Forlines, F. Leroy, Romans 9 Commentary

8/7/2019 Forlines, F. Leroy, Romans 9 Commentary

1/39

/ THERAhIDALLHOUSEBIBLECOMMENTARY

ROMAhISbyF. LEROYFORLINES

FIRSTEDMON

NAI\IDALL HOUSE PUBLICATIONSNASHVII LE, TENNESSEE g7 217


2/39

9:l ROMANSanother all of us will partake of sufferingand difficulty in this life. However, asbelievers we know that a gloriouseschatological future awaits us. Whenwe receive those blessings which Godhas in store for us, all of the problemsof this life will fade into insignificance(w. 17, 18).14. Along with the full manifestationof our redemption in the eschatologicalfuture will be the redemption of cre-ation, both animate and inanimate (w.19-24).15. In this life through Christ wereceive peace, joy, and happiness. Butthis is not the only side of the picture."We groan within ourselves." Ourbodies have not been redeemed.Everything is not all that it should be.We are waiting and yeaming forsomething better. That somethingbetter is the resurrection of the body.At the resurrection we will experienceall that it means to be privileged, adultsons of God. On the one hand we arerejoicing in what we have. On the otherhand we are longing for somethingbetter. We know that one day we willexperience the resurrection of ourbodies. Then things will be betterbeyond comparison. Because we knowthat the day of full redemption iscoming, we wait for it with steadfastendurance (w. 23-25).16. If we stop to think about it, manytimes we do not know exactly what ourneed is. We do not know exactly whatit would take to meet that need. Evenwhen we think we know, we may bewrong. Verses 26, 27 ofter usencouragement. The Holy Spirit takesevery sincere prayer and desire andmakes a perfect intercession to theFather for us. This intercession isperfectly understood by the Father (seenotes on these verses).17. The notes on v. 28 should bestudied thoroughly. There is greatcomfort in this verse, but it takes more

than a mere quoting of the versepeople to get its message.happens to us as believers, we canA. Paul ExpresseeConcern for HiAccording to t(9:r-5).assured that God will bring things ibear upon our case that will help uithrough it. .i;i18. We need not be afraid ofword "predestinate." ln fact, webe encouraged by it. What it tells usthat God has before determinedbelievers willbe conformed to the iof Christ (v. 29). ,-i;19. God's plan is eternal, butsalvation in time begins with aWhen we respond to this call wejustified. In the eschatological futurewill be glorified (see notes on v.20. As Christians, we have agoing for us. With God on our side done can be successfully against us31). If God spared not, but gave

Son for us, it follows that He willfor us and stand by us (v. 32).God has said we are justified, noelse can make a charge against us(v. 33). Since Christ is our ino one can condemn us (v. 34).21. In w. 35-39 two importantare established:(1) The Bible does not promise ;trouble-free life to Christians. i(2) We are not to interpretwhen it comes, to mean that Godnot love us. As believers we will nevefi.be separated from God's love. It ii!God's love and presence with us thatmakes us "more than conquerort,through him that loved us" (v. 37).

Part TwoIerael and the Gentilee inGod's Plan of Redemption(9:1-ll:36).

BELIEVING ISRAELITES(9zt-291.

I I say the trutb innoe my consdencc dmo wltneec ln tho HoChapter 8 ended onnote. While in this emotiPaul suddenly thoughtmen-the Jews. When hecompassion and concemfor his kinsmen washim. It is out of this deephe speaks.I say the truth innot. The words which Pato utter in v.3 are wordspeople could in truth utterreason that Paul prefaceswith the most solemn cotruth possible. To speakspeak truth; as Cranfieldwho speaks in a way thdhis union with Christ carqtruth" (U:u152). :My coneciencsme witneee in thc'Lenski explains, "Paul'sare one witness,another. The idea isate sufficient toConscience iscannot be bribed,independently andtradicts us if we(582).Our conscienceby the standard olscribe to. Ouras our convictiongmay not alwaysthe witnessI. GOD'S SOVEREIGN RIGHT'' MurrayIN REJECTING THE UN. , that he regardsthe Holy Spirit.'of the earher

248


3/39

ROMANS 9:l-3A. Paul Expresses His DeepConcern for His KinsmeiAccording to the Flesh(9:r-5).I I say the tnrt:h ln Ghrlst, I llenot, my consclence also bearlname wltness ln the Hol5r Ghost. -

Chapter 8 ended on a triumphantnote. While in this emotion-filled itate,Paul suddenly thought of his kins_men-the Jews. When he did that, deepcompassion and concern which he hadfor his kinsmen was activated withinhim. It is out of this deep concern thathe speaks.I say the truth in Christ, I lienot. The words which Paul was goingto utter in v. 3 are words which very fewpeople could in truth utter. It is foi thisreason that Paul prefaces those wordswith the most solemn commitment totruth possible. To speak in Christ is tospeak truth; as Cranfield observes,,,Onespeaks in a way that is worihy ofunion with Christ cannot but speak(ll:452).My conscience also bearingwitness in the Holy Ghost.explains, "Paul's own ltatementsone witness, Paul's conscience isThe idea is that two witnessessufficient to settle any point.is another voice, bne thatbe bribed, one that speaksand unhesitatingly' con-us if we are wrong oi false',

Our conscience judges our actionsthe standard of right that we sub-to. Our conscience is as accurateour convictions are. Our convictionsnot always be right. Concerningwitness of Paul's conscience]explains,"lt is most significanihe regards this witness as blrne,inHoly Spirit.'Just as the certificationthe earlier assertion [l lie not] is

derived from union with Christ, so theveracity of the witness of his conscienceis..certified by the Holy Spirit" (ll:2).When the witness of the conscience .intruthfully be said to be borne in theHoly Spirit, its witness is true.2 That I have grcd heavlness andcontlnual sorrow ln my' heaft

Concerning this verse picirilliexplains, "'Great heaviness, meansgreat grief. 'Continual sorrow, refers touninte-rrupted pain. The pangs of griefPaul feels for Israel weigh f,eaviti onhim. He is never free from that buiden.Weiss calls attention to the tripleintensity indicated here: from ,heav-iness' to 'sorrow,' from ,great' to'continual,' from'l' to'my heait,' (1741.Moule remarks, "Vergwonderful andprofoundly true, is this expression ofintense grief just after the ,iovunspeakable'of ch. 8" (162).Joy is a positive vatue reaction.Sorrow is a negative value reaction.Value reactions are experienced in theheart. These reactions are felt in theheart which is the seat of the emotions.(See comments on heart in the notes onl:21.)- Paul's view of grace was the occasionfor some to misunderstand his attitudetoward the law. For that reason in7:7-25 Paul defended the fact that the

law is good and that it has served auseful purpose. Just as some misun-derstood his view of law, some mighthave felt that Paul had turned agaiistthe Jews (Acts 21:28 and 24:5). h;;il;to deny the veracity of such a claim.Paul comes forth with the strongesipossible show of compassion indconcern for his fellow Israelites whoseeyes were still blinded to the truth.3 For I could wlsh tftat mysclfwere accurscd fTom Chrlst for myrbrethren, qr Hnsmen accordlni

il

249


4/39

9:3, 4to thc f,csh.

For. "For" indicates that Paul isgoing to give a reason for the deepconcern mentioned in v. 2.I could wieh that myself wereaccursed from Christ. Concerningthe word for accursed (Greekanathema\, Sanday and Headlamexplain that it originally meant, *'Thatwhich is offered or consecrated to God.'But the translators of the Old Testa-ment required an expression to denotethat which is devoted to God fordestruction, and adopted anathema asa translation of the Hebrew cherem"(228\.Concerning the word for "l couldwish" (Greek euchomai), the vastmajority take the meaning to be "l couldwish." Those who are interested in adiscussion of the different ways it mightbe understood should consult Cranfield(ll:454-457). His own translation is, "ForI would pray" (ll:456).Paul is saying that if it were possible,in so doing, for him to bring about thesalvation of the Jews, he would bewilling to be separated from Christ andaccept the eternal consequences ofsuch a separation. As Cranfield says,"Nothing less than the eschatologicalsentence of exclusion from Christ'spresence (cf. Mt. 7:23; 25:41\ isinvolved" (ll:458). Picirilli comments,"Paul's feelings are deep and self-sacrificing. He could go to Hell for hisracial brethren were that possible!"(174\.Many call attention to Moses' prayeras being similar in nature to the deepconcern that Paul expresses in thisverse. Moses said, "Yet now, if thou wiltforgive their sin-; and if not, blot me,I pray thee, out of thy book which thouhast written" (Ex. 32:32\.My brethren, ny hinemenaccording to the flesh. Paul knewwhat it meant to be a Jew. He knew

that they were the Covenant PeopleGod. He knew that Jesus Chrisi uJews are Israelites-that they are the choGod (ll:1160, 116l).To whom madoption. The(Greek huiofhesrl,a)from the meaning in

(see notes on 8:15). :Adoption, as it is r.nthat distinct privileggas being theCollectively, theyson" (see Ex. 4:22Hos. 1:10 theindividuals as theGod." They werethey werePeople of God.sood discussionbetween adoptionreferred to in 8:tSAnd theis to what thewhich was theDivine presence.summary of what'The glory'as referring toupon and a1Sinai (Exod.that covered

ernacle (Exod,'thatseat in the16:2), thefilled theII Chron. 7:This Slorypresencethat Godmet with29:42-46\"And thcexplains:

ROMANS

the Jewish Messiah. It hurt him

Israel in the history of redemption failcto grasp a major contribution of thbgreat book.

to know that so many amongCovenant People of God were ab

gfvlng of fhc ler' end thc rof W cnd tho pronleor.

in unbelief. Any study of Romansfails to comprehend the significance

4 Tho erc lslrcnta3i topt frrr/dt tho adopfdon, .nd qaglolt, and thc covcnrntr, end

etence, adoptionNew Covenant saintg.mature sons, sons ofin distinction fromimmaturity of the Old

