Here begins a new section of the epistle to the Romans. All along a great and serious question has been lying in the background and demanding an answer; a question that had been just barely touched upon once before (chapt. 3:1f.) but now is to be fully faced. It is the question concerning Israel, God's ancient covenant-people--"whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen."

      We can hear the Jewish objector say to Paul, "If your gospel represents the outcome of all God's work and planning through the centuries, if it is the fruit and climax of God's dealings with Israel, how is it that Israel is excluded from it? If the promises and the covenants were Israel's how is it that as a people they have now no share in this gospel, and that the Gentiles are getting the benefit of it?" To the Jew then (and now) this fact appeared to be a prima facie refutation of the gospel and its claim. For the natural basic assumption would be that Israel first and foremost and pre-eminently would be the beneficiary of the glories and blessings resulting from their Messiah's work; and the Gentiles only secondarily would be blessed through Israel's blessing and exaltation. So the Old Testament promises and prophecies. But according to Paul the great nation of Israel is on the whole left out, and the Gentiles, by vast majority, are enjoying the privilege and glory which by right should be Israel's. There must be something wrong about all, that. So reasoned the Jew. And this point had to be cleared up. To this task the apostle therefore now addresses himself. Three chapters (9, 10, 11) deal with this important question.

      He begins with a protestation of his sorrow and love for Israel--a love so Christ-like and superhuman as to well-nigh pass understanding (vs. 1-3); and he also freely concedes, yea gladly affirms, for them their great God-given claims, privileges and high position (vs. 4, 5). But if they conclude from this that God's faithfulness toward them has failed and that His word has come to naught--from this conclusion the apostle utterly dissents, and immediately points out the fallacy of it.

      The Jews' fundamentally false assumption, (which already John the Baptist had warned against, Matt. 3:9) was that their mere fleshly descent and relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, entitled them to the promises, and to the privileges of the Kingdom of God. This is not true--never was true, as Paul at once proceeds to show. For through all Israel's past history, God always made a distinction among the fleshly descendants, rejecting some, accepting some. He does so again, now. The distinction he marks out now is (1) that they are not all Israel which are of Israel; and (2) all that are Abraham's fleshly seed, are not therefore necessarily "children." The fleshly descent was, indeed basic; nevertheless among those who had it, God still exercised His right of choice, selecting some as He saw [41] good, whether for reasons stated or not stated; and rejecting the rest. That is to say God never bound Himself to give His covenant-blessing to all who were descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, merely because they were of that lineage and fleshly descent. This is the one great point which Paul, Christ's inspired apostle, sets forth in Romans 9.

      His proofs are clear and simple. (1) All of Abraham's seed were not regarded as heirs, but only Isaac, the child of promise. Ishmael, the son of Hagar, and the sons of Abraham by Keturah, did not come in for consideration. God acted within His rights in making this distinction, as the Jews willingly conceded. (vs. 7-9.) (2) Even between Isaac's children, though born of the same mother, and in the line of the promise, God made distinction according to His own sovereign right and choice, setting Esau aside and designating Jacob as the one upon whom He would bestow the covenant-blessings. This was again a fact well-known to the Jews, and God's right to do this was never called in question by them. But this establishes the principle that to God belongs the prerogative of "making choice among His chosen ones." And no man questioned this right, or charged God with unrighteousness because of His exercise of it. (vs. 10-14.) (3) The principle goes further. Even among the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the people whom He brought forth out of Egypt, God made distinction. For Jehovah said to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Quoted from Exodus 33:19.) This was spoken after the people of Israel had flagrantly broken their covenant which God had made with them on Mount Sinai, by worshipping the Golden Calf. By the terms of the covenant they were cut off from being His people, and only Moses' intercession prevented the destruction of the whole nation (Ps. 106:23). But so far as any covenant obligation was concerned, God certainly was under no more obligation to them by the covenant of Mount Sinai. Henceforth it was a matter of pure mercy. And, since "the quality of mercy is not strained," God must be left free to bestow it when, and as, and where, it may please Him to bestow it. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. He was indeed good enough to tell them who that would be--then upon those who loved Him and obeyed Him (Deut. 5:10; Ps. 103:11), now upon those who come to Jesus for salvation (I Pet. 2:10). So if God could then righteously set aside the whole nation, and save from among them only such as He would, it certainly is no breach of right or faithfulness if now He again sets aside the nation and accepts only those who believe in the gospel. Moreover He claims the right to harden the disobedient (comp. 2 Thess. 2:10)--as He once hardened Pharaoh; as now He hardens unbelieving Israel^* (Rom. 11:7-10, 25). It is [42] not for man to prescribe to God what God shall or shall not do. Salvation is of God, and He reserves to Himself the right to say to whom it shall be granted. Men cannot compel or demand it. Though it be to him that by God's grace and God's word wills and runs, it is not of him that wills or runs.

