An exposition of Paul's Letter to Romans

An exposition of Paul’s Letter to Romans

Chapter 18 of 29 • Chapter 9 • George Booker

Israel's past election:

God's blessings on Israel (vv. 1-5)
God's election of Israel (vv. 6-13)
God's freedom to elect (vv. 14-18)
God's mercy toward Israel (vv. 19-29)
God's mercy toward the Gentiles (vv. 30-33)

Comment on Rom 9:1

I SPEAK THE TRUTH IN CHRIST — I AM NOT LYING, MY CONSCIENCE CONFIRMS IT: "Conscience" (Greek "suneidesis") has the sense of an independent witness within, examining and passing judgment on a man's own conduct. Compare Romans 2:15: "…their consciences (same word) also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

IN THE HOLY SPIRIT: That is, by his knowledge of the principles of God expressed in the Word of God, that was given by the Holy Spirit. Compare Romans 8:16: "The Spirit himself [Christ] testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

Comment on Rom 9:2

I HAVE GREAT SORROW AND UNCEASING ANGUISH IN MY HEART: Paul's sorrow was great both in its depth and its persistence. It had been there at the very beginning of his enlightenment when he prayed in the Temple and pleaded that he be allowed to preach to his countrymen (Acts 22:17-21). And it never left him, continuing to the very end of his life.

Comment on Rom 9:3

FOR I COULD WISH THAT I MYSELF WERE CURSED AND CUT OFF FROM CHRIST: "Cursed" is "anathema", to be cursed or destroyed. "In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word to which it answers occurs ['cherem'] very frequently, and probably the root originally meant 'to cut off, to separate', and thus something separated or consecrated”. The Greek word, and related words, occur also in:

Acts 23:14: Paul's sworn enemies told the chief priests: "We have taken a solemn oath ['anathematizo'] not to eat anything until we have killed Paul."
1 Corinthians 12:3: "No one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus be cursed ['anathema']'."
1 Corinthians 16:22: "If anyone does not love the Lord — a curse ['anathema'] be on him."
Galatians 1:8,9: If anybody, including an angel from heaven, preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, "let him be condemned ['anathema']!"

Compare Paul's words here with those of Moses:

"But now, please forgive their sin — but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written" (Exod 32:32).

But, ironically (and as Paul of course knew), one had already been "cursed" for the sake of Israel, to deliver them from bondage: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree' " (Gal 3:13; citing Deut 21:23).

Notice the "could" above: Paul is not praying to be cursed; he says, 'I could pray!' It was a desire, but it was a passing desire, which he knew at the same time to be totally impractical.

This readiness to be "cursed", although impractical, becomes poignant in light of the fact that Paul had already suffered the loss of all things in order to gain Christ (Phil 3:8). So he would be facing a double loss.

FOR THE SAKE OF MY BROTHERS, THOSE OF MY OWN RACE: Paul retained this form of speech, even though not now referring to his brethren in Christ (cp. Acts 13:26, 38). Even so, more than a blood relationship is involved, because he goes on to cite the spiritual heritage of his people that he shares with those of them who have not become Christians. This use of "brothers" appears elsewhere (e.g., Acts 2:29; 3:17; 22:1; 28:17).

Comment on Rom 9:4

THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL: The use of "Israel", in contrast to "Jews", takes them back to their origins, to one father who obtained his name from God. Compare 1 Kings 18:31, where Elijah took 12 stones, one for each of the 12 tribes, to build an altar to the Lord: "Your name shall be Israel."

In another reference to "Israel", Paul describes in some detail his precise connection and relation to the people, that is, through his birth into the tribe of Benjamin, his study of the Law, and his spiritual life as a Pharisee (Phil 3:5). In Acts 13:16,26, he speaks of the "men of Israel" being distinguished by their worship of God, and their relationship to the Abraham.

THEIRS IS THE ADOPTION OF SONS: "Huiothesis" is, literally, "sonship" (Rom 8:14,15,23). In Greek, it was a technical and legal term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance.

No other people had God as their Father in the specific sense that Israel enjoyed (Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1; Isa 63:8, 16, 19; 64:8; Deut 7:6; 14:1; Amos 3:2). The Greek word does not occur in the Septuagint, but the idea is certainly present, especially in Deuteronomy 14:1,2 (cf. Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1). Paul uses the word "sonship" as if to say that even the status of Israel was not something necessary and inherent in any natural relationship, but really the result of an act of graciousness on the part of God.

THEIRS THE DIVINE GLORY: The "splendor of the divine presence" (NEB). This describes the "Shekinah" glory that shone in the Most Holy Place and above the mercy seat, first in the cloud and the pillar of fire by night, then in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple. God's purpose in giving this Glory was that He might personally dwell among His people (Exod 25:8,21,22; 40:34; cp. 1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chron 5:13,14; Deut 4:32-36).

THE COVENANTS: Most particularly the special covenant God made at Sinai (Exod 24:8), a covenant made with the nation (Exod 24:11).

THE RECEIVING OF THE LAW: This translates the one word "nomothesia", the Law. Of course the Law was both given (by God) and received (by Moses and the nation). From Israel's perspective, their receiving of the Law followed immediately after God's making of the covenant, in Exodus 24:12.

THE TEMPLE WORSHIP: The Greek word here ("latreia"), refers to those religious ordinances prescribed to Israel by God in connection with the tabernacle-worship, and afterwards the temple-worship. In the KJV, this is rendered "the service of God", i.e., the priestly service in Tabernacle and Temple.

AND THE PROMISES: The promises to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15:18; 17:7; 22:16-18), and to David (1 Sam 7:12-16). Compare Ephesians 2:12: the covenants of promise.