Who arc Israelitec.gives us a good summary ofmeaning of Israel. He explains:In early times (e.9. Judg. 5:2,7)the name of the sacred confed.eracy, 'lsrael' was from the first asacred term, denoting the wholecommunity of those chosen by,and united in the worship ofYahweh. From the division of thekingdom until the fall of Samariait was limited to the northernkingdom; but from 722 B.C. it wasapplied to the southern kingdomof Judah (e.g. Isa. 5:7; 8:18; Mic.3:1), though the hope of arestored whole Israel was stillcherished. In later PalestinianJudaism the name'lsrael'was theregular self-designation of theJews expressing their consciou+ness of being the people of God;the name 'Jew' was used byforeigners and by the Jewsthemselves in their dealings withforeigners. .ln the NT thenames 'lsrael' and 'lsraelite' con'tinue to have a salvation-historicalsignificance (cf. for example, theoccurrences in the Fourth Gospel:1:3L, 47,49; 3:10; 72:131. So herePaul, by saying that his fellow'

,;;i-'j.. ilf li :::

250


5/39

ROMANS 924Jews - are Israelites, is assertinqthat.they are the chosen ;;;il;?God (ll:460, zt61). r--r-- v'To whom pertaineth theadoption. The mlanins of adopilI(Greek hurbfhesrie) herJ is dif6re-Jfrom the meaning in g:15. I" th;i-;i:erence, adoption refers to tne position

New Covenant saints "njov-"i-U"ir"mature.sons, sons of legal- jge. That iIin distinction from th; p-Gfi"" - "Iimmaturity of the Old Covenant saints(see notes on 8:15).. Adoption, as it is used here, refers tothat distinct privilege enjoyed' bti;;Jas Derng the Covenant people of God.Collectively_, they were .utj"a ;C-JI(see Ex. 4:22 -and Hos. 11:l). In- 1:10 the reference i. -io 'if,"as the ,.sons of in"-firi"IThey were called sons L;.;;;members of tht -C;;;;;;;9j God, (See Murray II4,S f*';dtscussion on the differenceadoption here and "a.ptil"'""to in g:15 and Gal. 4,3.i" *A"{ the glory. The reference herethe Jews called the Shekinohwas the visible expression of thepresence. Murray siue, u -gooJof what is involved:'!re glory, should be regardedas referring to the glory that abodeupon .and appeared on Mountsmai (Exod. 24:16, 17). the qlorvthat covered and'fiMd the;-b'-

ernacle (Exod. 0:34-3g): the qlorvthat appeared upon t'lie mEr",i-seat in the holy of holies (Lei,.7.6:2), the glory of the Lord'thatniled the temple (l Kings g:10, 1l;tl, phr.on. 7:i,2;'cf. t "i.-1'.ie)'.I nls glory was the sign of God'spresence with Israel and certifiedthat God dwelt among them inJTet with them (cf. Exod.29:42-46)" (lI:S).4"d the covenantc. piper

There is no consensus amongcommentators concerning whicficovenants are referred to. Murray(Romong II, S) suggests th;covenants with Abraham, Mosesand David. Munck (Chiist -iiiIgr99l, 31), Alford 01. +OAiSchlatter (G erechtigkeit, 2i?41, andYg$uy and Headlam (Romons,2,3.0) refer to the covenants ,fromAbraham to Moses.' S.h6;(Roemerbrief, 287), inctud;i ;h;Uovenant with Noah. Barrett(Romans, lTTf) foilows "-;;;;rabbinic reference (Strack-Billerbeck, III, 262) to'-.til;covenants within the great cove-nant of the Exodus_a covenanta! fl-orgb, a second in the plainsqf Moab, and a third at M;;iGerizim and Ebal., What we leimfr-om this assortment of Su""r"r-i.that Paul's term ,cove-nunti;- inRom. 9:4b is.open-ended (19).uoncerntng the meaning of ,,cove.nplt" (Greek diqtheke), hr"h"i "i-plains:. Since the ordinary Greek wordfor 'contract' or ,compact, (sun-theke) implied quality cin the'pirtof the contracting parties, theGreek-speaking J-ews preferedctntheke (coming from dia-ntnemai, (to make a disposition ofone's property') in the iense-oi aunilateral enactment. In secular.GrySk this word usually ,"ini'ynll' or 'testament,, U-ut il;glassical authors like Aristophines(Br'rds 439) occasionally u""a ii-ofa covenant wherein one of the twoparties had an overwhelmingsuperiority over the other anfcould dictate his own terms.Hgnge the biblical diatheke sis_nified (in a way much -or""specific than did berif [Hebrew forcovenantl) an arrangement madeby one party with plenary power,251


6/39

9:4 ROMAI\ISwhich the other party may acceptor reject but cannot alter("Covenant" in Evangelical Dic-tionary ol Theology 278; seeGalatians 3:15-18).Vine points out that "The word dio-fheke does not involve the idea of jointobligation, but signifies that which is

undertaken by one person only. Henceit is frequently interchangeable with theword'promise,'as in Gal. 3:16, 18" (138,13e).It would be hard to overestimate theimportance of covenants in the devel-opment of the program of redemption.The major development of such is seenin the covenants that God made withIsrael.In my opinion the covenants thatPaul had in mind in this verse beganwith Abraham and include all theredemptive covenants since that time.The basic redemptive covenant is theAbrahamic. All others are either madeor promised to Israel. Later covenantsserve to broaden the understanding ofthe Abrahamic Covenant by enlargingour understanding of what was alreadyinherent in it. Or they help in theimplementation of it.The fact that redemption is promisedonly to the seed of Abraham makes itimportant that we understand what Paulmeans when he says in Romans 4 andGalatians 3 that believing Gentiles arethe seed of Abraham. God has nevermade a redemptive covenant with theGentiles (Eph. 2:11, 12). As Mi[s rightlyobserves, "Every covenant that Godmade with the sons of Jacob, from theone with Abraham on, is the possessionof Israel, whether it be the Abrahamic,Mosaic, Davidic, Palestinian, Messianic,and even the New Covenant. These areall the eternal possessions of the nationIsrael" (293). Wuest comments, "Godnever makes any covenants with theGentiles. He made these covenants withlsrael because that nation was to be

used as a channel to bring salvation tothe human race" (155).Any attempt to understand thehistory of redemption that does notcome to Srips with the covenant rela-tionship between God and Israel isgreatly lacking. A grasp of the signifi-cance of the covenant relationshipbetween God and Israel will help us tounderstand: (1) why not all who are thenatural seed of Abraham are saved; (2)why the Jews seemed to. think thatmerely being the natural seed ofAbraham guaranteed their standingbefore God; (3) why Gentiles mustbecome the seed of Abraham to besaved. If we are to understand chapters2, 4, 9 and 11 of Romans, we mustunderstand the covenant relationshipbetween God and Israel, and we mustsee how the unbelieving Jews misun-derstood this relationship.

And the siving of the law.Kasemann (2591 and Murray (ll:6)understand the reference here to be tothe act of Siuing the law rather than thepossession of the law. Bruce (185),Cranfield (fr:462, tl6|), Hanison (102),Hodge (259), and Pipr (20-22) under.stand the meaning to be the possessionof the law. It appears to me that Godetmay be correct in combining both ofthese ideas. He explains, "This termembraces along with the gift of the lawitself, the solemn promulgation of it onMount Sinai; comp. the saying of thepsalmist 147:20:'He hath not dealt sowith any nation"' (3a1). This wouldstress the fact that Israel had the law asa deposit of Divine revelation.The Pharisees placed tremendousvalue on the Torah (Hebrew for law).The Torah was as central to Phariseesas Jesus Christ is to Christianity. WhilePaul did not accept some aspects of thePharisees'idea of law, he did place greatvalue on the law. This he had madeclear in 7:7-25. (See the comments therefor how Paul defended the fact that the

law is good.)And the

Murray II:6; land Headlarn

service oflatreia. Piciri&the priestlytemplerituals,involved" (

meaning and.should seeCranfieldgoes beyondexplains, "Butgether unhere, thefaithtulagogue and,includingreading ofvation of theShema, and,,ithe phrase ofwith thydriksen 312,It seemsservtcemorebased onreferring to ica direct gift ofwas a laterresult of aMills, aThethe slorythis 'seruifoundationGospelofGod knowdthousandssavedthea picture ofand thecross. My

252


7/39

ROMANS

253

9:4law is good.)And the service of God. .Theservice of God" is from the Greek wordlatreia. Picirilli says, "This looks back tothe priestly ministry and tabernacle-temple worship system, including alltherituals, cermonies, and sicrificesinvolved" (175). (See also Hodqe 299:Murray II:6; Piper 22, 28; and Sandavand Headlam 231.) Those interested iia more thorough development of themeaning and significance of latreiashould see Piper.Cranfield suggests that the meaninggoes beyond the temple service. Hiexplains, "But it does not seem alto-gether unlikely that, as used by paulhere, the term embraced abb thefaithful non-sacrificial worship of syn-3sgsrlg and . pious Jews at home,including such things as prayer, the

reading of the Scriptures,-the obser_vation of the Sabbath, the reciting of theShema, and, indeed, allthat is mEant bvthe phrase of Mic. 6:8, ,to walk humbli,with thy God"' (ll:463. See also Heri_driksen 312, 313.)It seems to me that to limit theservice (Greek latreia) to thetabernacle-temple worship would be themore probable interpretation. This isbased on the idea that what paul isreferring to is that which was Israel's asdirect gift of God. Synagogue worshipa later development ritf,er tfi;lh;

of a direct revelation from God.Mills, a Hebrew Christian, remarks:. The beauty, the majesiy, andthe glory that were portray'ed inthis 'service to God,, laid thefoundation for the preaching of theQospel of the Graie of GoI. OnlyGod knows how many countlesithousands of soub have beensaved. through the preaching ofthe tabernacle and its sacrifice-s asa picture of the work of the Saviorand the accomplishments of thecross. My fellow Christians, do not

minimize 'the service of God' forthis service made it not oniypossible but also easier for voiand me to, preach the Gospei ois_alvation through faith in JesusChrist, and to see the atoningsacrifice on the cross as the grandfoundation stone upon whicf, theGospel rests (294).And the promieee. Most com-mentaries do not give a developeddiscussion on what is meant Uv ifr""promises." It is usually concluaej thiithe reference would beto the Messianicpromises. Some suggest that itembraces all promises mide to Jews inthe O.T.We miss the point that paul had inmind if we do not take a more careful!99k at what is meant by the prornir"r.The promise of eternal iif" to'th" .""dof Abraham is at the root of what pauihad in mind. This is u n"."..uryimplication from Gen. 13:15 and 17:ld.(See discussion about the AbrahamicCovenant in the comments on 4:13.)Abraham and his seed wil porr"r.the land for etemity. This is u ,"f"re*"to the eschatological future of theredeemed. The redeemed are the seedo_f Abraham. It is for this reason thaiGentiles must become the "eed oiAbraham as presented in Rom. 4 anJGal. 3.The promise of the Messiah isinvolved also. The Messiah, by Hisredemptive work, provides the basis forthe fulfillment of the eschatologicalpromise of Gen. 13:15 and 17:g. Anumber of other promises were made toIsrael, but these promises are involvedin.the outworking and the implemen-tation of the promise of the eschato-logical future and the Messianicpromises.Piper is on the right track when heobserves with regard to the Gentiles-"They become fellow beneficiaries oithe promises which already belong to


8/39

924, 5 ROMAITISthe 'saints,' the 'household of God'(Eph. 2:19). Only by being grafted intothe cultivated olive tree do the Gentilesbecome heirs of the promise (Rom.11:17). Therefore the salvation whichGentile believers enjoy as beneficiariesof the promise of God is a salvationwhich belongs to Israel because 'theirsare the promises' (Rom. 9:4b)" (24,25).5 WhosG eru the f,athore' and ofwhom ar concomlng tho f,cchChrlst etu.e. who b ovcr dlr GodblccrGd for evcn. AmGn.

