Chapter 9

1 Paul is sorry for the Jews. 7 All the seed of Abraham were not the children of the promise. 18 God hath mercy upon whom he will. 21 The potter may do with his clay what he list. 25 The calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews were foretold. 32 The cause why so few Jews embraced the righteousness of faith.

1. I say the truth. Paul now turns from the triumphant and joyful climax of ch. 8 to consider a problem that fills him with “great heaviness and continual sorrow” (ch. 9:2). Why is it that the Jews, God’s chosen people, have so largely rejected the gospel? If the gospel brings sure salvation to God’s elect, why are His chosen people Israel not found among the heirs of this salvation? If the good news of salvation is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel, then surely it should meet with the approval of those for whom it was especially intended. But instead, it has stirred most of them to bitter opposition.

Paul has been preparing the way for his discussion of this difficult and delicate question by stressing the fact that, though the gospel is for both Jew and Gentile, it is for the Jew first (chs. 1:16; 2:10). He has also emphasized that God is no respecter of persons (ch. 2:11) and that the Jews, especially, have been guilty of sin (vs. 17–24). He has devoted a whole chapter to proving that the gospel of salvation by faith is well supported by the OT (ch. 4). In ch. 3:1 he even began to consider the problem directly, but his full discussion of the question has been reserved for chs. 9; 10; 11.

First, Paul affirms his love and sorrow for his own people (ch. 9:1–3). He then declares that the cause of their rejection is not the failure of God’s promises to them (vs. 6–13). Nor is there any injustice on the part of God in this matter (vs. 14–29). The fault lies in their own rejection of “the righteousness which is of faith” (chs. 9:30 to 10:21). But Paul does not describe their condition as hopeless. He goes on to speak of the salvation of “a remnant according to the election of grace” (ch. 11:1–10), and of the acceptance of the Gentiles (vs. 11–22), all of which is evidence of the wisdom and glory of God (vs. 33–36).

In Christ. Paul appeals to his experience as one united with Christ, as evidence of the truthfulness of what he is about to say (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17).

I lie not. Compare 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:7. Paul was well aware that many of his fellow Jews regarded him as a traitor (Acts 21:28; 22:22; 25:24). His frequent conflicts with Jews and Judaizers naturally cast doubt upon his love for his own nation. Therefore, he expresses the sincerity of his concern for his people in these strong terms.

Conscience. See on Rom. 2:15; cf. Acts 23:1; 24:16.

Bearing me witness. The same verb is used in chs. 2:15; 8:16.

In the Holy Ghost. That is, in the Holy Spirit (see on ch. 5:5). Paul has spoken of the union of the believer with the Spirit of God (ch. 8:9, 11, 16). The Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), and the witness of a conscience enlightened by Him and acting under His influence must be a true and safe guide.

2. Heaviness. Gr. lupeµ, “sorrow,” “grief.”

Continual. Gr. adialeiptos, literally, “without leaving off.” The only other NT occurrence of this word is in 2 Tim. 1:3.

Sorrow. Gr. oduneµ, “pain,” “anguish.” This word occurs elsewhere in the NT only in 1 Tim. 6:10.

Heart. See on ch. 1:21.

3. For. This verse does not give the reason for Paul’s sorrow but rather the proof of his sincerity.

I could wish. Literally, “I was wishing,” or “I was praying.” The Greek phrase is an idiomatic expression implying a real but passing wish which has already been resigned as impracticable. The wish was in his mind, the prayer was in his heart, but there were conditions that made the fulfillment impossible. Compare the same idiom in Gal. 4:20.

Accursed. There has been a great deal of discussion as to Paul’s meaning in this strong expression. The simplest solution seems to lie in comparing Paul’s wish with Moses’ prayer, “Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written” (Ex. 32:32). God’s reply to Moses shows that such a prayer could not be granted. “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Ex. 32:33).

From. Gr. apo, a preposition implying separation.

According to the flesh. That is, the Jews, who were Paul’s brethren by racial relationship. According to the spirit Paul was a member of spiritual Israel, and his spiritual kinsmen were the brethren of the Christian church (cf. Mark 3:33–35).

4. Israelites. Paul does not call them “Hebrews,” which would distinguish them by language, nor “Jews,” which would mark them by race. He uses, instead, the title that designates their position as the chosen people of God. As descendants of Jacob, who received from God the name “Israel,” they are heirs of the promises given to the fathers (Eph. 2:12). In the NT the title is transferred to the Christian church, which Paul speaks of as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).

Adoption. See on ch. 8:15. Here the term implies the relationship between God and Israel announced in Ex. 4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn” (cf. Deut. 14:1; Deut. 32:6; Jer. 31:9; Hosea 11:1). The call of Abraham and his seed to be God’s peculiar people marked the beginning of this “adoption.” See Vol. IV, pp. 25–27.

The glory. See on ch. 3:23. In this case the reference seems to be to the visible token of the presence of God. This was seen in the pillar of cloud and fire, the blazing light on Mt. Sinai, the Shekinah in the tabernacle and in the first Temple (see Ex. 16:10; 24:16; 40:34, 35; 1 Sam. 4:22; 1 Kings 8:10, 11; Heb. 9:5). Only Israel among all the nations had been privileged to have such a manifestation of God’s presence. See on John 1:14.

