Romans 9

In the preceding chapter, the Apostle had declared the absolute security of the people of God. This leads him to consider the present situation of the great body of the Jewish nation, who, having rejected the Messiah, were now rejected, of God. As they were the types of the true Israel, their rejection might seem not to correspond with what he had just been affirming of the security of God’s people. It was therefore necessary to enter fully upon this subject. It was, however, one which was sure to be highly offensive to the Jews, and therefore he introduces it in a manner calculated to allay, as far as possible, their prejudices against him; while at the same time, he does not in this matter shun to declare the whole counsel of God, for the instruction of those to whom he was writing.

After expressing his grief on account of the state of his countrymen, without specifying its cause, he enumerates the distinguished privileges of their nation. And then, adverting to their being rejected of God, though still not directly mentioning it, he begins with observing, that it could not be said that the word of God had taken none eiFect among them. God had promised to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed, and although the greater part of Israel was nowcast off, that promise had not failed. When God said to Abraham, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, he intimated that the promise did not refer to all his children, but to a select number. God gave Isaac to Abraham by a special promise; and farther, in the case of Rebecca, one of her children was a child of promise, the other was not, and this was intimated before they were born. In order to silence all objections that might here arise, as if this proceeding of the Almighty could be charged with injustice, Paul at once appeals to the sovereignty of God, who disposeth of his creatures as to him seemeth good. Especially he refers to what God had said to Moses, as recorded in the Scriptures, when he made all his goodness pass before him, that he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy; thus intimating that his favours were his own, and that, in bestowing, or withholding them, there was no room for injustice.

This view of God’s sovereignty being so important, against which the pride of man, until subdued by grace, rises with such rebellious violence, Paul dwells upon it in both its aspects, as exhibited in the exercise of mercy on whom he will, and hardening whom he will. In acting both in the one way and the other, he declares that God contemplates his own glory. This leads the Apostle immediately to the subject of the election by God of those whom he had prepared to be vessels of mercy, both from among the Jews and the Gentiles. These in reality were the only children of promise of whom Isaac was a type — Gal. iv. 28. On the other hand, the rejection of the great body of Israel was so far from being contrary to the purpose of God, that it had been distinctly predicted by their own prophets. He closes the chapter by showing, that while this rejection had taken place according to the counsel of God, its immediate occasion was the culpable ignorance and prejudice of the Jews themselves in seeking acceptance with God by their own righteousness, and not submitting to the righteousness of God brought in by the Messiah, but on the contrary, opposing him when he appeared.

The manner in which Paul has treated the subject of this chapter furnishes him an opportunity of illustrating the doctrine of election to eternal life, to which, in the one preceding, he had traced up, as to their origin, all the privileges of believers in Christ. It likewise gives occasion to exhibit the sovereignty of God, as displayed all along respecting* the nation of Israel. In this manner the astonishing fact is at the same time accounted for, that so great a portion of the Jewish nation had rejected the promised Messiah, while a remnant among them at that time, as in every preceding age, acknowledged him as their Lord. Mr Stuart says, that ’ with the eighth chapter concludes what may

* appropriately be termed the doctrinal part of

* our epistle.’ But if the sovereignty of God be a doctrine of divine revelation, this assertion is evidently erroneous. Without the developement of this important doctrine, which accounts for the fact of the election of some, and the rejection of others, the Epistle would not be complete.

V. 1. — I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.

I say the truth. — What the Apostle was about to declare concerning his great sorrow on account of the present state of his countrymen, would not easily procure credit from them, since they looked upon him as their most determined enemy. Yet it was a truth which he could affirm without hypocrisy, and with the greatest

sincerity. In Christ Paul was speaking as

one united to, and belonging to Christ — acting as in his service. This is a most solemn asseveration, and implies, that what he was affirming was as true as if Christ himself had spoken it. In thus referring to Christ, it appears that it was rather his object to impress the truth of what he was declaring on the minds of those whom he addressed, and to prove that what he was about to say respecting the rejection of the Jewish nation did not arise, as might be supposed, from prejudice, or dislike to them, than to place it directly before the Jews themselves, with whom such a reference would have no weight. / lie not — This is a repetition, but not properly tautology. In certain situations an assertion may be frequently in substance repeated, as indicating the earnestness of the speaker. The Apostle dwells on the statement, and is not willing to leave it without producing the effect. My conscience also bearing me witness For the sincerity

of his love for the Jewish nation, the Apostle appeals to his conscience. His countrymen and others might deem him their enemy; they might consider all his conduct towards them as influenced by hatred; but he had the testimony of his conscience to the contrary. In the Holy

Ghost He not only had the testimony of

his conscience, but what precluded the possibility of his deceiving, he spoke in the Holy Ghost — he spoke by inspiration.

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

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

Many interpretations have been given of this passage. Calvin supposes that Paul, actually in “a state of ecstasy,” wished himself condemned in the place of his countrymen. ‘The addi-

* tional sentence,’ he says, ’ proves the Apostle ’ to be speaking, not of temporal, but eternal ’ death; and when he says from Christ, an allu~ ’ sion is made to the Greek word anathema, which ’ means a separation from any thing. Does not

* separation from Christ mean, being excluded ’ from all hopes of salvation?’ Such a thing is impossible, and would be highly improper. This would do more than fulfil the demands of the law, it would utterly go beyond the law, and would therefore be sinful; for all our affections ought to be regulated by the law of God. Some understand it of excommunication. But the Apostle could not be excommunicated by Christ, except for a cause which would exclude him from Heaven, as well as from the Church on earth. He could not be excommunicated without being guilty of some sin that manifested him to be an unbeliever. It is not possible that he could wish to be in such a state. Paul’s affection for his countrymen is here indeed expressed in very

Strong terms, but the meaning often ascribed to it is not for a moment to be admitted. That any one should desire to be eternally separated from Christ, and consequently punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, is impossible. The law commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves, but not more than ourselves, which would be the case, if to promote his temporal or spiritual benefit we desired to be eternally miserable. It should also be recollected, that it is not only everlasting misery, but desperate and final enmity against God, that is comprised in Paul’s wish as it is generally understood. It represents him as loving the creature more than the Creator. But who could ever imagine that the desire of being eternally wicked, and of indulging everlasting hatred to God, could proceed from love to him, and be a proper manner of expressing zeal for his glory? It would be strange indeed if Paul, who had just been affirming, in a tone so triumphant, the impossibility that the united efforts of creation could separate him from the love of Christ, should the moment after solemnly desire that this separation should take place, for the sake of any creature, however beloved.

To understand the meaning of this passage, there are three observations to which it is of importance to attend. In the first place, it is the past, and not the present tense, which is employed in the original. What is rendered “I could wish,” should be read in the past tense, “I was wishing, or did wish,” referring to the Apostle’s state before his conversion. The second observation is, that the verb which, in our version, is translated “wish,” would have been more correctly rendered, in this place, boast; “for I myself boasted, or made it my boast, to be separated from Christ.” For this translation, which makes the Apostle’s meaning far more explicit, there is the most unquestionable authority.* The third observation is, that the first part of the third verse should be read in a parenthesis, as follows: “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I myself made it my boast to be separated from Christ) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” By the usual interpretation the Apostle is understood to say, “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart,” and without stating for whom, or for what, to add, “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.” But it appears evident that these words, Jbr my brethren, form the conclusion of the above expression, / have

* See in the Sixth Book of the Iliad, where the same word occurs, in the dialogue between Diomed and Glaucus, and could not be rendered otherwise.

great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. Paul had himself formerly made it his boast to be separated from Christ, rejecting him as the Messiah; and to prove how much he sympathized with the situation of his countrymen, he appeals, in the bosom of his lamentation for them, to his former experience, when, before his conversion, he had been in the same situation in which they now were, so that he personally knew how deplorable it was. He also intimates his sorrow in such a manner, as to show that he is far from glorying over them, having been himself as deeply guilty as they were; while, according to the doctrine he was inculcating, it was in no respect to be ascribed to himself, that he was happily delivered from that awful condition in which, with grief, he beheld them as now standing.

Paul’s sorrow was for those whom he calls his brethren. This does not respect a spiritual relationship, as the term brethren so generally denotes in the New Testament, but natural relationship, as Paul here explains it, when he adds, my kinsmen according to the flesh. His sorrow for them is the subject of his testimony, which, in a manner so solemn, he had confirmed in the preceding verse. Instead of being gratified with their calamities and rejection, their unbelief occasioned him inexpressible affliction.

In this we may see a characteristic of a Christian. He who has no sorrow for the perishing state of sinners, and especially of his kindred, is not a Christian. No man can be a Christian who is unconcerned for the salvation of others.

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

Paul here recognises and enumerates the great external privileges belonging to the Jews which aggravated his profound sorrow, on account of their rejection of the Messiah, and their consequent deplorable condition. Who are Israelites — That is, the most honourable people on earth; the descendants of him who as a Prince had power with God. They had the name, because that of Israel was given to Jacob their father by God, when vouchsafing so striking a pre-intimation of his future manifestation in the flesh. Adoption — That is, the nation of Israel was a nation adopted by God as a type of the adoption of his children in Christ Jesus. Glory. — This most probably refers to the manifestation of the glory of God over the mercy-seat in the Sanctuary. God too set his tabernacle among the Israelites, and walked among them; which was their peculiar glory, by which they were distinguished from all other nations. The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud that went before them in the wilderness. It often filled the Tabernacle and the Temple. His house was the place of his glory. Covenants — The covenant with Abraham, and the covenant at Sinai; in both of which they were interested. Giving of the law — To them the law was given at Mount Sinai; and they were the only people on earth that were so distinguished by God. The service of God — This refers to the Tabernacle and Temple service, or Mosaic institutions of worship. All other nations were left to their own superstitious inventions; the Jews alone had ordinances of worship from God. Pro mises. — The Jews had the promises with respect to the Messiah.

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

Whose are the fathers, — The Jews numbered among their progenitors those illustrious men, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and others to whom God had been pleased to manifest himself in a manner so remarkable. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, — This was the completion of all the privileges which the Apostle here enumerates. It was a signal honour to the Jewish nation, that the Messiah was descended from them. Concerning the flesh. — This declares that he was really a man having’ truly the human nature, and as a man descended from the Jews. At the same time it imports that he had another nature. Who is over all, God blessed for

ever This is a most clear and unequivocal

attestation of the Divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every engine of false criticism has been employed by those who are desirous to evade the obvious meaning of this decisive testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ; but they have never even plausibly succeeded.

The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their explanations, or rather perversions of the word of God, are in nothing more obvious than in their attempts to evade the meaning of this celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. They often shelter themselves under various readings; but here they have no tenable ground for an evasion of this kind. Yet, strange to say, some of them have, without the authority of manuscripts, altered the original, in order that it may suit their purpose. There is no difficulty in the words — no intricacy in the construction; yet they have by a forced construction and an unnatural punctuation endeavoured to turn away this testimony from its obvious import. Contrary to the authority of the practice of the language, as has often been incontrovertibly

VOL. II. 2 F shown, they substitute God be blessed, for God blessed for ever; or God, who is over all, be blessed, instead of who is over all, God blessed for ever. Such tortuous explanations are not only rejected by a sound interpretation of the original, but manifest themselves to be unnatural, even to the most illiterate who exercise an unprejudiced judgment. The Scriptures have many real difficulties which are calculated to try or to increase the faith and patience of the Christian, and are evidently designed to enlarge his acquaintance with the word of God, by obliging him more diligently to search them and to place his dependence on the Spirit of all truth. But when language so clear as in the present passage is perverted to avoid recognising the obvious truth contained in the Divine testimony, it manifests the depravity of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind against God, more clearly than the grossest works of the flesh.

After speaking of the Messiah’s coming by the nation of Israel, in respect to his human nature, the Apostle, in order to enhance the greatness of this extraordinary distinction conferred upon it, here refers to his Divine nature, to union with which in one person his human nature was exalted. The declaration of his coming in the flesh clearly imports, as has been observed, that Christ had another nature. When it is said, 1 John, iv. 3, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh — which could not be said of a mere man, who could come in no other way — it shows that he might have come in another way, and therefore implies his pre-existence, which is asserted in a variety of passages of Scripture. Of such passages there are four orders. The first order consists of those where his incarnation is ascribed to himself. “Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple.” — Mai. iii. 1. These words manifestly prove that his incarnation, and the preparation for it, such as the mission of John the Baptist, was a work of the Messiah himself, and consequently that he existed before his incarnation. The same truth is declared, when it is said, “For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same; — for verily he took not on him the nature of Angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” — Heb. ii. 14, 16. Here his taking upon him flesh and blood is represented to be by an act of his own will. The same truth is taught where he is introduced as addressing the Father in these terms, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt-offerings and sacrijfices for sin thou hast had no pleasure: then said I, lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God,” — Heb. x. 5, 7; and again, “Jesus Christ, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.” — Phil. ii. 6. Here we are taught that Jesus Christ himself took this form, and consequently that he existed before he took it.

