|
THE SORROWFUL PROBLEM:
JEWISH UNBELIEF; DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY
Ro 9:1-33
WE may well think that again there was silence awhile in that
Corinthian chamber, when Tertius had duly inscribed the last words
we
have studied. A "silence in heaven" follows, in the
Apocalypse, {Re 8:1} the vision of the white hosts of the
redeemed, gathered at last, in their eternal jubilation, before the
throne of the Lamb. A silence in the soul is the fittest immediate
sequel to such a revelation of grace and glory as has passed before
us here. And did not the man whose work it was to utter it, and
whose
personal experience was as it were the informing soul of the whole
argument of the Epistle from the first, and not least in this last
sacred paean of faith, keep silence when he had done, hushed and
tired by this "exceeding weight" of grace and glory? But he has a great deal more to say to the Romans, and in due time
the pen obeys the voice again. What will the next theme be? It will
be a pathetic and significant contrast to the last; a lament, a
discussion, an instruction, and then a prophecy, about not himself
and his happy fellow saints, but poor self-blinded unbelieving
Israel. The occurrence of that subject exactly, here is true to the inmost
nature of the Gospel. The Apostle has just been counting up the
wealth of salvation, and claiming it all, as present and eternal
property, for himself and his brethren in the Lord. Justifying
Righteousness, Liberty from sin in Christ, the Indwelling Spirit,
electing Love, coming and certain Glory, all have been recounted,
and
asserted, and embraced. "Is it selfish," this great joy of
possession and prospect? Let those say so who see these things only
from outside. Make proof of what they are in their interior, enter
into them, learn yourself what it is to have peace with God, to
receive the Spirit, to expect the eternal glory; and you will find
that nothing is so sure to expand the heart towards other men as the
personal reception into it of the Truth and Life of God in Christ.
It
is possible to hold a true creed—and to be spiritually hard anal
selfish. But is it possible so to be—when not only the creed is
held,
but the Lord of it, its Heart and Life, is received with wonder and
great joy? The man whose certainties, whose riches, whose freedom,
are all consciously "in Him," cannot but love his neighbour, and
long that he too should come into "the secret of the Lord." So St. Paul, just at this point of the Epistle, turns with a
peculiar
intensity of grief and yearning towards the Israel which he had once
led, and now had left, because they would not come with him to
Christ. His natural and his spiritual sympathies all alike go out to
this self-afflicting people, so privileged, so divinely loved, and
now so blind. Oh, that he could offer any sacrifice that would bring
them reconciled, humbled, happy, to the feet of the true Christ! Oh,
that they might see the fallacy of their own way of salvation, and
submit to the way of Christ, taking His yoke, and finding rest to
their souls! Why do they not do it? Why does not the light which
convinced him shine on them! Why should not the whole Sanhedrin say,
"Lord, what wouldst Thou have us to do?" Why does not the fair
beauty of the Son of God make them too "count all things but loss"
for Him? Why do not the voices of the Prophets prove to them, as
they
do now to Paul, absolutely convincing of the historical as well as
spiritual claims of the Man of Calvary? Has the promise failed? Has
God done with the race to which He guaranteed such a perpetuity of
blessing? No, that cannot be. He looks again, and he sees in the
whole past a long warning that, while an outer circle of benefits
might affect the nation, the inner circle, the light and life of God
indeed, embraced "a remnant" only; even from the day when Isaac and
not Ishmael was made heir of Abraham. And then he ponders the
impenetrable mystery of the relation of the Infinite Will to human
wills; he remembers how, in a way whose full reasons are unknowable,
(but they are good, for they are in God,) the Infinite Will has to
do
with our willing; genuine and responsible though our willing is. And
before that opaque veil he rests. He knows that only righteousness
and love are behind it; but he knows that it is a veil, and that
in front of it man’s thought must cease and be silent. Sin is
altogether man’s fault. But when man turns from sin it is all God’s
mercy, free, special, distinguishing. Be silent, and trust Him, O
man
whom He has made. Remember, He has made thee. It is not only
that
He is greater than thou, or stronger; but He has made thee. Be
reasonably willing to trust, out of sight, the reasons of thy Maker. Then he turns again with new regrets and yearnings to the thought of
that wonderful Gospel which was meant for Israel and for the world,
but which Israel rejected, and now would fain check on its way to
the
world. Lastly, he recalls the future, still full of eternal promises
for the chosen race, and through them full of blessings for the
world; till he rises at length from perplexity and anguish, and the
