Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Romans 9:3

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Romans 9:3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ — This and the two preceding verses are thus paraphrased by Dr. Taylor: I am so far from insisting on the doctrine (of the rejection of the Jews) out of any ill-will to my countrymen, that I solemnly declare, in the sincerity of my heart, without the least fiction or dissimulation-and herein I have the testimony of my own conscience, enlightened and directed by the Spirit of God-that I am so far from taking pleasure in the rejection of the Jewish nation, that, contrariwise, it gives me continual pain and uneasiness, insomuch that, as Moses formerly (when God proposed to cut them off, and in their stead to make him a great nation, Exodus 32:10) begged that he himself should rather die than that the children of Israel should be destroyed, Exodus 32:32, so I could even wish that the exclusion from the visible Church, which will happen to the Jewish nation, might fall to my own share, if hereby they might be kept in it and to this I am inclined by natural affection, for the Jews are my dear brethren and kindred.

Very few passages in the New Testament have puzzled critics and commentators more than this. Every person saw the perfect absurdity of understanding it in a literal sense, as no man in his right mind could wish himself eternally damned in order to save another, or to save even the whole world. And the supposition that such an effect could be produced by such a sacrifice, was equally absurd and monstrous. Therefore various translations have been made of the place, and different solutions offered. Mr. Wakefieid says: "I see no method of solving the difficulty in this verse, which has so exercised the learning and ingenuity of commentators, but by the ευχομαιειναι of Homer, I profess myself to be; and he translates the passage in a parenthesis, thus: (for I also was once an alien from Christ) on account of my brethren, c. But how it does appear that Saul of Tarsus was ever an alien from Christ on account of his kinsmen, is to me perfectly indiscernible. Let us examine the Greek text. Ηυχομην γαρ αυτος εγω αναθεμα ειναι απο του Χριστου ὑπερτων αδελφων μου, 'For I did wish myself to be an anathema FROM Christ (υπο, BY Christ, as some ancient MSS. read) for my brethren.' As ηυχομην is the 1st per. sing. of the imperfect tense, some have been led to think that St. Paul is here mentioning what had passed through his own mind when filled with the love of God, he learned the rejection of the Jews and that he only mentions it here as a thing which, in the effusions of his loving zeal, had been felt by him inconsiderately, and without any Divine afflatus leading him to it; but that he does not intimate that now he felt any such unreasonable and preposterous wish." I am afraid this is but ill calculated to solve the difficulty.

The Greek word αναθεμα, anathema, properly signifies any thing devoted to God, so as to be destroyed: it answers to the Hebrew חרם cherem, which the Septuagint translate by it, and means either a thing or person separated from its former state or condition, and devoted to destruction. In this sense it is used, Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 7:26; Joshua 6:17, Joshua 6:18; Joshua 7:12.

It is certain that the word, both among the Hebrews and Greeks, was used to express a person devoted to destruction for the public safety. In Midrash hanneelam, in Sohar Chadash, fol. 15, Rabbi Chaijah the elder said: "There is no shepherd found like unto Moses, who was willing to lay down his life for the sheep; for Moses said, Exodus 32:32, If thou wilt not pardon their sin, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." Such anathemas, or persons devoted to destruction for the public good, were common among all ancient nations. See the case of M. Curtius and Decius among the Romans. When a plague took place, or any public calamity, it was customary to take one of the lowest or most execrable of the people, and devote him to the Dii Manes or infernal gods. See proofs in Schleusner, and see the observations at the end of the chapter, (Romans 9:33 (note), point 1.). This one circumstance is sufficient to explain the word in this place. Paul desired to be devoted to destruction, as the Jews then were, in order to redeem his countrymen from this most terrible excision. He was willing to become a sacrifice for the public safety, and to give his life to redeem theirs. And, as Christ may be considered as devoting them to destruction, (see Matthew 24:0,) Paul is willing that in their place Christ should devote him: for I could wish myself, αναθεμα ειμαι απο (or, as some excellent MSS. have it, υπο) του χριστου, to be devoted BY Christ, to that temporal destruction to which he has adjudged the disobedient Jews, if by doing so I might redeem them. This, and this alone, seems to be the meaning of the apostle's wish.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

9:1-11:36 A PROBLEM CONCERNING ISRAEL

The problem stated (9:1-5)

As Paul thinks about the greatness of the salvation God has provided, he is filled with sorrow, because his own people, the Jews, have rejected it. He would do anything to see them repent and believe (9:1-3). God chose Israel to be his own special people and prepared them in many ways to receive the gospel. He gave them, among other things, the privileges of sonship, the security of the covenant, a form of worship, a law-code to live by and many outstanding leaders, but when the gospel finally came to them in the person of Christ, they rejected it (4-5). Paul now considers whether God’s plan has failed and whether there is any hope for Israel.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

That I have great sorrow, and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Paul had more than sufficient reason, if he had been of a mean and vindictive spirit, to hold bitterness against his Jewish kinsmen because of their unrelenting persecutions and harassment of his ministry and apostleship. Forty of them, on occasion, had bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had murdered him; and emissaries from the Jews in Jerusalem had dogged his every step on the mission field. They had preferred charges against him before kings and governors; and yet, despite all this, his love for Israel was undiminished. How noble are Paul’s thoughts in such a context as that which frames them here.

Lard and others have pointed out that Paul here omitted a clause which is essential to his meaning, that being "I have great grief and continual sorrow in my heart ON ACCOUNT OF MY COUNTRYMEN." For Paul, that was the unspeakable thing, and he could not, at that point in this letter, bring it out; and thus he approached it from a different angle. Lard has this with reference to this amazing fact:

His countrymen had repudiated Christ; that was the fact which caused his grief and sorrow; that any person should do this is painful enough; that one’s own kin should do it is exquisitely so. The apostle does not yet name the fact that gave him pain, but conceals it until he can bring it out with better effect. Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 292.

I could wish … is the key to understanding Romans 9:3. As Hodge wrote:

The expression is evidently hypothetical and conditional, "I could wish, were the thing allowable, possible, or proper." Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 297.

Paul’s grief was like that of Jesus who "had compassion on the multitude "(Matthew 9:6), and like that of Moses who said, "Blot me out of thy book, I pray thee" (Exodus 32:32); and yet it was not possible for Paul to do the thing which he mentioned, nor should his statement here be viewed as a true expression of what he actually desired to do. That this is true appears from God’s response to the similar request of Moses. The Lord said,

Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book (Exodus 32:33).

That Moses truly felt such a desire and expressed it to God in prayer is a scripturally-authenticated fact; and we may credit Paul with exactly the same emotion here. How great is such love!

Anathema … is used only five times in the New Testament, the other instances of its use being in Acts 23:14, 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22, and Galatians 1:8-9. It means "accursed" and implies eternal death as well as physical death. After a careful and critical study of the New Testament texts where this word is used, Hedge declared that

An anathema was a person devoted to death as accursed. Ibid., p. 296.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

For I could wish ... - This passage has been greatly controverted. Some have proposed to translate it, “I did wish,” as referring to a former state, when he renounced Christ, and sought to advance the interests of the nation by opposing and defying him. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1) The object of the apostle is not to state his former feelings, but his present attachment to his countrymen, and willingness to suffer for them.

(2) The proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not I did wish, but I could desire; that is, if the thing were possible. It is not I do wish, or did wish, but I could desire ἠυχόμην ēuchomēn, implying that he was willing now to endure it; that his present love for them was so strong, that he would, if practicable, save them from the threatened ruin and apostasy.

(3) It is not true that Paul ever did wish before his conversion to be accursed by Christ, that is, by the Messiah. He opposed Jesus of Nazareth; but he did not believe that he was the Messiah. At no time would he have wished to be devoted to destruction “by the Messiah,” or “by Christ.” Nothing would have been more terrible to a Jew; and Saul of Tarsus never doubted that he was the friend of the promised Messiah, and was advancing the true interests of his cause, and defending the hopes of his nation against an impostor. The word, therefore, expresses a feeling which the apostle had, when writing this Epistle, in regard to the condition and prospects of the nation.

Were accursed from Chest - Might be anathema by Christ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ anathema einai apo tou Christou. This passage has been much controverted. The word rendered “accursed” (anathema) properly means,

(1) Anything that was set up, or “set apart,” or consecrated to the gods in the temples, as spoils of war, images, statues, etc. This is its Classical Greek meaning. It has a similar meaning among the Hebrews, It denoted what was set apart or consecrated to the service of God, as sacrifices or offerings of any kind. In this respect it is used to express the sense of the Hebrew word חרם cherem “anything devoted to Yahweh, without the possibility of redemption.” Leviticus 27:21; Leviticus 27:29; Numbers 18:14; Deuteronomy 7:26; Joshua 6:17-18; Joshua 7:1; 1 Samuel 15:21; Ezekiel 44:29.

(2) As what was thus dedicated to Yahweh was alienated from the use of him who devoted it, and was either burnt or slain and devoted to destruction as an offering, the word came to signify a devotion of any thing to destruction, or to complete ruin. And as whatever is devoted to destruction may be said to be subject to a curse, or to be accursed, the word comes to have this signification; 1 Kings 20:42; Isaiah 34:5. But in none of these cases does it denote eternal death. The idea, therefore, in these places is simply, “I could be willing to be destroyed, or devoted, to death, for the sake of my countrymen.” And the apostle evidently means to say that he would be willing to suffer the bitterest evils, to forego all pleasure, to endure any privation and toil, nay, to offer his life, so that he might be wholly devoted to sufferings, as an offering, if he might be the means of benefiting and saving the nation. For a similar case, see Exodus 32:32. This does not mean that Paul would be willing to be damned forever. For,

1. The words do not imply that, and will not bear it.

(2)Such a destruction could in no conceivable way benefit the Jews.

(3)Such a willingness is not and cannot be required. And,

1. It would be impious and absurd. No man has a right to be willing to be the “eternal enemy” of God; and no man ever yet was, or could be willing to endure everlasting torments.

From Christ - By Christ. Grotius thinks it means from the church of Christ. Others think it means “after the example of Christ;” and others, from Christ forever. But it evidently means that he was willing to be devoted by Christ; that is, to be regarded by him, and appointed by him, to suffering and death, if by that means he could save his countrymen. It was thus the highest expression of true patriotism and benevolence. It was an example for all Christians and Christian ministers. They should be willing to be devoted to pain, privation, toil, and death, if by that they could save others from ruin.

My kinsmen ... - My countrymen; all of whom he regarded as his kinsmen, or relations, as descended from the same ancestors.

According to the flesh - By birth. They were of the same blood and parentage, though not now of the same religious belief.

Living By Faith: Commentary on Romans & 1st Corinthians

9:1-5: I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises;5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Paul dramatically emphasized his point in the first verse of this chapter. He said, (1) “I say the truth in Christ,” (2) “I lie not,” and (3) his conscience bore “witness in the Holy Spirit.” A single word (pseudomai) translates the expression I lie not, and Paul used this term when writing other letters (see 2 Corinthians 11:31 b; Galatians 1:20 b; 1 Timothy 2:7 for other places where he used this same word). Here this verb is in the present tense and the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3:496) says it is “a formula of asseveration underscoring the truthfulness of a statement.” Paul’s third statement may have been the apostle’s way of saying the Spirit helped him write this material. Since the Spirit was helping him, he was certainly telling the truth.

Paul used a combination of positive and negative statements to affirm that he was telling the truth. This forceful presentation was done for a specific reason. Paul had left the Jewish faith, and those who had stayed with the Hebrew religion must have viewed him as an apostate Jew. In this letter, Paul taught that the Jews were just as sinful as the Gentiles. He said the Jews needed salvation. In the next section, he said the Jews are no longer God’s special people. Before he led his readers to this conclusion, he wanted them to know that he was telling the truth. Paul also wanted his readers to know that he was concerned about the Jewish people.

If any reader wondered about Paul’s love for the Hebrew nation, he put their questions to rest in verse two. He said “great sorrow and unceasing pain” were in his heart because most Jewish people were lost. When Paul wrote this letter, there was a very clear distinction between the nation of Israel and the church. The church was clearly seen as the body where people are saved, and the Jewish faith was seen as a religion that separated people from God. The system given by Moses is no longer in effect. It was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14).

While the ASV expresses Paul’s pain with the words great sorrow, the KJV says “great heaviness.” The word rendered sorrow/heaviness (lupe), which is here in the present tense, is elsewhere used to describe the pain of childbirth (John 16:21) and the sorrow associated with death (John 16:6). Beyond this, Paul spoke of pain (ASV) or sorrow (KJV), and he said this was unceasing (ASV) or “continual” (KJV). This term (adialeiptos) occurs only here and 2 Timothy 1:3. Outside the New Testament it was used to describe a “continuous cough.” As if these descriptions were not enough, Paul further illustrated his love and sorrow for the Jewish people in verse 3.

At the start of the third verse is a word (euchomai) that has the sense of a strong wish or prayer, and this desire is in the imperfect tense (continuous action). Paul continually and repeatedly was willing to give his soul for the Hebrew nation. While trading one’s soul to save someone else’s is impossible (14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ezekiel 18:19-20), this illustration demonstrated Paul’s great love. Moses expressed a similar love for his people (Exodus 32:32).

The word “anathema” or “accursed” in the KJV (anathema) “frequently translated, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew cherem, which signified a thing devoted to God, whether for His service, as in the case of the sacrifice (Leviticus 27:28), or for its own destruction, e.g., an idol (Deuteronomy 7:26), Jericho (Joshua 6:17)” (Vine, 1:394). In this passage, the word has a negative meaning (i.e. destruction). Because Jesus is life (John 15:5-6), Paul’s willingness to be anathema from Christ describes the loss of his eternal well being as well as all that he held dear in life (Galatians 2:20). Anathema is found only six times in the New Testament, and two of the other places it occurs are Galatians 1:8-9.

Paul had some dear friends who were not in a right relationship with God. Unlike many today who reason “God is a loving God so I am okay,” Paul faced the fact that people who are not abiding by the terms of God’s word are lost. Whether that person is a mother, father, son, daughter, or another dear relative, their relationship to us cannot change what God’s word says (John 10:35, the Scriptures cannot be broken). We may grieve over the choices that friends and family members make, but if it comes to following the Lord or following family, family must be forsaken (Matthew 19:29).

When Paul described the Jewish people (verse 4), he made known what they had received. He listed seven different items that were given to the Hebrews. The first item is in verse 4 (“adoption”). This blessing refers back to Exodus 4:22 and Hosea 11:1. The blessing of adoption allowed Paul to ask, “Has God cast off His child (Israel) for a new child?” “Is God adopting someone else as His son?” (Owen, p. 66). The word adoption (huiothesia) is found only a few times in the New Testament (here, Romans 8:15; Romans 8:23; Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5). It is hardly found in secular Greek until the arrival of Christianity. Now it applies to all people who obey the gospel (Romans 1:5).

The second item, which is also found in verse 4, is described as “the glory.” Glory was at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:16). It was present when the tabernacle was completed (Exodus 40:34), and it was present when judgment came upon the rebels at Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 14:10). The Jews had experienced and enjoyed the glory of God. Paul’s point about glory is similar to the point about adoption. That is, “Was God going to give the glory, once enjoyed by the Jews, to another people?”

The third thing on Paul’s list is described as the “covenants.” In the Old Testament God made covenants with many people (Genesis 15:18; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 31:31-34). Would this blessing continue or would God now make a covenant with someone else?

The fourth item is “the giving of the law.” This blessing goes back to Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 5:1-22). The law was only given to the Jews. In light of this Paul asked, “Is God (has God) abandoned this law and the people who received it?” Concerning this blessing (which is described by a single word that occurs only here in the New Testament-nomothesia ), “Israel had the Law. However, even the Gentiles could boast of having the Law if they wanted it. But only Israel could boast of receiving the Law by direct revelation from nomothetes, ‘the Lawgiver.’ Thus Israel alone could boast of both having the Law, and receiving the Law by direct revelation. This was a great privilege given to Israel” (CBL, GED, 4:268).

In addition to the law, there was “the service of God” (the temple and tabernacle worship). Aaron and his sons carried out this service (Exodus 28:1-43; Exodus 29:1-46). If others tried to perform these religious duties, they were to be killed (see Numbers 16:6-7; Numbers 16:32; Numbers 16:40). Also, no person outside the nation of Israel was to partake of the Passover feast (Exodus 12:43; Exodus 12:45). Would God now allow foreigners to come before Him acting as priests and allow others to partake of the Passover? Compare 1 Corinthians 5:7.

Next on Paul’s list are the “promises.” These promises included those made to Abraham. If Paul had in mind the Abrahamic promise that said a Messiah would come, the question was, “Would God’s promises to Abraham extend to people who are not fleshly Jews?”

The “fathers” mentioned in verse 5 include the patriarchs and other heroes from Israel’s history. These “fathers” helped form the Hebrew nation. Would God turn His back on these men and produce (create) new heroes?

The final point in this paragraph also comes from the 5^th verse. Paul again introduced Jesus and said He was “according to the flesh.” This is very similar to 1:3 where it is said that the Lord was of David’s seed. Paul again told his readers that Jesus was Jewish. However, the Lord was more than a Jewish man. He is Lord “over all.” At the end of verse 5 the word “blessed” (eulogetos) is used. In the New Testament this term is only applied to God (deity). Expositors differ on whether it here describes Christ or God the Father. If it denotes Jesus, it is a clear statement of His deity. Robertson (4:381) boldly claims it is a “clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity”, but he may be too confident in his assertion. Maybe a better understanding is found in Turner’s comment (p. 49): this term “may imply that blessing is due.” Members of the Godhead are worthy of praise and honor, and the proper period to praise them is “for ever” (aion).

Though Jesus met all the requirements of the Old Testament, and He was the Messiah, most in Israel denied and rejected Him. This rejection and God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations caused God to change His relationship with Israel.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

3.For I could wish, etc. He could not have expressed a greater ardour of love than by what he testifies here; for that is surely perfect love which refuses not to die for the salvation of a friend. But there is another word added, anathema , which proves that he speaks not only of temporal but of eternal death; and he explains its meaning when he says, from Christ, for it signifies a separation. And what is to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the hope of salvation? It was then a proof of the most ardent love, that Paul hesitated not to wish for himself that condemnation which he saw impending over the Jews, in order that he might deliver them. It is no objection that he knew that his salvation was based on the election of God, which could by no means fail; for as those ardent feelings hurry us on impetuously, so they see and regard nothing but the object in view. So Paul did not connect God’s election with his wish, but the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the salvation of the Jews.

Many indeed doubt whether this was a lawful desire; but this doubt may be thus removed: the settled boundary of love is, that it proceeds as far as conscience permits; ⁽²⁸⁵⁾ if then we love in God and not without God’s authority, our love can never be too much. And such was the love of Paul; for seeing his own nation endued with so many of God’s benefits, he loved God’s gifts in them, and them on account of God’s gifts; and he deemed it a great evil that those gifts should perish, hence it was that his mind being overwhelmed, he burst forth into this extreme wish. ⁽²⁸⁶⁾

Thus I consent not to the opinion of those who think that Paul spoke these words from regard to God only, and not to men; nor do I agree with others, who say, that without any thought of God, he was influenced only by love to men: but I connect the love of men with a zeal for God’s glory.

I have not, however, as yet explained that which is the chief thing, — that the Jews are here regarded as they were adorned with those singular tokens, by which they were distinguished from the rest of mankind. For God had by his covenant so highly exalted them, that by their fall, the faithfulness and truth of God himself seemed also to fail in the world: for that covenant would have thus become void, the stability of which was promised to be perpetual, as long as the sun and moon should shine in heaven. (Psalms 72:7.) So that the abolition of this would have been more strange, than the sad and ruinous confusion of the whole world. It was not therefore a simple and exclusive regard for men: for though it is better that one member should perish than the whole body; it was yet for this reason that Paul had such a high regard for the Jews, because he viewed them as bearing the character, and, as they commonly say, the quality of an elect people; and this will appear more evident, as we shall soon see, from what follows.

