6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. [Or, as Fritsche translates, "The matter, however, is not so as that the word of God had come to nought." Paul is answering the reasoning of the Jew which runs thus: "You speak of God's covenants and promises given to the fathers and enlarged in the Scriptures, yet you say the Jew has failed to receive the blessings guaranteed to him by God in those covenants and promises. If such is the case, then you must admit it that the word of God has [383] failed of fulfillment." Paul begins his answer by denying the failure of the word of God, and proceeds to prove his denial. But his argument is not rigidly polemic; it is rather a heart-to-heart discussion of well-known historic facts which show that God's present enactments, rulings and executions harmonize perfectly with those of the past, which, too, have been heartily and unanimously approved by the Jews. "No," is then Paul's answer, "the word of God has not come to nought in Israel's rejection, for it (in the Old Testament), as you well know and approve, taught and worked out in precedent and example the same principles and same distinctions which are today affecting the rejection of Israel." God has not changed, nor has his word failed: it was Israel which had changed and failed.] For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel [The Jews would never have regarded Paul's reaching as subversive of the promises or word of God if they had not misconstrued the promises. They read them thus: "The promises guarantee salvation to all Jews, and the Jews alone are to be saved." Paul begins his argument by denying the correctness of their construction of God's word. "The word of God has not failed," says he, "because God has cast off a part of Israel (the fleshly part represented by the Jews), for God's word is kept as long as he keeps covenant with the other part (the spiritual part, represented by the Christians, principally Gentiles), for you are wrong in thinking that all the descendants of Jacob are reckoned by God as Israelites, or covenant people, and also wrong in supposing that Israel has only fleshly children, and no spiritual children." This argument apparently concedes for the moment that God's covenant was to give Israel salvation, which was not really the case. God's covenant was to provide the sacrifice in his Son, which would afford the means of salvation, conditioned on faith and obedience]: 7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but [as God said to Abraham--Gen. 21:12], In Isaac shall thy seed be [384] called. [I. e., the children of Isaac alone shall be known distinctively as thy children, the heirs of thy covenant. Here, again, Paul attacks a second false construction which the Jews placed upon the promises. They said: "We must all be saved because we have Abraham for our father (Matt. 3:9). If God does not save us, he breaks his word with Abraham." "Here again ye err," says Paul, "for at the very start when Abraham had but two sons, God rejected one of them, casting Ishmael off, and choosing Isaac; and later when Abraham had many sons God still refused all but Isaac, saying, The sons of yours which I shall call mine shall descend from Isaac alone."] 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh [of Abraham] that are [reckoned or accounted as] children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. [Are accounted the children of God through Abraham. Fleshly descent from Abraham, of itself and without more--i. e., without promise--never availed for any spiritual blessing (Gal. 4:23). "This," says Trapp, "profiteth them no more than it did Dives, that Abraham called him son" (Luke 16:25). So flesh avails neither then nor now, but promise. Paul proceeds to show that Isaac was a son of promise, and whatever covenants or promises availed for his children came to them because they, through him, became symbolically sons of promise, Isaac typifying Christ, the real son of promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and Isaac's posterity typifying the real children of promise, the regenerated sons of God begotten unto Christ through the gospel (Gal. 4:28: John 1:12, 13). So as Abraham had a fleshly seed according to the first promise, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," these being Jews; so he had a spiritual seed according to the second promise, "In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations [Gentiles; but not excluding Jews] of the earth be blessed," these being Gentiles. Hence, if the two promises were each kept with the two parties to whom they were severally given, the word of God was not broken, and his promise had not failed. [385] But such was indeed the case, for God kept his word with the fleshly seed, fulfilling to them the fleshly promise that Christ should be born of