Romans 9
Romans 9
V. THE PLACE OF ISRAEL, 9:1–11:36
These difficult chapters have been the subject of much discussion.1 K. Stendahl, for example, holds that that they are “the climax of Romans”; everything before leads up to this critical discussion.2 D. M. Lloyd-Jones, on the other hand, regards chapter 8 as the completion of Paul’s statement of the doctrine of salvation and chapters 9–11 as “a kind of postscript”.3As we saw in the Introduction, some scholars hold that the basic aim of the letter is to deal with the problem of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the church at Rome. Those who hold such views naturally find in these chapters that to which everything leads up. But there are strong objections to this view of the letter, and it is better not to see these difficult chapters as the heart and the essence of what Paul is saying to the Romans.
On the other hand it is not easy to see them either as no more than an appendix to what has gone before. Granted that Paul has completed a massive argument by the end of chapter 8, important considerations remain to be treated. In the “thesis” of this letter Paul not only spoke of the gospel as “the power of God for salvation” but also said it was “to the Jew first” (1:16–17). He has not yet shown what this means. Again, for his doctrine of justification and sanctification Paul has consistently appealed to the Old Testament as sacred Scripture (his opening sentence speaks of the gospel as promised “in holy scriptures”, 1:1–2), and in that Scripture the Jews appear as God’s chosen people. How can he establish a system of salvation for Gentiles on the basis of the Scripture that gives a special place to Jews? If the place of the Jews as set forth in the Old Testament does not agree with the justification Paul sees in the Old Testament, then his position can scarcely stand.
Paul’s whole argument demands an examination of the Jewish question. Chapter 8 ends on a note of assurance. Those saved in the way of which Paul is writing have been foreknown and predestined by God, and they are assured that this brings them to glory and that nothing can separate them from the love of God. Then what about the Jews? Did not the same God give the same assurance to the Jews as his “elect”? But the Jews for the most part were outside the church. Paul must face squarely the fact that, as a whole, Israel had rejected its Messiah. What does this say about the purposes of God? If God cannot bring his ancient people into salvation, how do Christians know that he can save them? Will the Christian salvation also be superseded one day? If Paul’s position was a valid one, he had to show that “believers of today are the heirs of a valid promise” (Leenhardt).4 The first eleven chapters of Romans are a unity, and this is important. Paul is not here proceeding to a new and unrelated subject. These three chapters are part of the way he makes plain how God in fact saves people.5
The passage must be approached with care. We often find expressions like “The problem of Israel’s rejection”, but we should bear in mind that Paul does not exactly say this. Indeed, he asks “Did God reject his people?” and answers “By no means!” (11:1). There is a tendency to recognize this and, for example, Lloyd Gaston says, “Romans 9 is not about the unbelief of Israel nor the rejection of Israel.” He holds that Paul “really does not, in Rom. 9–11 or elsewhere, charge Israel with a lack of faith or a concept of works-righteousness.”6
It is true that the idea that Israel has been rejected has often been stated too strongly. But it is also the case that the idea that Israel has not been rejected can be stated too strongly. If Paul is not writing about Israel’s rejection he says things that look suspiciously like Israel’s defection. He asserts that “they pursued it not by faith” (9:32) and “they did not know the righteousness that comes from God” (10:3), and he even refers to “their rejection” (11:15). If Paul’s “heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved” (10:1), then clearly he does not regard them as already saved. It is easy to take up a simplistic position.7 It will be necessary to exercise care and to pay close attention to what Paul actually says as we examine this part of his argument.
We should bear in mind that Paul is here dealing with the community rather than with individuals. Of course, there is an application to the individual, but basically the apostle is thinking of the place of Israel as a whole.8
Some linguistic phenomena are of value as we approach these chapters. Paul speaks of God 26 times in chapters 9–11, but of Christ only seven times and the Spirit once. The emphasis falls on God in his sovereignty rather than on Christ in his saving activity on which the emphasis falls.9 “Jew” is mentioned twice, but “Israel” 11 times (and not elsewhere in this letter). Paul is referring to the nation in its capacity as the covenant people, the people of God.10 There is continuity with the rest of the letter in the use of terms like righteousness (nine times), believe (eight times), and faith (six times). Particularly important is the concept of mercy (the verb “to have mercy” occurs seven times in these chapters and once in the rest of Romans and is supported by the noun, which occurs twice in this part and once elsewhere in the letter); Cranfield well says that this is the “keyword” of these chapters.
A. The Tragedy of Israel, 9:1–5
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!a Amen.
Paul begins his treatment of the problem with a section in which he affirms his deep sorrow at what had happened to Israel. It may well be that there were some who held that he was nothing but a bitter renegade, lashing out against his own nation. He makes it clear that Israel’s failure to accept his doctrine of salvation by God in Christ was a cause of unceasing sorrow to him. He also makes it clear that, no matter what people of his own nation had done to him, he still regarded himself as a faithful Jew.
1. There is no connective to link this with the preceding passage, and chapter 12 would follow on quite acceptably. This has led to the view that we have here a completely independent section. Dodd thinks it may have been a sermon Paul had often preached on the subject. We may well doubt whether Paul would have written out his sermons, and feel that it is unlikely that he would have carried a pile of sermon manuscripts with him on his travels. But in any case the hypothesis of an insertion is unlikely for reasons outlined above: this section is important for the argument of the epistle as a whole and must be regarded as an important part of the original. The lack of a conjunction is not as significant as the continuity of the argument. It indicates that a new subject is being introduced but no more. Godet sees it as evidence of “a lively emotion” and speaks of “the profound relation of feeling which unites this piece to the preceding.”
Paul begins by asserting strongly that he is speaking the truth. Truth is his first word, and this gives it strong emphasis. He goes on to say that he speaks in Christ, which means more than “as a Christian”; it is unthinkable that a believer would tell a lie in the very presence of Christ, and Paul’s “in Christ” means that he is indeed in that presence (cf. JB, “in union with Christ”). It is not an oath, but it is a firm indication that what he says is not to be doubted. It is not uncommon for the New Testament writers to follow a positive statement with a negative one (I am not lying), as Paul does here: (cf. 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:7). He completes an unusually solemn affirmation that he is telling the truth with my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit. He means that he speaks “with a good conscience”, but that is not all. The reference to the Holy Spirit brings another divine Person into the process. The Spirit witnesses with the spirit of believers (8:16), and now we find that Paul’s conscience is illuminated by the Spirit. Paul does the speaking, but in one way or another Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Paul’s conscience are all involved. It forms a most emphatic protestation that he is speaking the truth.
2. Paul was not an uncommitted bystander; he identified with Israel. So he says that he has great sorrow and unceasing anguish, though interestingly he never says what causes this. However, there is no reasonable doubt that he is giving his reaction to his nation’s failure to accept the Messiah. It is not easy to distinguish between sorrow and anguish11 in this context, but unceasing may indicate the endless duration of the pain. But the combination certainly emphasizes Paul’s discomfort at the plight of his nation. The heart12 often stands for the whole of the inner life, but here it is clearly connected with the emotions.
