^«Y OF mficF^ 
 
 'Logical seV^^^ 
 
 BS2665 .M68 1888 
 
 Morison, James, 1816-1893. 
 
 Exposition of the ninth 
 
 chapter 
 
 of the Epistle to the Romans 
 
EXPOSITION 
 
 NINTH CHAPTER OF ROMANS. 
 
'• The Ninth Chapter of Eomans, rightly understood, is, to pious 
 minds, sweetest consolation." — Loci Com. Theol. de Predestinatione. 
 
 " Come, then, thou solemn power. Philology, pioneer of the ab- 
 struser sciences, to prepare the way for their passage, . . . lend 
 me thy needle-pointed pencil, that I may trace out the hair-breadth 
 differences of language." — Abraham Tocker. (The Light of Nature 
 Pttrsued, chap. xxvi. vol. ii. p. 268, edit. 1831.) 
 
EXPOSITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NINTH CHAPTER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 
 
 JAMES MORISON, D.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 MONOGRAPHS ON ROMANS III. AND VI., AND OF COMMENTARIES ON THE 
 GOSPELS OF ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK, ETC. 
 
 A NEW EDITION,' RE-WRITTEN, TO WHICH IS ADDED AN 
 EXPOSITION OF THE TENTH CHAPTER. 
 
 ITonbon : 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 
 27, PATERNOSTER ROW, 
 
 MDCCCLXXXVIII. 
 (All rig/its rcseri'i'd.) 
 
' Alas for thee, Jerusalem ! How cold thy heart to Me ! 
 How often in these arms of love would I have gathered thee ! 
 My sheltering wing had been thy shield, My love thy hapjDy lot 
 I would it had been thus with thee ! I would, but ye would not." 
 
 ' That hour has fled, those tears are told, the agony is past ; 
 The Lord has wept, the Lord has bled, but He has not loved— His last. 
 From heaven His eye is downward bent, still ranging to and fro, 
 Where'er, in this wide wilderness, there roams a child of woe. 
 Nor His alone ; the Three-in-One, who looked through Jesus' eye, 
 Could still the harps of angel-bands, to hear the suppliant's sigh : 
 And, when the rebel chooses wrath, God wails his hapless lot, 
 Deep-breathing from His heart of love, — ' I would, but ye would not.' " 
 
 GuTHKiE. (The Eedeemer's Tears.) 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Prefatory Note 
 
 Introductory 
 
 Special Literature ..... 
 EXPOSITION OF THE CHAPTER 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vii 
 1 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. Principle of Interpretation 
 
 1. Not Allegorical . 
 
 2. Not National 
 
 3. But Historical 
 
 169 
 
 169 
 173 
 177 
 
 178 
 
 II. The Apostle's Anathema. (Ver. 3) 
 
 III. Goodwin's "Pagan's Debt AND Dowry." (Page 78) 186 
 
 IV. Esau. (Ver. 13.) 187 
 
 V. Pharaoh : the Word 188 
 
 VI. The Pharaoh of Exodus. (Ver. 17) . . 189 
 
 VII. Is God's Will ever Really Resisted ? (Ver. 19) 190 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 VIII. Practical Excursus on the Potter and his Clay. ^"^^ 
 
 (Ver. 21) 192 
 
 IX. Practical Excursus on Christ a Stumbling- 
 
 Stone and Rock of Collision. (Ver. 33) . 201 
 
 THE JEWS AND THE GOSPEL. 
 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. • 215 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The first edition of this monograph appeared iu 
 1849 in the form of Lectures. These were de- 
 livered, first of all, to the people of my pastoral 
 charge, and afterwards to the students of my 
 exegetical class, who subjected the interpre- 
 tations propounded to that peculiar running of 
 the gauntlet that is called in Scotland "heckling." 
 
 The Lectures were also delivered in Glasgow ; 
 and at the conclusion of the course I was warmly 
 requested to publish my Exposition, — the whole 
 immense assembly rising to their feet to express, 
 by acclamation, the heartiness of their desire. 
 
 At length the book was published and speedily 
 disposed of. 
 
 Thenceforward there have been frequent appli- 
 cations for a new edition, — applications to which 
 I have had a desire to accede, but numerous 
 other engagements laid their hands retardingly 
 upon me for years and years. 
 
