Verses 19-24
(Bible)
If God hath absolute sovereignty over the salvation or reprobation of man such as just shown in the past verses about Pharaoh. And if God can harden a man's heart and leave the man empty of saving grace then the question from prideful, boastful, arrogant men naturally arises: "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" As I asked earlier in verse 14, where a question is similarly asked, does your doctrine of election warrant this type of response? For most, the doctrine of election is bent in order to make it more appealing and more understandable to our human minds, this great doctrine suffers greatly because of its misunderstanding. Nevertheless the matter remains in the hand of God, and so the question above arises, which Paul doesn't necessarily answer more than he just makes it very clear that we are nothing to question the wise counsel of God. "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'"(cf. Isaiah 45:9).
This to Paul is absurd, for men to think they have any jurisdiction whatsoever to question God in His dealings with His own salvation. Paul declares the Lord as sovereign over all.
"Who art thou, thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so short-sighted, so incompetent a judge of divine counsels? Art thou able to fathom such a depth, dispute such a case, to trace that way of God which is in the sea, His path in the great waters? That repliest against God. It becomes us to submit to Him, not to reply against Him; to lie down under His hand, not to fly in His face, nor to charge Him with folly...we are the thing formed, and He is the former; and it does not become us to challenge or arraign His wisdom in ordering and disposing of us into this or that shape of figure. The rude and unformed mass of matter hath no right to this or that form, but is shaped at the pleasure of Him that formeth it." (Henry)
Paul then gives a comparison: "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" I think this proves the arbitrary and sovereign work of God in how He chooses to form the vessels that He does. We are all of the same lump of clay, no one more deserving than another. As the potter has the right to take a lump of clay and form one into a vessel for honor so he also has that same right to use some of the clay for dishonor.
"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory...""What if..." has been taken by Calvin and most other theologians, not as a hypothetical statement, but as a more or less "so what" kind of statement. It is indeed a statement made in human terms but Paul is not giving a statement that would not be true of how it is God deals with His creation.
In order to make His power known and to show His wrath He, "endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction..." God is here pleased to show His righteous and great power in the destruction of the wicked. "Vessels of wrath" who are "prepared" as Henry would say, "fitted by their own sin and self-hardening...[and are made] combustible matter, fit for the flames of hell"(Henry).
Now there is a bit of a difference between the commentaries on double-predestination and God withholding saving graces. To be honest I am not going to go into any kind of differences or debate on a doctrine which really has "indirect bearing on Christian behavior"(Reformation Bible).
You'll notice here that all of this is to "His glory." The way in which He deals with those vessels fitted for wrath is to display the greatness and riches of His glory by the mercy He shows the vessels which He has chosen.
The end of all things that God has created is to display His glory. Everything from election to salvation to glorification and judgment are to display the greatness of God. Even the vessels fitted for wrath will make a display of that greatness, whether an unbeliever wishes to glorify God or not, he will do it one way or another.
"...us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles..." Simply put the God gives mercy to all different people, not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles.
Citation:
*Matthew Henry Commentary
*Calvin Commentary
*Reformation Study Bible
Verses 14-18(Bible)
With the two examples given, Paul has abolished all hope of a sinner working his way to God. He has now handed over all power and all sovereignty to God. Now Paul goes on in these verses to prove the absolute sovereignty of God in bringing the "children of promise" to himself.
Notice here as well as in verse 19, this is the common response by anyone who is confronted with the doctrines of election or predestination. The first objection shown here in verse 14 is that there is injustice with God. To save some and to look over others and they can do nothing, doesn't that make God unjust? "Certainly not!" is the answer Paul gives. It would be interesting to see if any other ideas of election such as that of the Arminian or a "corporate" electionist would warrant such an expression as Paul just gave. All other ideas attempt to give man some credit in his election, but this simply is not true. Men attempt to bend the scriptures to fit within our understanding, but this doctrine of election is something we must accept. As Piper has said, "it is better that our minds be broken, than that the scriptures be broken."