Covenants. These are “the covenants of promise” to which the Gentiles were “strangers” (Eph. 2:12, 13; see also Gen. 17:2, 7, 9; Ex. 2:24). The Jews seemed to regard these covenants as placing God under obligation to favor them with divine protection and blessing. At the same time they ignored their own obligations and failed to fulfill the conditions upon which the covenants were based.

Giving of the law. The reference is doubtless to the laws given at Sinai. Israel, above all other nations, had been favored with a revelation of God’s will (Deut. 4:8; Neh. 9:13, 14). Paul has already rebuked the Jews for assuming that the mere possession of the law, without obedience, would bring blessing (see Rom. 2:17–29).

Service of God. Gr. latreia, translated “divine service” in Heb. 9:1. The reference is doubtless to the service of the sanctuary (see Heb. 9:6, where latreia is again translated “service of God”). Since the whole purpose of the ceremonial system was to develop a holy people and to teach them the provisions of God’s plan of righteousness by faith in the coming Redeemer, the Israelites had been highly favored by being entrusted with the “service of God.” But this privilege had been seriously abused (see Matt. 21:13; John 2:14–16).

Promises. These are especially the OT promises concerning the Messiah and His kingdom and Israel’s glorious future (see also Acts 26:6; Gal. 3:16, 21; Heb. 7:6).

5. Fathers. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were particularly regarded as the “fathers” (Acts 3:13; 7:32). The Jews considered it a matter of great merit to be descended from such noble ancestors (see on Matt. 3:9; cf. John 8:39, 53; 2 Cor. 11:22). Later in this epistle Paul speaks of God’s love for Israel “for the fathers’ sakes” (Rom. 11:28).

Of whom. Rather, “from whom,” or “out of whom.” The last and greatest of all the privileges granted to the Israelites was that the Messiah sprang from their race. It was toward this most exalted privilege that all the other blessings had pointed.

As concerning the flesh. Paul limits the Jewish origin of Jesus to His human nature, as in ch. 1:3.

Christ. Literally, “the Christ,” referring to His title and position as “the Messiah.”

Who is. The interpretation of the last half of v. 5 has been debated at great length. The discussions reached a climax after the appearance of the NT of the RV in 1881. Considerable space was devoted to the question in the religious journals of the day. The problem is one of punctuation, and since the original Greek manuscripts were written without any form of punctuation, the solution becomes a matter of interpretation (cf. on Luke 23:43).

With various changes of punctuation, four possible interpretations of this passage have been advanced (see RV text and margin). One is to place either no punctuation, or a comma, after “flesh” and refer the whole passage to Christ as an assertion of His divinity. This has been the traditional view and is the interpretation offered by the KJV and most other versions. A second possibility is to place a comma after “flesh” and a period after “all.” The passage would then read, “Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all. God be [is] blessed for ever.”

A third possibility is to place a period after “flesh” and translate the rest of the verse, “He who is God over all be blessed for ever,” or “God who is over all be blessed for ever.” This is the reading preferred by the RSV and a few other versions. A fourth possibility is to use the same punctuation as in the third solution and to translate, “He who is over all is God blessed for ever.” For a more detailed discussion of the problem see Sanday and Headlam, The International Critical Commentary, on Romans, pp. 233–238.

The basic question is whether the passage should be interpreted as a statement of the deity of Christ. To regard it thus is the simplest and most natural interpretation of the grammatical construction of the verse. It is the one best suited to the context. Paul has been recounting the many benefits and privileges God had entrusted to Israel as His chosen people. As the climax of these blessings Paul mentions the descent of the Messiah from their own race. But this descent is limited to His physical nature. The Messiah has another nature that is not flesh, and Paul now gives the further description of Christ, “who is over all, God blessed for ever.” Paul’s expression of Christ’s humanity seems to require as an antithesis this clear statement of His divinity (cf. Rom. 1:3, 4). That Christ is indeed divine and the One who is “over all” is taught in many NT passages (see John 1:1–3; Eph. 1:20–22; Phil. 2:10, 11; Col. 1:16, 17; 2:9; Additional Note on John 1). For a further discussion of this text see The Ministry, Sept., 1954, pp. 19–21; Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 218–222.

Over all. Compare ch. 11:36. This description of the supreme power and dignity of Him who was an Israelite by human descent serves to intensify the privileged character of the Jewish race. What greater blessings, what greater opportunities, could the Lord have granted to any people than those listed in these two verses?

By enumerating these privileges, Paul has given the reason for his “continual sorrow.” Each privilege listed reminds him of God’s original purpose for Israel and of the glorious destiny promised to them (see Vol. IV, pp. 25–38). But how greatly this contrasts with their present rejected condition!

6. Not as though. Paul’s point is that his grief for his fellow countrymen must not be understood as meaning the failure of God’s promise to Israel.

Word of God. That is, God’s declared will and purpose.

Hath taken none effect. Gr. ekpiptoµ, literally, “to fall out,” hence, “to fail.”