their stock (John 4:22; Gal. 3:16), and to the spiritual seed he was fulfilling the spiritual promise granting them eternal life through that faith in Christ which made them spiritual children of Abraham, the father of the faithful (Gal. 3:7-14). So it was not two promises to one seed, but two promises to two seeds, and each promise was kept of God to each promisee. And why, says Paul, do we call Isaac the son of promise? Because he was not born according to the natural law of the flesh, his mother being past bearing, but contrary to nature and by reason of the divine power, working to fulfill the promise of God, which promise is as follows] 9 For this is a word of promise [this is the saying or promise that brought Isaac into being, and made him a child of promise and not of natural birth--Gen. 18:10], According to this season [Godet translates, "Next year at the moment when this same time (this same epoch) will return"] will I come [to fulfill my promise], and Sarah shall have a son. [This fixing of the definite time (an exact year from the date of the promise) when the child of promise should be born, is extremely significant. Ishmael was alive when this promise was given. But what Jew would have justified him in urging a claim as against the promised Isaac? Later, in the days of Daniel, a time limit was set for Christ, the greater Son of promise, by which it is made sure that he would begin his ministry in A. D. 26. If Ishmael had no reason or right to complain that he and his offspring (though he was established as a son) were stood aside for Isaac and his offspring, what right had Isaac in his turn to complain if God set a date when he and his offspring (though established son as was Ishmael) should in like manner be stood aside for the greater Son of promise, the Christ and his offspring? God fixed the dates in each case, and the dates in Dan. 9:24, 25 are equally explicit with Gen. 17:21. The [386] Christ, "the anointed one, the prince," was to appear at the end of sixty-nine weeks of years, or in A. D. 26, and at the full end of the seventy weeks, or eight years later, in A. D. 34, the time "decreed upon thy [Daniel's] people" came to an end.^* The Holy Spirit that year emphasized the rejection of fleshly Israel and the acceptance of the children of promise (believers in Christ, his spiritual offspring) by withdrawing from the Jews and appearing upon the household of Cornelius, the firstfruits of the Gentiles (Acts 10). God gave Ishmael only one year's warning, and no especial call to repent, or opportunity to save himself in any way. But through Daniel, Israel had five hundred years of warning, and was invited of Christ and of all his apostles (even being invariably invited first, by Paul the apostle to the Gentiles) to become joint children of promise with the Gentiles; a joint relationship wherein they were bound by every circumstance to obtain and hold the pre-eminence. Surely, then, the word of God had not failed as to them, but they had failed as to it.] 10 And not only so [Not only is Ishmael rejected for the promised Isaac, but even Isaac's seed, his two sons Esau and Jacob, are made the subject of choice by God, showing that even the seed of the children of promise may be so sifted that part may be received and part [387] rejected, for God indeed did this, accepting Jacob and rejecting Esau]; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac [Now, it might be objected by the Jew (unjustly in view of the fact that four of the tribes of Israel were descended from bondwomen) that his case was not parallel to that of Ishmael, for Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman (an Egyptian), and was of a mocking, spiteful disposition (Gen. 21:9). Ishmael's rejection, therefore, was justifiable, while the exclusion of the Jew by Paul's so-called gospel was utterly unwarranted. To this Paul makes answer by citing the cases of Jacob and Esau. They had one father, Isaac the child of promise; and one mother, Rebecca the well beloved, approved of God; they were begotten at one conception, and were twins of one birth, yet God exercised his right to choose between them, and no Jew had ever questioned this, his right of choice. Yea, the unbounded freedom of choice was even more clearly manifest in other details which Paul enumerates]-- 11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good [as might be supposed of Jacob] or bad [as might be presumed of Esau], that the purpose of God according to election [choosing] might stand [might be made apparent and be fully and finally confirmed], not of works, but of him that calleth [not a choosing enforced on God by the irresistible, meritorious claims of man, in keeping the law of works, human and divine; but a free choosing on God's part manifested in his calling those who suit his purpose], 