 Now however, being in the enjoyment of com- 
 parative leisure, I have re-written the Exposition 
 throughout, entirely remodelling its form. The 
 
Vlll PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 first edition was composed in stormy times, and, 
 being myself in the midst of the commotion, 
 I felt that necessity was laid upon me to meet 
 defiance with earnest defence. Hence the strong: 
 polemical tone that pervaded the book. 
 
 Happily a different atmosphere of influence 
 surrounds me now; so that I am able to lay 
 down the sword, and take up the sickle. 
 
 Instead therefore of retaining th.e form of 
 distinct Lectures, so suitable and convenient in 
 polemical discourse, I have, in re-writing my 
 Exposition, carried forward the interpretation in 
 continuity, everywhere substituting scientific and 
 scientifically practical exegesis in place of contro- 
 versial discussion. 
 
 May the book convey in its bosom a blessing 
 to such minds and hearts as have been in theo- 
 logical perplexity ! 
 
 Glasgow, 
 
 A;pril, 1888. 
 
INTEODUCTOEY. 
 
 " I THINK," says Coleridge in his Table Talk, " St. 
 Paul's Epistle to tlie Romans the most profound 
 work in existence." It was fitted and predes- 
 tined, because of its extraordinary acumen and 
 deep spiritual insight, to influence a long suc- 
 cession of the ages. It is indeed unique as a 
 letter. There is nothing like it in the entire 
 domain of epistolary literature. It stands alone, 
 towering aloft. 
 
 The apostle was a stranger to most of his 
 Roman brethren. He had not enjoyed the oppor- 
 tunity of witnessing their demeanour in their 
 meetings and in their homes. Hence the large 
 amount of impersonal discussion throughout the 
 missive. His subject shapes itself, as he handles 
 it, into dissertation and debate. It wears the 
 aspect of a grand doctrinal manifesto ; and, as 
 such, it would have been entirely inadequate for 
 his purpose, bad he failed to bring into view 
 the very peculiar and intimate relationship of his 
 Hebrew brethren to the incarnated and therefore 
 the historical Messiah, " the Christ of history." 
 
 The Hebrews had been for ages the messianic 
 
 1 B 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 people. It was among them, as distinguislied 
 from all other peoples, that the chief moral pre- 
 paration for the coming of the great Deliverer 
 had taken shape. The prophets, who blew the 
 trumpet of the advent, and sought to make the 
 rough places smooth, and the crooked places 
 straight, were Hebrews. The Messiah Himself, 
 when He did make His appearance in our world, 
 and in our nature, was a Hebrew, with all the 
 narrow and distorted Hebraisms dropt out. The 
 volume of the book was composed in Hebrew. 
 The first preachers of the gospel, the apostles, 
 were Hebrews. Paul himself was " a Hebrew of 
 the Hebrews." It would have been a flaw by 
 default in his manifesto, had he ignored his 
 countrymen, and said nothing about their relation 
 to the gospel. 
 
 The apostle was too logical by far, and like- 
 wise too broad in his spirit, to leave behind him 
 so vast a gap in his great doctrinal manifesto. 
 And hence the device of his dissertation concern- 
 ing the Hebrews, a species of minor manifesto 
 regarding his countrymen, a manifesto that 
 spread itself out over Judaism, and comprehended 
 in unity chapters ix. x. and xi. 
 
 In chapter ix. the apostle opens his subject 
 in a profoundly pathetic spirit. He shows, with 
 great power of demonstration, that God has the 
 sovereign right to confer His messianic favours 
 upon whomsoever He pleases. God has liberty 
 
INTRODUCTOEY. 6 
 
 in relation to men. His hands were not tied by 
 Judaism. As regards human organs of Divine 
 communications, He was not restricted to the 
 Hebrews. Far less was it the case that the 
 Hebrews, when disloyal to the aim and ideal of 
 their messianic relationship, and its peculiar 
 institutions, could yet be entitled to special spiri- 
 tual prerogatives, and a monopoly of the very 
 highest messianic favours. 
 
 In chapter x. the apostle shows that the 
 greatest messianic blessings are still, though not 
 monopolisingly, available to his countrymen. 
 They are as really available to tliem as to the 
 most favoured of the Grentiles. 
 
