EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Subdivision B.

FIVE EXPLANATIONS OF THE GRAND
CONCLUSION, AND ASCRIPTIONS OF
PRAISE.

10:1-11:36.

I.

FIRST EXPLANATION--JEWS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEIR REJECTION, SINCE THEY
HAD AN EQUAL CHANCE WITH
THE GENTILES OF BEING
ACCEPTED.

10:1-13.

      1 Brethren [Seven times in this Epistle Paul thus addresses the brethren at Rome generally (Rom. 1:13; 8:12; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 16:17). Twice he thus addresses the Christian Jews (Rom. 7:1, 4), and this "brethren" is evidently a third time they are especially spoken to. So thought Chrysostom, Bengel, Pool, Alford, Barnes, Hodge, etc. "Dropping now," says Bengel, "the severity of the preceding discussion, he kindly styles them brethren"], my heart's desire [literally, "my heart's eudokia, or good pleasure, or good will" (Luke 2:14; Eph. 1:5-9; Phil. 1:15, 2:13). At Matt. 11:26, and Luke 10:21, it is translated "well pleasing"; at 2 Thess. 1:11, the literal "fulfil every good pleasure of goodness" is translated, "fulfil every desire of goodness." Eudokia does not mean desire, but we have no English word which better translates Paul's use of it. Stuart conveys the idea fairly in a paraphrase "the benevolent and kind desire"] and my supplication to God is for them [the Israelites], that they may be saved. [Those [418] who tell our faults and foretell their punishment usually appear to us to be our enemies. Paul described the sin and rejection of Israel so clearly that many of them would be apt to think that he prayed for their punishment. This did him gross wrong. Every time the Evangelist denounces sin from love toward the sinner. (Comp. Gal. 4:16.) As to the apostle's prayer, it showed that his conception of foreordination was not Calvinistic. It would be of no avail to pray against God's irrevocable decree; but it was very well worth while to pray against Jewish stubbornness in unbelief, trusting to the measureless resources of God to find a remedy. So the remark of Bengel is pertinent, "Paul would not have prayed, had they been utterly reprobates." Paul's prayer being in the Spirit (Rom. 9:1) was a pledge that no fixed decree prevented God from forgiving, if Israel would only repent and seek forgiveness.] 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. ["For" introduces Paul's reason for having hope in his prayer. Had Israel been sodden in sin, or stupefied in indifference, he would have had less heart to pray. But they were ardently religious, though ignorantly so, for, had they possessed a true knowledge of their law, it would have led them to Christ, and had they understood their prophets, they would have recognized that Jesus was the Christ (Gal. 3:24; Luke 24:25-27; Rev. 19:10). But the chief ignorance of which Paul complained was their failure to see that there is no other way to justification and salvation save by faith in Christ Jesus. As to their zeal, which in the centuries wore out the vital energy of the Greek, and amazed the stolidity of the Roman, till in the siege of Jerusalem it dashed itself to atoms against the impregnable iron of the legionaries, no tongue nor pen can describe it. Of this zeal, Paul was a fitting witness, for before conversion he shared it as a persecutor, and after conversion he endured it as a martyr [419] (Phil. 3:6; 2 Cor. 11:24; Acts 21:20-31; 22:4). But misguided zeal miscarries like a misdirected letter, and the value of the contents does not mend the address. "It is better," says Augustine, "to go limping in the right way, than to run with all our might out of the way." Their lack of knowledge, being due to their own stubborn refusal to either hear or see, was inexcusable.] 3 For being ignorant of God's righteousness [Here Paul shows wherein they lacked knowledge. "For they," says Scott, "not knowing the perfect justice of the divine character, law and government; and the nature of that righteousness which God has provided for the justification of sinners consistently with his own glory"--Rom. 3:26], and seeking to establish their own [Refusing to "put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27), they clothed themselves with a garment of their own spinning, which they, like all other worms, spun from their own filthy inwards. Or, to suit the figure more nearly to the language of the apostle, refusing to accept Christ as the Rock for life-building, they reared their crumbling structure on their own sandy, unstable nature, and as fast as the wind, rain and flood of temptation undermined their work, they set about rebuilding and re-establishing it, oblivious of the results of that supreme, unavertable, ever-impending storm, the last judgment--Matt. 7:24-27], they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. ["Subject" is the keyword here. The best comment on this passage is found at John 8:31-36. Those who admit themselves bondservants of sin find it no hardship to enter the free service of Christ, but those whose pride and self-sufficiency and self-righteousness make them self-worshipers, can bring themselves to submit to no one. By use of the phrase "righteousness of God," Paul indicts them of rebellion against the Father and his plan of salvation, rather than of rebellion against the person of the Christ, who is the sum and substance of the Father's plan--the concrete righteousness whereby we are saved.] 4 For [With this word the apostle gives further [420] evidence of the ignorance of the Jews. He has shown that they did not know that they could not merit eternal life by good works; he now proceeds to show that they did not know that the law itself, which was the sole basis on which they rested their hopes of justification by the merit of works, was now a nonentity, a thing of the past; having been fulfilled, abolished and brought to an absolute and unqualified end by Christ. The Jews, therefore, are proven ignorant, for] Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. [The apostle places the enlightenment of believers in contrast with the lack of knowledge of the Jews. All believers understand (not only that Christ is the end or aim or purpose for which the law was given, and that he also ended or fulfilled it, but) that Christ, by providing the gospel, put an end to the law--killed it. The apostle does not mean that the law only dies to a man when he believes in Christ, else it would still live, as to unbelieving Jews: "to every one that believeth," therefore, expresses a contrast in enlightenment, and not in state or condition. The new covenant or testament, which is the gospel, made the first testament old (Heb. 8:13). That is to say, the new or last will revokes and makes null and void all former wills, and no one can make good his claim to an inheritance by pleading ignorance of the New Will, for the Old Will is abrogated whether he chooses to know it or not. As the word "end" has many meanings, such as aim, object, purpose, fulfillment, etc., expositors construe Paul's words many ways, but the literal meaning, an end--i. e., a termination--best suits the context. "Of two contrary things," says Godet, "when one appears, the other must take and end." "Christ is the end of the law, as 'death,' saith Demosthenes, 'is the end of life'" (Gifford). The Lord does not operate two antagonistic dispensations and covenants at one time. To make evident the fact that the gospel terminates the law, the apostle now shows the inherent antagonism between the [421] two; one of them promising life to those obedient to law, the other promising salvation to the one being obedient to or openly confessing his faith. And so there is an antagonism between the gospel and the law.] 5 For Moses [the lawgiver] writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. [Lev. 18:5. (Comp. Neh. 9:29; Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21; Luke 16:27-29; Gal. 3:12.) The context indicates that the life promised is merely the possession of the land of Canaan (Lev. 18:26-29); but Tholuck observes that "among the later Jews, we find the notion widely diffused that the blessings promised likewise involve those of eternal life. Orkelos translates: 'Whosoever keeps these commandments, shall thereby live in the life eternal.' And in the Targums of the Pseudo-Jonathan, Moses' words are rendered: 'Whosoever fulfils the commandments shall thereby live in the life eternal, and his portion shall be with the righteous.'" Paul evidently construes it as being a promise of eternal life. (Comp. Luke 18:18-20.) But no man could keep the law. Was, then, the promise of God ironical? By no means. The law taught humble men the need of grace and a gospel, and for all such God had foreordained a gospel and an atoning Christ. But to the proud, the self-righteous, the Pharisaical who would merit heaven rejecting grace and the gospel, the promise was ironical, for "doeth . . . live," implies that whoso fails, dies (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10; Jas. 2:10). There was, then, righteousness by the law, and such as bad it were ripe for the gospel which it foreshadowed, especially in its continual sacrificial deaths for sin; but there was no self-righteousness by the law, and those who strove for it invariably rejected Christ. Those seeking life by law supplemented by grace found in Jesus that fullness of grace which redeemed from law, but those seeking life by law without grace, failed and were hardened--Rom. 11:5-7.] 6 But [marking the irreconcilable contrast and antagonism between the [422] new gospel and the old law] the righteousness which is of faith saith thus [we would here expect Christ to speak, as the antithesis of Moses in verse 5. But if Jesus had been made spokesman, Paul would have been limited to a quotation of the exact words of the Master. It, therefore, suited his purpose better to personify Righteousness-which-is-of-faith, or the gospel, and let it speak for itself. Compare his personifications of Faith and Law at Gal. 3:23-25). By doing this, he (Paul) could, in this his final summary of the gospel's sufficiency and applicability to the needs of men, employ words similar to those in which Moses in his final summary of the law, spake of its sufficiency and applicability (Deut. 30:11-14). Thus on a similar occasion, and with a similar theme, Paul speaks words similar to those of Moses; so varying them, however, as to bring into vivid contrast the differences between the law and the gospel--between that which typified and foreshadowed, and that which in its superlative superiority fulfilled, terminated and forever abolished. Moses said of the law: "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." His meaning is, first, that the law is not so hard but that a man who makes right use of it may please God in it (this was true of the law till the gospel abolished it); second, the law was the fully prepared gift of God, and, being possessed by the Jews, they neither had to scale the heavens to get false gods to give a law to them, nor did they have to cross the sea (a dangerous and rarely attempted task among those of Moses' day) to get unknown, remote and [423] inaccessible nations of men to bring a law to them. They were required to perform no impractical, semi-miraculous feat to secure the law--it was theirs already by gift of God, and that so fully and utterly that, instead of being locked in the holy seclusion of the sanctuary, it was their common property, found in their mottles (daily talk) and hearts (worshipful, reverential meditation--Ex. 13:9; Josh. 1:8; Ps. 37:30, 31; 1:2; 119:14-16). Such was the law as described by Moses. In contrast with it