Comment on Rom 9:5

THEIRS ARE THE PATRIARCHS: God's love for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became the basis for His love for Israel (Deut 7:7; 10:15). He even called Himself the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Exod 3:16; Acts 3:13; 7:32). Because of this love, Israel had the privilege of being the first to hear the gospel (Acts 3:25,26): "to the Jew first" before "the Gentiles" (Rom 1:16; 2:10).

AND FROM THEM IS TRACED THE HUMAN ANCESTRY OF CHRIST: "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came" (KJV). The Messiah was the center and the heart of the promises, and indeed of everything else that went before: sonship, glory, covenant, law, etc. all found their fullest meaning, and their perfect fulfillment, in his life.

A subtle distinction is to be noted between "theirs" and "from them". Israel could not claim Jesus as the Messiah in the same way she could claim the patriarchs. True, Jesus was born under the Law, to a virgin of the house of David (Rom 1:3). But the Christ was, and is, much more than the patriarchs. In his earthly origin he belonged to one nation, but in his heavenly origin and mission, as the only-begotten of the Ruler of the whole universe, he cannot be claimed exclusively by any single segment of the race. Instead, he rightly belongs to the whole world!

WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, FOREVER PRAISED: However, the KJV has: "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This makes "who is over all" refer to Christ, which is quite reasonable, because the Father has committed all power and authority to His Son (Matt 28:18; John 17:6).

Comment on Rom 9:6

IT IS NOT AS THOUGH GOD'S WORD HAD FAILED: The Greek word translated "failed" ("ekpipto") means "gone off its course", as a ship might drift or be blown away by a storm.

The Word of God "is quick and powerful" and will surely accomplish the end to which it is sent (Heb 4:12; Isa 55:10,11). But what is that purpose? Paul proceeds to show that God's purpose does not call for the salvation of every single Jew.

FOR NOT ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ISRAEL ARE ISRAEL: That is, not all born of Jacob are necessarily the chosen "seed" (cp. the idea in Rom 2:28,29). Fleshly descent was not the key requirement that Jews imagined; they put great stock in their genealogical line, a fact that often led to bitter and vain arguments (see 1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9).

This phrase suggests a deeper sense of the name "Israel":

John 1:45-51: "An Israelite indeed" is one in whom no guile may be found.
Galatians 6:16: "Israel: refers to those alone who find true peace in God).
Luke 3:8: Natural sons of Abraham may be as common as stones on the ground. What truly characterized a son of Abraham is faith and repentance.
Jeremiah 9:25,26: It is quite possible to be circumcised in the flesh, but not in the heart.
Isaiah 56:3-5,8: Foreigners may hold fast to the covenants of the Lord, becoming "better than sons and daughters", and having "an everlasting name that will not be cut off".

Comment on Rom 9:7

NOR BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS DESCENDANTS ARE THEY ALL ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN. ON THE CONTRARY, "IT IS THROUGH ISAAC THAT YOUR OFFSPRING WILL BE RECKONED": Paul is quoting Genesis 21:12. Sarah had wanted Abraham to cast out Hagar along with her son Ishmael from Abraham's camp (Gen 21:10). Abraham had found it a very hard matter; he loved his son Ishmael. But God agreed with Sarah: it was through her son Isaac that the seed would be generated.

At first glance, this would seem to appeal especially to the nationalistic Jew. But hidden in this argument was a "sting": The favoring of Isaac over Ishmael, who was also a son of Abraham, demonstrates that natural descent, alone, was not nearly as important as divine selection.

Therefore, in like manner the natural descent of Isaac's children was not nearly as important as the divine selection of those who had or would develop faith — whether they were Jews or even Gentiles! In other words, the same argument that effectively dismissed Ishmael and his line could also dismiss Isaac's line, or at least some part of it.

Comment on Rom 9:8

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT THE NATURAL CHILDREN WHO ARE GOD'S CHILDREN, BUT IT IS THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE WHO ARE REGARDED AS ABRAHAM'S OFFSPRING: A true son of Abraham, and thus a true Israelite, is one with the faith and behavior of Abraham. Jesus reasoned this way to the Jews (John 8:33-40). But if natural descent conferred eternal life, then the descendants of Ishmael would be on an equal level with the Jewish people.

CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE: As was Isaac, whose birth was promised, and then miraculously granted (see v. 9; Gen 17:16,17; 18:10-14).

Comment on Rom 9:9

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT THE NATURAL CHILDREN WHO ARE GOD'S CHILDREN: This statement of promise was given by God to Abraham in Genesis 18:10. Sarah, listening in the door of the tent, found the message too good to be true: 'Your wife Sarah will have your son.' Sarah was past the age of bearing children, and her husband Abraham was also old and advanced in age (v. 11). Laughing within herself she said, "After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?" (Gen 18:12). Humanly speaking, the birth of a child to this couple was impossible. It could only be by the promise of God, and by His direct involvement, that the true seed could be produced.

AT THE APPOINTED TIME: In Genesis 18:10 it is "the time of life" but the question of time is emphasized again in Genesis 18:14: "At the time appointed…" Not only was Isaac born out of a promise, but it was a promise to be fulfilled at a "set time" (Gen 21:2). This time was first appointed in Genesis 17:21: a year after the Lord appeared to Abraham with the covenant token of circumcision (Gen 17:1,10,11), and probably nine months from the visitation of Genesis 18.

I WILL RETURN, AND SARAH WILL HAVE A SON: God was personally involved in this birth, literally so in giving strength and revitalization to this aged couple, just as He is spiritually involved in the calling of each of His sons and daughters by the Word — causing them to "born after the Spirit" (Gal 4:29; John 6:44,45).

"Yet why was there need for another child? What was wrong with Ishmael fulfilling the role? Abraham would have been happy with that and even submitted Ishmael to the consideration of God (Gen 17:18).