The second order of passages, asserting the pre-existence of our Lord, are those which expressly declare that Jesus Christ was in heaven before he came into the world. “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven.” And a little after, “He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.” — John, iii. 13, 31. “The bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven.” — John, vi. 33, 41, 50, 51, 58. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” — John, vi. 38. “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before.” — John, vi. 62. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” — John, xvii. 5.

A third order of passages ascribes actions to Jesus Christ before his birth. “By whom,” says the Apostle, God “made the worlds” — Heb. i. 2, which signifies the creation of the universe; and verse 3, “upholding all things by the word of his power,” which signifies his providence; and verse 10, “And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” This is part of the response of the Father in the 25th verse of the hundred and second Psalm to his Son, complaining that he had weakened his strength in the way, and praying not to be taken away in the midst of his days; to which the Father immediately answers, “Thy years are throughout all generations,” and continues his reply to the end of the Psalm. “This man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.” — Heb. iii. 3. Here the Apostle teaches that Jesus Christ is the builder of the church, over which Moses only acted as a servant. “One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,” — I Cor. viii. 6, which implies both creation and preservation. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” — Col. i. 15, 16. Here Jesus Christ is declared to be the creator of all things. This is also affirmed concerning him before his incarnation. — John, i. 3. “Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.” — 1 Peter, iii. 19. The Son of God preached by his Spirit to the inhabitants of the earth before the flood, who are now in the prison of Hell, which supposes his existence before he was born.

A fourth order of passages clearly proves the pre-existence of our Lord Jesus Christ. “This is he of whom I said. After me cometh a man, which is preferred before me; for he was before me.” — John, i. 15, 30. He could not be before John unless he had existed prior to his birth, since John was born before him. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.” — John, viii. 58. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” — Micah, v. 2. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” — Rev. i. 8, 11; xxii. 13.

To all these passages must be added that of Proverbs, viii. (compared with 1 Cor. i. 24), where wisdom is declared to have existed when God formed the universe; and also John, i. 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Than this last passage, nothing could more explicitly declare the pre-existence and Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There are few of the predictions concerning the Messiah in which his two natures are not marked. In the first of them. The seed of the woman, denotes his humanity; while the words, “He shall bruise thy head,” declare his divinity. In the promise to Abraham, his humanity is marked by the words “In thy seed;” while in what follows, “shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,” we read his divinity. “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” — this is his divinity. “Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold” — this is his humanity. “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son” — this is his humanity; “and shall call his name Immanuel” — this is his divinity. “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” This marks his humanity. “The government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father.” These words denote his Godhead. There are multitudes of other passages in the Prophets to the same purpose.

In the same way, the two natures of Jesus Christ are spoken of in numerous passages in the New Testament. “The Word was God,” and “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” “Made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness.” “God was manifest in the flesh.” The same distinction appeared in his actions, and almost all his miracles. Finally, this truth discovers itself in all the most remarkable parts of his economy. In his birth he is laid in a manger as a man, but an Angel announces his birth, and the “wise men” come to adore him as God. He is baptized in water, but the Heavens open to him, and the Father proclaims from Heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In his temptation in the desert he suffers hunger and thirst, but Angels come and minister unto him. In his death he hangs upon the cross, but he bestows Paradise.

The reason is obvious why the Apostle, in completing his enumeration of the signal honours conferred on the nation of Israel, after having declared that of them the Messiah, as. concerning the flesh, came, immediately referred to his divine nature. Had he spoken only of his coming in the flesh, it would not have enhanced as he intended the high and unparalleled privileges by which his countrymen had been distinguished. It was necessary, both for this end, and to exhibit the complete character of him of whom he spoke, to subjoin, “Who is over all, God blessed for ever.” This addition, then, is not superfluous, or that might have been omitted. It is indispensable, being essential to the Apostle’s argument.

To this great truth respecting the coming of God manifest in the flesh, as the foundation on which the whole work of redemption rests, the Apostle subjoins Amen. In the same way he adds Amen to the expression, “Who is blessed for ever,” Rom. i. 25, applying it to the Creator. Amen signifies truth, stability, or is an affirmation, or expresses consent. In the New Testament Jesus Christ alone makes use of this term at the beginning of sentences, as a word of affirmation. In this sense it appears to be employed at the end of the four evangelists. In the Gospel of John only have we any record of the Lord using this word more than once in the same sentence, Amen, Amen, or verily, verily. The Lord employs it again and again, in his sermon on the Mount, the purpose of which, it would seem, was to impress on the minds of his hearers both the truth of what he said, and its importance. Luke, who records this term less frequently than the other evangelists, sometimes substitutes, in place of it, a simple affirmation, Luke, ix. 27, Matth. xvi. 28. Jesus calls himself “Amen,” Rev. iii. 14, and God is called the God Amen, Is. lxv. 16. The Apostle John, in his ascription of praise to the Redeemer, adds Amen, as he does in the contemplation of his second coming in glory to judge the world, Rev. i. 6, 7; and also in closing the canon of Scripture, when he repeats the declaration of Jesus, that he will come quickly, and after his prayer that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be with all the churches to which he writes, Rev. xxii. 20, 21. The Lord himself makes use of this term when he declares that he liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore. Rev. i. 18.

V. 6 Not as thovffh the word of God hath taken none effect.

For they are not all Israel which are of Israel:

Not as thmigh — That is, my grief for the state of the Jewish nation, and their rejection by God, does not imply that any thing said in the word of God has failed with regard to them. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Here is the explanation of the mystery that the Jews, as a nation, had rejected the Messiah; they are not all true Israelites in the spiritual sense of the promise who are Israelites after the flesh, by being descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Through the remaining part of this chapter the Apostle shows that the rejection of the Messiah by the great body of the Jewish nation was neither contrary to the promises nor the purpose of God; but had been predetermined, and also typified in his dealings towards individuals among their progenitors as recorded in the Scriptures, and also there predicted. This gives an opportunity of more fully illustrating the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in choosing some to everlasting life, which had been spoken of in the 29th and 30th verses of the preceding chapter, and of his rejection of others.

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

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraluim, This was the error of the Jews. They thought that they were the children of God by being the children of Abraham. But this the Apostle declares was not the case. As the children of Abraham, they were indeed in one sense the children of God. He says to Pharaoh, with respect to them, “Let my son go.” But the natural sonship was only a figure of the spiritual sonship of all believers of every nation. None but such were the spiritual seed of Abraham, whether among Jews or Gentiles.

But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, — Reckoned, or chosen, or called into existence, as it is said respecting the birth of Isaac, in the fourth chapter, “God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” The Messiah, who was emphatically the seed of Abraham, says, “The Lord hath called me from the womb.” — Isaiah, xlix. 1. He was called into existence in his human nature, and to his office of Mediator in the line of Isaac. And Israel was called or chosen as God’s people, Isaiah, xlviii. 12. In this sense the expression is used in the end of the eleventh verse. The meaning of the declaration here is, that as all Abraham’s posterity were not to be the peculiar people whom God was nationally to adopt as his children, but only such as should descend from Isaac, so not all the Jews are the true sons of God, but only such of them as are, like Isaac, children of the promise.

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

That is, or this explains, the declaration, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” It is intended to show that not carnal descent, but being included in the promise, constituted the true spiritual seed. This clearly establishes the difference between the sonship of Israel after the flesh, and the sonship of Israel after the Spirit.

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

The birth of Isaac was by promise, and without a miracle it would never have taken place. But the birth of Ishmael was not by promise, but in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the children of God who were specially promised to Abraham, were those who, according to the election of God (who had chosen Isaac in preference to Ishmael), would be brought into a spiritual relation with Christ, who is emphatically the promised seed in the line of Isaac. — Gal. iii. 16.

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

Not only was the election confined to Isaac, the son of promise, but also in a still more remarkable instance was it verified in the case of the two sons of Isaac. Rebecca conceived these two sons by the same husband, yet God chose the one and rejected the other. An original difference between Isaac and Ishmael might be alleged, since the one was born of the lawful wife of Abraham, the free woman, and the other was the son of the bond w oman; but in the case now brought forward, there existed no original difference. Both were the sons of the same man and woman, born at the same time. The great distinction, then, made between the two brothers could only be the effect of the sovereign will of God, who by this means indicated, long before it took place, the difference he was to make among the people of Israel.

V. 1]. — (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth i)

Here, in a parenthesis, the Apostle shows that the preference was given to Jacob independently of all ground of merit, because it was made before the children were capable of doing either good or evil. This was done for the very purpose of taking away all pretence for merit as a ground of the preference. Had the preference been given to Jacob when he had grown up to maturity, there would have been no more real ground for ascribing it to his merit; but the perverse ingenuity of man would have made that use of it. But God made the preference before the children were born.

That the purpose of God according to election might stand. — This was the very end and intention of the early indication of the will of God to Rebecca, the mother of the two children. It was hereby clearly established that in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau, God had respect to nothing but his own purpose. Nothing can more strongly declare that his own eternal purpose is the ground of all his favour to man.

Not of works, hut of Him that calleth. — Expressions indicating God’s sovereignty in this matter are heaped upon one another, because it is a thing so offensive to the human mind. Yet after all the Apostle’s precaution, the perverseness of men still finds ground of boasting on account of works. Though the children had done neither good or evil, yet God, it is supposed, might foresee that Jacob would be a godly man, and Esau wicked. But had not God made a difference between Jacob and Esau, Jacob would have been no better than his brother. Were not men blinded by opposition to this part of the will of God, would they not see that a preference on account of foreseen good works is a preference on account of works, and therefore expressly contrary to the assertion of the Apostle — Not of works, but of him that calleth 9 The whole ground of preference is in him that calleth, or chooseth, not in him that is called.

V.2. — It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.

This was a figure of the spiritual election, for in no other point of view is it here to the Apostle’s purpose. Not only did God choose one of these sons, who were equal as to their parentage, but chose that one who was inferior in priority of birth, the only point in which there was a difference. He chose the younger son, contrary to what is usual among men, and contrary to what God himself generally established respecting inheritances in the family of Jacob. How much instruction do these words, “the elder shall serve the younger,” contain, as standing in the connexion in which they are here placed, as well as in that part of Scripture from which they are quoted. They practically teach the great fundamental doctrines of the prescience, the providence, the sovereignty of God; of his predestination, election, and reprobation.

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

The words here quoted from Malachi, expressly relate to Jacob and Esau. The prophet likewise declares the dealing of God towards their posterity, but the part here referred to applies to the progenitors themselves; and in God’s dealings towards them is found the reason of the diiference of the treatment of their posterities. That the Apostle quotes these words in reference to Jacob and Esau personally, is clear, since he speaks of the children before they were born. Jacob was loved before he was born, consequently before he was capable of doing good; and Esau was hated before he was born, consequently before he was capable of doing evil. It may be asked why God hated him before he sinned personally; and. human wisdom has proved its folly, by endeavouring to soften the word hated into something less than hatred; but the man who submits like a Kttle child to the word of God, will find no difficulty in seeing in what sense Esau was worthy of the hatred of God before he was born. He sinned in Adam, and consequently was worthy of God’s hatred as well as Adam. There is no other view that will ever account for this language and this treatment of Esau. By nature he was a wicked creature, conceived in sin, although his faculties were not expanded, nor his innate depravity developed, which God, who hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and hardeneth whom he will, and who giveth no account of his matters, did not see good to counteract by his grace, as in the case of Jacob,, who originally

VOL. II. 2 G was equally wicked, and by nature like Esau a child of wrath and a fit object of hatred.

It is not unusual to take part with Esau who was rejected, against Jacob who was the object of Divine favour. Every thing that can be made to appear either amiable or virtuous in the character of Esau is eagerly grasped at, and exhibited in the most advantageous light. We are told of his disinterestedness, frankness, and generosity; while we are reminded that Jacob was a cool, selfish, designing man, who was always watching to take advantage of his brother’s simplicity, and who ungenerously and unjustly robbed his elder brother of the blessing and the birthright.