wreck of once eager expectations, into that great Doxology in which
he blesses the Eternal Sovereign for the very mystery of His ways,
and adores Him because He is His own eternal End. Truth I speak in Christ, speaking as the member of the All-Truthful;
I do not lie, my conscience, in the Holy Ghost, informed and
governed
by Him, bearing me concurrent witness—the soul within affirming to
itself the word spoken without to others—that I have great grief,
and my heart has incessant pain, yes, the heart in which {Ro
5:5} the Spirit has "poured out" God’s love and joy; there is
room for both experiences in its human depths. For I was wishing, I
myself, to be anathema from Christ, to be devoted to eternal
separation from Him; awful dream of uttermost sacrifice, made
impossible only because it would mean self-robbery from the Lord who
had bought him; a spiritual suicide by sin—for the sake of my
brethren, my kinsmen flesh-wise. For they are (οιτινες εισιν)
Israelites, bearers of the glorious theocratic name, sons of the
"Prince with" Ge 32:28; theirs is the adoption, the call to be
Jehovah’s own filial race, "His son, His firstborn" {Ex 4:22}
of the peoples; and the glory, the Shechinah of the Eternal
Presence,
sacramentally seen in Tabernacle and Temple, spiritually spread over
the race; and the covenants, with Abraham, and Isaac, and Levi, and
Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and David; and the Legislation, the
Holy Moral Code, and the Ritual, with its divinely ordered
symbolism,
that vast Parable of Christ, and the Promises, of "the pleasant
land," and the perpetual favour, and the coming Lord; theirs are the
Fathers, patriarchs, and priests, and kings; and out of them, as to
what is flesh-wise, is the Christ, -He who is over all things, God,
blessed to all eternity. Amen. It is indeed a splendid roll of honours, recited over this race
"separate among the nations," a race which today as much as ever
remains the enigma of history, to be solved only by Revelation. "The
Jews, your Majesty," was the reply of Frederick the Great’s old
believing courtier, when asked with a smile for the credentials of
the Bible; the short answer silenced the Encyclopaedist King. It is
indeed a riddle, made of indissoluble facts, this people everywhere
dispersed, yet everywhere individual; scribes of a Book which has
profoundly influenced mankind, and which is recognised by the most
various races as an august and lawful claimant to be divine, yet
themselves, in so many aspects, provincial to the heart; historians
of their own glories, but at least equally of their own unworthiness
and disgrace; transmitters of predictions which may be slighted, but
can never, as a whole, be explained away, yet obstinate deniers of
their majestic fulfilment in the Lord of Christendom; human in every
fault and imperfection, yet so concerned in bringing to man the
message of the Divine that Jesus Himself said of them,
"Salvation {Joh 4:22} comes from the Jews." On this wonderful
race this its most illustrious member (after his Lord) here fixes
his
eyes, full of tears. He sees their glories pass before him—and then
realises the spiritual squalor and misery of their rejection of the
Christ of God. He groans, and in real agony asks how it can be. One
thing only cannot be; the promises have not failed; there has been
no
failure in the Promiser. What may seem such is rather man’s
misreading of the promise. But it is not as though the word of God has been thrown out, that
"word" whose divine honour was dearer to him than even that of his
people. For not all who come from Israel constitute Israel; nor,
because they are seed of Abraham, are they all his children, in the
sense of family life and rights; but "In Isaac shall a seed be
called thee"; {Ge 21:12} Isaac, and not any son of thy body
begotten, is father of those whom thou shalt claim as thy covenant
race. That is to say, not the children of his flesh are the children
of his (του) God; no, the
children of the promise, indicated and
limited by its developed terms, are reckoned as seed. For of the
promise this was the word. {Ge 18:10,14} "According to this
time I will come, and Sarah, she and not any spouse of thine; no
Hagar, no Keturah, but Sarah, shall have a son." And the law of
limitations did not stop there, but contracted yet again the stream
of even physical filiation: Nor only so, but Rebecca too—being with
child, with twin children, of one husband—no problem of complex
parentage, as with Abraham, occurring here—even of Isaac our father,
just named as the selected heir—(for it was while they were not yet
born, while they had not yet shown any conduct good or bad, that the
choice-wise purpose of God might remain, sole and sovereign, not
based on works, but wholly on the Caller)—it was said to her, {Ge
25:23} "The greater shall be bondman to the less." As it stands
written, in the prophet’s message a millennium later, "Jacob I
loved, but Esau I hated," I repudiated him as heir. So the limit has run always along with the promise. Ishmael is
Abraham’s son, yet not his son. Esau is Isaac’s son, yet not his
son.