 In chapter xi. the apostle shows that the time 
 is on the wing when his recreant countrymen 
 will reconsider their ways, and their duty to the 
 Saviour and to God. They will be grafted in 
 again, and, shooting aloft, will take the lead 
 among their fellow men. So that if their fall 
 and dispersion have been over-ruled to the en- 
 richment of the world, and their loss has con- 
 tributed to the gain of the Gentiles, how much 
 more shall the fulness of both Jews and Gentiles 
 be for the elevation and enduring weal of the 
 human race at large ! There will indeed be no 
 necessitation of will, and no dislocation of the 
 broad foundation-stones of moral accountability 
 and character. But the power of the most power- 
 ful of motives will be unceasingly and increas- 
 
 \::» 
 
4. INTRODUCTORT. 
 
 iiigly wielded on and for all men everjwliere, 
 and by Grod Himself, until the earth be a new 
 earth and a clean earth, fit palace and home 
 for the now exalted Redeemer and all His loyal 
 people. 
 
 To revert to chapter ix. It is a marvellous 
 piece of reasoning ; and strikes out so vigorously, 
 yet so picturesquely, against the spiritual assump- 
 tion of his countrymen, and in vindication of the 
 sovereign liberty of God to confer His national 
 and personal favours and privileges as He Him- 
 self pleases, that every student of theology, and 
 every minister of the gospel, and indeed every 
 intelligent reader of the Scriptures, must feel con- 
 strained to make, sooner or later, and perhaps 
 repeatedly, a special and serious effort to trace 
 the consecutive steps and stages of the great 
 logician's argument. To that class of thinkers 
 in particular I submit my Exposition. 
 
 As to the import and importance of the ninth 
 chapter, a somewhat vivid idea may be formed 
 from an occurrence that transpired in the cele- 
 brated Synod of Dort, in the year 1618. 
 
 Augustus Toplady, author of the hymn, " Rock 
 of ages, cleft for me," and of some other pro- 
 ductions by no means so creditable to him, 
 says of the synod referred to, that " it formed a 
 constellation of the best and most learned theo- 
 logians that had ever met in council since the 
 dispersion of the apostles ; unless we except the 
 
INTRODUCTOEY. O 
 
 imperial convocation at Nice, in the fourth cen- 
 tury." (Historic Proof , section xix.) " Doubt it* 
 you can," adds he exaggeratingly, " whether the 
 sun could shine on a living collection of more 
 exalted piety and stupendous erudition." 
 
 In this synod. Dr. Joseph Hall, Dean of Wor- 
 cester — but afterwards Bishop of Exeter, and 
 finally of Norwich — one of the five British 
 deputies appointed by King James to take part 
 in the synod's proceedings, preached the first 
 sermon that was delivered before the assembled 
 brethren. It was, says " the memorable John 
 Hales of Eton," " a polite and pathetical Latin 
 sermon," in the course of which he set himself 
 to reprove the curious disputes which that age had 
 made concerning predestination." " For the end- 
 ing of these disputes," continues Mr. Hales, " his 
 advice to the synod was, that both parts contend- 
 ing should well consider of St. Paul's discourse 
 in the ninth to the Romans, and for their final 
 determination, both should exhibit to the synod 
 a plain, perspicuous, and familiar paraphrase on 
 that chapter. For if the meaning of that dis- 
 course," said Dr. Hall, " ivere once perfectly opened, 
 the question tvere at an end." (Letters, p. 382, 
 ed. 1688.) 
 
 Doubtless the doctrinal weight of the epistle 
 must, in every biblical system, be great ; and it 
 would be in vain to ignore the transcendent power 
 and raciness of the discussion. 
 
6 INTEODUCTORY. 
 
 It is worthy of note that the triplet of chapters 
 ix. X. xi. forms a remarkably distinct section of 
 the epistle, and is abruptly introduced, on the one 
 hand, and almost as abruptly terminated, on the 
 other. So far as ostensible literary connexion 
 is concerned, there are no interlacings between 
 the conclusion of the eighth chapter and the 
 commencement of the ninth. " The new sec- 
 tion," says Meyer, "is introduced with a fervent 
 outburst of Israelitish patriotism, but with no 
 connexion with what goes before." 
 