This way of reasoning, however, shows more zeal for the interest of a cause than discretion in its support. Instead of invalidating the truth it opposes, it only serves to confirm it. While it is evident that Jacob possessed the fear of God, which was not the case with respect to Esau, and, therefore, that the one was born of God, and the other was a child of nature; yet there is so much palpable imperfection and evil in Jacob, as to make it manifest that God did not choose him for the sake of the excellence of his foreseen works. In maintaining, then, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, it is by no means necessary to vindicate the conduct of Jacob towards his brother. Both he and his mother were undoubtedly to blame, much to blame, as to the way in which he obtained, to the prejudice of Esau, his father’s blessing; while the revealed purpose of God formed no apology for their conduct. That sin is an evil thing and a bitter, Jacob fully experienced. His conduct in that transaction led him into troubles from which through life he was never disentangled. While Jacob was a man of God, and Esau a man of the world, there is enough to show us that the inheritance was bestowed on the former, not of works but of grace.

Nothing can more clearly manifest the strong opposition of the human mind to the doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, than the violence which human ingenuity has employed to wrest the expression, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. By many this has been explained, Esau have 1 loved less. But Esau was not the object of any degree of the Divine love, and the word hate never signifies to love less. The occurrence of the word in that expression, ‘• hate father and mother,” Luke, xiv. 26, has been alleged in vindication of this explanation; but the word in the last phrase is used figuratively, and in a manner that cannot be mistaken. Although hatred is not meant to be asserted, yet hatred is the thing that is literally expressed. By a strong figure of speech, that is called hatred which resembles it in its effects. We will not obey those whom we hate, if we can avoid it. Just so if our parents command us to disobey Jesus Christ, we will not obey them; and this is called hatred, figuratively, from the resemblance of its effects. But in this passage, in which the expression “Esau have I hated” occurs, every thing is literal. The Apostle is reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Besides, the contrast of loving Jacob with hating Esau, shows that the last phrase is literal and proper hatred. If God’s love to Jacob was real literal love, God’s hatred to Esau must be real literal hatred. It might as well be said, that the phrase, “Jacob have I loved,” does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression, is that God hated Jacob less than he hated Esau. If every man’s own mind is a sufficient security against concluding the meaning to be, “Jacob have I hated less,” his judgment ought to be a security against the equally unwarrantable meaning, “Esau have I loved less.”

Others translate the word in the original by the term slighted. But if God had no just ground to hate Esau, he could have as little ground for slighting him. Why should Esau be unjustly slighted before he was born, more than unjustly hated? However, those who have a proper sense of man’s guilt by nature, will be at no loss to discern the ground of God’s hatred of Esau. Both Jacob and Esau were, like David, conceived in sin, and were in themselves sinners. Esau was justly the object of hatred before he was born, because he was viewed in Adam as a sinner. Jacob was justly the object of God’s love before he was born, because he was viewed in Christ as righteous. That the terms, love and hatred, are here to be understood in their full and proper import, is evident from the question put in the 14th verse, and answered in the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses, with the conclusion drawn in the 18th. “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Compassion is a sign of love, and hardening a proof of hatred. And besides this, the expression, “Esau have I hated,” is not stronger than what the Apostle applies to all men, when he says, that by nature they are the children of wrath, and dead in trespasses and sins, and consequently objects of the hatred of the Holy and Just God. All of them are so in their natural state, as considered in themselves, and all of them continue to be so, unless delivered from that state by the distinguishing grace of God. Nothing, then, is said of Esau here, that might not be said of every man who shall finally perish.

The passage in Malachi, from which these words, “Esau have I hated,” are quoted by the Apostle, proves what is meant by the expression before us. “I have loved you, saith the Lord; yet ye say. Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, we are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places: thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and. The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.” Here the prophet first speaks of Esau personally, as Jacob’s brother, which clearly indicates the meaning that the Apostle attaches to its quotation. It implies, too, that Jacob had no claim to be preferred to his brother. Afterwards in the denunciation, Esau’s descendants are spoken of under the name of Edom, when the singular is changed for the plural, and the past time for the future and the present. The denunciation of indignation for ever upon the Edomites, and the call of God to Israel to observe the difference of his dealings towards them, shows what is meant by God’s love of Jacob, and his hatred of Esau.

The declarations of God by the prophet in the above quoted passage are fully substantiated throughout the Scriptures, both in regard to his loving Jacob and hating Esau personally; and likewise in regard to the indignation which he manifested against Esau’s descendants. Jacob is every where spoken of as the servant of God, highly honoured by many divine communications. Jacob wrestled with God, had power over him, and prevailed, Hosea, xii. 4, 5. With his dying breath, when he declared that he had waited for the salvation of the Lord, he was honoured to announce as a prophet the future destinies of his sons, and above all, to utter a most remarkable prediction concerning the advent of the Messiah. Jacob during his life was the object of many special blessings. He died in faith — Heb. xi. 13, 21; and of him the Redeemer himself has testified that, with Abraham and Isaac, he is now in the kingdom of heaven. Matt. viii. 11. Such is the decisive testimony, concerning Jacob, of the Scriptures which cannot be broken.

In the life of Esau, nothing is recorded indicating that he had the fear of God before his eyes; but every thing to prove the reverse. The most important transaction recorded concerning Esau, Is his profane contempt for God’s blessing in selling his birth-right, manifesting his unbelief and indifference respecting the promise to Abraham. We see him also taking women of Canaan as his wives, although he had the example before him of Abraham’s concern that Isaac should not marry any of the daughters of that country. In this, we observe, that he held as lightly the curse denounced against Canaan, as he did the blessing promised to Abraham. We next see him deliberately resolving to murder his brother. “The days of mourning for my father are at hand, then will I slay my brother Jacob.” And long after he goes out to meet him with a large force, although restrained from injuring him. At last he departs for ever from the land of promise.

Towards the conclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Jacob is referred to among the number of those who both lived and died in faith, Esau is characterised as “a profane person,” Heb. xii. 16. The same word, translated profane, is employed by Paul in his enumeration to Timothy of the most horrible vices, when speaking of the “ungodly, of sinners, and of unholy persons.” — 1 Tim. i. 9. The selling of his birth-right proved Esau to be an ungodly man, and the Apostle warns believers not to act according to his example. The birth-right conferred a double inheritance among the Hebrew Patriarchs, and likewise pre-eminence, because it was connected with the descent from them of the Messiah, and they to whom this right belonged were also types of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven. Despising the birth-right, then, was a proof of despising the high distinction respecting the coming of the Messiah, and also the eternal inheritance of which the land of Canaan and the double portion of the first-born were typical. Here the question of Esau’s character as an ungodly man is decided by the pen of inspiration long after his death. And is this “profane person,” who not only despised the birthright fraught with such unspeakable privileges, but who had deliberately made up his mind revengefully to murder his brother in cold blood, to be viewed as he has been represented, as amiable, disinterested, and virtuous, in defiance of every moral principle, and in direct opposition to the testimony of the word of God?

Such is the account which the Scriptures give of Esau personally, and how fully the denunciations above quoted from the Prophet respecting his descendants were accomplished, we learn from numerous passages throughout the Scriptures, as Ezekiel, xxv. 12, 14; Joel, iii. 19; Amos, i. 11, and elsewhere; and from the whole of the prophecy of Obadiah, where the destruction of Edom, and the victories of the house of Jacob, are contrasted. “But upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Do these awful denunciations respecting Esau personally, who was a profane person, and respecting his descendants — “the people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever,” and the declarations respecting Jacob throughout the scriptures, import that God loved Esau only in a less degree than he loved Jacob? When men by such methods as are resorted to on this subject, pervert the obvious meaning of the word of God to maintain their preconceived systems, it manifests deplorable disaifection to the truth of God, and most culpable inattention to his plainest declarations. Several commentators deny that the declaration, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, has any reference to their spiritual and eternal state. But the whole of the context throughout this ninth chapter, as well as the concluding part of the eighth, proves the contrary. At the 29th verse of the preceding chapter, the Apostle, after exhibiting to believers various topics of the richest consolation, had traced up all their high privileges to the eternal purpose of God, and had dwelt in the sequel on their perfect security as his elect. He had now turned his eye, with deep lamentation, to the very different state of his countrymen, who, notwithstanding all their distinguished advantages, had rejected the Messiah. This gives occasion for enlarging on the sovereignty of God in the opposite aspect from that in which he had treated it in respect to believers. In reference to believers, he had spoken of God’s sovereignty as displaying itself in their election, and now, in reference to the Jews, as manifested in their rejection. By this arrangement, an opportunity was afforded to exhibit that doctrine in the most striking manner, by personal application in both cases.

From the whole of this chapter it is evident that Paul refers not to the external condition of the Jews, which was indeed involved in their rejection of Christ, but to their spiritual state, as rejecting the righteousness which is of faith, and stumbling at that stumbling-stone, verse 32. He observes, that not only at that time, but in former ages, according to the testimony of their own prophets, a remnant only should be saved. And besides its being obvious, from the whole tenor of his discourse, that he is treating of their spiritual and eternal condition, this is conclusively evident from what he says in the 2 2d and 23d verses, where he speaks, on the one hand, of the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and, on the other, of the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory. These two verses, were there no other proof, evince, beyond all doubt, what is his object. His lamentation for his countrymen was not called forth on account of the loss of their external privileges, with the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and their expulsion from their own land. Had it been so, he must have included himself, and also those Jews whom, in the 24th verse he says God had called. But so far is he from representing these to be in a lamentable state, that he describes them, along with himself, as vessels on whom the riches of the glory of God was made known; while, by the contrast, it is evident, that by the wrath and destruction of which the others were vessels, he means something very different from temporal calamities. The vessels of the one description were the “remnant” which should be saved, the “seed” which the Lord of Sabaoth had left, verses 27, 29. The vessels of the other description were those who were as” Sodoma, and had been made like unto Gomorrha,’* which suffered the vengeance of eternal fire. What trifling, then, what wresting of this important portion of the word of God, what turning of it away entirely from its true meaning is it to represent this chapter, as so many do, as treating of the outward state of the Jews, or to deny, with others, that the spiritual and everlasting condition of Jacob and Esau are here referred to! If the eternal condition of Abraham and of Judas be determined in the Scriptures, so also is that of Jacob and Esau; and no meaning, which, from whatever motive, any man may affix to the whole tenor of Scripture respecting them, will alter their condition. It is better for us to submit to the word of God on this and every other subject, taking it in its obvious import, than to be deterred from doing so on account of consequences to the admission of which we may be averse. All Scripture will thus be profitable to us for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, while we are sure that the Judge of all the earth will do right.

On the whole, we see with what propriety the Apostle here introduces the different states of Jacob and Esau, the one beloved of God, the other hated. They illustrate by particular examples both sides of the important doctrine of God’s sovereignty in the election or rejection of men, of which he is treating. What is said of these two individuals in the Old Testament, in the place to which he refers, is both historical and typical. It relates, in the first view, to themselves, the elder being made subservient to the younger by the selling of his birth-right. In consequence of that act, the declaration, the elder shall serve the younger, was verified from the time when it took place. All the rights of the first-born were thus transferred to Jacob, and the inheritance of Canaan devolved on him.

At length, Esau was compelled to leave that land, and to yield to his brother. When the riches of both of them were “more than that they might dwell together,” Esauwentout “from the face of his brother Jacob.” — Gen.xxxvi. 6-7. Whatever, therefore, might have previously been the opposition of their interests, in this the most important act of his life relating to Jacob, Esau was finally made subservient to his younger brother. And this subserviency in yielding up the inheritance which naturally belonged to him continued during the remainder of their lives; so that the declaration, “the elder shall serve the younger,” was, after various struggles between them, personally and literally fulfilled. In the second view, as being typical, what is said of them relates on the one hand to the state of Israel after the flesh — trampling on and forfeiting their high privileges, hated of God, and vessels fitted to destruction; and on the other hand, to the vessels of mercy which God had afore prepared unto glory.