The words, my kinsmen according to the flesh, though they contain nothing new, do yet serve much for amplification. For first, lest any one should think that he willingly, or of his own accord, sought cause of quarrel with the Jews, he intimates, that he had not put off the feeling of kindred, so as not to be affected with the destruction of his own flesh. And secondly, since it was necessary that the gospel, of which he was the preacher, should go forth from Sion, he does not in vain pronounce an eulogy in so many words on his own kindred. For the qualifying expression, according to the flesh, is not in my view added for the sake of extenuation, as in other places, but, on the contrary, for the sake of expressing his faith: for though the Jews had disowned Paul, he yet concealed not the fact, that he had sprung from that nation, the election of whom was still strong in the root, though the branches had withered. What Budoeus says of the word anathema , is inconsistent with the opinion of [Chrysostom ] , who makes ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα , to be the same.

(285) “Ut ad aras usque procedat.” [Ainsworth ] gives a similar phrase and explains its reason, “Usque ad aras amicus — As far as conscience permits,” Gell., because in swearing they held the horns of the altar. — Ed.

(286) Most of those who take this view of the passage express the implied condition more distinctly than is done here. They have regarded the wish in this sense, “I could wish were it right or lawful.” So thought [Chrysostom ] , [Photius ] , [Theophlylact ] , [Luther ] , [Parcus ], [Beza ] , [Estius ] , [Lightfoot ] , [Witsius ] , [Mode ] , [Whitby ] , and others. The words of [Photius ] are given by [Wolfius ] , “He says not, I wish to be separated, but I could wish, that is, were it possible— ἠυχόμην ἂν τουτ ἐστιν εἰ δυνατὸν ἦν, ” [Stuart ] and [Hodge ] adopt the same view. “It was a conditional wish,” says [Pareus ] , “like that of Christ in Matthew 26:39. Christ knew and Paul knew that it could not be granted, and yet both expressed their strong desire.” See Exodus 32:32

Almost all critics agree that the Vulgate is wrong in rendering the verb optabam — “I did wish,” as though the Apostle referred to the time, as [Ambrose ] supposed, when he was a Pharisee; but this is wholly inconsistent with the tenor of the passage. [Erasmus ] , [Grotius ] , [Beza ] , and most others regard the verb as having an optative meaning; ἂν being understood after it, as the case is withἐβουλόμην in Acts 25:22, andἤθελον in Galatians 4:20

There are two other opinions which deserve notice. The first is, that “anathema “ here means excommunication, and that “from Christ” signifies from his Church, Christ the head being taken for his body the Church, as in 1 Corinthians 12:12, and in Galatians 3:27, according to the manner of the Hebrews, as [Grotius ] says, who called the wife by the name of the husband, Isaiah 4:1. This is the view taken by [Hammond ] , [Grotius ] , and some of the Lutheran divines. But the word “anathema “ has not in Scripture this meaning, though in after-ages it had attained it both in the Church and among the Rabbins. In the New Testament it occurs only here and in Acts 23:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3; and Galatians 1:8; and the verbἀναθεματίζω is found in Mark 14:71; Acts 23:12; and withκατὰ prefixed in Matthew 26:74. The corresponding word in Hebrew, הרם, rendered “ anathema “ by the Septuagint, means two things: what is separated for a holy purpose and wholly devoted to God, incapable of being redeemed, Leviticus 27:28; and what is set apart and devoted to death or destruction, Joshua 6:17; Ezra 10:8. It never means excommunication, but cutting off by death. Compare Exodus 22:20, and Deuteronomy 13:1. It has hence been applied to designate a man that is execrable and accursed, deserving death. So the Apostle uses it in 1 Corinthians 16:22, and Galatians 1:8

The other view is more in accordance with the meaning of the term. It is thought that “anathema “ means an ignominious death, and that of one apparently separated from Christ; or that he wished to be made “an anathema” by Christ, or for the sake of Christ, or after Christ, that is, his example. The wordsἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ create all the difficulty in this case. This is the explanation given by [Jerome ] , [Locke ] , [Limborch ] , [Doddridge ] , and [Scott ] The first meaning, however, as materially given by [Calvin ] , is the most obvious and natural.

Both [Haldane ] and [Chalmers ] follow the Vulgate, and put the clause in a parenthesis, as expressing the Apostle’s wish when unconverted; but there is altogether an incongruity in the terms he employs to express this wish; he surely would not have said that he wished to be separated from Christ as an accursed thing, for that is the meaning of anathema; for while he was a Pharisee he deemed it a privilege and an honour even to persecute Christ. And we cannot suppose that the Apostle would now describe his former wish in terms unsuitable to what it really was, but as he now regarded it. — Ed.

Smith's Bible Commentary

Paul has just closed the eighth chapter of Romans in which he has taken us into the very peaks of the spiritual experiences that are ours in Christ Jesus. Showing us that we have this glorious place in the Lord where nothing can separate us from the love of God, neither tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or peril, nor nakedness, nor sword, for he is persuaded and in all these things we are more than conquerors. And that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any other creature shall be able to separate you from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Oh, what a glorious, beautiful place. Now as Paul sees what God has done for the Gentiles in bringing them into this glorious relationship with God, and as he considers these blessings that God has poured out upon the Gentile believers, his heart now turns toward his brethren according to the flesh, the Jews. Paul is going to show how that God in His sovereignty for the time being has set aside the Jew as a nation of divine favor. That the Jew today is no different than the Gentile as far as God is concerned. That they do not have, at this point, a favorite nation status with God. But that if they are going to enter into the richness and the fullness of God's love they must come as the Gentile through Jesus Christ.

Now because this is considered treason as far as the Jew is concerned, and because Paul knows that he is going to be accused, no doubt, by the Jew, of bitterness, because of his rejection, he seeks to point out to them that he is not bitter against the Jew. And as he is going to talk to them about these issues of God's grace being poured out upon all and any who will believe Jew or Gentile, he seeks to show from the scripture that this was prophetically declared and also seeks to declare from his own heart there is no animosity or bitterness against his brother. And he makes that plain in the strongest of statements beginning with chapter 9.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also is bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit ( Romans 9:1 ),

So how much can you affirm that what you are about to say is in reality the truth of your own heart? I say the truth in Christ, my conscience also bears me witness in the Holy Spirit.

That I have a great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh ( Romans 9:2-3 ):

That is an extremely strong statement that I do not believe that I could honestly make, and yet Paul affirmed that it is true. In his own case his conscience bears him record in the Holy Spirit. That he has such a great heaviness, such a great burden for his brothers, the Jewish people, that he could even, if possible, wish himself to be accursed from Christ for their sake if it would bring them all salvation.

This causes us to recall a statement by Moses in Exodus 32 , after Israel had utterly failed God. God said to Moses, "Stand back, Moses. I am going to wipe them all out." Moses interceded for the nation and he asked God to show mercy. Then Moses said, "If not, then I pray that you will blot my name out of the book of remembrances." Now lest we exalt man and make God the villain and man the hero of the story, it is important that we recognize that these men could not have this great burden for Israel unless they had received it directly from the heart of God. It was God who put in Moses' heart this intercession, because God was looking for an excuse to show mercy. And so when Moses made this great declaration, "And if not then, God, blot my name out of Your book of remembrances." God then said, "I will show mercy upon whom I will show mercy." God retreated into His sovereignty so He could forgive them and show His mercy to them. But it was God who prompted the heart of Moses.

It was God who prompted the heart of Paul for this great burden for the people. Yet, that which Paul was expressing is not possible nor necessary, for there is one who has already been accursed by God in order that the Jews might be saved.

For Christ became a curse for us. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs upon the tree." And Jesus already took the curse of God for man's sin and provided for Israel's salvation. So Paul's declaration, as noble as it is, is really . . . When my mother had incurable cancer and was staying at our home and we were taking care of her during in those final days, she had experienced a lot of pain. And yet, the angel that she was never once did I hear her complain about the suffering or pain, yet we knew that she was going through it. And when we would slip into her room, we would find her hands raised as she would lie there in the bed just praising the Lord and worshipping Him. She spent her last days just praising the Lord and worshipping Him, not able to sleep, really, because of the pain and all.

So one morning I slipped into the room and I was heavy of heart because of her condition. My mother and I were always very close. I feel that one of the greatest blessings of life are those women that God has placed around my life: my mother and my wife, my sister, and my beautiful daughters; all of them godly women. How blessed I am. But I knelt down at the foot of her bed and I was softly praying and I said, "Lord, I am no hero, but I wish that You would take my mother's pain and just lay it on me for awhile. Let me bear it just a few days that she might have some relief from this suffering."

Never in my life have I experienced the presence of Jesus Christ or had Him speak to me so plainly as He did that morning. For Jesus came and He stood right beside me and He spoke to me and He said, "Chuck, that is a foolish request, for I have already borne her pain for her." I said, "Oh, Lord, I thank you." I realized that was a foolish request. "Forgive me, Father, for my foolishness." And immediately my mother was healed. The Lord had taken the pain and from that moment on she did not experience any more pain. The Lord took it and it was just a glorious experience of God's touch and the presence and the power of Jesus Christ demonstrated there.

I'm sure that after Paul made this kind of statement the Lord probably said, "Paul, that is a foolish statement." Noble? Yes. Expressing a deep burden and heart? Yes. But yet, to wish yourself accursed for their sake is not necessary, nor would it do anything for them, as Paul realized. But he just expressed the depth of his burden for those people. We are standing, really, before a giant. It is hard for us to understand this kind of a statement. Paul goes on to speak of his kinsman, his brothers according to the flesh. He said,

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption ( Romans 9:4 ),

That is, they were God's chosen race of people. God had said to them, "You will be My people and I will be your God." God adopted them as His family. And then belonged to them the glory, that Shekinah presence of God. When the tabernacle was completed and all set up and they began the service, the glory of God, or the Shekinah came down in the temple and the presence of God's glory was so great that the priest could not even stand to minister there in the temple. It was just the presence of God's glory, the Shekinah. Unto them belong the Shekinah which dwelt in the Holy of Holies. Unto them were the covenants made.

God established His covenant with Abraham, "In blessing I will bless thee," and then He repeated the covenant to Isaac, and later to Jacob, and then later to David, and to them belong the covenants. Unto them God gave the law, and unto them God showed them how they were to worship Him in the temple worship. And finally, unto them were the promises that God had made throughout the Old Testament to this people and to these nations, and especially the promise of the Messiah. They have the patriarchs,

the fathers [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob], and of whom as concerning the flesh the Messiah came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen ( Romans 9:5 ).

That is an unfortunate translation. If you translate that literally, this is the strongest statement made by Paul the apostle concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. For this particular verse, translated literally from the Greek, declares, "and of whom as of concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed forever." So the declaration that Jesus is indeed God over all, blessed forever.

Now they had received the Word of God, they had received the covenant, they had received the promises, they had received the law, and so Paul said,

Not as though the word of God did not take effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel ( Romans 9:6 ):

Now, that is using Israel in a spiritual sense. The word literally means "governed by God," and it was the name that was given to Jacob after he had wrestled with the Lord all night long. And in the morning when the light began to break and Jacob was a broken man. In a little while he is going to be meeting his brother Esau with 200 men, and the last time he saw Esau he was threatening to kill him. He is a broken man. The angel of the Lord finally touched his thigh and made him a cripple. And in this crippled, broken state, defeated, the angel said, "Let me go, the day is breaking," and he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." Really, that isn't quite as it sounds, because Hosea tells us that he said that with weeping and tears. He wasn't now coming from a position of advantage, but from a position of desperation and defeat and really should probably be, "Please don't go without blessing me," as he was weeping and crying, a broken man. And the angel said unto him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Heel catcher." And the angel said unto him, "Your name will not longer be Heel catcher, but Israel, Governed by God."

Now, just because a man says, "Well, I am an Israelite," does not necessarily mean that he is governed by God. So not all who are Israel are really Israel.

Not all who say, "I am a Christian," are really Christ-like, which the name is supposed to imply. Christ-like, "Well, I am a Christian." You are more like the devil. So it's not the name. And so there were those that were boasting. They thought because we are Israel, we are of Israel. We are descendants of Israel. Well, not all are Israel who are of Israel; not all of them are governed by God who descended from this man.

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they necessarily the children of God: [for God said,] In Isaac shall thy seed by called ( Romans 9:7 ).

Just being a physical descendant of Abraham did not entitle you to the promises and the covenants and blessings of Abraham.

For God was developing not a physical fleshly seed, but a spiritual seed, and Ishmael was the son after the flesh and God would not recognize Ishmael. Isaac was the son of promise, the one after the Spirit, and God recognized Isaac. And later on God said to Abraham, "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac," as He refused to recognize the works of the flesh. Isn't it interesting that we so often are seeking to offer to God works of our flesh, hoping that God might recognize them? He won't. I am really sort of grateful that He doesn't recognize the works of the flesh. Because I have some works that I just as soon He not make note of. He only recognizes that work of the Spirit. He only recognized Isaac, so God said, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called."

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, are not necessarily the children of God: but the children of the promise are the ones who are counted the seed ( Romans 9:8 ).

So Ishmael and his descendants, the children of the flesh, are not the children of God, but those who are of the promise Isaac.

For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca [now just taking it one step further,] also had conceived by our father Isaac; (and the children not yet born, and thus they had not done any good or evil up to this point, in order that the purposes of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls;) it was said unto her, [while she was still pregnant] The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I loved less ( Romans 9:9-13 ).

Immediately we might say, "Well, that isn't fair." And Paul does anticipate that reaction. In verse Romans 9:14 , he says,

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? [God not fair?] God forbid ( Romans 9:14 ).

How can God make that statement of children before they are ever born? Declaring I love one and hate the other, and I have chosen the one over the other. That does seem unfair, doesn't it? Don't look so sanctimonious, of course it does.

However, what we must take into consideration, and we don't always take into consideration in these things, is that God knows all things from the beginning. And God knew the entire life history of Jacob and Esau before they were ever born, even as He knew your life history before you were ever born. And because He knew that Esau would be a man of the flesh, and Jacob would be more a man of the Spirit, though he was a deceiver, a conniver and everything else, God knowing all of these things, and it is through the foreknowledge that God made that decision and that choice, the elder shall serve the younger. So we can't really fault God and say, "Well, they didn't do anything and God made the choice." No, God already knew what they were going to do, even as God already knows what you are going to do. That is why we are told in Ephesians that one of the blessings we have is that we were chosen in Him before the foundations of the world. How is it that God could choose me before He ever created the world? Because He knew me then. He knew all about me then, because God is omniscient. He knows all things, and known unto Him from the beginning are all things. And so on the basis of that foreknowledge, God made His election or His choice. Thus, that we are standing not by our works, but by the fact that God has elected us, even as Jesus said to His disciples, "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you and ordained that you should be My disciples, that you should bring forth fruit and that your fruit should remain" ( John 15:16 ).

So the Lord can say to every one of us tonight who are in Christ, "You have not chosen Me, but I chose you." Now when the evangelists have you raise your hand and choose Christ, I thought that I was choosing the Lord. But in reality, He had called me. He had elected me and had chosen me already, and I was only responding as He knew from the beginning that I would respond to His love. It didn't surprise God and he didn't say, "Wow, look at that. Can you believe that? He is going to join with us." No surprise to God. He knew all the while and that is why He elected me and chose me, because of His foreknowledge.

So is there unrighteousness with God? No, God forbid. Perish the thought. For God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" ( Exodus 33:19 ). And remember, God said this when in righteousness He should have wiped them all out. They had rebelled against God and the authority of God, and God should have at this point wiped them all out and was even saying to Moses, "Stand back so that I can." And God was looking for the excuse to show mercy, and so He placed it upon Moses' heart to intercede and God responded and said,

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion ( Romans 9:15 ).

And God had compassion upon Israel and showed mercy.

So then it is not of him that wills, [it is not by our resolves,] nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy ( Romans 9:16 ).

The sovereignty of God, in His divine election, in His predestination, in His choosing. It isn't that I made my great resolve, that I have willed, nor is it my works that I have run, but that it might stand by election God chose me.

Thus, I can't really boast in what I am or what I have done, or even what I hope to do. All I can do is boast in the grace and mercy of God that chose a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now I am found. I was blind, but now I see. Oh, that amazing grace of God.

For the scripture says concerning Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore he has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth ( Romans 9:17-18 ).

Now that doesn't sound fair. However, using Pharaoh as the example as God declares, "I will harden whom I will harden." As we go back to the story of Pharaoh, we read, "And Pharaoh hardened his heart against the Lord . . . and Pharaoh hardened his heart against the Lord." And we read that ten different times that Pharaoh hardened his heart against the Lord. And after declaring ten times that Pharaoh hardened his heart against the Lord, it said, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh."

Now it is interesting that two different Hebrew words are employed here. The one that says, "Pharaoh hardened his heart against the Lord" is just as it is translated. But where it said, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," the Hebrew word literally is "the Lord made firm or stiffened the heart of Pharaoh." So that here is Pharaoh hardening his heart, hardening his heart, hardening his heart, and finally God moves in and He firms Pharaoh in . . . and He sets him really in that hardened condition.

Now I do believe that if a man hardens his heart over and over and over against God that is a possibility that God will then go ahead and make firm that person's choice and decision. He will stiffen him in it and that, of course, is a tragic day, because I believe that constitutes, really, the unpardonable sin. When a man has gone so far in hardening his heart against God that God then makes firm his heart. In Joh 12:39 we read, "Therefore they could not believe," not, "they would not," "they could not." They had hardened their heart against Jesus. They had seen miracle after miracle, demonstration after demonstration. He said, "If you don't believe Me, believe the works that I do because they testify to you."

Thus, every miracle that Christ did was a testimony to them that He was indeed the Messiah, but they hardened their hearts and they hardened their hearts and they hardened their hearts, until finally John tells us, "Therefore they could not believe." Be careful if you are hardening your heart against God, lest you come to that place where God will make firm your heart. Thus, God declared, "Those I will I will harden and those who I will have mercy upon, I will show mercy."

Then you say, [Paul said,] Well then how can God find fault with me? ( Romans 9:19 )

If it was God who hardened my heart, then how can He find fault with me for having a hard heart? Because if it is God's will that I live like I do and am opposed to Him.

How can I resist God's will? ( Romans 9:19 )

He said,

Oh come on O man, who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? ( Romans 9:20 )

There are a lot of people who do not want to take responsibility for what they are or what they do. Thus, they seek to blame God. They say, "Well, God just made me this way," and they seek to blame God. Adam sought to blame God from the beginning when God said, "Adam, what have you done?" He said, "It is that woman that You gave to me." Your fault! And man, it seems, seeks to blame God for what he is. "Who can resist His will? If God made me this way I can't resist His will."

Has not the potter the power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? ( Romans 9:21 )

Paul now introduces the figure of the potter and the clay to express to us God's relationship with man in demonstrating that awesome sovereignty of God over man. As the potter has the power over a lump of clay from the same lump to make a beautiful, honorable vessel or to make a vessel of dishonor fit to be thrown away.

God can create all kinds and so,

What if God, willing to show forth his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath that were fitted for destruction ( Romans 9:22 ):

Now God is long-suffering. He was long-suffering to Pharaoh. He let Pharaoh get by with so much before He finally struck with power. There are people, unfortunately, who misinterpret the long-suffering of God. Some of them interpret it as weakness, because God let's you get by with so much evil and He hasn't already smitten you. You think, "Well, He isn't able to, you know." Or even worse, there are some people who misinterpret the long-suffering of God as approval. "Well, if God didn't like the way I am living, why didn't He wipe me out? You know, He could have. He had every opportunity, and thus, because He hadn't wiped me out, it must mean that God approves the things that I am doing." That is a tragic mistake when a person misinterprets the long-suffering of God. God is longsuffering even with the evil those that are prepared for destruction. He let's them live their span of life so often. Even though they are destined for destruction. He is patient. He is long-suffering with them. He puts up with an awful lot.

But on the other hand,

that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared for glory ( Romans 9:23 ),

So God has prepared us for glory that we might experience the riches of His glory, vessels of mercy.

Even us, whom he has called, not just Jews, but also Gentiles. And as God said in the prophecy of Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and I will call her beloved, who was not beloved ( Romans 9:24-25 ).