3. For does not introduce the reason for his grief but an explanation of what it is. I could wish is Paul’s way of expressing his deep desire to do something for Israel and the impossibility of action along the lines he mentions.13 It is “an impossible wish” (Harrison); it could not happen, and a true believer could not really wish to be estranged from Christ. But the expression brings out Paul’s deep concern for his fellow-Jews. His I myself14 emphasizes his personal involvement; he is not talking in neutral fashion about someone else. Cursed15 means “bearing the curse of God” and is not to be softened to excommunication, as some suggest. It is impossible for a believer to suffer this fate, but Paul’s readiness to undergo it on behalf of his nation is vivid evidence of his feeling for his people. NIV speaks of being cut off from Christ, but nothing in the Greek corresponds to cut off. This helps us understand the meaning, but Paul simply says “accursed from Christ”.16 But of course anyone who was accursed would be separated from Christ.
Paul speaks of this action as for the sake of my brothers, where his preposition may denote substitution.17 He longed to be able to take their place so that they might be in Christ. The parallel with Moses (Exod. 32:32) is often pointed out, sometimes with the addition that, whereas Moses preferred to perish with his people rather than to be saved alone, Paul wants to take their place, to be lost so that they may be saved. But the parallel seems to be closer, for Moses said to the people, “perhaps I can make atonement for your sin” (v. 30). Then when he spoke to God he said, “please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” It seems that being blotted out of the book was the way Moses sought atonement. Be that as it may, Paul was certainly speaking of taking the place of his sinful people. He describes the Jews first as my brothers, a term he generally uses of Christians (indeed, this is the only place where he uses the term of the Jews). But he is still within the same community as other Jews, and we should note that he is speaking here of what is true “according to the flesh”. He prefaces this expression with “my kinsmen”, a way of referring to his fellow-countrymen.18 There were ties that bound Paul to his nation, and while he came to see his relationships in Christ as much more significant than these, that did not give him license to forget the race to which he belonged.
4. The people of Israel is more literally “who19 are Israelites”, a term which means that they are not simply members of a national or racial group, but members of the people of God. Paul proceeds to list some of the great blessings that this entails.
He speaks first of their adoption as sons. This expression is applied to the Jews only here in the New Testament (it is normally used of Christians; see the note on 8:15). It is not used in the Old Testament, though the idea is found expressed in other terms (e.g., Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 32:6; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 1:10; 11:1). It means that Israel did not naturally belong in the heavenly family, but that God was gracious enough to admit them. Paul adds “the glory”,20 which is not an obvious choice of word and is not explained. But the word denotes not only outward splendor but true glory, the glory of God. It is used in the Old Testament of “the visible presence of God among His people” (SH; cf. Exod. 16:10; 33:22; 40:34; 1 Kings 8:10–11). God was manifestly present among the people Israel in a special way, a way not granted to other peoples.
The covenants is perhaps surprising, for we might have expected the emphasis to be on the great covenant of Exodus 24.21 But there was a Jewish habit of distinguishing within the Exodus covenant three covenants, those at Horeb, in the plains of Moab, and at Gerizim and Ebal.22 Irenaeus points out four covenants, those with Adam, with Noah, with Moses, and the gospel covenant (iii.11.8). A number of commentators see a reference to the old covenant at Sinai and the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and fulfilled in Christ, but this could scarcely be said to belong to the Jews. It is more likely that the reference is to the several covenants in the Old Testament, as with Noah (Gen. 9:9), with Abraham (Gen. 17:2), with Moses (Exod. 24:8), with Joshua (Josh. 8:30ff.), and with David (2 Sam. 23:5). The concept of covenant is very important for Old Testament religion, and God repeatedly entered covenantal relations with his people.
Paul thinks next of the receiving of the law.23 Both the fact that God gave the law and that the law remained as an abiding possession of God’s people mattered greatly to the Jews, and Paul considers it one of their high privileges. NIV explains “the worship” by inserting temple, but Paul does not use the word. While, of course, worship in the temple was the high point of Jewish worship, Paul may also be glancing at the worship in the tabernacle that preceded it and possibly also at what went on in the synagogues. But certainly temple worship was the great and central thing for the Jews.24 The promises will refer to the many promises God gave his people, but especially to the messianic promises. The promises in the Old Testament are not always limited to Israel, but they are addressed to that nation and are preserved in its literature.25
5. The Israelites were justly proud of the patriarchs, the great men of long ago. The term was applied especially to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but was not limited to them. Paul brings his catalogue of outstanding blessings to its climax26 with the reminder that from them also was “the Christ” (this is the title, not the name) as regards “the flesh”.27 The qualification suggests that there is more to be said about the Christ than his human ancestry. Paul stresses the privilege of his nation while leaving open the source of the essential Christ.
The meaning of the rest of the verse is one of the most hotly disputed questions of the New Testament.28 The basic problem is whether Paul is saying that Christ is God (as NIV text) or moving on from his reference to Christ to a doxology to the Father (as NIV mg.). The problem is compounded by the fact that there is practically no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts and we must decide for ourselves whether it is better to put a comma or a full stop after “flesh”; the former ascribes deity to Christ, the latter makes for a doxology to the Father. The grammatical arguments almost all favor the first position, but most recent scholars accept the second on the grounds that Paul nowhere else says explicitly that Christ is God; he may come near it, but, they say, he always stops short of it.
The view that the passage refers to Christ is supported by a number of considerations. (1) The word order favors it: “of whom is the Christ as far as flesh is concerned, who is over all, God blessed forever.” To understand it as “God, who is over all…” is to do violence to the word order; the relative pronoun does not precede the noun to which it refers (cf. 2 Cor. 11:31, a passage similar to this and where there can be no doubt that “who is” refers to a preceding noun).29 (2) A doxology begins “Blessed be… ,”30 whereas here “God” precedes “blessed”. (3) A joyful doxology is out of place. Why should Paul bless God that Christ was born a Jew in a passage where he is expressing his grief over the Jewish rejection of Jesus? To take the words to refer to Christ is understandable; Paul speaks of him as being of the Jewish nation according to the flesh and goes on to bring out his greatness. (4) The reference to Christ “according to the flesh” looks for an antithesis. It would be very unexpected to have this as all that is said of him. (5) To have the doxology apply to God requires a very abrupt change of subject. (6) The early Fathers, including many whose native language was Greek, usually take the words to refer to Christ.
The one strong argument against the ascription of deity to Christ is that Paul does not do this elsewhere. Dodd says, “Even though he ascribes to Christ functions and dignities which are consistent with nothing less than deity, yet he pointedly avoids calling Him ‘God’ ”. So convincing is this line that Denney, though he fully accepts the deity of Christ and regards the arguments for seeing it here as forceful, refers the words to the Father. But Dodd’s “pointedly” may be going too far. After all, those who today wholeheartedly accept the deity of Christ do not often call him “God”, but this does not invalidate those few occasions when they do just that. We should also notice that it is not certain that Paul does not elsewhere call Christ “God”. Nygren sees him doing this in Philippians 2:9–11 where Paul says that God has given Christ “the name which belongs only to God—the name LORD, Kyrios” (what else does he mean by the name “above every name”?).31 But in the last resort this is an argument from outside the passage, and it suffers from the objection that because Paul does not say something elsewhere he cannot say it here.32
Amen is normally the response by a congregation to something uttered on its behalf by a leader. It is thus strange to have Paul append it to his own words. However, this is done often in this kind of construction. It may be that people were so used to the Amen at the close of doxologies that they automatically put it in.33
B. God’s Sovereign Freedom, 9:6–29
As he moves from his expression of sorrow to the development of his argument Paul begins with a powerful statement about the sovereignty of God. His God is no petty deity, unable to effect his purpose in the universe he has created, but a mighty God who is doing what he has planned. There is a strong emphasis on mercy, for Paul is not talking about a mighty and arbitrary tyrant, but about a God who loves all that he has made and specifically the people he has chosen. In this section of his argument he first makes the point that God has always worked on the principle of election, of choosing out people through whom he would work his purpose, then he goes on to make it clear that that purpose is mercy, and thirdly he looks at the question, “Why then does he find fault?”