"God saw further than Abraham, and in His inscrutable judgment another child was elected and promised of Him. The true seed of Abraham would be born out of faith. God's election and power would provide His children. And to emphasize the point, this promise of Isaac was first given on the very day of the announcement of circumcision. The normal generative means of mankind were inoperative. Any reliance upon the flesh was cut off and 'rolled away' (cp. Josh 5:2,3,9).

"So then, Ishmael, though a natural child, was not the chosen seed of God. Therefore no other son of Abraham could assume heirship to the promises on the basis alone of his fleshly descent.”

Brian Luke on Romans, p. 8.

Comment on Rom 9:10

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT REBEKAH'S CHILDREN HAD ONE AND THE SAME FATHER, OUR FATHER ISAAC: The argument carries over from verse 9.

Brian Luke continues: "So then, Ishmael, though a natural child, was not the chosen seed of God. Therefore no other son of Abraham could assume heirship to the promises on the basis alone of his fleshly descent.

"However, the Jews had a natural retort to this argument: 'Ishmael was cast out because he was the son of a bondwoman. His fleshly descent was wrong! Isaac was chosen because he had the right mother! Can't you see the emphasis, Paul, upon the son of the bondwoman?' (Gen 21:10,12,13).

"This evasion only brought a crushing rejoinder! In the next generation we have another two sons but this time of the same mother and father, and again the Divine choice is seen."

ONE AND THE SAME FATHER: One father and one mother had two sons, twins conceived at the same time, and then born at the same time. According to ordinary human standards and expectations, they should stand on equal terms before God in His dealings with them.

OUR FATHER ISAAC: Here Paul is stressing his commonality with the Israelites.

Comment on Rom 9:11

YET, BEFORE THE TWINS WERE BORN: The characters of the boys, Jacob and Esau, were neither formed nor known to man. Yet God, who gave the power to conceive to the previously barren Rebekah, knew what manner of children He had created, and their characters and destinies as well!

OR HAD DONE ANYTHING GOOD OR BAD: Why is this phrase added, as it seems so obvious? In the previous example — although the "word of promise" was given before the birth of Isaac (Gen 18:10) — yet the full effect of this electing promise was not apparent until the day of his weaning. It was then that Ishmael's disparaging of his younger brother finally brought his expulsion from the inheritance (Gen 21:10-12). Ishmael failed in behavior and thus confirmed the election of God; he 'did evil'. But God had proclaimed the destinies of Jacob and Esau before they were born, before any behavior was known. Here we see the power of God to exercise sovereignty over all His creation.

IN ORDER THAT GOD'S PURPOSE IN ELECTION MIGHT STAND: Being humans, our "logic" will always have trouble with these concepts because we cannot work on two levels at once. We are conditioned, by all our lives and all our experiences, to see and understand and make choices in a universe where our free human will is “king”. We see, we process in our minds, and we choose, and then we act. We are, so we think, free, sovereign creatures; we go through life making our own, free, choices.

But God lives in another dimension as well… maybe, we should say: several different "dimensions" where we cannot really go! We can barely understand what those dimensions mean. Maybe we don’t understand, and the brain starts hurting trying to reconcile His absolute omniscience (or foreknowledge) alongside our freewill. How can we be choosing, really choosing, when God must already know how we will choose?

But the Bible, it seems to me, says we can! So I have to think that — even if a part of my mind rebels at the juxtaposition of two ideas which seem practically exclusive of one another — then the fault (shortcoming, weakness?) is with my own mind.

Put another way, I'd say we should be grateful that God has given us minds that can even ask such a question, about time and eternity and the essential character and power of our Creator, while we — when all is said and done — are nothing but a fragile combination of mud and blood and brain synapses, sometimes firing and sometimes misfiring.

God has created us out of the dust, or clay, and given us a mind which can dimly comprehend the Great Other, beyond ourselves and our eyes and ears and smell and touch. In the words of Ecclesiastes, He has put "eternity" into our hearts (Eccl 3:11). But we are something like the clam on the seashore: our little "hearts" and minds can't really fathom the depths of the sea, although it lays there, right next to us. What we know of the love of God tells us, however, that the ideas which we can vaguely grasp now will surely be explained to us more fully later, when we are capable of receiving them.

At least, that's how I "make sense" of predestination, foreknowledge, freewill, God, and man.

Comment on Rom 9:12

NOT BY WORKS BUT BY HIM WHO CALLS — SHE WAS TOLD, "THE OLDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER": Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23. Literally, "the greater shall serve the lesser" (RV). This sense is probably taken from the preceding words in verse 23: "and the one people shall be stronger than the other people." In the context of this verse. "the stronger" refers to the victor in the 'struggle' going on inside Rebekah's womb. Esau would win that contest and would become the natural firstborn, the first from the womb (Gen 25:25). But God decrees that, despite his greater physical strength, Esau would still serve his younger and weaker brother.

Comment on Rom 9:13

JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN: "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED": Now Paul cites Malachi 1:2,3. What was true for the brothers became generally true for their descendants as well, since "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated" (Gen 25:23).

In this connection, and by quoting Malachi 1:2,3, Paul lifts the discussion from what might appear to be a purely personal one to the plane of corporate, national life. God's love for Jacob and hatred for Esau ought not to be construed as temperamental. Malachi is appealing to the course of history as fulfilling the purpose of God declared long before.

Hatred in the ordinary sense does not fit the situation, since God bestowed many blessings on Esau and his descendants. The use of this word here reflects a Semitic idiom, used by Jesus also, where comparisons are heightened by stating them in absolute terms. Here, "hatred" is simply a way of saying that Esau was not the object of God's electing purpose. We should consider the use of "hate" in Luke 14:26, where discipleship is stated to involve "hatred" for one's own family and one's own life. In other words, they are simply put into a lower level of consideration when one takes on himself the responsibility of following Christ.