As God speaks through Hosea, the fact that the door of His mercy and grace will be open to the Gentiles and He will call them His people who are really not His people, who are not the nation of Israel. And He will call them beloved who were not beloved.

And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, You were not my people; there shall you be called the children of the living God. Now Isaiah also cried concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved ( Romans 9:26-27 ):

So not all are Israel who are descendants of Israel, though the number as God promised Abraham would be as the sands of the sea, innumerable. Yet, Isaiah said, "Only a remnant and only a part of them are going to experience salvation."

For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabbath had left us a seed, we had been destroyed like Sodom, and Gomorrah. What shall we say then? The Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; [which was Jesus Christ] As it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him will not be ashamed ( Romans 9:28-33 ).

So if Christ became a stumbling stone for Israel and continues to be such today, and thus, Israel who sought righteousness through the law never did attain it. However, the Gentiles who did not seek righteousness through the law, but sought that righteousness through faith have attained the righteousness of God. Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 5 , "Except your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees you shall not enter into the kingdom of God." That is a very alarming, shocking, statement and I am sure that the disciples just were really taken back by that, because no one, but no one followed the righteousness of the law more circumspectly than the Pharisees.

And yet, Jesus said, "Unless you are more righteous than those fellows you can't make it in." And I would imagine that the immediate effect of that would be, "Well, forget it. There is no way I can do it." That would indeed be so if you were seeking righteousness by the law. You might as well forget it, because you will never be able to exceed what these fellows were doing. But the Gentiles who were not seeking after this righteousness through the law did attain to that righteousness. Why? Because they sought it by faith. Now Paul the apostle who had attained the righteousness through the law, in his own eyes but not in God's eyes, as he spoke of his past in his Philippian epistle said, "If any man thinks he has wherein to boast, I can boast more than all of you, for I was born of the tribe of Benjamin. I was a Hebrew of Hebrew. I was circumcised the eighth day. Concerning zeal I was a Pharisee and I persecuted the church. And concerning the righteousness which came by the law, I was the blameless. But those things which were gain to me I counted loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, for whom I suffered the loss of all things. I count it as refuse that I may know Him and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of Christ through faith" ( Philippians 3:4-8 ). I would gladly chuck the past, count it as nothing, that I may know Him and be found in Him, not having that righteousness which is of the law which I once had. But now this righteousness which is of Christ through faith.

I heard this illustrated once in a very interesting way. They said that there was this girl who was extremely poor but had gone to a fashionable college, but had to work her way through the college. As it came time for the graduation ceremony, she was to graduate that year, she wanted to have a new dress for the graduation ceremony, as all the girls were getting new clothes, decked out in new clothes. Because she was very poor and didn't have . . . only that which she was able to provide the meager wages that she had. She went down to the five and dime and bought one of these patterns, and then bought some material at $2.95 per yard on special. And though she was inexperienced at sewing, she went home and carefully followed the instructions. Laid out the patterns, cut out the dress, and begin to sew it together. Due to her lack of experience the seams weren't that straight. But by and by and after removing a lot of seams and resewing, she was able to assemble the thing together. So she went out into the dorm where the other girls were and she said, "Look, this is my new dress. I am going to wear it to the graduation party." They all looked at her finest efforts and smiled politely and told her it looked nice. But about that moment, Lady Bountiful came into the room and said to her, "Young lady, I would like you to go with me." So she went with this lady outside where there was a chauffeur-driven car and they drove down to Saks Fifth Avenue. And the valet parked the car as they walked in, and as they sat in the comfort of those plush lounges, the models came by wearing these beautiful, gorgeous, original creations. Finally, a model came in with a dress that was so stunning and so spectacular that just as a reflex action she just gasped at its beauty.

Lady Bountiful noticed her reaction and called the model to come over closer that they might inspect the dress more carefully. As the model was turning around and showing the various facets of the dress, she saw the little tag flipping, and it was four thousand dollars. And she thought, "Oh, my. I didn't know that there was that much money in the world." Lady Bountiful could see that the dress pleased her, and so she ordered the clerk to wrap it up and deliver it to the car. When they came back to the dormitory, as she was let out of the car, Lady Bountiful handed her the dress and said, "I hope you will have a wonderful time at the graduation ball." She now went into her room and took the dress out and put it on and it fit perfectly. And she walked out into the dormitory now to all the girls that were there, and as they gasped over the beauty of the dress she was wearing, she said, "Look at my graduation dress. No longer the works of my own hands, but something that I could have never done for myself." A gift of grace.

So we patch our rags together and say, "God, aren't I beautiful? How do you like it, Lord?" Crooked seams, cheap material, uneven hems, and God clothes us in His righteousness. Something that we could never earn for ourselves, something we could never do for ourselves, but comes to us as the gift of God's grace.

So the Gentiles achieved that which the Jews could not achieve, because they were seeking to find it by the law, but the Gentiles accepting by faith attained to the righteousness of God through faith. As the Jews stumbled over Jesus Christ we have accepted Him. We have received Him, and because of our faith in Jesus Christ, God imputes our faith for righteousness and He accounts us righteous even as He is righteous. For the righteousness of Christ is imparted to me through my faith in Jesus Christ. So I am now clothed, not in my own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of Christ through faith. Paul is saying, "How do you like it? I could have never done this myself, though I was a Pharisee of the Pharisees and zealous and all, I could have never done this for myself. But look what God has given to me. Look how God has clothed me. And the rest of it is just junk as far as I am concerned, the past glories and credits. Nothing that I may know Him."

"

Contending for the Faith

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ: "Accursed" (a)na/qema) means:

That which has been cursed, cursed, accursed….what is "devoted to the divinity" can be either consecrated or accursed. The meaning of the word in the other N. T. passages moves definitely in the direction of the latter…object of a curse…I could wish that I myself would be accursed (and therefore separated) from Christ Romans 9:3 (BDAG 63).

This technical definition is necessary because many seek to escape Paul’s obvious meaning. The matter before him is so serious and causes such great heartrending pain that Paul would be willing to forfeit his own communion with Christ on behalf of his countrymen if they could be persuaded to believe and obey the gospel of Christ. We are reminded of the plea of Moses:

And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written (Exodus 32:31-32).

Clearly, Paul was willing to suffer the loss of his soul’s salvation if thereby he could prevent the terrible destruction impending upon the Jewish nation as a whole and even worse upon each unbelieving Jew as an individual. For not only was the fate of the nation sealed because of her unbelief, that is, the destruction of Jerusalem and even the Temple (Matthew 24:1-51), but also the eternal destiny of every Jew who failed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah was determined (John 8:24; John 12:44-50).

It is critically important, however, to preserve the imperfect tense of the verb—"could wish (hu)xo/mhn – a first person singular imperfect middle deponent indicative of eu&xomai – AGLP 198)." The idea expressed is "if I could help them I would wish" or "in order to help them I would be glad to." Ernest Burton in his book, Syntax Of The Moods And Tenses In New Testament Greek, says, " ’I could pray’ expresses the meaning with approximate accuracy" (16). Paul did not actually wish or pray for himself to be accursed and separated from Christ because his giving up Christ would not have, in fact, brought his brethren to Christ. His anguish is so great, however, that if it would have done any good toward saving Israel he could have wished to sacrifice his own salvation. Cranfield says:

Of the various grammatically possible explanations the most probable is surely that which takes Paul to mean that he would pray in the way indicated, were it permissible for him so to do and if the fulfillment of such a prayer could benefit his fellow- Jews, but does not do so, because he realizes it would be wrong and fruitless (219).

for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: By naming them as "my brethren," Paul points out the personal bond existent between himself and his fellow nationals. They are his countrymen, even his blood relatives. Paul’s patriotic feeling for his nation is evident; however, he hastens to add that they are his brethren and kinsmen in the flesh. Oh, how he wishes he could call them his brethren and kinsmen also according to the spirit. As Lenski says, "So much had God thought of them, such high prerogatives he had bestowed on them. Therefore, Paul still thinks of them with such devotion and, alas, with such grief" (584).

Jesus, himself, bears this same relationship to Israel. According to the flesh, He belongs to Israel; but according to the Spirit, He is God who is over all, blessed forever—as we shall see (9:4-5).

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

1. God’s blessing on Israel 9:1-5

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

"I could wish" introduces a wish that God would not possibly grant (Romans 8:35). Nevertheless it was a sincere wish. Paul had given up many things for the salvation of others (Philippians 3:8). Moses voiced a similar self-sacrificing wish for the Israelites’ salvation (Exodus 32:30-35). Paul’s brethren here were not his spiritual but his racial brothers and sisters. Even though he was "the apostle to the Gentiles" he still took pleasure in being a Jew.

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 9

THE PROBLEM OF THE JEWS ( Romans 9:1-6 )

In Romans 9:1-33; Romans 10:1-21; Romans 11:1-36 Paul tries to deal with one of the most bewildering problems that the Church has to solve--the problem of the Jews. They were God's chosen people; they had had a unique place in God's purposes; and yet when God's Son had come into the world they had rejected him and crucified him. How is this tragic paradox to be explained? That is the problem with which Paul seeks to deal in these chapters. They are complicated and difficult, and, before we begin to study them in detail, it will be well to set out the broad lines of the solution which Paul presented.

One thing we must note before we begin to disentangle Paul's thought--the chapters were written not in anger but in heartbreak. He could never forget that he was a Jew and he would gladly have laid down his own life if, by so doing, he could have brought his brethren to Jesus Christ.

Paul never denies that the Jews were the chosen people. God adopted them as his own; he gave them the covenants and the service of the Temple and the law; he gave them the presence of his own glory; he gave them the patriarchs. Above all Jesus was a Jew. The special place of the Jews in God's economy of salvation Paul accepts as an axiom and as the starting-point of the whole problem.

The first point which he makes is this--it is true that the Jews as a nation rejected and crucified Jesus, but it is also true, that not all the Jews rejected him; some received him and believed in him, for all the early followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul then looks back on history and insists that racial descent from Abraham does not make a Jew. Over and over again in Jewish history there was in God's ways a process of selection--Paul calls it election--whereby some of those who were racial descendants of Abraham were chosen and some rejected. In the case of Abraham, Isaac, the son born according to the promise of God, was chosen, but Ishmael, the son born of purely natural desire, was not. In the case of Isaac, his son Jacob was chosen, but Esau, Jacob's twin, was not. This selection had nothing to do with merit; it was the work entirely of God's electing wisdom and power.

Further, the real chosen people never lay in the whole nation; it always lay in the righteous remnant, the few who were true to God when all others denied him. It was so in the days of Elijah, when seven thousand remained faithful to God after the rest of the nation had gone after Baal. It was an essential part of the teaching of Isaiah, who said: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant Of them will be saved" ( Isaiah 10:22; Romans 9:27). Paul's first point is that at no time were the whole people the chosen people. There was always selection, election, on the part of God.

Is it fair of God to elect some and to reject others? And, if some men are elected and others are rejected through no virtue or fault of their own, how can you blame them if they reject Christ, and how can you praise them if they accept him? Here Paul uses an argument at which the mind staggers, and from which we quite properly recoil. Bluntly, it is that God can do what he likes and that man has no right whatever to question his decisions, however inscrutable they may be. The clay cannot talk back to the potter. A craftsman may make two vessels, one for an honourable purpose and another for a menial purpose; the vessels have nothing whatever to do with it. That, said Paul, is what God has a right to do with men. He quotes the instance of Pharaoh ( Romans 9:17) and says that he was brought on to the stage of history simply to be the instrument through which God's avenging power was demonstrated. In any event, the people of Israel had been forewarned of the election of the Gentiles and of their own rejection, for, did not the prophet Hosea write: "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people', and her who was not beloved I will call 'my beloved'" ( Hosea 1:10; Romans 9:25).

However, this rejection of Israel was not callous and haphazard. The door was shut to the Jews that it might be opened to the Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of the Jews and blinded their eyes with the ultimate purpose of opening a way for the Gentiles into the faith. Here is a strange and terrible argument. Stripped of all its non-essentials, it is that God can do what he likes with any man or nation. and that he deliberately darkened the minds and shut the eyes of the Jews in order that the Gentiles might come in.

What was the fundamental mistake of the Jews? This may seem a curious question to ask in view of what we have just said. But, paradoxically, Paul holds that though the rejection of the Jews was the work of God, it need never have happened. He cannot get rid of the eternal paradox--nor does he desire to--that at one and the same time all is of God and man has free-will. The fundamental mistake of the Jews was that they tried to get into a right relationship with God through their own efforts. They tried to earn salvation; whereas the Gentiles simply accepted the offer of God in perfect trust. The Jews should have known that the only way to God was the way of faith and that human achievement led nowhere. Did not Isaiah say: "No one who believes in him will be put to shame"? ( Isaiah 28:16; Romans 10:11.) Did not Joel say: "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved"? ( Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13.) True, no man can have faith until he hears the offer of God; but to the Jews that offer was made. They clung to the way of human achievement through obedience to the law; they staked everything on works, but they should have known that the way to God was the way of faith, for the prophets had told them so.

Once again it is to be stressed that all this was God's arrangement; and that it was so arranged to allow the Gentiles to come in. Paul therefore turns to the Gentiles. He orders them to have no pride. They are in the position of wild olive shoots which have been grafted into a garden olive tree. They did not achieve their own salvation any more than the Jews did; in point of fact they are dependent on the Jews; they are only engrafted branches; the root and the stem are still the chosen people. The fact of their own election and the fact of the rejection of the Jews are not to produce pride in Gentile hearts. If that happens, rejection can and will happen to them.

Is this the end? Far from it. It is God's purpose that the Jews will be moved to envy at the relationship of the Gentiles to him and that they will ask to be admitted to it themselves. Did not Moses say: "I make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry"? ( Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19.) In the end the Gentiles will be the very instrument by which the Jews will be saved. "And so all Israel will be saved" ( Romans 11:26).

So Paul comes to the end of the argument. We may summarily set out its steps.

(i) Israel is the chosen people.

(ii) To be a member of Israel means more than racial descent. There has always been election within the nation; and the best of the nation has always been the remnant who were faithful.

(iii) This selection by God is not unfair, for he has the right to do what he likes.

(iv) God did harden the hearts of the Jews, but only to open the door to the Gentiles.

(v) Israel's mistake was dependence on human achievement founded on the law; the necessary approach to God is that of the totally trusting heart.

(vi) The Gentiles must have no pride for they are only wild olives grafted into the true olive stock. They must remember that.

(vii) This is not the end; the Jews will be so moved to wondering envy at the privilege that the Gentiles have received that in the end they will be brought in by them.

(viii) So in the very end all, Jew and Gentile, will be saved.

The glory is in the end of Paul's argument. He began by saying that some were elected to reception and some to rejection. In the end he comes to say that it is God's will that all men should be saved.

THE TRAGIC FAILURE ( Romans 9:1-6 )

9:1-6 I tell you the truth as one who is united to Christ is bound to do. I do not lie. My conscience bears witness with me in the Holy Spirit when I say that my grief is great and there is unceasing anguish in my heart. I could pray that I myself might be accursed so that I was completely separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen as far as human relationship goes. For my kinsmen are the Israelites, and theirs is the special sonship of God, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the worship of the Temple and the promises. To them the fathers belong. And from them, on his human side, came the Anointed One of God. Blessed for ever be the God who is over all! Amen.

Paul begins his attempt to explain the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ. He begins, not in anger, but in sorrow. Here is no tempest of anger and no outbreak of enraged condemnation; here is the poignant sorrow of the broken heart. Paul was like the God whom he loved and served--he hated the sin. but he loved the sinner. No man will ever even begin to try to save men unless he first loves them. Paul sees the Jews, not as people to be lashed with anger, but as people to be yearned over with longing love.

Willingly Paul would have laid down his life if he could have won the Jews for Christ. It may be that his thoughts were going back to one of the greatest episodes in Jewish history. When Moses went up the mountain to receive the law from the hands of God, the people who had been left below sinned by making the golden calf and worshipping it. God was wreath with them; and then Moses prayed the great prayer: "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written" ( Exodus 32:32).

Paul says that for the sake of his brethren he would consent to be accursed if it would do any good. The word he uses is anathema ( G331) and it is a terrible word. A thing which was anathema ( G331) was under the ban; it was devoted to God for utter destruction. When a heathen city was taken, everything in it was devoted to utter destruction, for it was polluted ( Deuteronomy 3:6; Deuteronomy 2:34; Joshua 6:17; Joshua 7:1-26). If a man tried to lure Israel away from the worship of the true God, he was pitilessly condemned to utter destruction ( Deuteronomy 13:8-11). The dearest thing in all Paul's life was the fact that nothing could separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus; but, if it would do anything to save his brethren, he would even accept banishment from God.

Here again is the great truth that the man who would save the sinner must love him. When a son or a daughter has done something wrong and incurred punishment, many a father and a mother would gladly bear that punishment if only they could. As Myers makes Paul say in his poem Saint Paul:

"Then with a thrill the intolerable craving,

Shivers throughout me like a trumpet call;

O to save these, to perish for their saving--

Die for their life, be offered for them all."

That is what God felt; that is what Paul felt; and that is what we must feel.

Paul did not for a moment deny the place of the Jews in the economy of God. He enumerates their privileges.

(i) In a special sense they were children of God, specially chosen, specially adopted into the family of God. "You are the sons of the Lord your God" ( Deuteronomy 14:1). "Is not he your father, who created you?" ( Deuteronomy 32:6). "Israel is my firstborn son" ( Exodus 4:22). "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt called my son" ( Hosea 11:1). The Bible is full of this idea of the special sonship of Israel and of Israel's refusal to accept it in the fullest sense.

Boreham somewhere tells how he was visiting in a friend's house when he was a boy. There was one room into which it was forbidden to go. One day he was opposite the room when the door opened and inside he saw a boy of his own age, but in a dreadful state of animal idiocy. He saw the boy's mother go to his side. She must have seen young Boreham in all his health and sanity and then looked at her own son; and the comparison must have pierced her heart. He saw her kneel by the idiot boy's bedside and heard her cry out in a kind of anguish: "I've fed you and clothed you and loved you--and you've never known me." That was what God might have said to Israel--only in this case it was worse, for Israel's rejection was deliberate and open-eyed. It is a terrible thing to break the heart of God.

(ii) Israel had the glory. The shekinah or kaboth occurs again and again in Israel's history. It was the divine splendour of light which descended when God was visiting his people ( Exodus 16:10; Exodus 24:16-17; Exodus 29:43; Exodus 33:18-22). Israel had seen the glory of God and yet had rejected him. To us it has been given to see the glory of God's love and mercy in the face of Jesus Christ; it is a terrible thing if we then choose the ways of earth.

(iii) Israel had the covenants. A covenant is a relationship entered into between two people, a bargain for mutual profit, an engagement for mutual friendship. Again and again God had approached the people of Israel and entered into a special relationship with them. He did so with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob and upon Mount Sinai when he gave the law.

Irenaeus distinguishes four great occasions when God entered into agreement with men. The first was the covenant with Noah after the flood, and the sign was the rainbow in the heavens which stood for God's promise that the floods would not come again. The second was the covenant with Abraham and its sign was the sign of circumcision. The third was the covenant with the nation entered into on Mount Sinai and its basis was the law. The fourth is the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

It is an amazing thing to think of God approaching men and entering into a pledged relationship with them. It is the simple truth that God has never left men alone. He did not make one approach and then abandon them. He has made approach after approach; and he still makes approach after approach to the individual human soul. He stands at the door and knocks; and it is the awful responsibility of human will that man can refuse to open.

(iv) They had the law. Israel could never plead ignorance of God's will; God had told them what he desired them to do. If they sinned, they sinned in knowledge and not in ignorance, and the sin of knowledge is the sin against the light which is worst of all.

(v) They had the worship of the Temple. Worship is in essence the approach of the soul to God; and God in the Temple worship had given to the Jews a special road of approach to himself. If the door to God was shut, they had shut it on themselves.

(vi) They had the promises. Israel could never say that it did not know its destiny. God had told them of the task and the privilege which were in store for them in his purpose. They knew that they were destined for great things in the economy of God.

