jews were to be considered as 2:12-15) but that the matter of ;
Jewish concept of
being saved.

282
 ROMANS 9:3O-33

justification and of the righteous- tion and salvation by works, see the
ness securing it was not their
I

introduction to chap. 2 and the com-

pursuit (II:42, 431. ments on 9:16.)
The time period in which they For they etumbled at that
"followed not after righteousness" was etumblingetone. This is a reference
from the call of Abraham until the to Is. 8:14. Jesus Christ was a stum-
gospel began to be preached to Gen- blingstone to most among the Jews.
tiles. During this time the Gentiles were This was particularly true of the
pagan. Except for a few rare excep- Pharisees. Jesus was in direct conflict
tions, they were outside the reach of with their constituted authority because
God's redemptive revelation. They were He did not recognize it (Lk. 20i1-8), and
not in pursuit of a means of that which with their concept of oral 'tradition
would give them right standing with which is referred to by Jesus as "the
Yahweh. tradition of the elders" (Mt. 15:1-9).
Have attained to righteoua- Jesus could not accept their constituted
ness. They had received the God- authority or their oral tradition. There-
provided righteousness made available fore, they could not accept Jesus as the
by the atoning work of Christ. Jewish Messiah.
Even the righteouancsr which
ie of faith. The God-provided right- 33 Ar ft fe urlttcn, Bohold. I ln
eousness has been received by the tn Slon e stmbtrngrtonc r.i
Gentiles by faith in Jesus Christ. roct of ofioncc: end-shorocvcr
bcnGrcth on hlm shdl not bG
31 &rt Isract, nrhlch followod arhlnd.
altcr thc law orf rlghtoournose,
hdh no,t ettalncd to thc taw of This verse combines Is. 8:14 and
rlghteouencse. 28:16. Murray explains:
Paul takes parts of both pas-
Though Israel, from the time of the sages, weaves these parts together
c_all of Abraham on, was the recipient of into a unit, and by this abridge-
God's redemptive revelation as it was ment and combination obtains the
unfolded, and many, in a way, followed diverse thought of both passages.
after righteousness they (many) missed This twofold aspect he applies to
it. While Paul has clearly brought the the subject with which he is
Gentiles into the picture, the main dealing, the failure of Israel and
burden of this passage is still for the the attainment of the Gentiles. He
salvation of the Jews. thus shows that the Scripture had
foretold in effect the twofold
32 Uhcrcf,olc? Bcceuec t.st outcome. The main interest,
clrugrrlt t nd by hlth, but as f; however, is confirmation of the
wcrc bythc wor*r of thc lm. For stumbling of Israel. It is this
thcy ctumblGd at tld ctum- tragedy that looms high in the
blingetone. apostle's concern, as is apparent
from the preceding and suc-
The reason so many missed justifi- ceeding contexts (fr:M).
cation was simple. They sought it by Paul's interest in confirming the
works rather than faith. (For a dis- stumbling of Israel is not an end within
cussion of the tension between the itself, but is a means of helping Israelites
Jewish concept of unconditional elec- see that the facts of Scripture do not
9:33-lO:3 NOMANS

accord with the unconditional election might be saved.

or salvation of every Jew. The Scripture It is important to keep in mind that, in Jewish
supports the opposite. Jews are pic- as in chap. 9, so in chap. 10 Paul's main ofu
tured as being lost and in need of being burden is for the salvation of unbe- by works.
saved. When they see that they need to lieving Jews. This burden permeates Have
be saved, then they will be in a position everything that he says. eelvec unto
to see Christ as the true way of sal- God. The
vation. 2 Fq I bGrr thcn rccord ttrt the basis fori
righteousnese if
And whocoever believeth on thq hm r zcrl of &{ hrt d rather than
him ehall not be achaned. Instead eccordng to hrlodgo.
unbelieving Jsii
of stumbling over Christ, the Jews wrong way.
should have believed in Him. In com- To bear record (Greek-morfureo) is
establish theh
menting on the difference in the Hebrew to bear witness or to testifu on their than submit
and the Greek for "shall not b€ behalf. Having once been where they
vided by
ashamed," Murray explains, "The idea were, Paul was wellqualified to be a
expressed by the Greek is that the witness of their zeal for God. The
believer will not be confounded, he will tragedy was that their "zeal of God" B. Paul
not have occasion to be ashamed of his was "not according to knowledge."
confidence. And the Hebrew may Cranfield observes, "Ther€ is a perverse
express the closely related thought that and obstinate ignorance at the very The
he will not flee in disappointment" heart of their knowledge of God, and in differs from
(ll:aS). Another way of expressing the the centre of their dedication and
(w. 4,5). It b
Hebrew thought is that he will not feel meticulous obedience an obstinate It is offered
like making a fast getaway. disobedience" (ll:514). 4, 6,9, LA,
(w. 4, 11-

1 Brcthroq ryhclt't dcrfoG ind 3 For tluy bclng lnont of

Godr rlghtmrncr, rnd golng 4 For
pqtGr to God for bml L, thrt for ri
thcy nfubt bc rrod. about to crteblrh tbGh orn
rlgDtoourncr, hrrc not eubnft' that I