Paul lets the gospel describe itself thus], Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:) 7 or, Who shall descend into the abyss? [Hades, the abode of the dead--Luke 8:31; Rev. 17:8: 20:1; Ps. 139:8] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? [Here Paul interrupts the gospel with a question. If the word of life is not in these places (heaven and Hades), where, then, is it? Where does the gospel say it is? He now resumes the gospel's personification, and lets it answer the question.] The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart [Here end the words spoken by the gospel. Their import is similar to that of the second meaning of Moses' words found above. The gospel is the fully prepared gift of God (John 3:16), and, being once accepted and possessed by the believer, he is not called upon to scale the heavens to procure a Christ and bring him down to see the needs of man and devise a gospel (for the Word has already become incarnate, and has dwelt among us--John 1:14--and seeing what sacrifice was needed for man's forgiveness and cleansing, he has provided it--Heb. 10:3-9); neither is it demanded of him that he descend into the abyss (Hades, the abode of the dead) to find there a Christ who has died for our sins, and to raise thence a Christ whose resurrection shall be for our justification (for God has already provided the Christ who died for our sins--1 Cor. 15:3; Isa. 53:5, 6; Rom. 3:25; 5: 6; 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18-- [424] thus making an end of sins, and making reconciliation for iniquity--Dan. 9:24--and who also was raised for our justification--Rom. 4:24, 25; 1 Cor. 15:17; 1 Pet. 1:21--thus bringing in everlasting righteousness--Dan. 9:24). Thus far the apostle's argument runs thus: As the sources whence a law might be found were questions about which the Jew needed not to trouble himself, since God provided it; so the sources whence a Christ-gospel might be procured were also questions about which the Christian need feel no care, for the all-sufficient wisdom and might of God which provided the law had likewise perfected and supplied the gospel, so that men need only to accept it by faith. In either case His was the provision and theirs the acceptance; and what the apostle makes particularly emphatic was that the gospel was as easily accepted as the law, for it, too, could be familiarly discussed with the lips and meditated upon with the heart, being as nigh as the law. Nearness represents influence, power over us; remoteness, the lack of it (Rom. 7:18, 21). As the words of Moses were spoken about the type of the gospel (the law), they were of course prophetically applicable to the Christ who is the sum of the gospel, and likewise the living embodiment of the law. But to make plain their prophetic import, Paul gave them a personal application to Christ, and changed the search among the distant living (where law might be found) to search among the farther distant dead (where Christ must be found to have been in order to give life). Thus Paul's variations from Moses constitute what Luther calls "a holy and lovely play of God's Spirit in the Lord's word"]: that is, the word of faith, which we preach [At this point the apostle begins again to speak for himself and his fellow-ministers, and shows that the "word" of which Moses spoke is the gospel or "word of faith" preached by Christians. He also shows that the words "mouth" and "heart," as used by Moses, have prophetic reference to the gospel terms of salvation]: [425] 9 because [the gospel (and Moses) speak of the mouth and heart, because] if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved [Moses emphasized the nearness of the law. The Jew was to keep it near (accept it), for, as a far-off, neglected thing, it would be of no avail. As an accepted rule, loved and talked over daily, it would be effective unto righteousness. Jeremiah, foretelling the days when a new law would be more effective than the old, declared that the promise of Jehovah was: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it." Thus it would become nearer than when written externally upon stone. When this new law came, Jesus indicated the fulfillment of Jeremiah's word by saying. "The kingdom of God is within you" (Jer. 31:33; Luke 17:20). Therefore, when Paul quotes Moses' words about that nearness of the law which makes it effective, he takes occasion to describe how the gospel or "word of faith" is made effective unto righteousness by the believer's full consent to the will of God that it be near him, making it an inward nearness by confession with the mouth and belief in the heart. In short, the gospel is not righteousness unto life until it is accepted, and the prescribed method by which it is to be accepted is faith leading to confession, followed by obedience of faith, beginning with baptism, which symbolically unites us with our Lord in his death and resurrection. But Paul makes no reference to the ordinance, laying stress on the central truth of Christianity which the ordinance shows forth; namely, God raised Jesus from the dead. The zealous lover of first principles might expect Paul to make the Christhood of Jesus the object of belief (Matt. 16:16). But that is already taken care of by the apostle in the brief summary: "Confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord." The truth is, the resurrection is the demonstration of that proposition: "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of [426] the living God." "Jesus" means "Saviour," and the resurrection proves or demonstrates his ability to save from death and the grave (1 Cor. 15:12-19; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; 2 Cor. 4:14). Jesus is Christ; that is, God's anointed Prophet, Priest and King over all men; for such is the meaning of "Christ." Now, the resurrection proves that Jesus was a teacher of truth, for God honors no liars with a resurrection like that of Jesus; it proves that lie is an acceptable High Priest, for had not his offering for sin canceled the guilt of sin, he had appeared no more in the land of the living (Matt. 5:26), but he was raised to complete his priestly work for our justification (see note on Rom. 4: 25, p. 336, and Acts 13:37-39); it demonstrated that he was the King, for by his resurrection he led captivity captive (Eph. 4:8) and received the gift of universal power (Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:23-36; 13:34-37; 17:31; Phil. 2:8-11; Eph. 1:19-23); and, finally, it declared him to be the Son of God with power--Rom. 1:4; Acts 13:32, 33]: 10 for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ["The seat of faith," says Calvin, "is not in the brain, but in the heart. Yet I would not contend about the part of the body in which faith is located: but as the word heart is often taken for a serious and sincere feeling, I would say that faith is a firm and effectual confidence, and not a bare notion only." The belief must be such as to incite to love (1 Cor. 13:1, 2) and the obedience of faith (Jas. 2:14-26). The faith of the heart introduces the sinner into that state of righteousness which in this present world reconciles him to God. The continual profession of that faith by word and deed works out his salvation, which ushers him into the glory of the world to come. Salvation relates to the life to come (Rom. 13:11). When attained it delivers us from the dominion of the devil, which is the bondage of sin; from the power of death, which is the wages of sin, and from eternal torment, which [427] is the punishment of sin. Such is salvation negatively defined, but only the redeemed know what it is positively, for flesh can neither inherit it (1 Cor. 15:50) nor utter it--2 Cor. 12:1-5.] 11 For the scripture saith [Again Paul appeals to the Scripture to show that what he is telling the Jews has all been prophetically announced in their own Scriptures. Thus he slays their law with its own sword], Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. [A passage already quoted at Rom. 9:33; but Paul changes "he" into "whosoever," thus emphasizing the universality of the verse, for God's universal mercy to believers is his theme, and we shall find him amplifying and proving it in the next two verses. "Shame" has especial reference to the judgment-day. By faith we learn to so live that God ceases to be ashamed of us (Heb. 11:6-16). By faith also we are brought into such union with Christ that he also no longer feels ashamed to recognize us (Heb. 2:10, 11). But if we glory in sin which is our shame (Phil. 3:18, 19), walking nakedly in our shame (Rev. 16:15), and refusing the gift of the garment of Christ's righteousness (Rev. 3:18), being ashamed of it and him, in that day he also will be ashamed of us (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26), and great then will be our shame in the sight of all God's hosts, and marked will be the contrast between us and the believers who are not ashamed--1 John 2:28.] 12 For [The Scripture uses such universal language about our being freed from shame by justification, because] there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him [Paul here announces the same truth which Peter discovered when he said: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). As the Jews were for several centuries under the dominion of the Greeks, and as the cultured of the Romans, their later masters, also spoke Greek, the term Greek became to them a synonym for Gentile, for they had more dealing with [428] Greeks than with any other people. Now, as there is but one God, the Jews and Greeks were compelled to receive blessings from that same God, and as the Jew and Greek stood in equal need of salvation, God offered the same salvation to each upon the same free terms and each had equal ability to accept the terms (Eph. 2:11-22). Thus God showed the riches of his favor to all, and so rich is God in his mercy and providences toward salvation, that no multitude can exhaust them; therefore the Jew had no reason to envy or begrudge the Gentiles their call, since it in no way impoverished him. But this breaking down of distinctions was, nevertheless, very offensive to the Jew]: 13 for [and this lack of distinction on God's part is further proved by Scripture, for, it saith], Whosoever shall call upon the name [i. e., person--Prov. 18:10: Ps. 18:2, 3] of the Lord shall be saved. [Joel 2:32. This passage is quoted by Simon Peter at Acts 2:21. In place of "Lord," Joel has the word "Jehovah," which latter term the Jews regard as describing God the Father. The application of this word to Christ by Paul (and it is so applied to Christ, as the next verse shows) is proof of our Lord's divinity. "There is," says Alford, "hardly a stronger proof, or one more irrefragable by those who deny the Godhead of our blessed Lord, of the unhesitating application to Him by the apostle of the name and attributes of Jehovah." (Comp. 1 Cor. 1:2.) It is evident that the mere crying out, "Lord, Lord!" is of no avail (Matt. 7:21-23). One must call upon Jesus as he directs, and must worshipfully accept him as the Son and Revelation of God. "The language," says Johnson, "wherever used, implies coming to the Lord and calling upon him in his appointed way. (Comp. Acts 22:16; 2:21; Gen. 12:8.)" Having thus demonstrated the gratuitous and universal nature of the gospel, the apostle prepares us for his next paragraph, which presents the thought of extension. That which God has made free and for all should be published and offered to all. How [429] unreasonable, therefore, the hatred which the Jews bore toward Paul for being apostle to the Gentiles!]