SPECIAL LITEEATUKE ON EOMANS IX. 
 
 (1) Jacobus Arminius : Analysis Brevis Noni Capitis 
 Epistolm Pauli ad Romanos. (Pp. 778-800 of his 
 Opera, Lugd. Bat. ed. 1629.) A kind of epoch-making 
 book, but not satisfactory in an exegetical point of 
 view. When Arminius went to Geneva to finish his 
 theological education, he found Beza lecturing on 
 Bomans ix. He was charmed with the venerable 
 exegete, and drained to its very dregs his supralapsarian 
 theology. When he returned to Holland and com- 
 menced his ministry in Amsterdam in the year 1588, 
 he forthwith began to expound the Epistle to the 
 Komans. Very soon was his attention turned specifi- 
 cally to Bomans ix. He was urged by some of his 
 brethren to refute the views of Koornhert, vieios of 
 conditional election. By others he was urged to refute 
 the views of those who had, as was alleged, insufiiciently 
 refuted Koornhert's views. These disputants, it seems, 
 had dealt with Koornhert's notions from a sublapsarian 
 point of view. Professor Martin Lydius appealed to 
 Arminius to defend the supralapsarianism of his great 
 Genevan teacher. Arminius complied with both re- 
 quests, nothing doubting that he would be able to 
 demolish Koornhert, on the one hand, and the sub- 
 lapsarians, on the other. He was honest. He carried 
 on his researches, although he was getting progressively 
 conscious that his foundations were giving way under- 
 neath him. He felt constrained at length to let 
 
8 SPECIAL LITEEATUEE ON ROMANS IX. 
 
 supralapsarianism go. He took refuge for a season 
 in sublapsarianism. But that too he was constrained 
 ere long to let go ; and he found himself by-and-by 
 in the very standpoint that had been occupied by 
 Koornhert. 
 
 (2) Along with the Analysis of Arminius should be 
 taken the Analytica Explicatio of his great but choleric 
 antagonist, Francis Gomarus. {O'pera, Pars Secunda, 
 pp. 49-63). He was a conspicuous figure in the Synod 
 of Dort ; and, along with Sibrandus, kept the assembly 
 in a state of chronic irritation. He contended that 
 " Episcopius falsified the tenet of reprobation, no one 
 ever teaching that God absolutely decreed to cast any 
 away without sin ; but as He decreed the end, so He 
 decreed the means ; that is, as He predestinated man 
 to death, so He predestinated him to sin, the only way 
 to death." " So," says Mr. Hales, " he mended the 
 question, as tinkers mend kettles, and made it worse 
 than it was before." {Letters from the Synod of Dort, 
 p. 435, ed. 1688.) 
 
 (3) Jodocus Larenus : Besponsio ad Analysin Jacohi 
 Arminii in ix. Cap. ad Bom., qua ostenditur breviter 
 ac perspicue dictam Analysin mentem Apostoli improbe 
 pervertere. 1616. The author was almost as eager as 
 Gomarus himself for the dialectic fray. He was flip- 
 pant however, and spoke of Arminius as " homuncio." 
 
 (4) Sebastian Castellio : Annotationes in Caput Nonum 
 ad Bomanos, quibus materia Electionis et Prcedestina- 
 tionis amplius Illustratur. 1613. It was originally 
 published as a long note in his Biblia Latina, which 
 was completed at Basle in 1550. The Note is of slight 
 value ; but the man was interesting. His proper 
 name, as he was careful to explain in his Defensio, 
 was not Castalio, but Castellio. His French name 
 was Chateillon. 
 
 (5) Gellius Snecanus : Isagoge in Nonum Caput 
 
SPECIAL LITEKATUKE ON ROMANS IX. 9 
 
 Epistolce Pauli ad Eomanos, dilucidam partium dis- 
 positiojiem atque methodicum argumentorum ordinem, 
 necnon fundamenta probationum uniuscujusque versus 
 breviter comprehendejis : ut propriam Spiritus Sancti 
 mentem quivis coimnode et recte ex sua ipsius collatione 
 et antecedentium et consequentium scopo intelligere queat : 
 una cum prcEcipuarum dissentientium objectionum refu- 
 tatione, etfallaciarum, absurditatumque demonstratione. 
 Anno 1596. Gerard Brandt, the historian, says of 
 Gellius that he was an " ancient, learned, and godly 
 man." His theology ran in the grooves of Melanch- 
 thon's. The tone of the book is manly. But he had 
 to suffer for conscience' sake. He published in 1591 
 another book, constructed on the same lines as his 
 Isagoge to Bomans ix. 
 