Whoee ore the fathere. Every'one agrees that Abraham, Isaac, andJacob are included. Piper states that thereference is limited to these patriarchs.He explains, "The reference in Rom.9:5a is probably to Abraham, Isaac andJacob since the privilege would lose itspoint if 'fathers' meant all the ancestors,and since these patriarchs are alludedto in 9:6-13" (25). (See also Hodge 299;Lenski 585; Shedd 277; and Wuest 155.)While agreeing that Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob were refened to by Paul,Murray remarks, "lt would not appearreasonable to exclude the fatherexpressly mentioned in 1:3 [David].Thus we should have to extend the linebeyond Jacob and conclude that thefathers of distinction in redemptivehistory from Abraham onwards are inview" (ll:6). (See also John Brown 304;Cranfield fr:464; Hendriksen 314, 315;and Plumer t158.)I agree with those who restrict therelerence to Abraham, Isaac, andJacob.lt seems to me that it suits Paul'spurpose to use the restricted referenceto fathers since stress would be on thefact that they were highly esteemed.They were a great treasure. The fathersof the nation seem to be in view ratherthan a more general reference to theJew's forefathers.And of whon ac concerning

the llesh Chriet came. As it relatesto the fathers, Paul says, "whose are thefathers." The fathers were the possession of Israel. As it relates to Christ,he was "from Israel," but not theirexclusive possession. As it relates tq,His human nature, He was a Jew. But ,He belongs to all who believe in Him,both Jew and Gentile.Who ie over all, God blegsGdfor ever. Amen. Opiniong differ overwhether these words refer to Christ orto God the Father. If these words referto Christ, they constitute an acknowl- ,edgment of the deity of Christ on th,part of Paul. If they refer to God thcFather, they would neither affirm nordeny the deity of Christ although in that ,case these words could not be used toargue for the deity of Christ.

as to call for a complementarystatement on the divine-side. Thisis provided by the usual transla-tion, but not the other rendering.

definite article,'the,' igin the text with'God,, bforegoing wor$p (liteiarybeing over all'), so Ptrying to displace Godbut is doing what Johsaying that the word(John 1:1), that is, tracGod. In any case, di*.pli"9 in recognizing hall'(it is very awkwardto refer this to God d

There are several good treatments of :ithese words which take them to referto Christ. Harrison gives a concisetreatment in favor of referring them tolChrist. He explains:Several considerations favorthe traditional wording, which .:refers'God' to Christ: (1) Christ's 'lrelationship to Israel on the human iside has been stated in such a way

from Christ) (103).(For other treatmenbiposition, see Bruce180-185; Godet 342-345;Lenski.5E*589; Munry:.Appendix A, 2t15-248; airiHeadlam 233-235.')Denny (658, 659),260), and Meyerview that applies the5 to Christ. Rather,them to refer to thcwords are taken to ba *iwould read,"'God wl$,blessed forever"'(There are two maintaking the last pa* ofto the Father ratheris said that Pauldoesas God. (2) To use"Besides the

Eph. 4:5, 6; and(362).as God, I would call2:13 where Paul says,

(2) 'Who'can properly be coupled :tonly with the foregoing subject(Christ). If another subject (God

be introduced, thatbe called not merely[God], but evenconsequently would bG[the Father]) is being introduced, :i theos pantokratorthere is no reason at all for the'who.' (3) A doxology to God [theFatherl can hardly be intendedsince in doxologies the word'blessed' is regularly placed beforethe one who is praised. Here itcomes after. (4) A doxology toGod [the Father] would be sin'gularly out of place in a passagemarked by sorrow over Israel'sfailure to recognize in Christ her

Ruler over alll,incompatible with theN.T. as to theon the Father. . ., I CoftWith regard towhether Paul elsewhere

2s4


9/39

crowning spiritual blessing. (5) Thedefinite article, 'the,' is not linkedin the text with'God,'but with theforegoing words (literally, 'the onebeing over all'), so Paul is nottrying to displace God with Christ,but is doing what John does insaying that the word was God(John 1:1), that is, has the rank ofGod. In any case, this is reallyimplied in recognizing him as'overall'(it is very awkward, with NEB,to refer this to God in distinctionfrom Christ) (103).(For other treatments supporting thissee Bruce 186, I87; EarleGodet 342-345; Hodge 300-302;585-589; Murray II:6, 7, andA, 245-248; and Sanday and233-238.1Denny (658, 659), Kasemann (259,and Meyer (360-364) reject the

that applies the closing words of v.to Christ. Rather, they understandto refer to the Father. Theseto be a doxology andwho is over all beforever"' (Denny 658).There are two main reasons given forthe last part of the verse to referthe Father rather than Christ: (1) Itsaid that Pauldoes not refer to ChristGod. (2) To use Meyer's words,difficulty wouldintroduced, that here Christ wouldcalled not merely and simply fheosbut even God over oll, andwould be designated aspantokrator [the Almishty, theover all], which is absolutelywith the entire view of theas to the dependence of the SonFather. . ., I Cor. 3:23; 8:6; 11:3;4:5, 6; and notably I Cor. 15:28"With regard to the question ofPaulelsewhere refers to ChristGod, I would call attention to Tit.where Paul says, "The great God

9251 6and Saviour Jesus Christ." Some mayinsist that even this reference is to twopersons rather than one. Dana andMantey quote Granville Sharp, whoexplains, "When the copulative koi[and] connects two nouns of the samecase, if the article ho [the] or any of itscases precedes the first of the saidnouns, or participles, and is notrepeated before the second noun orparticiple, i.e., it denotes a fartherdescription of the first-named person"(140). The application of this rule toTitus 2:13 tells us that "the great God"and "our Saviour Jesus Christ" refer tothe same person, thus affirming thatPaulcalls Christ "God." When this ruleis applied to Eph.5:5 the words "Christ"and "God" at the end of the verse referto the same person again affirming thatPaul calls Christ "God."With regard to Meyer's problem inapplying the words "over all" to Christ,it may not be easy to explain all that issaid in the N.T. about the relationshipbetween the Son and the Father.However, there should be no problemin applying the words "over all" toChrist. Jesus' words, "All power [Greekexousia, authorityl is given unto me inheaven and earth" (Mt. 28:18) aresaying essentially the same thing. FirstCor. 15:27,28 may not be easy toexplain in every respect, but the versesclearly state that at the present allthings are now under Christ. Earlecomments, "But Meyer seems to missthe point. Of course Paul would notassert that Christ was over the Father.The word 'all' means 'all things,' aselsewhere. That Christ is over all thingsis based on His creatorship of all things(Col. 1:16)" (182, 183).B. God'e Beiection of theUnbelieving Israelites lg Notto Be Tahen to Mean ThatGod le Not True to HisPromice (9:6).

ROMANS


10/39

926 NOMANS6 llo't ar though ltc word of Godhath talen nonG GfrGG{" For thcyerc not all larael, urhlch are ofIsracl.

Not aa though the word of Godhath taken none effect. Paul hadmade it quite clear that he did notbelieve that the Jews who failed tobelieve in Jesus as the Messiah weresaved. The Jews were not prepared forsuch an observation because they were(for the most part) of the opinion thatsince they were Abraham's seed, thatwithin itself guaranteed their relation-ship to God. This they felt was involvedin the promise of the eternal possessionof the land to Abraham and his seed(Gen. 13:14, 15 and 17:8). As Hodgeexplains, "lt was a commoh opinionamong the Jews, that the promise ofGod being made to Abraham and to hisseed, all his natural descendants,sealed, as such, by the rite of cir-cumcision, would certainly inherit theblessings of the Messiah's reign. It wasenough for them, therefore, to be ableto say, 'We have Abraham to ourfather"'(304).It sounded to the unbelieving Jew asif Paul were saying that God had failedin His covenant promise to Abrahamand his seed. Of course, Paul could notentertain such a thought. In the light ofprevailing Jewish thought, it was nec-essary for Paul to explain why the factthat many Jews were lost was not inconflict with the Abrahamic Covenant.It is absolutely essential at this pointthat we understand both prevailingJewish thought and the true meaning ofthe promise made to Abraham and tohis seed in the Abrahamic Covenant.The reader may want to read theintroductory comments on chap. 2; thecomments on 2:25; and the notes on"The Abrahamic Covenant and theInheritance of Abraham and His Seed"in connection with 4:13.

For they cre not all lerael,which are of lerael. In this part ofthe verse Paul is giving his explanationfor saying that the covenant promisethat God made to Abraham and hisseed had not failed. This passage as itis developed through the chapter hasbeen called "The Justification of God."It is Paul's defense of the fact that Godis completely justified in not savingunbelieving Jews. This fact is in no wayin contradiction to the promise Godmade to Abraham and his seed. AsPiper explains, "lf Paul can show thatGod's ultimate 'purpose according toelection' never included the salvation ofevery Israelite, then the situationdescribed in Rom. 9:1-5 would not soeasi$ jeopardize God's reliability" (33).Paul's words make it clear that thereare at least two uses of the word"lsrael." (1) It refers to all who havedescended from Abraham throughJacob. (2) There is an Israel withinIsrael which consists of those who willactually inherit the promise of theAbrahamic Covenant. This promise isthe everlasting possession of the land ofCanaan in the eschatological future.The following diagram will illustratewhat Paul is talking about.