(vii) They had the fathers. They had a tradition and a history; and it is a poor man who can dare to be false to his traditions and to shame the heritage into which he has entered.

(viii) Then comes the culmination. From them there came the Anointed One of God. All else had been a preparation for this; and yet when he came they rejected him. The biggest grief a man can have is to give his child every chance of success, to sacrifice and save and toil to give him the opportunity, and then to find that the child, through his disobedience or rebelliousness or self-indulgence, has failed to grasp it. Therein lies tragedy, for therein is the waste of love's labour and the defeat of love's dream. The tragedy of Israel was that God had prepared her for the day of the coming of his Son--and all the preparation was frustrated. It was not that God's law had been broken; it was that God's love had been spurned. It is not the anger, but the broken heart of God, which lies behind Paul's words.

THE CHOICE OF GOD ( Romans 9:7-13 )

9:7-13 But it is not as though the word of God had been completely frustrated. For not all who belong to the race of Israel are really Israel; nor are all really children because they can claim physical descent from Abraham. On the contrary, it is written: "In Isaac will your descendants be called." That is to say, it is not the children who can claim merely physical descent who are really the children of God. No! It is the children of the promise who are reckoned as the true descendants of Abraham, for the word of the promise runs like this: "I will come at this time and Sarah will have a son." Not only this, but when Rebecca, too, was brought to bed with child by one, I mean Isaac, our father--and note that the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad, so that God's purpose in choice should stand, not in consequence of any deeds, but simply because he called them--it was said to her: "The elder will be the servant of the younger." As it stands written: "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

If the Jews have rejected and crucified Jesus, the Son of God, is that to say that God's purposes were frustrated and his plan defeated? Paul produces a strange argument to prove that it is not so. In point of fact not all the Jews did reject Jesus; some of them accepted him, for, of course, all the early followers were Jews, as was Paul himself. Now, he says, if we go back through the history of Israel, we will see again and again a process of selection at work. Again and again we see that it was not all Jews who were within the design of God. Some were and some were not. The line of the nation through which God worked, and in which he carried out his plan, was not at any time composed of all those who could claim physical descent from Abraham. At the back of the whole plan there is not merely physical descent; there is the selection, the election of God.

To prove his case, Paul cites two instances from Jewish history and buttresses them with proof texts. Abraham had two sons. There was Ishmael, who was the son of the bondwoman Hagar, and there was Isaac, who was the son of his wife Sarah. Both were true blood descendants of Abraham. It was late in life when Sarah had a son, so late that it was, humanly speaking, an impossibility. As he grew up, there came a day when Ishmael mocked at Isaac. Sarah resented it, and demanded that Hagar and Ishmael should be ejected and that Isaac alone should inherit. Abraham was very unwilling to eject them, but God told him to do so, for it was in Isaac that his descendants would preserve his name ( Genesis 21:12). Now Ishmael had been the son of natural human desire; but Isaac had been the son of God's promise ( Genesis 18:10-14). It was to the child of the promise that the real descent was given. Here is the first proof that not all physical descendants of Abraham are to be ranked as the chosen ones. Within the nation, God's selection and election have gone on.

Paul proceeds to cite another instance. When Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, was with child, she was told by God that in her womb there were two children who would be the fathers of two nations; but that in the days to come the elder would serve and be subject to the younger ( Genesis 25:23). So the twins Esau and Jacob were born. Esau was the elder twin, and yet the choice of God fell on Jacob, and it was through the line of Jacob that God's will was to be done. To clinch the argument Paul cites Malachi 1:2-3, where God is represented as saying to the prophet: "I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau."

Paul argues that there is more to Jewishness than descent from Abraham, that the chosen people were not simply the entire sum of all the physical descendants of Abraham, that within that family there was a process of election all through history. A Jew would thoroughly understand and accept the argument so far. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood son of Abraham, but the Jews would never have dreamed of saying that the Arabs belonged to the chosen people. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau--that in fact is what Malachi means--and Esau was a true son of Isaac, even the twin brother of Jacob, but no Jew would ever have said that the Edomites had any share in the chosen people. From the Jewish point of view Paul has made his point; there was election within the family of Abraham's physical descendants.

He makes the further point that that selection had nothing to do with deeds and merit. The proof is that Jacob was chosen and Esau was rejected, before either of them was born. The choice was made while they were still in their mother's womb.

Our minds stagger at this argument. It presents us with the picture of a God who apparently quite arbitrarily chooses one and rejects the other. To us it is not a valid argument, because it makes God responsible for an action which does not seem to be ethically justified. But the fact remains that it would strike home to a Jew. And even to us, at the heart of this argument one great truth remains. Everything is of God; behind everything is his action; even the things which seem arbitrary and haphazard go back to him. Nothing in this world moves with aimless feet.

THE SOVEREIGN WILL OF GOD ( Romans 9:14-18 )

9:14-18 What shall we then say? Are you going to say that there is injustice with God? God forbid! For, he says to Moses: "I will have mercy on whomsoever I will have mercy and I will have pity on whomsoever I will have pity." So then the whole matter depends not on man's will and not on man's effort, but entirely on the mercy of God. For scripture says to Pharaoh: "For this one thing I assigned you a part in the drama of history--that I might demonstrate my power by what happens to you, and that my name might be broadcast throughout all the world." So then he has mercy on whom he will, but he hardens whom he will.

Paul now begins to meet the very arguments and objections which rise in our own minds. He has stated that in all Israel's history the process of selection and election has gone on; he has stressed the fact that this election was based not on any merit of the person elected but on nothing else than the will of God himself. The objector asks: "Is that fair? Is it just of God to pursue a policy of quite arbitrary selection altogether?" Paul's answer is that God can do what he chooses to do. In the terrible days of the Roman Empire, when no man's life was safe and any one might die at the whim of an irresponsible and suspicious Emperor, Galba said, when he became Emperor, that now "he could do what he liked and do it to anyone." To be honest, that is what Paul is saying about God in this passage.

Again he cites two instances to prove his point and buttresses them with scripture quotations. The first is from Exodus 33:19. Moses is beseeching some real proof that God is really with the people of Israel. God's answer is that he will have mercy on those on whom he chooses to have mercy. His attitude of loving mercy to the nation depends on himself alone. The other instance is from Israel's battle for release from Egypt and the power of Pharaoh. When Moses first went to ask for that release, he warned Pharaoh that God had simply brought him on to the stage of history to demonstrate the divine power and to serve to all men as an example of what happens to the man who opposes it ( Exodus 9:1-35; Exodus 10:1-29; Exodus 11:1-10; Exodus 12:1-51; Exodus 13:1-22; Exodus 14:1-31; Exodus 15:1-27; Exodus 16:1-36).

Once again our mind staggers at this argument. It is, of course, not true to say that God can do anything. He cannot do anything which contradicts his own nature. He cannot be responsible for any act which is unjust and which, in fact, breaks his own laws. We find it hard, and even impossible, to conceive of a God who irresponsibly gives mercy to one and not to another, and who raises up a king to be a mere puppet or lay figure through which his own avenging power may be demonstrated. But the argument would be valid and convincing to a Jew, because again it, in essence, means that God is behind everything.

When we get to the foot of this argument, it does conserve one great truth. It is impossible to think of the relationship between God and man in terms of justice. Man has no claim on God whatever. The created has no claim on the Creator. Whenever justice enters into it, the answer is that from God man deserves nothing and can claim nothing. In God's dealings with men, the essential things are his will and his mercy.

THE POTTER AND THE CLAY ( Romans 9:19-29 )

9:19-29 But, then, you may ask, "If this is so how can God go on blaming men if they do not take his way? Who can withstand God's purpose?" Fellow! Who are you to be arguing with God? Surely the thing that is molded into shape cannot say to the man who molds it, "Why did you make me like this?" Has not the potter complete authority over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for an honourable use and another for a menial service? What if God, although it was his will to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, did nonetheless treat with long patience the objects of his wrath, although they were ripe and ready for destruction? Yes, and what if he did it because it is his will to make known the wealth of his glory to the objects of his mercy, which he had prepared beforehand for glory--I mean us whom he called not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles? Just as he says in Hosea: "A people which was not mine I will call my people; and her who was not beloved I will call beloved." And as he says in that same place where it was said to them: "You are not my people; there they shall be called the sons of the living God." And Isaiah cries about Israel: "Even though the number of the sons of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth completely and summarily." And even as Isaiah foretold: "Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us some descendants, we would have become as Sodom, and we would have been like Gomorrah."

In the previous passage Paul had been showing that all through the history of Israel there had been going on a process of election and selection by God. A very natural objection arises--if at the back of the whole process there is the selection and rejection of God, how can God possibly blame the men who have rejected him? Surely the fault is not theirs at all, but God's. Paul's answer is blunt almost to the point of crudity. He says that no man has any right to argue with God. When a potter makes a vessel, it cannot talk back to him; he has absolute power over it; out of the one lump of clay he can make one vessel for an honourable purpose and another for a menial purpose, and the clay has nothing to do with it and has no right whatever to protest. In point of fact Paul took this picture from Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 18:1-6). There are two things to be said about it.

(i) It is a bad analogy. One great New Testament commentator has said that this is one of the very few passages which we wish Paul had not written. There is a difference between a human being and a lump of clay. A human being is a person and a lump of clay is a thing. Maybe you can do what you like with a thing, but you cannot do what you like with a person. Clay does not desire to answer back; does not desire to question; cannot think and feel; cannot be bewildered and tortured. If someone has inexplicably suffered some tremendous sorrow, it will not help much to tell him that he has no right to complain, because God can do what he likes. That is the mark of a tyrant and not of a loving Father. It is the basic fact of the gospel that God does not treat men as a potter treats a lump of clay; he treats them as a loving father treats his child.

(ii) But when we have said that we must remember one thing--it was out of anguish of heart that Paul wrote this passage. He was faced with the bewildering fact that God's own people, his own kinsmen, had rejected and crucified God's own Son. It was not that Paul wished to say this; he was driven to say it. The only possible explanation he could see was that, for his own purposes, God had somehow blinded his people.

In any event, Paul does not leave the argument there. He goes on to say that this rejection by the Jews had happened in order that the door might be opened to the Gentiles. His argument is not good. It is one thing to say that God used an evil situation to bring good out of it; it is quite another thing to say that he created it to produce good in the end. Paul is saying that God deliberately darkened the minds and blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts of the mass of the Jewish people in order that the way might open for the Gentiles to come in. We must remember that this is not the argument of a theologian sitting quietly in a study thinking things out; it is the argument of a man whose heart was in despair to find some reason for a completely incomprehensible situation. In the end the only answer Paul can find is that God did it.

Now Paul was arguing with Jews, and he knew that the only way he could buttress his argument was with quotations from their own scriptures. So he goes on to cite texts to prove that this rejection of the Jews and acceptance of the Gentiles had actually been foretold in the prophets. Hosea had said that God would make a people his people who were not his people ( Hosea 2:23). He said that a people who were not God's people would be called the sons of God ( Hosea 1:10). He showed how Isaiah had foreseen a situation when Israel would have been obliterated had not a remnant been left ( Isaiah 10:22-23; Isaiah 37:32). It is his argument that Israel could have foreseen her doom had she only understood.

It is easy in this passage to criticize him, but the one thing that must be remembered is that Paul, in his despairing anguish for his own people, clung to the fact that somehow everything was God's work. For him there was nothing left to say but that.

THE JEWISH MISTAKE ( Romans 9:30-33 )

9:30-33 What shall we then say? The Gentiles who were not looking for a right relationship with God received such a relationship, but it was a relationship which was the result of faith, while Israel which was looking for a law which would produce a right relationship with God never succeeded in finding such a law. Why? Because they tried to get into a right relationship with God, not by trusting God, but by depending on their own human achievements. They stumbled over the stone which makes men stumble, even as it stands written: "I have set in Zion a stone which makes men stumble, and a rock which makes them trip. And he who believes in him will not be put to shame."

Here Paul draws a contrast between two ways of feeling towards God. There was the Jewish way. The aim of the Jew was to set himself right with God and he regarded a right relationship with God as something which could be earned. There is another way to put that which will show really what it means. Fundamentally, the Jewish idea was that a man, by strict obedience to the law, could pile up a credit balance. The result would be that God was in his debt and owed him salvation. But it was obviously a losing battle, because man's imperfection could never satisfy God's perfection; nothing that man could do could even begin to repay what God has done for him.

That is precisely what Paul found. As he said, the Jew spent his life searching for a law, obedience to which would put him right with God, and he never found it because there was no such law to be found. The Gentile had never engaged upon this search; but when he suddenly was confronted with the incredible love of God in Jesus Christ, he simply cast himself upon that love in total trust. It was as if the Gentile saw the Cross and said, "If God loves me like that I can trust him with my life and with my soul."

The Jew sought to put God in his debt; the Gentile was content to be in God's debt. The Jew believed he could win salvation by doing things for God; the Gentile was lost in amazement at what God had done for him. The Jew sought to find the way to God by works; the Gentile came by the way of trust.

"Not the labours of my hands

Can fulfil thy law's demands;

Could my zeal no respite know,

Could my tears for ever flow,

All for sin could not atone:

Thou must save, and thou alone."

Paul would have said "Amen" to that.

The stone is one of the characteristic references of the early Christian writers. In the Old Testament there is a series of rather mysterious references to the stone. In Isaiah 8:14 it is said that God shall be for a stone of offence and a rock of stumbling to the houses of Israel. In Isaiah 28:16 God says that he will lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation. In Daniel 2:34-35, Daniel 2:44-45, there is a reference to a mysterious stone. In Psalms 118:22 the Psalmist writes: "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner."

When the Christians began to search the Old Testament for forecasts of Christ they came across these references to this wonderful stone; and they identified Jesus with it. Their warrant was that the gospel story shows Jesus himself making that identification and taking the verse in Psalms 118:22 and applying it to himself ( Matthew 21:42). The Christians thought of the stone which was the sure foundation, the stone which was the corner stone binding the whole building together, the stone which had been rejected and had then become the chief of all the stones, as pictures of Christ himself.

The actual quotation which Paul uses here is a combination of Isaiah 8:14 and Isaiah 28:16. The Christians, including Paul, took it to mean this--God had intended his Son to be the foundation of every man's life, but when he came the Jews rejected him, and because they rejected him that gift of God which had been meant for their salvation became the reason for their condemnation. This picture of the stone fascinated the Christians. We get it again and again in the New Testament ( Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4-6).

The eternal truth behind this thought is this. Jesus was sent into this world to be the Saviour of men; but he is also the touch-stone by which all men are judged. If a man's heart goes out in love and submission to him, Jesus is for him salvation. If a man's heart is entirely unmoved or angrily rebellious, Jesus is for him condemnation. Jesus came into the world for our salvation, but by his attitude to him a man can either gain salvation or merit condemnation.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

Romans 9:3

For I could wish -- Slight division on how this should be translation, while the majority translate it this way, others suggest "I was wishing, had it be possible," or "I did wish" .

    Some suggest that implication "I could have prayed if it had been possible" - CambridgeGreek

    The object of the apostle seems to state his present attachment to his countrymen and willingness to suffer for them.

myself were accursed from Christ -- This passage has been much controverted. What does the word rendered “accursed” (anathema) properly mean?

    "The proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not I did wish, but I could desire; that is, if the thing were possible." -BN

    It historically meant something that was devoted to God’s use (as in the temple service) which was taken out of service by men and misused (desecrated) and now was not be used in such service to God.

    Some may conclude therefore that Paul is saying his special mission to the Gentiles could be set aside if his countrymen, the Jews, would accept Christ. And not that Paul is saying he is willing to be lost eternally if the Jews could be saved.

    Some understand Paul as saying "the apostle evidently means to say that he would be willing to suffer the bitterest evils, to forego all pleasure, to endure any privation and toil, nay, to offer his life, so that he might be wholly devoted to sufferings, as an offering, if he might be the means of benefiting and saving the nation... This does not mean that Paul would be willing to be damned forever."

from Christ -- ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, apo, G575, Usually suggest away from. [A few suggested to translate it "by".]

for my brethren -- Paul often referred to his fellow Jews as brethren to show his connection with them.

my countrymen [kinsmen] according to the flesh -- His countrymen, all of whom he regarded as his kinsmen, or relations, as descended from the same ancestors.

according to the flesh -- By birth. As distinguished from Paul’s Christian brethren which included Gentiles. They were of the same blood and parentage, though not now of the same religious belief.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ,.... Some consider this as the reason of the apostle's great heaviness, and continual sorrow of heart, because he had made such a wish as this, and read the words, "for I have wished", or "did wish"; that is, in my unregenerate state, whilst I was a persecutor of Christ, and a blasphemer of his name, I wished to be for ever separated from him, and to have nothing to do with him; for then I thought I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, and this I did out of respect to the Jewish nation, and because I would not relinquish the Jewish religion; but oh! what a trouble of mind is it to me? what uneasiness does it give me when I think of it, and reflect upon it? But this can never be the apostle's meaning, for he would never have appealed to Christ in so solemn a manner, and took an oath upon it, for the truth of his enmity to Christ, and alienation from him before conversion, which everybody knew; nor was it anything strange, that whilst he was an unbelieving Jew, he should wish himself separated from Jesus of Nazareth, and always to remain so; and his having done this before his embracing of Christianity could be no evidence of his present affection for the Jewish nation, especially since he repented of it, and was sorry for it. But this wish, whatever is meant by it, is mentioned as an instance of his great love to his countrymen the Jews. Many have thought that his meaning is, that he had so great a value for them, that he could even wish himself, and be content to be eternally separated from Christ, everlastingly banished from his presence, never to enjoy communion more with him, or in other words, to be eternally damned, that they might be saved. But this is what could never be, and which he knew, was impossible to be done, and was contrary to that strong persuasion he had just expressed in the close of the foregoing chapter. Nor is it consistent with his love to Christ, to wish any thing of this kind; it would make him to love the Jews much better than Christ; since, according to this sense, he must wish to be parted from him, that they might be saved, and consequently must love them more than Christ: nor is it consistent with, but even contrary both to the principles of nature and grace; it is contrary to the principles of nature, for a man to desire his own damnation upon any consideration whatever; and it is contrary to the principle of grace, which always strongly inclines to be with Christ, and not separated from him; in a word, to be accursed from Christ in this sense, could be no proper means of the salvation of the Jews, and therefore it cannot be thought to be desirable, or wished for. Some things are said indeed for the qualifying of this sense of the words, as that the apostle said this inconsiderately, when he was scarcely himself, through an ecstasy of mind, and intemperate zeal, and an overflow of affection for his nation; but this is highly to reflect upon the apostle, and to represent him in a very unworthy manner, when it is certain he said this with the greatest deliberation and seriousness; he introduces it in the most solemn manner, with an appeal to Christ, the Holy Spirit, and his own conscience, and therefore it could never drop from him through incogitancy, and an overheated affection. Again, it is said, that this wish was made with a condition, if it was the will of God, but that he knew was not; or if it could be for the good of these people, this also he knew it could never be: the best qualification Of it is to say it is an hyperbolical expression; and so if it is, it must be with a witness, being such an hyperbole, as is not to be matched in sacred or profane writings. The words of Moses are thought to be a parallel one, "blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written", Exodus 32:32; but that is not to be understood of the book of eternal life; but either of the book of the law, as R. Sol. Jarchi expounds it, which God had ordered him to write, and his desire is, that his name might not stand there; or rather of the book of this temporal life, that he might die and not live. It remains then that these words must have another meaning. Now let it be observed, that the word αναθεμα, here translated "accursed", answers to the Hebrew word חרם, which, with the Jewish writers, is one sort of excommunication in use among them, and the greater sort; the forth of it, as given by them, is very horrible, and shocking r; Exodus 32:32- :; and so we may observe the word "anathema" here used is mentioned as a form of excommunication in 1 Corinthians 16:22; of all such as love not Christ and his Gospel, and make it appear by their principles or practices, or both, that they do not, and so ought to be removed from the communion of churches. Now, taking the word in this sense, the apostle's meaning is, that he could wish to be excommunicated from Christ; that is, from the body of Christ, from the church of Christ, Christ mystical, as the word "Christ" is used, 1 Corinthians 12:12; to be deprived of the ordinance of Christ's house, to be degraded from his office in it, and not to be so much as a member in it. He saw that these branches, the people of the Jews, were going to be cut off, and no longer to be of the church of God; and such was his affection to them, that he could have wished rather to be cut off himself, that they might be spared; and this was an instance of great love to them, since, next to Christ, the church and the ordinances of it were exceeding dear unto, and highly valued by the apostle. Again, it is worthy of observation, that the Hebrew word חרם, which the Septuagint render by αναθεμα, the word in the text, is used for any thing devoted to God, and which could not be alienated to any other use or service; and if it was a man, or any among men that was devoted, it was not to be redeemed, but was "surely to be put to death", Leviticus 27:29. Some have thought that Jephthah's daughter was put to death upon this law; but be that as it will, the apostle here may reasonably be thought to allude unto it, and his sense be this, that he could wish himself αναθεμα ειναι απο του χριστου, "to be devoted unto death", not from Christ, but "by" Christ; and some copies read υπο, "by": I could wish that my dear Lord and Master, as if he should say, would appoint and order me to die, might this nation of mine but escape that ruin and destruction I see is coming upon them, as a nation and a church; I could be content to die the most accursed death, and be treated in the most ignominious manner, might they but be saved; a like expression is that of R. Ishmael s, בני ישראל אני כפרתן "may I be an expiatory sacrifice for the children of Israel";

"which (says one commentator t) he said, מתוך חבתן, "because of his love to them"; and it is as if he should say, all the punishment which is right to come upon them, I will take it on myself, in order to atone for them;''

and says another u,

"the sense is, he took upon him their redemption, and this he said, לרוב אהבתו, "because of the greatness of his love":''

now for a man to die for his country, that a whole nation perish not, was agreeably to the sentiments both of Jews and Gentiles, and was the highest instance of love among men; "greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends", John 15:13; and this is carrying the sense of the apostle's wish high enough, and not too far. The persons on whose account he could have expressed this wish, are described by their natural relation to him,

my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh: he calls them his brethren, not in a spiritual sense, nor in a strict natural sense, but in a general way, as being of the same nation: it is a saying with the Jews w, כל ישראל אחים, "all the Israelites are brethren"; for the same reason he calls them kinsmen; and these appellations he uses to remove that ill will and prejudice they had conceived in their minds against him, and to signify the ground of his affection for them: and he adds, "according to the flesh", to distinguish them from his spiritual brethren and relations; for though they were brethren in a national sense, they were not all so in a spiritual relation.

r Vid. Buxtorf. Lexic. Rabbinic. p. 827, 828. s Misn. Negaim, c. 2. sect. 1. t Bartenora in ib. u Maimon. in Misn. Negaim, c. 2. sect. 1. w Caphtor, fol. 38. 1.