For an outline's sake, I'll break this into two parts. How God deals with His chosen people (v.15,16), and how He deals with the reprobate, or the ones He passes over (v.17,18).
I. Dealings With The Elect
"I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." Paul has just said that God is certainly not unjust, he now proves the denial. As Matthew Henry says on this verse, "It imports a perfect absoluteness in God's will; He will do what He will, and giveth not account of any of His matters, nor is it fit He should"(Henry). In other words, God has to give us no reason why it is He has mercy on some and not others. Charles Spurgeon once gave an example of 10 beggars on a street and a man walks by and decides to give some money to only one of the beggars, is this man unjust for not giving the others some money? Of course not, it is his money he does with it as he pleases, in fact he didn't have to give any of them money, but he did. And so it is with God. "God makes some vessels of wrath according to their merit; other vessels of mercy according to His grace"(Calvin's editor note).
"So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." "That none of you may think that they who are elected are elected because they are deserving"(Calvin). Henry makes a good point,
"Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him, the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called...while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better desrving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God's free grace that made that difference. The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, they sat in darkness...He is found of those that sought Him not (Isa. 65:1)."
II. Dealings With The Reprobate
"There seems to be something more unreasonable in this (the rejection of the ungodly), [Paul] endeavours to make it more fully evident, how God, in rejecting whom He wills, is not only irreprehensible, but also wonderful in His wisdom and justice"(Calvin).
Paul comes to how God deals with Pharoah from Exodus. God raised up Pharoah, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth"(Exodus 9:16). "Thus doth God raise up sinners, make them for himself even for the day of evil (Prov. 16:4), raise them up in outward prosperity, external privelages (Matt. 11:23), sparing mercies"(Henry). For what reason? "That I may show my power in [them], and that My name may be declared in all the earth." "God would...serve the honour of His name, and manifest His power in baffling the pride and insolence of that great tyrant, who bade defiance to Heaven itself, and trampled upon all that was just and sacred. If Pharoah has not been so high and mighty, so bold and hardy, the power of God had not been so illustrious in the ruining of him"(Henry).
III. "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."Matthew Henry puts it beautifully:"The various dealings of God...must be resolved into His absolute sovereignty. He is debtor to no man, His grace is His own, and He may give it or withold it as it pleaseth Him; we have none of us deserved it, nay, we have all justly forfeited it a thousand time, so that herein the work of our salvation is admirably well ordered that those who are saved must thank God only, and those who perish must thank themselves only...God is bound no further than He has been pleased to bind Himself by His own covenant and promise, which is His revealed will; and that is that He will receive, and not cast out, those that come to Christ; but the drawing of souls in order to that coming is preventing distinguishing favour to whom He will. Had He mercy on the Gentiles? It was because He would have mercy on them. Were the Jews hardened? It was because it was His own pleasure to deny them softening grace, and to give them up to their chosen affected unbelief."
Citation:*Piper Sermons*Calvin Commentaries on Romans*Matthew Henry Commentaries on Romans*C.H. Spurgeon
Verses 11-13
(Bible)
Paul has now given the two examples from the Old Testament to make his statement earlier true, that they are not all of Israel who are of Israel (v.6b). "He now begins to...show the cause of this difference, which [Paul] teaches us is nowhere else to be found except in the election of God"(Calvin).
There are some who may contend that this passage of scripture, especially that of verse 11 does not have to do with salvation but with "service." This of course has no contextual or scriptural support, only an assumption based off of nothing more than the mere fact that election is a very offensive doctrine to most, it was to me at first. We are talking about God selecting those to whom He would bestow His saving graces upon, that man has no ability within himself to bring himself to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
But it is plain to see from these verses, that those whom God declares as "children of promise," such as that of Isaac and Jacob and every other saint from Adam to now, are those whom God will save. "Not of works but of Him who calls."I. "For the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil."Why was on chosen and not the other? They are both born at the same time, they are twins, born of the Patriarch Isaac. Neither had done a thing yet, but even before their birth it was stated, "The older shall serve the younger." If anything it would seem if salvation were based on works and not on the grace and election of God, it would seem to be that Esau should have been the chosen. After all, he was the first born, the rightful recepient of the blessing from Isaac (had not Jacob tricked his father), in fact looking at Jacob and Esau comparatively it would seem that Jacob was more evil than Esau. Yet God chose Jacob...why?