In loving Jacob, God showed him unmerited favour, and acted towards him in mercy; and in hating Esau, he showed him no favour who was entitled to none, and acted according to justice. Had God acted also in justice without mercy towards Jacob, he would have hated both; for both in their origin were wicked and deserved hatred. The Apostle unveils the reason why this was not the case, when he says that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy. The justice of God in hating Esau was made fully manifest in the sequel by his abuse of the high privileges in the course of providence bestowed upon him. Notwithstanding all the advantages of instruction and example with which, beyond all others of the human race (with the exception of the rest of his family), he was distinguished, Esau despised his birth-right fraught with so many blessings, the natural right to which had been conferred on him in preference to his brother Jacob, and lived an ungodly life. If Jacob, who was placed in the same situation, proved himself to be a godly man, it was entirely owing to the operation of the grace of God in his heart. If it be objected, why was not this grace also vouchsafed to Esau?

it may as well be asked, why are not the whole of mankind saved? That this will not be the case, even those who oppose the sovereignty of God in the election of grace cannot deny. Besides, will they, who affirm that God chooses men to eternal life because he foresees that they will do good works, deny that, at least, God foresaw the wickedness of Esau’s life? Even on their own principles, then, it was just to hate Esau before he was born; and, on the same ground of foreseeing his good works, it would have been just to love Jacob. Or will they say that this hatred should not have taken place till after Esau had acted such a part? This would prove that there is a variableness with God, and that he does not hate to-day what he wdll hate to-morrow. Where, then, is the necessity for any one, whatever may be his sentiments, to resort to the vain attempt to show that, when it is said God loved Jacob and hated Esau, it only means that he loved Esau less than Jacob? As well may it be affirmed that when, in the prophecy of Amos, v. 15, it is said, “Hate the evil, and love the good,” the meaning is, that we ought to love evil only in a less degree than good. But the truth is, that all opposition to the plain and obvious meaning of this passage proceeds from ignorance of the state of death and ruin in which all men by nature lie, and from which no man can be recovered by any outward means alone, however powerful in themselves. This cannot be effected by any thing short of the unmerited and invincibly efficacious grace of God, operating in the heart of those on whom he will have mercy according to his sovereign good pleasure. Undoubtedly God was under no obligation to save any of the human race more than of the fallen angels. If he save any man, it is because he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, or as seemeth good to him. According to those who oppose this manner of acting, God was under an obligation to send his Son into the world to save sinners.

V. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness

with God? God forbid.

The Apostle anticipated the objection of the carnal mind to his doctrine. Does not this imply that there is injustice in God? This objection clearly shows that the view taken of the preceding passage is correct. For it is this view which suggests the objection. Is it just in God to love one who has done no good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the assertion respecting loving Jacob, and hating Esau, admitted of being explained away in the manner that so many do, there could be no place for such an objection. And what does the Apostle reply to this? Nothing but a decided rejection

VOL. II. 2h of the supposition that God’s treatment of Jacob and Esau implied injustice. By asking the question if there be unrighteousness with God, he strongly denies that in God there is here any injustice; and this denial is sufficient. According to the doctrine which he every where inculcates, consistently with that of the whole Scriptures, God is represented to be infinitely just, as well as wise, holy, good,, and faithful. In the exercise of his sovereignty, therefore, all that God wills to do must be in strict conformity with the perfection of his character. He cannot deny himself; He cannot act in a manner inconsistent with any of his divine attributes.

V. 1 5. — For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

What is the ground on which the Apostle here rests his denial that there is unrighteousness with God? He enters into no defence of God, attempts no metaphysical distinctions, but rests solely on the authority of Scripture. He produces the testimony of God to Moses, declaring the same truth that he himself affirms. This is quite enough for Christians. It is not wise in them, as is often the case, to adopt a mode of vindicating God’s procedure, so very different from what he himself employs. How many go about to justify God, and thereby bring God to the bar of man. From the defences of Scripture doctrine, often resorted to, it might be supposed that God was on his trial before men, rather than that all shall stand before him, and that the will of God is supreme justice. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. That is, I will have mercy on whom I please — I will bestow my favours, or withhold them, as seemeth to me good. The answer, then, of the Apostle amounts to this, that what is recorded concerning God’s loving Jacob and hating Esau, is in nothing diiferent from his usual mode of procedure towards men, being entirely consistent with the whole plan of his government. All men are lost and guilty in Adam; it is of mercy that any are saved; and God declares that he will have mercy or not upon men according to his own good pleasure. It is only of this attribute that such language, as is contained in this passage, can be employed. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The exercise of every other attribute is at all times essential, and never can be suspended.*

* Of the mercy of God, the late Dr Thomson, in his valuable Sermons, p. 11, observes — ‘* It cannot be that his mercy should be exerted at the expense or to the disparagement, in any the least degree, of one excellence which beautifies his nature, or

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

This is the conclusion from the whole. Salvation is not from the will of man, nor from his efforts in striving for it; but is entirely of God’s

upholds his government, or speaks his praise. His mercy is sovereign and gratuitous; and therefore it can only be displayed, when every other quality that belongs to him is fully maintained, and there is no sacrifice of the honour that is due to each, and of the consistency which pervades the whole. Whenever his mercy cannot be exercised without refusing the demands of his justice, or without bringing into question the immutability of his faithfulness, or without denying the irresistible energy of his power, or without impeaching the infallibility of his wisdom, or without throwing suspicion on the absolute purity of his nature — in these cases his mercy cannot be exercised at all, for the exercise of it would involve some shortcoming in his perfection, which is necessarily unqualified and unlimited. It is only of this attribute that it can be said, ‘He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.’ Of every other attribute, it is requisite that we predicate positive and peremptory operation. He must be holy; he must be wise; he mut be powerful; he must be just; he must be true; he must be each and all of these whatever betide his universe; and if we, his apostate creatures, cannot be the objects of his mercy except by some surrender of the homage due to them, or some violation of the harmony that reigns among them, his mercy cannot save, and cannot reach us.”

On the love of God Dr Thomson remarks (p. 306), “I cannot help reverting to what I formerly observed respecting the necessity of attributing love to God no farther than his own word has warranted, and no farther than is consistent with that revelation of his character which he himself has given us. A mercy vouchsafed to whom he pleases. What foundation, then, can be discovered in the word of God for those schemes of self-righteousness that, in a greater or less degree, make salvation depend on man’s own exertions? There may be an allusion here to Jacob’s desiring the blessgreater snare cannot be laid for your piety and your judgment, than that which consists in making love his paramount or his only perfection. For whenever there is a consciousness of guilt, and a dread of responsibility, it must be comfortable to have a God who is divested of all that is frowning and indignant towards transgressors, and clothed with all that is compassionate and kind. And whenever there is a soft or a sentimental temperament at work, that representation of the Divine nature must be peculiarly pleasing and acceptable. And whenever men wish to have a religion which will be without any rigorous exactions of self-denial and of duty, and without any tendency to excite apprehension and alarm, the same predilection must exist for a supreme Ruler, in whose benevolence all other qualities are absorbed and lost. And, accordingly, not only is this partial and unscriptural view of the character of God adopted as the leading principle of certain systems of theology, but it is held, and cherished, and acted upon by multitudes, whose sole concern in matters of faith is to have, not what is true, but what is agreeable, and who find in the tenet we are speaking of, the most soothing and satisfying of all persuasions, — that God loves every one of his creatures with such an affection as is depicted in the gospel. I warn you against the delusion — so dishonourable to the Holy One, the everlasting Father — so ruinous to all who have surrendered themselves to its influence — so inconsistent with what you read in the book of inspiration — so destructive of that mystery of godliness and of grace which has been made known to us in Jesus Christ.”

ing of the birthright, and his running to provide the venison by which he deceived his father; but his obtaining the blessing was solely the consequence of God’s good pleasure; for the means he employed for the purpose merited punishment rather than success. In like manner, the salvation of any man is not to be ascribed to his own good-will and diligent endeavours to arrive at it, but solely to the purpose of God according to election, which is “not of works, but of him that calleth.” It is true, indeed, that believers do both will and run, but this is the effect, not the cause of the grace of God being vouchsafed to them. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” To whom is this addressed? To “the saints in Christ Jesus,” in whom God had begun a good work, which he will perform until the day of Jesus Christ — to them who had always obeyed, Phil. i. 1, 6, 29; ii. 12. But besides this, what is the motive or encouragement to work out their salvation? ‘* For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Here all the willing and doing of men in the service of God is ascribed to his operation in causing them to will and to do. The whole of the new covenant is a promise of God that he himself will act efficaciously for the salvation of those whom he will save. “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” ‘’ I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever.” “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” ‘* A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.” — Jer. xxxi. xxxiii.; Ezek. xxxvi. In this way, the means by which God’s elect are brought to him, their calling, their justification, their sanctification, their perseverance, and their glorification, are all of God, and not of themselves, as was shown in the preceding chapter.

If any shall oppose the declaration of the Apostle, that it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth,but of God that showeth mercy, and assert that the salvation of man depends on conditions which he is obliged to fulfil, then it may be asked, what is the condition? Is it faith? Faith is the gift of God. Is it repentance? Christ is exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance. Is it love? God promises to circumcise the heart in order to love him. Are they good works? His people are the workmanship of God created unto good works. Is it perseverance to the end? They are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. It is true that all these things are commanded and enforced by the most powerful motives, consequently they are duties which require the exercise of our faculties. But they are assured by the decree of election, and are granted to the elect of God in the proper season; so that, in this view, they are the objects of promise, and the effects of supernatural and Divine influence. “Thy people,” saith Jehovah to the Messiah, “shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Thus the believer, in running his race, and working out his salvation, is actuated by God, and animated by the consideration of the all-powerful operation of God in the beginning of his course; of the continuation of his support in the middle of it; and by the assurance that it shall be effectual in enabling him to overcome all obstacles, and to arrive in safety at its termination.

J^. 17. — For the scripture saith -unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might he declared throughout all the earth.

This verse stands connected, not with the 15th and 16th, which immediately precede it, but with the 13th and 14th. In the 13th verse God’s love to Jacob and his hatred to Esau are declared. In respect to both, it is demanded in the 14th verse, if there be therefore injustice with God. In the 15th and 16th verses following, the answer is given, regarding” the preference and love of God to Jacob. In this 17th verse the Apostle replies to the question, as it refers to God’s hatred of Esau. And the answer here is precisely similar to that given respecting Jacob. God’s loving Jacob before he had done any good was according to his usual plan of procedure; and his hating Esau before he had done any evil is here vindicated on the same ground. The Apostle proves this from the example of one to whom, in Divine sovereignty, God acted according to justice without mercy. The Scripture saith that God raised up Pharaoh for the very purpose of manifesting his own glory in his punishment.

For the Scripture saith. — By the manner in which the Apostle begins this verse, we are taught that whatever the Scriptures declare on any subject is to be considered as decisive on the point. ‘’ What saith the Scripture?” This is the proof to which the Apostle appeals. It should further be observed, that Paul ascribes to the Scriptures what was said by God himself. Exod. ix. 16. This expressly teaches us that the words of Scripture are the words of God. In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Galatians, it is said, the Scripture, “foreseeing that God would justify the heathen;” and, “the Scripture hath concluded all under sin,” Gal. iii. 8. 22. Here the word of God is so much identified with himself, that the Scripture is represented as possessing and exercising the peculiar prerogatives of God. What is done by God, and what belongs only to him, is ascribed to the Scriptures, — proving that they contain the very words of God. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Tim. iii. 16. The word Scripture is here taken in its appropriated meaning — being confined to the book of God. All that is written in it is divinely inspired; and what does writing consist of but of words? If any of these are not inspired, then all Scripture is not inspired. Every word, then, in the book referred to is the word of God, dictated by him of whom the writers were the instruments he employed, who spoke or wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Why are so many unwilling to admit this view of the inspiration of Scripture so much insisted on in the Scriptures themselves? Is it on account of the difficulty of conceiving how words should thus be communicated? And, is it easier to understand how ideas could be communicated? Do they believe that the Lord “opened the mouth of the ass” of Balaam, and communicated the words which she spake? Is it, then, more difficult to communicate words to men than to a dumb animal? To speak of difficulties where omnipotence is concerned is palpably absurd. Besides, all allow that in the parts of Scripture to which (making vain distinctions respecting inspiration, without the least foundation from any expression the Scriptures contain) they ascribe the inspiration of “suggestion,” the very words were communicated to the writers. Those who deny the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures; who introduce various modifications of the manner in which they have been written, neither can have, nor ought to have the same profound veneration for them as those who believe that, without any exception, from beginning to end they are dictated by God himself.

The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh — That is, the Scripture showeth how Moses was commanded to say unto Pharaoh, Exod. ix. 16, “For this same purpose have I raised thee up.” Here is the destination of Pharaoh to his destruction — “That I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” This is the end and design intended by it. It was not, then, by any concurrence of fortuitous circumstances that Pharaoh was seated on the throne of Egypt, and invested with the power he possessed when Moses was

492 ROxMANS, IX. 17.

appointed to conduct Israel out of Egypt. He was raised up, or made to stand in that place, in order that, by his opposition, from the perversity of his heart, God might show his power in him and exalt his name. It is not merely alleged that God had not shown mercy to this king of Egypt, or that he had suffered him to go on in his wicked ways; but, in language that the unrenewed heart of man will never relish, it is declared, “Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” For this very end the birth, the life, and the situation of Pharaoh were all of Divine appointment. This is language so clear that it cannot be guiltlessly misinterpreted. The unbelieving heart of man will revolt, and his ingenuity may invent expedients to soften this explicit declaration; but it never can be evaded with success. All the expedients of sophistry will never be able fairly, or even plausibly, to explain this language in a sense that will not testify the sovereignty of God.