All who are descendants of Abrahamthrough Jacob would be "A," but not allwould be "8." All "A' would be the

Covenant People ofthe Covenant .q.However, when itvidual, those whopromise are thoseThis group ursul4are A, but not B,are A, but not B,promse ot eternal ,The Covenant riof the descendanieis made on theno violation of thCmade to theunbelievers do notAbraham "believedrhe counted it to htri(Gen. 15:6). ,'u,

C. God'earche IrWhat follows in

serve as anGod dealt withJacob illustratesconcept ofinclude all whoham. For thatunderstandabletion of the savedneed not meanthe seed of7 ilelthcr,sGcd ofchlldren: bd,seGd bG callo&;i,

Neitherseed ofchildren. Thethis part of thedescendants ofdren" refers tothe "CovenantBut, In lsaaccalled. Ishmaelwere, from aas much the seed256


11/39

People of God, r'.e., they areCovenant Seed of Abraham.when it comes to the indi-those who actually receive theare those who respond in faith.group would be "B." Those whoA, but not B, will not receive thelife on the new earth.The Covenant promise is made to allthe descendants of Abraham. But itmade on the condition of faith. It isviolation of the Covenant promiseto the seed of Abraham ifdo not inherit the promise."believed in the LORD; andcounted it to him for righteousness"15:6).God'a Choice of The Patri-archa ls Discueeed (9:7-13).

What follows in these verses willas an illustratrion that the waydealt with Abraham, Isaac, andillustrates the fact that theof Abraham's seed does notall who descended from Abra-For that reason it should bethat the further limita-of the saved to those who believenot mean that God's promise toseed of Abraham has failed.

llclther, becaucc tbe5r aro thcof Abrahrm, ere lfrry dlhil, In lraac ahdl thybG called.Neither because they are theol Abraham, ane they allThe "seed of Abraham" inpart of the verse is equivalent to theof Abraham. The "chil-refers to those who were to be"Covenant Seed."But, In lsaac shall thy seed beIshmael and his descendantsfrom a purely physical viewpoint,much the seed of Abraham as Isaac

9:6-lOand his descendants. However, theywere not a part of the Covenant Seedto whom the promise was made in Gen.13:14, 15 and 17:8. The Covenant Seedwere to be called through Isaac.I fhrt b, frry ufttch arc thochll&tn of tho f,csh, tholc arenot the children of God: but thechildren of the promice arecounted for the seed.

That is, They which are thechildren of the fleeh, theee orenot the children of God. Thisexplains the first part of v. 7. Those whomerely descended from Abraham, aswas the case with Ishmael and hisdescendants, are not the children ofGod, r'.e., they are not the CovenantSeed.But the children of theproniee are counted for thcseed. This points to the narrowingdown of the Covenant Seed to Isaac bythe exclusion of Ishmael as is explainedin the next verse. Hodge (306, 307) seesthis passage as analogous to Gal.4:22-3L.lt seems to me better to stickto the simpler interpretation.9 For ^\lr lr thc wold of promlre,f,! rhl tlmc wlll I como, andSarrh ehall hre r ron

The words, "but, In Isaac shall thyseed be called" (v. 7, from Gen.2l:12)and the words here in v. 9 (from Gen.18:10 and 14) make it clear that onlyIsaac's descendants are the CovenantSeed. In other words, not all of the seedof Abraham are the Covenant Seed.lO And nd on$r fJrlr; hrt uftonRcboccr dlo hrd concclvcd b5ronc, eusn by our frthcr lr.tc.

And not only thic. The choice ofIsaac and the rejection of Ishmael

ROMANS

257


12/39

9:1O, 11 noMAhrsclearly illustrates that natural descentfrom Abraham does not guarantee thata person is considered to be theCovenant Seed of Abraham. However,Paul will give even more evidence thatthis is true.But when Rebecca aleo hadconceived by one, euen by ourfather Isaac. While it is true thatIsaac and Ishmael were both sons ofAbraham, they did not have the samemother. Some might have wanted tomake a point of that. They might havesaid that Ishmael was rejected becausehis mother was Abraham's handmaid.Isaac, they might have said, wasaccepted because his mother, Sarah,was Abraham's wife. If such an argu-ment was developing in the mind of theJew, Paul quickly silenced it. Jacob andEsau had the same father and mother.In fact, they were twins. Yet by Divinechoice Jacob was chosen and Esau wasrejected.11 (For ttrr dfrisrbGhg not yctborn, nolthcn hrrlng dorc an5lgood or GYll, tDrt ltc purpoeo ofGod accordng to clc'llon nbttstand, nd, of wortl hrt of hlmtbd c.lldh).

However, to make the choice before hewas bom helps accent the fact that thechoice was made without any consid.eration of works. If the choice had beenannounced after Jacob had provedhimself more worthy than Esau, it wouldnot have been convincing to say thatthe choice in no way took their worksinto account.But of him that calleth. When itis said that the choice was "not ofworks," that rules out any ionsiderationthat human merit was the basis ofGod's choice of Jacob. When it is said,"but of him that calleth" the stress is onthe fact that it was God's free choice as ,r,,jdistinguished from a choice beingimposed on God.

of Abraham and that EsauHowever, it goes on to sJacob and Esau, trkeIshmael, are fypes of tthat have been spoken'children o{ lhe promis'children of the flesh, (wtheocratic election ofJacob illustrates theelection of individualatheocratic reprobationand Esau illustrates th

individuals for salvation fsage. Hodge would also suof thinking (306, 307,(3) The more commonthose who see unconditiobeing taught in the passatake the passage to becerned with

arch while Esau was not604).(2) This view in agreemfirst recognizes that thewith the election of Jaco6patriarchal head of the

rather than to support:(Hendriksen 323, 324; Mtand Piper 48-52).After taking a look at wdeal with the question ofteach and how it relates tof election.12 It was rald unto hxrhall snG thc

The important observation in this,l.:iverse is: What is "the purpose of God 285).reprobation of individuaccording to election'? No one needs to-.a:, This view goes on todoctrine of unconditionalbe informed of the fact that Calviniste,.ri:!insist that their view of unconditionalelection is the only consistent and,r".i:adequate interpretation of this u"r.". l-'i!think it is time that they faced a.,;rii

vidual salvation. Rather, it refers to tMi;(For tlre childsen being not yet election of Jacob as the third of thgborn, neither having done any partriarchal ancestors (the other twcsood or evil. This points out the time being Abraham and Isaac) of the nationof tne statement about to be quoted in of Israel. Thus, the Covenant Seed dv. 12 from Gen. 25:23. The timing is Abraham were chosen throughmentioned to support what follows in rather than Esau. Jacob was electd{itht hri;urtof ihe verse. Esau was rejected (Clarke LLL, Ll}i..:That the purpose of God Godet 350, 351; and Sanday and':he was bom does not within itself prove vation and damnation. At the sam 1il."ithat God's choice was not by works. time, he denies that Paul is including th*i.:,liGod in His foreknowledge could have two nations that would descend fumf:f

challenge.It seems that there have beefl"basically three interpretations given tO.r-+..;iw. 6-13. (1) The passage has nothing to:+$do with election or rejection for indi+ffi

That the purpose of God Godet 350, 351; and Sanday and']"11*f,according to elecfion night Headlam 245). Lenski's view is & ,rstand, not of workcftlhe fact that modification of this view. He denies that :.:1.1God's choice of Jacob was made before Paul is de-aliqs here with etgmal sdti ;, i._.ii Cranfield explains:The interest of thverse as a whole igJacob and Esau not jtchosen Jacob on the basis of works if Jacob and Esau. He thinks Paulb;*l;".:He had desired to do so. He can foresee concem is to deal only with the fact th$,'. ,,i;

viduals but also, andas the ancestors of firfor the part quoted ieworks as *ell u" He can other thi.gs. Jrc r the third pafilt, -,''r* -- wo nations are in thYI would argue ttnt Forrines presupposition that God e4ioys exhaustive definiteforeknowledge (EDF) is mistaken. Forlines is correct irrat paul,s argumeJhere wouto besusceptible ifhe and/or his op.ponents berieved, like Forlines, tir"t cio"":"v, ior.Therefore, that paul levels this argument is evidence lfrom ,il"*", g;;iJ.iiJat puutdoes not share Forlines' belief and does not berieve his opponents ;fr;" F;il;, belief


13/39

ROMANS 9:ll, 12two peoples shall be separatedeven from thy bowels: and the onepeople shall be stronger than theother people.' It is important tostress that neither as they occurin Genesis nor as they are used byPaul do these words refer to thleternal destinies either of twopersons or the individualmembersof the nations sprung from them;the reference is rather , to themutual relations of the two hationsin history. What is here inquestion is not eschatologicalsalvation or damnation, but-thehistorical function of those con-cerned and their relations to thedevelopment of the salvation-history (ll:a7il.Lenski would agree with Cranfieldthat this verse does not deal with theeternal destinies of Jacob and Esau.However, he does not believe that paulis intending to include a reference to thetwo nations which descended fromJacob and Esau: Israel and Edom. Hethinks the reference is limited to the factthat God chose Jacob to be "the thirdpatriarch. As 'in Isaac' seed was to becalled for Abraham so also in Jacob.Esau had the covenant in his twinbrother, and not that brother in Esau.Jesus also said: 'salvation is of theJews,' John 4:22" (603, 604).Lenski calls attention to the fact thatPaul, in quoting from Gen. 25:23, omitsthe reference to two nations inRebecca's womb. He thinks the refer-ence to the nations was purposelyomitted by Paul because he did no1want to include a reference to thenations.I am sure that Paul's concern waswith the fact that Jacob, and not Esau,was chosen as the one through whomthe Covenant Seed would bL cailed.However, it seems that it would beimpossible in this verse to think ofJacob as the last chosen partriarch

259

arch while Esau was not chosen (603,6Ml.(2) This view in agreement with thefirst recognizes that the passage dealswith the election of Jacob as the thirdpatriarchal head of the Covenant Seedof Abraham and that Esau was rejected.However, it goes on to say that:Jacob and Esau, like Isaac andIshmael, are fupes of two classesthat have been spoken of: viz: the'children of the promise,' and the'children of the flesh' (ver. 8). Thetheocratic election of Isaac andJacob illustrates the spiritualelection of individuals; and thetheocratic reprobation of Ishmaeland Esau illustrates the spiritualreprobation of individuals (Shedd285).This view goes on to develop thedoctrine of unconditional election ofindividuals for salvation from this pas-sage. Hodge would also support this lineof thinking (306, 307, and 312).(3) The more common view (amongthose who see unconditional election aibeing taught in the passage) seems totake the passage to be directly con-cerned with unconditional eiection

1a_theq than to support it by analogy(Hendriksen 323, 3i4; Murray II:15-i|and Piper 48-52).After taking a look at w. 12, 13, I willdeal with the question of what w. O-t3teach and how it relates to the subjectof election.12 lt war sald unto her, fhc cldershall sene thc younger.