The value of the account of the two brothers is to make clear that in election God does not wait until individuals or nations are developed and then make a choice on the basis of character or achievement. If He did so, this would make a mockery of the concept of election, because it would locate the basis in man rather than in God and His purpose. God's love for Jacob, then, must be coupled with election rather than explained by some worthiness found in him (Deut 7:6-8).

Newell writes: "As to 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,' a woman once said to [a preacher], 'I cannot understand why God should say that He hated Esau.' 'That,' the preacher replied, 'is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob!"

Comment on Rom 9:14

WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY? IS GOD UNJUST? NOT AT ALL!: No, of course not. "The Lord is upright… and there is no wickedness in him" (Psa 92:15; cp. Deut 32:4). The thought that God had rejected a major portion of Israel was a great problem to some of the Jews. It was all acceptable if God rejected Ishmael and Esau; but when the principle of their rejection was applied to many of their own, then they, the Jews, stumbled at such a concept of God's righteousness.

NOT AT ALL!: "God forbid!" (KJV; see the Appendix, "God forbid!").

Comment on Rom 9:15

FOR HE SAYS TO MOSES: Moses being the one in whom Israel especially trusted (John 5:45).

"I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION": This is a quotation of Exodus 33:19. God taught Moses himself this very principle of election. This was the instance when God withdrew His presence from the nation as a whole, and confided especially in Moses himself, to whom He spoke "face to face" (Exod 33:7-11). Moses pleads with the Almighty, but is rebuffed: God Himself will decide on what terms and when Israel might be brought back into His favor.

Comment on Rom 9:16

IT DOES NOT, THEREFORE, DEPEND ON MAN'S DESIRE: In this case (Exod 33), the man was Moses, and his desperate desire was that God would once again show favor to the nation.

OR EFFORT: "Of him that runneth" in KJV. 'Running' is used here as a way of saying to be diligent, or "make haste" (as Moses does in Exod 34:8).

BUT ON GOD'S MERCY: Moses earnestly sought God's favor for Israel, but it was forthcoming only when God's chose!

The application, however, goes wider. All men "desire" their own pleasures, and make great "effort" in pursuit of those pleasures (cp. Gal 2:2; also cp. Rom 9:30; 10:3). But their ultimate satisfaction, in all things, is up to the mercy of God, and not their own desires or strivings.

Comment on Rom 9:17

FOR THE SCRIPTURE SAYS TO PHARAOH: "Paul uses a typical rabbinic formula here in which the Old Testament Scriptures are figuratively portrayed as speaking to Pharaoh. What he means is that the Scripture he cites refers (or can be applied) to Pharaoh" (NET Notes). In other words, one need not suppose that these very words were addressed directly to Pharaoh himself.

"I RAISED YOU UP FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE, THAT I MIGHT DISPLAY MY POWER IN YOU AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED IN ALL THE EARTH": Paul is citing Exodus 9:16.

It does not seem that, in Paul's mind, the Name of the Lord God was so much the specific Name, Yahweh (or some variation of that), but the character, the reputation, the essential quality of this special God of the Jews' forefathers. And this becomes more evident as the reader explores the whole of Romans 9 here (not to mention the larger context beyond this single chapter): God is the Father of children, the children of His promise to Abraham, no matter their actual bloodlines (Rom 9:8). They are the ones on whom He will have mercy, or compassion (v 15). They are the ones to whom He will make known "the riches of his glory… whom he prepared in advance for glory" (v 23), drawn from both Jews and Gentiles (vv. 24-26). And it is for these children that He sets in Zion His special "stone", His special Son (v 33).

David Caudery catches the spirit of this when he writes:

The name, that is, the reputation of the one true God, was to be made known to His chosen people, and to the people they were to conquer; we remember the awe in the words of Rahab at Jericho (Joshua 2:10,11). And then our thoughts move forward in time to the work of Christ and the disciples, the greater reputation of God’s name was then made known — God became a Father!

The Christadelphian, Vol. 152, p. 201

"The question will always arise: 'Since God hardened Pharaoh's heart, did Pharaoh not have any personal choice or freewill over this process?' And the further question: 'If God planned all along to destroy Pharaoh's nation and army, then how could Pharaoh have EVER had a choice of his own?' But it is possible that God could have worked His purpose just as well if Pharaoh had not hardened his heart, and if he had in fact heeded the warnings of Moses.

"The most careful attention should here be directed to what is not said by Paul in this appeal to Exodus 9:16. God did not say to Pharaoh that he had raised him up in order to destroy him, or to drown his army in the Red Sea, but that God had raised him up for the purpose of showing His power in Pharaoh and of having God's name published throughout the earth. Just how God's purpose would be fulfilled in Pharaoh, at the time God spoke, still remained within the circumference of Pharaoh's free will to choose: whether by his own submission to God's commands or by his rebellion against them, would be realized God's purpose. If Pharaoh had submitted to God's will, God's name would have been magnified all over the world and His power would have been demonstrated in Pharaoh just as gloriously in that manner as it was in the manner of its actual occurrence. Pharaoh had the free choice of obeying or not obeying God; but God had purposed, either way, to use him as a demonstration of God's power and a means of publishing the divine name all over the world; but the choice of how this would come about remained with Pharaoh until he was hardened.

"What happened to the king of Nineveh, following the preaching of Jonah, should be remembered in the connection here. Both Pharaoh and the ruler of Nineveh heard the word of God, the one by Moses, the other by Jonah. Nineveh received mercy; Egypt did not. God had a perfect right to spare one and punish the other; but it is a falsehood to allege that God's doing so was capricious and unrelated to what was in the two monarchs or to their [respective] responses to God's word" (James B. Coffman, Commentary on Romans).

THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED IN ALL THE EARTH: This promise was echoed many times in the period of the plagues, leading up the exodus from Egypt (Exod 7:3,4,17; 8:10,22; 9:29,30; 10:2; 11:9; 12:12). Subsequent history reveals how effective Jehovah had been in this purpose (cp. Exod 15:14; Josh 2:10; 9:9; 1Sam 4:8). The Pharaoh who confronted Moses was a remarkable man for pride and will power. Yet through those very qualities the glory of the God of Israel was the more magnified. A milder individual would never have served the purpose! Ten times this Pharaoh turned back to challenge the power of the Lord! With each step the power of the Lord was heightened, and the news circulated throughout the region as people watched the growing drama. And so the record of these great events has been the foundation of faith for many thousands, perhaps millions, in all later times.

Thus the wrath of man can indeed contribute to the praise and glory of God (Psa 76:10)!

Comment on Rom 9:18

THEREFORE GOD HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE WANTS TO HAVE MERCY: This first phrase simply repeats verse 15; but then Paul goes on to the additional point of Pharaoh's case.

AND HE HARDENS WHOM HE WANTS TO HARDEN: How did God "harden" Pharaoh's heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3,13; 9:12, 35; 10:1, 20; 14:8; etc.)?

"All God had to do to antagonize Pharaoh was to touch his pride and tell him what to do against his will, i.e., 'let My people go', and enter into a competition with Pharaoh as to who was the greatest. Pharaoh could have been impressed for good, but in his position, pride and prejudice would have been just too much, and so, without any special magic, God could quite easily harden Pharaoh's heart" (Jonathan Pogson).

"But, perhaps the hardening was not just by means of plagues but by a plethora of circumstances directed and engineered by God's angels, which all served in the end to increase the spiritual calcification of Pharaoh's wicked heart. Every story of Israeli production shortfall, inefficiency, provincial breakdown in the Egyptian 'empire', every report of domestic and civil strife and unrest in Egypt, together with the continual pressure to compromise which his advisors must surely have subjected him to, generated another step in the progressive hardening of his heart. The full responsibility for, and ownership of, the hardening of heart was the man Pharaoh's, and not God's. If the reverse were true, that is, if God had directly manipulated Pharaoh's thoughts and feelings, his condemnation of Pharaoh would have been unjust. God manipulated circumstances, not Pharaoh. God did not create Pharaoh's thoughts. He revealed them" (Dev Ramcharan).

“Many times it has been pointed out that the record in Exodus tells us not only that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that Pharaoh himself hardened his heart. Some find fault with God's action here who yet must recognize a corresponding law in human life. It has been well said, 'It is by an operation of a law of man's nature, as God created it, that the man who will not turn becomes at last the man who cannot turn' " (John Carter, pp. 105,106).

The hardening of Pharaoh's heart can profitably be related to the principle laid down in Romans 1, that God's method of dealing with those who reject the revelation of Himself in nature and history (and in Pharaoh's case also in miracles) is to abandon them to still greater excess of sin and its consequences.

Thus Alan Hayward comments as follows:

"Was it fair to harden a man's heart like this? If Pharaoh had started off as a good man, then it certainly would have been very unfair. But this was not so. God never makes a good man behave badly. Pharaoh started off as a bad lot. He was already oppressing Israel cruelly before God said anything about hardening his heart.

"Also, we have here another example of Hebrew idiom. God sometimes says, 'I will do such-and-such', when He really means, 'I have foreseen that such-and-such will happen, and I shall permit it to happen.'

"You can see that this is so from Isaiah 29:3; God says to Jerusalem, 'I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee.' But of course God Himself did not camp around Jerusalem and besiege it. The Assyrian army did. And the Assyrians were acting under their own free will. (Isaiah 10:5-7 proves that.) So when God said, 'I will camp…', He obviously meant, 'I will allow the enemy army to camp…'

"There is a second example of this idiom in Isaiah 29. Verse 10 says, 'The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep and (He) hath closed your eyes.' Verse 13 explains what this really means. God did not blind the eyes of people who were trying to see. He never does. The literal truth, as expressed in verse 13, was this: 'This people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor Me, but (they) have removed their heart far from Me.' If they 'removed their heart far from God', this means that they willfully shut their own eyes. God realized that they had done so. That is obviously what He meant when He said that He had closed their eyes.

"In the same way, when a Hebrew read the words, 'I will harden Pharaoh's heart', he would take it as a prophecy that the wicked Pharaoh would harden his own heart. This is exactly what did happen. In the Exodus story it says 15 times that Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Three times it says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Seven times it says God did the hardening. Five times it states that Pharaoh's heart grew harder, without saying who hardened it.

"Clearly, God did not make a good man bad. He merely took hold of a very bad man, and made use of his badness" (God's Truth, ch. 20).

Comment on Rom 9:19

ONE OF YOU WILL SAY TO ME: "THEN WHY DOES GOD STILL BLAME US? FOR WHO RESISTS HIS WILL?": "In Jeremiah 18 we are told that the prophet was sent to the potter's house, there to hear God's words. The potter was working with the clay, and as he wrought, his work was marred. So he crushed together and then refashioned the clay. And if Israel were workable in God's hands, He would devise good for them (vv. 5-10); but Israel would not (vv. 11-23). Jeremiah had then to take an earthen vessel (Jer 19), baked and fixed in shape, not now capable of being refashioned, and tell of impending disasters, breaking the vessel as an illustration of God's intention to break them as a nation.