Not all Israel. The passage reads literally, “for not all who are of Israel, these are Israel.” Paul’s meaning is that not all who are descended from Israel really belong to Israel in the full spiritual significance of that name. His purpose in making this statement is to explain how the word of God to Israel has not failed. The fulfillment of God’s promise is limited to those who meet the conditions of the covenant relation. For this faithful and obedient remnant the word of God will not fail.

Of Israel. This refers to the offspring of Israel according to the flesh, Jacob’s physical descendants. The divine promise was indeed given to Israel, but that did not include everyone who could claim descent from Jacob without any further limitation. Paul has already explained that those who have faith are the true sons of Abraham (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:7–9; cf. Rom. 2:28, 29).

7. Seed. Compare Gal. 3:29.

Children. That is, children in the fullest sense, as in ch. 8:17, “if children, then heirs.” The descendants of Abraham do not have the rights of inheritance simply because they can trace their physical descent back to him.

In Isaac. Or, “through Isaac.” The same Greek word translated “in” (en) is rendered “through” in Matt. 9:34, and “by” in 1 Cor. 6:2 and Col. 1:16. The words “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” are a quotation from the LXX of Gen. 21:12 (cf. Heb. 11:18).

Called. Isaac and Ishmael, according to the flesh, were both sons of Abraham. However, to Isaac and his descendants were the promises made. Ishmael was not included. This does not mean that Ishmael and his descendants were outside the pale of salvation, but simply that God had chosen the descendants of Isaac to be His missionaries to the world. They were to reveal the principles of His kingdom before the nations, that men might be drawn to Him (see Vol. IV, pp. 26–30; see on Eze. 25:1). God reserves the right to assign various responsibilities to men and nations (see on Dan. 4:17).

8. Children of the flesh. These are the merely physical descendants, who are born in the natural course of events, as was Ishmael (see Gal. 4:23). But spiritual blessings are not inherited by natural descent.

Children of God. This refers historically to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac. They were the ones who stood in covenant relation with God, inherited the promises, and received the privileges of the chosen people. From this distinction made between Isaac and Ishmael, Paul is drawing the principle that to be true sons of Abraham, and true sons of God, does not depend on physical descent alone. This was hard doctrine for the Jews, for their most cherished belief was that merely being a Jew constituted one a child of God. But how encouraging this message must have been to the Gentiles!

Children of the promise. The case of Isaac is doubtless referred to. Isaac was born when Abraham and Sarah had passed the time of life when they could naturally expect to have a child. But the promise of God and their acceptance of it by faith made it possible for them to become the parents of Isaac (see on ch. 4:18–21). Likewise, as Paul explains in Gal. 4:21–31, it is by supernatural rebirth that Gentiles may become children of Abraham, children of the promise (v. 28).

9. Word of promise. The clause may be translated “this word is one of promise.” In the Greek the emphasis is upon the word “promise.” Paul’s point is that when God said, “At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son,” He uttered a word of promise. The birth of Isaac depended upon the promise. The promise did not depend upon the birth. Had it not been for the divine promise and intervention, Isaac would not have been born. From this Paul continues to deduce the principle that a mere connection with the Jewish race “according to the flesh” does not necessarily imply a share in the promise any more than it did in the days of Isaac and Ishmael.

At this time. Literally, “according to this season.” The quotation is from Gen. 18:10, 14.

10. And not only. Paul now gives a still clearer illustration of the same principle. It might be objected that the election of Isaac and the rejection of Ishmael are easily understood on the basis that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, whereas Hagar was but a bondwoman (Gen. 16:1). But the choice of Jacob over Esau could not be explained this way, for their origins were identical.

But when Rebecca also. The sentence beginning with these words is interrupted by the parenthesis in v. 11 and then continued in v. 12. The meaning, however, is clear. Rebecca is mentioned, rather than Isaac, since it was to her that the prophecy quoted in v. 12 was addressed.

By one. These words emphasize that there was only one father. Yet, though Jacob and Esau had the same father and the same mother, the peculiar stations appointed them in life were different.

Our father Isaac. The twins had for their father the patriarch of the chosen race. However, Jacob was the one chosen to be the progenitor of the nation through which God planned to spread abroad a knowledge of His will.

11. Not yet born. The fact that the younger would have pre-eminence over the older was foretold to Rebecca before their birth (see on v. 12).

Election. Gr. eklogeµ, “the process of choice,” “selection” (see Acts 9:15; Rom. 11:5, 7, 28; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Peter 1:10). It is from the verb eklegomai, “to pick out,” “to choose” (see on Rom. 8:33). For a discussion of election as related to salvation see on ch. 8:29; see PP 207, 208; TM 453, 454.

Might stand. Or, “might remain,” “might continue.” This is the opposite of “hath taken none effect” (v. 6).

Not of works. That is, not because of any merit gained by works.

Him that calleth. God reserves the right to assign to men and nations various responsibilities (see on v. 7). Men may “covet earnestly the best gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31), but it is God who through the Spirit distributes the gifts “as he [the Spirit] will” (vs. 7–11). Simply because Jacob was chosen as the progenitor of the nation that was to be God’s evangelizing agency, by no means meant that his brother was elected to be lost. Such a deduction is wholly unwarranted. This passage has been used to support the doctrine that God predestines some to salvation and some to eternal damnation, regardless of character. But such a doctrine is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture (see on Rom. 8:29), and therefore it cannot be Paul’s meaning in this verse. Paul is trying to emphasize to the Jews, by referring to the well-known history of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, the vital fact that mere works and mere physical membership in the chosen race do not bind or obligate God to bless with favor and privilege. It was necessary for Paul to emphasize this point strongly because the Jews were misunderstanding and abusing their covenant relation.