Mitchell's Commentary on Selected New Testament Books

Paul’s great desire (Romans 9:1-3)

Romans 9:1. I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my con­science bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit.

He calls on God to be his witness for the bur­dens of his heart.

You detect a note of heaviness, a note of sadness and sorrow as he writes. The Jews were accusing him of setting aside all God’s gracious promises to Israel, and they were very bitter about it. One can’t read, for example, Acts 21:1-40 and on without realizing their hatred for Paul. In fact, in his missionaryjourneys, practically 90 percent of the opposition and the persecution came from Jews. They knew that their ministry, their calling, was to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles; but they didn’t do it. They gloried in their separation and believed everyone who was not a Jew was a Gentile under the curse of God.

You have that in Jonah who epitomizes the atti­tude of the nation. And so they are accusing Paul of setting aside God’s gracious promises to Israel.

“Is God setting aside the Jew to take up the Gentiles?” they ask. “If so, what about His cove­nants? What is the use of being a Jew if the Gen­tiles can be saved without us?”

Paul’s argument is a matter of God’s sover­eignty—His election of Israel in times past when the Gentiles were set aside. Now God has set Israel aside so He can reach the Gentiles. The Jews had said of Jesus, “We will not have this Man to reign over us.”

And, when Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” they said, “We have no king but Cae­sar.” They repudiated the Messiah, the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Now God has flung the door wide open to the Gentiles; and, for both Jew and Gentile, His appeal asks each to come one by one.

Do you know, I have met Christians—and I’m sorry to say this—who claim that we must not pray for the unsaved, that nowhere in the New Testament are we urged by the Spirit of God to pray for the unsaved.

Now, that’s not true. In 1 Timothy 2:1-4 we are exhorted to pray for all men, all in authority, for God wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And you remember the great burden of Christ’s heart in Matthew 23:37, when He said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children to­gether, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.”

The Jews were religious. They were moral. They searched the Scriptures; but they were not saved. And their unbelief greatly distressed the Apostle Paul. He must prove his love for Israel.

Therefore, he stands before God with his heart laid bare. “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit.”

When a person calls God to be his witness, he better be speaking the truth. Don’t you think so? You have that in the first chapter when he was writing to these Christians in Rome whom he had never seen. He said words to the effect that “God is my witness that I want to come to you, but I have been prevented thus far. I want to come and have fruit among you. I want to come to edify you. I want to come to build you up in the faith. And God is my witness. That’s the great yearning of my heart.”

My friend, how much of a burden do you have for the unsaved people around you? How much of a burden do I have?

You know, we pray for our missionaries; we pray for our pastor; we pray for church members; we pray for the Christians we know; we pray for those who are sick; but how much time do we spend in the presence of God pleading for lost men and women? How much compassion, how much ten­derness, how much of the grace of God has really, really gotten hold of your heart and mine? What do you know or I know of what Paul is talking about here?

He says, “I have continual sorrow. I have un­ceasing pain in my heart. I could verily wish my­self to be accursed from Christ for my brethren’s sake that they might be saved.”

Oh, friend, I trust that the Lord will give us something of the compassion and tenderness of Christ and a heart that yearns for the salvation of men and women.

Will you please notice Paul’s agony of soul in Romans 9:2-3?

Romans 9:2. That I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.

Romans 9:3. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen accord­ing to the flesh.parHe just said in chapter 8 that nothing can sepa­rate us from the love of God. Yet, he says here, I have come to the place where I would be willing to be separated from Him if by so doing, my brethren, my kinsmen might be saved.

Can you say that? Can I say that? Do the souls of others mean enough to us that we are willing to suffer? Do we have continual sorrow, unceasing pain?

Isn’t it strange that in the experience of one man there could be these two extremes? In chapter 8, he is full of ecstasy and wonder and glory and praise as he sees the matchless grace of God through Christ for him. Now we find him full of continual sorrow and unceasing pain.

I met a man in Dallas, Texas, some years ago by the name of Dr. Truitt. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church of that city. In fact, I think he had one of the largest Southern Baptist churches in the world. His Sunday School then ran between 4 and 5 thousand. But he was never known to smile.

Why? people wondered. Wasn’t he happy in the Lord?

Yes, he was. But in his first years in Dallas, he had gone out with the chief of police on a hunting expedition somewhere in Texas.

As he climbed through a fence, his gun caught and went off. He shot and killed not himself, but his friend. From that day until Dr. Truitt went to be with the Lord, he had one great passion. “The Lord has preserved me for one thing,” he would say, “to reach people for Christ.”

He had continual sorrow, not only because he had shot his friend but because of the multitude of men and women outside of Christ. It affected his whole life. Here in the Apostle Paul, you have the same thing. “I have great sorrow; I have unceasing grief.”

May I say, here we have a revelation of the compassion of Christ revealed in a man. Here we have the heart of God manifest in Paul.

You know, the Lord Jesus, because of His love for you and me, became an accursed thing. As Galatians 3:13 says, “Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree.” Jesus became an accursed thing just because He loves you and me. Paul was willing to go to any length for his brethren, his kinsmen af­ter the flesh.

Were you ever in the presence of a heart-broken mother, agonizing on her knees in the presence of God, pleading for the salvation of her daughter who has gone astray? My friend, I’m telling you, it will pull the heart out of you. This is what I’m talk­ing about. Here in Paul is a heart experiencing the very thing that caused the Lord Jesus to go to the cross.

You know, sometimes we sing a chorus (I rarely ever sing it; in fact, I don’t sing it), “Give me Cal­vary love.” I often wonder what we know about Calvary love. Here is a sample of it right here.

Paul is willing to become an accursed thing. He is in continual sorrow, in unceasing pain, bro­ken-hearted before God, suffering in the very depth of his soul that his brethren might be saved.

You know, you find passages like this in the Old Testament. Do you remember in Exodus 32:9-13, when Moses pleaded with God on behalf of the Jews who were worshiping the molten calf? God said, “Let me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.”

And Moses said in effect, “You can’t do that. Remember Your Name and remember Your Word. If You blot Israel out, You can’t keep Your prom­ises to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And what will the Egyptians say as to the kind of God that Israel has? that He took them out in the wilder­ness to kill them?”

Then, as you go to the end of the chapter (verse 32), Moses pleads, “But now, if Thou wilt, forgive their sin—.”

There is a little dash there as if Moses were go­ing to make a promise to God. But then he changed it and said, “If not, please blot me out from Thy book which Thou hast written!” He made himself one with the people.

Psalms 106:1-48, Psalms 106:23, says that if Moses, His chosen one, hadn’t stood in the breach, God would have blotted the nation out that day.

Take Isaiah 59:1-21, verses 15 and 16, the last ap­peal of God for Israel through Isaiah. What did he say essentially? “Justice is fallen in the streets, the righteous man is a prey, and God was astonished.” If I remember correctly, this is the only place in the whole Bible where God was ever astonished.

What do you think He was astonished about? That there was no prophet?

No.

That there was no leader?

No.

No teacher?

No.

What made Him astonished?

He was astonished that there was no man to intercede. There was no man to plead for His people before God.

Do you remember that, l00 years afterward, Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, stood before God. He was a broken-hearted man, and he was pleading for Israel.

But God said, “Jeremiah, I’m not going to listen to you.”

Three times, God said to him, “Don’t you pray for this people. I won’t listen to you.”

Did that stop Jeremiah?

No, sir.

In Jeremiah 5:1, God said, “If you can find one righteous man in the city, I will save the city for the one man.” That shows you how far down in corruption and idolatry and rejection of God the Jews had gone. Did that deter Jeremiah?

Oh, listen to him. Let me put it in my words: “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved. Is there no balm in Gilead? Doesn’t anybody care about my people? I’m in mourning. Is there no doctor? Is there no physician to heal the hurt of the daughter of my people? Oh, that my head were waters, that my eyes were a foun­tain of tears that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people.”

Their crime? “They are not valiant for the truth and they proceed from evil to evil and they do not know Me, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 8:20-22; Jeremiah 9:1-5).

Isaiah in chapter 28:18 said (let me paraphrase), “They made a league with death, with hell you are in agreement; and when the overflowing scourge shall pass over, it shall not come nigh thee be­cause we have made lies our refuge and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.”

It was for this kind of people that Jeremiah was broken-hearted.

“Oh, that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears” (Jeremiah 9:1).

You take the prophet Ezekiel, chapter 22, verse 30, the end of that chapter. The priests have be­come corrupt. The princes are trafficking in souls. The people are in corruption. And God says, “I searched for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one.”

I want to say this very, very solemnly. If God were looking for men today who will get down be­fore Him in intercession and travail for lost men and women, I wonder how many He would find.

Would he find you?

“I looked for a man to intercede and found none.” And God was astonished that there was no intercessor.

Paul says, “I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Romans 9:2-4 a).

I wonder, my Christian friend, have you ever touched the heart of God?

Has the compassion of the Son of God ever gripped your soul?

Did you ever come into the presence of God and pray, not for yourself, not for things, not even for experiences, but come into the presence of God and mean business and plead with God for lost men and women for whom Christ died?

You remember the prophet said, “As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons” (Isaiah 66:8). I know he is talking about Israel there. But if truth be welded in our own hearts, when the believer in Christ travails for the lost, then we will see God move. It is impossible for a believer to come into the presence of God and plead with Him for lost men and women without having the privilege of seeing lost souls saved.

Witnessing and intercession are partners; they are coupled together. The more we plead with men for God, the more you are going to plead with God for men. And vice versa. That’s the heart of Paul.

He informs his Jewish brethren that he has no bitterness in his heart although they have persecuted him, although they have stoned him. He has been in prison because of them; nevertheless, he still loves them. And what he writes is because of his love for them. Oh, that God might put upon your heart and my heart a real burden, a compas­sion, a tenderness of yearning over lost men and women that they might be saved.

This thing doesn’t come on you spasmodically. It doesn’t come on overnight or for a few minutes. This is a thing that grows on your heart. I’m sure that the Apostle Paul spent many, many hours on his knees before God praying for Israel.

Now we are coming to a very important passage, and it may be a little difficult because Paul is deal­ing with the sovereignty of God; and he is going to prove the fact that, whatever God does, He is righteous in doing it.

We are seeing today in the world a revival of what is known as covenant theology. Basically, it is that the church of God started with Abraham, that God is through with Israel as a nation and that these wonderful promises to the nation of Is­rael are now given to the church, making us the spiritual Israel. And they come to this passage to support their position.

But may I suggest that Paul is not dealing with the church here.

He is talking about those in the nation of Israel. For example, in the gospel through John, chapter 8, reading from about John 8:37-44, our Lord is dealing with the leaders of Israel. And they said, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Fa­ther, even God.” They were challenging him con­cerning his deity.

He had said, “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” He called Himself the light of the world. Not to follow Him meant to walk in darkness. He has just declared that he whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

They have said to Him, “We know who your father is. We know who your mother is. We know the whole business. We were not born of fornication. God is—our—father.” They were sniping at His birth, that no one knew who His father was, and His claim that God was His Father.

His answer was, “If God were your father, you would love Me. . . . You are of your father, the devil.” They were also boasting of their natural de­scent. That’s what Paul is taking up here. Being in the natural descent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob doesn’t make you a child of promise.

But the promises of God are going to be accom­plished, and the purpose of God is going to be ac­complished in those who are the spiritual seed of Abraham in Israel.

God has never promised the church that we shall govern the world, whether you like it or not.

God said to Moses that the nation Israel would be the head of the nations—not the tail—and that through Israel the nations of the earth are going to know God. The Gentile nations are going to come into blessing through Israel. The time is going to come when ten men out of every nation under heaven will lay hold of the skirt of a Jew and say to him, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you” (Zechariah 8:23).

Or take Isaiah, chapter 2:3-4, that says that out of Zion (Jerusalem) shall go forth the law; and the nations shall be taught the word of God. And He, the Saviour, shall arbitrate between the nations to learn war no more.

“And Paul,” the Jews charge, “you are coming along and saying that the Gentiles can be blessed now? The Gentiles can become children of God now by simple faith and not by natural descent? They can be saved and become the children of God? You are denying all the Old Testament. You are defiling the prophets. You are an apostate.”

You see their ground for this?

So Paul answers that. He declares that God chose Israel for a purpose.

May I say here, he is not dealing with the sover­eignty of God as to whether He has chosen some to be saved and some to go to hell. You do not find that in your Bible. Don’t read what isn’t there. He is dealing here entirely with the question of privi­lege. God in sovereignty chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants for a place of privi­lege. Read verses 4 and 5 to see Israel’s place of blessing.

Mitchell's Commentary on Selected New Testament Books

GOD IS RIGHTEOUS IN ELECTING GRACE
(Romans 9:1-33)

Was God righteous in choosing Israel to be His witness to the nations? Was God righteous in giv­ing His truth to Israel, making it the depository of the Word of God? Why, of course. There is nothing wrong with that. God had a right to do that if He wanted to. He had a right to say through what people His Son should come into the human race. That doesn’t mean He was despising all the other families. He chose the Jews to be His witnesses, and they failed the job.

Please don’t raise the question of personal salva­tion here. He is talking about choosing a people for a place of privilege. He is talking about nations, not individuals.

So let me repeat, in chapter 9 you have God righteous in choosing Israel to be the nation that would be the depository of the Word of God, the one through whom Messiah should come and through whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed.

In chapter 10, you have God righteous in disci­plining Israel. He pushed the race to one side and began dealing with personal salvation. When you come to chapter 11, you have God righteous in re­storing the nation Israel to its place of privilege in the fulfillment of prophecy.

Paul is not talking about the church. He is deal­ing entirely with the nation Israel in chapter 9. In chapter 10, he opens the door for the individual Jew to accept the Saviour.

In chapter 11, God will restore the nation again to the place of privilege. As the 46th Psalm says, the Jews are going to be God’s witnesses, exalting Him among the nations.

I have been saying these things because I want you to know that all the promises of God for Israel will be fulfilled. But there are those who believe that God is through with the nation Israel and that all the blessings that He promised in the Old Tes­tament to Israel are going to be given to the church.

May I say very bluntly, the church is not Israel and Israel is not the church. They are two entirely different companies of people.

If you want to know God’s purpose for the church, you have to go to Ephesians and Philippi­ans and Colossians. The argument in Romans 9:1-33; Romans 10:1-21; Romans 11:1-36 is dealing with what God is doing with the na­tion Israel. For nearly 2000 years, the Jews have been a scattered people. They have been the butt of abuse and scorn and ridicule and persecution and martyrdom. In December 1947, they again be­came a nation; but they are still the object of per­secution and trouble.

Why has God permitted this if they are God’s people? And why has the Gospel gone out to the Gentiles? Why did God push the Jewish people to one side and scatter them and then pick up the Gentiles and form a new thing called “the church”? The much misunderstood answer is in these three chapters. And, while I speak to that point, may I suggest this, too?

One of the tragedies through the centuries has been that the church of Christ has taken the promises of God to the nation Israel and tried to apply them to itself. God has not given the church any worldly ambition or any earthly inheritance. Our Lord said in John 16:33, “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have over­come the world.”

The promises of God to the church are entirely different from the promises of God to the nation of Israel. Unless we see that, we are going to be caught in the vortex of taking the promises of God to the nation of Israel and trying to work them through the church with the result we are neither fish nor fowl. We have ruined the heavenly prom­ises for us and destroyed the earthly promises for Israel.

When God deals with the nation Israel, He deals with the nations of the earth. Today, He is not dealing with the nations. Today, He is dealing with individuals. He is gathering out a people for His name, made up of Jews and Gentiles.

It doesn’t make any difference who you are, what your color is, what your tongue is. God is dealing today with individuals, not nations.

And, when God begins to deal with the nations, He is going to deal in righteousness. He is going to deal in judgment. In fact, I would say, if I may quote from Isaiah 26:9, the nations of the earth will never know righteousness except through the judgment of God. “When the earth experiences thy judgments, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.”

And, remember, God is always righteous in eve­rything He does. So you have His past dealings with Israel in Romans 9:1-33 in electing them to a place of privilege.

Paul is not writing as one who hates Israel but as one who loves His people. He writes with a heavy heart.

It is easy for us to stand to one side and see what the Apostle experienced and to have none of it in our own hearts. And yet, I must say this, if you glory in the truth of the first eight chapters of Romans, if you revel in the purpose of God in chapter 8, if it doesn’t produce in your heart and my heart a real burden for those who are on the outside of the truth of God, then we have missed out entirely. The truth of chapter 8 has never gripped our heart.