 (6) Adrian van den Borre : ExpUcatio Dilucida 
 Capitis Noni ad Bomanos, in qua solide et perspicue 
 demonstratur, illud ipsum, firmandce, absolutce prccdesti- 
 nationi, qualem Contra-Bemonstrantes urgent, minime 
 facere. {"Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena Minis- 
 trorum Be7nonstrantium." Pp. 96-192.) 1620. 
 
 (7) Samuel Loveday : The Hatred of Esau, and 
 the Love of Jacob unfoulded ; being a brief and plain 
 Exposition of the 9. Chapter of Paul's Epistle to the 
 Bomanes, being the heads of what was delivered in 
 several discourses, both publick and private. By Samuel 
 Loveday, servant of the Church of Christ. 1650. This 
 Samuel Loveday is not to be confounded with the 
 author of Personal Beprobation Beprobated. His ex- 
 position is meagre. 
 
 (8) Justus Feurbornius : Sacra Disquisitio de Capite 
 Epistolce S. Apostoli Pauli ad Bomanos nono. 1652. 
 
 (9) Edward Elton : The Great Mystery of Godli- 
 ness : being an Exposition upon the lohole ninth Chap- 
 ter of Bomans. 1653. 
 
 (10) John Goodwin : Aii Exposition of the Nineth 
 
10 SPECIAL LITERATURE ON ROMANS IX. 
 
 Chapter of the Epistle to the Bomans ; loherein hj the 
 tenour and carriage of the contents of the said chapter, 
 from first to last, is plainly shewed and proved, that the 
 Apostle's scope therein, is to assert and maintain his 
 great doctrine of Justification by Faith, aiid that 
 here he discourseth nothing at all concerning any per- 
 sonal Election or Reprobation of men from eternity. 
 1653. An able production, but cast in the mould of 
 the typical principles which form the exegetical basis 
 of the Commentaries of Gellius and Borre, and of the 
 Analysis of Arminius. It is not to be expected there- 
 fore, that the author could be successful in his exegesis. 
 Nevertheless his Exposition is characterised by features 
 of extraordinary excellence. It does not excel, if it 
 equal, the Lucid Explication of Borre in methodical 
 arrangement, and logical precision, and rhetorical con- 
 cinnity ; but, as grouping together masses of learning, 
 and episodes of racy reasoning, and pithy observations, 
 it stands without a rival. The personality of the man 
 was noble, and the intertwining, for a season, of his 
 fate with that of Milton vibrates into pathos. 
 
 (11) Samuel Loveday (jun.) : Personal Beproba- 
 tion Beprohated : Being a plain Exposition upon the 
 Nineth Chapter of the Bomans, sheioing that there is 
 neither little nor much of any such doctrine as Personal 
 Election or Beprohation, asserted by the Apostle in that 
 Chapter : but that his great designe is to maintain 
 Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus, loithout the loorks 
 of the Law. Humbly offered to serious consideration, 
 by Samuel Loveday. London, 1676. Not to be con- 
 founded with the author of The Hatred of Esau, and 
 the Love of Jacob unfoulded. This exposition is a 
 plagiarised echo to the unlearned of John Goodwin's. 
 
 (12) Christoph. Matthaeus Pfaff: Commentatio Suc- 
 cincta in Caput ix. Epistolce ad Bomanos. 1726. 
 
 (13) J. Fawcett : A Critical Exposition of the Ninth 
 
SPECIAL LITERATURE ON ROMANS IX. 11 
 
 Chapter of the Epistle to the Bomans, as far as is 
 supposed to relate to the doctrine of Predestination. 
 1752. 
 
 (14) Pierre Yver : Sermons sur le Chapitre ix. de 
 L'Epitre de st. Paul aux Bomains. 1765. Excellent 
 specimens of expository sermons. The author was 
 pastor of the French church in Paramaribo, Surinam. 
 