12. Unto her. As Paul described the election of Isaac by quoting the Lord’s prediction to Abraham (v. 7), so he now describes the election of Jacob by repeating the divine prediction to Rebecca. The quotation is from Gen. 25:23.

Serve the younger. This prediction was not literally fulfilled in the case of Jacob and Esau themselves, but it was in the later history of their descendants (see on Gen. 25:23). That God’s election of Jacob over Esau also included the nations that descended from them is clear from the original prediction.

13. As it is written. The quotation is from Mal. 1:2, 3.

Jacob have I loved. This verse does not explain the reason for God’s choice of Jacob and His rejection of Esau. Rather, it describes the history of the two sons and of the two peoples descended from them, Israel and Edom. That the descendants as well as the ancestors are included is quite apparent from the context of Mal. 1:2, 3.

Esau have I hated. This strong expression does not imply positive hatred, as the term is used today, but that God had preferred Jacob above Esau in His choice of the progenitor of the chosen race (see on vs. 10, 11). It seems to have been common in Biblical times to use the term “hate” in this sense. Thus Jacob’s preference for Rachel is compared with his “hatred” for Leah (Gen. 29:30, 31). Similarly Jesus speaks about “hating” one’s father and mother (Luke 14:26) and “hating” one’s life (John 12:25). Compare Matt. 6:24; see on Mal. 1:3.

By referring to the history of the patriarchs Paul shows that God’s choice of spiritual Israel (see on Matt. 21:33–43), in view of the failure of the Jews to fulfill the divine purpose, is fully consistent with His past dealings. God is not being untrue to any. In calling upon the Christian church to accomplish His purposes for the world, God is following the same principle He originally employed when He selected the Israelites and rejected the Edomites and the Ishmaelites. Now Paul proceeds to prove that neither does the present rejection imply that God is unjust.

14. What shall we say then? This introduces the first of two possible objections that a Jew might raise to Paul’s argument. The second is in v. 19. The selection of Israel and the rejection of Ishmael and Esau were examples of God’s choices that a Jew would heartily approve. But Paul has argued that these examples involve a principle that would justify the exclusion of the unbelieving nation of the Jews. To such a conclusion he expects that objection will at once be made.

Is there unrighteousness? The Greek construction implies a negative answer. Paul answers this by appealing to an authority that could not be questioned by a Jew. God cannot be charged with being unjust, for in the OT Scriptures God expressly claims for Himself the freedom to deal with men according to His own divine purposes.

God forbid. See on ch. 3:4.

15. I will have mercy. The quotation is from Ex. 33:19. The words were spoken to Moses in connection with his request to see God’s glory. The issue is not one of personal salvation, but one of God’s right to show certain favors to whom He will. The fact that God does not reveal to us His glory in the remarkable way He did to Moses is no evidence of injustice. “God is too wise to err, and too good to withhold any good thing from them that walk uprightly” (SC 96; see Ps. 84:11).

Whom. Rather, “whomsoever.” Paul is quoting these words from Ex. 33:19 to emphasize his point that it is for God to decide who are to be the recipients of certain favors. It is not for man to dictate to Him.

16. So then. The inference drawn from God’s words to Moses is that the bestowal of certain privileges does not depend on man’s will or exertion but on the wisdom of God, who knows what is best and who “silently, patiently” works “out the counsels of His own will” (Ed 173).

Runneth. This denotes strenuous effort. The metaphor, doubtless taken from the foot races, is a favorite one with Paul (1 Cor. 9:24, 26; Gal. 2:2; 5:7; Phil. 2:16).

But of God. God seeks the salvation of all men (1 Tim. 2:4). None need fear that they are outside the pale of salvation. But God in His wisdom chooses the agencies by whom He accomplishes His purposes. If those whom He selects to perform a certain office fail, He chooses others to take their place. Men are admonished to cooperate with Heaven’s plans, and not to run if the Lord has not called them (see Jer. 23:21).

17. The scripture saith. The Scriptures are personified in this common formula of quotation (see also Gal. 3:8, 22). In Rom. 9:15 Paul used the words “he saith,” that is, God saith, to introduce the quotation of God’s words to Moses.

Even for this same purpose. Rather, “for this very purpose.” What the purpose was is stated in the rest of the verse. The quotation is from Ex. 9:16, with some variations, and is part of the words addressed through Moses to Pharaoh after the plague of boils.

Raised … up. Gr. exegeiroµ. The only other NT occurrence of this verb is in 1 Cor. 6:14, where it is used to describe the raising of the dead. From an examination of the context of Ex. 9:16 some consider the passage to mean “I have raised you from sickness,” that is, Pharaoh had not perished in the plagues thus far. Though because of his rebellious character the king probably deserved to be destroyed, God preserved his life and through him accomplished His purpose. Others see a more general reference to God’s bringing Pharaoh upon the stage of history (cf. Hab. 1:6; Zech. 11:16), and through him accomplishing a specific purpose. See on Ex. 9:16.