II. "That the purpose of God according to election might stand."What purpose? The "according to election" purpose (which is actually the more literal translation of the phrase). The purpose of God is partly defined by election. More definatively what was the entire purpose of God in creation, in regeneration, salvation, and even election?
For His glory. Election is the beginning of salvation, and all salvation is from God, from first to last. Even the faith we have is from God, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast"(Ephesians 2:8-9). If man were to boast about a single bit of His salvation that would be to take away from the glory that is to go to God alone.
So it is said...
III. "Not of works but of Him who calls."Paul has destroyed the argument that man has any hope in bringing himself to a saving knowledge of God apart from God. These Israelites, that Paul speaks about, were the "fleshly children" they were in a sense "Ishmael's" and "Esau's." As Piper has said, "The church is full of Ishmael Christianity and Esau Christianity and have never been born of God"(Piper). Many in the church are more of a Pharisaical type of Christianity, too many think that it is by their works, by their faith that they have built up in themself, or they fall back on the fact that they have been baptized or have confessed at one time in their life, or have gone to church for years. The fact is this means nothing, if you have not been born of God.
IV. "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."I figure I should touch on this, since it has to do with the election of God. For those who think that what is being spoken of in the former verses, is that of service. God says, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Obviously looking throughout the history of Israel we see that Jacob's people (Israelites) were blessed with all the blessing of God, and that Esau's people (Edomites) were cast out from this grace of God. What Paul is getting at by mentioning this, is that what God had for Jacob, He did not have for Esau.
Many have taken the word "hated," and said that a more literal translation is "loved less." But keeping it in the context of the passage it is taken from (Malachi 1:2-5), "hated" is a pretty good translation of it, since if you read that passage you can discern for yourself what God meant when He said that about Esau's people.
The Israelites ask God in that Malachi passage, "In what way have You loved us?" and God says to them, "Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?" This is the love of God, that while none of us deserved his mercy, He bestowed it upon "many" by His good pleasure, and for His glory. Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother? Are we not all as depraved as anyone else? Couldn't God have chosen someone else instead of us to make a "child of promise?" But He didn't, He chose you. And yet many will complain that this makes God's love nothing.
Citation:
*Piper Sermons on Romans
*Calvin Commentaries on Romans
Verses 10-13:
(Bible)
After the distinguishing made in the previous post and in the last three verses, Paul now takes these principles and supports them with examples. He uses two Old Testament examples, which the Israelites obvious knew, since it was dealing with the Patriarchs of their nation. The two examples are that of Isaac (v.7), which I briefly mentioned in the last post, but will do again. And then the example of Jacob (v.10,12,13).
Example 1: Isaac and Ishmael
God made a promise to Abraham that through his seed all the nations shall be blessed (Genesis 12:3), he told Abraham his descendants would be as numerous as the sand and the stars (Genesis 22:17). That it would be through the son that God would give to him (Isaac, Genesis 15:5) that this would happen and that it would be Sarah, his wife, who was barren, that would conceive (Genesis 18:10). Because of Abraham's weak faith at the time, he did not fully trust in God's promise, for it seemed to him impossible that Sarah could conceive a child. So, instead, Abraham use Hagar, a maid of Sarah, as a concubine to produce a child named Ishmael.
Abraham wanted Ishmael to be the heir God had promised. "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!"(Genesis 17:18), But God told Abraham, "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year." Ishmael would indeed be blessed, since his descendants would be what would become the Muslims. But as God said His covenant was not with him, and so he was not the child of promise. Though born of Abraham, he was cut off from the promises and the covenants of the Lord.