1. God Works by Election, 9:6–13
6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”a 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this is how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a Son.”b
10Not only that, but Rebecca’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”c 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”d
Paul begins by demolishing the position that the whole Jewish nation would be saved, a view held by many (Jews tended to say things like “All Israelites have a share in the world to come”, Sanh. 10:1). He says in effect, “Look at the way God has acted in the past in working out the fulfilment of his promise. You will see that from the very beginning there have been descendants of Abraham who were not among the elect.” It was an error to assume (as many Jews of his day did) that descent from Abraham gave them total security and a favored position before God. The purpose of God was fulfilled in Isaac, not Ishmael; in Jacob, not Esau. The significance of what God had done should be pondered by those who put such emphasis on God’s choice of Israel. Throughout this section of his letter Paul seems to have Israel as a whole primarily in mind, not individuals, and to be dealing with election to service rather than eternal salvation. God is working out a great purpose in history, and we can discern something of it by looking at Abraham’s descendants, by bearing in mind what happened to those who claim as ancestors Isaac or Ishmael, Jacob or Esau.
We should bear in mind also that this is not merely a piece of antiquarianism, of no great importance for us. Paul is looking at a problem that is a mystery still: Why do some people have so much going for them in this life, while for so many others there is nothing but hardship and difficulty? Are we to put it all down to chance? Godless people of the twentieth century might well do this, but a religious man like Paul could not rest in such a conclusion.34
6. Paul begins by denying35 that God’s purpose has failed.36 God’s word here means all God’s promises to Israel. It is not often used in this sense in the New Testament (being more commonly a way of referring to the gospel), but there can be no doubt as to the meaning here. Paul has earlier said that “the promise” is by faith and that it is sure to all Abraham’s seed, not only those “of the law” but also those “of the faith of Abraham” (4:16). He has something of the same thought here. God’s word has not failed because those to whom that word was directed were not simply physical Israel. “Not all those who are of37 Israel, these are Israel.” His compatriots were in error in holding that the promise of God applied to the whole of physical Israel.38 Paul is denying that it was ever intended to apply in this fashion. If descent from Abraham was what mattered, then the Ishmaelites and Edom were in the same position as Israel. But “Israel” was not ethnic Israel. Whatever might happen to ethnic Israel, the promise to “Israel” stood; the falling away of some, who were not true Israelites, had no bearing on the issue. “Israel is not a term like Ammon, Moab, Greece, or Rome. ‘Israel’ cannot be defined in terms of physical descent, or understood simply ‘on the human side’ (v. 5); it is created not by blood and soil, but by the promise of God, and therefore exists within the limits of God’s freedom. If he were bound by physical descent, he would be unfree, and no longer God” (Barrett). This was clear in Old Testament days, with the emergence of the concept of the “remnant”; it had long been obvious that the nation as a whole was not responding to God’s leading. It was a smaller group within the nation that was really God’s “people”. It was stupid to think that, since the whole nation had not entered the blessing, the promise of God had failed. The promise had not been made to the whole nation and had never been intended to apply to the whole nation.39
7. Paul develops his argument with reference to the immediate descendants of Abraham. Not all who are Abraham’s “seed”40 are true descendants, the recipients of the promises.41 Paul is showing that more than physical descent from Abraham is required if one would inherit the promises. Every Jew must agree with this, else he would be admitting Ishmael and the sons of Keturah to the same status as the Jew. It is possible to have impeccable outward descent from Abraham and yet not to belong to Abraham’s “children.” On the contrary42 Paul can cite Genesis 21:12 to show that it is only the descendants through Isaac that constitute the “seed” (here used of the true successors of Abraham). It would perhaps be true to say that the Jews would have regarded this as meaning that God was bound, bound to Isaac’s descendants, whereas Paul understood it to signify that God is free, free to choose Isaac and reject Esau. This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau were necessarily excluded from the covenant; it was God’s command that they receive circumcision, the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9–13; cf. vv. 23, 26).43 They were not excluded from the mercy of God and both received blessing. It was said of Ishmael, “I will surely bless him…. I will make him into a great nation” (Gen. 17:20). Esau was so important that Scripture includes a significant account of his descendants (Gen. 36) as well as many references to the nation Edom (e.g., Num. 20:14; Jer. 49:7). But the nations they represented were not the people to whom God would give his revelation, to whom he would send his Son, the Messiah, and who would be his covenant people. Reckoned is more exactly “called”,44 an unexpected choice of word. BAGD class it with passages where “the emphasis is to be placed less on the fact that the name is such and such, than on the fact that the bearer of the name actually is what the name says about him”. Paul uses this verb for the divine call, and that may influence his choice of the quotation here (cf. v. 25). The seed through Isaac (and that alone) is the true seed.
8. “That is”45 introduces an explanation. “Not the children of the flesh” (NIV, the natural children) are God’s children. This may well refer to the birth of Ishmael. When Abraham could not have children by Sarah, he took Sarah’s maidservant Hagar and had a son by her. This looks very much like a human expedient adopted in an attempt to bring about the desired result when the divine promise did not look as if it were being fulfilled (and thus aptly described as “of the flesh”). Paul is saying that it is not children like this that are the children of God. On the contrary (the strong adversative again), it is the children of the promise, an unusual expression, conveying the idea of children born as a result of a promise and pointing to the fact that Isaac was born as a result of God’s promise to Abraham. He could not have been born without divine intervention.46 His descendants may thus realistically be characterized in terms of promise. They are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (“will count as the true descendants”, JB).47 It is only the fact that God so reckons them that makes them significant. Physical descent from Abraham is not enough.
9. For carries the argument along. Now we are told in what the promise consisted. The word promise comes first for emphasis: “Of promise was this word”; it is important that God gave a promise, for God always keeps his promises. The promise is quoted from Genesis 18:10, 14. At48 the appointed time may be understood in more ways than one.49 In Genesis it means “this time next year” (Gen. 18:10, 14), but Paul’s abbreviated quotation could be understood as “the time between conception and birth”. Nothing much hinges on the answer; the important thing is that it will all happen at the time God has fixed. “I will come” (NIV, return) points to the coming in power of the God who can do all things; it is his coming and not any human initiative that determines the fulfilment of the promise. “God promises, God fulfils” (Leenhardt). The promise is that Sarah (not someone else such as Hagar or Keturah) would have a son.