 (15) Jo. August. Nosselt: Interpretatio Grammatica 
 capitis viiii. Epistolce Paulli ad Bomanos. 1765. This 
 exposition, though claimed by Nosselt in the 1765 
 edition (" auctore Jo. Aug. Nosselt "), is yet claimed 
 by Jiitting in the 1761 edition ("auctore W. Gottlieb 
 Jiitting"), and, as such, it is dedicated to his friends. 
 
 (16) J. Jarrom : Discourses Explanatory and Prac- 
 tical on the Ninth Chapter of Paul's Epistle to the 
 Bomans. 1827 and 1835. 
 
 (17) D. Joh. Christian Fried. Steudel : Nach- 
 loeisung der in Bom. c. 9, liegenden Sdtze als zu Gunsten 
 eines unhedingten Bathschlusses Gottes nicht deutharer. 
 (Pp. 1-95 of the Tilhinger Zeitschrift far Theologie ; 
 Jahrgang, 1836, Erstes Heffc.) 
 
 (18) J. T. Beck : Versnch einer pneumatisch her- 
 meneutischen Entwicklung des neunten Kapitels im 
 Briefe an die Bomer. 1833. (Along with this mono- 
 graph Beck's posthumous University Lectures on 
 Bojnans, edited by Lindenmeyer, should be consulted. 
 1884.) 
 
 Besides these monographs on the whole chapter, 
 there are many interesting dissertations and treatises 
 more limited in their scope, dealing with only indi- 
 vidual statements or expressions or verses. The pic- 
 turesque style of the apostle's composition gives ready 
 occasion for special consideration of special points. 
 Gleams of genius in the setting of the Divine ideas 
 settle into a saliency that has been for centuries 
 charming to millions of scholarly Christians, and that 
 
12 SPECIAL LITEEATUEE ON ROMANS IX. 
 
 will no doubt continue to entrance millions more for 
 centuries and millenniums to come. 
 
 Intermediate between monographs on the entire 
 chapter, and smaller treatises on single expressions or 
 sentences, there are interesting monographs on the 
 entire triplet of chapters ix. x. xi. such as the follow- 
 ing: (1) Jo. Peter Siegmund Winckler: Versuchte 
 Auflosung schwerer Ziveifels-Knoten in PauU Epistel 
 an die Bomer, durch eine an einander hangende Erkld- 
 rung des ix. x. xi. Capitels. 1735. (2) C. A. Lang- 
 guth : Confutatio JJnivei-salismi et particular ismi 
 Judaici Paulina Rom. ix. X. xi. 1812. (3) D. Willi- 
 bald Beyschlag : Die Paulinische Theodicee Romer 
 ix.-xi. Ein Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie. 1868. 
 
EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 The apostle, when aboufc to launcli into the great 
 theme of this chapter, was conscious of a pecuUar 
 burden of solemnity lying on his heart. 
 
 Hence the two emphatic asseverations contained 
 in the first verse. (1) I say " truth " in Christ, 
 and (2), I lie not, my conscience hearing witness 
 with me in the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Instead of the somewhat indefinite expression 
 I say "truth," the more definite phrase I say " the 
 truth " might be employed. It is the translation 
 of Tyndale. It was Luther's before him, and 
 Coverdale's after him. It has its place in our 
 public English version of 1611 ; and it is re- 
 tained in the Eevised Version. The Rheims Ver- 
 sion corresponds Latinisingly, — I speaJce " the " 
 verity. There is no objection to the insertion 
 of the article, except on the score that it is not 
 present in the apostle's G-reek. The two re- 
 presentations, the definite and the indefinite, are 
 but the obverse and the reverse of one reality. 
 They were lying, and with almost equal claims, 
 before the apostle for his option : but he chose 
 
 13 
 
]4 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 the indefinite I say ^' what is true" {when I say 
 that I have great grief and continual sorroiv in 
 my heart). Wycliffe retained the indefinite trans- 
 lation, — I seye treuthe. So did Calvin, Je di 
 verite. The late Dntch translators abide by the 
 same literality, Ik spreeh ivaarheid. 
 