"But," someone might object, "Of course God didn't choose [Ishmael] as a child of promise. He didn't have a Jewish mother. Hagar was a Gentile"(Piper).
So Paul clarifies his point further...
Example 2: Jacob and Esau
"And not only this..." As if to say, "this is not the point I am trying to get across." Now we see further, that God's choice is based on His good pleasure and nothing in a man. Along with the proof of God's word standing strong, we now get into the doctrines of predestination, election, and the grace of God (Note to Reader: I realize this might start to get a bit confusing, I'll try to make it clear).
Paul really narrows the objections down here, for one, we are talking about children born of the same womb, by the same man (Isaac). Further, they are twins, there is minimal distinctions between these two brothers. And yet one was chosen over the other, why? Paul is, "systematically doing away with the human distinctions that might constrain God's election of one over the other. He is saying that election is based on God, not man"(Piper).
Verse 11 starts to talk of the unconditionality of God's election. "For the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil..." Skip to verse 12, "The older shall serve the younger."
"The quote from Genesis 25:23 simply makes clear that God decides the destiny of these two sons and the nations they represent before they are born. And to make it even clearer for us, Paul does not just say, they were not yet born when God decided their destinies, he also say, 'they had done nothing good or bad.' And to remove the possible objection that he chose the older because the old deserves it, he chose the younger...This is why we speak of the doctrine of unconditional election. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad. It was not their behavior or their attitude or their faith or their parents that moved God to choose Jacob and not Esau. The choice was unconditional. It was rooted in God alone and not in man"(Piper).
Conclusion
Paul makes it much too clear for us here. The objection from the Jews was that Paul was saying that God's word had failed them. While it may seem this way at first, Paul completely unravels that argument and states that, "not all Israel" is "Israel." Then proving that with Biblical evidence for this, that in Isaac and in Jacob.
I am going to stop here, because if I try to write everything I want on these verses this is going to be extremely long. In my next post I will go back to verse 11, "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls." And attempt to explain this verse, in light of the doctrine of election. Then I will look at verse 13, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." And break that down.
Verses 6-9
(Bible)
The common response from the people Paul was speaking to would be something along the lines of: "If the Israelites had all this, and were God's chosen people, and there are now unbelieving Jews accursed and cut off, then hasn't God's word failed?"
This creates a bit of a crisis not only for the Israelites but for us as well. Our eternal salvation rests wholly on God's faithfulness, if God's word can fail the Israelites then it can fail us as well. The security we have is nothing if this is true. And this is what the Jews saw in the words of Paul, that at one point the Israelites were the chosen (as they thought for salvation), and now they are eternally damned. Paul will spend the rest of this chapter as well as chapters 10 and 11 disproving this argument and proving that "it is not that the word of God has taken no effect" (some translations render "has taken no effect" as "failed" the Greek literally means to have "fallen"). This is the assertion, now he will prove it by stating three things in this paragraph, (as well as giving two OT examples, which I will discuss in my next post), (1) There is a difference between ethnic Israel and the true Israel v.6b, (2) two types of "children" of Abraham v.7, (3) there is a difference between children of flesh and children of promise v.8.
I. Ethnic vs. True Israel
"For they are not all Israel who are of Israel." As with the Church we distinguish between the true Church, or the mystical unseen Church of the true believers, and the visible Church (ref. Parable of the wheat and tares starting in Matt. 13:24). The same is true for Israel, there is the visible Israel or the ethnic which are the seed of Abraham, but as Henry puts it "Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privelages..."(Henry). So then it is the "True" Israel that is saved it is the "remnant" as the Bible puts it that is saved and always has been, God's word has never failed the true Church.
II. All Descendants of Abraham vs. the "Children" of Abraham
"Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham," as John Piper notes, "[Paul] distinguishes here between two kind of 'children'...there are all of Abraham's descendants, and there is a narrower group in that number whom he calls here 'the children,' or we could say, 'the true children' since the others are physical children also. The assumption is that the promises of God hold true for the true children of Abraham but not for all the descendants of Abraham"(Piper). So we now have the true Israel and the true Children.
