Romans 9 · The Lantern

Paul’s Concern for the Jews

I speak the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit,

Paul, seeing that if, according to those things which he set forth above, he could be separated from the love of Christ by no power, whether heavenly or earthly, present or future, opposing him, it would seem contrary and incredible—what he was now proposing to say: that he wished to become anathema from that Christ whom he loved so inseparably, that is, to be made a stranger t…

Because Paul says that his conscience bears him witness, he shows that he is telling the truth, which conscience corroborates in everyone, and he establishes that he is not charged with lying by an accusation from within.

Having shown the need and power of grace, the Apostle begins to discuss the origin of grace and ask whether it is conferred solely by God's choice or from the merits of previous works. He raises this question because the Jews, seemingly called to God's special protection, had fallen from grace; whereas the gentiles, previously alienated from God, had been admitted to it.

that there is great grief to me and unceasing sorrow in my heart.

Consider, however, the greatness of the apostolic breast. He cannot be separated from the love of God; what he speaks, he speaks in Christ; what he holds in his conscience is contained by the Holy Spirit. What heavens, I ask, what thrones, what most ample minds of the heavenly powers will be able to contain the whole Trinity in seats so ample?

The construction here is incomplete. Paul should have added that his unceasing anguish was due to the rejection or unbelief of the Jews.

Then he shows his affection for the Jews by the pain he suffered from their fall, when he says, that I have great sadness. First, he describes this pain; second, he mentions a sign of it, when he says, for I wished myself. He emphasizes how much pain he has suffered in three ways.

For I myself was wishing to be a curse, separated from Christ, for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

And the Apostle also says, "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh". He prays to be accursed from Christ for the salvation of others.

Why the Apostle Paul writes in the same Epistle to the Romans: I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites, to whom the adoption belongs, and the glory, and the testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to…

Then he presents the sign of his sadness, saying, for I, who am so fervent in the love of Christ, as was shown above, wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren. Here it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word formed by combining ana which means 'above' and thesis which means 'placing,' so that something placed above is said to be anathema.

who are Israelites, whose is the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the lawgiving and the service and the promises,

For although the Jew withal be called "a son," and an "elder one," inasmuch as he had priority in adoption; although, too, he envy the Christian the reconciliation of God the Father,-a point which the opposite side most eagerly catches at,-still it will be no speech of a Jew to the Father: "Behold, in how many years do I serve Thee, and Thy precept have I never transgressed.

"To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father's, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." And what is this? one asks.

Then, when he says who are Israelites, he shows the greatness of the Jews in order that his sadness appear reasonable on account of the ancient dignity of a deteriorating people, for it is a weightier evil to lose greatness than never to have possessed it, as the Gloss says, and not as though it arose solely from worldly love. But he shows their greatness in three ways.

whose are the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. [Romans 9:5] From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah.

Paul reckons so many praises of the nobility and dignity of the Jewish race and of the promises that he might instill grief in everyone over these things; because, by not receiving the Savior, they lost the privilege of the Fathers and the merit of the promise, becoming worse than the Gentiles, whom previously, because they were without God, they hated: for it is worse to have…

Third, he describes the Jews' dignity by their origin, when he says, whose fathers, because they were begotten according to the flesh by those ancestors who were especially acceptable to God: I love your fathers and chose their descendants after them (Deut 4:37); like the first fruit on the fig tree I saw their fathers (Hos 9:1).

God’s Sovereign Choice

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are of Israel, these are Israel;

Since he had said above that for his brethren, "who are his kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites," he would wish even to become anathema, on the ground that theirs was both the adoption of sons, and the giving of the law, and the promises — concerning these he now says that the word of God has not failed, that is, the promise which was made to them has not come to…

"Not as though the word of God had taken none effect." To show that he had courage to bear all these things for the word of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham.

After asserting the greatness of the Jews, the Apostle now shows that it did not refer to those who descended according to the flesh from the ancient patriarchs but to the spiritual progeny chosen by God.

nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children, but, “In Isaac your seed will be called.”

"Nor are all also sons because they are the seed of Abraham." This, evidently, was already being signified then in Abraham, when, though he had many sons — whom the Apostle calls sons of the flesh — the posterity of his seed was placed in Isaac alone, who was the son of the promise.

Not all Jews are children of Abraham, but some still are; and if not all Israelites are from Israel, then some … are from the Gentiles. Even so, the sons of Abraham were named in Isaac alone and not in Ishmael, although he too descended from Abraham's line.

Then he clarifies his statement, at but in Isaac. First, in regard to Abraham; second, in regard to Jacob, at and not only she. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he cites a text from Scripture, saying, but in Isaac will your seed be called. This the Lord said to Abraham, as it says in Genesis 21, when describing the expulsion of Ishmael.