 These Dutch translators use — it will be ob- 
 served — the verb spreeh, corresponding to our 
 English speak, instead of zegge, corresponding to 
 our English say. The Rheims Version too has 
 speake. But say is the better translation. / say 
 truth is better adapted than I speak truth to 
 bridge the attention over to the statement in 
 verse second, to which the apostle wishes to give 
 emphasis. The word say, as distinguished from 
 speak, directs attention rather to the thing uttered 
 than to its utterance. In his first translation, 
 that of 1829, Meyer had truth I speak {Wahrheit 
 rede ich) ; but in all his subsequent editions he 
 wisely substituted say for speak. 
 
 The peculiar collocation of the words is note- 
 worthy, truth I say. It is especially noteworthy 
 in connexion with the succeeding phrase in 
 Christ. This phrase is not to be connected with 
 the noun truth, as if the whole expression were, 
 I say truth as it is in Christ. Origen's ingenuity 
 imposed upon him when, assuming that the ex- 
 pression " seemed to show that there is some 
 truth which is not in Christ," he proceeded to 
 establish, by instances, such a distinction of 
 
VERSE 1. 15 
 
 truths. The apostle, assuredly, is simply refer- 
 ring to the statement which he is about to make 
 in verse second ; and he does not take into con- 
 sideration whether that statement is a truth in 
 Christ, or some other denomination of truth. 
 Enough for him that it is truth. The phrase in 
 Christ is to be grammatically connected, not with 
 the noun truth, but with the verb I say. 
 
 It was for long a favourite opinion of inter- 
 preters that this phrase in Christ is the formula 
 of an oath, and should be rendered hij Christ. 
 Kiittner even supposes that the words I say truth 
 simply mean I swear. Abelard paraphrases the 
 apostle's statement thus, — " Swearing by Jesus 
 Christ, I truthfully say." Lombard, another of 
 the great schoolmen, takes the same view. So 
 does Thomas Aquinas; Calvin also, and Hemming, 
 Este, Grotius, Day, and many others of the older 
 expositors. In more recent times, the same in- 
 terpretation has received the support of Cramer, 
 Nosselt, Flatt, Terrot, Burton, Reiche, Kollner, 
 Schrader; but it is not approved of by the most 
 recent expositors. Piscator among the older 
 interpreters, and Schrader among the more 
 recent, have introduced the interpretation into 
 their respective Grerman versions {hei Christo). 
 So did Theophilo, long before, in his Italian 
 version {per Christo). But it is a wrong trans- 
 lation and interpretation. Not decisively so, 
 indeed, because of the unfitness of the pre- 
 
16 EXPOSITION OF EOJIANS IX. 
 
 position (ei^-^, see Matt. v. 34-36, Gen. xxxi. 
 53, Deut. vi. 13, etc.) ; but because, in tlie 
 first place, a simpler interpretation is at band ; 
 wbile in tbe second place, we never find any of 
 tbe apostles taking an oatli hy Christ. When 
 they took an oath, tbey swore by God. (See 
 Rom. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 31 ; Phil. i. 8.) And 
 then moreover, if we were to interpret the ex- 
 pression as the formula of an oath, consistency 
 would constrain us — as it constrained Cramer, 
 Mace, Nosselt, Flatt, Reiche, Kollner, Schrader 
 — to interpret the corresponding expression in 
 the Holy Spirit, at the close of the verse, as a 
 similar formula, / swear hy the Holy Spirit. But 
 such an oath would be inconsistent with usage. 
 And to suppose that the apostle should, within 
 the compass of one sbort verse, employ two dis- 
 tinct oatbs, taking them moreover in a way that 
 excluded the only Divine One, in the name of 
 whom oaths were wont to be made, confounds 
 our sense of propriety. 
 