II.

SECOND EXPLANATION OF THE GRAND
CONCLUSION--THE UNIVERSALITY OF
THE GOSPEL DEMANDS ITS WORLD-
WIDE EXTENSION--BUT THIS
UNIVERSALITY IS LIMITED
BY HUMAN REJECTION.

10:14-21.

      [Since the apostle's thought in this section is obscurely connected, the line of argument has been found difficult to follow. It will aid us, therefore, at the start to get his purpose clearly in view. He has shown that the gospel is universal. But in giving a universal blessing God would of course see to it that it was universally published and propagated. This, God had earnestly attempted to do, but his efforts had largely been frustrated so far as Israel was concerned. But this was Israel's fault, and therefore that people were utterly without excuse (1) for not becoming part of the universality which God contemplated and attempted; (2) for not fully understanding this universality and rejoicing in it; nay, for so misunderstanding it, despite full Scripture warning, as to be made jealous by it, so as to spurn it and reject it.] 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? [The form of the Greek question demands the answer, "They can not." Though the question presents a psychological impossibility, Paul is not thinking of psychology, but of his two quotations from Scripture; viz., verse 11, which (as interpreted by verse 9) conditions salvation on belief, and verse 13, which conditions it on [430] invocation or calling on the name of the Lord. He has twice coupled these two conditions in the "belief" and "confession" of verses 9 and 10; and now he couples them a third time in the question before us, which is a strong way of asserting there can be no acceptable calling without believing. Since, then, salvation, the all in all of man's hopes--salvation which God desired should be universal--depends upon acceptable calling or invocation, and since acceptable calling in its turn depends upon belief, whatever steps are necessary to produce universal invocation and belief should by all means be taken on the part of God and his evangelists, and should likewise by all means be universally accepted by man. What these steps are the apostle proceeds to enumerate] and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? [Hearing is the next step. We can believe nothing till we have first heard it. But in the apostle's thought our belief is not directed toward an abstraction, but toward Jesus, a person. We are to hear him, and believe him, and believe on him. As we can not meet him face to face, we must believe on him as he presents himself to us by his commissioned agents (Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 1 Thess. 4:8; Eph. 2:17; 4:19, 20; 1 John 4:5, 6), called preachers (1 Tim. 2:7; Mark 16:15). Therefore the next question reads] and how shall they hear without a preacher? [and the Jews hated Paul for being one!] 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? [Sending is the last step as we reason backward, but the first as we look forward toward salvation; for, as Gifford observes, "Paul argues back from effect to cause," so that, turning his series around, it will read, Sending, preaching, hearing, believing, turning to or calling upon God, salvation (Acts 8:4-39). In these days of missions we have grown so familiar with the gospel that the idea of sending has become fairly limited to the transportation of the missionary; when, therefore, we enlarge Paul's sending till it includes the idea of a [431] divine commission or command to go, we feel that we have achieved his conception. But the thought of the apostle is wider still. With him the sending finds its full meaning in that unction of God which provides the messenger with a divine message, a message of good news which only the lips of God can speak, a message which he could gather from no other source, and without which all going would be vanity, a mere running without tidings. Compare Paul's vindication of the heavenly origin of his message (Gal. 1:11-24). To understand the relevancy of the quotation with which the apostle closes the sentence, let us remember that while this is an argument, it is also, by reason of the matter argued, a hymn of praise, a love-song, a jubilation, an ecstasy of joy. How could it be otherwise? Now, at Rom. 8:28-30 the apostle presents the heaven-forged links of the unbreakable chain of God's holy and gracious purpose to glorify man. Having presented that chain, he devotes the remainder of the chapter (31-39) to an elaboration of the joyful confidence which wells up within him at its contemplation, for a heart of flesh could not do otherwise. So here the apostle has presented the links of the corresponding chain--the chain of means whereby the purpose is effected or consummated, so that man is saved or glorified; and that chain ends, as Paul inversely counts its links, in the unspeakable honor of being a messenger of God, sent to bear the gospel of Christ to a dying world. Could the apostle pass this by and stick to his argument? (Comp. Eph. 3:7-12; Acts 26:17, 18; Rom. 15:15, 16; Gal. 1:15, 16.) Nay, if he did so, would it not weaken his argument? For, while the passage at Rom. 8:31-39, and the quotation here about "beautiful feet," may not fit in syllogistically, they have unspeakable power suggestively; for the first pictures that peace of God that passes all understanding, which the Jew was rejecting: and this second depicts the glorious ministry of God's mercy to the lost and life to the dying, which the Jew was missing by his [432] proud unbelief.^* Let us note in passing how Paul's argument emphasizes Christ unto the unbelievers. "All this," says Plumer, "relates to Christ, Jehovah. The prayer is to him or through him; the faith is in him; the report respects him; the heralds are his messengers; the sum of all they proclaim relates to his person, work, offices and grace; he is himself the chiefest among ten thousand and altogether lovely." With this introduction we are ready for the [433] quotation] even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! [Isa. 52:7. Paul quotes enough to suggest the full passage, which reads thus: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" Paul quotes this exuberant, throbbing joy of Israel's prophet which expressed his own feelings, as a sharp contrast to the sullen, malignant, vindictive spirit of those to whom he prophesied. How acceptable was Paul and how glorious his world-wide message as visioned to the evangelical Isaiah! How despisable was Paul, and how abhorrent his message, to the Israel of the gospel age! The contrast suggests that some one erred: which was it? Were the prophet and apostle indulging in a sinful joy? or were the Jews playing the fool of all fools in excluding themselves from it? Though the citation from Isaiah has a primary reference to the restoration of the Jews from the land of exile, yet it is unquestionable Messianic, for that very restoration from exile "derived all its value," as Hodge observes, "from being introductory to that most glorious deliverance to be effected by the Redeemer." "That return," says Alford, "has regard to a more glorious one under the future Redeemer." Besides, the prophet has been talking of Messianic times, when "the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together" (Isa. 40:5). "Jewish expositors," says Tholuck, "no less apply to the Messias almost the whole of the chapter (Isa. 52), besides the quotation. (See Wetstein, ad h. l.)." The law was to end in the gospel, and Israel was to be the apostles of this joyful development, but failed through blindness as to the personality of the Messiah (a suffering sacrifice for sin, and not a great conqueror and temporal ruler); through ignorance as to the nature of the gospel (salvation by faith and not by the accident of Abrahamic descent); through a bigoted [434] narrowness which took offense at the gospel's universality (a universality which offered salvation to Jew and Gentile on equal terms, and was devoid of all partiality). Thus it happened that Paul ran, and Israel forbore. Finally, as to the words of Isaiah, let us compare them with 2 Sam. 18:26: "And the king said, He also bringeth tidings. And the watchman said, I think the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man and cometh with good tidings." Here we see that men were known by their running, and their tidings known by their character. With these facts before us, the imagery of Isaiah becomes complete. Jerusalem, the daughter of Zion, bereft of all her children by the Babylonians, sits in sackcloth, covered with the dust of mourning and bowed with grief as though drawn down with chains about her neck. Suddenly the phantom watchmen on her desolated walls see her Ahimaaz--her good man that cometh with good tidings!--tidings of the return of all her lost children! Far off upon the mountains the swift glint of the white feet tell of that speed of the heart which urges to the limit of human endurance. With such a message what place is there for weariness! All the long miles that lie behind are forgotten, and as the goal comes in view the wings of the soul possess the feet, and the pace increases with each step as the runner presses toward the mark or prize of his heart's desires! Ah, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings! Sing! watchmen, for ye shall see face to face how Jehovah returned to Zion to glorify and comfort it with his presence. Awake, awake, O Zion! Shake off thy dust, loose thyself from the bonds of thy neck, and put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, for the messenger of salvation is at thy very gates, and how beautiful is his approach! He tells of thy children who are coming! coming! journeying homeward behind him! No wonder that with this imagery before him Paul clung [435] to the figure of the runner to the very end (Phil. 3:12-14; 2 Tim. 4:7). No wonder, either, that he could not forbear adding this quotation as the climax of his argument, that, having reared a granite mountain, he might cap it with the glorifying coronet of sunshine upon snow, thus making his argument as persuasive by its glory as it was convincing by its power. No wonder that he discerned the Messianic meaning of Isaiah's message, patent even to uninspired eyes. Having thus completed the circle of his argument from the message to the universality of the message, thence to the extension of it, and thence again to the means of extension, and finally back to the message itself as glorified in the vision of the prophet, the apostle is ready once more to grapple the Jew and show his inexcusable sin in rejecting the message. However, before discussing what follows it is well to note that its connection of ideas is uncertain, so much so that Stuart justly complains of not having found a single commentator who gives him satisfaction respecting it. The connection is not stated, and is therefore difficult. To solve the problem we must find the unspoken thought in the mind of the apostle, and we think it is this. The glorious chain of God's purpose to glorify men (Rom. 8:28-30) and this equally glorious chain of means to that end, ought to make the gospel as universal as God designed it to be; but, nevertheless, so great is man's sinful perversity, such is not the case; and the Scripture so foretold it, and, in foretelling, explained it, and exposed the reason. Hence he continues] 16 But they did not all hearken to [Hupakouoo: a word derived from the verb akouoo, which is translated "heard," and "hear" in verse 14. It means to hear attentively, to give heed to, to obey] the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith [predicted], Lord, who hath believed our report? [Akoe; also a word derived from akouoo of verse 14, meaning the thing that is caused to be heard] 17 So [as I said, and, as you see, Isaiah corroborates] belief cometh of [is [436] born of, or grows out of] hearing, and hearing by [by reason of, because of] the word [saying, behest, command. See Luke 5:5; Heb. 11:3; 1:3] of Christ. [And so, briefly paraphrasing the apostle's thought, it runs thus: Can God's glorious purpose and inimitable means fail to accomplish the universal glorification of man? Assuredly they can, for Isaiah so predicted. To accomplish universal salvation there must be a universal heed-hearing. But Isaiah complained, "Lord, who hath believed that which we have caused them to hear?" meaning that very few gave a heed-hearing. So we see from Isaiah that it is precisely as I said (vs. 14, 15); namely, that belief comes of hearing, and hearing is caused by the command or commission of Christ, as is made apparent by the fact that Isaiah reports back to Christ (whom he calls Lord) that men have not heard what Christ sent, or commissioned, him to tell them. How culpable, then, was Israel as foreseen in the visions of Isaiah and as literally seen by the eyes of Paul! A message commanded by Christ the Lord! How could they be excused for not giving it a heed-hearing, an obedience? Only in two ways: first, by showing that they had never heard it; second, by proving that they were misled by their Scriptures so that they could not recognize it as coming from their Lord--and the point where they would assert and attempt to prove the misleading was this very one now mooted; namely, universality, for the Jew regarded the reception of the Gentile as contrary to all that God had ever revealed, or caused to be written down. Therefore the apostle takes these two excuses in order, and exposes their emptiness.] 18 But I say [To give my cornered Jewish objector every chance to escape from his obvious culpability, I ask in his behalf this question], Did they not hear? [This question demands a negative answer--a denial of the "not heard," and is therefore an emphatic way of asserting that they had heard. "They" is unlimited, all had heard it, so the Jew could never plead [437] lack of hearing as an excuse for rejecting the gospel. Having thus asserted his position in the question, he proceeds to prove it in the answer] Yea, verily [Menounge. See note on Rom. 9:20, p. 402.], Their sound [Ps. 19:4. "The Psalmist," says Clark, "has kavvam, their line, which the LXX., and the apostle who quotes from them, render phthoggos, sound." Line means string, harpstring, a tone, a chord, and then, metonymically, sound] went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world. [It was Alford who, in this connection, discovered "that Psalm 19 is a comparison of the sun, and glory of the heavens, with the word of God. As far as verse 6 the glories of nature are described: then the great subject is taken up, and the parallelism carried out to the end. So that the apostle has not, as alleged in nearly all the commentators, merely accommodated the text allegorically, but taken it in its context, and followed the comparison of the Psalm." The light of the knowledge of God had hitherto been confined to the narrow space of Palestine, but the light of the gospel had now passed beyond these boundaries, and had begun to be as world-illuminating as the celestial orbs, and in doing this it had only fulfilled the words of David. God had done his part as thoroughly in grace as it had been done in nature, and no Jew could excuse himself at the expense of God's good name. "There is not," says Godet, expressing the sentiments of Paul, born of the memories of his own ministry, "a synagogue which has not been filled with it, not a Jew in the world who can justly plead ignorance on the subject." "When the vast multitude converted at Pentecost," says Johnson, were scattered to their homes, they carried the gospel into all parts of the civilized world." (Comp. Tit. 2:11; Col. 1:6, 23.) This bestowal of natural light and bounty universally was more than a suggestion that God intended to bestow spiritual light and grace upon all. (Comp. Acts 14:17.) "As he spake," says Calvin, "to the Gentiles by the voice [438] of the heavens, he showed bar this prelude that he designed to make himself known at length to them also." "It was," says Hengstenberg, "a pledge of their participation in the clearer, higher revelation."] 19 But I say [Again I ask a question to give my Jewish objector the benefit of every loophole of escape. See verse 18], Did Israel not know? [This question also requires a negative answer, and thus, being like the preceding question, the negative of a negative, it amounts to a strong affirmative. Assuredly Israel knew. But knew what? Why, the fact just asserted, to wit, that the gospel should sound out to all, both Jew and Gentile, as freely as light and sunshine, according to the world-wide commission or command of Christ. Did this fact take Israel by surprise? Was the issuing of a world-wide commission a thing untaught in their Scriptures, allowing them to plead ignorance of it? Had Paul cited the promise to Abraham, "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3), then the Jew would have claimed that this promise must be fulfilled by their all becoming Jews (Acts 15:1). But he begins with Moses, the first writer of Scripture, and cites a passage which precludes the idea of blessing by absorption or amalgamation, for it is plainly blessing in rivalry and opposition.] First Moses saith ["First in the prophetic line" (De Wette). First in point of time and place, as Isaiah was near the last. His two citations therefore suggest the entire trend of Scripture, from beginning to end. Compare the "said before" of Rom. 9:29], I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you. [The passage cited is Deut. 32:21. The Jews had moved God to jealousy by their "no-gods" (idols), and had provoked his to anger by their vanities; he therefore prophetically announces that he will provoke them to like jealousy and anger by adopting in their stead a "no-people," a foolish nation. A "no-people" describes a nation which has [439] no covenant relation with God, and hence is not recognized as his people. A "foolish nation" describes one made wise by no revelation. The weight of the citation was greatly increased by the name of Moses attached to it, and by the remoteness of the period when uttered. Many utterances of the prophets sounded harsh and hostile, but no one had ever doubted the loyal friendship of Moses to Israel; yet Moses said this even in his day.] 20 And Isaiah is very bold ["What Moses insinuates, Isaiah cries out boldly and plainly" (Bengel). And Isaiah is the favorite prophet of the Jewish people to this day!], and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. [Isa. 65:1. (Comp. Isa. 49:1-9; 52:15; 54:5; 66: 35, 18-21.) They sought me not until I first sought them, and they asked not of me until I made myself known and invited them to offer their petitions. Such is the full meaning in the light of gospel facts. "That the calling of the Gentiles," says Brown, "was meant by these words of the prophet, is manifest from what immediately follows. 'I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.'" Thus God's design to call another people besides the Jews was so plainly revealed in Scripture that Israel was without excuse for not knowing it. "Nothing," says Lard, "is more inexplicable than their blindness, unless it be their persistence in it." Normally we would say that if God was found of strangers, much more would he be found of his own people. But the ignorance and corruption of the Gentiles constituted a darkness more easily dissipated by the light of the gospel, than the proud obduracy and abnormal self-righteousness of the Jews. The universal preaching of the gospel made this quickly manifest, and, as Paul shows us, Isaiah foretold it.] 21 But as to Israel he saith [Isa. 65:2], All the day long did I spread out of my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. [Here Isaiah presents the full contrast between the Gentiles and Jews. Commentators [440] generally regard the spread-out hands as picturing those of a parent extended toward a wayward or prodigal child; but we have no such usage in Scripture. As Plumer observes: "When Paul stretched out his hand, he beckoned to the people that he might cause silence and secure attention (Acts 21:40). Sometimes stretching out the hand is for rescue and deliverance (Deut. 26:8). Sometimes it is to offer and bestow benefits (Isa. 26:10, 11). Sometimes it is the gesture of threatening, chastening, displaying of powers in miracles (Deut. 4:34). Sometimes it points the way in which we should walk or run. No gesture is more natural than this. Again, stretching out the hand is the posture of earnest address and imploring supplication." This last is evidently the sense in which it is here used. "All the day long" may refer to the entire length of the Mosaic dispensation, but it has here especial reference to the time of Christ and his apostles, and their exclusive ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; for at no other time was God's supplication with Israel so marked, and at no other season was the rejection of the Lord so personal, so vehement, so bitter and cruel; all the Gospels are full of it, and the rejection of the Son was the rejection of the Father (John 14:7-9; 2 John 9; John 5:23; 1 John 5:7). Moreover, compare the "this day" of Luke 19:42. "Gainsaying" is added to the Hebrew by the LXX. Pool aptly says: "They were disobedient in heart and gainsaying with their tongues, contrary to those two gracious qualifications mentioned at verses 9 and 10, belief in the heart and confession of the mouth. Their gainsaying answers to "repliest" of Rom. 9:20. For examples of this sin on their part, see Mark 15:8-15; Acts 3:13, 14; 7:51-57; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 19; 17:5; 17:13; 18:12. "Gainsaying," says Godet, "characterizes the hair-splittings and sophisms whereby the Israelites seek to justify their persevering refusal to return to God." As we glance back over the ninth and tenth chapters, they [441] reveal clearly how Israel, zealous for religious monopoly and their exclusive rights under the law, hardened their hearts and rejected the gospel, though grace followed them to the ends of the earth with the offer of salvation. Surely it was their own wickedness, and no arbitrary, cold decree absolute, which excluded them from salvation; and it is equally certain that the Being whom Jesus called Father, and who sent our Lord as a world's Saviour, will never rest or desist until the dark picture of a lost Israel is transformed and transfigured with the glory of the heavenly light by the ultimate inbringing of all Israel, to be, with the purged Gentiles, one kingdom of God upon earth.]

III.

THIRD EXPLANATION OF THE GRAND
CONCLUSION--THE CASTING OFF OF
ISRAEL IS BUT PARTIAL, AN
ELECT REMNANT BEING
SAVED BY FAITH.

11:1-10.