      Paul anticipates the objector's reply here: "Why doth he still find fault? for who hath resisted his will?"--as though Paul had been teaching fatalism. The objection could be easily answered, but Paul does not deign to answer it. No man has a right thus impudently to talk back to God. See what Paul says to the objector. (v. 20; compare Dan. 4:35.) In what respect does the illustration of the Potter, in v. 21, differ from that of the Potter in Jer. 18:1f?--the Potter certainly has sovereign power over the clay, to deal with it as He wills. But it is not said that He deals with the clay arbitrarily, that is to say, without just cause or adequate reason. Note also that though vessels of mercy are said to have been "afore prepared unto glory", He does not use those terms in connection with "vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction." In view of the fact that God wills that all men should be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) it would be impossible for Him to predestinate any man to perdition. The reason why the Jews were rejected and became vessels of wrath is definitely stated in Rom. 9:30-33 and 10:21.

      The apostle has now vindicated God's right to choose and to reject from among the nation of Israel whomsoever He pleases to choose or to reject, be they many or few. It must not, however, be inferred that He does that arbitrarily, even though He does not always set forth the reason for His actions (though in this case He did). For there is no unrighteousness with God. Were He disposed to do any of us a wrong or injustice, we would not have a shadow of a come-back. But blessed be His name, He never does anyone a wrong. God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all; God is love, and it is not in Him to do evil. Just and right are all His ways. Israel must not dispute His right to reject any part of the nation, or call in question His faithfulness because He did so.

      Having now shown this, the apostle goes on to vindicate God's action in the choosing of Gentiles. He touches upon this theme first in verse 24--"even us whom he also called not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles." From here on Paul shows that God had foretold in the prophecies of old that Gentiles would come in for the great privileges of the new covenant, and of Israel only a small remnant. (1) From Hosea he adduces scripture proof that God would call them His people who had not been His people. In the connection in which this prophecy stands (Hos. 1:10; 2:23) Hosea is speaking of Israel; but if (as Hosea shows) Israel had been rejected so as to be no longer God's people ("Lo-ammi," Hos. 1:9) they stood in that respect exactly where the Gentiles stand, and vice versa, the Gentiles stand where Israel stands. Therefore, Hos. 1:10; 2:23, is as applicable to the Gentiles as it is to rejected Israel, and the apostle used the scripture in Hosea accordingly. (Comp. 1 Pet. 2:10.) [43] In vs. 27-29 he points again to the prophetic scriptures (Isa. 10:22 and 1:9) to show that only a small remnant of Israel would be saved; yea, as Sodom and Gomorrah, (which were destroyed because not even ten righteous persons were found in them) so would the entire nation of Israel also have been swept away, had it not been for that "seed," the faithful remnant which was found in Israel.

      The conclusion then is this (vs. 30-33) that--strange though it may seem--the Gentiles who had never sought after righteousness, so to say, stumbled upon it (see 10:20); but Israel, who so earnestly followed after a law of righteousness (comp. Acts 26:7) failed to attain to it. What was the reason of this terrible failure? It was because they sought it by works, instead of accepting it by faith. They hoped by law-keeping, to make themselves worthy--to earn, so to speak, their right to the great promise, so that as a matter of debt (comp. Rom. 4:4, 5) they could demand it of God. But not so could it be obtained. It could, as the Scripture declared (v. 33) be had only by faith (see 4:16) and thus by grace. Not as proud workers who claim their reward on grounds of merit and desert, but as humble suppliants who receive it as a free gift by faith, could they obtain the long-promised blessing and salvation.

      This thought the apostle elucidates still further in the tenth chapter, which we shall take up more particularly in the next lesson. Note his petition for Israel in v. 1; the recognition of their zeal and earnestness in v. 2; the cause of their failure in vs. 3 and 4. Then the description of the law-way of attaining righteousness (v. 5) as contrasted with the faith-way (vs. 6-10). From verse 11-17 he explains that this saving faith ("believing") comes through the hearing of the gospel message. Finally, in vs. 18-21, he shows how abundant was Israel's opportunity, and how, despite all warning and long-continued pleading, Israel rejected it.

      What marvelous Christlike love did Paul have for Israel? Name the eight outstanding points of excellency which belong to Israel. How does Paul show that their present national rejection is not any breach of God's promises? Did God always select some and reject others? Was He arbitrary and unjust in so doing? Does the mere fleshly descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob entitle them to the promise? Had God foreseen and foretold Israel's rejection." What did the scriptures tell of the "remnant"? If there had been no "remnant" in Israel what would have become of that nation? Why did Israel fail to attain to that righteousness? [44]

[LOR2 41-44]