EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
V.
THE
GRAND CONCLUSION AND ITS
EXPLANATIONS
9:30-11:36
Subdivision A.
THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT
REACHED; NAMELY, GENTILES JUSTIFIED
BY FOLLOWING GOD'S LAW OF FAITH,
WHILE JEWS, FOLLOWING THEIR OWN LAW
OF WORKS, ARE CONDEMNED.
9:30-33.
30 What shall we say
then?
["Shall we raise objection, as at verse 14, or shall we at last rest in a
correct conclusion? Let us, from the Scriptures and facts adduced, reach a sound
conclusion." Paul's conclusion, briefly stated, is this: God's sovereign will
has elected that men shall be saved by belief in his Son. The Gentiles
(apparently least apt and [412] prepared) have, as a class,
yielded to God's will, and are being saved. The Jews (apparently most apt and
prepared) have, as a class, resisted God's will, and are being lost.] That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained
to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith [The
righteousness which the apostle has in mind is that which leads to justification
before God. Righteousness is the means, justification the end, so that
the word as here used includes the idea of justification. Now, the
Gentiles were not without desire for moral righteousness. The Greeks entertained
lofty ideals of it, and the Romans, following the legalistic bent of their
nature, plodded after it in their systems of law and government; but as Gentiles
they had no knowledge of a God calling them to strict account in a final
judgment, and demanding full justification. Hence they were not seeking it. But
when the revelation of God and his demand for justification, and his graciously
provided means for obtaining it, all burst upon their spiritual vision, they at
once accepted the revelation in its entirety; being conscious that they had no
righteousness of their own; being, indeed, filled with its opposite (Rom. 1:18;
Eph. 2:2, 3). "Faith," the leading and initiatory part of the conditions of
justification, is, by a form of synecdoche, employed to designate the whole of
the conditions, so Bloomfield justly observes: "Faith in Christ implies a full
acceptance of his gospel, and an obedience to all its requisitions, whether of
belief or practice"]:
31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness,
did not arrive at that law. [Israel was not seeking
justification. Their search was rather for a law that would produce in
them a righteousness meriting justification. This craving arose from a
proud, self-sufficient spirit, and God answered it by giving the law of Moses,
for the express purpose of revealing their universal sinful weakness and
insufficiency (Acts 15:10; Gal. 2:16), and need of a Saviour
(Rom. 7:24, 25); wherefore Paul [413] describes the law as
"our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal.
3:24). Realizing the impossible task of attaining justifying righteousness by
the law of Moses, the Jew began adulterating that law by traditions; but even
the law thus modified gave small delusive hope, and the cry was still, "What
shall 1 do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25; 18:18). But to this solemn and awful question
there were but two answers: (1) Keep the law of
Moses (Matt. 19:17; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12), and when the Jew answered, "I can
not," then (2) the "Follow me" of Christ (Matt. 19:21). Since no man could keep
the law of Moses, all men were and are shut in by God
to the one law of salvation through faith in Christ.
No wonder, then, that the Jew, seeking relief by Moses, or by a third
law, failed to find any law that satisfied his soul or operated with God. Godet calls this success of the uninterested Gentile, and
failure of the Jew who made the search of righteousness his daily business, "the
most poignant irony in the whole of history"; yet the cases of the two parties
are not wholly antithetical, as Paul clearly shows, by the use of the word
"righteousness" instead of "justification." If both parties had sought
justification, the Jew would have no doubt been the first to find it. But the
object of the Jewish search was a law which would give life, yet preserve
his pride and self-conceit, and his search was therefore for
an impossibility. The Master himself discloses the
difference in heart between the Jew and the Gentile in the parable of the
Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14). The humble spirit of the Gentile
accepted righteousness as the gift of the humble Christ, but the proud Jew could
not so demean himself as to place himself under obligations so lofty to One so lowly. Let us note that the words "follow after" and
"attain" are agonistic; that is to say, they are technical words
describing the running after the prize, and the grasping of it, as used in the
Olympic games. Their [414] presence here at the end of the argument shows that the "willeth" and "runneth" of verse 16
also have the agonistic force which we gave to them in interpreting that
verse. Paul's conclusion explains the willing and running. It is folly to will
and run contrary to the law and will of Him who, as supreme Sovereign,
has laid down the immutable rules of the great race or game of life. The prize
is the free gift of the King: there is no merit in running that can win
it, when the running is random and contrary to rule, as the Jews suppose.