12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve ["Servitude," says Trapp, "came in with a curse, and figureth reprobation--Gen. 9:25: John 8:34, 35; Gal. 4:30"] the younger. [I. e., Esau shall serve Jacob. It is evident from these words that Jacob and Esau do not figure personally, but as the heads of elect and non-elect nations, for personally Esau never served Jacob. On the contrary, he lived the life of a prince or petty king, while Jacob was a hireling, and Jacob feared Esau as the man of power. [388] But the nation sprung of the elder son did serve the nation descended from the younger. "History," says Alford, "records several subjugations of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by David (2 Sam. 8:14)--under Joram they rebelled (2 Kings 8:20), but were defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7), and Elath taken from them by Uzziah (2 Kings 14:22); under Ahaz they were again free, and troubled Judah (2 Chron. 28:16, 17; comp. 2 Kings 16:6, 7)--and continued free as prophesied in Gen. 27:40, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who (Jos. Ant. 13:9, 1) reduced them finally, so that thenceforward they were incorporated among the Jews."] 13 Even as it is written [Mal. 1:2, 3], Jacob loved, but Esau hated. [Expositors of Calvinistic bias insist upon the full, literal meaning of "hatred" in this passage; but Hodge, whose leaning that way is so decided that he can see no more injustice in eternal than in temporal election (he apparently never weighed the words of our Savior at Luke 16:25; 12:48, and kindred passages which show that temporal favors which are indeed bestowed arbitrarily are taken into account to form the basis of just judgment in the bestowal of eternal favors), is nevertheless too fair-minded an exegete to be misled here. He says: "It is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favor. Thus, in Gen. 29:33, Leah says she was hated by her husband; while in the preceding verse the same idea is expressed by saying, 'Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah' (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26). 'If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother, etc.' (John 12:25)." As this ninth of Romans is the stronghold of Calvinism, the arsenal of that disappearing remnant who believe in eternal foreordination according to the absolute decree of the sovereign will of God, we feel that a word ought to be said about the doctrinal trend of its sections. We therefore submit a few points. 1. It is rather odd that this chapter should be used to prove salvation by election when, so far as it bears on election at all, it is wholly an effort to justify God in [389] casting off an elect people (Jews) and choosing a non-elect people (Gentiles). If, therefore, the chapter as a whole teaches anything as to arbitrary election, it is plainly this, that those who depend upon God to show partiality in electing some and condemning others, will either be disappointed as were the Jews, or surprised as were the Gentiles, for election will never work out as they suppose. For, after showing favor to Abraham's seed for nineteen hundred years, God adjusted the balances, and, turning from Jews to Gentiles, made the first last, and the last first; the elect, non-elect; and the non-elect, elect. And now, the non-elect, having enjoyed the favors and privileges for a like term of nineteen hundred years, are now being called to account, and will, in their turn, be cut off. But if they are, it will be wholly their own fault, just as the rejection nineteen hundred years ago was by Israel's fault, and not by arbitrary decree of God. 2. Moreover, Paul is not discussing salvation, or foreordination as to eternity. There is not one word on that subject in the entire ninth chapter. The apostle is introducing no new doctrine, no unheard-of and strange enormity like Calvinism. "The difficulty," as Olshausen aptly puts it, "and obscurity of the whole section before us are diminished when we reflect that it by no means contains anything peculiar; since the same ideas which so startle us in reading it, are also expressed throughout the whole of the Old as well as the New Testament. It is only their conciseness, their bold and powerful utterance, that lends them, as it were, an unprecedented appearance here." The apostle is speaking of the bestowal of temporal advantages and benefits, and is showing that these, even when relating to Messianic privileges, are bestowed according to God's free will--they have to be! They are like other earthly benefits or privileges; for instance, the distinction as to new-born souls. It is God alone who must determine how each shall enter the world, whether as of the white, brown, red, black or yellow race, whether among the rich or poor. So [390] also, rising a step higher, whether a soul