One thing this passage definitely does not mean is that God had predestined Pharaoh to a life of rebellion and final destruction. Such an interpretation would be wholly contrary to the rest of Scripture (see on Rom. 8:29; see PP 267). The question under consideration is not Pharaoh’s personal salvation but Pharaoh’s position as leader of one of the greatest nations of his time. God works through nations and their leaders to accomplish His purposes on earth (see on Dan. 4:17).

Shew my power in thee. A literal translation of Ex. 9:16 reads, “show you my power” Paul’s reading agrees with the LXX. The continued stubbornness of Pharaoh led to ever greater manifestations of divine power, until finally even the haughty monarch himself was forced to admit the superior power of God (Ex. 9:27). The Greek word dunamis, used here for “power,” means “might,” or “strength.”

Might be declared. Or, “might be published abroad.” This purpose of God is still being fulfilled wherever the book of Exodus is read.

18. Therefore. Again, as in v. 16, Paul states the general inference to be drawn from the examples cited.

Hath he mercy. See on v. 15.

Will. Gr. theloµ, “to wish,” or “to desire.”

He hardeneth. Gr. skleµrunoµ. The only other NT occurrences of this word are in Acts 19:9; Heb. 3:8, 13, 15; 4:7. In Exodus the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is sometimes described as self-produced (Ex. 8:15, 32; etc.) and sometimes as produced by God (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; etc.). In the Bible God is often represented as doing that which He does not prevent (see on 2 Chron. 18:18). Paul here chooses the latter representation as better suited to his purpose in this context. The hardening of a man’s heart is the result of rebellion against the divine revelation and rejection of the Divine Spirit. Paul has spoken earlier in this epistle of how God turns a man over to the inevitable consequences of his stubborn disobedience (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). For a discussion of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart see on Ex. 4:21.

19. Thou wilt say then. This introduces the second possible objection that might be raised to Paul’s argument (see v. 14).

Find fault. The objector’s question may be paraphrased thus: If God Himself hardens a man’s heart, how can He go on finding fault with him? Is it just for God to blame sinners if their conduct is in accordance with His purpose and is the result of His irresistible will? Historically this objection may recall God’s rebuke to Pharaoh, “As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?” (Ex. 9:17) and, “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?” (ch. 10:3). In the case of Pharaoh the objector would say, “If God had chosen to harden the king’s heart, why did He yet find fault with him?” Compare on Ex. 9:15, 16.

Paul does not here attempt to give a full answer to this objection. His sole emphasis in this context is upon the fact that in His government of the world God reserves to Himself perfect freedom to deal with men on His own conditions, and not on theirs, without, of course, interfering with their opportunity for personal salvation.

By failing to recognize Paul’s emphasis, some theologians have been led to read into these verses ideas that Paul never intended. Calvin understood them to mean that God arbitrarily created some men for salvation and others for destruction. Such a concept of God’s purpose is not in agreement with Paul’s explanation elsewhere in this same epistle that God shows not partiality (Rom. 2:11) but judges each man according to his works (ch. 2:6–10; cf. ch. 3:22, 23) and will save everyone who calls upon Him (ch. 10:12, 13).

Hath resisted. The question means, “Who is there that is resisting God’s will?” implying that no one can resist Him.

Will. Gr. bouleµma. This is not the common NT word for “will,” which is theleµma (chs. 2:18; 12:2; 15:32). The only other NT occurrences of bouleµma are in Acts 27:43; 1 Peter 4:3. Bouleµma implies more definitely the idea of conscious and deliberate purpose.

20. Nay but. The Greek word order and literal meaning of the clause is, “O man, but indeed you, who are you?” An emphatic contrast is suggested between mere man and God. Paul reminds man that his real relation to God is that of a creature to his Creator. Therefore, what man has any right to complain or to question God’s dealings? Instead of answering the questions raised in the previous verse, Paul addresses himself to the spirit that prompted them.

Repliest. Gr. antapokrinomai, literally, “to answer by contradicting.” The only other NT occurrence of this verb is in Luke 14:6, where it is used to describe the inability of the Pharisees to “answer” Jesus. Likewise, in this verse the word may suggest contradiction to an answer that God has already given.

Thing formed. Gr. plasma. The related verb, plassoµ, means “to mold,” or “to shape,” as with clay or wax. Comparing God’s power to the control of a potter over his clay was a familiar OT idea. Paul here cites from Isa. 29:16; 45:9 (cf. Isa. 64:8; Jer. 18:6). It is particularly appropriate for Paul to make use of these words of Isaiah, since both writers are considering the same subject—God’s formation of Israel as a nation and His consequent unquestionable right to deal with the nation as He deems best.

Why hast thou? The presumptuousness of lodging a complaint against God is forcefully illustrated. As Creator, God has the right to distribute gifts according to His will (see on v. 11).

21. Power. Gr. exousia, “right,” “authority.” The argument is that to deny that God has the right to do with man as He will is equivalent to denying that the potter has complete control over his clay, which is obviously absurd. Paul may be alluding to Jer. 18:6. It is important to notice that in this declaration in Jeremiah the conditional nature of God’s promises is clearly set forth (Jer. 18:7–10). God is working for the good of men and nations, but they by their stubbornness and perverseness bring ruin upon themselves.