Cranfield explains:The interest of this Genesisverse as a whole is clearly inJacob and Esau not just as indi-viduals but also, and particularly,as the ancestors of two nations;f.cr the part quoted is preceded by'Two nations are in thy womb, and


14/39

9:12, l3 ROMANSwithout thinking also of the nation thatdescended from him. However, nomatter what other things may beinvolved in the relationships and dif-ferences between these two nations, thecentral thought of Paul was that theCovenant Seed was called throughJacob.

While seeing a reference to thenations as wellas the individuals, Sheddsays, "The theocratic election of Isaacand Jacob illustrates the spiritualelection of individuals; and the theo-cratic reprobation of Ishmael and Esauillustrates the spiritual reprobation ofindividuals" (285. See also Hodge 311,372\.I will reserve my own comments onhow all this relates to the subject ofelection after completing comments onthe next verse.13 Ar lt b rrftfcn, Jrcob hyG Ilorrcd, but Esau hm I hltGd.

Lenski, as in his comment on v. 12,does not think the reference hereincludes the nations which descendedfrom Jacob and Esau. He thinks thereference is "to the individual acts whenGod took Jacob and did not take Esau"(604).It is importani to remember that thechoice of Jacob as the third patriarchis at the heart of what Paulhas in mind.However, that choice cannot be res-tricted in meaning to Jacob as anindividual. Jacob, as patriarch, hasmeaning only as it is understood thathe, not Esau, is the one through whomIsrael as the Covenant Seed was called.Once this is understood, there is noway to eliminate the nation of Israelfrom the mention by Malachi (from 1:2,3) referred to by Paul. Of course it isthe nation as the Covenant Seed thatdescended from Jacob that would be infocus-not simply the nation as anation. It should be obvious that if

Jacob includes the nation of Israel, Esauincludes the nation of Edom.The purpose of v. 13 in Paul,sthought is to show that the quotationfrom Gen. 25:23, "Tlte elder shall servethe younger," was actually fulfilled. Thatis what is implied by the words, "As i1is written." In addition to the fact thatEsau was not a part of the CovenantSeed, there would be other advantagesthat Jacob would have over Esau. Thequotation from Mal. 1:2, 3'support thisprediction from Gen. 25:23.We should avoid over-interpretingPaul's quotation from Malachi. The onlypurpose in the reference to the fact thatGod loved Jacob and hated Esau is toconfirm the fact that the advantagespoken of in Gen. 25:23 actually cameto pass. The hating of Esau is illustratedby the fact that God "laid his mountainsand his heritage waste for the dragonsof the wilderness" (Mal. 1:3). It is notsaid that this destruction was wroughtupon the nation simply because Goddid not include Esau and his de-scendants among the Covenant Seed.For the basis for judgment beingbrought on Edom, see Am. 1:11, 12, andOb. 1-14. When we see that the"hating" of Esau refers to God'sjudgment on the nation of Edom fortheir sins, we do not need to getinvolved in whether "hating" as usedrefers to loving less.Vercec 5.13 and Election.

In commenting on v. 11 above, Ipointed out that some do not seeindividual election for salvation in thispassage. Rather, they see it as dealingonly with the choice of Jacob as the onethrough whom the Covenant Seed ofAbraham were chosen. Thus Israel asthe Covenant Seed descended fromJacob. Esau and his descendants werenot a part of the Covenant Seed.Others are not content in leaving

individual election out dMurray explains:- ihe ihesis that pamerely with thecollectively. . .urould, lprecise situation.posed for the apoed*the covenant promberegarded asmass of thoseIsrael, who areelect nation. . .hawunbelief and comecovenantwould fail if it

w$

appeal to the collecl$theocratic election dPaul's answer is notdelection of Israel b*are not all Israel,.Israel.'And thisthe stage ofwe have nownot all elect, wlp:,1that when Paulof Godspeaking of theGod in a discrtiating sense thatall who were sflcratic electionMurray developothe doctrine ofHe says, "lt does notis it conditioned bnrby the determinate ull$1:5, 11)" (ll:20). iI agree that Paulthe election of the n5-13. It is clear thatintended to dealexpressed in w. 1-3that large numbertsaved. ,',,,It is important tsPaul's contention thdJews were notsuch a serious

2ffi


15/39

ROMANS

The thesis that paul is dealinqmerely with the election of Israejcollectively. . .would not meet ttreprecise situation. The questionposed for the apostle is: hbw canthe covenant promise of God beregarded as inviolate when themass of those who belong toIsrael, who are comprised in- theelect nation. .have remained inunbelief and come short of thecovenant promises? His answerwould fail if it were simply onappeal to the collective, inilusive,theocratic election of lirael. . .-.Paul's answer is not the collectiveelection of Israel but rather ,thevare not all Israel, who are o'fIsrael.'And this means, in terms oithe stage of discussion at whichwe have now arrived, ,Thev arenot all elect, who are of - Isra_el. . .'the conclusion, therefore, isthat when Paul says ,Th" purpo."of God according io election'ire isspegkinS of the electing purpose ofGod in a discriminatin!, aifferen-tiating sense that cannot apply toall who were embraced i,i'theo-cratic election (ll,lg).. Murray develops-from this Dassaaethe doctrine of unconditional electio-n.fle says, "lt does not proceed fiom ;;;is it.conditioned by the human will buiby the determinate will of God (cf. Eph.1:5, 11)" (ll:20).. I agree that Paul does not stop withthe-ele_ction of the nation of tsraet-i" uv.6-13. It is clear that this pur"ug" i,intended to deal with til prolUi".expressed in w. l-3 concerhing the factthat large numbers of Jews ;"r; ;;;saved._ It- is important to understand whvPaul's contention that turg" nu.b"r, o'fJews were not saved riould t "*;;such a serious problem to Jewi"ii

individual election out of the passage.Murray explains: thought. The problem goes beyond thequestion of why they are not iaved orhow to reach them.To the.vast majority of Jews, it wasunrtunkable that any Jew would bedenied !9 purt in the "ternJ inh#tance. This is true because thevbelieved in the unconditional "t".tior'Jfthe Covenant Seed of Abraham:-is;quotation in notes on v. 6 from Hodgealong with other comments in the noiZson v. 6 that deal with the Jewishattitude about what was theirs ;;Abraham's seed..) All of their tf,i"f.i"shad not been fully harmonized, and foithat reason some of their comments onworks may not seem to fit the concentof unconditional election. Ho*"u"1.there can be no doubt thai-ih;unconditional election of the seed ofAbraham permeated Jewish thouqni.For this reason, the possibility th;iFrsenumbers of the Jews might be un.uu"-dwar to them absolutely unthinkable.To- think that large numbers oi j"*,would not be saved meant to themeither one of two things: (t) God hiJbroken His covenant w-ith israel ". th;s.eed o{ Abraham, or (2) ,in"" Cniir-tianity did not concur with the iaea ihatall J,e1vs were saved, it coutd noipossibly be true.- More was involved than merelyclarifuing whether some or all Jewiwould be saved. paul had to show-thaibeing the Covenant Seed of Abraliamdid not guarantee that everyon" *tiodescended from Abraham- thro;;hJacob would be saved. Th" d#iwould not be received bv the- $wunless this point was cleared up. It wisthis _ point of clarification that paulsought to make in w. 6-13.The following will clarifu what isTgalt by the Covenant Seed ofAbpham. God entered into a.ouenaniwith Abraham in which n" pro.ir"Jthe eternal possession of the land-;;Palestine to the seed of Abraham (Gen.

261


16/39

ROMAI\IS13:14, 15, and 17:8). The CovenantSeed of Abraham are those to whomthe promise was made. This promisewas not made to all who could beconsidered in the literal sense the seedof Abraham. Ishmael's descendants,those who descended from Abrahamthrough the children of Keturah, andthose who descended from Esau couldall be considered as being the seed ofAbraham in the literal sense. However,none of these were the Seed ofAbraham to whom the promises weremade. Those to whom the promiseswere made were those who descendedfrom Abraham through Jacob. Thesewere the Covenant Seed of Abraham.Paul's point was that not even allIsrael, who made up the Covenant Seedof Abraham, would be saved andreceive the eternal inheritance of theland of Palestine. Further, he was sayingthat the fact that not all of the CovenantSeed of Abraham would actually besaved and receive the land as aneverlasting possession did not meanthat the promise which God made tothe Covenant Seed of Abraham hadproved to be ineffective.

always to work on the principle ofunconditional election (38-52). Heexplains, "The principle established isthat God's promised blessings are neverenjoyed on the basis of what a personis by birth or by works, but only on thebasis of God's sovereign, free predes-tination (Rom. 9:11, 12). The ultimatedecision of who will experience God'sgrace or mercy is never based on aperson's 'willing or running' (Rom.9:t6)" (46).Piper is not simply saying that theexegetical evidence supports the con.clusion that God operates on theprinciple of unconditional election. He isalso saying that, theologically and log-ically, the only way God's Word couldbe effective is to operate on the prin-ciple of unconditional election.Unconditional election makes the workdepend on nothing other than God.Since the program of redemptiondepends altogether on God, it mustsucceed. If God did not unconditionallyelect every individual Jew, that is all thatis needed to explain how many were notsaved and yet God's Word was notwithout effect.

cussion gf *lto made upSeed qf Abraham must ftin dealing with the factthe Covenant Seed ofsved. However, theitself is not the ansl{rer.that in w. 613, Paukaddress the Jewish cott *fact that not all JeunLet me restate theis dealing with in v. 6.how the rest of thethrows light on thisIt is quite clearindicate that largewere unsaved (w.serious problem toSuch an idea wasthey thought that Goditionally elected all d,.,Abraham thatham through Jacob. A*Paul's approach woub,.,