That is, not the children of the flesh, these are children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as seed.

It is clear that children of the flesh cannot be called children of God: for they were born from the desire of the flesh; but these were born spiritually through faith, according to what was promised to Abraham, so that those who believed might be considered offspring.

Ishmael was born of a maidservant by sexual intercourse, but Isaac was begotten by supernatural means from old people, by God's promise. So the promise, which Abraham's faith merited, now makes Christians sons of Abraham, so that Abraham is indeed the father of many nations.

Then he explains the quoted text so far as it applies to his thesis, when he says that is to say, not they who are the sons. To understand this it should be noted that the Apostle says in Galatians: Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.

For the word of the promise is this: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.”

And not only so, but also Rebecca, having conception by one, Isaac our father —

The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: "Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac," she received answer from the Word, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb,…

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac." The subject in question was an important one. Hence he turns to several arguments, and endeavors by all means to solve the difficulty.

Then he clarifies his thesis so far as it concerns Jacob, when he says and not only she. First, he states his intention; second, he clarifies his position, at for when the children were not yet born.

for not yet having been born, nor having done anything good or evil, so that the purpose of God according to election may stand, not of works but of him who calls —

it was said to her that “The older will serve the younger”;

even as it has been written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Thus God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael and the children of Keturah. So also he chose Jacob over Esau, even though both were formed together in the womb. Why be surprised then, if God does the same thing nowadays, by accepting those of you who believe and rejecting those who have not seen the light?

Then he proves his point when he says as it is written, by the authority of the prophet Malachi speaking in the person of God who says: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

What then will we say? Is there injustice with God? Never would it be!

All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called." For there is no unrighteousness with God. Those of either race who have believed, are "a peculiar people." And in the Acts of the Apostles you will find this, word for word, "Those then who received his word were baptized;" but those who would not obey kept themselves aloof.

Paul was afraid that because he had argued that racial privilege is of no consequence in God's sight, or in case the Jews understood him to be saying that already at that time it was indicated that later people would be better people, they might think that he meant that God makes some people good and others evil, because, in the judgment of the Jews, it was unjust to punish tho…

After showing that by God's choice one is preferred to the other not from works but from the grace of the one calling, the Apostle now inquires into the justice of this choice. First, he raises a question; second, he answers it, at God forbid! For he says to Moses; third, he objects against the solution, at you will say therefore to me: why does he still complain?

For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I may show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I may have compassion.”

"For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," saith the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake.

"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Here again he adds force to the objection by dividing it in two and meeting it, and starting another fresh difficulty. But to make what I have said clearer, one must needs explain it.

The text he adduces is from Exodus where the Lord said to Moses: I will be gracious to whom I will and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me (Exod 33:19). But the Apostle quotes it according to the Septuagint version saying: for the Lord says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will show mercy to whom I show mercy.

So then it is not of the one willing nor of the one running, but of God who shows mercy.

What he said, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," is to be taken as David also says in the Psalm: "Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain that build it.

It is clear from this passage that the willing and running are ours, but the fulfillment of our willing and running belongs to the mercy of God. So it is that free will is preserved as far as our willing and running is concerned and that everything depends on the power of God as far as the fulfillment of our willing and running is concerned.

Then he draws his conclusion from the authority he cited, when he says so then it is not of him. This conclusion can be understood in a number of ways; in one way thus: so a man's salvation is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, i.e., it is not owing to anyone through any willing of his own or any outward action, which running is spoken of in 1 Corinthians: so run that y…

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh that “For this very purpose I have raised you up, so that I may show in you my power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth.”

But let us also see of what sort is this which is said to Pharaoh: "For this very purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show in thee my power." It is certain that God not only knows the purpose and will of each one, but even foreknows it.

We read in Exodus [10:1] that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, so that he was not moved even by clear signs. Therefore, because Pharaoh did not obey the commands of God he was punished. No one can say that this hardness of heart came upon Pharaoh undeservedly; it came by the judgment of God who was giving him just punishment for his unbelief.

Then he solves the above problem as it refers to rejection of the wicked, when he says for the Scripture says. First, he quotes an authority; second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore he has mercy on whom he wills. He says, therefore: it has been shown that there is no injustice, when God loves the just from all eternity.

So then he shows mercy to whom he wants, and he hardens whom he wants.

But as for what he says, "Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens," he seems to take it from what is written in Exodus. For there he says: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he may not let the people go." Now Pharaoh's heart was hardened in this way. God was unwilling to bring upon him a sudden and full vengeance.

If this is understood to mean that God has mercy on whom he wills and hardens whom he wills because there is enough wickedness, then your argument will be lost, viz., the argument that not you but the will of the Lord, to which there can be no opposition, is the cause of your sins. The very nature of God's justice opposes this reasoning.