The more we see of the glories we have in Christ and of our position in Him, the more there should be a greater yearning in our souls for men and women who are outside of Christ. If the one is real in our hearts, the other will be the evidence of it. If there is no evidence of love for souls, then we have got to question the reality of our faith. Reality always expresses itself in behalf of somebody else. Now the first three verses show:

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,   2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.   3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:   4 Who are Israelites; 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;   5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

      We have here the apostle's solemn profession of a great concern for the nation and people of the Jews--that he was heartily troubled that so many of them were enemies to the gospel, and out of the way of salvation. For this he had great heaviness and continual sorrow. Such a profession as this was requisite to take off the odium which otherwise he might have contracted by asserting and proving their rejection. It is wisdom as much as may be to mollify those truths which sound harshly and seem unpleasant: dip the nail in oil, it will drive the better. The Jews had a particular pique at Paul above any of the apostles, as appears by the history of the Acts, and therefore were the more apt to take things amiss of him, to prevent which he introduces his discourse with this tender and affectionate profession, that they might not think he triumphed or insulted over the rejected Jews or was pleased with the calamities that were coming upon them. Thus Jeremiah appeals to God concerning the Jews of his day, whose ruin was hastening on (Jeremiah 17:16), Neither have I desired the woeful day, thou knowest. Nay, Paul was so far from desiring it that he most pathetically deprecates it. And lest this should be thought only a copy of his countenance, to flatter and please them,

      I. He asserts it with a solemn protestation (Romans 9:1; Romans 9:1): I say the truth in Christ, "I speak it as a Christian, one of God's people, children that will not lie, as one that knows not how to give flattering title." Or, "I appeal to Christ, who searches the heart, concerning it." He appeals likewise to his own conscience, which was instead of a thousand witnesses. That which he was going to assert was not only a great and weighty thing (such solemn protestations are not to be thrown away upon trifles), but it was likewise a secret; it was concerning a sorrow in his heart to which none was a capable competent witness but God and his own conscience.--That I have great heaviness,Romans 9:2; Romans 9:2. He does not say for what; the very mention of it was unpleasant and invidious; but it is plain that he means for the rejection of the Jews.

      II. He backs it with a very serious imprecation, which he was ready to make, out of love to the Jews. I could wish; he does not say, I do wish, for it was no proper means appointed for such an end; but, if it were, I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren--a very high pang of zeal and affection for his countrymen. He would be willing to undergo the greatest misery to do them good. Love is apt to be thus bold, and venturous, and self-denying. Because the glory of God's grace in the salvation of many is to be preferred before the welfare and happiness of a single person, Paul, if they were put in competition, would be content to forego all his own happiness to purchase theirs. 1. He would be content to be cut off from the land of the living, in the most shameful and ignominious manner, as an anathema, or a devoted person. They thirsted for his blood, persecuted him as the most obnoxious person in the world, the curse and plague of his generation, 1 Corinthians 4:13; Acts 22:22. "Now," says Paul, "I am willing to bear all this, and a great deal more, for your good. Abuse me as much as you will, count and call me at your pleasure; your unbelief and rejection create in my heart a heaviness so much greater than all these troubles can that I could look upon them not only as tolerable, but as desirable, rather than this rejection." 2. He would be content to be excommunicated from the society of the faithful, to be separated from the church, and from the communion of saints, as a heathen man and a publican, if that would do them any good. He could wish himself no more remembered among the saints, his name blotted out of the church-records; though he had been so great a planter of churches, and the spiritual father of so many thousands, yet he would be content to be disowned by the church, cut off from all communion with it, and have his name buried in oblivion or reproach, for the good of the Jews. It may be, some of the Jews had a prejudice against Christianity for Paul's sake; such a spleen they had at him that they hated the religion he was of: "If this stumble you," says Paul, "I could wish I might be cast out, not embraced as a Christian, so you might but be taken in." Thus Moses (Exodus 32:33), in a like holy passion of concern, Blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written. 3. Nay, some think that the expression goes further, and that he could be content to be cut off from all his share of happiness in Christ, if that might be a means of their salvation. It is a common charity that begins at home; this is something higher, and more noble and generous.

      III. He gives us the reason of this affection and concern.

      1. Because of their relation to them: My brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. Though they were very bitter against him upon all occasions, and gave him the most unnatural and barbarous usage, yet thus respectfully does he speak of them. It shows him to be a man of a forgiving spirit. Not that I had aught to accuse my nation of,Acts 28:19. My kinsmen. Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special engagements, and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and concerning them, and our usefulness to them, we must in a special manner give account.

      2. Especially because of their relation to God (Romans 9:4; Romans 9:5): Who are Israelites, the seed of Abraham, God's friend, and of Jacob his chosen, taken into the covenant of peculiarity, dignified and distinguished by visible church-privileges, many of which are here mentioned:-- (1.) The adoption; not that which is saving, and which entitled to eternal happiness, but that which was external and typical, and entitled them to the land of Canaan. Israel is my son,Exodus 4:22. (2.) And the glory; the ark with the mercy-seat, over which God dwelt between the cherubim--this was the glory of Israel, 1 Samuel 4:21. The many symbols and tokens of the divine presence and guidance, the cloud, the Shechinah, the distinguishing favours conferred upon them--these were the glory. (3.) And the covenants--the covenant made with Abraham, and often renewed with his seed upon divers occasions. There was a covenant at Sinai (Exodus 24:1-18), in the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy 29:1-29), at Shechem (Joshua 24:1-33), and often afterwards; and still these pertained to Israel. Or, the covenant of peculiarity, and in that, as in the type, the covenant of grace. (4.) And the giving of the law. It was to them that the ceremonial and judicial law were given, and the moral law in writing pertained to them. It is a great privilege to have the law of God among us, and it is to be accounted so, Psalms 147:19; Psalms 147:20. This was the grandeur of Israel, Deuteronomy 4:7; Deuteronomy 4:8. (5.) And the service of God. They had the ordinances of God's worship among them--the temple, the altars, the priests, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the institutions relating to them. They were in this respect greatly honoured, that, while other nations were worshipping and serving stocks, and stones, and devils, and they knew not what other idols of their own invention, the Israelites were serving the true God in the way of his own appointment. (6.) And the promises--particular promises added to the general covenant, promises relating to the Messiah and the gospel state. Observe, The promises accompany the giving of the law, and the service of God; for the comfort of the promises is to be had in obedience to that law and attendance upon that service. (7.) Whose are the fathers (Romans 9:5; Romans 9:5), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, those men of renown, that stood so high in the favour of God. The Jews stand in relation to them, are their children, and proud enough they are of it: We have Abraham to our father. It was for the father's sake that they were taken into covenant, Romans 11:28; Romans 11:28. (8.) But the greatest honour of all was that of them as concerning the flesh (that is, as to his human nature) Christ came; for he took on him the seed of Abraham, Hebrews 2:16. As to his divine nature, he is the Lord from heaven; but, as to his human nature, he is of the seed of Abraham. This was the great privilege of the Jews, that Christ was of kin to them. Mentioning Christ, he interposes a very great word concerning him, that he is over all, God blessed for ever. Lest the Jews should think meanly of him, because he was of their alliance, he here speaks thus honourably concerning him: and it is a very full proof of the Godhead of Christ; he is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever. Therefore, how much sorer punishment were they worthy of that rejected him! It was likewise the honour of the Jews, and one reason why Paul had a kindness for them, that, seeing God blessed for ever would be a man, he would be a Jew; and, considering the posture and character of that people at that time, it may well be looked upon as a part of his humiliation.

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

The circumstances under which the epistle to the Romans was written gave occasion to the most thorough and comprehensive unfolding, not of the church, but of Christianity. No apostle had ever yet visited Rome. There was somewhat as yet lacking to the saints there; but even this was ordered of God to call forth from the Holy Ghost an epistle which more than any other approaches a complete treatise on the fundamentals of Christian doctrine, and especially as to righteousness.

Would we follow up the heights of heavenly truth, would we sound the depths of Christian experience, would we survey the workings of the Spirit of God in the Church, would we bow before the glories of the person of Christ, or learn His manifold offices, we must look elsewhere in the writings of the New Testament no doubt, but elsewhere rather than here.

The condition of the Roman saints called for a setting forth of the gospel of God; but this object, in order to be rightly understood and appreciated, leads the apostle into a display of the condition of man. We have God and man in presence, so to speak. Nothing can be more simple and essential. Although there is undoubtedly that profoundness which must accompany every revelation of God, and especially in connection with Christ as now manifested, still we have God adapting Himself to the very first wants of a renewed soul nay, even to the wretchedness of souls without God, without any real knowledge either of themselves or of Him. Not, of course, that the Roman saints were in this condition; but that God, writing by the apostle to them, seizes the opportunity to lay bare man's state as well as His own grace.

Romans 1:1-32. From the very first we have these characteristics of the epistle disclosing themselves. The apostle writes with the full assertion of his own apostolic dignity, but as a servant also. "Paul, a bondman of Jesus Christ" an apostle "called," not born, still less as educated or appointed of man, but an apostle "called," as he says "separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets." The connection is fully owned with that which had been from God of old. No fresh revelations from God can nullify those which preceded them; but as the prophets looked onward to what was coming, so is the gospel already come, supported by the past. There is mutual confirmation. Nevertheless, what is in nowise the same as what was or what will be. The past prepared the way, as it is said here, "which God had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, [here we have the great central object of God's gospel, even the person of Christ, God's Son,] which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (ver. 3). This last relation was the direct subject of the prophetic testimony, and Jesus had come accordingly. He was the promised Messiah, born King of the Jews.

But there was far more in Jesus. He was "declared," says the apostle, "to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" ( ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν , ver. 4). It was the Son of God not merely as dealing with the powers of the earth, Jehovah's King on the holy hill of Zion, but after a far deeper manner. For, essentially associated as He is with the glory of God the Father, the full deliverance of souls from the realm of death was His also. In this too we have the blessed connection of the Spirit (here peculiarly designated, for special reasons, "the Spirit of holiness"). That same energy of the Holy Ghost which had displayed itself in Jesus, when He walked in holiness here below, was demonstrated in resurrection; and not merely in His own rising from the dead, but in raising such at any time no doubt, though most signally and triumphantly displayed in His own resurrection.

The bearing of this on the contents and main doctrine of the epistle will appear abundantly by-and-by. Let me refer in passing to a few points more in the introduction, in order to link them together with that which the Spirit was furnishing to the Roman saints, as well as to show the admirable perfectness of every word that inspiration has given us. I do not mean by this its truth merely, but its exquisite suitability; so that the opening address commences the theme in hand, and insinuates that particular line of truth which the Holy Spirit sees fit to pursue throughout. To this then the apostle comes, after having spoken of the divine favour shown himself, both when a sinner, and now in his own special place of serving the Lord Jesus. "By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith." This was no question of legal obedience, although the law came from Jehovah. Paul's joy and boast were in the gospel of God. So therefore it addressed itself to the obedience of faith; not by this meaning practice, still less according to the measure of a man's duty, but that which is at the root of all practice faith-obedience obedience of heart and will, renewed by divine grace, which accepts the truth of God. To man this is the hardest of all obedience; but when once secured, it leads peacefully into the obedience of every day. If slurred over, as it too often is in souls, it invariably leaves practical obedience lame, and halt, and blind.

It was for this then that Paul describes himself as apostle. And as it is for obedience of faith, it was not in anywise restricted to the Jewish people "among all nations, for his (Christ's) name: among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ" (verses 5, 6). He loved even here at the threshold to show the breadth of God's grace. If he was called, so were they he an apostle, they not apostles but saints; but still, for them as for him, all flowed out of the same mighty love, of God. "To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called saints" (ver. 7). To these then he wishes, as was his wont, the fresh flow of that source and stream of divine blessing which Christ has made to be household bread to us: "Grace and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ" (ver. 7). Then, from ver. 8, after thanking God through Jesus for their faith spoken of everywhere, and telling them of his prayers for them, he briefly discloses the desire of his heart about them his long-cherished hope according to the grace of the gospel to reach Rome his confidence in the love of God that through him some spiritual gift would be imparted to them, that they might be established, and, according to the spirit of grace which filled his own heart, that he too might be comforted together with them "by the mutual faith both of you and me" (vv. 11, 12). There is nothing like the grace of God for producing the truest humility, the humility that not only descends to the lowest level of sinners to do them good, but which is itself the fruit of deliverance from that self-love which puffs itself or lowers others. Witness the common joy that grace gives an apostle with saints be had never seen, so that even he should be comforted as well as they by their mutual faith. He would not therefore have them ignorant how they had lain on his heart for a visit (ver. 13). He was debtor both to the Greeks and the barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise; he was ready, as far as he was concerned, to preach the gospel to those that were at Rome also (ver. 14, 15). Even the saints there would have been all the better for the gospel. It was not merely "to those at Rome," but "to you that be at Rome." Thus it is a mistake to suppose that saints may not be benefited by a better understanding of the gospel, at least as Paul preached it. Accordingly he tells them now what reason he had to speak thus strongly, not of the more advanced truths, but of the good news. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (ver. 16).

Observe, the gospel is not simply remission of sins, nor is it only peace with God, but "the power of God unto salvation." Now I take this opportunity of pressing on all that are here to beware of contracted views of "salvation." Beware that you do not confound it with souls being quickened, or even brought into joy. Salvation supposes not this only, but a great deal more. There is hardly any phraseology that tends to more injury of souls in these matters than a loose way of talking of salvation. "At any rate he is a saved soul," we hear. "The man has not got anything like settled peace with God; perhaps he hardly knows his sins forgiven; but at least he is a saved soul." Here is an instance of what is so reprehensible. This is precisely what salvation does not mean; and I would strongly press it on all that hear me, more particularly on those that have to do with the work of the Lord, and of course ardently desire to labour intelligently; and this not alone for the conversion, but for the establishment and deliverance of souls. Nothing less, I am persuaded, than this full blessing is the line that God has given to those who have followed Christ without the camp, and who, having been set free from the contracted ways of men, desire to enter into the largeness and at the same time the profound wisdom of every word of God. Let us not stumble at the starting-point, but leave room for the due extent and depth of "salvation" in the gospel.

There is no need of dwelling now on "salvation" as employed in the Old Testament, and in some parts of the New, as the gospels and Revelation particularly, where it is used for deliverance in power or even providence and present things. I confine myself to its doctrinal import, and the full Christian sense of the word; and I maintain that salvation signifies that deliverance for the believer which is the full consequence of the mighty work of Christ, apprehended not, of course, necessarily according to all its depth in God's eyes, but at any rate applied to the soul in the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not the awakening of conscience, however real; neither is it the attraction of heart by the grace of Christ, however blessed this may be. We ought therefore to bear in mind, that if a soul be not brought into conscious deliverance as the fruit of divine teaching, and founded on the work of Christ, we are very far from presenting the gospel as the apostle Paul glories in it, and delights that it should go forth. "I am not ashamed," etc.

And he gives his reason: "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith." That is, it is the power of God unto salvation, not because it is victory (which at the beginning of the soul's career would only give importance to man even if possible, which it is not), but because it is "the righteousness of God." It is not God seeking, or man bringing righteousness. In the gospel there is revealed God's righteousness. Thus the introduction opened with Christ's person, and closes with God's righteousness. The law demanded, but could never receive righteousness from man. Christ is come, and has changed all. God is revealing a righteousness of His own in the gospel. It is God who now makes known a righteousness to man, instead of looking for any from man. Undoubtedly there are fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, and God values them I will not say from man, but from His saints; but here it is what, according to the apostle, God has for man. It is for the saints to learn, of course; but it is that which goes out in its own force and necessary aim to the need of man a divine righteousness, which justifies instead of condemning him who believes. It is "the power of God unto salvation." It is for the lost, therefore; for they it is who need salvation; and it is to save not merely to quicken, but to save; and this because in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed.

Hence it is, as he says, herein revealed "from faith," or by faith. It is the same form of expression exactly as in the beginning of Romans 5:1-21 "being justified by faith" ( ἐκ πίστεως ). But besides this he adds "to faith." The first of these phrases, "from faith," excludes the law; the second, "to faith," includes every one that has faith within the scope of God's righteousness. Justification is not from works of law. The righteousness of God is revealed from faith; and consequently, if there be faith in any soul, to this it is revealed, to faith wherever it may be. Hence, therefore, it was in no way limited to any particular nation, such as those that had already been under the law and government of God. It was a message that went out from God to sinners as such. Let man be what he might, or where he might, God's good news was for man. And to this agreed the testimony of the prophet. "The just shall live by faith" (not by law). Even where the law was, not by it but by faith the just lived. Did Gentiles believe? They too should live. Without faith there is neither justice nor life that God owns; where faith is, the rest will surely follow.

This accordingly leads the apostle into the earlier portion of his great argument, and first of all in a preparatory way. Here we pass out of the introduction of the epistle. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (ver. 18). This is what made the gospel to be so sweet and precious, and, what is more, absolutely necessary, if he would escape certain and eternal ruin. There is no hope for man otherwise; for the gospel is not all that is now made known. Not only is God's righteousness revealed, but also His wrath. It is not said to be revealed in the gospel. The gospel means His glad tidings for man. The wrath of God could not possibly be glad tidings. It is true, it is needful for man to learn; but in nowise is it good news. There is then the solemn truth also of divine wrath. It is not yet executed. It is "revealed," and this too "from heaven." There is no question of a people on earth, and of God's wrath breaking out in one form or another against human evil in this life. The earth, or, at least, the Jewish nation, had been familiar with such dealings of God in times past. But now it is "the wrath of God from heaven;" and consequently it is in view of eternal things, and not of those that touch present life on the earth.

Hence, as God's wrath is revealed from heaven, it is against every form of impiety "against all ungodliness." Besides this, which seems to be a most comprehensive expression for embracing every sort and degree of human iniquity, we have one very specifically named. It is against the "unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." To hold the truth in unrighteousness would be no security. Alas! we know how this was in Israel, how it might be, and has been, in Christendom. God pronounces against the unrighteousness of such; for if the knowledge, however exact, of God's revealed mind was accompanied by no renewal of the heart, if it was without life towards God, all must be vain. Man is only so much the worse for knowing the truth, if he holds it ever so fast with unrighteousness. There are some that find a difficulty here, because the expression "to hold" means holding firmly. But it is quite possible for the unconverted to be tenacious of the truth, yet unrighteous in their ways; and so much the worse for them. Not thus does God deal with souls. If His grace attract, His truth humbles, and leaves no room for vain boasting and self-confidence. What He does is to pierce and penetrate the man's conscience. If one may so say, He thus holds the man, instead of letting the man presume that he is holding fast the truth. The inner man is dealt with, and searched through and through.

Nothing of this is intended in the class that is here brought before us. They are merely persons who plume themselves on their orthodoxy, but in a wholly unrenewed condition. Such men have never been wanting since the truth has shone on this world; still less are they now. But the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against them pre-eminently. The judgments of God will fall on man as man, but the heaviest blows are reserved for Christendom. There the truth is held, and apparently with firmness too. This, however, will be put to the test by-and-by. But for the time it is held fast, though in unrighteousness. Thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against (not only the open ungodliness of men, but) the orthodox unrighteousness of those that hold the truth in unrighteousness.

And this leads the apostle into the moral history of man the proof both of his inexcusable guilt, and of his extreme need of redemption. He begins with the great epoch of the dispensations of God (that is, the ages since the flood). We cannot speak of the state of things before the flood as a dispensation. There was a most important trial of man in the person of Adam; but after this, what dispensation was there? What were the principles of it? No man can tell. The truth is, those are altogether mistaken who call it so. But after the flood man as such was put under certain conditions the whole race. Man became the object, first, of general dealings of God under Noah; next, of His special ways in the calling of Abraham and of his family. And what led to the call of Abraham, of whom we hear much in the epistle to the Romans as elsewhere, was the departure of man into idolatry. Man despised at first the outward testimony of God, His eternal power and Godhead, in the creation above and around him (verses 19, 20). Moreover, He gave up the knowledge of God that had been handed down from father to son (ver. 21). The downfall of man, when he thus abandoned God, was most rapid and profound; and the Holy Spirit traces this solemnly to the end ofRomans 1:1-32; Romans 1:1-32 with no needless words, in a few energetic strokes summing up that which is abundantly confirmed (but in how different a manner!) by all that remains of the ancient world. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man," etc. (verses 22-32.) Thus corruption not only overspread morals, but became an integral part of the religion of men, and had thus a quasi-divine sanction. Hence the depravity of the heathen found little or no cheek from conscience, because it was bound up with all that took the shape of God before their mind. There was no part of heathenism practically viewed now, so corrupting as that which had to do with the objects of its worship. Thus, the true God being lost, all was lost, and man's downward career becomes the most painful and humiliating object, unless it be, indeed, that which we have to feel where men, without renewal of heart, espouse in pride of mind the truth with nothing but unrighteousness.