III. Children of Flesh vs. Children of Promise
"Those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." There is here the difference between the "children of flesh" and the "children of God" or the "children of promise." To those children of the promise the word of God has never failed or fallen. The reason that so many Israelites are being cut off and accursed is because all that they are is "children of the flesh." Being "the 'children of God,' in this case is not an ethnic or physical or historical term, it has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16 or Philippians 2:15. And when he then says that these 'children of God' are 'children of promise,' he means that they ahve their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God's effective promise. The promise produced the position"(Piper).
IV. Taking a Step Back
While I plan on going into more detail on the OT examples of Isaac and Jacob, I think I should address the Old Testament references within this paragraph (though I think it will become more clear in the next post).
After mentioning the difference between all of Abraham's descendants and the true "children" of Abraham, Paul references Genesis 21:12: "In Isaac your seed shall be called." Paul is here showing the Jews that there is a difference and you can clearly see it (he will go more into it in verses 10-13). Thinking of the context of this passage you understand why this is. If you'll remember Abraham already had a son named Ishmael born of Hagar. "Ishmael was a child of the flesh, conceived by Hagar, who was young and fresh, and likely enough to have children. There was nothing extraordinary or supernatural in his conception, as there was in Isaac's; he was born after the flesh (Gal. 4:29), representing those that expect justification and salvation by their own strength and righteousness"(Henry). God promised that the seed of promise would pass through the son that He was going to give to Abraham, God did not need Abraham's assistance and Abraham seemed to think He did. "For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." Keeping this in mind, understand that God does not need help in salvation, man's works and apparent assitance does nothing, God works His spirit in those whom He chooses. As will be further explained next time.
Citation:
*NKJV Bible
*ESV Bible
*Matthew Henry Commentary (Romans)
*John Piper (Sermons on Romans)
Verses 4-5
Now that we see Paul's heart for "countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites"(v.3b, 4a), he now expounds on why it is that this is so great a tragedy. For the Israelites had everything, and for them to reject Christ Jesus, who was their promised Messiah, is the greatest heartache in the mind of Paul. For they were given the, "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came."(v.4,5). I'll take these one at a time...
I. They Were Israelites
God's chosen people, given everything from God (which is all the things following this). Important though is this, that we should "imitate Paul, who conceded to the Jews their privileges in such a manner...he afterwards declared that they were all of no worth without Christ"(Calvin).
II. The Adoption
"Israel is My son, My firstborn"(Exodus 4:22), "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son"(Hosea 11:1). "Israel was seperated out to be His unique and righteous witness to the rest of the world"(MacArthur), "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."(Exodus 19:6). "It is clear from the context of those verses, as well as from countless other parts of Scripture, that the nation of Israel was, in some respect, God's child"(MacArthur). Not to be confused with the spiritual adoption spoken of in more detail in the New Testament, because "they are not all Israel who are of Israel"(v.6). So then not all of Israel was saved because they were part of the nation, but they did benefit from being the chosen nation of God.
III. The Glory
By all the commentators I am using this is attributed to the ark, I think Calvin has the best to say about this:
"Glory means the excellency into which the Lord had raised up [Israel] above all other nations, and that...[God] dwelt in the midst of them; for besides many other tokens of his presence, he exhibited a singular proof of it in the ark, where He gave responses, and also heard His people, that he might show forth his power in helping them...for this reason it was called 'the glory of God'(1 Samuel 4:22)"(Calvin).
IV. The Covenants and The Promises
Many covenants and promises were given to the nation of Israel. Observing the distinction between a covenant and promise, Calvin writes:
"A covenant is that which is expressed in distinct and accustomed words, and contains a mutual stipulation, as that made with Abraham; but promises are what we meet with everywhere in Scripture; for when God had once made a covenant with his ancient people, he continued to offer, often by new promises his favour to them. It hence follows, that promises are to be traced up to the covenant as to their true source"(Calvin).