10. Not only that50 introduces a reinforcement of the argument. In verse 6 Paul spoke of differences in Israel, and in verse 7 of differences in Abraham’s descendants; now he sees differences in Isaac’s posterity. Nothing human binds God. A case could be made for justifying the choice of Isaac and not Ishmael, for Isaac was the son of Abraham’s wife, Ishmael the son of a slave girl. But Jacob and Esau had the same father and mother and were of the same pregnancy. The only possible difference was that Esau was born a little before Jacob (which would give him a certain priority according to human measurement). But it was Jacob whom God chose. The grammar of the sentence is difficult,51 but the meaning is not in doubt. “One” has some emphasis as though to bring out the fact that in this matter there was no difference between the two sons.52 We should notice two things in regard to the expression our father Isaac. One is that the use of our includes Paul with Israel; he is not separating himself from his fellow-Jews. The other is that it is usually Abraham who is called “our father”, not Isaac. But the line ran from Abraham through Isaac; thus the expression, though unusual, presents no problems.
11. To emphasize the divine purpose Paul goes back to the time before the children were born53 (he does not say who “they” were but assumes that the Romans would know this; clearly Christians were expected to know at least some parts of the Old Testament). At that time there is no question of merit or good works. The case of Ishmael had showed that birth from Abraham does not ensure acceptance; now that of Esau shows that works do not. As Hunter puts it, “claims as of right on God, whether based on birth or on works, are futile.”54 Anything, which is quite general, is made more specific with the addition good or bad. It is not human merit of which the apostle is speaking, and he firmly excludes anything, anything at all, that the children did as the basis for the divine choice.
Paul stresses purpose55 and election.56 There is a strong emphasis on the divine act. It is not that Jacob could be said in any way to merit selection. God had a purpose, and he worked it out in his own way. Paul says that God did what he did so that his purpose in election might stand.57 This is a somewhat unusual use of the verb, but a perfectly intelligible one. God’s purpose will remain, no matter what.
12. Not by works further stresses the divine initiative. Works is broad enough to cover all kinds of human activity; it is not circumscribed in any way as, for example, “law works” would be. That God’s purpose is not dependent on what people do is implicit in the preceding argument but is explicit here. It is God’s call that counts. Works and calls are set in sharp antithesis.58 The one excludes the other. Paul clinches the point by quoting the words, “The older will serve the younger.”59 It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation. Moreover, it seems clear that Paul intends a reference to nations rather than individuals (though Murray strongly defends a reference to individuals as well as to nations). The words quoted say specifically that the elder will serve the younger, but Esau did not in fact serve Jacob, though the Edomites in time came to serve the Israelites. We must also bear in mind that the oracle Paul quotes has earlier said, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated” (Gen. 25:23). The argument concerns Israel as a whole and its place in the purpose of God.
13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”60 Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.
The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works…. I had rejected the Edomites….”61 This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.
2. God’s Purpose Is Mercy, 9:14–18
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”a
16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”b 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Throughout these chapters we must bear in mind what Paul is doing and not complain because he is not answering the questions we would like him to answer. He is arguing that his doctrine of justification is not in contradiction of the Old Testament position that marks out the Jews as God’s chosen people. He is saying that the Jews of his day were in error in seeing themselves as the only people acceptable before God. In the previous section he made the point that God always works by the method of election. At this point he shows that the Jew cannot argue that Paul must be wrong because if his view were accepted God would be unjust. Sometimes his argument is regarded as not particularly convincing, but that is because we look at it from a modern Western standpoint. Paul, however, was arguing with first-century Jews, not modern Westerners.
This will account for the omission of some things that we would like to see dealt with. Thus Paul argues for God’s absolute freedom and does not address himself to the measure in which we have freedom or how our freedom relates to God’s freedom. If God is free to do what he wills and if all who are saved are saved because God predestined them, then modern people are apt to ask, “Are we not reduced to the level of puppets?” But Paul is not discussing our freedom at all. We would like to have his thoughts on the matter, but that is not the question before him. He neither affirms nor denies that we are free. He simply does not discuss the question at all.62 His big point here is that the relationship between God and sinners cannot be thought of simply in terms of justice. We have no claim on God, no rights before him. We are dependent on his mercy.
14. Once again Paul begins with What then shall we say? (see the note on 3:5), and suggests a possible question, Is God unjust? This he rejects with the vigorous Not at all!63 To say that God is unjust is for Paul self-contradictory. A powerful but unjust being might be “god” in the sense of one of the gods of the Gentiles. But he would not be God, the perfect being who reveals himself in Scripture. It is simply not possible for that God to act unjustly.64 “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). A Jew might well object: “Paul, you must be wrong because if what you say is true, God cannot be just.” Paul’s reply is to argue from the Jew’s own Scripture. He says in effect, “It is the very Scripture that you accept and that shows God to be perfectly just that tells us that God did these things.” Denney points out that a Jew might reply to Paul, but to Scripture he can make no reply (on vv. 17–18). So Paul’s argument from Scripture is convincing. He shows that God is out to secure mercy, not condemnation. God is not unjustly condemning some, but in mercy saving some. We sinners have no claim on God whatever. If we are saved, that is due to God’s mercy, not the justice of our cause. To say that God is not just in his treatment of Jacob and Esau misses the point that neither has a claim on God and that in both cases he acts in mercy.65
15. For will give grounds for Paul’s strong “Not at all!” There is another relevant passage from Scripture which he proceeds to quote (Exod. 33:19). Paul introduces it with he says to Moses.66 The quotation does not mention justice but speaks of God’s will to do mercy. His exercise of mercy and compassion is as he himself chooses. There is probably no great difference in meaning between mercy and compassion, but the combination puts emphasis on the truth that God acts in a compassionate and merciful manner and further that he does this freely towards anyone he chooses.67 Leenhardt points out that if God’s reaction depended on man he would have had to punish Israel. “Instead of that He gave to this rebellious people a new revelation of His grace.” God’s freedom to have mercy is not limited as though he could show mercy only on certain classes, such as people with works or piety or rights. Paul is saying that God’s freedom is absolute. It is important to be clear that before God we have no rights. That is why mercy is so important for sinners.
16. From the example he has cited Paul reasons to the principle behind it; notice his therefore.68 He has three genitives, two preceded by negatives, but he does not say what the “it” to which he is referring is. It may be salvation, or perhaps mercy. This is not dependent on human volition; the sinner may desperately will that God will have mercy, but he cannot bring it about. Nor is it a matter of “him that runs” (NIV, man’s … effort). The Psalmist can say “I run in the path of your commands,” but this he sees not as a merit of his own, “for you have set my heart free” (Ps. 119:32). Like Paul, he is saying that it is not what people do that determines God’s grace, and further that it is God’s grace that enables him to “run” as he should. BAGD class the use of the verb here as “using the foot-races in the stadium as a basis … exert oneself to the limit of one’s powers in an attempt to go forward, strive to advance” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24, 26; Gal. 2:2; 5:7; Phil. 2:16). Paul is saying that all human effort leaves us in condemnation. We cannot clear ourselves of sin.69 If we are saved it is because God chooses to show mercy on us.
Barrett argues that this is critical to Paul’s argument: “If the fundamental fact … that Christ is the seed of Abraham, and that men are elected in him, is lost sight of, the assertions of vv. 6–13 are open to objection.” Unless we realize that in his dealings with Abraham, with Isaac and Ishmael, and with Jacob and Esau, God was acting in mercy, we cannot understand Paul. It is possible to look at those actions and find something that we would not classify as justice, but if we concentrate on those things and overlook God’s mercy we miss the thrust of it all. Paul sees clearly that if salvation were to rest on human willing and human striving we would all be in difficulties. But it does not. It depends on the will and the mercy of God. That is clear in Christ’s atoning work. And it is clear, as Paul is showing, when we look again at what God did among the patriarchs in days of old.