      [In the tenth chapter Paul's argument for gospel universality only required him to show by Scripture that the Gentiles were to be received independently; i. e., without first becoming Jews. But the Scripture which best established this fact also proved a larger, greater fact; viz., that the reception of the Gentiles would so move the Jews to anger and jealousy that they would, as a people, reject the gospel, and thereby cease to be a covenant people, and become a cast-off, rejected nation. This fact is so clearly and emphatically proved that it might be thought that, as Tholuck puts it, "the whole nation, conjointly and severally, had, by some special judgment of God, been shut out from the Messiah's kingdom." The denial of this false inference is the burden of the [442] section now before us. In this section he will show that the casting off of Israel is not total, but partial: in the next section he will show that it is not final, but temporary.] XI. 1 I say then Again, as in [verses 18 and 19 of the previous chapter, Paul, for the benefit of the Jewish objector, draws a false inference from what has been said, that he may face it and correct it], Did God cast off his people? [Apparently, yes; but really, no. He had only rejected the unbelieving who first rejected him. True, these constituted almost the entire nation; but it was not God's act that rejected them; it was what they themselves did in rejecting God in the person of his Son that fixed their fate. Israel as believing was as welcome and acceptable as ever. So God has not rejected them. "The very title his people," says Bengel, "contains the reason for denying it." Comp. 1 Sam. 12:22.) God had promised not to forsake his people (Ps. 94:14). He kept the promise with those who did not utterly forsake him, but as to the rest, the majority, Jesus foretold that the kingdom should be taken from them (Matt. 21:41-43). Comp. Matt. 22:7; Luke 21:24.] God forbid. [A formal denial to be followed by double proof.] For I also am an Israelite [De Wette, Meyer and Gifford construe this as equal to: I am too good a Jew, too patriotic, to say such a thing. As if Scripture were warped and twisted to suit the whims and to avoid offending the political prejudices of its writers! If Paul was governed by his personal feelings, he ceased to be a true prophet. Had he followed his feelings, instead of revealed truth, he would have avoided the necessity for writing the sad lines at Rom. 9:1-3. The true meaning is this: God has not cast away en masse, and without discrimination or distinction, the totality of his ancient people, for I myself am a living denial of such a conclusion; or, as Eubank interprets it, such a concession would exclude the writer himself (as to whose Christianity no Jew has ever had any doubts). "Had it been," says Chrysostom, "God's [443] intention to reject that nation, he never would have selected from it the individual [Paul] to whom he was about to entrust [had already entrusted] the entire work of preaching and the concerns of the whole globe, and all the mysteries and the whole economy of the church"], of the seed of Abraham ["A Jew by nurture and nation" (Burkitt). Not a proselyte, nor the son of a proselyte, but a lineal descendant from Abraham. Compare his words at Acts 22:28], of the tribe of Benjamin. [Comp. Phil. 3:5. Though the apostle had reason to be proud of his tribe as furnishing the first king in Saul (1 Sam. 9:16) and the last Biblical queen in Esther (Esth. 2:17), yet that is not the reason for mentioning Benjamin here. He is showing that God had not cast off the Theocracy, and he mentions himself as of Benjamin, which was second only to Judah in theocratic honor. On the revolt of the ten tribes it constituted with Judah the surviving Theocracy (1 Kings 12:21), and after the captivity it returned with Judah and again helped to form the core or kernel of the Jewish nation (Ezra 4:1; 10:9). The apostle was no Jew by mere family tradition (Ezra 2:61-63; Neh. 7:63-65), nor was he of the ten tribes of outcasts, but he was duly registered as of the inner circle, and therefore his acceptance proved the point desired.] 2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. [Here is the second proof that God did not cast off his people. It is in the nature of an axiom, a statement which is so palpably true that it needs no corroboration. God's foreknowledge can not fail, therefore that nation which in the eternity before the world he knew to be his own nation, can not ultimately fail to become his nation. "Of all the peoples of the earth," says Godet, "one only was [published and openly designated as] chosen and known beforehand, by an act of divine foreknowledge and love, as the people whose history would be identified with the realization of salvation. In all others salvation is the affair of individuals, but here the [444] notion of salvation is attached to the nation itself; not that the liberty of individuals is in the least compromised by the collective designation. The Israelites contemporary with Jesus might reject him; an indefinite series of generations may for ages perpetuate this fact of national unbelief. God is under no pressure; time can stretch out as long as he pleases. He will add, if need be, ages to ages, until there come at length the generation disposed to open their eyes and freely welcome their Messiah. God foreknew this nation as believing and saved, and sooner or later they can not fail to be both." Comp. Acts 15:15-18; Isa. 45:17; 59:20; Jer. 31:31, 34; Ezek. 34:22; 37:23; 39:25; Rom. 11:26.] Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? [Literally, in Elijah. Anciently Scripture and other writings were not divided into chapters and verses, but into sections. These among the Jews were called Parashah. Instead of being numbered, they had titles to them, describing the contents. Thus it came to pass that any one wishing to refer to a passage of Scripture would quote enough of the Parashah's title to identify it. So Paul here quotes words found "in [the Parashah about] Elijah"; viz., 1 Kings 19:10-18. Comp. Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37] how he pleadeth with God against Israel: 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. [Against these two proofs adduced by the apostle it might be objected that if God was not rejecting his people he must be receiving them, but you, Paul, practically admit that this is not the case, for, were it so, why can you point only to your single self as accepted? Surely your very proofs are against you. To this objection Paul presents a third proof--i. e., the case of Elijah--and his argument, paraphrased, runs thus: You err in supposing that I alone am accepted, and this I will prove by the case of Elijah, who, prophet of prophets though he was, erred in so judging by appearances as to think that [445] he alone remained acceptable. The law required that the nation use the one altar which stood in front of the sanctuary in Jerusalem (Lev. 17:8, 9; Deut. 12:1-14). But the Rabbins say (see Lightfoot and Whitby ad h. l.) that when the ten tribes revolted, and their kings forbade them to go up to Jerusalem to worship, then this law ceased as to them, and the Lord permitted them to build other altars and sacrifice on them as at the beginning (Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1-7; 46:1), and as they did before worship was centered at Jerusalem (1 Sam. 7:9, 17; 9:13; 11:15; 16:2, 3). That this is so is proved by the conduct of Elijah, who reconstructed the Lord's altar on Mt. Carmel (which these apostates of whom he speaks had thrown down) and offered sacrifice thereon, and the Lord publicly sanctioned and approved the altar by sending fire from heaven (1 Kings 18:30-39). The altars were to be made of earth and unhewn stone (Ex. 20:24, 25), hence it was proper to speak of digging them down.] 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. [Jezebel and Ahab, in their zeal for the Phoenician god, Baal, had apparently exterminated the worship of the true God. At least, Elijah was deceived into so thinking. But the answer of God corrected his mistake. Paul inserts the words "for myself." "I. e.," says Meyer, "to myself as my property, and for my service, in contrast to the idolatrous abomination," or service of idols. The feminine article te is inserted before Baal, and this has greatly puzzled expositors, for the LXX. have the masculine article. It has been explained in various ways; Erasmus and others by supposing a feminine noun such as eikoni (image) to be understood; Estius, etc., by supposing stele (statue) to be supplied, or, as Lightfoot and Alford think, damalei (calf); or, according to Reiche, that there was a female Baal; or, as Wetstein and Olshausen, that Baal was androgynous (an hermaphrodite); or, as [446] Gesenius and Tholuck, that the feminine was used of idols in contempt; or, as Fritsche, Ewald and Barmby, that Paul may have happened upon a copy of the LXX. which gave the feminine instead of the masculine. Of the above we prefer to supply damalei, calf, following the reasoning of Lightfoot. Baal was both a specific name for the Phoenician god, and also a common name for idols, hence the plural, Baalim. Of idols it the time referred to, Israel had two of great prominence: 1. The idol to the Phoenician god Baal, whose image was a bull. 2. The golden calves set up by Jeroboam, at Bethel and Dan. Now, it would avail nothing if Israel rejected one of these idols, yet worshipped the other, as in the case of Jehu, who rooted out the Phoenician, but accepted the calf of Jeroboam. But calf Baal would be an inclusive expression, striking at both forms of idolatry. (Comp. also 1 Kings 19:18 with Hos. 13:2.) Moreover, the Phoenician worship was but recently re-established and had received a terrific blow at the hand of Elijah, while Jeroboam's calves were old and popular, hence we find in Tobit the expression, "And all the tribes that revolted together, sacrificed to the calf Baal" (literally. te Baal, te damalei; to Baal, to the calf--Tob. 1:5). Here we have an instance where the word damalei is actually supplied, and that by a Hebrew writer, and "where," as Alford adds, "the golden calves of the ten tribes seem to be identified with Baal, and were a curious addition in [the manuscript] Aleph refers expressly to their establishment by Jeroboam.] 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. [Resuming, the argument. "As at the time of the great deflection in Elijah's day there seemed to him to be but one, yet God had reserved to himself seven thousand, so now in this time of falling away, you who judge by outward appearance will judge just as poorly. You may think derisively that I am the sole representative of the election of which I speak, but, scattered and dispersed as they are, there are vastly [447] more than you dream (comp. Acts 21:20); for the unchangeable God always reserves to himself a remnant, whom he has chosen as his own." "One thing indeed," says Godet, "follows from the election of grace applied to the whole of Israel; not the salvation of such or such individuals, but the indestructible existence of a believing remnant at all periods of their history, even in the most disastrous crises of unbelief, as at the time of the ministry of Elijah, or of the coming of Jesus Christ. The idea contained in the words, 'according to the election of grace,' is therefore this: In virtue of the election of Israel as the salvation-people, God has not left them in our day without a faithful remnant, any more than he did in the kingdom of the ten tribes at the period when a far grosser heathenism was triumphant." In the eternal purpose of God the election of the salvation-class preceded any human act, but it does not therefore follow that it preceded a presumptive, suppositious act. The same wisdom which foresaw the election also foresaw the compliance of the elect individual with the terms and conditions of election. This must be so, for in the outworking of the eternal purpose in the realms of the actual, man must first comply with the conditions of election before he becomes one of the elect; for, as Lard wisely says, "election or choosing, in the case of the redeemed, does not precede obedience, and therefore is neither the cause of it nor reason for it. On the contrary, obedience precedes election, and is both the condition of it and reason for it. Obedience is man's own free act, to which he is never moved by any prior election of God. Choosing, on the other hand, is God's free act, prompted by favor and conditioned on obedience. This obedience, it is true, he seeks to elicit by the proper motives; but to this he is led solely by love of man, and never by previous choice. True Scriptural election, therefore, is a simple, intelligible thing, when suffered to remain unperplexed by the subtleties of schoolmen." As the open reference to Elijah [448] contains a covert one to Ahab and his Israel, Chrysostom bids us "reflect on the apostle's skill, and how, in proving the proposition before him, he secretly augments the charge against the Jews. For the object he had in view, in bringing forward the whole of that testimony, was to manifest their ingratitude, and to show that of old they had been what they were now."] 6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. [With these words, Paul explains the last clause of the preceding verse--viz., "the election of grace"--and thereby shows that he means them in their full sense, and abides by that meaning. Alford paraphrases his meaning thus: "And let us remember, when we say an election of grace, how much those words imply; viz., nothing short of the entire exclusion of all human work from the question. Let these two terms [grace and work] be regarded as and kept distinct from one another, and do not let us attempt to mix them and so destroy the meaning of each." He means that grace and works are absolutely antithetical and mutually exclusive. Paul is talking about works of the law, not about the gospel terms or conditions of salvation. These terms are faith, repentance and baptism, and complying with them made, and still makes, anybody one of the elect. But does this compliance fulfill any part, parcel or portion of the Mosaic law? Assuredly not. On the contrary, it is seeking salvation by another way. Moreover, the one complying with these conditions is immediately one of the elect. Has he, then, in any way merited election, or is it wholly of grace?" Even granting that there is some work in complying with these conditions, could any one so lack brains as to be confused into thinking that the work weighs anything as a meritorious basis on which to demand election to that unspeakable gift, eternal life? But do not the works of a Christian life count as merit toward election? Assuredly not; for they are wrought after the election has taken place. In short, almost like Jacob, we are [449] elected at the moment of our birth from the water, when we are spiritual babes in Christ (John 3:5; Tit. 3:5), "neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God," etc. (Rom. 9:11). Complying with the gospel conditions of election is mere spiritual birth, and what merit hath an infant though its struggles aid in its parturition? We are by the process of conversion brought no further than the condition of babes in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-14; 1 Pet. 2:2), and our birth-throes are without merit, though essential to our further continuance in life. There is, therefore, nothing in the gospel conditions which conflict with the doctrine of election by grace, nor do they mix works with grace.] 7 What then? [What results from the facts just stated? If God only acknowledges covenant relations with a remnant, and with them only by grace, surely you expect me to make some statement as to the status of the bulk of Israel. My statement is this:] That which Israel [the bulk or main body of the nation] seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened [The search spoken of is that with which we are already familiar; viz., the endeavor to obtain justification before God. All Israel sought this treasure. Those seeking it by the works of the law (the vast majority of the nation) failed to find it, but the remnant, seeking it by faith in Christ, found themselves chosen of God or elected to it. "The Jew, he says, fights against himself. Although seeking righteousness, he does not choose to accept it" (Chrysostom). If he could not find it by his own impossible road of self-righteousness and self-sufficiency, he would have none of it, though the apostle showed how easily it might be obtained by pointing out those who made it theirs by receiving it as a free gift from God through faith in Christ. But for those despising this rich gift, God had another gift, even that of hardening, which means the depriving of any organ of its natural sensibility. The calloused finger loses the sense of touch; the [450] cataractous eye no longer sees clearly; the hardened mind loses its discernment between things good and bad, and readily believes a specious lie (2 Thess. 2:9-12); the hardened heart becomes obdurate like that of Pharaoh's, and is not touched or softened by appeals to pity, mercy, etc. We have seen, in the case of Pharaoh, that the hardness was the joint act of God and Pharaoh. The same is shown to be the case of the Jews, for Paul here attributes it to God, while it is elsewhere charged against the Jews themselves (Matt. 13:14, 15). Of course God's part is always merely permissive, and Satan is the active agent. "God," says Lard, "never yet hardened any man to keep him from doing right, or in order to lead him to do wrong. He is not the author of sin. He may permit other agencies, as Satan and the wickedness of men, to harden them, but he himself never does it"]: 8 according as it is written [Isa. 29: 10; Ezek. 12:2; Deut. 29:4], God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day. [As the passage quoted is a combination of Isaiah and Deuteronomy, and is found in part also in Ezekiel, it suggests that the spirit of stupor, deafness and blindness characterized the course of Israel from beginning to end; and it was therefore to be guarded against as a chronic sin. Katanuxis (stupor) may be derived from katanussoo (Fritsche, Meyer), which means to prick or sting, and hence, as in bites of reptiles, etc., to cause stupefaction; or it may come from katanuzoo (Volkmar), which means to bend the head in order to sleep, to fall asleep. It is used in Ps. 60:3, where it is translated "wine of staggering," though Hammond contends that the passage refers to the stupefying wine given to them who were to be put to death. It means, then, that condition of stupor, or intellectual numbness, which is almost wholly insensate; for the term "spirit" means a pervading tendency. "Such expressions," says Gifford, "as 'the spirit of heaviness' (Isa. 61:3), 'a spirit of meekness' (1 Cor. 4:21), 'the [451] spirit of bondage' (Rom. 8:15), show that 'spirit' is used for the pervading tendency and tone of mind, the special character of which is denoted by the genitive which follows."] 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them [Ps. 69:22, 23. the word "trap" is added from Ps. 35:8. Theodoret says that Psalm 69 "is a prediction of the sufferings of Christ, and the final destruction of the Jews on that account." That which is presented in the form of a wish is, therefore, really a prophecy. Let the food on their table be as the bait to the snare and the trap, and the stumbling-block over which the tempted creature falls to lame itself. Let that which they think a source of pleasure and life become an enticement to pain and death. Dropping the figure, the words mean that the very religion of the Old Dispensation, to which the Jew looked for spiritual joy and sustenance, should become to him a sorrow and a fatal famine, so that this very blessing became to him a curse. The word "recompense" denotes a punishment for an evil deed; its presence here shows that the evil which came upon the Jews was caused by their own fault and sin, and not by absolute decree]: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always. [This verse is usually construed to picture the political servitude and spiritual bondage of Israel after the fall of Jerusalem. No doubt it has reference to conditions ushered in by that event, but it pictures the dimness and decrepitude of old age--a blind eye, and a back beyond straightening. The Jews were to partake of the nature of the old, worn-out dispensation to which they clung (Matt. 9:16, 17; Heb. 8:13). God's people can not grow old, they renew their youth like the eagle's (Ps. 103:5), but a people which ceases to be his, falls into decay. J. A. Alexander's comment on Ps. 69:22 deserves note. He says: "The imprecations in this verse, and those following it, are revolting only when considered as the expressions [452] of malignant selfishness. If uttered by God, they shock no reader's sensibilities; nor should they when considered as the language of an ideal person, representing the whole class of righteous sufferers, and particularly Him who, though he prayed for his murderers while dying (Luke 23:34), had before applied the words of this very passage to the unbelieving Jews (Matt. 23:38), as Paul did afterward."]