Then when he says, therefore, he has mercy on whom he wills, he draws a conclusion from the two texts cited. From the statement I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, he concludes: therefore he has mercy upon whom he wills: the Lord has mercy on them that fear him (Ps 103:11); from the text, have I raised you, he concludes, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills:…

You will say to me then: “Why then does he still find fault? For who has been resisting his purpose?”

It is superfluous, then, what you say to the Apostle, O you who oppose: "Why then does he still find fault? For who resists his will?" It is certain indeed that no one withstands the will of God; but it is fitting that we know his will to be just and right.

Having given his conclusion [in the last verse] Paul plays devil's advocate by asking a rhetorical question.… He responds to this question in a sensible way so that we might understand that the basic rewards of faith and of unbelief are made plain only to spiritual people and not to those who live according to the earthly man.

Having solved the question proposed, the Apostle objects to the solution, particularly to the last part, which states that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills (Rom 9:18). First, he places the objection; second, the solution, at O man, who are you.

O man, but rather, who are you who is answering against God? Will the thing formed say to the one having formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”

In the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says, "Shall the clay say to the potter? " that is, Shall man contend with God?

How can the thing which is made blame its Maker for the construction of its own nature? Everything must be content with its own nature, whatever that may be.

Then he answers the question, at O man, who are you. To understand his answer it should be noted that with regard to the election of the good and the rejection of the wicked two questions can arise.

Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and one unto dishonor?

And what if God, desiring to show the wrath and to make known his power, bore with much patience vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,

And all these things were being carried out by the opposing powers at work against the teaching of Christ, reckoning that they could extinguish from the life of men the providence of God and faith concerning the resurrection of the Lord.

What Paul is saying is this: God has made this present life one of struggles and not of reward, and he agrees that wicked men and good ones alike will be tested in both good and bad things in order to have an exact touchstone for the predestination of each person.

Then, when he says what if God, willing, he answers the first question, namely, why God wills to be merciful to some and leave others in wretchedness, i.e., to choose some and reject others. Here it should be noted that the end of all divine works is the manifestation of divine goodness: the Lord has made all things for himself (Prov 16:4).

also that he may make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory —

And again, "upon vessels of mercy" — that is, upon those who have cleansed themselves from every stain of sin, from which "no one is clean, not even if his life has been of a single day" — he makes known the riches of his glory: which vessels he prepared unto glory not by some unreasoning or fortuitous grace, but because they had themselves purged themselves of the aforesaid st…

We who were vessels of wrath through our first birth have deserved to become vessels of mercy through the second one. The first birth brought us forth unto death, but the second one recalled us to life. All of us were temples of the devil before baptism, but after baptism we were made ready to become temples of Christ.

Then on the part of the good he likewise sets out three things. First, the end, when he says that he might show the riches of his glory. For the end of the election and mercy shown the good is that he might manifest in them the abundance of his goodness by calling them back from evil, drawing them to justice, and finally leading them into glory.

even us whom he has called, not only out from the Jews but also out from the Gentiles,

But as to what he adds, "whom also he called, even us," it stands for what he would have said thus: Just as we, whom he called "not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles." For he seems to have pursued the preceding remarks as concerning Pharaoh, who was a vessel of wrath, and the children of Israel, who were vessels of mercy.

God did not call all the Jews but only some of them. Nor did he call all the Gentiles but only some of them. From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the grace of God.

After showing that God's grace is given to men as a result of God's election through which men are called to grace, the Apostle shows that such election or calling applies not only to the Jews—as if they could boast on account of what is said in Deuteronomy: he loved your fathers (Deut 4:37)—but also to the gentiles.

as he says also in Hosea: “I will call that which is not my people my people, and her who is not loved, loved.”

For this reason did Hosea the prophet take "a wife of whoredoms," prophesying by means of the action, "that in committing fornication the earth should fornicate from the Lord," that is, the men who are upon the earth; and from men of this stamp it will be God's good pleasure to take out a Church which shall be sanctified by fellowship with His Son, just as that woman was sancti…

The gist of the entire argument leads to this conclusion. Paul taught that we do good by the mercy of God and that the Jews who had received the gospel should not glory in their works, thinking that they had deserved this and not wanting it to be given to the Gentiles.

Then he proves the proposition, when he says as in Hosea he says: first, with respect to the gentiles; second, the Jews, at and Isaiah cried out. In regard to the first he cites two texts from Hosea speaking for the gentiles: the first of these promises them God's gifts; the second, divine sonship, at and it shall be in the place where it was said unto them.

“And it will be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God.”

"For even they shall be called," he says, "the children of the living God." But if they should assert that this was said of those of the Jews who believed, even then the argument stands.