The word for desire (Greek eudokia\ tcd thcnrolur. uilo thc dgh0,
ournGrl o[ God. The
occurs 9 times in the N.T. lt is verse mainly
translated desire only in this verse. It is of the word,l
translated "good" in Mt. 11:26 and Lk. For thcy being ignorant ol are basicalfu.
10:21; "good will" in l-l<. 2:L4 and Phil.
God'c rightcoucnecr. This tells why
they had a zeal of God which was not by
1:15; and "good pleasure" in Eph. 1:5, means
according to knowledge. It was because
9; Phil. 2:13; and 2 Th. 1:11. Earle gives they were ignorant of the God-provided and (3)
a good summary of the different views righteousness through Jesus Christ. seems to
of how it should be translated here and Once they were confronted with the It appea
settles for "good will' (199, 200). It is gospel, this ignorance was the igno- is the most
evident that Paul means to say that his rance of a hardened heart, not any termination i
whole being goes out to the unbelieving law-keeping
longer the ignorance of one who was
Jews. His attitude is totally favorable uninformed. eousness
ceptable
toward the idea of their salvation. He is And going about to eetablieh suggest that
their friend. He is on their side when it their own righteoucnece. They
law-keeping
comes to wanting them to have this were tryrng to prepare their own
God. It did i
salvation. so that it would stand
righteousness
for
The unbelieving Jews were on Paul's before God. See 9:3L, 32, and the every
prayer list. He was praying that they came and
comments on 9:16 regarding the tension
us, He
2U
 ROMANS l0:3, 4
in_ Jewish.thought between the concept
of unconditional salvation and salvaiiJn hea failed for every human beino
by works.
(Harrison 110, lil,
uni Uuiiuv'll,;;:;i
would support this view).
Have not submitted them-
selves unto the righteousn"." . The second view would be that the
-
God.. The righteousness which-iorms "f to
1.1* leads Christ u, 1n"-'oou.i
(Cranfield II: 515-520; M"rf",-
the basis for our justification i. ; C'rii_
Bibte 179, una Vin",'-h";;;;
righteousness that we submit to ,"."iu" ?!ilg",
15.4). Murray shows the weakness
rather than one we establish.- -ihe rnls vlew when .
,,But of
he says,- this would
unbelieving Jews had gone at tni, tir" give
wrolg . w.aY: They had sought to cclnstruction
an awkward if not i.por.-iUi"
establish their own righteousness- rather translation
as will appear from the
that would U" ,"qulr"l, ,iiiJ
than submit to the iignt"ou.nlr;-;;;- end of
vided by God througli Jesus CnriJt.-
the law is Christ'i.i-ii"tt-
eousness to every one that believeih,,,
(ll:49, 50). Paul tfr"i C[i"i'i,
B. Paul Describes the Right- the termination isofsayins t6" -*av whi.i,-in"
eousness of Faith (f0:4-fj). Jews had tried to follow whi-ch h;JU;;
a total failure. It had not p.oarc"J-u
. -The righteousness provided by God righteousness that would siand;4.;
differs from the righteousness of tlhe law troct ln even one person.
(vv. 4,5). It is easily accessible (vv. 5-9)
It is offered on the condition of iaith (w. . Ttr" third view which sees Christ as
the fulfillmenf of the tu* *Lrfa'-*"un
4,6,9, 10, and ll). It is offered to all that. Christ would fulfill th" t6;.gy;;
(w. 4, 11-13). the law and the requirements-of thilaw
to-r_a penalty and righteousness (Hodqe
IforFqCirlst is rhe end of the law
righteousness to .,oery oi"
335-337 and Shedd 3ts). ihil ;;:;
certainly stating something that is true
that believeth. as such, but something that ao", noi
to fit the context here. in
sgem
The differences of opinion on this to this view, Murray' s;-
objectin-g_
verse mainly center around the meanino plains, "lf Paul
were speakirs ;f thl
of the word "end,' (Greef t"A1i. Tnl.J purpose of the law
as fulfilled ii Cnrist.
are basrcally three different views given we would expect the
-it absolut" :i;l;:
by commentators concerning *#i ment: 'Christ is the end [fulfillm"nii of
th.e..
]aw forrighteousness,' unJ-'*
fr"o'i, )ni:1i,,1?"ii'H*:',n9,
seems to be
i:::
a mixing of these uie*i.
acldttron would be necessary or in
place" (ll:50).
. It appears to me that ,,terminut-ioii' To.every one that
is the most likely meanins. Ch;isi i;'a -.I ne reterence to everyone is,believeth.
termination of the law -way .; th; of course,
law-keeping- way of producin-g
-riqht- Jg include both Jew and G;;iil;:
a However, paul's main burden l;'ih"
eousness that would make one 1c_
context is for the Jew who is blinded io
ceptable before God. This i, not
suggest that there ever was a time
t that for which his heritage .h;;ld h;;;
when especially prepared him.
h*-.k"-"p!lg made one ristt"or.t"f;; In 2:l-3:7 Paul had made it
bod. lt did not. As ,,a way,' it had failed questionably clear that the unbelievino
un_
Ior every human being.'Whe; Cilil Jew had failed before God because hJ
came and provided righteousness for
did .not have absolut" .ight"orsnersl
us, He brought an to u *iv-tnui God's principles of ludgmZnl- a--"---'
"nJ
285