"God is using the clay of sin-stricken humanity, remaking it as He wills. He would do no wrong if He left the clay to perish. The soft, responsive clay is being prepared for greater things, while the hard unresponsive can only be destroyed.

"Paul puts an alternative to the statement (John Carter, 106,107).

Paul is arguing, correctly, that it is possible for a man to resist the will of God! Because, if man successfully resists the direction in which God's intervention, or providence, is pushing him, then ultimately God's will for him will change!

It may be said, however, that it is impossible to resist God's will without suffering consequences! And, sadly for the one who resists, the consequences are not what the resister would choose!

Consider Acts 7:51: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!" The Sanhedrin did resist the will of God, that they be converted through the preaching of Stephen; and as a result they and their nation perished.

But also consider Acts 26:14: "I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' " Saul of Tarsus, even though he resisted God's will for a while, finally relented and ceased his resistance.

Rather than fighting against God, and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, Saul of Tarsus had a change of heart and was baptized. However, either way, the choice was his.

Comment on Rom 9:20

BUT WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO TALK BACK TO GOD?: The New Testament's standard word for "answer" is "apokrinomai". Occasionally this is intensified with another prefix, giving it a somewhat hostile flavor: "answer back". Appropriately, four out of five of its Old Testament occurrences come in the book of Job (e.g., Job 16:8; 32:12). So here, in the middle of the exposition of Paul's doctrine of election comes the objection: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' To this Paul's main reply is: 'But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?' Who are you, to argue against God? He is the potter, you and Pharaoh are only clay. The mightiest of men is just one more "frail creature of dust, and feeble as frail". Dust, or clay, are fit materials, then, from which God has made man (Gen 2:7; 3:19; Isa 40:15).

The quotation here is a combination of Isaiah 29:16 ("Shall what is formed say to him who formed it…?") and of Isaiah 45:9 ("Why do you make me like this?").

"SHALL WHAT IS FORMED SAY TO HIM WHO FORMED IT, 'WHY DID YOU MAKE ME LIKE THIS?’ ": In Isaiah 29:16, which Paul quotes here, the Hebrew word for "formed" is "yatser". The same word is used in Genesis 2:7,8, where man is created of the dust of the earth, and Job 33:16, where Elihu is said to have been formed out of the clay. The Greek is “plasso”— meaning: to form, or mold (see English "plastic"). In this context, by the way, man plainly has free will. This is confirmed by Isaiah 29:13,15, where he is said to exercise that free will by removing his heart from proximity to God, and going into hiding!

Comment on Rom 9:21

DOES NOT THE POTTER HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE OUT OF THE SAME LUMP OF CLAY SOME POTTERY FOR NOBLE PURPOSES AND SOME FOR COMMON USE?: "Power" here is "exousia"; this word is more reasonably translated "authority".

On this verse, Brian Luke comments as follows:

"Throughout this consideration it has been emphasized that in each context the human desire is recognized and God's action related to man's behavior. Clay is without thought or power to determine its course. In this respect the analogy of potter and clay has its limits. It is highly significant that in a further use of this figure, this time by the prophet Jeremiah, the express teaching of the section is that God's action is conditional upon human behavior. In Jeremiah 18 Jeremiah is told to go to the house of the potter, where God would give him instruction. There he saw the potter molding a vessel but, alas, he spoiled it, so he reworked the still soft clay into another shape according as he saw fit. The lesson was for Israel, 'Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in Mine hand, O house of Israel' (v. 6). If God spoke of punishment or peace to any nation and that people reverted in their behavior, then He would repent of the evil or good He thought to do to them (vv. 7-10). However, Israel in Jeremiah's day had reached the unregenerate state. 'Behold,' says God, 'I frame (Hebrew 'yatser', as in Isaiah 29) evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good' (v 11). The response of the people was one of sullen and determined indifference: 'There is no hope; but we will walk after our own devices' (v 12)… There was nothing malleable in the nation's attitude.

"Consequently, Jeremiah was told to take a potter's earthen vessel, fired and fixed in shape, unto the valley of the Son of Hinnom… (Jer 19:1,2). After stating a catalogue of the sins of the nation (Jer 19:3-9), the prophet was instructed to break the earthen vessel in the sight of the people (v. 10). 'Even so will I break the people and the city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again' (v 11; cp Lam 4:2; Psa 2:9). There was opportunity, but it had been refused; like Pharaoh, they had hardened their hearts against Yahweh, and judgment would surely come upon them" (Brian Luke, pp. 16,17).

This same lesson is given another New Testament application by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:20,21:

"In a large house there are articles ['skeuos': 'vessels'] not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument ['skeuos' again] for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work."

It is God's prerogative, if He so choose, to take the lowest elements from the earth, and out of such raw materials to create a noble "vessel" to do His will. This can be God's work in us, but it does not work in a vacuum. Our part in this work is also important: we must make ourselves ready, and cleanse ourselves insofar as we are able, in anticipation of the time when God shall perhaps find a need for us.

The 17th century poet George Herbert wrote:

Since God doth often vessels make Of lowly matter for high uses meet, I throw me at his feet. There will I lie, until my Maker seek For some mean stuff thereon to show his skill: Then is my time.

Comment on Rom 9:22

WHAT IF GOD, CHOOSING TO SHOW HIS WRATH AND MAKE HIS POWER KNOWN, BORE WITH GREAT PATIENCE THE OBJECTS OF HIS WRATH?: "Choose" here is the Greek "thelo": willing (KJV, NET), wishing, or desiring — all these, but not necessarily acting upon that wish for a long, long time.

Paul does not stop to wait for an answer; the question assumes there is no answer. God has put up with the proud and evil ways of wicked men for a long time, even though as Creator He might have removed them early and promptly.