The same lump. From the same lump of clay the potter, at his own discretion, may choose to make one vessel for a noble purpose and another for a humbler use. Similarly, God has authority over all mankind, and will deal with men according to His own benevolent purposes. In working for the salvation of mankind God sees fit to permit men and nations to suffer the consequences of their own rebellion. That which He thus permits is often represented in the Bible as though directly done by Him (see on 2 Chron. 18:18).

22. What if God? Literally, “but if God.” The sentence is incomplete, but the construction is not unusual (see Luke 19:41, 42; John 6:61, 62). Paul’s meaning is, “But if God, notwithstanding His unquestionable right to deal with His creatures in whatever way seems best to Him, has in actual fact shown much long-suffering, what further objection can you make against His justice?”

Willing. Some commentators interpret the sense here to be “because God wishes,” others, “while willing,” or “although God wishes.” If the first, Paul would be saying that God patiently endures the vessels of wrath because He wishes to reveal His wrath and power in a final more terrible judgment. Thus God spared the life of Pharaoh (v. 17), patiently enduring the stubborn monarch, so that He might give still greater manifestations of His power and determination to punish cruelty and oppression (see PP 268). But if the second or third translation is correct, Paul’s meaning would be that although God wishes to make known His power and His hatred of sin, yet in patience He restrains His wrath and endures the vessels fit for destruction. The latter interpretation seems to accord better with the context and with the theme of the epistle (see, for example, ch. 2:4, where it is explicitly stated that the purpose of God’s “forbearance and longsuffering” is to lead sinners “to repentance”). It is true that God’s long-suffering may be “despised” and thus may result in hardness of heart and greater severity of judgment, as in the case of Pharaoh. But the primary object of God’s patience is to give men opportunity to repent.

Wrath. See on ch. 1:18.

His power. Literally, “that which is possible for Him” (cf. v. 17).

Longsuffering. See on ch. 2:4.

Vessels. Paul continues the figure of the potter and the clay from the previous verse.

Of wrath. That is, deserving wrath, or experiencing wrath, as in the phrase “the children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3).

Fitted. Gr. katartizoµ, which, in the form here found, may be rendered “ready for destruction.” The Greek construction is different from the one translated “he had afore prepared” in v. 23. Paul does not mean that God had prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction, but only that they were “ripe,” or “ready,” for it.

23. That he might make known. The grammatical connection between vs. 22 and 23 is defective, but the sense is clear. God’s patient endurance of those fit for destruction is also for the purpose of showing mercy to those willing to undertake the program of God. Though the Jews had deserved God’s wrath, He had borne with them with much patience, both for their own sakes and also for the ultimate good of His entire church.

Riches of his glory. See Eph. 1:18; 3:16; Col. 1:27. For the comprehensive meaning of the phrase “glory of God” see on Rom. 3:23.

Vessels of mercy. That is, vessels receiving and experiencing mercy. This could hardly be interpreted to mean “vessels deserving mercy,” as in the case of the “vessels of wrath” (see on v. 22), inasmuch as God’s mercy is not deserved.

He had afore prepared. Gr. proetoimazoµ. The only other NT occurrence of this verb is in Eph. 2:10. Paul distinctly states that it is God who prepares the vessels of mercy for glory, though he does not describe God as fitting the vessels of wrath for destruction (see on Rom. 9:22). The way in which God prepares His people beforehand for glory is outlined by Paul in ch. 8:28–30 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:9).

24. Even us. That is, the Christian church, to whom have been accorded the privileges anciently granted to Israel. “That which God purposed to do for the world through Israel, the chosen nation, He will finally accomplish through His church on earth to-day” (PK 713, 714; see Vol. IV, pp. 35, 36).

Not of the Jews only. The Christian church is constituted of both Jews and Gentiles. Again Paul emphasizes his theme of the universality of divine grace (cf. ch. 3:29, 30). No one is called and saved simply because he is a Jew. Salvation is offered to Jew and Gentile alike, and on the same terms (chs. 3:22; 10:12, 13).

Gentiles. With this reference to the Gentiles, Paul introduces the subject to be discussed to the end of ch. 11.

25. As he saith. Paul always seeks to confirm his conclusions from the OT Scriptures, especially when they might appear to be disputable. Thus he now shows that both the calling of the Gentiles and the saving of only a remnant of Israel had been predicted by the prophets.

Osee. This is a transliteration of the Greek rendering of the Hebrew name “Hosea.”

I will call them. The quotation is from Hosea 2:23, though not identical with either the Hebrew or the LXX rendering. As quoted by Paul, the Greek words read literally, “I will call the not my people, my people and the not beloved, beloved.” For the meaning of Hosea’s statement in its original context see on Hosea 2:23; cf. on ch. 1:6, 9.

26. It shall come to pass. This second OT quotation is from Hosea 1:10. In its original context it is a prediction of the recalling of the scattered tribes. Paul shows how the promise will be fulfilled with respect to the Christian church (see on Hosea 1:10).