IV.

FOURTH EXPLANATION OF THE GRAND
CONCLUSION--SALUTARY RESULTS OF
THE TEMPORAL FALL AND FUTURE
RISE OF ISRAEL--GENTILES
WARNED NOT TO
GLORY OVER
ISRAEL.

11:11-24.

      11 I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? [Fall (piptoo) is a much stronger word than stumble, and the contrast between the two words makes the former emphatic. To fall means to be killed, and is in Greek, as in English applied to those slain in battle. (Homer, II. 8:475; 11:84.) As emphasized, then, it means to become "utterly irrevocable" (Clark): "irrevocable ruin, in opposition to that which is temporary" (Hodge): "to fall forever, finally" (Pool); "perish forever" (Meyer); "so as utterly to fall" (Stuart). Paul is arguing as to God's intention. Therefore, according to his established custom, he asks a question that he may guard against a false conclusion, and the form of the question, as usual, demands a negative answer, for the false conclusion is to be denied. From the foreseen "stumbling" of Israel (Rom. 9:33; 11:9), and from the "hardening" (v. 7), it might be concluded that God sent a [453] stumbling-block Saviour, a Messiah in an unwelcome form, and an unpalatable gospel-salvation with the intent and purpose of working Israel's downfall and ruin--his final, irrevocable fall. Did God bring about or cause a stumbling of the Jews of Christ's day, that all future generations might fall, or be cast off forever? Such is the question, and the answer is] God forbid [This general denial is followed by a threefold explanation: (1) The fall of Israel was permitted because spiritually profitable to the Gentiles (11); (2) the rising again of Israel will be for the greater spiritual profit to the Gentiles (12-15); (3) the fall of Israel is only temporary--they shall rise again--26]: but [introducing the real purpose or design of Israel's fall] by their fall [paraptoma, from the verb parapiptoo, which means to sideslip, to fall away, to fall. Hence paraptoma means fall, trespass (Alford), lapse (Stuart), slip (Green), false step (Godet), offence (Gifford), fault, sin. It is best translated here by the word "offence"] salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. [Emulation is a better translation than jealousy. Their offence was their unbelief, which caused God to put them away, and this putting away greatly facilitated the success of the gospel among the Gentiles. So great was the pride and exclusiveness of the Jews, and such was their blind loyalty to their race, ritual, temple, law, etc., that even the most thoroughly converted and indoctrinated Christians among them, such as the very apostles themselves (Paul alone excepted), never manifested any enthusiasm in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. It took a miracle to constrain Peter to do such a thing (Acts 10), and, after having done so, his Christian brethren demanded an explanation and apology for his intercourse with Gentiles (Acts 11), and later, instead of yielding to his apostolic leadership, they were so stubborn in their aversion to the free admission of Gentiles into the church, that the fear of them triumphed and caused Peter to conform to their views (Gal. 2:11-14; for further [454] evidence of their bigotry, see Acts 15:1, 2; 21:17-24). Their opposition to Paul only ceased with his life. With such a spirit among Jewish Christians, two things were sure to happen if they retained their pre-eminence in the church, and continued to dominate its policy. (1) There would be but little preaching supplied to the Gentiles, since pride and enmity made the Jews unwilling to serve them (1 Thess. 2:15, 16); (2) such gospel as was preached to the Gentiles would be woefully corrupted and perverted by Judaistic teaching and practice (Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1-3; 6:12-14), for "Israel," as Lange observes, "did not desire the Gentiles, under the most favorable circumstances, to participate in the Messianic salvation, except as proselytes of the Jews," since they took more pride and joy in converting men to Moses than in winning them to Christ. Thus by their zeal for the law they would imperil the Gentiles' liberty in Christ (Gal. 4:9, 21-5:1), so that Christianity could scarce escape becoming merely a new patch on an old garment, even as the Master forewarned (Matt. 9:16), in which secondary capacity it could never so save the Gentile as to convert the world. Hence to save the wine Jesus cast aside the old Jewish bottle, and stored the gracious gospel fluid in the new Gentile wine-skin (Matt. 9:17). And he not only cast off the Jewish people as unworthy of that pre-eminence in the church which was naturally theirs, but he even stood aside the eleven apostles as too hopelessly narrow-minded for Gentile evangelism, and committed the whole of this colossal ministry to the one man, Paul (Acts 9: 15; 22:21; 26:17, 18; Rom. 1:5; 11:13; 15:16; Gal. 1:15, 16; Eph. 3:7, 8; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; especially Gal. 2:7-9). And even in his case we note how the prompt "offence," or unbelief, of the Jews enabled him to preach "to the Jew first," yet speedily left him free and unfettered to push the work among the Gentiles (Acts 13:45-48; 28:28). So the "offence" and consequent casting off of Israel did facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles. Israel, [455] as a reluctant, sluggish, half-converted hindrance, was thrust from the doorway, that the Gentiles might enter freely and fully into the kingdom (Luke 11:52; Matt. 23:13). Salvation of the Gentiles was the proximate purpose accomplished, and still being accomplished, by the rejection of the Jews: the salvation of the Jews themselves was the remote purpose of the rejection, and it is largely future, even yet. It is to be brought about by a spirit of emulation. "Seeing," says Godet, "all the blessings of the kingdom, pardon, justification, the Holy Spirit, adoption, shed down abundantly on the Gentile nations through faith in Him whom they had rejected, how can they help saying at length: These things are ours? And how can they help opening their eyes and recognizing that Jesus is the Messiah, since in him the works predicted of the Messiah are accomplished? How shall the elder son, seeing his younger brother seated and celebrating the feast at his father's table, fail to ask that he may re-enter the paternal home and come to sit down side by side with his brother, after throwing himself into the arms of the common father?" A blessed result indeed, but long delayed by the carnal, half-converted state of the Gentile church, as witnessed by the Roman Catholicism which is Sardis (Rev. 3:1) and Protestantism which is sectarianism (1 Cor. 3:1-5), a Philadelphia church lapsing into Laodicean indifference--Rev. 3:14-19.] 12 Now if their fall [paraptoma] is the riches of the world, and their loss [hettema, that loss or diminution which an army suffers by defeat, also moral loss, impoverishment, to be defeated, to be reduced, or made inferior. "A reduction in one aspect to a race of scattered exiles, in another to a mere remnant of 'Israelites indeed'"--Moule] the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? [Pleroma, the full number, the whole body, the totality. To emphasize the situation and impress it upon his readers, Paul makes use of the Hebrew parallelism, presenting two clauses which express substantially the same thing. If there be any [456] difference, we would say that "world" indicates sinners, and "Gentiles" the uncovenanted races. If paraphrased thus, it would read, Now, if the sin or offence of godly Israel enriched the ungodly, sinful world, and if the loss or spiritual impoverishment and numerical diminution of the covenanted people enriched and multiplied the covenanted among the hitherto uncovenanted people, how much more would both the sinful world and its uncovenanted inhabitants have been blessed every way, had Israel been of the right spirit, so as to have received enrichment instead of being cast off and diminished. Because Israel had a proud, narrow, inimical spirit (1 Thess. 2:15, 16), its depletion worked blessing to the world and the Gentiles; but if Israel had yielded to Christ so as to be transformed like that persecuting Saul who became Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, who can measure the fullness of blessing which would have come to the inhabitants of the earth by the enlargement, enrichment and full spiritual endowment of every son of Abraham dispersed through the world! With millions of Pauls in all lands throughout all generations, we should have measured our heavenward progress by milestones instead of inches. "Goodness," says Thomas Aquinas, "is more capable of bearing blessing than is evil; but the evil of the Jews brought great blessing to the Gentiles; therefore much more should their goodness bring greater blessing to the world."] 13 But [A note of correction. At Rom. 7:1, 4 Paul began to address the Jews, and all that he has said since then has had specific reference to that people. Since verse 11, however, the thought has gradually passed to the Gentiles and now Paul openly notes that he is speaking to them, lest any should think he was still speaking to Jews about Jews] I speak to you that are Gentiles. [Much that the apostle has said might be misconstrued by the Gentiles so as to minister to their pride. The apostle therefore addresses them personally, and prepares the way for an admonition against vainglory in [457] themselves and a contemptuous spirit against the Jews.] Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh [my kindred: the Jews], and may save [do the human part of saving] some of them. [Finding myself set apart by Christ to minister to Gentiles instead of Jews, I perform my task with a double zest, for (I not only rejoice to save Gentiles, but) it is a means (also) of saving some of Israel by provoking them to an honorable and generous emulation even now; since the mass of them will be won that way in the end, as indicated above. And, moreover, I do this in fullest love and goodwill to you Gentiles, for I foresee what incalculable blessings the conversion of the Jews will bring to you.] 15 For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? [Again we have a passage wherein "the apostle," as Meyer expresses it, "argues from the happy effect of the worse cause, to the happier effect of the better cause." If a curse, so to speak, brought a blessing, what would not a blessing bring? If the casting away of Israel in Paul's day resulted in the beginning of the times of the Gentiles, and the turning of them from idols and imaginary deities to seek after the true God as part of a theocratic family wherein converted Jew and Gentile are reconciled to each other and to God (see Eph. 2:11-22 for a full description of this double reconciliation), what would the receiving again of the vast body of unconverted Jews at the end of the times of the Gentiles (vs. 25, 26) be but a veritable life from the dead, an unprecedented, semi-miraculous revival? Theophylact, Augustine, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Turretin, Philippi, Bengel, Auberlen, Clark, Macknight, Plumer, Brown, Lard, Gifford, Moule, Riddle, etc., view this as a great spiritual resurrection, a revival of grace accompanying the conversion of the whole world. Others, as Origen, Chrysostom, the earlier commentators [458] generally, Ruckert, Meyer, De Wette, etc., look upon it as a literal, bodily resurrection, while Olshausen, Lange and Alford consider it as a combination of spiritual and bodily resurrections. The first of these positions is most tenable. "This," says Barnes, "is an instance of the peculiar, glowing and vigorous manner of the apostle Paul. His mind catches at the thought of what may be produced by the recovery of the Jews, and no ordinary language would convey his idea. He had already exhausted the usual forms of speech by saying that even their rejection had reconciled the world, and that it was the riches of the Gentiles. To say that their recovery--a striking and momentous event; an event so much better fitted to produce important results--would be attended by the conversion of the world, would be insipid and tame. He uses, therefore, a most bold and striking figure. The resurrection of the dead was an image of the most vast and wonderful event that could take place." Some of those who view this as a literal resurrection, do so from a lack of clear conception as to the order of the dispensations. They look upon the conversion of the Jews as taking place at the very end of the world, and hence synchronous with the final resurrection. They do not know that the Jewish dispensation, or age, gave place to the present one, which is called "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24), and that this dispensation will give place to a third, known as the millennium or age of a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-6). The Jewish dispensation ended with the death of Christ, and the Gentile dispensation will end when the gospel is preached unto all nations (Matt. 24:14). Its end, as Paul shows us at verses 25 and 26, will also be synchronous with the conversion of the Jews. Failure to grasp these important facts has led to much general confusion, and to gross mistakes in the interpretation and application of prophecies, for many Biblical references to the end of the Gentile dispensation, or age, have been erroneously referred to the end of the world, or end of the ages. The last age, [459] or millennium, will be the triumph of the kingdom of God, the thousand-year reign of the saints on earth, and it will begin with the conversion of the world under the leadership of the Jews, and this is the event which Paul fittingly describes as "life from the dead." The millennium will be as a resurrection to the Jews (Ezek. 37), for they will return to their own land (Ezek. 37:11-14, 21, 25) and revive their national life as a united people (Ezek. 37:22). It will be as a resurrection of primitive, apostolic Christianity to the Gentiles, for the deadness of the "last days" of their dispensation (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3, 4), with its Catholic Sardis and its Protestant Laodicea (Rev. 3:1-6, 14-22), will give place to the new life of the new age, wherein the "first love" of the Ephesian, or first, church will be revived (Rev. 2:4, 5), and the martyr spirit of Smyrna, its successor, will again come forth (Rev. 2:10), and the devil will be chained and the saints will reign (Rev. 20:1-6). This spiritual resurrection of the last age is called the "first resurrection," for it is like, and it is followed by, the real or literal resurrection which winds it up, and begins the heavenly age, or eternity with God. Ezekiel tells what the last age will do to the Jews, Paul what it will be to the Gentiles, and John what it will mean to them both. As to Paul's description Pool thus writes: "The conversion of the Jewish people and nation will strengthen the things that are languishing and like to die in the Christian church. It will confirm the faith of the Gentiles, and reconcile their differences in religion, and occasion a more thorough reformation amongst them: there will be a much more happy and flourishing estate of the church, even such as shall be in the end of the world, at the resurrection of the dead." All this, as Paul boldly asserts, will result from the blessed power of Jewish leadership, as in the beginning. "The light," says Godet. "which converted Jews bring to the church, and the power of life which they have sometimes awakened in it, are the pledge of that spiritual renovation which will be [460] produced in Gentile Christendom by their entrance en masse. Do we not feel that in our present condition there is something, and that much, wanting to us that the promises of the gospel may be realized in all their fullness; that there is, as it were, a mysterious hindrance to the efficacy of preaching, a debility inherent in our spiritual life, a lack of joy and force which contrasts strangely with the joyful outbursts of prophets and psalmists; that, in fine, the feast in the father's house is not complete . . . why? because it can not be so, so long as the family is not entirely reconstituted by the return of the elder son. Then shall come the Pentecost of the last times, the latter rain." Against the above view that Paul speaks of a spiritual resurrection it is weakly urged that it assumes a future falling away of the Gentiles, and a lapse on their part into spiritual death, and that the apostle gives no intimation of such a declension by them. But it is right to assume such a declension, for Paul most clearly intimates it; for (1) all the remainder of this section is a discussion of how the Jews brought their dispensation to an end, and a warning to the Gentiles not to follow their example and have their dispensation end in a like manner. (2) In verse 25 he speaks of the fullness or completeness of the Gentiles. But, according to the divine method, this dispensation of the Gentiles could not reach completeness and be done away with until it became corrupt and worthless. God does not cast off till iniquity is full and failure complete (Gen. 6:13; 15:16; Matt. 23:29-33). Moreover, some five years before this, in the second Epistle that ever came from his pen, Paul had foretold this declension in the church, and had described it as even then "working," though restrained (2 Thess. 