The question that needs to be Is the case sewed up for uncondi-answered is: Why is it that not allof the tional election? Is that the only possibleCovenant Seed are saved? Those who way for us to understand why all of theadvocate the doctrine of unconditional Covenant Seed (lsrael) are not saved?election say that it is because not every I think not.member of the elect nation (lsrael) was I do agree with those who insist thatelected for individual salvation by God. w. 6-13 are not to be restricted toSince this was the case, the fact that helping us understand that Jacob andmany in Israel were not saved does not his descendants made up the covenantmean that the Word of God "hath taken Seed of Abraham while Esau and hisnone effect" (v. 6). It simply means that descendants were not included in theGod's unconditional election for salva- Covenant Seed of Abraham. Thesetion did not embrace everyone who verses musf deal with the Jewishmade up the Covenant Seed of concem that not all who descendedAbraham. from Abraham through Jacob arePiper takes the position that in w. saved. The fact that Jacob's and not6-13 Paul is talking about unconditional Esau's descendants make up theelection allthe way through. As he sees Covenant Seed of Abraham, withinit, the only way God's Word could itself, does not explain why some Jewsalways be effective would be for God are not saved. Apparently, Paul's dis.262

unconditionalCovenant Seed of Ahlcome to pass. God'swould have failed.Obviously Paul didassumption that God",tionally elected all of th.of Abraham fisrael).edges in the last partore not all Israel,This implies that thcused in two differentThe first way ofis the all-inclusivewho descended fromJacob. These can beCovenant Seed ofCovenant People ofThe second way dIsrael is to refer toare saved and winpromises of God ma&Abraham that will be s*eschatological futura (land 17:8).Jewish thought dil


17/39

RoMANScusion g{ *lto made up the Covenant distinction made by Paul. The only thingS".a of Abraham. must have some value that Paul had to do to prove hij poiniin d"uling with the fact that not all of was to prove that it was possible for thethe covenant seed of Abraham are name Israel to be so used in a broadsaved. However, the simple fact within and in a narrow use.itself is not the answer. Yet, it is obvious To prove his point, Paul itl'.:stratesthat in w. 6-13, Paul intended to that the expression "seed of Abraham"address the Jewish concern about the can indisputably be used in a broad andfact that not all Jews are saved, in a narrow sense. In the broad sense,Let me restate the problem thit Paul the seed of Abraham (the descendantsis dealing with in v. 6. Then I will show of Abraham) include Ishmael and hishow the rest of the passage (w. 7-13) descendants, those who descendedthrows light on this problem. from Abraham through the sons he hadIt is quite clear that for Paul to by Keturah, and Esau and hisindicate that large numbers of Jews descendants as well as those whowere unsaved (w. 1-3) presented a descended through Jacob.serious problem to Jewish thought. While it is obvious that in the literalSuch an idea was intolerable because sense the seed of Abraham could bethey --thought that God had uncondi- understood in such a broad way, it istionalb elected all of the seed of equally obvious that when the se-ed ofAbraham that descended from Abra- Abraham is used in a theological senseham- through Jacob. _ As they saw it, it is not used in this broad sense. EveryPaul's approach would mean that the Jew would have known that.unconditional election of all of the Paul's point is simply this. If there canCovenant Seed of Abraham had not be a broad and a narrow use of thecome to pass. God's word in this case expression "the seed of Abraham,"would have failed. there is no reason to reject the idea thatobviously Paul did not work on the in a similar way there'can be a broadassumption that God had uncondi- and a narrow sense of the name Israel.tionally elected all of the Covenant Seed It must be remembered that theof. Abraham {lsrael). This he acknowl- Jewish problem grew out of the sig-edges in ttre_ last part of v. 6: "For they nificance that thei gave to the fact thdtq1e not all Israel, which are of Israel." they were the seed ol Abraham ratherThis- implies that the name of "lsrael" is than that they were ihe descendants ofused in two different ways. Jacob (Mt. g:9 and Jn. 8:$-a0. Whv?Th" first way of using the name Israel Because if u,ros to the seed of Abrahimis the all-inclusive use. It refers to all that the promises were made (Gen.ho descended from Abraham through 3:14, lS, and l7:8).These can be rishtlv called the The Jewish case, if it were to stand,ovenant seed of Abraham or the would have to mean that "the seed oiPeople of God. Abraham" in Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8The second way of using the name was all-inclusive. The problem with thisis to refer to those in Israel who is that it would include what Jewishsaved and will thus inherit the thought would not include, i.e., it wouldof God made to the seed of include all of the descendants ofthat will be experienced in the Abraham, not just those who de-future (Gen. 13:14, 15, scended through Jacob.17:8). once it is conceded that not all theJewish thought did not recognize this seed of Abraham are the covenant

263


18/39

9:14 ROMANSSeed of Abraham, it should not be toohard to realize that not allthe CovenantSeed of Abraham (those who de-scended from Abraham through Jacob)are the heirs of the promises made tothe seed of Abraham. Or to say itanother way, "They are not all Israel,which are of Israel" (9:6). Once thisposition is taken, the Jew should nothave a theological difficulty in realizingthat some Jews would be lost.The question of whether election isconditional or unconditional is notdecided by fhis possoge. What isdecided by this passage is that not allJews were saved and that this isconsistent with Biblical thought.So far as Paul's thought is con-cerned, as it is set forth in Romans, itis quite obvious why not all Jews aresaved. It is because they have failed tobelieve in Jesus as the Messiah (see9:30-33, especially v. 32).I will reserve further thoughts onelection and how all this fits into thesovereignty of God until it fits appro-priately into the following verses.D. The Matter of Having Mercyon Some and HardeningOthers Is Based on God'sChoice (9:14-f8).14 Wtil ehall wc ea5r thcn? Irflrcle unrlghtGousnec3 wlth God?God forDld.

What ehall we say then? In thelisht of Paul's comments in w. L-13, itis reasonable to assume that certainquestions would arise in the mind ofthose Jews who were still under thepower of unbelief. Following Paul's useof rhetorical questions in Rom. (3:L, 9,31; 6:1, 15; and 7:71, it is time again forPaul to pose a question which anobjector would likely be raising in hisown mind.Is there unrighteoueness with

God? The negative (Greek me) meansthat Paul expected a negative answer.It is not simply implied that the answeris to be negative. Paul emphaticallynegates such an assumption by sayingGod forbid. (For comments on thiGreek construction used here, seenotes on 3:4.) It was unthinkable bothto Paul and the Jew that God could beunrighteous.It is important to get a true pictureof who it is among the objectors thatwould raise such a question and why.Without doubt, the person who wouldthink that Paul's statements (in w. 1-13)would reflect on the righteousness ofGod would be a Jew who was abidingstill in unbelief.Why would the Jew think that Paul'sstatements in w. 1-13 would reflect onthe righteousness of God? As a meansof answering that question, it helps toraise another. What is the Jew's chiefconcern as it relates to what Paul saidin w. 1-13?

would not 1.".p His uabhorrent to Paul as it waobjector.Let me say at this pointhere actually was a Jewbeside the point. In allhad encountered some Jesuch a question. Whethecase or not, the questioraises is one that anwould have had in hireading or hearing what Pin w. 1-13. Paul was wisquestion and deal with iThe view which I hconcerling.why Paul raition, "ls there unrighteGod?" is not the viewcommentaries. HaldaneApostle anticipated thecamal mind in this doctrloving Jacob and hatiqCthey had done any gioodthat there is injustice withHarrison observes,'Godtg

that in such

assumption that God unconditionally ,ielected oll of the seed of Abraham that .;:It is obvious where the Jew's chief Jacob and Esau might bgconcern lay. He worked on the ,i arbitrary, on the groundthe object of injusticer,says, "The meaning is thdescended through Jacob. For that'l treatment of Isaac andreason, the Jew found Paul's view that'not all Jews would be saved highlyobjectionable and very puzzling. In fact,'since he thought that all Jews, as the

injustice to Ishmael andShedd explains, "TheCovenant Seed of Abraham, wer .;unconditionally elected to receive the I believe it is quiteeternal inheritance (Gen. 13:14, 15, and ,: commentators (there b17:8), for him to think otherwise wouldbe casting reflection on the righteous"ness of God. God would be considered .,unrighteous in that He would not, in the i reading of w. 1-13 shouHeye of the Jew, be following throughwith a promise, and that a covenantpromise! have been raised in thewho was still abiding inIf a person does not keep his word,he is unrighteous. To the Jew stillabiding in unbelief, it would appear thataccording to Paul's view God had failedto keep His word. The idea that God

is the case, let it be sairlhad no difficulty withIshmael and Esau. This isthe concern was with

between Jacob and E*dunjustly" (288).sensus among the corurthis viewpoint) have mbuiPaul raised this questionthat in this passage Paulan objection or a conct

2&


19/39

not keep His word was asto Paulas it was to his Jewishsay at this point that whetheractually was a Jewish objector isthe point. In all likelihood Paulencountered some Jews who raiseda question. Whether that be the

or not, the question which Paulis one that an unbelieving Jewhave had in his mind afteror hearing what Paul had to say1-13. Paul was wise to raise thisand deal with it.view which I have presentedwhy Paul raised the ques-"ls there unrighteousness withis not the view given in theHaldane explains, "Theanticipated the objection of themind in this doctrine. Does notJacob and hating Esau beforehad done any good or evil, implythere is injustice with God?" (467).observes, "God's dealings withand Esau might be challenged ason the ground that Esau wasobject of injustice" (106). Plumer"The meaning is this: Does God'sof Isaac and Jacob displayto Ishmael and Esau?" (473).explains, "The objection is raisedin such discrimination as thatJacob and Esau, God acts(288).

believe it is quite obvious that these(there is almost a con-among the commentators withviewpoint) have misunderstood whyraised this question. Any carefulof w. 1-13 should make it clearin this passage Paul is dealing withbjection or a concern that wouldbeen raised in the mind of a Jewwas still abiding in unbelief. If thiscase, let it be said that the Jewsno difficulty with the rejection ofand Esau. This is true whetherconcern was with individual salva-

9:14, 15tion or with the exclusion of Ishmael,Esau, and their descendants from theCovenant Seed of Abraham.The only trouble that the Jews hadwith unconditional election was that,according to Paul, God had notunconditionally elected oll Jews as theyhad thought. The concern that theunbelieving Jew would have had aboutGod's righteousness was that for Godnot to follow through with the un-conditional election of oll Jews meantthat God had not kept His word. ForGod to fail to keep His word wouldmean that He would be unrighteous.Such a conclusion was unthinkable. Iheonly hope of getting them to ac-knowledge Jesus os fhe Messiah musfbe connected with evidence that Godhad neuer said that all Jews utereunconditionally elected. If they couldsee fhis, then they could look at thequestion ol their own salvation in thelisht ol the lact that not all Jews aresaued. U in t'act God neuer said that allJews would be saued, Chrisf andChristianity would not haue to bewritten ofl without a hearing. Howeuer,if God did unconditionally elect all Jewsand Christianitv denied that this wasthe case, Christ qnd Christianity wouldbe written ofl without lurther inuesfi-gation.The problem with those who havetaken the view that the realdifficulty, asit relates to the righteousness of God,was with the rejection of Ishmael andEsau is that they have interrupted w.1-13 in the light of their own theologicalencounters rather than the encountersthat Paul had with the Jews.15 For he salth to llooes, I wltlhave merc5r on whom I wltr havemerqf, and I wlll have compas-slon on whom I wllt have com.passion.