In the beginning ofRomans 2:1-29; Romans 2:1-29 we have man pretending to righteousness. Still, it is "man" not yet exactly the Jew, but man who had profited, it might be, by whatever the Jew had; at the least, by the workings of natural conscience. But natural conscience, although it may detect evil, never leads one into the inward possession and enjoyment of good never brings the soul to God. Accordingly, in chapter 2 the Holy Spirit shows us man satisfying himself with pronouncing on what is right and wrong moralizing for others, but nothing more. Now God must have reality in the man himself. The gospel, instead of treating this as a light matter, alone vindicates God in these eternal ways of His, in that which must be in him who stands in relationship with God. Hence therefore, the apostle, with divine wisdom, opens this to us before the blessed relief and deliverance which the gospel reveals to us. In the most solemn way he appeals to man with the demand, whether he thinks that God will look complacently on that which barely judges another, but which allows the practice of evil in the man himself (Romans 2:1-3). Such moral judgments will, no doubt, be used to leave man without excuse; they can never suit or satisfy God.

Then the apostle introduces the ground, certainty, and character of God's judgment (verses 4-16). He "will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: to them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile."

It is not here a question of how a man is to be saved, but of God's indispensable moral judgment, which the gospel, instead of weakening asserts according to the holiness and truth of God. It will be observed therefore, that in this connection the apostle shows the place both of conscience and of the law, that God in judging will take into full consideration the circumstances and condition of every soul of man. At the same time he connects, in a singularly interesting manner, this disclosure of the principles of the eternal judgment of God with what he calls "my gospel." This also is a most important truth, my brethren, to bear in mind. The gospel at its height in no wise weakens but maintains the moral manifestation of what God is. The legal institutions were associated with temporal judgment. The gospel, as now revealed in the New Testament, has linked with it, though not contained in it, the revelation of divine wrath from heaven, and this, you will observe, according to Paul's gospel. It is evident, therefore, that dispensational position will not suffice for God, who holds to His own unchangeable estimate of good and evil, and who judges the more stringently according to the measure of advantage possessed.

But thus the way is now clear for bringing the Jew into the discussion. "But if [for so it should be read] thou art named a Jew," etc. (ver. 17.) It was not merely, that he had better light. He had this, of course, in a revelation that was from God; he had law; he had prophets; he had divine institutions. It was not merely better light in the conscience, which might be elsewhere, as is supposed in the early verses of our chapter; but the Jew's position was directly and unquestionably one of divine tests applied to man's estate. Alas! the Jew was none the better for this, unless there were the submission of his conscience to God. Increase of privileges can never avail without the soul's self-judgment before the mercy of God. Rather does it add to his guilt: such is man's evil state and will. Accordingly, in the end of the chapter, he shows that this is most true as applied to the moral judgment of the Jew; that uone so much dishonoured God as wicked Jews, their own Scripture attesting it; that position went for nothing in such, while the lack of it would not annul the Gentile's righteousness, which would indeed condemn the more unfaithful Israel; in short, that one must be a Jew inwardly to avail, and circumcision be of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, whose praise is of God, and not of men.

The question then is raised in the beginning ofRomans 3:1-31; Romans 3:1-31, If this be so, what is the superiority of the Jew? Where lies the value of belonging to the circumcised people of God? The apostle allows this privilege to be great, specially in having the Scriptures, but turns the argument against the boasters. We need not here enter into the details; but on the surface we see how the apostle brings all down to that which is of the deepest interest to every soul. He deals with the Jew from his own Scripture (verses 9-19). Did the Jews take the ground of exclusively having that word of God the law? Granted that it is so, at once and fully. To whom, then, did the law address itself? To those that were under it, to be sure. It pronounced on the Jew then. It was the boast of the Jews that the law spoke about them; that the Gentiles had no right to it, and were but presuming on what belonged to God's chosen people. The apostle applies this according to divine wisdom. Then your principle is your condemnation. What the law says, it speaks to those under it. What, then, is its voice? That there is none righteous, none that doeth good, none that understandeth. Of whom does it declare all this? Of the Jew by his own confession. Every mouth was stopped; the Jew by his own oracles, as the Gentile by their evident abominations, shown already. All the world was guilty before God.

Thus, having shown the Gentile in Romans 1:1-32 manifestly wrong, and hopelessly degraded to the last degree having laid bare the moral dilettantism of the philosophers, not one whit better in the sight of God, but rather the reverse having shown the Jew overwhelmed by the condemnation of the divine oracles in which he chiefly boasted, without real righteousness, and so much the more guilty for his special privileges, all now lies clear for bringing in the proper Christian message, the. gospel of God. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" (verses 20, 21).

Here, again, the apostle takes up what he had but announced in chapter 1 the righteousness of God. Let me call your attention again to its force. It is not the mercy of God., Many have contended that so it is, and to their own great loss, as well as to the weakening of the word of God. "Righteousness" never means mercy, not even the "righteousness of God." The meaning is not what was executed on Christ, but what is in virtue. of it. Undoubtedly divine judgment fell on Him; but this is not "the righteousness of God," as the apostle employs it in any part of his writings any more than here, though we know there could be no such thing as God's righteousness justifying the believer, if Christ had not borne the judgment of God. The expression means that righteousness which God can afford to display because of Christ's atonement. In short, it is what the words say "the righteousness of God," and this "by faith of Jesus Christ."

Hence it is wholly apart from the law, whilst witnessed to by the law and prophets; for the law with its types had looked onward to this new kind of righteousness; and the prophets had borne their testimony that it was at hand, but not then come. Now it was manifested, and not promised or predicted merely. Jesus had come and died; Jesus had been a propitiatory sacrifice; Jesus had borne the judgment of God because of the sins He bore. The righteousness of God, then, could now go forth in virtue of His blood. God was not satisfied alone. There is satisfaction; but the work of Christ goes a great deal farther. Therein God is both vindicated and glorified. By the cross God has a deeper moral glory than ever a glory that He thus acquired, if I may so say. He is, of course, the same absolutely perfect and unchangeable God of goodness; but His perfection has displayed itself in new and more glorious ways in Christ's death, in Him who humbled Himself, and was obedient even to the death of the cross.

God, therefore, having not the least hindrance to the manifestation of what He can be and is in merciful intervention on behalf of the worst of sinners, manifests it is His righteousness "by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (ver. 22). The former is the direction, and the latter the application. The direction is "unto all;" the application is, of course, only to "them that believe;" but it is to all them that believe. As far as persons are concerned, there is no hindrance; Jew or Gentile makes no difference, as is expressly said, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the [passing over or praeter-mission, not] remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus" (verses 23-26). There is no simple mind that can evade the plain force of this last expression. The righteousness of God means that God is just, while at the same time He justifies the believer in Christ Jesus. It is His righteousness, or, in other words, His perfect consistency with Himself, which is always involved in the notion of righteousness. He is consistent with Himself when He is justifying sinners, or, more strictly, all those who believe in Jesus. He can meet the sinner, but He justifies the believer; and in this, instead of trenching on His glory, there is a deeper revelation and maintenance of it than if there never had been sin or a sinner.

Horribly offensive as sin is to God, and inexcusable in the creature, it is sin which has given occasion to the astonishing display of divine righteousness in justifying believers. It is not a question of His mercy merely; for this weakens the truth immensely, and perverts its character wholly. The righteousness of God flows from His mercy, of course; but its character and basis is righteousness. Christ's work of redemption deserves that God should act as He does in the gospel. Observe again, it is not victory here; for that would give place to human pride. It is not a soul's overcoming its difficulties, but a sinner's submission to the righteousness of God. It is God Himself who, infinitely glorified in the Lord that expiated our sins by His one sacrifice, remits them now, not looking for our victory, nor as yet even in leading us on to victory, but by faith in Jesus and His blood. God is proved thus divinely consistent with Himself in Christ Jesus, whom He has set forth a mercy-seat through faith in His blood.

Accordingly the apostle says that boast and works are completely set aside by this principle which affirms faith, apart from deeds of law, to be the means of relationship with God (verses 27, 28). Consequently the door is as open to the Gentile as to the Jew. The ground taken by a Jew for supposing God exclusively for Israel was, that they had the law, which was the measure of what God claimed from man; and this the Gentile had not. But such thoughts altogether vanish now, because, as the Gentile was unquestionably wicked and abominable, so from the law's express denunciation the Jew was universally guilty before God. Consequently all turned, not on what man should be for God, but what God can be and is, as revealed in the gospel, to man. This maintains both the glory and the moral universality of Him who will justify the circumcision by faith, not law, and the uncircumcision through their faith, if they believe the gospel. Nor does this in the slightest degree weaken the principle of law. On the contrary, the doctrine of faith establishes law as nothing else can; and for this simple reason, that if one who is guilty hopes to be saved spite of the broken law, it must be at the expense of the law that condemns his guilt; whereas the gospel shows no sparing of sin, but the most complete condemnation of it all, as charged on Him who shed His blood in atonement. The doctrine of faith therefore, which reposes on the cross, establishes law, instead of making it void, as every other principle must (verses 27-31).

But this is not the full extent of salvation. Accordingly we do not hear of salvation as such in Romans 3:1-31. There is laid down the most essential of all truths as a groundwork of salvation; namely, expiation. There is the vindication of God in His ways with the Old Testament believers. Their sins had been passed by. He could not have remitted heretofore. This would not have been just. And the blessedness of the gospel is, that it is (not merely an exercise of mercy, but also) divinely just. It would not have been righteous in any sense to have remitted the sins, until they were actually borne by One who could and did suffer for them. But now they were; and thus God vindicated Himself perfectly as to the past. But this great work of Christ was not and could not be a mere vindication of God; and we may find it otherwise developed in various parts of Scripture, which I here mention by the way to show the point at which we are arrived. God's righteousness was now manifested as to the past sins He had not brought into judgment through His forbearance, and yet more conspicuously in the present time, when He displayed His justice in justifying the believer.

But this is not all; and the objection of the Jew gives occasion for the apostle to bring out a fuller display of what God is. Did they fall back on Abraham? "What shall we then say that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Did the Jew fancy that the gospel makes very light of Abraham, and of the then dealings of God? Not so, says the apostle. Abraham is the proof of the value of faith in justification before God. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. There was no law there or then; for Abraham died long before God spoke from Sinai. He believed God and His word, with special approval on God's part; and his faith was counted as righteousness (ver. 3). And this was powerfully corroborated by the testimony of another great name in Israel (David), in Psalms 32:1-11. "For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him. Thou art my hiding-place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye."

In the same way the apostle disposes of all pretence on the score of ordinances, especially circumcision. Not only was Abraham justified without law, but apart from that great sign of mortification of the flesh. Although circumcision began with Abraham, manifestly it had nothing to do with his righteousness, and at best was but the seal of the righteousness of faith which he had in an uncircumcised state. It could not therefore be the source or means of his righteousness. All then that believe, though uncircumcised, might claim him as father, assured that righteousness will be reckoned to them too. And he is father of circumcision in the best sense, not to Jews, but to believing Gentiles. Thus the discussion of Abraham strengthens the case in behalf of the uncircumcised who believe, to the overthrow of the greatest boast of the Jew. The appeal to their own inspired account of Abraham turned into a proof of the consistency of God's ways in justifying by faith, and hence in justifying the uncircumcised no less than the circumcision.

But there is more than this in Romans 4:1-25 He takes up a third feature of Abraham's case; that is, the connection of the promise with resurrection. Here it is not merely the negation of law and of circumcision, but we have the positive side. Law works wrath because it provokes transgression; grace makes the promise sure to all the seed, not only because faith is open to the Gentile and Jew alike, but because God is looked to as a quickener of the dead. What gives glory to God like this? Abraham believed God when, according to nature, it was impossible for him or for Sarah to have a child. The quickening power of God therefore was here set forth, of course historically in a way connected with this life and a posterity on earth, but nevertheless a very just and true sign of God's power for the believer the quickening energy of God after a still more blessed sort. And this leads us to see not only where there was an analogy with those who believe in a promised Saviour, but also to a weighty difference. And this lies in the fact that Abraham believed God before he had the son, being fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able to perform. and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. But we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. It is done. already. It is not here believing on Jesus, but on God who has proved what He is to us in raisin, from among the dead Him who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification (verses 13-25).

This brings out a most emphatic truth and special side of Christianity. Christianity is not a system of promise, but rather of promise accomplished in Christ. Hence it is essentially founded on the gift not only of a Saviour who would interpose, in the mercy of God, to bear our sins, but of One who is already revealed, and the work done and accepted, and this known in the fact that God Himself has interposed to raise Him from among the dead a bright and momentous thing to press on souls, as indeed we find the apostles insisting on it throughout the Acts. Were it merely Romans 3:1-31 there could not be full peace with God as there is. One might know a most real clinging to Jesus; but this would not set the heart at ease with God. The soul may feel the blood of Jesus to be a yet deeper want; but this alone does not give peace with God. In such a condition what has been found in Jesus is too often misused to make a kind of difference, so to speak, between the Saviour on the one hand, and God on the other ruinous always to the enjoyment of the full blessing of the gospel. Now there is no way in which God could lay a basis for peace with Himself more blessed than as He has done it. No longer does the question exist of requiring an expiation. That is the first necessity for the sinner with God. But we have had it fully in Romans 3:1-31. Now it is the positive power of God in raising up from the dead Him that was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justifying. The whole work is done.

The soul therefore now is represented for the first time as already justified and in possession of peace with God. This is a state of mind, and not the necessary or immediate fruit of Romans 3:1-31, but is based on the truth of Romans 4:1-25 as well as 3. There never can be solid peace with God without both. A soul may as truly, no doubt, be put into relationship with God be made very happy, it may be; but it is not what Scripture calls "peace with God." Therefore it is here for the first time that we find salvation spoken of in the grand results that are now brought before us in Romans 5:1-11. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." There is entrance into favour, and nothing but favour. The believer is not put under law, you will observe, but under grace, which is the precise reverse of law. The soul is brought into peace with God, as it finds its standing in the grace of God, and, more than that, rejoices in hope of the glory of God. Such is the doctrine and the fact. It is not merely a call then; but as we have by our Lord Jesus Christ our access into the favour wherein we stand, so there is positive boasting in the hope of the glory of God. For it may have been noticed from chapter 3 to chapter 5, that nothing but fitness for the glory of God will do now. It is not a question of creature-standing. This passed away with man when he sinned. Now that God has revealed Himself in the gospel, it is not what will suit man on earth, but what is worthy of the presence of the glory of God. Nevertheless the apostle does not expressly mention heaven here. This was not suitable to the character of the epistle; but the glory of God he does. We all know where it is and must be for the Christian.

The consequences are thus pursued; first, the general place of the believer now, in all respects, in relation to the past, the present, and the future. His pathway follows; and he shows that the very troubles of the road become a distinct matter of boast. This was not a direct and intrinsic effect, of course, but the result of spiritual dealing for the soul. It was the Lord giving us the profit of sorrow, and ourselves bowing to the way and end of God in it, so that the result of tribulation should be rich and fruitful experience.

Then there is another and crowning part of the blessing: "And not only so, but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation." It is not only a blessing in its own direct character, or in indirect though real effects, but the Giver Himself is our joy, and boast, and glory. The consequences spiritually are blessed to the soul; how much more is it to Teach the source from which all flows! This, accordingly, is the essential spring of worship. The fruits of it are not expanded here; but, in point of fact, to joy in God is necessarily that which makes praise and adoration to be the simple and spontaneous exercise of the heart. In heaven it will fill us perfectly; but there is no more perfect joy there, nor anything. higher, if so high, in this epistle.

At this point we enter upon a most important part of the epistle, on which we must dwell for a little. It is no longer a question of man's guilt, but of his nature. Hence the apostle does not, as in the early chapters of this epistle, take up our sins, except as proofs and symptoms of sin. Accordingly, for the first time, the Spirit of God fromRomans 5:12; Romans 5:12 traces the mature of man to the head of the race. This brings in the contrast with the other Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom we have here not as One bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, but as the spring and chief of a new family. Hence, as is shown later in the chapter, Adam is a head characterized by disobedience, who brought in death, the just penalty of sin; as on the other hand we have Him of whom he was the type, Christ, the obedient man, who has brought in righteousness, and this after a singularly blessed sort and style "justification of life." Of it nothing has been heard till now. We have had justification, both by blood and also in virtue of Christ's resurrection. But "justification of life" goes farther, though involved in the latter, than the end of Romans 4:1-25; for now we learn that in the gospel there is not only a dealing with the guilt of those that are addressed in it; there is also a mighty work of God in the presenting the man in a new place before God, and in fact, too, for his faith, clearing him from all the consequences in which he finds himself as a man in the flesh here below.

It is here that you will find a great failure of Christendom as to this. Not that any part of the truth has escaped: it is the fatal brand of that "great house" that even the most elementary truth suffers the deepest injury; but as to this truth, it seems unknown altogether. I hope that brethren in Christ will bear with me if I press on them the importance of taking good heed to it that their souls are thoroughly grounded in this, the proper place of the Christian by Christ's death and resurrection. It must not be, assumed too readily. There is a disposition continually to imagine that what is frequently spoken of must be understood; but experience will soon show that this is not the case. Even those that seek a place of separation to the Lord outside that which is now hurrying on souls to destruction are, nevertheless, deeply affected by the condition of that Christendom in which we find ourselves.

Here, then, it is not a question at all of pardon or remission. First of all the apostle points out that death has come in, and that this was no consequence of law, but before it. Sin was in the world between Adam and Moses, when the law was not. This clearly takes in man, it will be observed; and this is his grand point now. The contrast of Christ with Adam takes in man universally as well as the Christian; and man in sin, alas! was true, accordingly, before the law, right through the law, and ever since the law. The apostle is therefore plainly in presence of the broadest possible grounds of comparison, though we shall find more too.

But the Jew might argue that it was an unjust thing in principle this gospel, these tidings of which the apostle was so full; for why should one man affect many, yea, all? "Not so," replies the apostle. Why should this be so strange and incredible to you? for on your own showing, according to that word to which we all bow, you must admit that one man's sin brought in universal moral ruin and death. Proud as you may be of that which distinguishes you, it is hard to make sin and death peculiar to you, nor can you connect them even with the law particularly: the race of man is in question, and not Israel alone. There is nothing that proves this so convincingly as the book of Genesis; and the apostle, by the Spirit of God, calmly but triumphantly summons the Jewish Scriptures to demonstrate that which the Jews were so strenuously denying. Their own Scriptures maintained, as nothing else could, that all the wretchedness which is now found in the world, and the condemnation which hangs over the race, is the fruit of one man, and indeed of one act.

Now, if it was righteous in God (and who will gainsay it?) to deal with the whole posterity of Adam as involved in death because of one, their common father, who could deny the consistency of one man's saving? who would defraud God of that which He delights in the blessedness of bringing in deliverance by that One man, of whom Adam was the image? Accordingly, then, he confronts the unquestionable truth, admitted by every Israelite, of the universal havoc by one man everywhere with the One man who has brought in (not pardon only, but, as we shall find) eternal life and liberty liberty now in the free gift of life, but a liberty that will never cease for the soul's enjoyment until it has embraced the very body that still groans, and this because of the Holy Ghost who dwells in it.

Here, then, it is a comparison of the two great heads Adam and Christ, and the immeasurable superiority of the second man is shown. That is, it is not merely pardon of past sins, but deliverance from sin, and in due time from all its consequences. The apostle has come now to the nature. This is the essential point. It is the thing which troubles a renewed conscientious soul above all, because of his surprise at finding the deep evil of the flesh and its mind after having proved the great grace of God in the gift of Christ. If I am thus pitied of God, if so truly and completely a justified man, if I am really an object of God's eternal favour, how can I have such a sense of continual evil? why am I still under bondage and misery from the constant evil of my nature, over which I seem to have no power whatever? Has God then no delivering power from this? The answer is found in this portion of our epistle (that is, from the middle of chapter 5).