2:3-12). The assumption on which this view of a spiritual resurrection rests is both contextual and natural. Finally, as to this being a literal body resurrection, we must of course admit that an all-powerful God can begin the millennium that way if he chooses, but to suppose [461] that the literally resurrected dead shall mingle and dwell with the rest of humanity for a thousand years, or throughout an entire dispensation, savors of fanaticism. Even Jesus kept aloof during his forty days of waiting before his ascension. A healthy mind can not long retain such an idea, nor can we think that Paul would introduce so marvelous and abnormal a social condition without in some measure elaborating it. As against a literal, physical resurrection Hodge argues strongly. We give a sentence or two: "Not only in Scriptures, but also in profane literature, the transition from a state of depression and misery, to one of prosperity, is expressed by the natural figure of passing from death to life. The Old Testament prophets represented the glorious condition of the Theocracy, consequent on the coming of Christ, in contrast with its previous condition, as a rising from the dead. . . . Nowhere else in Scripture is the literal resurrection expressed by the words 'life from the dead.' Had Paul intended a reference to the resurrection, no reason can be assigned why he did not employ the established and familiar words 'resurrection from the dead.' If he meant the resurrection, why did he not say so? Why use a general phrase, which is elsewhere used to express another idea? Besides this, it is not according to the analogy of scripture, that the resurrection of the dead, and the change of those who shall then be alive (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:14-18), are to be immediate, consequent on the conversion of the Jews. The resurrection is not to occur until 'the end.' A new state of things, a new mode of existence, is to be then introduced. Flesh and blood--i. e., our bodies as now organized--can not inherit the kingdom of God." For a full discussion of the spiritual nature of the resurrection, from the pen of A. Campbell, see his articles on the second coming of the Lord, in the Millennial Harbinger. We shall never know how dead our liquor-licensing, sectarian, wealth-worshipping, stock-gambling, religio-fad-loving, political, [462] war-waging Christendom has been until the spirit of the early church rises from the dead to form the new age; then it will be at once apparent to all what Paul meant by this bold figure, "life from the dead." But the glorious prospect here presented rests on the supposition that the Jews en masse shall be converted. As that is a supposition which many expositors even in our day regard with doubt, the apostle first shows its Scriptural and natural reasonableness, and then plainly and unequivocally predicts it. He presents its reasonableness thus] 16 And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. [Another parallelism. The apostle demonstrates the same truth, first, from the standpoint of the law of God in the Bible (firstfruit and lump); second, from the law of God in nature (root and tree). As the harvest or raw material of the Jew was regarded as unclean, or ceremonially unholy, and not to be eaten till it was cleansed by the waving of a first-portion, or firstfruit, of it as a heave-offering before the Lord (Lev. 23:9-14; Ex. 34:26); so the meal or prepared material was likewise prescribed until a portion of the first dough was offered as a heave-offering. This offered "firstfruit," or, better, "first-portion" (aparche), made the whole lump (phurama) from which it was taken holy, and thus sanctified all the future meal, of which it was the representative or symbol, so that it could now be used by the owner (Num. 15:19-21; Neh. 10:37). The apostle, then, means that as the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (called fathers in verse 28), the firstfruit by the revealed law, and the root by the natural law, were holy, so all their descendants as lump and tree were likewise holy. But holiness has two distinct meanings: (1) Purity, moral and spiritual perfection, absolute righteousness--a holiness unto salvation; (2) that which is consecrated or set apart for divine use--a holiness short of salvation. The second meaning is the one intended here. The Jews, being out of Christ, are certainly not holy [463] or righteous unto salvation, Paul being witness; but they have what Gifford styles "this legal and relative holiness of that which has been consecrated to God." In this respect they are still "the holy people" (Dan. 12:7), "the chosen people" (Dan. 11:15), preserved from fusion with the Gentiles, and ultimately to be restored to their original pre-eminence as leaders in the worship of Jehovah. In short, then, there is no divinely erected barrier rendering them irrevocably unholy, and preventing their conversion. On the contrary, they are pre-eminently susceptible to conversion both by law divine and natural, and only their persistent unbelief prevents their Christianization.] 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou [O Gentile believer], being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree [Some commentators, recognizing that Christianity is a distinct thing from Judaism, have been unduly frightened at the manner in which the apostle here blends them as one tree. This has led them to forsake the obvious meaning of the apostle's words, in an endeavor to contort them so as to keep distinct the Christian and Jewish bodies. Some of these, therefore, regard Christ as the tree, and others regard it as representing the Christian church. But such exegesis violates the text, for the Jewish unbelievers are pictured as branches "broken off." Now, they could neither be broken off from Christ nor the church, for they were never joined to either. The tree is the Theocracy (Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6; Ezek. 17:3; Zech 11:2). In a sense it is one continuous tree, for it bears to God the continuous relation of being his peculiar people, but in another sense it is, as the apostle here presents it, an entirely different tree, for all the branches which were formerly accepted on the basis of natural Abrahamic descent were broken off, and all the branches, whether Jew or Gentile, which had the new requirement of faith in Christ, were grafted in. Surely, then, the [464] tree is distinct enough as presented in its two conditions. Yet is it the same Theocracy, with the same patriarchal root and developed from the same basic covenants and promises (Heb. 11:39, 40; Eph. 2:11-22). Christianity is not Judaism, and no pen ever taught this truth more clearly than Paul's. Yet Christianity is a development of the old Theocracy, and is still a Theocracy, a kingdom of God, and this is plainly taught; for the Christian, be he Jew or Gentile, is still a spiritual son of Abraham (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:7, 29; 4:28), a member of the true Israel; the true Jew. Now, the Christian Jew, having already an organic connection with the Theocracy, is viewed by Paul as simply remaining in it. And here is the point where the confusion arises. If he became regenerate (John 3:1-6), and, dropping the carnal tie of the old, received the spiritual tie of the new (John 8:37-44), he indeed remained in the theocratic tree, but in it as transport at Pentecost. If the Jew did not undergo this chance, he was broken off and cast aside (Matt. 8:11, 12). Thus the apostle makes it clear that the Jew, as a Jew, and without spiritual change through faith in Christ, did not remain in any divinely accepted Theocracy. But as God originally contemplated the tree, every Jew was to develop into a Christian, in which case the tree would have been indeed continuous. Jewish unbelief frustrated the divine harmony and made it necessary for the apostle himself to here and elsewhere emphasize the difference between the old and new Theocracies. "The Gentiles are called a wild olive because God had not cultivated them as he did the Jews, who, on that account, are called (v. 24) the good or garden olives. . . . The juice of the olive is called 'fatness,' because from its fruit, which is formed by that juice, oil is expressed" (Macknight). "The oleaster, or wild olive," says Parens, "has the same form as the olive, but lacks its generous sap and fruits."]; 18 glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest [remember], it is not thou that bearest the root, but [465] the root thee. ["Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (Prov. 16:18). Religious pride had proved the undoing of the Jews. It made them despise and reject an unregal Messiah; it caused them to spurn a gospel preached to the poor; it moved them to reject a salvation in which the unclean Gentile might freely share. As Paul opens before his Gentile readers the high estate into which they had come, he anticipates the religious pride which the contemplation of their good fortune was so soon to beget in them, hence he at once sounds the timely note of warning. As to the Jew they had no reason to boast, for they were debtor to him, not he to them, for "salvation is from the Jew" (John 4:22). As to themselves they could not speak proudly, for the depression of the Jew was due to God's severity, and the exaltation of the Gentile was due to his goodness, The Gentile church was incorporated into a previously existing Jewish church, and their new Theocracy had its root in the old, so that in neither case were these privileges original, but wholly secondary and derived from the Jews. Moreover, "such presumption toward the branches," says Tholuck, "could not be without presumption toward the root." Would that the Gentiles, who to-day boast of their Christianity and despise the Jew from whence it was derived, could comprehend the folly of their course. How great is the sin of Christendom! "In its pride," says Godet, "it tramples underfoot the very nation of that grace which has made it what it is. It moves on, therefore, to a judgment of rejection like that of Israel, but which shall not have to soften it a promise [of final restoration] like that which accompanied the fall of the Jews."] 19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. [The apostle here puts in the mouth of a representative Gentile the cause or justification of the pride. Was it not ground for self-esteem and self-gratulation when God cast off his covenanted people to receive strangers? [466] --Eph. 2:19.] 20 Well [A form of partial and often ironical assent: equal to, very true, grant it, etc. It was not strictly true that God had cast off the Jew to make room for the Gentile, for there was room for both. The marriage supper shows the truth very clearly. The refusal of the Jew was the reason why he was cast off, not because there was lack of room, or partial favor on God's part, or superior merit on the part of the Gentiles--Luke 14:15-24]; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith [not merit]. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. [Faith justified no boast, yet faith constituted the only divinely recognized distinction in the Gentiles' favor, in estimating between the Gentile Christian and the cast-off Jew. All the past history of the Jew stood in his favor; therefore the Gentile has vastly more reason to fear than had the Jew; for if natural branches fell through false pride which induced unbelief, how much more likely the adopted branches were to be cut off. Again, he had more reason for fear than for pride; for being on trial as the Jews had been, he was succumbing to the same sin of self-righteous pride, and more liable to suffer the same rejection. Paul now presents the even-balanced equality of Jew and Gentile if weighed in the scales of merit instead of the new scales of grace-toward-faith.] 22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them [the Jews] that fell, severity [for lack of faith, not want of merit]; but toward thee [O Gentile], God's goodness [kindness not won by thy merit, else it were justice, not goodness; but goodness toward thee by reason of thy faith: a goodness which will be continued to thee], if thou continue [by faith, and the works thereof, to keep thyself] in his goodness: otherwise thou also [even as was the Jew for like reasons before thee] shalt be cut off. [From the theocratic tree. Severity and goodness, as used here, are merely relative. They do not express the true [467] condition, but merely the state of affairs as viewed by those who still clung to the idea of legal justification and salvation by merit. To those holding such views it seemed severe indeed that the better man should be cut off for lack of faith, and a strange act of goodness that the worse should be received by reason of it and given opportunity to become fruitful; but the seeming severity vanishes and only the goodness remains when we reflect that according to the righteous judgment of God it was impossible that either of them should be received any other way. The apostle's next purpose is to present a further argument against Gentile pride; viz., the final restoration of the Jewish people and the restitution of all their original privileges and rights. This prophetic fact is revealed as a possibility in the next two verses, and established fully as a decreed event in the next section.] 23 And they [the unbelieving mass of Israel] also [together with you], if they continue not in their unbelief [for it is not a question of any comparative lack of legal merit on their part], shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. [There is no insuperable reason why they can not be grafted in, and that blessed event will take place whenever the unbelief which has caused their severance shall cease. In Paul's day individual Jews were being grafted in (the "some" of verse 14); but in the glad future of which the apostle here speaks, the nation (or the "all Israel" of verse 26) shall be grafted in. However, the word "able" suggests the extreme difficulty of overcoming the obdurate unbelief of Israel. It is a task for God's almightiness, but, though difficult, yet, as verse 24 shows, most natural, after all.] 24 For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? [Here we are referred to nature for the point emphasized in the apostle's lesson, that we may see that the [468] present system of grace, as operating under the terms of conversion established as the basis of theocratic life in the New Testament, operates in double contradiction to nature. For (1) grafting is unnatural; (2) grafting bad to good is unnatural; for in nature the engraft always changes the juice of the stalk to its own nature, so as to still bear its own fruit. Hence the superior is always grafted into the inferior. But in grace this rule is so changed and operated so "contrary to nature," that the sap, passing into the tame, natural, superior Jewish branches, yielded corrupt fruit, so that they had to be severed; while the same sap, passing into the wild, grafted, inferior Gentile branches, communicated its fatness to them, so that they yielded good fruit. But as it is an accepted axiomatic premise that even God works more readily, regularly and satisfactorily along the lines of the natural than he does along those of the supernatural and miraculous, so it is unquestionably reasonable to suppose that if the Jew will consent to be grafted in by belief, the sap of his own tree will work more readily for him than it did in Paul's day for the Gentiles, or wild olive branches which were not of the tree save by the grafting, or union, of belief. "For," says Chrysostom, "if faith can achieve that which is contrary to nature, much more can it achieve what is according to it." By age-long, hereditary and educational qualifications the Jew has acquired a natural affinity for, and a pre-established harmony with, all that has come to the world through the promises to Abraham, and in fulfillment of the words of the prophets. In short, the conversion of the Jew of our day is a vastly more reasonable expectation than the conversion of the Gentiles which actually took place in Paul's day. Let no man, therefore, doubt Paul's prediction of the ultimate conversion of the Jews. "If God," says Stuart, "had mercy on the Gentiles, who were outcasts from his favor and strangers to the covenant of his promise, shall he not have mercy on the people whom he has [469] always distinguished as being peculiarly his own, by the bestowment of many important privileges and advantages upon them?"]