V. The Giving of the Law
The Isrealites had the greatest privelage of receiving the law (ceremonial and judicial) and commandments of God. "It is a great privelage to have the law of God among us"(Henry), this is true from the way the Psalms speak of the law and the privilege that Christians have of being able to serve the Lord in obedience based on the law He his given.
VI. The Service of God
Rendered also as the "worship" of God, meaning the same.
"They had the ordinances of God's worship among them...the temple, the altars, the priests, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the institutions relating to them. While other nations were nations were worshipping and serving stocks, and stone, and devils, and the knew not what other idols of their own invention, the Israelites were serving the true God in the way of his own appointment"(Henry).
VII. The Fathers
It was through these men, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that the foundations of the blessings that would come to the descendents would be laid.
VIII. Jesus Christ
The most important of all the blessing. "According to the flesh" meaning they were directly related to Him, in that He came through the line of the Patriarchs and was a Hebrew. He was the greatest "promise" given to the Israelites. All these things such as adoption and the fathers and the law and so on, were great, but apart from Jesus Christ it is meaningless. This is why Paul was so distressed, the Jews had all this, but they lacked the biggest part of it all, their Redeemer.
"Who is over all, the eternally blessed God"(v.5), something very interesting about the way this is worded, that I believe to be very important here. If looking at the NASB rendering of this passage you get, "who is over all, God blessed forever" which I like better in this case because it helps to make my point, but the NKJV has the same meaning. Anyways in all of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts all the doxologies are normally rendered "blessed God," in this case it is "God blessed." The reason for saying this is that if you read the passage over again, you will see he is basically saying, "Jesus Christ is God blessed forever" focusing on "Jesus is God." Some translators attempting to deny Christ's divinity have attempted to change this passage around, but all manuscripts show it as "God blessed forever. Amen."
Citation:
*NASB Bible
*NKJV Bible
*Matthew Henry Commentary (Romans 9)
*Calvin Commentaries (Romans 1-16)
*MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Romans 9-16)
Verses 1-3
Its important to remember in these first 5 verses of Romans 9, Paul understood very well that he could have been sitting there amongst the Pharisees having someone else preaching this message to him, and him scoffing that person, if not for the mercy of God.
Paul shows great sorrow that this is happening to the nation of Israel, they are his kinsmen, as Paul is a Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5), it pains him much that these Jews are not accepting their promised Messiah. "The Jews, for whom [Jesus] was appointed according to the covenant of the law, not only rejected Him, but regarded Him with contempt, and for the most part hated Him"(Calvin).
"I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart"(v.1,2).There are three things worth noting here in these first few verses, his forgiveness, his sincerity (v.1-2), his selfless-love for those who were unbelieving (v.3).
I. His Forgiveness
Paul was most likely one of the most hated of all the Apostle's by the Pharisees, as evidenced in the book of Acts. He absolutely crushed the legalism and self-righteousness of the Pharisees, and for this he was despised by them. If given oppurtunity they would have killed him as they did Jesus.
Yet, we see in these passages and the ones following that Paul treats them with respect and with a forgiving spirit. Though most of the Jews hearing the words spoken here would just assume that Paul was attempting to flatter them with kind words.
II. His Sincerity
To Prove that he is not attempting to flatter the Jews with kind words he calls upon the Triune God to witness to his sincerity of heart. "I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit" as Matthew Henry renders this as saying, "I speak it as a Christian, one of God's people, children that will not lie, as one that knows not how to give flattering titles." OR, "I appeal to Christ, who searches the heart, concerning it." He as well, appeals to his conscience, which bears witness, "it was concerning a sorrow in his heart to which none was a capable copetent witness but God and his own conscience.-- That 'I have great sorrow'"(Henry).
III. His Love
"For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh..."(v.3).
The Apostle says "I could" not "I do." The difference being, as if he were saying, "I could wish were it right and lawful"(Calvin). Paul understand as better than anyone that (1) you cannot be seperated from Christ, (2) he knew that his death could accomplish nothing of this sort. He "could" if it were right and possible, wish that he was accursed ("anathema" = codemned to hell) for their sake.