And even, what is more important, sons of the living God. If someone should say that this was spoken about the Jews who had conducted themselves ungratefully but were afterwards received into grace, such an argument does not harm our explanation. For if this acceptance happened with them, what prevented it from happening with the Gentiles?

Then, when he says and it shall be in the place, he cites another text from Hosea in which they are promised the dignity of being sons of God (Hos 1:10), about which the Jews boasted because, as it says in Isaiah: sons have I reared and brought up (Isa 1:2) and in Deuteronomy: is he not your father? (Deut 32:6).

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved;

After he had, through that wisdom of God which Paul speaks among the perfect, set forth the secret and hidden things of the divine dispensation, and had shown by what reasoning and in what order God either displays his wrath in the vessels of wrath or the riches of his glory in the vessels of mercy; and had taught that each one becomes a vessel of wrath from this, that by his o…

If by remnant … we are to understand not election of the justified to eternal life but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is truly hidden and cannot be known by us, who must regard all men as parts of a single lump of clay. If some claim to be able to know it, I must confess my own weakness in this matter.

Then, when he says Isaiah cried out, he proves his proposition with respect to the Jews and presents two texts from Isaiah. The first of these seems to pertain to all the Jews who came to believe; the second particularly to the apostles, at and Isaiah foretold.

for the Lord will perform the sentence upon the earth, concluding it and bringing it swiftly.”

Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it di…

"He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness," he says, "because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." What he means then is somewhat of this sort. There is no need of fetching a circuit, and of trouble, and the vexation of the works of the Law, for the salvation is by a very short way. For such is faith, it holds salvation in a few short words.

Second, at for he shall finish his word, he cites the cause of salvation: first, the efficacy of the word of the Gospel, saying: for he shall finish his word and cut it short in equity. Note here a twofold efficacy of the evangelical word.

And even as Isaiah has foretold: “Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us seed, we should have become like Sodom, and would have been made like Gomorrah.”

"And as Isaiah foretold," he says, "Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have become as Sodom, and should have been made like unto Gomorrah." What seed does Isaiah say was left by the Lord? That, without doubt, which the same Apostle expounds elsewhere, when he says that it was said to Abraham: "To you will I give this land, and to your seed.

Predicted is a good choice of words, because the same thing as he mentioned [in verses 27-28] was written even earlier. God did not allow a few righteous people to perish along with a host of the ungodly. Or this text may mean that this would have happened had Christ, Abraham's offspring, not been sent to set the people free.

Then, when he says and as Isaiah foretold, he cites the texts pertaining specifically to the apostles, saying: and as Isaiah foretold: unless the Lord of the Sabbaoth, that is, of armies or power, had left us, namely, in his mercy, a seed, i.e., the word of the Gospel: the seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11); or a seed, i.e., Christ; and to your seed which is Christ (Gal 3:16);…

Israel’s Unbelief

What then will we say? That Gentiles not pursuing righteousness have grasped righteousness — the righteousness that is by faith;

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have laid hold of righteousness — that righteousness, however, which is of faith." Perhaps this may seem contrary either to those things we said above, that each one should cleanse and purge himself, that he may become a useful vessel and a vessel of mercy; or to those things we discussed earlier,…

If this is spoken in the person of the apostle, Paul here once again imagines that the Jews might say: "If it is not true, as we say, that it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, why have the Gentiles found righteousness, which they never sought before, while Israel could not find it, although they have always sought it?" But if the whole of the above th…

Then he draws the conclusion from the above, when he says what then shall we say? First, with respect to the gentiles; second, with respect to the Jews, at but Israel. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he draws his conclusion, saying: what then shall we say, in the light of the foregoing?

but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law.

"But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law." This passage too, as we said above must be observed, names "law" in different senses within one and the same verse. For it is certain that Israel pursued the law of righteousness according to the letter, but did not attain to the law. What law? Without doubt, that of the spirit.

Paul explains once again why the Jews did not find righteousness. Having wrongly gloried in their works they refused to believe and rejected grace on the ground that they were righteous already.

Then when he says but Israel, he draws his conclusion as regards the Jews. And first he concludes what he intends, saying: but Israel, i.e., the people of the Jews, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice.

Because of why? Because it was not by faith but as by works. They stumbled over the stone of stumbling,

And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be "a stumbling-stone," if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.

The man who sees a stone does not stumble, but the blind man dashes himself against it. This is what happened to the Jews, who were blinded by their hatred and crucified Christ because they did not recognize him.

Second, he assigns the cause, saying, why is it that although they observed the law, they did not fulfill the law? Because they did not observe the law in the proper way. And this is what he says: because they sought it not by faith, i.e., they sought to be made just not through faith in Christ but as it were of works.

even as it has been written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and the one believing on him will never be put to shame.”

Romans9

Paul’s Concern for the Jews

God’s Sovereign Choice

Israel’s Unbelief