V.

FIFTH EXPLANATION OF THE GRAND
CONCLUSION-GENTILES AND JEWS
HAVING EACH PASSED THROUGH A
LIKE SEASON OF DISOBEDIENCE,
A LIKE MERCY
SHALL BE SHOWN
TO EACH.

11:25-32.

      ["The future conversion of Israel," says Gifford, "having been proved to be both possible and probable, is now shown to be the subject of direct revelation."] 25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant [This form of expression is used by the apostle to indicate a most important communication to which he wishes his readers to give special attention, as something strange and contrary to their expectation (Rom. 1:3; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13)--in this case, a revelation from God] of this mystery [The word musterion is used twenty-seven times in the New Testament. As digested and classified by Tholuck, it has three meanings; thus: 1. Such matters of fact as are inaccessible to human reason, and can only be known through revelation (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7-10; Eph. 1:9; 3:4; 6:19; Col. 1:26; etc.). 2. Such matters as are patent facts, but the process of which can not be entirely taken in by the reason (1 Cor. 14:2; 13:2; Eph. 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:9, 16). 3. That which is no mystery in itself, but by its figurative import (Matt. 13:11; Rev. 1:20; 17:5; 2 Thess. 2:7). The first is the meaning here. Paul is about [470] to communicate a revelation which was given of God, and could never have been divined by any process of the human intellect. As the conversion of the Gentiles was so unthinkable that it had to be made known to the Jew by revelation (Eph. 3:1-6; Acts 10, 11), so here the conversion of the Jew was so unbelievable that it also had to be made known to the Gentile by revelation], lest ye be wise in your own conceits [This revelation of the conversion and ultimate elevation of Israel to his former position of leadership comes to Paul, and is imparted by him to the Gentiles, to prevent them from following their own vain and mistaken opinions as to the relative theocratic positions of Jews and Gentiles, by which they would flatteringly deceive themselves into thinking too well of themselves as occupying permanently Israel's ancient post of honor, and too ill of Israel as thrust out and cast off forever. The reversal of the Jews and Gentiles in fortune and honor was but a temporary affair. It is significant that this publication of a revelation, and accompanying rebuke of the opposing self-conceit of human opinion and judgment, should be addressed to the Church of Rome! The more one ponders it, the more portentous it becomes], that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel [Here is the first term of the threefold revelation. Calvin and others connect "in part" with "hardening," so that the meaning is that a partial hardening has befallen Israel. But hardening, as mentioned at 9:18 or 11:7, is not qualified as partial. "In part" is properly connected with "Israel." A portion of Israel is hardened. This agrees with the entire context, which tells of a remnant saved (11:5), and the rest or larger portion fallen (11:12), cast away (11:15), and hardened. So "in part" stands for "the rest" of 11:7, and in contrast to the "some" of 11:17. The bulk of the Jewish nation, persistently and rebelliously refusing to believe in Christ, had, as their punishment, a dulling of their perceptions and a deadening of their [471] sensibilities sent upon them. We can understand this punishment better if we compare it with its counterpart which befell the Gentiles. As they dishonored the form or body of God by presuming to make degrading, beast-shaped images of it, so God gave them up to degrade their own bodies (1:23, 24). As they preferred lies to truth in things pertaining to God, he gave them up to prefer lying, deceptive, unnatural uses of themselves, to the true and natural uses (1:25-27). As they refused to have a right mind about God, he gave them up to a reprobate mind (1:28-32). So here, in his parallel treatment of the Jew, he found them steeling their hearts against his love (John 3:16) and against the drawing power of the cross (John 8:28; 12:32), and he gave them up to the hardness which they chose and desired. Now follows the second term of the revelation which makes known how long this hardness should endure; viz.], until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in [The hardness of the Jews shall cease, and the veil which blinds their eyes shall fall (1 Cor. 3:14, 15), when the number of saved which God has allotted to be gathered during the Gentile dispensation (or "times of the Gentiles"--Luke 21:24) has been made complete, and has "come in," to the theocratic olive-tree. In other words, as the Gentiles were "given up" (1:23, 25, 28) during the entire period of the Jewish dispensation, so the Jews are to be "hardened" during the entire period of the Gentile dispensation. The millennium, or final dispensation, which is to follow this present Gentile dispensation, will be given into the hands of Jew and Gentile jointly, and will be as life from the dead to both parties, because of the glorious season of revival which shall characterize it almost to its end. "Fulness of the Gentiles" is, therefore, "not the general conversion of the world to Christ, as many take it," says Brown; "for this would seem to contradict the latter part of this chapter, and throw the national recovery of Israel too far into the future: besides, in verse 15, the apostle [472] seems to speak of the receiving of Israel, not as following, but as contributing largely to bring about, the general conversion of the world--but, until the Gentiles have had their full time [as possessors] of the visible church all to themselves while the Jews are out, which the Jews had till the Gentiles were brought in. See Luke 21:24." And this brings us to the conditions, or developments, which succeed the hardening, or the third term of the mystery or revelation which Paul is here making known; viz.]; 26 and so [that is, in this way; namely, by abiding till this determinate time] all Israel [the national totality, the portion hardened; a round-number expression, allowing liberty to any small remnant which may possibly still persist in unbelief] shall be saved [Shall be Christianized by overcoming their unbelief. And this revelation, fully detailed by Paul, had already been adumbrated or partially published in the prophets, as follows]: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob [Isa. 59:20f]: 27 And this is my covenant [lit. the covenant from me] unto them, When I shall take away their sins. [Isa. 27:9. (Comp. Jer. 31:31-34.) Verse 26 is quoted from the LXX., but Paul changes "come in favor of Zion" to read, "come out of Zion," following a phrase found at Ps. 14:7. None can say why he made this change, but it prevents confusion as to the first and second advent. Christ's second advent will be out of heaven, not out of Zion. Bengel calls attention to the fact that as Paul in Romans 3 combines Isaiah 59 and Psalm 14, to prove the sinfulness of mankind, especially of the Jews, so he here seems to combine the same two parts of Scripture to prove the salvation of Israel from sin. Moreover, as in chapter 9 he lets Isaiah describe Israel as reduced to a remnant (9:27-29), so he here appeals to the same inspired penman as the foreteller of the salvation of all Israel. Christ the Deliverer had already come, so that part of the prophecy had been fulfilled, but the future [473] effects of the gospel were yet to accomplish the salvation of the Jews as a nation in two ways: (1) By turning them from their ungodly infidelity; (2) by forgiving their sins. Jewish unbelief will not be removed by any change in the gospel: it is complete and unalterable. The changes which will work upon the Jews will be those wrought in the world by the gospel. "And this is the covenant from me," etc., signifies, My covenant unto them shall be executed and completed on my part when I forgive their sins. To the Jews, therefore, there was, on God's part, in Paul's day, a present attitude of rejection manifesting itself in hardening, and a future attitude of acceptance sometime to manifest itself in forgiveness, and these attitudes are thus described] 28 As touching the gospel, they [the unbelieving Israelites] are [regarded by God as] enemies for your sake [that their fall might enrich you. See verse 12]: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. [Or on account of the fathers. The call, or election, of Israel gave them national, hereditary rights (of which salvation was not an essential part; it being eternally designed to be an individual, not a national, matter) that were to last to the end of the world (Lev. 26:40-45); but which provided for, or anticipated, that break, interim or hiatus known as "the times of the Gentiles." During all the years of the Gentile dispensation God cast off his people and regarded them as enemies in every field of vision where they came in conflict with or interfered with the Christians, or New Covenant, Gentile people. Yet, notwithstanding, in all other respects they have been and will be loved and cared for by God, on account of his own love for the fathers, and his eternal covenants with them. This mixture of present enmity and future benevolence characterizes God's attitude toward every unrepentant sinner who is to become a future saint. So long as he abides in sin he is an enemy, yet loved for the sake of the Lord Jesus. The condition of the Jew is therefore [474] well defined. His ancestral covenants have no value unto salvation, but they are invaluable as an assurance that he shall be continued as a people until he accepts the gospel which is the covenant unto salvation.] 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of. [A corollary growing out of the axiom that the all-wise God makes no mistakes and consequently knows no repentance (Num. 23:19; Ezek. 24:4; 1 Sam. 15:29). Repentance and regret imply miscalculation (Jas. 1:7). The term "gifts" is of very wide application. God gave to the Jew certain spiritual endowments and moral aptitudes fitting him for religious leadership; God also gave to him manifold promises and covenants, and the general rights of the elder brother or first-born (Luke 15:25-32), including priority in all spiritual matters (Acts 1:8; 3:5, 26; 13:46; Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10; 1 Pet. 4:17). The calling is closely related to the gifts, for the Jews were called to be God's peculiar people (Deut. 7:6; Ps. 135:4), and were thereby called upon to discharge all the duties and obligations belonging to their station and arising out of their endowments (Luke 20:9-18); and likewise called to enjoy all the blessings and privileges of their stewardship, if found faithful in it (Luke 12:35-48). Now, God has not changed his purpose as to either gifts or calling. The Jew's rights are temporarily suspended during the Gentile dispensation. They have never been withdrawn, and will be restored whenever the Jew becomes a believer. As pledge of the permanent nature of Jewish precedence, the twelve gates of the Eternal City bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12), and the twelve foundations thereof bear the names of the twelve Jewish apostles--Rev. 21:14.] 30 For as ye [Gentiles] in time past were disobedient to God [Rom. 1:16-32; Acts 17:30], but now have obtained mercy by their [the Jews'] disobedience [v. 15], 31 even so have these [the Jews] also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also [475] may now obtain mercy. [How the Gentile received blessing by reason of the casting off of the Jew has already been explained at verse 15. As the Gentile went through a season of disobedience, from which he was saved by severity shown to the Jew, so the Jew was to have a like season of disobedience, from which he in turn is to be eventually saved by God's mercy to the Gentiles. Some construe the "mercy" to mean that the Gentiles are to have a continuous, ever-increasing spiritual prosperity until finally the very excess of the flood of it sweeps Israel into belief, and therefore into the kingdom. But such a construction plainly denies the New Testament prophecies which speak of a "falling away" (2 Thess. 2:3) in "the last days" (2 Tim. 3:1-9), and do not accord with the effects of gospel preaching as announced by Christ (Matt. 24:14). The meaning is that God's mercy to the Gentiles in Paul's day preserved the gospel in the world for the ultimate blessing of the Jews, and God's continued mercy to the Gentiles through the centuries, and even through the latter days of their acute apostasy, will still keep the gospel till the Jews are ready to accept it. God's mercy to the evil, Gentile earthen vessel preserves the truth wherein lies salvation, and will continue to preserve it till the Jew drinks of the water of life which it conserves (2 Cor. 4:7). In short, the cases are reversed. The Jewish dispensation ended in a breakdown, but not until the Gentiles became receptacles of the truth. Mercy was shown to the Jew till this Gentile belief was assured. So the Gentile dispensation shall likewise terminate in failure, but not until Jewish belief is assured. We are even now obtaining mercy waiting for the consummation of that part of God's plan. As God once spared the Jew till his blessings were transferred without loss to the Gentiles, so will he now spare the Gentile till the truth now stored in him has time to pass safely to the Jew. And as surely as he shifted his Spirit and mercies from Jew to Gentile, just so surely will [476] he in turn shift back and re-endow the Jew. The apostle is here giving, his whole attention to the acts of God, and omits for the time all reference to that human agency which paved the way for the divine action. However, it is indicated in the word "mercy." The change in either case was in justice long overdue before it came.] 32 For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all. [The verb "shut up" is, as Barnes observes, "properly used in reference to those who are shut up in prison, or to those in a city who are shut up by a besieging army (1 Macc. 5:5; 6:18; 11:65; 15:25; Josh. 6:1; Isa. 45:1). It is used in the New Testament of fish taken in a net (Luke 5:6)." It here means that God has rendered it impossible for any man, either Jew or Gentile, to save himself by his own merit. For some two thousand years the Gentiles sinned against God as revealed in nature, and broke his unwritten law found in their own consciences (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:14-16), their sin being known generally as idolatry. And now, for about an equal length of time, the Jews have sinned against God as revealed in Christ, and have broken his written law as found in the Old Testament, their sin being practically the same as that of the Gentiles, though called infidelity. Thus God shut each class up under a hopeless condemnation of disobedience as in a jail, that he might extend a general pardon to each, and save each by his grace and not by human merit. "All" is used in the general sense, and does not signify universal salvation irrespective of belief in Christ (Gal. 3:22). It is used here to show that, in shifting from Gentile to Jew, God will act in no arbitrary or partial spirit. He will not reject any of either class who live worthily. It means that hereafter each class shall be equally favored in preaching and all other gospel privileges. "The emphasis," says Calvin, "in this verse is on the word MERCY. It signifies that God is under obligation to no one, and therefore that all are saved by grace, because all are equally ruined."] [477]