17. For should probably be seen as parallel to the “for” of verse 15; this verse, like that, carries on the logical sequence from verse 14. Moses corresponds to Jacob and Pharaoh to Esau. The Scripture says to Pharaoh is an unexpected way of introducing Paul’s quotation, for the Scripture had not been written at that time. The meaning, of course, is that God spoke the words in question (Exod. 9:16), but the way Paul puts it brings out the truth that these words would be embodied for all time in Scripture (cf. Gal. 3:8, 22).70 This is the only time that Paul mentions Pharaoh. His quotation differs in some respects from LXX. For this very purpose71 makes it clear that God’s plan was being advanced through what Pharaoh was doing. Indeed, God says I raised you up, where the divine activity is stressed rather more than in the usual LXX text.72 The meaning here appears to be to raise to one’s place in history,73 though some prefer the thought that he was preserved (through the plagues?), raised from sickness, or spared from being killed for his sins. None of these fits the context or the meaning of the verb as well as the first-mentioned view. Paul is speaking not just of Pharaoh’s survival, but of his whole place in history (cf. Cranfield).
The purpose, then, of Pharaoh’s appearance in history was that God might display his power in him,74 and further that God’s name might be proclaimed in all the earth. What God did in the plagues that preceded the Exodus and then in bringing his people out of Egypt certainly showed power and was widely spoken of (cf. Exod. 15:14–15; Josh. 2:9–10; 9:9). What emerged was not the setting forth of Pharaoh’s purposes but those of God. Paul surely means his reader to see that what will emerge from the current situation will likewise not be the triumph of the self-will of his Jewish opponents, but the glory of God.
18. Therefore75 introduces a statement of the principle on which the foregoing depends. The will of God is the important thing. We must bear in mind that this is an occasional writing and that Paul is dealing with a specific Jewish type of opposition. We must not think that he is giving us his full mind on the question. But what is relevant for those contemplating the bearing of the situation of Israel on the truth of justification by faith is that God does what he wills.76 He wills to have mercy, and it is this on which the emphasis falls. Mercy is the keyword throughout this discussion.
But Paul also says, he hardens whom he wants to harden. This statement is a difficult one for modern readers. Let us notice first that neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself. We must bear in mind that, while God is repeatedly said to have hardened Pharaoh (Exod. 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8; there are also prophecies that he will do this [Exod. 4:21; 7:3]), it is also true that Pharaoh is repeatedly said to have hardened himself (Exod. 7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; I have included here some passives of the form “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened” on the ground that they come at the end of one or other of the plagues and represent Pharaoh’s reaction to what God has done; cf. also Exod. 13:15). God’s hardening follows on what Pharaoh himself did. His hardening always presupposes sin and is always part of the punishment of sin. God could kill the sinner immediately when he sinned, but he usually does not. But he shuts him up to the effect of his sin, so that the person who hardens himself is condemned to live as a hardened person. God does not harden people who do not go astray first (cf. Jas. 1:13).
This is a much bigger question than that of Pharaoh. God is in all of life. The sinner could not do any sin unless God permitted it (and what God permits Scripture often says that he does, as in 2 Sam. 12:11; 16:10; 1 Kings 11:23; Ps. 105:25; Isa. 63:17). And somehow even the sins of those who vigorously oppose God are seen in the end to be part of the way God’s plan works out. RSV seems to be right in translating Psalm 76:10 as “Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee”—even that which is opposed to God in some way serves his purpose. An interesting example is seen in David’s census. Looked at in one way, it is God punishing the king’s sin (2 Sam. 24:1); looked at in another, it is Satan at work (1 Chron. 21:1). God uses the evil to bring about his purpose. So the hardening of Pharaoh, whether we look at it from God’s standpoint or that of Pharaoh, resulted in a display of power and in God’s name being widely proclaimed. But the fact that God works through it does not make the hardening any the less Pharaoh’s act.77
God’s action is not arbitrary. When Pharaoh (or anyone else) chooses to reject the right, he will be hardened in the wrong, whether we think of God or of Pharaoh as at work.78 It is true that God used Pharaoh, but the monarch was not a mere puppet. He did what he willed to do. Nor must we think that hardening is necessarily permanent. That God does not bring about the immediate death of the sinner but endures his sin means that he is giving that sinner the opportunity to repent (2:4).79
3. God’s Wrath and God’s Mercy, 9:19–29
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”a 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”b
26and,
“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”c
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”d
29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
and we would have been like Gomorrah.”e
Paul has made it clear that God does what he wills in both showing mercy and hardening (v. 18). But to human ways of thinking that presents some problems. Paul proceeds to look at them, and he advances his argument by showing that what God has done has been to extend his mercy to the Gentiles.
19. Paul regards a retort as certain; he pictures his reader as asking questions (he says “You”, not One of you as NIV). The first question is, Then why does God still blame us? If God is Lord of history, if mercy and hardening alike cause his name to be proclaimed throughout the earth, if he shows mercy where he wills and hardens where he wills, then how can anyone possibly be blamed for what he does. Still, after God has hardened him? But he has simply done what God moved him to do. For who resists his will?80 It is not the usual word for “will”, and it appears to have been chosen as “implying more definitely the deliberate purpose of God” (SH). The verb resists81 means “set oneself against” (see BAGD); it signifies the setting of the will of puny man against the all-powerful will of God. The question implies that this does not happen if what Paul has been saying is true. We tend to approach this in a different way from Paul, for we tend to think of the eternal destiny of the individual. We must bear in mind throughout this section that Paul is not dealing with that subject. He is dealing with the failure of Israel as a whole to respond to the Messiah over against the fact that the church was largely Gentile. He is saying that God works his purpose out by such means as choosing Isaac and rejecting Ishmael, choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, or hardening Pharaoh. He is arguing that Israel’s present hardening does not defeat God’s purpose, but rather that it is God’s means of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. This may have an application to individuals, but Paul does not spell it out. He makes his point that God has always worked out his purpose. It is a purpose of mercy, though it may be attained by hardening some people.
20. Paul anticipates the questions his reader will ask, but he does not answer them. He argues that they are illegitimate questions, questions that the creature has no right to ask of the Creator. The creature is demanding that God give answers on the basis of the creature’s ideas. But, as Parry puts it, “the question cannot be properly raised by man as against GOD, because man has to accept the conditions of his creation” (on v. 19). The whole of man’s thinking and living are on the basis of his being a created being who as such cannot call the Creator to account (and could not understand him if he were to oblige).82 Smart points out that “A Pilate, a Judas, and a Jerusalem council can nail the Savior of the world to a cross but it is God who decides what that cross is to mean in the subsequent history of mankind” (p. 136). Paul is saying that the questions we ask are illegitimate questions, and he lets it go at that.