The above truth respecting Pharaoh is what the Scriptures declare; and we ought never to pretend to go farther in the deep things of God than they go before us, but submissively to bow to whatever God says. We know that all sin will be found with man; but here we are taught that even the sin of man will turn out for the glory of God, and for this very purpose the wicked are raised up by him. If we cannot fathom this depth of the Divine councils, still let us be certain that what God says is true, and must be received by us. We are assured that the judge of all the earth will in all things act righteously, although we may not be able to comprehend his ways. Nor are we required to comprehend them. We are required to believe his word, and to believe that it is consistent with the eternal righteousness of his character.

On the ground of difficulties, and of reconciling with what is called philosophy the truth affirmed in the chapter before us, the whole subject of it might be rejected equally with that of the verbal inspiration of the Bible; and on this very ground, what is said in this chapter is rejected and has been perverted by many who have undertaken to explain it in such a way as to remoive all the difficulties which they find in it. Our Lord in one short sentence has declared the true reason why so many find such difficulty in understanding this chapter. “Why do ye not understand my speech? — even because ye cannot hear my word.” It is also written for our warning, “Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, this is an hard saying; who can hear it?” There is no part of Scripture the meaning of which is more obvious than that of this chapter. But if men will yield to the natural opposition of their minds to the truth it declares, and wresting the plainest expressions, affirm that hatred signifies love, is it surprising that they are bewildered in following their own devices ?*

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

Here the general conclusion is drawn from all the Apostle had said in the three preceding verses, in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau. It exhibits the ground of God’s dealings, both with the elect and the reprobate. It concludes that his own sovereign will is the rule both with respect to those whom he receives, and those whom he rejects. He pardons one, and hardens another, without reference to any thing but his own sovereign will. “Even so, Father,” said our blessed Lord, “for so it seemed good in thy sight.”

* Mr Tholuck, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, has most fearfully perverted the meaning of this ninth chapter, gs well as many other parts of the Epistle. See Considerations, &c. quoted page 151.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have

mercy Paul here repeats it for the third time,

that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, without intimating the least regard to any thing in man as deserving mercy. The smallest degree of right in the creature would furnish reason for displaying justice, not mercy. Mercy is that adorable perfection of God by which he pities and relieves the miserable. Under the good and righteous government of God, no one is miserable, who does not deserve to be so. The objects of mercy are those who are miserable, because they are guilty, and therefore justly deserving of punishment. The exercise of mercy is a particular display of the grace or free favour of God. In no case can it be due to a guilty creature; it is the effect of the sovereign good pleasure of God. God, it is said, “delighteth in mercy,” Micah, vii. 18 5 and in the proclamation of his name to Moses, this attribute is particularly signalized. “The Lord, the Lord God merciful and gracious.” — Exod. xxxiv. 6. He is “rich” and “plenteous” in mercy, and “his tender mercies are over all his works.”

Mercy, however, is an attribute, the constant exercise of which is not essential to God, like that of justice, which can never, in any instance, be suspended for a moment. Mercy is dispensed according to his sovereign pleasure in regard to persons or times, as to him seemeth good. Towards the fallen children of men it was gloriously displayed when God sent his Son into the world, which was purely a work of mercy, and not demanded by justice. But to the fallen angels mercy was not vouchsafed. And is this any impeachment of the mercy of God? If not, is it a just ground for complaint, that in order to manifest his hatred of sin, his mercy is not extended to a certain portion of the human race, who we know for certain shall perish? Thus God has mercy on whom he will have mercy. It is one of the fundamental errors of Socinians, and of many besides, to hold that the mercy of God must be necessarily and constantly exercised; while, reversing the order of Scripture, and all its representations of the character of God, they deny this necessity regarding his justice. The same act, however, may be both an act of justice and an act of mercy in reference to different objects. The punishment of the enemies of God, the slaying of the first-born in Egypt, the overthrow of Pharaoh and his host, the smiting of kings, and transferring their lands for an heritage to Israel, while they were acts of justice towards the enemies of his people, are all ascribed to the mercy of God to them. — Ps. cxxxvi. 15. “But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea; for his mercy endureth for ever.”*

And whom he will he hardeneth, — If God hath mercy on whom he will, he hardeneth whom he will. In hardening men, God does no injustice, nor does he act in any degree contrary to the perfection of his character. He does not communicate hardness or perversity to the hearts of men by any positive internal act, as when he communicates his grace. “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” Wicked men are not restrain-

In the Appendix to the first volume of this work, I have pointed out the perfect coincidence of INIr Stuart’s views of the doctrine of justification with those of Arminius and Socinus. Since the publication of his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, he has inserted a paper in the Americanp Biblical Repository of July 1836, in which his system, so directly opposed to the Word of God, is very fully developed. He there explicitly denies that, in the execution of the plan of salvation the claims of justice are maintained. ‘The law,’ he says, ’ enjoins fully and simply our own personal obedience, and

* pronounces a curse on us solely when we disobey it. But in

* every government, in heaven and on earth, there is reserved

* to the supreme power which made the law, a right of dis- pensing with its demands, when the general good admits of ’ such a dispensation.” Of what real use, then,’ he adds, * can

* it be, to retain a mere fiction of law in the process of our ’ final justification and acceptance? Salvation by pure grace, ’ is salvation purely gratuitous and of mere mercy, and not at

VOL. II. 2 I ed by the holy influences of grace, but by the different restraints under which they are placed by Providence. They are hardened when these restraints are removed, and when they are left free to act according to the depraved inclinations of their own hearts. Or they are hardened by the communication of qualities which are neither good nor bad in themselves, but which may become either good or bad, according to the use made of them, such as courage, perseverance, or other dispositions which may be employed for bad purposes. Men are also hardened when they are abandoned to the suggestions of Satan,

’ all on any legal ground. The very fact of its bestowment, is ’ a superseding of the claims of law and acting on grounds of a different nature.’ Here is an open avowal of that part of the Socinian heresy which denies that justice is an essential attribute of God, since its exercise may be suspended. Thus Mr Stuart misrepresents the character of God — “as a just God, and a Saviour,” — and makes void the law. He overturns the gospel, the glory of which is, that grace reigns through righteousness, while he sets aside the necessity of the sacrifice for sin. If God can consistently with his character remit the claims of law and justice, to what purpose, beyond what Socinians admit, were the incarnation and death of Christ? According to Mr Stuart, the imputation of his righteousness is ’ a mere fiction of ’ law in the process of our final justification and acceptance.’ What an awful sentiment is this! All this explains the reason why Mr Stuart so often substitutes the word justification for righteousness, in his translation and Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. See Rom. i. 17, v. 21, and elsewhere.

of whom they are the willing slaves. Thus Judas was hardened by Satan, who had taken possession of him, and to whom he submitted himself, although warned in the most solemn manner of his danger. When a man is entirely left to himself, the commands, the warnings, the judgments, the deliverances, and all the truths of Scripture become causes of hardness, of insensibility, of pride, and presumption. Even the delay of merited punishment, and the deliverances from the plagues that fell on his country, were, in respect to Pharaoh, the means of hardening his heart. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” In these ways men’s hearts are hardened, through means that in themselves are calculated to produce the opposite eiFect.

But by whatever means the heart of men is hardened, they are regulated by God, who also determines that these means shall succeed. We see this remarkably verified in the case of Ahab. “And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail. Go out and do even so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.” — 2 Chron. xviii. 21. “If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet; and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.” — Ez. xiv. 9. “Truly the son of man goeth, as it was determined; but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed.” — Luke, xxii. 22. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” — Acts, ii. 23. “Of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” — Acts, iv. 27. “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed.” 1 Peter ii. 7. “There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.” — Jude, 4. “Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and I should heal them.” — John, xii. 39. “According as it is written, God hath given them a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.” Rom. xi. 8. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” — 2 Thessii. 11.

In all the above acts relating to men, God proceeds in conformity to his justice. He is the just God in hating, hardening, and condemning men, and in adjudging them to punishment for their sins and wickedness, and in placing them in situations in which, in the free exercise of their wicked dispositions, they will do what the Lord has appointed for his own glory. Thus God orders events in such a manner that as in the passages above quoted, the sin will certainly be committed, while he is not the author of evil, but, on the contrary, of good. He displays his holiness in the events and in their consequences. Men may employ all their art in wresting the above and similar passages, but they are recorded in the Scriptures, which is the word of God, and which cannot be broken. “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked, for the day of evil.” — Prov. xvi. 4. “Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of his matters” — or answereth not. Job, xxxiii. 13. That God does not harden any man in such a way as to be the author of sin is most certain. But there must be a sense in which he hardens sinners, or the thing would not be asserted. From his conduct with respect to Pharaoh, it is obvious that sinners are hardened by the Providence of God bringing them into situations that manifest and excite their corruptions.

In the history of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, it is repeated ten times that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Pharaoh is also said to have hardened his own heart. This shows that there is a certain connexion between God’s hardening the hearts of men, and their voluntary hardening their own hearts, so that when the one takes place the other does so likewise. It does not follow from this, that God’s hardening the heart of Pharaoh, and Pharaoh’s hardening his own heart, are one and the same thing. This supposition, although adopted by many, is contrary to the representations and the express words of Scripture. On this subject, Mr Carson, in his book lately published, entitled, “Examination of the Principles of Biblical Interpretation of Ernesti, Ammon, Stuart, and other philologists,” observes,” It is said that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh; it is said also that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. What then is the lawful way to reconcile these two statements? The statements must both be true. There must be a sense in which God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, for this is as expressly asserted as that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. That this is not a sense implying that God is the author of Pharaoh’s sin, there cannot be a moment’s question. I may be asked how God could in any sense harden a man’s heart without being the author of sin? But the most assured belief of the fact does not require that an answer should be given to the question. A thing may be true, yet utterly inexplicable. God’s declaration is perfectly sufficient for the belief of any thing which he testifies. Our reception of it does not imply that we know the grounds or nature of its truth. We receive it, not because we can explain how it is true; but because we know that God cannot lie. The Scriptures testify the fact; the fact then must be received as truth; the Scriptures do not testify the manner in which the thing is true of God, the manner then is not a thing to be believed; and consequently not a thing to be explained by man... Many tell us that such assertions mean merely that God permits the thing which he is said to do. But is permission sufficient to secure accomplishment? God sent Joseph to Egypt, that is, it is said, he permitted his brethren to sell him. Nay, but it was God’s will, purpose, and plan, that Joseph should go down to Egypt, and his Providence secured the event. ‘Now, therefore,’ says Joseph, ’ be not grieved nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.’ His brethren did it wickedly; God did it in mercy and in wisdom. We know that he did it entirely in consistency with man’s accountability; but the manner of this consistency is not a matter of revelation, and therefore it is impossible to attempt explanation.

“‘Romans, ix. 18,’ says Ammon, ‘appears

* to be an obscure passage relating to the abso-

* lute decrees of God. Light may be thrown ’ upon this, by I Sam. vi. 6, where Pharaoh is ’ said to have hardened his own heart.’ How does Sam. vi. 6, throw light upon Rom. ix. 18? We might have expected rather that Ammon would have found a contradiction, as the one passage ascribes to God what the other ascribes to man. The passages indeed are consistent; but their consistency must be made out, not by obliging one of them to silence the other, but by the principle that they assert the same thing in a different view. Ammon’s plan, I presume, is to make Rom. ix. 18 recant, in order to harmonize with 1 Sam. vi. 6. But the honour of Scripture, and of God’s character, require that they should be reconciled in a way that renders both true.”