In the place. This seems to mean that in the place where the tribes, or later the Gentiles, had endured the reproach of being told that they were not God’s people, they would be called His sons.

27. Esaias. This is a transliteration of the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name Isaiah. Paul now passes from prophecies applicable to the calling of the Gentiles to others concerning the rejection of all but a remnant of Israel.

Crieth. Gr. krazoµ. The word indicates intense earnestness (see John 1:15; 7:28, 37; 12:44; Acts 23:6).

Though the number. The quotation is from Isa. 10:22, 23, not identical in wording with either the Hebrew or the LXX. However, the variations in form do not change the essential meaning of the prophecy.

Sand of the sea. Isaiah’s words reflect those of the promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17).

A remnant. Literally, “the remnant,” meaning in this context “only a remnant.” The doctrine of the remnant was an important part of Isaiah’s teaching. It was included in his divine commission to be a messenger to Israel (Isa. 6:13), and he emphasizes it repeatedly in his writing (chs. 1:9; 10:20–22; 11:11–16; 37:4, 31, 32; 46:3). He was even instructed by the Lord to name one of his sons Shear-jashub, literally, “a remnant shall return.” Other OT prophets also frequently mention the “remnant” (see Jer. 6:9; 23:3; 31:7; Eze. 6:8; 14:22; Joel 2:32; Amos 5:15; Micah 2:12; 4:7; 5:7, 8; 7:18; Zeph. 2:7, 9; 3:13; Haggai 1:12, 14; Zech. 8:6, 12).

Shall be saved. The Hebrew reads, “shall return.” This return was not supposed to be merely from exile but “unto the mighty God” (Isa. 10:21). Hence the Greek translation “shall be saved” correctly represents the intent of the prophecy.

28. He will finish. The verse may be translated literally, “For a word, finishing [it] and cutting [it] short in righteousness, because a short word will the Lord make upon the earth.” However, textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) omitting the words “in righteousness, because a short word.” The longer reading is that of the LXX. For the meaning of the Hebrew text see on Isa. 10:22.

The work. Gr. logos, generally translated “word.” However, logos is used in the NT with a great variety of meanings. For example, it is translated “matter” (Mark 1:45), “question” (Mark 11:29), “thing” (Luke 20:3), “account” (Heb. 13:17). Logos occurs than 300 times in the NT, but is translated “work” only here. However, the idea is approached in the translation “matter” and in dabar, the Hebrew equivalent oflogos. Several meanings are possible in this particular context. One is suggested by the KJV translation oflogos in Rom. 14:12, “So then every one of us shall give account [logos] of himself to God.” Such a meaning is behind the following translation of the passage under consideration: “For the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with rigor and dispatch” (RSV). Another interpretation makes logos refer to the promises of God concerning Israel which were fulfilled in only a limited degree in the remnant. Or the “cutting short” may refer to Israel itself whose numbers would be greatly reduced in the selection of the remnant.

29. Said before. Some take this to mean “foretold,” or “predicted” (cf. Matt. 24:25; Acts 1:16). Others understand it to mean simply “said at an earlier time” (cf. 2 Cor. 7:3; Gal. 1:9). The decision rests upon whether Isaiah’s words are to be regarded as a prediction or as a description of the state of Israel in his time. In the latter case Paul would simply be making Isaiah’s words his own and using them as a description applicable to the similar condition of Israel in his day. In either case the quotation is suitable to Paul’s argument. Still a third interpretation takes “before” to mean “in an earlier passage.” The statement referred to is from an earlier part of Isaiah’s writings (Isa. 1:9).

Except the Lord. The quotation is from Isa. 1:9.

Sabaoth. Gr. Sabaoth, a transliteration of the Heb. sebaХoth, “hosts,” “armies.” The KJV translates this Hebrew word in the OT as “host” but leaves sebaХoth untranslated in the NT (cf. James 5:4). For the significance of the title “Lord of hosts” see on Jer. 7:3.

A seed. Or, “children,” “descendants.” These are the “remnant” of v. 27. The Hebrew of Isa. 1:9 reads “a little remnant.” The LXX. like Paul, represents these as “seed,” from which the nation shall spring up again (cf. Isa. 6:13; Hosea 2:23). The point of the quotation is that except for this remnant the rejection of Israel would be as utter and complete as was that of Sodom and Gomorrah. But throughout the centuries a little remnant had maintained its integrity. Despite the prevailing unfaithfulness and apostasy, this unbroken line of witnesses has remained true to God and to conditions of His promises to Abraham (Rom. 11:4, 5; cf. Ps. 22:30, 31; Isa. 6:12, 13).

As Sodoma. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is frequently mentioned in the OT as an example of a violent overthrow (see also Deut. 29:23; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18; 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9). Jesus also refers to these cities when speaking of the divine judgment (Matt. 11:23, 24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12).

30. What shall? Having emphasized the side of divine authority and justice in the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, Paul now turns to emphasize the side of human responsibility.

The Gentiles. Rather, “Gentiles.” Some Gentiles, not all, have attained to righteousness. The conclusion that Paul draws from his discussion so far is this: God’s promise has not failed, but while Gentiles have obtained righteousness, Jews have failed to find it, because they have sought for it in the wrong way. This naturally raises the question, Why? (v. 32). And that introduces the next point in Paul’s discussion—the failure and guilt of the Jews. From this point on through ch. 10:21 Paul discusses this subject.