He addresses his reader as O man,83 which comes first in the sentence and is balanced by placing the word God last in emphatic contrast. “Little, impotent, ignorant man” (Wesley) is set over against the great God whose purpose runs through the whole creation and who moves people and nations.84 Cranfield well brings out the thrust of Paul’s argument with his comment: “It is because, whether one is Moses or Pharaoh, member of the believing Church or member of still unbelieving Israel, one is this man, the object of God’s mercy, that one has no right to answer God back.” Paul is not saying that there is no answer to the question; he is saying that the question is illegitimate. Man is not in a position to ask it.85 The use of the emphatic pronoun for you strengthens the contrast. Paul is leaving no doubt that man is in sharp contrast with God. The verb talk back86 is not one we expect to be used of an action directed towards God. The activity is not proper for a creature.
Paul moves to a further question that what is formed might ask of him who formed it.87 The expression does not specifically refer to the potter and the clay, but there is no doubt that he has this in mind here. Paul is quoting from Isaiah 29:16 or 45:9–10, the thought in both passages being that God formed Israel into a nation. “The rhetorical questions in both contexts reflect incredulity that the Artist should be thought of as inferior to his material” (Harrisville). We are not of such stature that we can query God’s doings. The very fact that we stand in the relation of creature to Creator precludes this.88
21. NIV omits Paul’s “Or”,89 which introduces a necessary alternative. If it is not as he has just said, the alternative he is about to introduce must be accepted. Unless the reader admits that man has no right to ask the kind of question he has suggested, he must conclude that the potter does not have the complete right90 to make out of his clay91 anything that suits his purpose. The Old Testament makes use of the potter-clay motif several times (e.g., Isa. 29:15–16; 45:8–10; 64:8–9; Jer. 18:1–6; it is seen also in Wis. 15:7–8, a passage with many resemblances to the present one). Sometimes the thought is that the potter has complete authority to do what he wants with his clay, often that a marred vessel can be remade with the same clay into a satisfactory utensil, and sometimes, as here, that the clay has no right to answer back to the potter. That is not the function of clay.
Sometimes Paul’s argument is criticized unfairly, as when O’Neill says, “The objection is entirely warranted, and the reply does nothing to answer it.” Dodd regards this as “the weakest point in the whole epistle”, and says further, “But the trouble is that man is not a pot; he will ask, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ and he will not be bludgeoned into silence.” Such positions imply that the creature is in a position to call God to account and to judge him by human standards and by the limited insight humans can bring to a complex problem. They overlook the fact that the sinner is out of his league when he takes on God (to use very human language). Again, they ignore the fact that the Creator constantly does things which the creature does not and cannot understand. And they overlook the main point that Paul is making, that God, like the potter, is alone responsible for the final purpose.92 We may agree that it would not be right for God to create sinners simply in order to punish them. But that is not what Paul is saying. He is saying that God created people, that people became sinners, and that God then dealt with them as sinners.93 If it is a question of the “rights” people have, we must bear in mind that, whatever we may be in our own eyes, in God’s sight we are sinners. If we demand that we be treated in strict justice (and not like so many clay pots), we must bear in mind that justice will go hard with sinners.94
Paul makes the point that the potter is quite entitled to make out of the one batch of clay95 some vessels for96 noble purposes and some for common use (cf. 2 Tim. 2:20). It is not unjust for the potter to make a vessel for what we call “dishonorable” or menial use. And it is not unjust for God to make a man (e.g., Pharaoh) for dishonorable or menial use. In both cases the right is absolute. Paul will go on from there to show that in any case God’s purpose is mercy; he does not speak of any of the vessels as being destroyed (a potter makes some pots for menial use, but never makes pots simply in order to destroy them) but only of being put to different uses. Here he simply says that God is “within his rights”, so to speak. The accusation of unfairness is unjustified.97
It is worth bearing in mind that it is the use to which the pots are put that differs, not the material of which they are made. They are all made of the same clay. And it is also the case that Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh, believing Christians and unbelieving Jews, were all of the same clay. It is their function in the working out of the divine purpose that differs. The Jews were inclined to think that God could not make them anything other than vessels of honor. Paul rejects this view and points out that God does what he wills.
22. “Only a few passages in Paul are more obscure than this one (i.e. vv. 22–23), and no certainty is possible as to how it ought to be translated” (Knox). We must bear this warning in mind as we deal with a very difficult passage. It begins with an if, which is not followed up with the appropriate apodosis.98 Perhaps we should supply one: “But if God … what will you say?” or the like. NIV favors What if, and this is acceptable to many (Barrett, e.g., takes this view and points to John 6:62 as another example of the same construction).99 This seems the best way of taking it. Paul also has a “but”, which is not easy to fit into our translation but which gives a certain adversative force: “But if God has shown mercy why complain about injustice?” Choosing translates a participle usually understood as “willing”. Commentators are divided as to whether we should understand this to mean “although he willed” (Black, Denney, etc.) or “because he willed” (Robinson, Cranfield, etc.). The former way of taking it will signify that, although he willed to show wrath, God endured the vessels of wrath with much longsuffering. The latter will mean that, because he willed to show both wrath and mercy, God endured the vessels…. Either way of understanding the words is quite possible, but perhaps there is more to be said for the second, for in this passage Paul seems to be saying that God is working out a single purpose of mercy and this is to be discerned in his wrath as well as his longsuffering.100 God willed to reveal his mercy, but also his wrath; he lets sinners be in no doubt as to the consequences of sin. “The wrath” (see the note on 1:18) is here unqualified (NIV’s his is inserted to show whose wrath it is); for Paul “the” wrath is so significant that there is no need to say whose it is. With this he links make his power101 known. It is part of the revelation that God is opposed to evil and part also that he is powerful enough to do what he wills about it. So he bore102 with great patience103 the objects of his wrath (“vessels of wrath”; the absence of an article with “vessels” perhaps points to the class). The genitive “of wrath” will mean “characterized by wrath”,104 the recipients and not the instruments of God’s wrath (cf. BDF 165, “figuratively, as if ‘bearers of wrath, mercy’ ”).105
These “vessels of wrath”, Paul says, are prepared106 for destruction, but he does not say how they became so fitted and widely differing views are held. Thus some think the people fitted themselves for this fate (Wesley; Griffith Thomas; some think that the participle is middle and that it has this force); some think God fitted them for it (Murray; so Hodge, though he rejects a supralapsarian view); some see Satan as responsible (Lenski; Hendriksen, “themselves—in cooperation with Satan!”). The difference in construction from the next verse (the passive over against the active, the participle against the indicative, the absence here of anything equivalent to the prefix for “before”) makes it probable that we should not think of God as doing this. Rather the people did it themselves, perhaps, as Hendriksen thinks, with some help from Satan. Paul does not describe destruction, but clearly it stands for the ultimate loss.107
23. The opening to this verse is awkward,108 and it is not clear precisely how we should translate it. But the meaning is tolerably clear. The verse counterbalances the reference to wrath and the lost with one to mercy and the saved. God has willed to demonstrate his wrath and make known his power; he has also purposed to make known his glory in what he does to “vessels of mercy”. Make … known is a Pauline word.109 Riches is a somewhat unusual word applied to glory (though cf. Eph. 3:16), but it brings out the point that there is no lack in God’s glory. God is an exceedingly glorious God, and we see this especially in the way he shows mercy. The objects of his mercy is more exactly “vessels of mercy”, and these vessels, Paul says, he prepared in advance for glory.110 This is usually understood of God’s electing activity, but Parry sees a reference to “the training through history and life, not to ‘election’ ”. It is unlikely that Paul is not speaking of election, but he may also have in mind that God does prepare his people through all the experiences of their lives. We should also notice that, while Paul makes it clear that some (like Pharaoh) are prepared for destruction, the emphasis is on the positive, on preparing those who receive mercy for glory.