Calvin, in his commentary on Exodus, represents those as perverting the Scriptures who insist that no more is meant than a bare permission when God is said to harden the hearts of men. He speaks of such as frigidi speculatores, dilutimoderatoresy to whose delicate ears such Scripture expressions seem harsh and offensive. They, therefore, he observes, “soften them down by ’ turning an action into a permission, as if there ’ were no difference between acting and suffer- ’ ing, i, e. suffering others to act.” Such, he says, who will admit of permission only, suspend this counsel and determination of God, wholly on the will of man; but that he is not ashamed or afraid to speak as the Holy Spirit does, and does not hesitate to approve and embrace what the Scripture so often declares, viz., that God blinds the minds of wicked men, and hardens their hearts. In his commentary on the passage before us, Rom. ix. 18, to the same purpose he observes,” The word hardening, when ’ attributed to God in Scripture, not only means

* permission (as some trifling theologians deter-

* mine), but the action of divine wrath; for all ’ external circumstances, which contribute to

* blind the reprobates, are instruments of the

* divine indignation. Satan, also, himself the

* internal efficacious agent, is so completely the ’ servant of the Most High, as to act only by ’ his command. The frivolous attempt of the

* schoolmen to avoid the difficulty by foreknow-

* ledge, is completely subverted; for Paul does

* not say that the ruin of the wicked is foreseen ’ by the Lord, but ordained by his counsel, de- ’ cree, and will. Solomon, also, teaches that

* the destruction of the wicked was not only ’ foreknown, but they were made on purpose ’ for the day of evil. — (Prov. xvi. 4).”*

* Many call themselves moderate Calvinists, a denomination to which it is not easy to affix a precise idea. To the system called Calvinism, there may be nearer or more distant approaches, but those who deny any of the peculiar doctrines of that system cannot, in any sense, be called Calvinists. To affix the term Calvinism to any system, from which the doctrine of predestination is excluded, or in which it is even modified, is entirely a misnomer.

Some profess Calvinism, but affect to hold it in a more unexceptionable manner than it is held in the system in general. They seem to think that in the defence of that system, Calvin was extravagant, and that he gave unnecessary offence by exaggerated statements, and by language not warranted by the Scriptures. Such persons, it is presumed, are strangers to the writings of Calvin. Calvin himself is remarkable for keeping on Scripture ground, and avoiding any thing that may justly be termed extravagant. No writer has ever indulged less in metaphysical speculation on the deep things of God than this writer. To support his system it was necessary only to exhibit Scripture testimony, and he seems quite contented to rest the matter on this foundation.

What is called moderate Calvinism is in reality refined Ar-God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, as he declared from the beginning of the history he would do; but did not put evil into his mind. There was no need for this, for he was previously wicked, like all mankind; and while God punished his wickedness no more than his iniquity deserved, he displayed to his people Israel, in his treatment of him, their security under his protection. God has no occasion to put evil into the heart of any, in order to their destruction, for in consequence of the curse of the broken law (from which God’s people alone are delivered), there

minianism. It is impossible to modify the former without sliding into the latter. If the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and of unconditional election be denied, regeneration and redemption must undergo a corresponding modification, and all the doctrines of grace will be more or less affected. While it is admitted that many of the people of God, through imperfect views of Divine truth, falter on the subject of election, it is a truth essential to the plan of salvation, and a truth most explicitly revealed. No truth in the Scriptures is more easily defended. The reason why many find it difficult to defend this doctrine is, that they suppose it necessary to account for it by human wisdom, and to justify the conduct of God. We have nothing to do with the grounds of it in the Divine procedure, we have to do only with the Divine testimony, that testimony which Mr Tholuck so fearfully perverts. There are many who in words fully admit the doctrine of election, and at the same time neutralize it by dwelling exclusively upon God’s being love, and laying the blame of the whole world not being saved on the sloth of Christians.

is in no natural man any thing good towards God — Rom. viii. 7.

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

The Apostle here brings forward the objection that would naturally occur. If God thus shows mercy, or hardens according to his sovereign pleasure, why, then, it may be asked, does he yet find fault with transgressors? This is the only objection that can be made to what the Apostle was stating. Thou wilt say, then, who hath resisted his will? If God wills sin, and if he is all-powerful, must he not be the author of sin? The objection is in substance the same that is still urged, and it never can be put more strongly than here by the Apostle. What then does he answer? This we learn in the following verses.

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

To the preceding objection the Apostle gives three distinct answers. His first answer in this verse, similar to Is. xlv. 9, is directed against the proud reasonings of man, who though he be born like the wild ass’s colt, and being of yesterday, knows nothing. Job, viii. 9, presumes to scan the deep things of God, and to find fault with the plan of his government and providence, into which angels desire to look, while they find it incomprehensible. We are here taught that it is perfectly sufficient to silence all objections to prove that any thing is the will of God. No man after this is done has a right to hesitate or to doubt. The rectitude of God’s will is not to be questioned. What men have to do is to learn what God says, and then to re ceive it as unquestionably true and right. Nay hut, O man, who art thou 9 And what is man that he should take upon him to object to any thing that God says? The reason and discernment between right and wrong which he possesses is the gift of God. And it is the greatest abuse of these faculties to employ them to question the conduct of him who gave them. The question of the Apostle imports that it is a thing most preposterous for such a creature as man to question the procedure of God.

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou formed me thus? — Can any thing be more presumptuous than for the creature to pretend to more wisdom than the Creator? Any wisdom the creature possesses must have been received from the Creator; and if the Creator has the power of forming rational beings, must he not himself be infinite in wisdom? And does it not insult the Creator to pretend to find imperfection in his proceedings? Why, as thou art all-powerful, hast thou formed me in such a manner that I am capable of sin and misery? The rebellious heart of man is never satisfied with the Apostle’s answer, and still the question is, Why did he make men to be condemned? Let the Lord’s people be satisfied with the Apostle’s answer, and let it be sufficient for them to know that God has willed both the salvation of the elect, and the destruction of the wicked, although they are not able to comprehend the depth of the ways of God. The Apostle tells us the fact, and shows us that it must be received on God’s testimony, and not on our ability to justify it. That God does all things right there is no question, but the grounds of his conduct he does not condescend to explain to us. Much less would it be consistent with his sovereignty to justify his conduct by explaining the grounds of it to his enemies. No man has a right to bring God to trial. What he tells us of himself, or of ourselves, let us receive as unquestionably right. “Paul,“says Calvin, “would not have neglected * refuting the objection, that God reprobates or ’ elects, according to his own will, those whom ’ he does not honour with his favour, or love ’ gratuitously, had he considered it to be false. ‘. The impious object, that men are exempted ’ from guilt if the will of God has the chief part ’ in the salvation of the elect, or destruction of ’ the reprobate. Does Paul deny it? Nay; ’ his answer confirms this truth — that God de- ’ termines to do with mankind what he pleases, ’ and that men rise up with unavailing fury to

* contest it, since the Maker of the world assigns ’ to his creatures, by his own right, whatever

* lot he chooses.”

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

This is the Apostle’s second answer to the objection contained in the 19th verse, in which, by another reference to Scripture, he asserts that the thing formed ought not to contend with him that formed it, who has a right to dispose of it as he pleases. The words in the original, translated “power” in this verse and the following, are different. The word here employed is variously applied as signifying authority, license, liberty, right, but in its application to God, there can be no question that it denotes power justly exercised. The mere power or ability of doing what God pleases, cannot be the meaning, for this is not the thing that is questioned. It is the justice of the procedure that is disputed, and it is consequently the justice of this exercise of power that must be asserted. With respect to all other beings, the license, liberty, or right referred to, may be, as it is, derived from a superior, but in this sense it cannot refer to God. When, therefore, it is said here that God has “power,” it must mean that he may, in the instance referred to, use his power in conformity to justice. The right has not a reference to a superior as conferring it, but a reference to his own character, to which all the actions of his sovereignty must be conformable. Power, then, in this place, signifies right or power which is consistent with justice. It is this right or power according to justice that is here asserted. When the potter forms the clay in what manner he pleases, he does nothing contrary to justice; neither does God do injustice in the exercise of absolute power, respecting his creatures. Out of the same original lump or mass he forms, in his holy sovereignty, one man unto honour and another unto dishonour without in any respect violating justice. That we are all in the hand of God, as the clay in the potter’s hand, is humbling to the pride of man, yet nothing can be more self-evidently true. If so, God has the same right over us, that a potter has over the clay of which he forms his vessels for his own purposes and interest. The same figure as is employed by the Prophet Isaiah, in declaring the right that God had over him, and all the people of Israel, God likewise employs, Jer. xviii. 6. “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.” A potter forms his vessels for himself, and not for them. This determines the question with respect to God’s end in the creation of man. Philosophers cannot see any higher end in creating man than that of making him happy. But the chief end of the potter in making his vessels has a reference to himself, and God’s chief end in making man is his own glory. This is plainly held forth in a multitude of passages in Scripture. Let man strive with his Maker as he will, still he is nothing but the clay in the hand of the potter. There cannot, indeed, be a question, but that God will act justly with all his creatures; but the security for this is in his own character, and we can have no stronger security against God’s power than his own attributes. God will do his creatures no injustice; but this is because justice is a part of his own character. Our security for being treated justly by God is in himself.

One vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour — Some endeavour to explain this as implying, that some vessels may be made for a less honourable use, while they are still vessels for the master’s service. But it is not said that they are made for a less honourable use, but that they

VOL. II. 2 K are made to dishonour is the Apostle’s assertion. It is true, indeed, that even vessels employed for dishonourable purposes are useful, and it is equally true that the destruction of the wicked will be for the glory of God. If any are condemned at all, and on any ground whatever, it is certain that it must be for the glory of God, else he would not permit the thing to take place.

On the verse before us, and the preceding, it is to be observed that the Apostle does not say that his meaning in what he had previously affirmed had been mistaken, and that he had not said that it was agreeable to the will of God that the hardness of men’s hearts should take place as it does; he implicitly grants this as a truth, and that he had asserted it. And so far from palliating or softening down the expression to which the objection is made, if possible, he heightens and strengthens it. All mankind are here represented as originally lying in the same lump or mass; a great difference afterwards appears among them. Whence does this difference arise? The Apostle explicitly answers; it is God who makes the difference. As the potter makes one vessel as readily as he makes another, and each vessel takes its form from his hand, so God makes one man to honour and another to dishonour. And God’s sovereign right to do this is here asserted; and he who objects to this the Apostle says speaks against God. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? And this representation is entirely consistent with all that the Scriptures elsewhere teach. In the fundamental doctrine of regeneration, and the new creation in Christ Jesus, it is expressly inculcated; and is entirely coincident with the question, “Who maketh thee to differ from another?” 1 Cor. iv. 7.

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

In this and the following verse, the Apostle gives his third and final answer to the objection stated in the 19th verse. The sum of it is, that the grand object that God has in view, both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of the universe, namely, his own glory. With the assertion of this doctrine, however offensive to the natural man, which must always appear to him foolishness, Paul winds up in the last verse of the eleventh chapter the whole of his previous discussion in this Epistle.

What if God, willing to show his wrath. — Here the purpose of God in enduring the wicked in this world, is expressly stated to arise from his willing to show his wrath against sin. We see.

then, that the entrance of sin into the world was necessary to manifest the divine character in his justice and hatred of sin. Had sin never entered into the creation of God, his character would never have been developed. Let wicked men hear what God says in this place. They flatter themselves that in some way through mercy, or because great severity would not be just, they will finally escape. But God here declares by the Apostle that he has endured sin in the world for the very purpose of glorifying himself in its punishment. How, then, shall they escape? And to make his power known — The entrance of sin was also an occasion of manifesting God’s power and wisdom in overruling it for his glory. The power or ability of God, according to the original word used here, is diiferent from the power (another word in the original) in the preceding verse, as is strikingly seen in this place. The twenty-first verse asserts the right of God to act in the supposed manner; this verse shows that his doing so was to manifest his wrath against sin, and his power to make even sin to glorify his name. Sin is in its own nature to God’s dishonour. He has overruled it so that he has turned it to his glory. This is the most wonderful display of power.

Endured with much long-suffering, — How often do men wonder that God endures so much sin as appears in the world. Why does not God immediately cut oiF transgressors? Why does he not make an end of them at once? The answer is, he endures them for his own glory, and in their condemnation he will be glorified. To short-sighted mortals, it would appear preferable if God would cut off in childhood all whom he foresaw should continue in wickedness. But God endures them to old age, and to the utmost bounds of wickedness, for the glory of his own name. Vessels of wrath — vessels “full of the fury of the Lord,” Isaiah, li. 20. Here Paul calls the wicked vessels, in allusion to the figure which he had just before used. Fitted to

destruction They are vessels indeed, but they

are vessels of wrath, and, by their sins, they are fitted for destruction; and it is in the council of Jehovah that this shall be so.