Having shown first, then, the sources and the character of the blessing in general as far as regards deliverance, the apostle sums up the result in the end of the chapter: "That as sin hath reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life," the point being justification of life now through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This is applied in the two chapters that follow. There are two things that might make insuperable difficulty: the one is the obstacle of sin in the nature to practical holiness; the other is the provocation and condemnation of the law. Now the doctrine which we saw asserted in the latter part ofRomans 5:1-21; Romans 5:1-21 is applied to both. First, as to practical holiness, it is not merely that Christ has died for my sins, but that even in the initiatory act of baptism the truth set forth there is that I am dead. It is not, as in Ephesians 2:1-22, dead in sins, which would be nothing to the purpose. This is all perfectly true true of a Jew as of a pagan true of any unrenewed man that never heard of a Saviour. But what is testified by Christian baptism is Christ's death. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized unto his death?" Thereby is identification with His death. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The man who, being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or Christian baptism, would assert any license to sin because it is in his nature, as if it were therefore an inevitable necessity, denies the real and evident meaning of his baptism. That act denoted not even the washing away of our sins by the blood of Jesus, which would not apply to the case, nor in any adequate way meet the question of nature. What baptism sets forth is more than that, and is justly found, not in Romans 3:1-31, but inRomans 6:1-23; Romans 6:1-23. There is no inconsistency in Ananias's word to the apostle Paul "wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." There is water as well as blood, and to that, not to this, the washing here refers. But there is more, which Paul afterwards insisted on. That was said to Paul, rather than what was taught by Paul. What the apostle had given him in fulness was the great truth, however fundamental it may be, that I am entitled, and even called on in the name of the Lord Jesus, to know that I am dead to sin; not that I must die, but that I am dead that my baptism means nothing less than this, and is shorn of its most emphatic point if limited merely to Christ's dying for my sins. It is not so alone; but in His death, unto which I am baptized, I am dead to sin. And "how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" Hence, then, we find that the whole chapter is founded on this truth. "Shall we sin," says he, proceeding yet farther (ver. 15), "because we are not under the law, but under grace?" This were indeed to deny the value of His death, and of that newness of life we have in Him risen, and a return to bondage of the worst description.

In Romans 7:1-25 we have the subject of the law discussed for practice as well as in principle, and there again meet with the same weapon of tried and unfailing temper. It is no longer blood, but death Christ's death and resurrection. The figure of the relationship of husband and wife is introduced in order to make the matter plain. Death, and nothing short of it, rightly dissolves the bond. We accordingly are dead, says he, to the law; not (as no doubt almost all of us know) that the law dies, but that we are dead to the law in the death of Christ. Compare verse 6 (where the margin, not the text, is substantially correct) with verse 4. Such is the principle. The rest of the chapter (7-25) is an instructive episode, in which the impotence and the misery of the renewed mind which attempts practice under law are fully argued out, till deliverance (not pardon) is found in Christ.

Thus the latter portion of the chapter is not doctrine exactly, but the proof of the difficulties of a soul who has not realised death to the law by the body of Christ. Did this seem to treat the law that condemned as an evil thing? Not so, says the apostle; it is because of the evil of the nature, not of the law. The law never delivers; it condemns and kills us. It was meant to make sin exceeding sinful. Hence, what he is here discussing is not remission of sins, but deliverance from sin. No wonder, if souls confound the two things together, that they never know deliverance in practice. Conscious deliverance, to be solid according to God, must be in the line of His truth. In vain will you preach Romans 3:1-31, or even 4 alone, for souls to know themselves consciously and holily set free.

From verse 14 there is an advance. There we find Christian knowledge as to the matter introduced; but still it is the knowledge of one who is not in this state pronouncing on one who is. You must carefully guard against the notion of its being a question of Paul's own experience, because he says, "I had not known," "I was alive," etc. There is no good reason for such an assumption, but much against it. It might be more or less any man's lot to learn. It is not meant that Paul knew nothing of this; but that the ground of inference, and the general theory built up, are alike mistaken. We have Paul informing us that he transfers sometimes in a figure to himself that which was in no wise necessarily his own experience, and perhaps had not been so at any time. But this may be comparatively a light question. The great point is to note the true picture given us of a soul quickened, but labouring and miserable under law, not at all consciously delivered. The last verses of the chapter, however, bring in the deliverance not yet the fulness of it, but the hinge, so to speak. The discovery is made that the source of the internal misery was that the mind, though renewed, was occupied with the law as a means of dealing with, flesh. Hence the very fact of being renewed makes one sensible of a far more intense misery than ever, while there is no power until the soul looks right outside self to Him who is dead and risen, who has anticipated the difficulty, and alone gives the full answer to all wants.

Romans 8:1-39 displays this comforting truth in its fulness. From the first verse we have the application of the dead and risen Christ to the soul, till in verse 11 we see the power of the Holy Ghost, which brings the soul into this liberty now, applied by-and-by to the body, when there will be the complete deliverance. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." A wondrous way, but most blessed! And there (for such was the point) it was the complete condemnation of this evil thing, the nature in its present state, so as, nevertheless, to set the believer as before God's judgment free from itself as well as its consequences. This God has wrought in Christ. It is not in any degree settled as to itself by His blood. The shedding of His blood was absolutely necessary: without that precious expiation all else had been vain and impossible. But there is much more in Christ than that to which too many souls restrict themselves, not less to their own loss than to His dishonour. God has condemned the flesh. And here it may be repeated that it is no question of pardoning the sinner, but of condemning the fallen nature; and this so as to give the soul both power and a righteous immunity from all internal anguish about it. For the truth is that God has in Christ condemned sin, and this for sin definitely; so that He has nothing more to do in condemnation of that root of evil. What a title, then, God gives me now in beholding Christ, no longer dead but risen, to have it settled before my soul that I am in Him as He now is, where all questions are closed in peace and joy! For what remains unsolved by and in Christ? Once it was far otherwise. Before the cross there hung out the gravest question that ever was raised, and it needed settlement in this world; but in Christ sin is for ever abolished for the believer; and this not only in respect of what He has done, but in what He is. Till the cross, well might a converted soul be found groaning in misery at each fresh discovery of evil in himself. But now to faith all this is gone not lightly, but truly in the sight of God; so that he may live on a Saviour that is risen from the dead as his new life.

Accordingly Romans 8:1-39 pursues in the most practical manner the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. First of all, the groundwork of it is laid in the first four verses, the last of them leading into every-day walk. And it is well for those ignorant of it to know that here, in verse 4, the apostle speaks first of "walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The latter clause in the first verse of the authorised version mars the sense. In the fourth verse this could not be absent; in the first verse it ought not to be present. Thus the deliverance is not merely for the joy of the soul, but also for strength in our walking after the Spirit, who has given and found a nature in which He delights, communicating withal His own delight in Christ, and making obedience to be the joyful service of the believer. The believer, therefore, unwittingly though really, dishonours the Saviour, if he be content to walk short of this standard and power; he is entitled and called to walk according to his place, and in the confidence of his deliverance in Christ Jesus before God.

Then the domains of flesh and Spirit are brought before us: the one characterized by sin and death practically now; the other by life, righteousness, and peace, which is, as we saw, to be crowned finally by the resurrection of these bodies of ours. The Holy Ghost, who now gives the soul its consciousness of deliverance from its place in Christ, is also the witness that the body too, the mortal body, shall be delivered in its time. "If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by [or because of] his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

Next, he enters upon another branch of the truth the Spirit not as a condition contrasted with flesh (these two, as we know, being always contrasted in Scripture), but as a power, a divine person that dwells in and bears His witness to the believer. His witness to our spirit is this, that we are children of God. But if children, we are His heirs. This accordingly leads, as connected with the deliverance of the body, to the inheritance we are to possess. The extent is what God Himself, so to speak, possesses the universe of God, whatever will be under Christ: and what will not? As He has made all, so He is heir of all. We are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.

Hence the action of the Spirit of God in a double point of view comes before us. As He is the spring of our joy, He is the power of sympathy in our sorrows, and the believer knows both. The faith of Christ has brought divine joy into his soul; but, in point of fact, he is traversing a world of infirmity, suffering, and grief. Wonderful to think the Spirit of God associates Himself with us in it all, deigning to give us divine feelings even in our poor and narrow hearts. This occupies the central part of the chapter, which then closes with the unfailing and faithful power of God for us in all our experiences here below. As He has given us through the blood of Jesus full remission, as we shall be saved by this life, as He has made us know even now nothing short of present conscious deliverance from every whit of evil that belongs to our very nature, as we have the Spirit the earnest of the glory to which we are destined, as we are the vessels of gracious sorrow in the midst of that from which we are not yet delivered but shall be, so now we have the certainty that, whatever betide, God is for us, and that nothing shall separate us from His love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Then, in Romans 9:1-33; Romans 10:1-21; Romans 11:1-36, the apostle handles a difficulty serious to any mind, especially to the Jew, who might readily feel that all this display of grace in Christ to the Gentile as much as to the Jew by the gospel seems to make very cheap the distinctive place of Israel as given of God. If the good news of God goes out to man, entirely blotting out the difference between a Jew and a Gentile, what becomes of His special promises to Abraham and to his seed? What about His word passed and sworn to the fathers? The apostle shows them with astonishing force at the starting-point that he was far from slighting their privileges. He lays down such a summary as no Jew ever gave since they were a nation. He brings out the peculiar glories of Israel according to the depth of the gospel as he knew and preached it; at least, of His person who is the object of faith now revealed. Far from denying or obscuring what they boasted of, he goes beyond them "Who are Israelites," says he, "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 fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever." Here was the very truth that every Jew, as such, denied. What blindness! Their crowning glory was precisely what they would not hear of. What glory so rich as that of the Christ Himself duly appreciated? He was God over all blessed for ever, as well as their Messiah. Him who came in humiliation, according to their prophets, they might despise; but it was vain to deny that the same prophets bore witness to His divine glory. He was Emmanuel, yea, the Jehovah, God of Israel. Thus then, if Paul gave his own sense of Jewish privileges, there was no unbelieving Jew that rose up to his estimate of them.

But now, to meet the question that was raised, they pleaded the distinguishing promises to Israel. Upon what ground? Because they were sons of Abraham. But how, argues he, could this stand, seeing that Abraham had another son, just as much his child as Isaac? What did they say to Ishmaelites as joint-heirs? They would not hear of it. No, they cry, it is in Isaac's seed that the Jew was called. Yes, but this is another principle. If in Isaac only, it is a question of the seed, not that was born, but that was called. Consequently the call of God, and not the birth simply makes the real difference. Did they venture to plead that it must be not only the same father, but the same mother? The answer is, that this will not do one whit better; for when we come down to the next generation, it is apparent that the two sons of Isaac were sons of the same mother; nay, they were twins. What could be conceived closer or more even than this? Surely if equal birth-tie could ensure community of blessing if a charter from God depended on being sprung from the same father and mother, there was no case so strong, no claim so evident, as that of Esau to take the same rights as Jacob. Why would they not allow such a pretension? Was it not sure and evident that Israel could not take the promise on the ground of mere connection after the flesh? Birthright from the same father would let in Ishmael on the one hand, as from both parents it would secure the title of Esau on the other. Clearly, then, such ground is untenable. In point of fact, as he had hinted before, their true tenure was the call of God, who was free, if He pleased, to bring in other people. It became simply a question whether, in fact, God did call Gentiles, or whether He had revealed such intentions.

But he meets their proud exclusiveness in another way. He shows that, on the responsible ground of being His nation, they were wholly ruined. If the first book in the Bible showed that it was only the call of God that made Israel what they were, its second book as clearly proved that all was over with the called people, had it not been for the mercy of God. They set up the golden calf, and thus cast off the true God, their God, even in the desert. Did the call of God. then, go out to Gentiles? Has He mercy only for guilty Israel? Is there no call, no mercy, of God for any besides?

Hereupon he enters upon the direct proofs, and first cites Hosea as a witness. That early prophet tells Israel, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, and Lo-ammi were of awful import for Israel; but, in presence of circumstances so disastrous, there should be not merely a people but sons of the living God, and then should Judah and Israel be gathered as one people under one head. The application of this was more evident to the Gentile than to the Jew. Compare Peter's use in1 Peter 2:10; 1 Peter 2:10. Finally he brings in Isaiah, showing that, far from retaining their blessing as an unbroken people, a remnant alone would be saved. Thus one could not fail to see these two weighty inferences: the bringing in to be God's sons of those that had not been His people, and the judgment and destruction of the great mass of His undoubted people. Of these only a remnant would be saved. On both sides therefore the apostle is meeting the grand points he had at heart to demonstrate from their own Scriptures.

For all this, as he presses further, there was the weightiest reason possible. God is gracious, but holy; He is faithful, but righteous. The apostle refers to Isaiah to show that God would "lay in Zion a stumbling-stone." It is in Zion that He lays it. It is not among the Gentiles, but in the honoured centre of the polity of Israel. There would be found a stumblingstone there. What was to be the stumbling-stone? Of course, it could hardly be the law: that was the boast of Israel. What was it? There could be but one satisfactory answer. The stumbling-stone was their despised and rejected Messiah. This was the key to their difficulties this alone, and fully explains their coming ruin as well as God's solemn warnings.

In the next chapter (Romans 10:1-21) he carries on the subject, showing in the most touching manner his affection for the people. He at the same time unfolds the essential difference between the righteousness of faith and that of law. He takes their own books, and proves from one of them (Deuteronomy) that in the ruin of Israel the resource is not going into the depths, nor going up to heaven. Christ indeed did both; and so the word was nigh them, in their mouth and in their heart. It is not doing, but believing; therefore it is what is proclaimed to them, and what they receive and believe. Along with this he gathers testimonies from more than one prophet. He quotes from Joel, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. He quotes also from Isaiah "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed." And mark the force of it whosoever." The believer, whosoever he might be, should not be ashamed. Was it possible to limit this to Israel? But more than this "Whosoever shall call." There. is the double prophecy. Whosoever believed should not be ashamed; whosoever called should be saved. In both parts, as it may be observed, the door is opened to the Gentile.

But then again he intimates that the nature of the gospel is involved in the publishing of the glad tidings. It is not God having an earthly centre, and the peoples doming up to worship the Lord in Jerusalem. It is the going forth of His richest blessing. And where? How far? To the limits of the holy land? Far beyond. Psalms 19:1-14 is used in the most beautiful manner to insinuate that the limits are the world. Just as the sun in the heavens is not for one people or land alone, no more is the gospel. There is no language where their voice is not heard. "Yea verily, their sound went forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." The gospel goes forth universally. Jewish pretensions were therefore disposed of; not here by new and fuller revelations, but by this divinely skilful employment of their own Old Testament Scriptures.

Finally he comes to two other witnesses; as from the Psalms, so now from the law and the prophets. The first is Moses himself. Moses saith, "I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people," etc. How could the Jews say that this meant themselves? On the contrary, it was the Jew provoked by the Gentiles "By them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you." Did they deny that they were a foolish nation? Be it so then; it was a foolish nation by which Moses declared they should be angered. But this does not content the apostle, or rather the Spirit of God; for he goes on to point out that Isaiah "is very bold" in a similar way; that is, there is no concealing the truth of the matter. Isaiah says: "I was found of them who sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." The Jews were the last in the world to take such ground as this. It was undeniable that the Gentiles did not seek the Lord, nor ask after Him; and the prophet says that Jehovah was found of them that sought Him not, and was made manifest to them that asked not after Him. Nor is there only the manifest call of the Gentiles in this, but with no less clearness there is the rejection, at any rate for a time, of proud Israel. "But unto Israel he saith, All day long have I stretched out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."

Thus the proof was complete. The Gentiles the despised heathen were to be brought in; the self-satisfied Jews are left behind, justly and beyond question, if they believed the law and the prophets.

But did this satisfy the apostle? It was undoubtedly enough for present purposes. The past history of Israel was sketched inRomans 9:1-33; Romans 9:1-33; the present more immediately is before us inRomans 10:1-21; Romans 10:1-21. The future must be brought in by the grace of God; and this he accordingly gives us at the close of Romans 11:1-36. First, he raises the question, "Has God cast away his people?" Let it not be! Was he not himself, says Paul, a proof to the contrary? Then he enlarges, and points out that there is a remnant of grace in the worst of times. If God had absolutely cast away His people, would there be such mercy? There would be no remnant if justice took its course. The remnant proves, then, that even under judgment the rejection of Israel is not complete, but rather a pledge of future favour. This is the first ground.

The second plea is not that the rejection of Israel is only partial, however extensive, but that it is also temporary, and not definitive. This is to fall back on a principle he had already used. God was rather provoking Israel to jealousy by the call of the Gentiles. But if it were so, He had not done with them. Thus the first argument shows that the rejection was not total; the second, that it was but for a season.

But there is a third. Following up with the teaching of the olive-tree, he carries out the same thought of a remnant that abides on their own stock, and points to a re-instatement of the nation, And I would just observe by the way, that the Gentile cry that no Jew ever accepts the gospel in truth is a falsehood. Israel is indeed the only people of whom there is always a portion that believe. Time was when none of the English, nor French, nor of any other nation believed in the Saviour. There never was an hour since Israel's existence as a nation that God has not had His remnant of them. Such has been their singular fruit of promise; such even in the midst of all their misery it is at present. And as that little remnant is ever sustained by the grace of God, it is the standing pledge of their final blessedness through His mercy, whereon the apostle breaks out into raptures of thanksgiving to God. The day hastens when the Redeemer shall come to Zion. He shall come, says one Testament, out of Zion. He shall come to Zion, says the other. In both Old and New it is the same substantial testimony. Thither He shall come, and thence, go forth. He shall own that once glorious seat of royalty in Israel. Zion shall yet behold her mighty, divine, but once despised Deliverer; and when He thus comes, there will be a deliverance suited to His glory. All Israel shall be saved. God, therefore, had not cast off His people, but was employing the interval of their slip from their place, in consequence of their rejection of Christ, to call the Gentiles in sovereign mercy, after which Israel as a whole should be saved. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first liven to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever."

The rest of the epistle takes up the practical consequences of the great doctrine of God's righteousness, which had been now shown to be supported by, and in no wise inconsistent with, His promises to Israel. The whole history of Israel, past, present, and future falls in with, although quite distinct from, that which he had been expounding. Here I shall be very brief.

Romans 12:1-21 looks at the mutual duties of the saints. Romans 13:1-14; Romans 13:1-14 urges their duties towards what was outside them, more particularly to the powers that be, but also to men in general. Love is the great debt that we owe, which never can be paid, but which we should always be paying. The chapter closes with the day of the Lord in its practical force on the Christian walk. In Romans 14:1-23 and the beginning ofRomans 15:1-33; Romans 15:1-33 we have the delicate theme of Christian forbearance in its limits and largeness. The weak are not to judge the strong, and the strong are not to despise the weak. These things are matters of conscience, and depend much for their solution on the degree to which souls have attained. The subject terminates with the grand truth which must never be obscured by details that we are to receive, one another, as Christ has received us, to the glory of God. In the rest of chapter 15 the apostle dwells on the extent of his apostleship, renews his expression of the thought and hope of visiting Rome, and at the same time shows how well he remembered the need of the poor at Jerusalem. Romans 16:1-27; Romans 16:1-27 brings before us in the most. instructive and interesting manner the links that grace practically forms and maintains between the saints of God. Though he had never visited Rome, many of them were known personally. It is exquisite the delicate love with which he singles out distinctive features in each of the saints, men and women, that come before him. Would that the Lord would give us hearts to remember, as well as eyes to see, according to His own grace! Then follows a warning against those who bring in stumbling-blocks and offences. There is evil at work, and grace does not close the eye to danger; at the same time it is never under the pressure of the enemy, and there is the fullest confidence that the God of peace will break the power of Satan under the feet of the saints shortly.

Last of all, the apostle links up this fundamental treatise of divine righteousness in its doctrine, its dispensational bearings, and its exhortations to the walk of Christians, with higher truth, which it would not have been suitable then to bring out; for grace considers the state and the need of the saints. True ministry gives out not merely truth, but suited truth to the saints. At the same time the apostle does allude to that mystery which was not yet divulged at least, in this epistle; but he points from the foundations of eternal truth to those heavenly heights that were reserved for other communications in due time.