24. The grammatical connection of this verse with the preceding is not clear. There are several possibilities. (1) It would be possible to see verse 23 as ending with a question, so that a new beginning is made here. (2) Or us could be seen as in apposition with “vessels of mercy”, as NIV. (3) Verse 24 begins with the relative pronoun whom in the Greek, and we could take what follows as a relative clause.111 Any of these is possible, but the last-mentioned is simplest and should probably be accepted. Called brings in the notion of an effectual call once more, a very important concept for Paul. God calls whom he wills to call. Us sheets this home; Paul is not talking in generalities but referring to himself and his readers who have all been called in this way. He points out that they together include people from112 the Jews but also from the Gentiles. The Jews could not claim that the only way into the people of God was through their community (cf. Bengel, the Jew is not called on the ground that he is a Jew, “but he is called from the Jews”). And the Gentiles could not claim that God had rejected the Jews so that the only way was by being a Gentile. God had called his “vessels of mercy” “out from” both groups. It is the “vessels of mercy” in whom Paul is interested; he does not explain “vessels of wrath” any further.
25. Paul launches into a series of quotations from Scripture to establish his point. He begins with some passages from Hosea to establish the acceptability of the Gentiles, then goes on to some from Isaiah to show that the call does not include all Israel. The multiplicity of citations from Scripture shows clearly that this is not a Pauline idiosyncrasy—God says it.113 He begins with a rather free quotation from Hosea 2:23 (LXX 2:25).114 The prophet is referring to the ten tribes of Israel, but Paul applies the words to the Gentiles (as is also the case in 1 Pet. 2:10). The point apparently is that the sin of the ten tribes had been such as to place them outside the people of God. If there was hope for people who had been put there as a punishment, then much more was there hope for people who were there naturally. Apostate Israel, God says, was not my people;115 they had lived as heathens and now they had become as heathens. But that was not God’s last word. Rather, I will call116 them ‘my people’. Those whom God wills to restore will be restored. Further, I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one.117 Hosea has this before the “not my people” clause and his verb here seems to mean “my pitied one”; Paul has reversed the order of the clauses and has “love” rather than “pity”.118 He is saying that in Scripture it is the call of God and the love of God that makes the people of God, and this quite irrespective of Jewish or Gentile origin. There is, of course, a sense in which all the people of the world are the objects of God’s love (John 3:16). God loves because it is his nature to love. But there is also a sense in which those who are his people are specially beloved, and this is the theme of the present passage.119
26. This reads like a continuation of the preceding, but Paul has simply placed one quotation after another, this one from Hosea 1:10 (exactly as LXX). The addition further emphasizes the divine call that makes the not my people into sons of the living God. There is a division of opinion on the significance of in the very place. Some hold that it means no more than “instead of” (so JB, “Instead of being told…”). But against this is the reinforcement of this expression with the later “there”120 (which NIV omits). It seems that Paul understands Hosea to be saying that it is the same people, who occupy the same place (be it Palestine, or, more probably, the place of the Gentiles), to whom the word of God comes. You are not my people is an emphatic rejection,121 but “there they will be called…” is an emphatic reversal. Again there is the thought of God’s effectual call, this time directed to people in the situation of Gentiles. It is not the situation that prevails, but the divine call. And the call is to membership in the heavenly family. The substantives have no articles, which puts the stress on the quality. The people who were not God’s people will be called nothing less than sons (with all the rights and privileges that that implies) of One who is none less than God, and living God at that.
27. From the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God Paul turns to passages which speak of the exclusion of all but a remnant of Israel. Most of the Jews of the day did not believe in Christ, and they might well feel that this of itself showed that Paul must be wrong. “If Jesus were the Christ, would not the people of God accept him?” would have been their reasoning. So Paul goes on to show them from their own Scriptures that in other days this had been much the situation. The prophets speak of a “remnant” only as being saved, and that necessarily means that most of the Jews to whom the message was directed had failed to respond. The situation in Paul’s day was typical rather than novel. NIV omits a connective which NASB renders “and” and NEB “but.”122 NEB is to be preferred, for Paul is contrasting the inclusion of Gentiles with the exclusion of many Jews. Isaiah, Paul says, cries out,123 and his verb may bring out the thought of urgency rather than loudness (so BAGD, who cite Josephus Ant. x.117 for a similar use). Godet thinks the verb has a “threatening tone”, but perhaps Käsemann is better in seeing it as suited to “inspired, proclamatory speech” (p. 275). NIV may be right in rendering concerning.124
Paul moves from the situation of the Gentiles to that of Israel with a quotation from Isaiah 10:22–23. His quotation implies nothing about the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition,125 but it points to the possibility that the Israelites would be very numerous. “As numerous as the sand by the seashore” is a proverbial expression for a very large number; in the Old Testament it is usually employed, as here, for the number of the Israelites.126 But a large number of Israelites does not mean that the saved will be correspondingly numerous: only the remnant will be saved. The promise of God never meant that all, or even most, Israelites would be saved. The doctrine of the remnant is important. We should not miss the force of the article: the remnant, not “a” remnant. It is the scriptural remnant, “not some accidental leftover” (Lenski), that is Paul’s concern. Some exegetes make a good deal out of the fact that the Hebrew text says only that a remnant “will return” and not that they will be saved. The suggestion is that Isaiah is referring to return from exile and no more. But we should not miss the fact that in Isaiah we read, “A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God” (Isa. 10:21). The thought of returning to God is there from the beginning.
28. There are problems with the second part of Paul’s quotation. There is a textual uncertainty, but this is not serious.127 LXX differs from the Hebrew is some respects, and Paul is abbreviating its text. But in general it seems that, despite the problems, both Paul and LXX give the sense of the Hebrew, though the exact meaning of the quotation is not clear. Some of the vocabulary is unusual in Paul,128 and there are several possibilities. It is obvious that the main idea is that of bringing to an end, of shortening, but this might mean a shortening of the promise (i.e., fulfilling it only to a limited degree; Leenhardt puts it this way, “He shortens it in its execution, by cutting out something”), a shortening of the nation (no more than a remnant will be saved; Murray, “so widespread will be the destruction that only a remnant will escape”), or a shortening of the time, combined with the completeness with which God will do his work (“the Lord will quickly settle his full account with the world”, GNB). Most modern translations and commentators accept the third view in some form, and it certainly seems probable.