And though we trace in Ishmael and in Esau, as they grow,
characteristics which may seem to explain the limitation, this will
not really do. For the chosen one in each case has his conspicuous
unfavourable characteristics too. And the whole tone of the record
(not to speak of this its apostolic interpretation) looks towards
mystery, not explanation. Esau’s "profanity" was the concurrent
occasion, not the cause, of the choice of Jacob. The reason of the
choice lay in the depths of God, that World "dark with excess of
bright." All is well there, but not the less all is unknown. So we are led up to the shut door of the sanctuary of God’s Choice.
Touch it; it is adamantine, and it is fast locked. No blind Destiny
has turned the key, and lost it. No inaccessible Tyrant sits within,
playing to himself both sides of a game of fate, and indifferent to
the cry of the soul. The Key Bearer, whose Name is engraved on the
portal, is "He that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for
evermore". {Re 1:18} And if you listen you will hear words
within, like the soft deep voice of many waters, yet of an eternal
Heart; "I am that I am; I will that I will; trust Me." But the door
is locked; and the Voice is mystery. Ah, what agonies have been felt in human souls, as men have looked
at
that gate, and pondered the unknown interior! The Eternal knows,
with
infinite kindness and sympathy, the pain unspeakable which can beset
the creature when it wrestles with His Eternity, and tries to clasp
it with both hands, and to say that "that is all!" We do not find
in Scripture, surely, anything like an anthema for that awful sense
of the unknown which can gather on the soul drawn—irresistibly as it
sometimes seems to be—into the problems of the Choice of God, and
oppressed as with "the weight of all the seas upon it," by the very
questions stated presently here by the Apostle. The Lord knoweth,
not
only His will, but our heart, in these matters. And where He
entirely
declines to explain (surely because we are not yet of age to
understand Him if He did) He yet shows us Jesus, and bids us meet
the
silence of the mystery with the silence of a personal trust in the
personal Character revealed in Him. In something of such stillness shall we approach the paragraph now
to
follow? Shall we listen, not to explain away, not even over much to
explain, but to submit, with a submission which is not a suppressed
resentment but an entire reliance? We shall find that the whole
matter, in its practical aspect, has a voice articulate enough for
the soul which sees Christ, and believes on Him. It says to that
soul, "Who maketh thee to differ? Who hath fashioned thee to honour?
Why art thou not now, as once, guiltily rejecting Christ, or, what
is
the same, postponing Him? Thank Him who has ‘compelled thee,’ yet
without violation of thyself, ‘to come in.’ See in thy choice of Him
His mercy on thee. And now, fall at His feet, to bless Him, to serve
Him, and to trust Him. Think ill of thyself. Think reverently of
others. And remember (the Infinite, who has chosen thee, says it),
He
willeth not the death of a sinner, He loved the world, He bids thee
to tell it that He loves it, to tell it that He is Love." Now we listen. With a look which speaks awe, but not misgiving,
disclosing past tempests of doubt, but now a rest of faith, the
Apostle dictates again: What therefore shall we say? Is there injustice at God’s bar? Away
with the thought. The thing is, in the deepest sense, unthinkable.
God, the God of Revelation, the God of Christ, is a Being who, if
unjust—"ceases to be," "denies Himself." But the thought
that His reasons for some given action should be, at least to us
now,
absolute mystery, He being the Infinite Personality, is not
unthinkable at all. And in such a case it is not unreasonable, but
the deepest reason, to ask for no more than His articulate
guarantee,
so to speak, that the mystery is fact; that He is conscious of it,
alive to it (speaking humanly); and that He avows it as His will.