The goodness and forbearance of God is intended to lead man to repentance (Rom 2:4). Likewise, in the days of Noah, the long-suffering God waited for man's repentance (1 Pet 3:20). And it is similar in our day:

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9; cp. v. 15 also).

THE OBJECTS OF HIS WRATH: The Greek "skeuos" is a generic term for any kind of container. Thus the KJV translation of "vessel" is quite reasonable. In the NIV, the same word "skeuos" is translated "possessions" (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27), "jar" (Luke 8:16; John 19:29; 2 Cor 4:7), "instrument" (Acts 9:15; 2 Tim 2:21), "body", as in human body (1 Thes 4:4), and "pottery" (Rom 9:21; Rev 2:27), as well as "objects" in verses 22 and 23 here.

The negative aspect here, "wrath", is intended to refer back to Pharaoh (vv. 17,18), and more generally to the Jewish opposition to the gospel in Paul's day.

The NET margin renders "vessels destined for wrath", in what the Notes call "a genitive of destination". Thus the phrase may mean: 'not so much already under the wrath of God, as destined to feel that wrath if there is no change.'

PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION: This designates a fullness or ripeness of sin that points to judgment unless there is a turning to God. However, as Paul implies, God is not made responsible for the sinful condition. The preparation for destruction is the work of man, who allows himself to deteriorate in spite of knowledge and conscience. Even when favor was shown to him, Pharaoh "sinned yet more, and hardened his heart" (Exod 9:33,34), so that, eventually, it would be plain that Pharaoh had no one to blame but himself. So it may be seen, quite reasonably, that God did not prepare Pharaoh for destruction, so much as Pharaoh prepared HIMSELF for destruction.

Comment on Rom 9:23

WHAT IF HE DID THIS TO MAKE THE RICHES OF HIS GLORY KNOWN TO THE OBJECTS OF HIS MERCY: Ironically, it is often the "vessels of God's mercy" who most benefit by seeing the destruction of the "vessels of His wrath":

"This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession' " (Exod 19:3-5).

So too would Gentile believers marvel at their calling when the Roman legions descended upon Jerusalem and destroyed the people of the Covenant in 70 A.D. It will always be true that the fullness of the mercy of God will come home to the righteous only when they see the Lord's vengeance upon the wicked, and know that they have been preserved therefrom.

WHOM HE PREPARED IN ADVANCE FOR GLORY: A very similar statement was made by Christ:

"Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world" (Matt 25:34).

God has been working, through His angels and His Spirit, to bring many sons to glory, and also to prepare their new "home" upon this earth; indeed, it is His preeminent work (Rom 8:28-30).

Compare the "prepared" of this verse with the "prepared" of the preceding verse. Here, it is clearly God who is "preparing", both those who will be blessed and the time and place of their blessing.

But in verse 22, the same word "prepared" is passive, and lacks a subject: the implication being that the "objects" or "vessels" have been prepared for destruction.

Comment on Rom 9:24

EVEN US, WHOM HE ALSO CALLED, NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES: Once more, Paul emphasizes that Gentiles will share with Jews in this coming Glory.

Comment on Rom 9:25,26

The apostle Peter has also referred to these same passages, in 1 Peter 2:10. There he refers to Gentiles in characteristically Jewish language: the Gentiles, of all peoples, if they believe, become the true "chosen people", as well as "a royal priesthood" — kings and priests serving the God of Israel.

Comment on Rom 9:25

AS HE SAYS IN HOSEA: "I WILL CALL THEM 'MY PEOPLE' WHO ARE NOT MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL CALL HER 'MY LOVED ONE' WHO IS NOT MY LOVED ONE": Paul is quoting from the prophet Hosea (Hos 2:23), who describes the stumbling of Israel, their removal from the Divine mercy, and their later return to favor.

Furthermore, Paul implies that if those who were "My people" could become "not My people", and finally "My people" yet again, then there was no reason why the Gentiles (who started out as "not My people") could not also become "My people".

Comment on Rom 9:26

AND, "IT WILL HAPPEN THAT IN THE VERY PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, 'YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,' THEY WILL BE CALLED 'SONS OF THE LIVING GOD' ": Here he cites Hosea 1:10. The argument is as follows:

If Israel could accept a principle of return to Divine favor for themselves, how dare they refuse God the right to grant the principle to others!
The very concept of ones who are "not My people" was introduced by Moses: "I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding" (Deut 32:21); so Paul's use of the "no people" passages in Hosea is justified and complemented by Moses' words. (Note that this very verse in Deuteronomy is used by Paul, in Romans 10:19.)

IN THE VERY PLACE: Some expositors understand "the very place" to mean the Land of Israel. Thus the prophet Hosea predicts the ten tribes, i.e., Israel as a whole, should be restored, and that they should be recognized again as part of the people of God in the very place where they had been regarded as apostates and outcasts.

Others think that the apostle, in quoting Hosea, now refers to the ecclesia or church. Thus those Jews who had become apostate, in denying Jesus as the Messiah, will — upon their belief, repentance and baptism — become God's people once again, in Christ's ecclesia.

Beyond this, however, is Paul's final point: that neither Jews nor Gentiles have any hereditary claim to be God's exclusive people. Rather, they must establish their claim by their faith in the promises to Abraham, and all that entails. When and if they do so, whether Jews or Gentiles by natural birth, they will become God's people in the very place, Palestine and Jerusalem, where they were previously seen only as aliens from the commonwealth and hope of Israel.

Comment on Rom 9:27,28

ISAIAH CRIES OUT CONCERNING ISRAEL: "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE ISRAELITES BE LIKE THE SAND BY THE SEA, ONLY THE REMNANT WILL BE SAVED. FOR THE LORD WILL CARRY OUT HIS SENTENCE ON EARTH WITH SPEED AND FINALITY": Here Paul refers to Isaiah 10:22,23. This quotation is taken from the Septuagint. Verse 28 also echoes words of Isaiah 28:22, a similar context which speaks of divine judgment upon Israel.