29. Paul has another quotation from Isaiah (1:9), this one introduced with Isaiah said previously.129 This is unlikely to mean that Isaiah spoke before Hosea. It might mean “a long time ago” (as NIV) or “foretold” (as NASB, JB), probably the latter. The construction is that of a condition contrary to fact.130 This passage goes further than the preceding one. Paul has been saying that, though the number of the Israelites be large, no more than a small number will be delivered. Now he cites Scripture to show that the nation would have been totally destroyed had it not been for the Lord’s saving intervention. It would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah, whose fate was proverbial for total destruction. It is a strong statement of the unworthiness of the nation and leaves no grounds for complacency. God is spoken of as “the Lord of hosts”,131 which may mean “Lord of the hosts of heaven” and thus “Lord of all”; cf. Hodge, “of the universe as a marshalled host … Lord of hosts being equivalent to Lord of the universe.” The expression brings out the greatness of God (hence NIV, the Lord Almighty). He had left132 “a seed”.133 Paul has used this term in an earlier part of his discussion (vv. 7–8), but in a different sense. There it denoted the true descendants of Abraham. Here the thought is rather that there are few survivors, and that, few though they be, they have the potential for new growth (this is apparently the only New Testament passage where “seed” is used with this meaning). The seed gives hope for the future. It is only stylistic variation that refers to “becoming” like Sodom and being “likened” to Gomorrah. The destruction of the Cities of the Plain was apparently total: we hear of no survivors other than Lot and his band. So far from Israel being in a position complacently to rely on divine protection no matter what, it was only due to a miracle of grace that any of them survived.
Paul has made it clear that the sinner is lost because of his sin. Now God is not the author of sin (cf. Jas. 1:13). We should not think that God hardens people in sin and that therefore they are lost. Rather, sinners harden themselves. There comes a time in the odyssey of the hardened sinner when the question arises, “What is God to do with him?” That happened with Israel. The thrust of Paul’s argument is that the Old Testament, on which those who taught the eternal security of all Israel relied, in fact bears clear witness to the truth that God’s purpose is concerned only with the remnant of the nation. God fulfils his promise by saving the remnant together with some from the Gentiles. The promise has not failed, even if it was fulfilled in a way that many of the nation did not expect.
C. Human Responsibility, 9:30–10:21
Paul has made a strong argument that God works out his purposes. He has been putting emphasis on the divine initiative, on predestination and election, on God’s calling people like Abraham and his hardening of people like Pharaoh. He has made it clear that God calls people and nations, that he chooses an Isaac but not an Ishmael, a Jacob but not an Esau. Does that mean that people are no more than puppets? That the lost are lost because God decided this and quite irrespective of anything in them? Paul does not quite answer the questions we would like him to have answered, but he does proceed to stress the importance of human responsibility.134 That will occupy us throughout this section.
1. The “Stumbing Stone”, 9:30–33
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it? 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” 33As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trust in him will never be put to shame.”a
This paragraph could be taken as part of the preceding section, concluding it and summing it up. But it seems better to see it as introducing the new section, stressing the importance of human responsibility, more especially that of Israel. Paul emphasizes the fact that Israel’s position is the result of the nation’s unbelief, not a refusal on God’s part to accept them.
30. Again we have Paul’s What then shall we say? (see the note on 3:5). But where he often uses it to introduce a refutation of an inference that might falsely be drawn from what he has said, here it leads in to a summary of his argument up to this point. Some suggest that That leads into a question (as often with this construction), but that seems unlikely and it would lead to some very awkward Greek. Paul is far from stereotyped in his used of grammatical constructions, and we should see this as a statement (as NIV). The discussion of righteousness and faith shows that he is still concerned with his great topic of justification by faith; he has not completed it and then gone on to the Jewish problem. There is no article with Gentiles; it is people who possess the character of being Gentiles rather than the Gentiles as a definite group that Paul has in mind. As Gentiles they did not pursue135 righteousness. This is not to deny that there were people with serious moral purpose among the Gentiles. But typically the Gentile nations did not show the same concern for being right before the one God that Israel did. A “right standing” with God was not their major concern. Paul puts some emphasis on righteousness here, using the term four times in two verses (NIV renders one of them by it). It is an important concept in his theology.136 Some exegetes think that the meaning of the word varies, but it is better to see the thought of a right standing with God in all four, though clearly the Jews did not understand the word in quite the same way as Paul did.137 This right standing, Paul says, Gentiles obtained,138 and he goes on to explain that it was a righteousness that is by faith.139 The Jews might have been expected to have attained this, but characteristically it was Gentiles who did so. The Jews failed to profit from their possession of the law.140
31. But is adversative; Paul sets Israel over against Gentile believers as they pursued a law of righteousness. The verb conveys the idea of earnest effort, which was, of course, characteristic of many Jews. Neither noun has the article, which puts some stress on the quality in each case. Law is sometimes understood as “a rule of life which would produce righteousness” (SH; Brown likens the expression to the “law of the mind” etc. earlier in the letter [p. 359]). But there seems no good reason for taking it in any way other than the law of Moses which the Jews pursued so zealously with the idea that thereby they were attaining righteousness before God. Paul approved of their pursuit of the law. As he makes clear in the next verse, it was not the pursuit of the law itself but the way the Jews pursued it that he saw as wrong. Paul consistently saw the law as meant to lead people to Christ and therefore to right standing with God. Properly understood, that was its function, and it could thus be called a law of righteousness. There were, of course, people who followed that way (e.g., Zacharias and Elizabeth, Luke 1:6), though most Jews did not.141
32. Again there is an argumentative question Why not? which leads to the answer, Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. Actually, in Paul’s rush forward there is no verb and we must supply one. Two possibilities have won support. One supplies pursued as NIV and goes on to take They stumbled as beginning a new sentence. The other way is to supply the participle as Gifford does: “because seeking it not from faith, but as from works, they stumbled…” (so also Godet). This is certainly possible, but most agree with NIV. Paul is again affirming the impossibility of salvation other than by justification by faith.142 Righteousness is by faith,143 but the Jews did not come in faith. They sought the right goal indeed, though they did it in the wrong way: “but as of works”144 where “as” is important. Paul does not say that righteousness could be attained in this way, but only that the Jews thought so and therefore acted “as” though it could.
Paul moves on to the thought of stumbling. He finds in Isaiah 8:14 a reference to God as “a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” and applies this to Christ. The Jews’ lack of faith prevented them from recognizing their Messiah when he came. He should have been the cause of rich blessing to them, but instead became the “stumbling stone”.145
33. Characteristically Paul rounds off this section of his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this time one in which he combines words from Isaiah 28:16 with some from Isaiah 8:14. The former passage has the stone motif, but there it is “a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation”. This Paul replaces with words from the latter passage about the stumbling stone. He could have used the original words, for Christ is the sure foundation on which Israel might well have built. But at this point he is more concerned to bring out Israel’s stumbling, so he concentrates on the words that make this clear. Israel failed to recognize the “stone” God laid in Zion,146 and she bears responsibility accordingly. The stone motif is found in a number of Old Testament passages (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Dan. 2:34–35, 44–45) and is taken up in the New (Matt. 21:42; Luke 20:17–18; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4–8). It does not always have the same significance, but the New Testament writers see Christ as the stone. The 1 Peter passage combines the two Isaiah passages as Paul does here (it adds Ps. 118:22), and this has led a number of scholars to think that the early church was in the habit of taking these passages together.147 They enabled believers to see Christ as a sure foundation on which they could build, but while he was a source of help to them he was equally a stumbling block to those who refused to believe (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23; 3:11).
The stone is not only a “stumbling stone” but also a rock that makes them fall.148 But over against this is the assurance that the believer149 will never be put to shame.150 Paul ends not with despair but with hope and confidence. He who builds on the sure foundation of Christ is delivered from the situation in which contemporary Jews found themselves, and which meant that they would be ashamed when they stood before God. Not so the believer.[1]