For
when God, the God of Christ, bids us "take His will for it," it is
a different thing from an attempt, however powerful, to frighten us
into silence. It is a reminder Who He is who speaks; the Being who
is
kindred to us, who is in relations with us, who loved us, but who
also has absolutely made us, and cannot (because we are sheer
products of His will) make us so much His equals as to tell us all.
So the Apostle proceeds with a "for" whose bearing we have thus
already indicated: For to Moses he says, {Ex 34:19} in the dark
sanctuary of Sinai, "I shall pity whomsoever I do pity, and
compassionate whomsoever I do compassionate"; My account of My
saving action shall stop there: It appears therefore that it, the
ultimate account of salvation, is not of (as the effect is "of" the
first cause) the wilier, nor of the runner, the carrier of willing
into work, but of the Pitier
— God. For the Scripture says {Ex 10:16} to Pharaoh, that
large example of defiant human sin, real and guilty, but also,
concurrently, of the sovereign Choice which sentenced him to go his
own way, and used him as a beacon at its end, "For this very purpose
I raised thee up, made thee stand, even beneath the Plagues, that I
might display in thee My power, and that My Name, as of the just God
who strikes down the proud, might be told far and wide in all the
earth." Pharaoh’s was a case of concurrent phenomena. A man was there on
the one hand, willingly, deliberately, and most guiltily, battling
with right, and rightly bringing ruin on his own head, wholly of
himself. God was there on the other hand, making that man a
monument not of grace but of judgment. And that side, that line, is
isolated here, and treated as if it were all. It appears then that whom He pleases, He pities, and whom He
pleases,
He hardens, in that sense in which He "hardened Pharaoh’s heart,"
"made it stiff," "made it heavy," "made it harsh"—by sentencing it
to have its own way. Yes, thus "it appears." And beyond that
inference we can take no step of thought but this—that the Subject
of that mysterious "will," He who thus "pleases," and "pities," and
"hardens," is no other than the God of Jesus Christ. He may be, not
only submitted to, but trusted, in that unknowable sovereignty of
His
will. Yet listen to the question which speaks out the problem of all
hearts: "You will say to Me therefore, Why does He still, after such
an avowal of His sovereignty, softening this heart, hardening that,
why does He still find fault?" Ah, why? For His act of will who has
withstood? (Nay, you have withstood His will, and so have I Not one
word of the argument has contradicted the primary fact of our will,
nor therefore our responsibility. But this he does not bring in
here.) Nay, rather, rather than take such an attitude of narrow and
helpless logic, think deeper; nay, rather, O man, O mere human
being,
you—who are you, who are answering back to your God? Shall the thing
formed say to its Former, Why did you make me like this? Has not the
potter authority over his clay, out of the same kneaded mass to make
this vessel for honour, but that for dishonour? But if God, being
pleased to demonstrate His wrath, and to evidence what He can
do—what will St. Paul go on to say? That the Eternal, being thus
"pleased," created responsible beings on purpose to destroy them,
gave them personality, and then compelled them to transgress? No, he
does not say so. The sternly simple illustration, in itself one of
the least relieved utterances in the whole Scripture—that dread
Potter and his kneaded Clay!—gives way, in its application, to a
statement of the work of God on man full of significance in its
variation. Here are indeed the "vessels" still; and the vessels "for
honour" are such because of "mercy," and His own hand has "prepared
them for glory." And there are the vessels "for dishonour," and in a
sense of awful mystery they are such because of "wrath." But the
"wrath" of the Holy One can fall only upon demerit; so these
"vessels" have merited His displeasure of themselves. And they are
"prepared for ruin"; but where is any mention of His hand
preparing them? And meanwhile He "bears them in much longsuffering."