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

Here it is implied that the awful ruin of the wicked is necessary, for the full display of the riches of divine mercy, in saving the elect. Both the righteous and the wicked are by nature equally exposed to wrath; and the deliverance of the elect from that situation, to be made heirs of glory, wonderfully illustrates the infinitude of mercy. The salvation of the elect is mercy, pure mercy; and it is wonderful mercy, when we consider what was the fate they deserved, and would have experienced, had they not been delivered by God through Jesus Christ. These vessels of mercy were previously prepared for their happy lot by God himself. Which he had

afore prepared unto glory In the preceding

verse it is said that the vessels of wrath oxe fitted for destruction, and in this verse that the vessels of mercy are prepared unto glory. The wicked are fitted for destruction by their sins, and the elect prepared before by God for glory. No particular stress is to be laid on the word fitted, as if it could not apply to the righteous, for they also are fitted for glory. It is usual to say that the wicked were fitted by Satan and their own folly for destruction. No doubt, Satan is concerned in it, but as no agent is asserted, it is not necessary to determine this. They also may be said to fit themselves, yet it appears that it is not the agent, but the means that the Apostle has in view. It is their sins which fit them for destruction. On the other hand, the elect are afiyre prepared unto glory. This cannot be by themselves, but must be by God as the agent. This is expressly stated, “Whom he hath prepared.” The elect are not only afore prepared unto glory, but it is God who prepares them.

It is suggested by what is said in this and the preceding verse, that God does not harden sinners or punish them for the sake of hardening or making them miserable, or because he has any delight or pleasure in their sin or punishment considered in themselves, and unconnected with the end to be answered by them, but he does this to answer a wise and important end. This great end is the manifestation and display of his own perfections; to show his wrath, and to make his power known, and to make known the riches of his glory. That is, he does it for himself, for his own glory. It is also suggested that what God does in hardening sinners, and making them vessels unto dishonour, and enduring with much long-suffering these vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, is consistent with their being blamable for their hardness, and for every thing which renders them dishonourable. Consequently it is also consistent with his high displeasure at their conduct, and proves that he may justly destroy them for ever for their hardness and obstinacy in sin. This is supposed and asserted in the words, otherwise sinners could not be vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. To allege that these Scriptures import no more than that God permits sin, and orders every thing respecting the event, so that if God permits, it will certainly take place, does not obviate any difl&culty which has been supposed here to present itself. For this is still representing God as willing that sin should take place, or on the whole choosing that it should exist rather than not.

Many who admit the doctrine of predestination object to the use of the term reprobation, so often employed by the first reformers, and the old and most esteemed Christian writers. In its place they would substitute the word rejection. This last word, however, does not convey the full import of what is intended by the term reprobation; and whether this term be used or not, all that is comprehended under it is strictly according to Scripture. Reprobation includes two acts; the one is negative, which consists in what is called preterition, or the passing by of those who are not elected; that is, leaving them in their natural state of alienation or enmity against God; the other is positive, and is called condemnation, the act of condemning on account of sin those who have been passed by. In electing men, or in passing them by, God acts as a sovereign dispensing or withholding his favours, which are his own, as to him seemeth good. In condemning he exercises his justice in the punishment of the sinner. He may impart his grace to whomsoever he pleases, without any one having a right to find fault, since in regard to those whom he destines to salvation, he has provided means to satisfy his justice. On the other hand, those who are guilty have no right to complain if he hath appointed them to wrath; 1 Thes. V. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 8; Jude, 4; for God was under no obligation to exercise mercy towards them.

The term reprobation has been used, then, because it expresses the idea intended, which the term rejection does not; if any are offended at it, it is to be feared that the offence taken is not at the word but at its import. Unless men reject the Bible, they must admit that all were condemned in Adam; and if they were justly condemned, there can be no injustice in leaving them in that state of condemnation, and punishing them as sinners. It is only from the sovereign good pleasure and love of God that any of the human race are saved. He had no such love to the fallen angels, and they all perished; nor has he such love to those of the human race that shall perish, for he says. Depart from me, ye cursed, ‘’ I never knew your Men had no more claim upon God for mercy than the angels. Whatever may be thought of these things at present, God informs us that there is a day coming when his righteous judgment shall be revealed. Then he will be clear when he speaketh, and just when he is judged. No one shall feel that he has been treated unjustly. Happy they whose high imaginations are cast down by the proclamation of mercy in the gospel, and who receive the kingdom as little children, becoming fools that they may be wise. The high imaginations of all will be east down at last, but with very many it will be too late, except to make them feel that their condemnation is just.

In strict conformity with the truths contained in the above verses, it is said, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which contains so scriptural a summary of Christian doctrine: —” The Almighty power, unsearchable wisdom,

* and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest ’ themselves in his providence, that it extendeth ’ itself even to the first fall, and all other sins ’ of Angels and men, and that not by a bare ’ permission, but such as hath joined with it a ’ most wise and powerful bounding, and other- ’ wise ordering, and governing of them, in a

* manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends;

* yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth ’ only from the creature, and not from God, ’ who, being most holy and righteous, neither ’ is nor can be the author or approver of sin.*” The decrees of God, are his eternal purpose, ’ according to the counsel of his will, whereby

* for his own glory, he hath fore-ordained what- ’ soever comes to pass. God executeth his ’ decrees in the works of creation and provi- ’ dence. God’s works of providence are, his ’ most holy, wise, and powerful preserving, and ’ governing all his creatures and all their ac-

* tions.” And again,” God the great Creator ’ of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and ’ govern all creatures, actions, and things, from

* the greatest even to the least, by his most wise ’ and holy providence, according to his infallible ’ foreknowledge, and the free and immutable ’ counsel of his own will, to the praise of the

* glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, ’ and mercy.”” By the decree of God, for ’ the manifestation of his glory, some men and ’ angels are predestinated unto everlasting life,

* and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.” In these articles it is asserted that God fore-ordained, decreed, and willed the existence of all the moral evil which has” come to pass J* It is also said that God brings his decrees or his will into effect by creation and his governing providence, by which, in the exercise of his wisdom and holiness, he powerfully governs his creatures, and superintends and directs, disposes and orders all their actions.

According to the above truths, so well expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, to which so many profess to adhere as containing their creed, every thing without exception, great or small, that has ever taken place, or shall ever take place in heaven, or on earth, or in hell, has from all eternity been ordained by God, and yet so that the aecountableness of the creature is not in the smallest degree removed. This is declared, in the clearest manner, respecting the greatest sin that ever was committed, even the crucifying of the Lord of Glory. It took place according to the express ordination of God, yet the wickedness of those by whom it was perpetrated is explicitly asserted. “Truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!” Luke, xxii. 22. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” *’ Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.** Acts, ii. 23; iv. 25. The crucifixion, then, of the Messiah was ordained by God, “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord,” Eph. iii. 11, and was carried into execution by the wickedness of men, while God was not the author or actor of the sin.*

V. 24. — Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, hut also of the Gentiles 9

Here the Apostle shows who these vessels of mercy are; not only Jews, but also Gentiles, and none of either Jews or Gentiles, but those who are called by the Spirit and word of God. After expressing his unfeigned sorrow on account of the rejection of the Messiah by his countrymen in general, Paul had intimated at the 6th verse, that, notwithstanding this, the word of God had not been altogether without effect among them. He had next shown the reason why this eifect had not been produced on the whole of them. The reason was, that all who belonged to that nation were not the true Israel of God, nor because they were descended from Abraham were they all his spiritual seed. This he had proved by the declarations of God to Abraham, and also by his dealings in regard to him, and especially respecting Isaac. In Isaac’s family God had in a remarkable manner typically intimated the same truth, and displayed his sovereignty in rejecting the elder of

Whoever wishes to see this matter fully examined and explained, may consult Edwards on the Will, London, edition 1790, p. 354-368.

his sons, and choosing the younger. Paul had further proved that this was according to God’s usual manner of proceeding, in showing mercy to some, and hardening others. God had, notwithstanding, endured with much long-suffering that great multitude of the people of Israel who proved themselves to be vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and, on the other hand, had displayed the abundance of his free grace in preparing vessels of mercy both among Jews and Gentiles. The word of God had thus had an effect by his sovereign disposal among the people of Israel, corresponding with the examples which Paul had produced from their history; and in the exercise of the same sovereignty God had also prepared others among the Gentiles on whom he displayed his mercy. None of the Jews or Gentiles were vessels of mercy, except those whom he had effectually called to himself. This verse incontestably proves, contrary to the erroneous glosses of many, that the Apostle is here speaking of the election of individuals, and not of nations.

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

In the preceding verse, the Apostle had spoken of those who were called among the Jews and the Gentiles, whom God had prepared unto glory. In this verse and the one that follows, he shows that the calling of the Gentiles was not an unforeseen event, but that it was expressly foretold by the prophets. God, by the prophet Hosea, ii. 23, alluding to the calling of the Gentiles by the Gospel, says, / will call them my people, which were not my people; that is, the Lord, at the period alluded to, would call to the knowledge of himself, as his people, persons who were formerly living in heathenism, not having even the name of the people of God. And her beloved, that was not beloved. The Jewish nation was typically the spouse of God. The Lord had betrothed Israel. But when Christ should come, he was to betroth Gentiles also, and to call her beloved that was not beloved. Paul, therefore, shows by this quotation, that the calling of these Gentiles, as vessels of mercy, was according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will — according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus.

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

Among the nations which formerly served idols, and of whom it was usually and truly said that they were not God’s people, there will be those of whom it shall be said that they are the children of the living God Hosea, i. 10. They shall be the children of the living God, in opposition to the dead idols or gods of their own imagination, which they formerly worshipped. This proves that, in their former state, they were without God in the world, Eph. ii. 12, iv. 18; and consequently that the Scriptures afford no hope for those Gentiles who are left uncalled by the Gospel. This awful truth, though so many are unwilling to receive it, is every where testified in the Scriptures. It is held forth in what is said of the empire of Satan, the god of this world; and also in the character every where given in Scripture to heathens, who are declared not to have liked to retain God in their knowledge, and to have been “haters of God.” It is also held forth in all the passages that affirm the final doom of idolaters; as likewise in all that is taught respecting access to God by him who is the way, the truth, and the life; for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.* Men may devise schemes to extend

All the distinguished men among the heathens, without a single exception, conformed to the idolatry of their countrymen. It is asserted by many that we have nothing to do with the state of the heathens. But we have much to do with whatever is declared in the Scriptures, for all Scripture is profitable, &c. See enquiry into the state of the Heathen world destitute of the Gospel, in the author’s book of Evidences, vol. ii. chap. XV.; and vol. i. of this Exposition on chap. ii. 12.

the blessings of salvation to those who never heard of Christ, but they are opposed to the plain declarations of his word. How thankful ought we then to be that we have lived not in the days of our heathen fathers, when God suffered them to walk in their own ways, but in the times when the Gospel has visited the Gentiles. How thankful, above all, if we have been made indeed the children of the living God. The nations of Europe are in general called Christians; but it is only in name that the great body of them bear that title. God will not recognise any as his children who are not born again of his Spirit, and conformed to the image of his Son.

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

Having spoken in the 24th verse of those whom God had called, both among Jews and the Gentiles; and having referred in the two preceding verses to what had been foretold of the latter, the Apostle, in the verse before us and the two that follow, introduces what relates to the Jews. Here he quotes the prophet Isaiah, as loudly testifying the doctrine which he is declaring. Hosea testifies with respect to God’s purpose of calling the Gentiles; and Isaiah in the passage here quoted, x. 20-22,

VOL. II. 2 L testifies of the rejection of the great body of the Jews, and of the election of a number among them comparatively small. The Israelites looked on themselves as all being the people of God, and on the Gentiles as shut out from this relation. The prophet here shows that out of all those vast multitudes which composed their nation only a remnant were to be among the number of the true Israel of God. Whatever fulfilment the prophecy had in the times of the Old Testament, this is its full and proper meaning according to the Apostle.

At first sight it might seem that the prophet speaks only of the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon; but in regard to this, two things must be remarked. One is, that all the great events that happened to the Jews were figures and types representing beforehand the great work of redemption by Jesus Christ. Thus the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, their passing through the Red Sea and through the wilderness, the passage of Jordan, and their entering into Canaan, were representations of what was to take place under the Gospel, as is declared, i Cor. x. 11, “Now, all these things happened unto them for examples (types), and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” Hence it follows that the deliverance from the captivity of Babylon, and consequently the predictions respecting it in Scripture, are typical of the future condition of the Church of Christ. This prophecy, then, has two meanings; the first literal, the second mystical. The other thing to be remarked is, that in the work of God in regard to his church, there being several gradations which follow each other, it often happens that the prophets, who viewed from a distance those future events, join together many of them as if they related only to one and the same thing, — which is a characteristic of the spirit of prophecy. The prophet, then, in this place joins the temporal re-establishment of the Jews with the spiritual building up of the Church of Christ, although these’ two things are quite distinct and separate.