How do vv. 15-18 relate to v. 74P

BOMANS


20/39

9:15 ROMAhISSince v. 15 is connected with v. 14 bythe conjunction "for" (Greek gor), weneed to take a look at how the con-junction is used here. We naturallyexpect a reason or proof to follow "for."However, such is not the case here. Itis obvious that what follows does nottake on the form of an argumentdefending the righteousness (or justiceof God) in not saving all Jews. AsLenski explains, "The gor is not toprove the statement that there is nojustice on the part of God in thesepromises; for what follows is not proof. .Gar is at times used simply toconfirm; it does so here: 'yea"' (607).The question of whether God couldbe unrighteous (or unjust) was notdebatable between Paul and the Jew.One would reject such an implication asquickly as the other. The differencecame in applying the truth of therighteousness of God to the question ofwhether all Jews were saved.The Jews took the position that Godhad unconditionally elected all Jewssince they were the Covenant Seed ofAbraham. To them the thought thatlarge numbers of Jews were not savedwould be a denial of the righteousnessof God. The righteousness of Godwould require Him to keep the Cove-nant promise made to Abraham and hisseed.Paul's position was that God hadnever promised that every member ofthe Covenant Seed of Abraham wouldbe saved. The fact that eternal life onthis earth in the land of Palestine waspromised to the seed of Abraham inGen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8 is not to betaken to mean that everybody whodescended from Abraham would besaved. In w. 7-13 Paul clearly showedthat even though Ishmael and Esauwere descendants of Abraham, theywere not a part of the Covenant Seedof Abraham.When the Jew recognized that Ish-

mael and Esau were not a part of theCovenant Seed of Abraham, they werealready recognizing the principle thatPaul wanted to make. The mere fact ofbeing the seed of Abraham could notguarantee the salvation of anybody. TheJew was already recognizing this whenhe did not hold the same hope for thedescendants of Ishmael and Esau thathe did for those who descended fromJacob.Whenever a person will appb theprinciple that eliminates Ishmael's andEsau's descendants from the CovenantPeople of God, though being the seedof Abraham, he can see that the sal-vation of every Jew is not guaranteedby the fact that they are the seed ofAbraham. In principle the possibilityexists that some Jews are not saved.Paul's position that a large number ofJews are not saved cannot be ruled outas being in contradiction to the cove-nant promise made to the seed ofAbraham in Gen. 13:14, 15, and 17:8.Such a position is not to be rejected onthe grounds that it violates the right-eousness of God since God has neverpromised salvation to all Jews.ln v. 1.4 Paulemphatically denied thatGod was unrighteous. What follows inv. 15 is not evidence that God is notunrighteous. That was settled by anemphatic denial. What does follow is anillustration from Scripture of how theaction of God, who can do no wrong,supports the principle that some, butnot all, from among Israel are chosenfor salvation.That Paul is appealing to theauthority of Scripture rather thanbuilding an argument in v. 15 findsbroad agreement. Liddon explains,For the disputant with whomthe Apostle conceives himself tobe arguing, who takes his stand onthe Jewish Scriptures, and ac-cuses God of being unjust to themajority of Israel in the Apostolic

age, the reply isauthority which the

"The argument runsinto the idea and defirabsolutely perfect ffiwrong" (288).Both Paul and thewere in agreement that hunrighteousness beGod of the O.T. IfO.T. support for the idel}not promised that ever$:,chosen for salvation, ffithe issue. ..For hc caith tohave mercy onmercy, and I willsion on whon Ipaeeion. See notes;introductory notes onis taken from theof Ex. 33:19. ':tiThese words of Godit clear that God is inpensing grace. Hewhom He chooses.on) is singular. The.Greek is "whomever.othe individual person.lates it, "For He sayShave mercy on anyhave mercy on, andman that I choose toPicirilli explains,derness, when we mination wasfavor, he said: 'l willwhom I will showwords, He wanted it

the fact that. the citaneorew Dcnptures;own to have a bindftgood Jew, or Jerrddrcan doubt that whatabout .Himself in hbmust be_in harmorq,absolute Righteousn;,Shedd,.after pointing ito the authority of ScrLh

26


21/39

ROMANS

267

9:15the reply is sufficient. It lies infact that the citation is fromScriptures; that is anwhich the objector mustto have a binding force...noJew, or Jewish Christian,doubt that what God says

Himself in his own Law,be in harmony with thisRighteousness (162, 163).after pointing out the appealof Scripture, observes,argument runs back, ultimately,and definition of God. Theperfect Being can do no(288).Paul and the unbelieving Jewagreement that in no way couldbe attributed to thethe O.T. If Paul could showfor the idea that God hadthat every Jew had beenfor salvation, that should settle

saith to Mocee, I willmercy on whom I will haveI witl have compae-whon I will have com-See notes on "for" in thenotes on v. 15. This versefrom the Septuagint translation33:19.words of God to Moses makethat God is in charge of dis-grace. He will give grace toHe chooses. Whom (Greek honsingular. The meaning of theis "whomever." The stress is onWilliams trans-"For He says to Moses, 'l willon any that I choose toon, and take pity on anyI choose to take pity on."'explains, "Even in the wil-when we might think all thewas automatically entitled to Hishe said: 'l will show mercy onI will show mercy.' In otherHe wanted it clearly established

that neither Moses nor Israel had anyspecial claims on Him that took awayHis sovereign right to act as He chose.Nor will He show mercy to all of them,just because they were Israelites in theflesh" (183).Since this verse tells us that Godshows mercy and compassion towhomever He chooses, the Calvinistthinks that this gives conclusive proof ofthe doctrine of unconditional election. Itseems to me to be involved in the veryconcept of God that He would be theone who decides who is saved and whois not saved. However, I do not believethat such an observation automaticallydecides on the side of unconditionalelection.In Jer. 18:1-4 Jeremiah observed thework of the potter. The potter hadcontrol over the clay to make it into avessel as it seemed good to the potterto do so. After he made this obser-vation, God said, "O house of Israel,cannot I do with you as this potter?saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay isin the potter's hand, so ore ye in minehand, O house of Israel" (18:6).God was saying to Israel, "You arein my hands. I can do with you what Ichoose." Or to put it another way, "lwill do with you as I choose." Theexercise of this right on the part of Goddid not mean that He would not takeinto consideration anything done byIsrael in deciding what He would dowith Israel. That he would take Israel'saction into account in deciding what todo with Israel is clear in the context ofJer. 18:6; see vv. 7-10.The essence of what God said toJeremiah in these verses is as follows."lf a nation obeys me I will build it up.If it disobeys me I will destroy it."h should be obvious lrom Jer.18:1-10 that the Diuine prerogative toexercise His nLThf to do as He choosesutith people does not mean that Hisdecisions must always be unconditional


22/39

9:15 ROMANSchoices. When we read that God will doas He chooses, it will help if we will aska simple question: What does Godchoose to do? When God told Jeremiahthat He could do with Israel what Hechose just as the potter could with theclay, He followed that observation bytelling them what He wanted to do.When we read in Rom.9:15 that Godwill have mercy and compassion onwhomever He wills, it behooves us toask: On whom does God will to showmercy and compassion? Once it isdecided that the mercy and compassionunder consideration is that shown insalvation, the answer is easy.God told Isaiah whom He wanted tohave mercy on when He said, "Let thewicked forsake his wd9, and theunrighteous man his thoughts: and lethim return unto the LORD, and he willhave mercy [italics mine] upon him; andto our God, for he will abundantlypardon" (55:7).We certainly do not have to list anarray of references from the N.T. inorder to identifu those to whom Godwishes to give the mercy of salvation.Let's take the answer given by PaulandSilas to the question, "What must I doto be saved?" "And they said, Believeon the Lord Jesus Christ, and thoushalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts16:30,31).When God chooses the one whobelieves in Jesus Christ as his Lord andSavior to show His mercy in salvation,He is choosing whom He wills. Such adecision can in no way be viewed as adecision that God is forced to make.The whole idea of salvation was God'sidea from the outset. He could havechosen to have left the whole humanrace in sin without offering salvation hadHe chosen to do so. He planned toprovide and offer salvation to lostmankind long before (in eternity past)man felt the pangs of being lost. It wasnot even in response to man's pleading

(much less demanding) that God chose ito offer redemption.The provision of salvation throug[.:,.:the death and righteousness of Chrisf,.lwas totally God's idea and totally God'r. .,provision. It came about as a result ot.,r,His own free acts. The decision to offsft, isalvation on the condition of faith inr:!decision to commissiori. believers to ,itake the gospel into the world waaiGod's decision, not man's. The decisionfor the Holy Spirit to work in men'g,hearts in connection with the preachedWord was God's decision.