VI.

CONCLUDING ASCRIPTIONS OF PRAISE TO
GOD FOR HIS JUDGMENTS, WAYS
AND RICHES.

11:33-36.

      [Guided by the revelations imparted by the Holy Spirit, the apostle has made known many profound and blessed mysteries, and has satisfactorily answered many critical and perplexing questions, and has traced for his readers the course of the two branches of the human family, the Jew and the Gentile, from their beginning in the distant past, in a condition of unity, through the period of their separation by reason of the call of the Jews into a Theocracy, followed by a continuation of the separation, by the call of the Gentiles into a Theocracy, on into the future when both are to be again brought together in unity (Matt. 15:24; John 10:16). "Never," says Godet, "was survey more vast taken of the divine plan of the world's history." As the apostle surveyed it all, beheld its wisdom and grace, its justice and symmetry, he bursts forth in the ascriptions of praise which follow.] 33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! [We prefer the marginal reading, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge," etc. Either of the readings is perfectly grammatical. It is objected against the marginal reading that the reading in the text is "simpler and more natural" (Dwight); that the context following says nothing about riches (Brown); that the notion of riches is too diverse in kind to be co-ordinated with knowledge and wisdom (Godet). To these it may be added (as suggested by Meyer) that the style of the apostle usually follows that of the text. Compare "riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7; 2:7; Phil. 4:19). Nevertheless, depth of riches [478] and wisdom and knowledge is the best reading here, for riches, as we have just seen, imply, with reference to God, his wealth of grace, or some kindred virtue; as, goodness, forbearance, longsuffering, etc. (Rom. 2:4; 10:12; Eph. 2:4). Now, in this instance the mercy of God was the thrice-repeated and last idea (in the Greek, the last word) dropping from the apostle's pen (see vs. 31, 32), and it is these riches of mercy and grace that move him to praise, and that give birth to the section before us. Moreover, these riches are the burden of what has gone before. See 9:23 for "riches of glory upon vessels of mercy," and 10:12 for "rich unto all," and 8:35-39 for a description of the saints' wealth in God's love. As, therefore, the mercy or lovingkindness of God is uppermost in the apostle's thoughts, and as it is the main inspiration for all human praise (Ps. 107, 118, 136), it is hard to conceive that Paul would turn from it in silence, and burst forth in raptures over God's wisdom and knowledge, for the wisdom and knowledge of God stir us to highest raptures only as we see them expended in merciful lovingkindness. "Depth" is a common Greek expression for inexhaustible fullness or superabundance. It is so used by Sophocles, Æschylus, Pindar and Plato (see references in Gifford). It is so used here, though, as employed by Bible writers, it generally means that which is so vast or intricate as to be incomprehensible to the common mind (Ps. 36:6; 1 Cor. 2:10; Rev. 2:24). The superabundance of God's knowledge has been made apparent in this Epistle. It, as Plumer describes it, "is his perfect intelligence of all that ever is, ever was, or ever shall be, and of all that could now be, or could heretofore have been, or could hereafter be on any conceivable supposition." It enables God to grant perfect free will to man, and still foresee his every act, and empowers him to combine men of free will in endless social, political and commercial complications, and yet foresee results arising from myriads of combined free agencies, [479] thus enabling him to discern the effects upon the Gentiles wrought by the rejection of the Jews, and the results, proximate and ultimate, wrought upon the Jew by the acceptance and rejection of the Gentiles. Such are samples of the knowledge of God exhibited in Romans. The wisdom of God enables him to design the best purposes, the most blessed and happy results, the most perfect and satisfactory ends, while his knowledge empowers him to choose the best means, employ the best methods or modes of procedure, devise the best plans, select the most perfect instruments, etc., for accomplishing of those holy and benevolent purposes. In short, the wisdom of God foresees the desired end, and his knowledge causes all things to work together for the accomplishment of it. Refraining, for the moment, from describing the riches of God, the apostle proceeds to give a parallel setting forth of the excellency of God's wisdom and knowledge, thus:] how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! [Job 5:9; 11:7] 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? [Isa. 40:13; Jer. 23:18. "Judgments" and "mind" have reference to God's wisdom; "ways" and "counsellor" look toward his knowledge. Knowledge precedes wisdom. It gathers the facts and ascertains the truths and perceives their meaning, and then wisdom enters with its powers of ratiocination and traces the relations of truth to truth and fact to fact, and invents procedures, devises methods, constructs processes, etc., and utilizes the raw material of knowledge to effect ends, accomplish purposes and achieve results. Therefore, as Gifford observes, "knowledge" is theoretical, "wisdom" is practical, and while "knowledge" is purely intellectual, "wisdom" is also moral, and for that reason is both the most perfect of mental gifts (Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 6:10) and the queen of all virtues (Cicero, 'de Off.' 1:43)." God's knowledge foresees all the evil desires, designs, intentions and actions of men and demons, of the [480] devil and his angels; and his wisdom expends itself in transforming all these opposing powers and forces into so many means and aids for the accomplishment of his own holy designs and beneficent purposes. Exercising his wisdom, God judges or decrees, or determines or purposes in his mind, what is best to be done, or to be brought to pass, and these designs or purposes are wholly hidden from man save as God reveals them. We see his moves upon the chessboard of events, but the motives back of the moves lie hidden in a depth of wisdom too profound for man to fathom. "Ways" is derived from the word for "footsteps," and "tracing" is a metaphor borrowed from the chase, where the dog, scenting the footstep, follows the trail, or "way," the game has taken. The means which God chooses leave no track, and they can not be run down and taken captive by the mind of man. Nor does God seek information or ask counsel of man. He is a ruler without a cabinet, a sovereign without a privy council, a king without a parliament. His knowledge needs no augmentation. He accepts no derived information, and borrows no knowledge, but draws all from his own boundless resources. If we can not divine the purpose of his chessboard moves as chosen by his wisdom, neither can we even guess their effects which his knowledge foresees, for he produces unexpected results from contrary causes, so that he makes the Gentiles rich by Jewish poverty, and yet richer by Jewish riches. His wisdom sought the salvation of Jew and Gentile, yet his knowledge foresaw that racial antipathy would keep them from working together till ripened in character; so he worked with each separately. As each sought to establish the sufficiency of his own self-righteousness, he let them each try it, one with natural and the other with revealed law. To each he gave a season of covenant relation and a season of rejection, and in the end he will unite the two and have mercy on both. Such is the coworking of God's wisdom and knowledge. [481] The scheme is outlined in the parable of the prodigal son, the prodigal being the Gentile and the Jew the elder brother, not yet reconciled to the Father, but still offended at his kindness to the outcast. When the elder brother is reconciled, the story will be complete.] 35 or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? [Job 41:11. This question emphasizes the riches of God, introduced at verse 33. The riches mentioned are those of mercy and grace. If we can not exchange gifts with God along the most material lines, as here indicated, how shall we purchase his mercy, buy up his love, or merit his salvation? The moralist, whether Jew or Gentile, can place God under no obligation whatever, for naught can be given to him who justly claims all things (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 10:14; Ps. 24:1; 50:12). "Do we not," says Trapp, "owe him all that we have and are, and can a man merit by paying his debts?" (Luke 17:10). God gives all and to all, and he receives from none. Behold his grace! He freely publishes his unknowable knowledge, that the simplest may profit by his omniscience; he fully reveals his unsearchable wisdom, that the feeblest may co-operate with his omnipotence; and he lovingly gives his unmeritable gifts, that the poorest may enjoy his riches forever! Oh that men might know their riches in him, their folly, their weakness, their poverty without him!--Rev. 3:17, 18.] 36 For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. [Summary statement of the all-comprehensive riches of God. 1. God, in the beginning or past, is the author, origin and creative source of all existence. He is the efficient original cause from whence all came (hence his perfect knowledge). 2. God, in the middle or present, is the sustaining, supporting means of all existence. He is the continuous cause by which all things are upheld. By ruling and overruling all forces, he is the preserving governor and the providential director of creation in its course toward to-morrow (hence his unerring wisdom). [482] 3. God, in the end or future, is the ultimate purpose or end of all existence. He is the final cause for which creation was and is and will be; for all things move to consummate his purposes, fulfill his pleasure and satisfy his love. They shall glorify him and be glorified by him (hence his riches: he is all in all--1 Cor. 15:28.] To him be the glory for ever. Amen. [Thus with the customary benediction (Gal. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:1; 1 Pet. 5:11) and the formal "Amen," the apostle closes the doctrinal division of his Epistle.] [483]

      ^* To avoid encumbering Paul's argument we have given the briefest possible interpretation of "sending," but as sending is the bottom of the heavenly ladder the top of which reaches unto salvation, it should be fully understood. The first sending was by the Father, and of this sending Jesus was both messenger and message. The next sending was that of the twelve and the seventy, a sending which culminated in the great commission (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). The first of these sendings was perfect as to sender, message and messenger (John 3:34). The second was perfect as to sender and message, but weak as to the messengers. The third sending was by the Holy Spirit and the church at Antioch (Acts 13:2, 3). In this sending the message was practically perfect, but the church participated in the sending, so that the sender and the messengers were imperfect. A little later the message itself became corrupted and imperfect, and from that day to this the weakness of the gospel plan has been at this bottom rung of the great ladder; and the weakness is threefold, being in the sender, the sent and the thing sent. In Paul's day the weakness of the sending churches was the thing to be deplored. For this the Jew was chiefly to blame, for had he appreciated the honor and privilege and answered to the call of Christ, the world could easily have been evangelized by him, for he had synagogues and organized groups of worshipers, and a popular hearing in nearly every city on the habitable globe; but, instead of becoming a help, he, with all his accessories, became a hindrance. For the weakness of evangelism man, and especially Israel, was to blame, for God's part was perfect, being wrought in Christ. Moreover, the commission of Christ was full, sufficient and final. But the few, to whom message, messenger and commission first came, had been a visionless, cold, unappreciative and defective messenger from the beginning. It required a miracle to get Peter to carry the message to the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10), and even then his Christian brethren found fault (Acts 11), and accepted as an unwelcome but inevitable decree of God, that which should have inspired them to shout for joy. No wonder, then, the Spirit of God ceased to struggle with the Jerusalem church in this matter, and withdrew to Antioch, making it the missionary center of the world. As ordaining and sending were, even in Paul's day, well-nigh wholly in the hands of the church, so that even Paul himself was a church-sent man (Acts 13:2, 3), it is hardly likely that Paul's words here are lacking in reference to this fact, for (1) the Jew was extremely culpable in failing to further the sending of the gospel; (2) the Roman church generally needed admonition along this line, for the apostle was looking to them to aid him as Christ's messenger, or missionary, to Spain (Rom. 15:22-29). Finally, the weakness of Christ's coworkers, the senders, was the problem in Paul's day, and it is still the problem, just as Jesus covertly prophesied when be said, "Pray ye therefore," etc. (Luke 10:2); for our prayer though directed to God, must be answered by man, for he is de facto the sender (or, more properly, the NON-SENDER) of laborers into the harvest. The world could be evangelized in a single generation if men would only send the gospel to its peoples, but they lack that vision of the feet beautiful which thrilled the mighty soul of the lion of Benjamin, the apostle to the Gentiles. [433]