The inclusion of Isaiah 10:23 ("The Lord will carry out His sentence on earth") indicates that Paul also intends to stress the surety of impending judgment upon Israel. Such judgment will most certainly come, and when it has come it will most certainly be final.

In that quotation of Isaiah 10:23, "carry out" ("poieo") is a generic term of action or performance, translated by quite a number of words, e.g., to do, make, practice, produce.

Comment on Rom 9:29

IT IS JUST AS ISAIAH SAID PREVIOUSLY: "UNLESS THE LORD ALMIGHTY HAD LEFT US DESCENDANTS…": "A seed" (KJV). This quotation is also taken from the Septuagint, whereas the Hebrew of Isaiah 1:9 speaks of a "remnant".

However, the "seed" will be only a "remnant", on the order of 10%, as Isaiah 6:13 puts it: "the tenth remaining in the land".

"…WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE GOMORRAH": Israel is compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Except for a remnant, Israel would be equally obliterated (cp. Ezek 16:45-56). God can draw back, and in fact has drawn back, His favor from the sons of Israel; they were never given a "free ticket" to the kingdom independent of their faith and behavior. "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Rom 9:6). Fleshly descent never gave anyone a title to divine grace and sonship, and the Bible makes this abundantly clear.

Comment on Rom 9:30

WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY?: Introducing Paul's summary of the foregoing argument, i.e., 'What may we infer from the preceding discussion?'

THAT THE GENTILES, WHO DID NOT PURSUE RIGHTEOUSNESS: The KJV "followed after" (both here and in verse 31) is not nearly strong enough. The Greek word is "dioko", literally to pursue, implying a fervent activity (e.g., Acts 9:4,5; Phil 3:6, 12).

The Gentiles conducted their lives wholly in ignorance of God's law, and thus, of course, with no intent to pursue "righteousness" at all.

HAVE OBTAINED IT: The Greek "katalambano", meaning to grasp or seize, is used in Philippians 3:12 of the runner winning a race. But how can a person win a race which he never entered? and which he never intended to win?

A RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT IS BY FAITH: The prize of righteousness, a covering from sins by the righteousness of God, had been obtained by the Gentiles on the basis of faith. This hearkens back to the earlier conclusions of Romans 3:27-30 and Romans 4 (outlining examples of faith in the lives of Abraham and David). The very attitude of faith is distinct from some sort of "righteousness" established by human striving. Faith looks away from self and puts its trust in God.

Comment on Rom 9:31

BUT ISRAEL, WHO PURSUED A LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, HAS NOT ATTAINED IT: What the Gentiles thus seized, the Jews failed to hold on to. Here is a great irony: the one who didn't even enter the "race" wins it; and the one who works the hardest, struggling and striving to "win", loses altogether! It is a pitiful picture of the nation of Israel endeavoring and fighting intensely to perfect their religious life, and still coming up empty-handed. The Gentiles, sunk in carelessness and sin, have attained the favor of God, while the Jews, to whom religion was a business to be pursued meticulously, have utterly failed.

ATTAINED: Greek "phthano", to come before another. Not the same word as in verse 30. The Jews could not attain this "righteousness" because they could not continue in all things that were written (Gal 3:10; Deut 27:26). Since no one could keep the Law perfectly… "The very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death" (Rom 7:10,11). Thus the Law became "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10).

Comment on Rom 9:32

WHY NOT? BECAUSE THEY PURSUED IT NOT BY FAITH BUT AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS: In other words, many Jews would not submit to the method of justification proposed by God, which was alone suitable for sinners, and persisted in trusting to their own imperfect works. The reason why one man believes and is saved, rather than another, is to be sought in the sovereign grace of God, according to Paul's doctrine in the preceding part of this chapter, and Romans 8:28, 2 Timothy 1:9, etc.; but the ground of the rejection and condemnation of men is always in themselves. The vessels of wrath which are destroyed, are destroyed on account of their sins. No man, therefore, can throw the blame of his perdition on any other than himself.”.

It turns out that, all the time, many of the Jews were traveling on the wrong road! Righteousness before God could never be attained along the path of legal observance. It would leave God out of the means of salvation and develop in man a sense of self-sufficiency which was fatal to spiritual awareness.

THEY STUMBLED OVER THE "STUMBLING STONE": Paul is continuing the analogy of runners in a race. "Many of them will stumble; they will fall and be broken, they will be snared and captured" (Isa 8:15). These words were spoken initially of those Jews who sought alliances with Gentile powers like Egypt, as a means of saving themselves from the Assyrians, but all to no avail.

Comment on Rom 9:33

AS IT IS WRITTEN: "SEE, I LAY IN ZION A STONE THAT CAUSES MEN TO STUMBLE AND A ROCK THAT MAKES THEM FALL, AND THE ONE WHO TRUSTS IN HIM WILL NEVER BE PUT TO SHAME": Most of this quotation comes from Isaiah 28:16:

"See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed."

The context is similar to Isaiah 8:14. There the Lord Himself "will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."

Judah sought to hide from the great and mighty "flood" of the Assyrian army (see Isa 28:2,15,17-19). In doing this they ignored, and thus stumbled over, the great foundation stone, which was God Himself.

In the context of Isaiah 28, it was the righteous and faithful king Hezekiah who became, initially, the chief cornerstone of Judah's faith and religion. But of course that good king was, in the eyes of the prophet Isaiah, emblematic or typical of the coming Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (cp. 1 Cor 3:11; Psa 118:22; 1 Pet 2:4-8).