The mystery is there, impenetrable as ever, when we try to pierce
behind "His will." But on every side it is limited and qualified by
facts which witness to the compassions of the Infinite Sovereign
even
in His judgments, and remind us that sin is altogether "of" the
creature. So we take up the words where we dropped them above: What
if He bore, (the tense throws us forward into eternity, to look back
thence on His ways in time,) in much longsuffering, vessels of
wrath,
adjusted for ruin? And acted otherwise with others, that He might
evidence the wealth of His glory, the resources of His inmost
Character, poured upon vessels of pity, which He prepared in advance
for glory, by the processes of justifying and hallowing grace—whom
in fact He called, effectually, in their conversion, even us, not
only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? For while the lineal
Israel, with its privilege and its apparent failure, is here first
in
view, there lies behind it the phenomenon of "the Israel of God,"
the
heaven-born heirs of the Fathers, a race not of blood, but of the
Spirit. The great Promise, all the while, had set towards that
Israel as its final scope; and now he gives proof from the Prophets
that this intention was at least half revealed all along the line of
revelation. As actually in our Hosea {Ho 2:23 Heb 2:5} in the book we know
as such, He says, "I will call what was not My people, My people;
and the not-beloved one, beloved. And [another Hosean oracle, in
line
with the first] it shall be, in the place where it was said to them,
Not My people are ye, there they shall be called sons of the living
God." In both places the first incidence of the words is on the
restoration of the Ten Tribes to covenant blessings. But the
Apostle,
in the Spirit, sees an ultimate and satisfying reference to a vaster
application of the same principle; the bringing of the rebelling and
banished ones of all mankind into covenant and blessing. Meanwhile the Prophets who foretell that great ingathering indicate
with equal solemnity the spiritual failure of all but a fraction of
the lineal heirs of promise. But Isaiah cries over Israel, "If the
number of the sons of Israel should be as the sand of the sea, the
remnant only shall be saved; for as one who completes and cuts short
will the Lord do His work upon the earth." Here again is a first and
second incidence of the prophecy. In every stage of the history of
Sin and Redemption the Apostle, in the Spirit, sees an embryo of the
great Development. So, in the woefully limited numbers of the Exiles
who returned from the old captivity he sees an embodied prophecy of
the fewness of the sons of Israel who shall return from the exile of
incredulity to their, true Messiah. And as Isaiah {Isa 1:9}
hasforetold, so it is; "Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us a seed,
like Sodom we had become, and to Gomorrah we had been resembled." Such was the mystery of the facts, alike in the older and in the
later story of Israel. A remnant, still a remnant, not the masses,
entered upon an inheritance of such ample provision, and so
sincerely
offered. And behind this lay the insoluble shadow within which is
concealed the relation of the Infinite Will to the wills of men. But
also, in front of the phenomenon, concealed by no shadow save that
which is cast by human sin, the Apostle sees and records the
reasons,
as they reside in the human will, of this "salvation of a remnant."
The promises of God, all along, and supremely now in Christ, had
been
conditioned (it was in the nature of spiritual things that it should
be so) by submission to His way of fulfilment. The golden gift was
there, in the most generous of hands, stretched out to give. But it
could be put only into a recipient hand open and empty. It could be
taken only by submissive and self-forgetting faith. And man, in his
fall, had twisted his will out of gear for such an action. Was it
wonderful that, by his own fault, he failed to receive? What
therefore shall we say? Why, that the Gentiles, though they did
not pursue righteousness, though no Oracle had set them on the track
of a true divine acceptance and salvation, achieved righteousness,
grasped it when once revealed, but the righteousness that results on
faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, aiming at what
is, for fallen man, the impossible goal, a perfect meeting of the
Law’s one principle of acceptance, "This do and thou shalt live,"
did not attain that law; that is to say, practically, as we now
review their story of vain efforts in the line of self, did not
attain the acceptance to which that law was to be the avenue. The
Pharisee as such, the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus for example, neither
had peace with God, nor dared to think he had, in the depth of his
soul. He knew enough of the divine ideal to be hopelessly uneasy
about his realisation of it. He could say, stiffly enough, "God, I
thank Thee"; {Lu 18:11,14} but he "went down to his house"
unhappy, unsatisfied, unjustified. On what account? Because it was
not of faith, but as of works; in the unquiet dream that man must,
and could, work up the score of merit to a valid claim. They
stumbled
on the Stone of their stumbling; as it stands written, {Isa
8:14,28:16} in a passage where the great perpetual Promise is in
view, and where the blind people are seen rejecting it as their
foothold in favour of policy, or of formalism, Behold, I place in
Sion, in the very centre of light and privilege, a Stone of
stumbling, and a Rock of upsetting; and he who confides in Him, (or,
perhaps, in it,) he who rests on it, on Him, shall not be put to
shame. One great Rabbi at least, Rashi, of the twelfth century, bears
witness to the mind of the Jewish Church upon the significance of
that mystic Rock. "Behold," so runs his interpretation, "I have
established a King, a Messiah, who shall be in Zion a stone of
proving." Was ever prophecy more profoundly verified in event? Not for the
lineal Israel only, but for Man, the King Messiah is, as ever, the
Stone of either stumbling or foundation. He is, as ever, "a Sign
spoken against." He is, as ever, the Rock of Ages, where the
believing sinner hides, and rests, and builds, "Below the storm-mark of the sky, Above the flood-mark
of the deep." Have we known what it is to stumble over Him? "We will not have this
Man to reign over us"; "We were never in bondage to any man; who is
He that He should set us free?" And are we now lifted by a Hand of
omnipotent kindness to a place deep in His clefts, safe on His
summit, "knowing nothing" for the peace of conscience, the
satisfaction of thought, the liberation of the will, the abolition
of
death, "but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"? Then let us think
with always humbled sympathy of those who, for whatever reason,
still
"forsake their, own mercy". {Jon 2:8} And let us inform them
where we are, and how we are here, and that "the ground is good."