There is no merit in running that can give a legal
right to it, even when the running is according to rule, but there is in
him who runs a moral fitness and aptness for the prize which makes it
his, according to the will of him who called him to so run for it.] 32 Wherefore? [Why, then, did the Jews fail to find any
law of life? Answer: Because there is but one such law, and they sought
another.] Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by
works. [In interpreting, we have contrasted the law of works with what we
have called "the law of faith," but the apostle does not use this latter term:
with him life it attained by "faith," though he treats it as a working principle
in that he contrasts it with the other active principle, or law of works. In
this verse, however, he drops the abstract altogether, and places the concrete
"faith" and "works" in vivid opposition. It is not so much a question of law
against law, and principle against principle; it is one of faith which
appropriates the perfect righteousness of Christ, and of Jewish works which,
scorning the garment of the purity of God, revealed in his Son, still clings to
the filthy rags of self-righteousness, self-sufficiency,
Phariseeism, etc.--Phil. 3:4-14.] They stumbled at the stone of
stumbling [The language here still follows the metaphor of the race-course.
The Jew, running with his eye on an imaginary, non-existing, phantom goal, and
blind as to the real goal, stumbles over it and falls. The picture presented by
the apostle suggests the sad truth that [415] the Jew has
run far enough and fast enough to win, but, as he has rejected the terms and
rules of the race, his efforts are not counted by the Lord of the race. Christ
was placed of God as a goal, and not as a stumbling-block; as a
Saviour, not as a source of condemnation; but he is indeed either man's
salvation or his ruin--Matt. 21:42-45]; 33 even
as it is written
[The passage about to be quoted is a compound of the Hebrew at Isa. 8:14 and the LXX. at Isa.
28:16. The first reads thus, "But he shall be . . . for
a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel," and the second, "Behold, I lay in
Zion for a foundation . . . he that believeth shall not
be in haste." The reader can see how the apostle, for brevity, has blended them;
quoting only such part of each as suited his purpose], Behold, I lay
in Zion
[Jerusalem, the capital city of my people] a stone of stumbling and a rock of
offence: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. [Why the
LXX. substituted "not be put to shame," for "not be in haste," is not clear,
though the meaning of the latter phrase is near kin to the former, conveying the
idea of fleeing away in confusion. Shame, however, is a very appropriate word
here, for it was the chief cause of Christ's rejection by the Jews: they were
ashamed of him (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Rom. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:8). The apostle is
justified by New Testament authority in regarding both these Scriptures as
Messianic prophecies (1 Pet. 2:6-8; Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11. Comp. Ps. 118:22; 1
Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20); but it adds greatly to the weight of his argument
to know that the Jews also conceded them to be such. "Neither of these
passages," says Olshausen, "relates to the Messiah in its immediate
connection, but they had been typically applied to him as early as the Chaldean and Rabbinical paraphrases, and Paul with propriety
so applies them. The Old Testament is one great prophecy of Christ." And
Tholuck says: "Jarchi and Kimchi also testify
that it [416] (Isa. 28:16) was
explained of the Messias." And our Lord was a stone of
stumbling! As Moule
exclaims: "Was ever prophecy more profoundly verified in event?"
If he spake plainly, they were offended; and if he spake in parables, they were equally angered. If he healed,
they took offense; and if he forbore healing, and refused to give a sign, they
were likewise dissatisfied. If he came to the feast, they sought his life; and
if he stayed away, they were busy searching for him. Nothing that he did pleased
them, nothing that he forbore to do won him any favor.
His whole ministry developed an ever-increasing distaste for his person, and
animosity toward his claims. As a final word on this great chapter, let us note
that God's foreordination rejected the Jew by presenting a gospel which appealed
to sinners, and was offensive to that worst class of sinners, the
self-righteous. God sent his Son as Physician to the sick, and those who
supposed themselves well, died of their maladies according to a reasonable,
rational and equitable plan--but also a foreordained plan. This conclusion of
the ninth chapter will be fully discussed in the tenth.] [417]
|