shall have a perfect or a defective brain to think with, and whether it shall enter a Christian or a pagan home. Now, as God gave a promise to Eve, the same law of necessity made it compulsory that he choose arbitrarily what household should be the repository of that promise and thus perpetuate a lively expectation of its fulfillment. God therefore first chose the Chaldees among the nations, then, as second choice, he elected Abraham among the Chaldees; third, he chose Isaac from Abraham's seed, and, fourth, Jacob from Isaac's offspring. Up to this time there was a marked separation, both spiritual and geographical, between the elect and the non-elect, so that there was no confusion in anybody's mind as to the inherent exclusiveness of election. But with Jacob a change came. His sons all dwell together, and during his lifetime till his last sickness no election was announced as to them until on his death-bed Jacob gave Judah the pre-eminence (Gen. 49:8-12). But Moses passes over this pre-eminence (Deut. 33:7) and there was no segregation of Judah. In fact, other tribes seem to have overshadowed Judah in importance, notably that of Levi, all of whom were set apart as Levites for God's service, and of which tribe also came Moses the lawgiver and Aaron the father of the priesthood. Moreover, many of the great judges came from other tribes, and the house of Benjamin furnished the first king. This community of interest, this privilege of enjoying the appurtenances and collaterals of election, should have taught Israel that the blessing promised was greater, wider and more gracious than the mere privilege of being the repository of that blessing, but, instead, it begot in them the mistaken idea that all the twelve tribes were elect. So, indeed, they were as to possessing the land, but they were not elect as to being repositories of the Messianic promise, which honor was first limited to Judah (1 Chron. 5:2) and afterwards to the house of David (2 Sam. 7:12; Mic. 5:2; John 7:42). Now, this is what Paul is discussing. With him it is a [391] question of fixing a promise so that men may watch for its fulfillment in a certain race and family--a promise which, when fulfilled, brings blessings and benefits not confined to any race or family, but open and free to all who accept them, and denied to all who refuse and reject them, yea, even to the very race and family which have been the age-long repositories of the promise. And the point of Paul's whole argument is this: As God was absolutely free to choose who should be the repositories of the promise, so is he absolutely free to fix the terms by which men shall enjoy the blessings promised, even if those terms (because of rebellion against them on the part of the repositories) work out the failure of the repositories to enjoy the blessings so long held by them in the form of unfulfilled promise. And what has all this to do with electing infants to eternal damnation? No more than the election which makes one child black and the other white, when both are born the same moment. In short, no temporal election, no matter how blessed, includes salvation to the elect or necessitates damnation upon the non-elect, for it is apparent to all that the election of the Gentiles as repositories of Christian truth does not save half of them, and the rejection of the Jews from this holy office damns none of them. Salvation is accorded the Jew who believes as freely as it is to the Gentile, and the unbelieving Gentile is damned with the unbelieving Jew, and rests under heavier condemnation because he sins against greater temporal privileges and advantages. In either case the temporal advantage or disadvantage will be duly considered in forming a just judgment (Luke 12:48). 3. It should be noted that Paul proves God's right at any time to limit his promise. Thus the blessing to Abraham's seed was first "nakedly and generally expressed," as Chalmers puts it. Then it was limited to one son, Isaac. Again it was limited to Isaac's son, Jacob. Therefore, as God established his right of limiting the promise to those whom he chose in the inner circle of the [392] promise, so he could in the gospel age limit the promise to spiritual to the exclusion of fleshly seed. This is not just what he did, but this is what he established his right to do, for if he could disinherit Ishmael after he had apparently obtained vested rights, and if he disinherited Esau before he was born, there was no limit to his right to disinherit, providing only that he kept within the promise and chose some one of Abraham's seed, or the seed of some one of his descendants to whom a like covenant was given. Compare his offer to make Moses the head of a new people (Ex. 32:10), which he was free to do, not having confirmed the rights in Judah pronounced by Jacob--Gen. 49:8-12].

[TCGR 383-393]