It seems to me that if we think ofconditional justification, we should alsobe able to think of conditional election.The Calvinist tries to get around thisproblem by saying that faith is a giftand, in effect, not really a condition. Asa means of trying to give the appear'ance that faith is the work of God and

not in any true sense thman, Calvinism introduceof the effectual call. Thereggneration. Regenerafaith and gives birth toeration is designed to chaThat is what sanctificatiputs Calvinism in conflictheologSr by putting sancof this thought in notes onwith election.)I agree that faith is a ghuman experience. 'Faithsubstance that exists outsis to be given to us. It isthat must take place withthe only way we can hav

in the experience of savis not only acted upon;the experience ol faith,otherwise.machine. He is consciouhe has faith. He would

Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior orgi.nated with God and no one else. The, to justification. (See more

The whole plan of salvation frombeginning to end is the work and plan,.l is a gift in the sense thatof God. God is in charge. When sal.,vation is offered on the condition of,j us the aid that isfaith in Christ, that in no way weakene,,', which we could not exernot a gift in the sense ththe words, "l will have mercy on whomI will have mercy, and I will havecompassion on whom I will have'compassion." God's sovereignty is fullyin control in this view.

exercise of our own(Forlines, Sysfemotics, 2ATo try to drain the woof its meaning, or to tryfaith is the "condition" oThe problem arises in that the','.Calvinist wants to view the relationship .,, fruitless. The only waybeing to experience faithwith God and man as if it were a cause . faith. It is impossible for aand effect relationship rather than an,,influence and response relationship. totally passive (to have fthing done to him or for(See discussion in connection withcomments on election in notes on 8:29.)The word "condition" creates aproblem for the Calvinist because a'condition represents a response on thepart of man. On the one hand according,to the Calvinist, election is viewed asbeing unconditional. On the other handrfaith is recognized as the condition ofjustification.

To think so is to ropersonhood. He would b

Sauingfaith is o responsebecause he thinks hebetng to Divine influencment-When God justifies aexercises faith in Jesusand Savior, He is shordwhom He wills. He wills tto those who respond to26


23/39

in any true sense the response ofCalvinism introduces the concepteffectual call. The effectual call isRegeneration precedesand gives birth to faith. Regen-is designed to change behavior.is what sanctification does. ThisCalvinism in conflict with its ownby putting sanctification prior(See more developmentthought in notes on 8:29 that dealelection.)agree that faith is a gift, but it is aexperience. "Faith is not somethat exists outside of us thatbe given to us. It is an experiencemust take place within us. That isonly way we can have faith. Faithgift in the sense that God gives toaid that is necessary, withoutwe could not exercise faith. It isgift in the sense that it is not anof our own personality"Sysfemofr'cs, 204).try to drain the word "condition"meaning, or to try to deny thatis the "condition" of salvation, isThe only way for a humanto experience faith is to exerciseIt is impossible for a person to bepassive (to have faith as some-done to him or for him by God)experience of saving faith. Mononly acted upon; he is active inexperience of faith. It cannot be

think so is to rob man of hisHe would be a deceivedHe is consciously aware thatHe would be deceivedhe thinks he responded in faith.laith is o response ol a personalto Divine influence and enable-God justifies a person whofaith in Jesus Christ as LordSavior, He is showing mercy toHe wills. He wills to show mercywho respond to the gospel by

9:15, 15exercising faith in Jesus Christ. This isnot a plan being imposed on God byman. It is a plan provided by God, andoffered by God on God's terms to fallenman. Surely the sovereignty ol Goddoes not hem God into o sysfemuhereby He can only operate throughunconditional election!

The Calvinistic claim that for God torequire the response of faith is to placesalvation on the basis of works will notstand. The contrast between works andfaith by Paul in Rom. 4:1-5 should laythat argument to rest.Some seem to fear, if faith is requiredfor salvation, that such a requirementundercuts the idea that salvation is free.Such fear is unfounded. When we saythat salvation is free (without cost), weare saying that the grounds of ourjustification is altogether God's provi-sion. The righteousness of Christ tosatisfy the demand of God's law forabsolute righteousness, and the deathof Christ to satisfu the demand of God'slaw that the full penalty of sin be paid,is the only thing that gives us justifi-cation. We participate in no way in thatprovision. Nothing that I ever do willever make up the slightest bit of thedebt owed to God for my justification.Justification is free to us. It was not freeto Jesus Christ. He paid for it dearly.He earned the right to offer us freesalvation. He paid the only price thatwas or will ever be fjaid for my sal-vation. That is what makes it free.f6 8o thcn & lc not of hlm th,atwlllcth, nor of hlm t.hd nrnncth,hrt of God tbat shewcth mcrqt

So then. These words show thatwhat follows is the logical consequenceof what is said in v. 15.I1 is not of him that willeth,nor of him that runneth. Pipertakes the position thatNot the physical effort of the

ROMANS

269


24/39

9:15 ROMANSGreek games, but the moralresolve to keep the law may wellbe the background of Paul's meta-phor. . . .The allusion to'running the wayof the commandments' wouldcohere very closely with Rom.9:30f where the similar word drbko[pursue] appears: 'The Gentileswho did not pursue righteousnessattained righteousness, the right-eousness from faith; but Israel,though pursuing a law of right-eousness did not reach the law'(cf. also Phil. 3:14-15) (132).Piper also cites sources from Jewishwritings for support for his interpreta-tion (132).But of God that shewethmercy. In order to see the meaning ofthis verse, we must see what theconverse would be. What would it mean

if it were of him that wills and runsrather than of God who shows mercy?It would mean that a person wouldmerit or earn salvation. It would meanthat his merit would obligate God tosave him.Such a concept is foreign to all thatChristianity stands for. Man was shutoff from God by his own sin. God wasunder no obligation to save him or evenprovide a way of salvation. It was outof God's mercy that He provided thedeath and righteousness of Christ forour salvation. It was out of God's lovethat He sent the Holy Spirit to woo usto Christ. It was out of God's love thatHe has commissioned believers to tellunbelievers about Christ.God has offered salvation on thecondition of faith. We must distinguishbetween the "condition" and the"ground" of salvation. Salvation isgrounded solely in the death andrighteousness of Christ providedthrough atonement. It is conditioned onthe response of faith in Christ.God has taken the initiative in

providing what man needs for salvation. ,,'He has met the condition for salvation. .He sends the messenger with the j salvation. G-o{ is the one,has decreed that faith isof salvation. When a pein farth, if is nof he whGod to save him. Ratherhos oblisated himsef

with his concept ofelection. He observes,a sine quo non [thetionl of salvation; Rom. *necessarily implies thatis ultimately owing tograce of God" (137).I have no quarrelwith"The act of faith isthe prevenient grace oproblem is how it is iwould say that withoutHoly Spirit (Jn. 6:tl4) nobelieve in Christ, IHowever, such aroom for obedience orAs I perceive it, thic:interpretation of the.;;;-f "f th" n"tv Splrlt"causes" the responscperson to be coused to,

what it means to be aa response of thesonal experience. It ie aassistance and influenccause, no.Experiences of thepersonalaction is ipassive only. Thereinvolvement. The

gospel. He woos through the HoluSpirit. The personal response of faith asthe condition for salvation can in no :way be considered in conflict with or in,'violation of "So then if r's not of him that ; nghteous commitment towilleth, nor of him that runneth, but of to saue the person wlwGod that sheweth mercy." properly understood, thremotest possibilify thoblow to conditional election. Piper sees can

rightly be understby u.rorks.Piper is aware of thea parallel between the "willing" and the,,r"running" of this verse to embrace the.r, salvation, but attemptsThe CaMnist seems to be quite .certain that this verse strikes a death .l

"willing" and "working" of Phil. 2:13. He ,j./.explains,God's mercy determines man'swilling and working Phil. 2:13).And since the'willing and working'referred to in Phil. 2:13 is not evil'works'but the obedience of faith,it follows that the assertion ofRom. 9:16 cannot be limited toonly some kinds of willing andrunning. For these reasons Rom.9:16 should be construed so as tosweep away forever the thoughtthat over against God there is anysuch thing as human self-determination in Pauline theolog 'l(133, 134).I think the real question that Piperneeds to face is: How is he using theexpression "self-determination"? If hemeans that man's action is not thecouse or ground of his salvation, I couldnot agree more. On the other hand, ifhe means that man's action in believingcannot be a determining factor in God'sbestowal of salvation on the one whobelieves and withholding salvation fromthe one who does not believe, I cannotagree. Such a view is in conflict with theobvious and direct teaching of Scripture(Jn. 3:16, 18, 36; Acts 16:31, etc.).Foifh os a condition (os distinguishedlrom a cause or a ground) desdetermine on whom God bestou,rs

faith is genuine. It can into U"-tituifv the work dhuman involvement. Thaa choice. It did not paY fuA word needs to bg270


25/39

I

ROMANS 9216, 17saluation. God is the one, not man, whohas decreed that faith is the conditionof salvation. When a person respondsin faith, if is nof he who is obliqofinqGod to sque him. Rather, it is GoJ u,,hJhos obligated himsell by Hr's ueryrighteous.commitment to His promisei,to save the person who belieues. Whenproperly understood, there is not theremotest possibility that such a uiewcon rightly be understood as saluationby works.Piper is aware of the place of faith insalvation, but attempts to make it fitwith his concept of unconditionalelection. He observes, "Faith is indeeda srne qua non [the necessary condi_tion] of salvation; Rom. 9:16, therefore,necessarily implies that the act of faithis ultimately owing to the prevenientgrace of God" (137).

. _I have no quarrel with his statement,"The act of faith is ultimately owing tothe prevenient grace of God.', theproblem is how it is interpreted. If wewould say that without the work of theHoly Spirit (Jn. 6:44) no man will everb-elieve in Christ, I would agree.However, such a statement still leavesroom for obedience or disobedience.. As I perceive it, this is not piper'sinterpretation of the statement. Thework of the Holy Spirit "guarantees" or"causes" the response of faith. For aperson to be coused to believe violateswhat it means to be a person. Faith isa response of the person. It is a per-sonal experience. It is a choice. Divineassistance and influence, yes. Divinecause, no.Experiences of the personality wherepersonal action is involved can never bepassive only. There is an activeinvolvement. The active response offaith is genuine. It can in no way be saidto be totally the work of God- with nohuman involvement. The person madea choice. It did not pay for his salvation.A word needs to be said about why

Paul is giving attention to a denial thata person can establish his own riqht_eousness before God. It seems that'wesee.two -apparently contradictory linesof

Forlines, F. Leroy, Romans 9 Commentary

Documents

Transcript of Forlines, F. Leroy, Romans 9 Commentary