His selfless-love for his lost kinsmen is very clear here.
"Love is apt to be thus bold, and venturous, and self-denying. Because the glory of God's grace in the salvation of many is to be preferred before the welfare and happiness of [the self]...Paul, would be content to forego all his own happiness to purchase theirs. He would be content to be cut off from the land of the living, in the most shameful manner as anathema...they persecuted him as the most obnoxious person in the world, the curse and plague of his generation (1 Cor 4:12)..."Now...I am willing to bear all this, and a great deal more, for your good"...He would be content to be excommunicated from the society of the faithful...from the church...and from communion with saints, as a heathen and publican, if that would do them any good...He could wish himself no more remembered among the saints, his name blotted out of church-records...cut off...and have his name buried in oblivion or reproach, for the good of the Jews."
This has been seen throughout the history of the Church. The example of Moses is the same kind of sacrifice willing to be made. After the Israelites had made a golden calf, Moses went to God to try and make an atonement, and ask for God's forgiveness on their behalf and says this:
"Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written"(Exodus 32:31,32).This kind of thought is not too common around too many "Christians" in this country. The health and wealth gospel wouldn't touch this kind of matter, and the feel good, just have "fun" churches/youth groups, wouldn't give self-denial and selfless-love a second thought.
Is your love willing to be so self-denying? Examine yourself on that matter, I know I will. Just a though take it or leave it.
Why write about this chapter?
This is one chapter of the Bible that has been greatly misunderstood. Reading through it a first time, it can actually be rather shocking.
By some this chapter and the ones following (ch. 10, 11), have often been looked at as a "parenthesis that has little, if any, connection to the rest of the letter...according to those interpreters, the central message of justification by faith is interrupted at the beginning of chapter 9 and resumes at the beginning of chapter 12" (MacArthur). Basically, looking at it as though the book flows from chapter 8:39 to chapter 12:1. Which, grant it, the book could still flow well without these chapter (along with many other books, but leaving out those chapters leaves out a slew of important doctrine).
Some of these important doctrines found in this chapter are those of God's grace, predestination, election. So then the misunderstanding of this chapter could be attributed to those doctrines being misunderstood.
That is why I am going to write about this chapter. Using the commentaries of John MacArthur, Matthew Henry, John Calvin and perhaps occasionally Charles Hodge and sermons by John Piper. I hope to clear up a few things since I have been challenged at times to explain this chapter.
Why is this chapter written?
Looking back into the preceding chapters, Paul has basically shattered all beliefs of the Pharisees who would hear him. The idea of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law, was something blasphemous and heretical to those Jews. Paul is now looked upon as though he were belittling Abraham, Moses the other prophets and God.
What is assumed by the Pharisees is that if salvation now comes to the Gentiles and not just the Jews as they thought, and that it is received by faith alone, then God's promises have failed. "If this be so, then what becomes of the Jews, of them all as a complex body, expecially those of them that do not embrace Christ, nor believe the gospel?...What becomes of the promise made to the fathers, which entailed salvation upon the Jews? Is not the promise nullified and made of none effect?"(Henry)
So then Paul, after teaching these doctrinal truths that salvation is by faith, he now turns his attention to the Jews, and to those who would challenge this with those responses. He goes on to prove that this salvation by faith, this elect chosing by God for salvation, has always been the case. It is not something new that came with Christ, but that salvation is "by grace...through faith...it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). And it always has been. Moreover, Paul proves that God has not failed in His promises, which we will see, as well, in this chapter.
My Hope
For those who do read this, I do hope you give some input and that we could encourage one another in the study of this chapter.
I hope to treat this chapter with as much fairness and study and prayer as possible, I pray you will as well.
May God grant us all discernment as we look into the great truth of his holy Word.
Citation:
*MacArthur, John (NT Commentary, Romans 9-16)
*Henry, Matthew (Commentary of the whole Bible, Romans)