And for ourselves, that we may do this the better, let us often read
again the simple, strong assurance which closes this chapter of
mysteries; "He who confides in Him shall not be put to shame";
"shall not be disappointed"; "shall not," in the vivid phrase of
the Hebrew itself, "make haste." No, we shall not "make haste."
From that safe Place no hurried retreat shall ever need to be
beaten.
That Fortress cannot be stormed; it cannot be surprised; it cannot
crumble. For "IT is HE"; the Son, the Lamb, of God; the sinner’s
everlasting Righteousness, the believer’s unfailing Source of peace,
of purity, and of power. DETACHED NOTE TO Ro 9:5 THE following is transcribed, with a few modifications, from the
writer’s Commentary on the Epistle in "The Cambridge Bible": "[Who is over all, God blessed forever.] The Greek may, with
more or less facility, be translated (1) as in A.V; or (2) ‘who is
God over
all,’ etc.; or (3) ‘blessed forever be He who is God over all’
(i.e., the Eternal Father) If we adopt (3) we take the Apostle
to be
led, by the mention of the Incarnation, to utter a sudden and solemn
doxology to the God who gave that crowning mercy. In favour of
this it is urged (by some entirely orthodox commentators, as
H.A.W. Meyer) that St. Paul nowhere else styles the Lord simply
‘God,’ but rather ‘the Son of God,’ etc. By this they do not mean to
detract from the Lord’s Deity; but they maintain that St. Paul
always
so states that Deity, under Divine guidance, as to mark the
‘Subordination of the Son’—that Subordination which is not a
difference of Nature, Power, or Eternity, but of Order; just such as
is marked by the simple but profound words Father and Son." "But on the other hand there is Tit 2:13, where the
Greek is (at least) perfectly capable of the rendering, ‘our
great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ There is Ac 20:28,
where the evidence is very strong for the reading, retained by
the R.V (text) ‘the Church of God, which He purchased with
His own blood.’ And if St. John is to be taken to report words
exactly, in his narrative of the Resurrection, in an incident
whose point is deeply connected with verbal precision, we have
one of the first Apostles, within eight days of the
Resurrection, addressing the Risen Lord {Joh 20:28} as ‘my
God.’ (We call attention to this as against the contention
that only the latest developments of inspiration, represented
in, e.g., St. John’s Preamble to his Gospel, show us Christ
called explicitly God.)" "If it is divinely true that ‘the Word is God,’ it
is surely far from wonderful if here and there, in peculiar
connections, [St. Paul] should so speak of Christ, even though
guided to keep another phase of the truth habitually in view." "Now, beyond all fair question, the Greek here is quite
naturally rendered as in the A.V; had it not been for historical
controversy, probably, no other rendering would have been
suggested. And lastly, and what is important, the context far
rather suggests a lament (over the fall of Israel) than an
ascription of praise. And what is most significant of all, it
pointedly suggests some explicit allusion to the super-human
Nature of Christ, by the words, ‘according to the flesh.’ But if
there is such an allusion, then it must lie in the words, over
all, God."’
|