These words in this prophecy, “They shall stay upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel in truth,” can only have their full accomplishment in believers in Jesus Christ. The same is the case respecting the words, “The remnant shall return;” for this returning or conversion denotes much more than that of the return of the Jews from Babylon — even that glorious turning to God which takes place by the Gospel. And when the prophet says, though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return, it is clear that this is an allusion to the promise made to Abraham that his posterity should be as the sand of the sea, and that he means to say that whatever confidence the Jews might place in that promise, taking it in a carnal and literal sense, yet that those who were saved should be a small remnant, whom God would take to himself in abandoning all the rest to his avenging justice. As one event, then, in Scripture prophecy is often made to shadow forth and typify another, so the events of the Jewish history are made to illustrate the spiritual things of the kingdom of God. In this way the prophecies quoted in the New Testament from the Old are to be viewed, and not to be explained in a manner that ascribes to the Apostles of Christ that false and deceitful mode of quotation called accommodation, — so disparaging to their character as stewards of the mysteries of God, and so degrading to the Holy Scriptures.

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

This refers to God’s judgments poured out upon the Jews for their rejecting the Messiah. They were then cut off manifestly from being his people. He cut short the work in righteous judgment. The destruction determined, denotes the ruin and desolation of the whole house of

Israel, with the exception of a small remnant. It was to overflow in righteous judgment, which gives the idea of an inundation. But this not having place in the re-establishment of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity, must necessarily be understood of the times of the gospel. It was then that the consumption decreed took place; for the whole house of Israel was rejected from the covenant of God, and consumed or dispersed by the fire of his vengeance, and by the Roman armies, with the exception of a small remnant. Formerly God had borne with them in their sins, but now when they had heard the gospel and rejected it, they were destroyed or carried away into captivity as with a flood. The Lord made a short work with them at the destruction of Jerusalem. This verse and the preceding confirm what is said in the 22d verse, that although God endures the wicked for a time, he determines to punish them at last without any unnecessary delay.

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

This again verifies another prediction of Isa. i. 9. It was no doubt fulfilled in the events of the Jewish history; but in its proper and full sense, it extended to the times of the Messiah, and predicted the small number of Jews who were left, and the purpose for which they were left. The Jews who escaped destruction at the overthrow of their city by the Romans, were spared merely as a “seed” from whence was to spring all the multitudes who will yet arise to Jesus Christ out of the seed of Abraham. Had it not been for this circumstance, not one individual at that time would have been spared. They would have been all cut oiF as Sodom and Gomorrah. “Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” — Matth. xxiv. 22. The Apostle, instead of remnant, the word employed by the Prophet, substitutes the terra seed, from the Septuagint translation, which, though the expression is varied, has a similar meaning, implying that after the whole heap besides was consumed, the remainder was reserved for sowing with a view to a future crop.

By this quotation from Isaiah, the Apostle proves that the doctrine of the unconditional election of individuals to eternal life — that doctrine against which such objections are raised by many — far from being contrary to the ideas we ought to entertain of the goodness of God, is so entirely consistent with it, that except for this election, not one of the nation of Israel would have been saved. Thus the doctrine of election, very far from being in any degree harsh or cruel, as many who misunderstand it affirm, is, as we see here, a glorious demonstration of divine goodness and love. Had it not been for this election, through which God had afore prepared vessels of mercy unto glory, neither Jew nor Gentile would have escaped, but all would have remained vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. In the case of the angels who sinned there was no election, and the whole were cast down to hell. Had there been no election among men, the whole must in like manner have perished.

V. 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which

followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:

What shall we say then? — What is the result of all this discussion? The conclusion from the whole is, that those Gentiles who were called by God, of whom the Apostle had spoken in the 24th verse, who were not following righteousness, but were abandoned to every kind of wickedness, obtained true righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. This is an astonishing instance of mercy. Men who were guilty of all abominations, as Paul had shown in the first chapter of this Epistle, were thus made partakers of that righteousness which is commensurate to all the demands of the law.

V. 31. — But Israel, which followed after the law ofnghteotune$s, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Whatever objection might be made against the doctrine which the Apostle was here inculcating, a clear proof was offered in the case of the Gentiles which he had adduced, of the truth he had advanced and illustrated by the examples of Jacob and Esau, namely, that the purpose of God according to election is unchangeable, and that salvation is not of works, but of him that calleth. And here was a wonderful instance of divine sovereignty. The nation of Israel were following after righteousness, yet God, instead of giving it to them, bestowed it on those who were not even looking for it. How different is this from the ways of men! How does the proud heart of the self-righteous legalist revolt at such a view of the divine conduct! Man’s wisdom cannot endure that God should in this sovereign way bestow his favours. But this is God’s way, and whoever will not submit to it, resists the will of God. Nay, whoever finds fault with it attempts to undeify God. The whole plan of salvation is so ordered,” That, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.*’ — 1 Cor. i. 31.

V. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but

as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone;

The Apostle here asks, why the people of Israel did not attain to the righteousness they were seeking. The word “wherefore” has no reference to election, or a supposed objection from it, as some understand. The question is asked to excite more attention to the answer; and the answer is, because they sought it in a way in which it is not to be found. The righteousness that answers the demands of the law, is the righteousness of God, which is to be obtained only by faith. The Jews, then, did not attain to it, because they sought it not by faith, but as of works of law. Some commentators lay stress on the phrase, “as it were by the works of the law,” assigning as its meaning, that the Jews did not suppose they kept the law perfectly, but expected to make up for their deficiencies in one respect by abounding in others. But this is not well founded. The Jews sought righteousness “as of works of law;” that is, as if righteousness was to be obtained by doing the works of the law. By the works of the law they could not obtain it, unless they perfectly obeyed the law. To this they could never attain. As, therefore, they would not submit to Christ, who alone has fulfilled the law, they failed in obtaining righteousness.

Tor they stumbled at that stumbling-stone — That is, they stumbled at Jesus Christ. Instead of choosing him as the elect, precious foundation-stone, on which to rest their hope, they rejected him altogether. They looked for a Messiah of a different character, and, therefore, they rejected the Christ of God. The Apostle thus charges it upon the Jews as their own fault, that they did not attain to righteousness. They mistook the character of that law under which they were placed, by which, according to the testimony of their own prophets, no man could be justified; and also the character of the Messiah who was promised, and so perverted that law, and rejected him by whom alone they could be saved. They thus verified the words of the Apostle: — “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Of this Paul exhibits himself as an example. In the seventh chapter of this Epistle, he shows how entirely he once mistook the extent of the law; and in the beginning of the chapter before us, that he once made it his boast that he had nothing to do with Christ as the Messiah.

V. 33. — As it in written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not he ashamed.

As it is written The Apostle here confirms

what he had just said concerning the stone of stumbling by quoting from two places of Scripture — Isa. viii. 14; xxviii. 16. The stumbling, then, of the Jews at Christ, the rock of offence, was predicted by the prophets. It should not, therefore, appear strange to those who lived in the times when it was accomplished.

A stumbling-stone and rock of offence. — This language of the prophet applied by the Apostle to our Lord Jesus Christ, ought to be particularly observed: “Sanctifv the Lord of Hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel.” As here the prophet speaks directly of God, and the Apostle applies what he says to Jesus Christ, it is a conclusive proof that Jesus Christ is God, and that he is declared to be so both in the Old Testament and the New. The designations of a stone, and a rock, are given to Jesus Christ, both of them presenting the idea that the great work of redemption depends solely on him. He is its author, the centre in which all its lines meet, and their origin from which they proceed. He is to that work what the foundation-stones and the rock on which it is erected are to the building, sustaining it, and giving it form and stability. In another sense, he is a stone of stumbling, occasioning his rejection by those who, not believing in him, are cut off from communion with God.

Behold, I lay in Sion. — This stone, or rock — this “sure foundation,” is laid by God, according to the Apostle’s reference. Isa. xxviii. 16. “Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-^towe, a sure foundation.” This stone was laid in Zion the Church of God. It was laid by God himself. That it was “a sure foundation” which could not fail, is evident from all the promises of God concerning the Messiah of upholding him as his elect, and insuring to him success, dominion and glory in his character of Mediator. Isa. xlii. 1,8; xlix. 7, 9.

All the promises to the Church of old, of the Messiah as a future Saviour, from the declaration made to our first parents in Paradise, to the last prediction concerning him delivered by the prophet Malachi, demonstrate the impossibility that Christ, the foundation which God has laid, should fail. Those promises were often renewed with great solemnity, and confirmed by the oath of God, as in Genesis xxii. 16-18. And in Ps.

lxxxix. 3, 4, it is said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant; thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” Nothing is more abundantly set forth in Scripture as sure and irreversible than this promise and oath to David. The Scriptures expressly speak of it as utterly impossible that the everlasting dominion of the Messiah should fail. “In those days, and at that time, I will cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, for thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Jacob.” “If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne.” Jer. xxxiii. 15. 20. David securely rested on this covenant concerning the future glorious work and kingdom of the Messiah, as all his salvation, and all his desire, and comforted himself, that it was an everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure.

As being that foundation laid by himself, which therefore could not fail, God proceeded to save men in virtue of the work of the Messiah before he appeared, as if it had been already accomplished. On this stone and rock, the saints of old rested, and built their comfort. Abraham saw Christ’s day and rejoiced, and all the others died in the faith of his advent. What a view does this give us of the faithfulness of God, and the truth of the Scriptures; and what an inducement to rely securely upon the rock of ages! “Its solidity is assured to us by him whose voice shakes the heavens and the earth — by the revelation of the eternal purpose of God, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Eph. iii. 11.

Rock of offence — While the Messiah was indeed the sure foundation which God had laid, he was notwithstanding, as it was written, rejected by the great body of the Jewish nation. Had they understood the language of their own Scriptures, they would have seen that, instead of receiving their Messiah when he came, the prophets had declared that they would stumble at the lowliness of his appearance, and would generally reject him.

And whosoever believeth on him shall not he ashamed, — But they did not all reject him. Some of them, referred to in verse 24th, who were called of God, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, sent of God, and were comforted by him. They were not ashamed to own him before the unbelieving part of their brethren, and they shall not be put to shame before him at his second coming. It might be supposed that the followers of the Messiah would be honoured in every country; on the contrary, they are hated and held in contempt. But when all other refuges fail, when Christ comes to judge the world, they shall not be ashamed.

A free salvation becomes an offence to men on account of their pride. They cannot bear the idea of being indebted for it to sovereign grace, which implies that in themselves they are guilty and ruined by sin. They desire to do something, were it ever so little, to merit salvation, at least in part. Salvation by a crucified Saviour was in one way opposed to the pride of the Jews, and in another to that of the Greeks. The Jews expected a mighty conqueror who should deliver them from a foreign yoke, and render them so powerful as to triumph over all the other nations of the earth; and in order to reconcile with those ideas what the Scriptures said of his humiliation, some among them supposed that there would be two Messiahs. The Greeks expected, in a revelation from heaven, something resembling the systems of their vain philosophy, which might exalt their false notions of the dignity of man, and enlarge their boasted powers of understanding. All who are unconverted reason in the same way. Those among them who call themselves Christians suppose, that, not being perfect, they have need of Christ as a Saviour to compensate for their deficiencies, and to give weight to their good works. They do not believe that they obey the law perfectly; but suppose that what is wanting will be supplied by Jesus Christ. Thus, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The doctrine of the cross is, in one way or other, misunderstood by him, and Jesus Christ is a stone of stumbling.

Many by their forced criticisms have in various ways perverted the meaning of this chapter. Among their other misrepresentations they affirm that the Apostle does not speak of individual election to eternal life, but of the national election of the Jews. On the contrary, it is evident that in regard to the Jews he refers to their national rejection. The rejection of the Jewish nation, excepting a small remnant, according to the election of grace, which is again plainly declared in the beginning of the eleventh chapter, is the important subject which the Apostle illustrates by the examples and predictions he refers to, and the reasonings with which he follows them up.

The fact of a remnant of Israel being reserved by God for himself, while the great body of the nation was abandoned to merited punishment, demonstrates that the election here spoken of is individual and not national. The prophets every where speak of this small remnant chosen by-God to display his mercy and goodness. “I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicte and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” Zeph. iii. 12.