Followed. Gr. dioµkoµ, “to pursue.”

Attained. Gr. katalambanoµ, “to overtake,” “to obtain.” Both dioµkoµ (see above under “followed”) and katalambanoµ are used in connection with the racecourse (cf. “runneth”; see on Rom. 9:16; cf. 1 Cor. 9:24; Phil. 3:12). Paul is saying that Gentiles, who were not even striving to obtain righteousness, have grasped it. He does not mean by this that there was no desire or longing for righteousness among the Gentiles, but that, as contrasted with the legalistic Jews, they were not ostensibly seeking for it. Yet when salvation was offered to them in the gospel, they welcomed it. Compare Paul’s earlier description of Gentiles fulfilling the requirements of the law, even though they did not have any revealed code such as the Jews were privileged to possess (see on Rom. 2:14).

Of faith. This definition of the kind of righteousness that the Gentiles have obtained explains the apparent paradox of their having attained to righteousness though they were not striving for it.

31. The law of righteousness. Literally, “a law of righteousness,” meaning, a law producing righteousness. What the Gentiles are described as not seeking, yet obtaining, is “righteousness.” But what the Jews are described as following after, yet not attaining, is “a law of righteousness.” This phrase has been variously interpreted. Some regard it as a specific reference to the law of the OT. Others understand the phrase to mean that the Jews were seeking for a principle and rule of moral and religious life that would make them righteous (compare the use of the word “law” in the expression “the law of faith”; see on ch. 3:27; cf. ch. 7:23). This principle the Jews thought they had found in their system of moral and religious laws. But since they were never able to live up to the requirements of those laws, their principle of righteousness could not produce the righteousness for which they sought. This drove them to still further multiplication of religious laws in their legalistic quest for a principle of life that would make them righteous in the sight of God.

Another interpretation, and one well suited to the context, is to regard the phrase “a law of righteousness” as the equivalent of “the righteousness which is based on law.” Paul’s emphasis in these verses is upon the legalistic nature of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness.

To the law. Literally, “to a law.” Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of the word “righteousness” in this second phrase. Israel followed after “a law of righteousness” but did not succeed in arriving at that law. The reason for this failure is that righteousness based on law demands the perfect fulfillment of that law, and this obedience men in their own strength are not able to give. Consequently, in depending for righteousness upon a law which, in their own strength, they could not obey, the Jews failed to arrive either at the ideals prescribed by the law or at the righteousness they were pursuing.

32. Wherefore? Or, “why?”

Because. The first part of the answer reads literally, “because not of faith, but as of works of law.” Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of the phrase “of law.” The KJV supplies the words “they sought it,” which seem to give Paul’s sense correctly.

As it were by the works. Literally, “as if it were by works.” By this qualifying phrase Paul indicates that it was the opinion of the Jews that righteousness could be obtained in this way. They thought they could become righteous by works, whereas actually they were attempting the impossible (see chs. 2:25 to 3:20). Righteousness is attainable only by faith (ch. 3:21, 22).

They stumbled. Gr. proskoptoµ. This verb means, literally, “to strike against” (Matt. 4:6; Luke 4:11), hence, “to stumble” (John 11:9, 10), and metaphorically “to take offense at,” “to show irritation at” (Peter 2:8). Christ came to bring righteousness to all who would accept it by faith. But the Jews, who were seeking it in another way, took offense at Him and at His message. So deep seated was their erroneous belief that righteousness could be obtained by works, that it led them openly to oppose the Saviour and finally even to murder Him. If Paul is using the verb in its more literal sense of “to stumble,” these verses give a picture of the Jews earnestly pursuing after the goal of righteousness, but stumbling over the very One who had come to help them reach it.

That stumblingstone. Literally, “the stone of stumbling.” The offense was, of course, not in the stone but in the attitude of those to whom it became a cause of stumbling. “Christ crucified” was a “stumblingblock” to the Jews, but the “power” and “wisdom of God” to those who are called (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). He is a stumbling stone to those who are faithless and disobedient, but precious to those who believe (1 Peter 2:7, 8).

33. It is written. The quotation is from Isa. 28:16 and 8:14 but is not identical with the Hebrew or the LXX. Peter applies these two verses to Christ (1 Peter 2:6–8). The prediction brings together the two classes Paul is describing—those to whom Christ is a cause of offense, and those to whom He is the cornerstone of their faith (see Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11).

On him. These words are not in the LXX or the Hebrew of Isa. 28:16. Their use here by Paul emphasizes the personal reference to Christ.

Shall not be ashamed. This is the reading of the LXX. The Hebrew reads, “shall not make haste.” However, the Hebrew may be rendered “shall not be confounded.” Understood in this sense the meaning is not essentially different. In either case the emphasis is upon the sure confidence that comes to the one who puts his faith in Christ and presses forward to the mark of God’s high calling.

Ellen G. White comments

1–5AA 374

2, 3 AA 129

11   GC 261; PP 207

20, 21  8T 187

21–26AA 376

27–29AA 379

28   EW 50, 75; 6T 19, 233; 8T 49