 The phrase in Christ was one of the apostle's 
 favourite expressions. All Christians, according 
 to him, are in Christ. They have been "baptized 
 into Christ " (Rom. vi. 3) — that is to say, they 
 have been united to Christ by the baptism of the 
 Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 13), — so that they are in Christ, 
 as if they were parts of His person, members of 
 His body. When the apostle thinks of this 
 union, he sometimes allows the relations of time 
 
VERSE 1. 17 
 
 past and time future to interpenetrate, so that 
 to his eye believers have not only been cnicified 
 with Christ (Gal. ii. 20), and buried with Him 
 (Rom. vi. 4), but also raised ivith Him (Col. ii. 
 12, iii. 1), and glorified with Him in heavenly 
 places (Eph. ii. 6). Christians " have their 
 Christian being " m Christ. They " live and 
 move" in Christ. They are "justified" in Christ. 
 (Gal. ii. 17.) They are " sanctified " in Christ. 
 (1 Cor. i. 2.) They "triumph" in Christ. (2 
 Cor. ii. 14.) They " speak " in Christ. (2 Cor. 
 ii. 17, xii. 19.) And here the apostle says that 
 "he says truth" in Christ. The personality 
 of Christ had, to his transfiguring conception, 
 become the sphere of his spiritual being and 
 activity^ so that what he did, in the express 
 consciousness of his Christian state, he did in 
 the realized presence of Christ, and thus all the 
 nobler elements of his spiritual being were in- 
 tensified and exalted. In such a mood, how 
 could he stoop to wilful misrepresentation? 
 There were the amplest guarantees for the truth- 
 fulness of what he was about to aver. Realizing 
 that he was, so to speak, "interned" in Christ, 
 he felt that in his ethical acts he was dominated 
 by the power that ensphered him. 
 
 ^^ I lie not," I am littering no falsehood. It is 
 the reverse representation of that which, in the 
 preceding expression, is represented in obverse. 
 It lends intensification to the afiirmation. (Com- 
 
 c 
 
18 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 pare 1 Tim. ii. 7, and also 1 Sam. iii. 18.) It 
 reminds us of John the evangelist's phraseology 
 in reference to John the Baptist, " He confessed, 
 and denied not, but confessed." (John i. 20.) 
 The apostle was most desirous that his real feel- 
 ings in reference to his countrymen should be 
 understood. Whatever they themselves might 
 think of him, he was everything the reverse of 
 their enemy, or of being alien to them in spirit. 
 He was patriotic to the core, although not 
 blindly so, or in a way that would be incon- 
 sistent, either with the claims of a wider and 
 loftier philanthropy, or with the loyalty which he 
 owed to the Lord of all. 
 
 "ilf^/ conscience bearing ivitiiess ivith me" (arvfxfxap- 
 Tvpov(rt]9 fxoi Trjg (TweiSi'iaeoog yuou). These words may 
 be regarded as attesting, either the immediately 
 preceding negation, I am not lying, or the whole 
 complex asseveration, I am saying truth in Christ, 
 I am not lying. This latter interpretation is the 
 view contended for by Philippi and Van Hangel 
 among others, and it is put in a somewhat 
 exaggerated form by Hofmann, when he repre- 
 sents the participial clause as referring " not so 
 much to the merely interjected negation I am 
 not lying, as to the primary affirmation I am 
 spealcing truth.'' But, by a kind of exegetical 
 instinct, the former interpretation has been 
 generally assumed. With good reason, inasmuch 
 as the whole verse, in virtue of the " self -con- 
 
VERSE 1. 19 
 
 tained or absolute " nature of the expression I 
 lie not, divides itself naturally into a species of 
 irregular parallelism. 
 
 I say truth in Christ. 
 
 I lie not, my conscience hearing luitness ivith me 
 in the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It vfould have been different had the apostle 
 chosen to tie — as both Luther and Tyndale have 
 done for him — his positive and negative asser- 
 tions, I say truth in Christ, " and " lie not. This 
 tie occurs also in the Syriac Peshito version. 
 But of course it is apocryphal. The two asser- 
 tions stand detached. But as the apostle, when 
 afl&rming that he says truth in luhat he says, 
 realised, in the very act of affirmation, the reality 
 and inwardliness of his relation to Christ, so now, 
 when he asseverates that he does not lie, he realises 
 correspondingly, or " parallelistically," that his 
 own conscience, as depurated and exalted by the 
 Holy Spirit, gives its instant and unmistakable 
 attestation to the reliableness of the declaration. 
 
 The word conscience is here the best translation 
 of which the original term (a-vueiSrjais) is suscep- 
 tible; although, if we should wish to do full 
 justice to the Grreek idea, we would require to 
 card together mentally the two words conscience 
 and consciousness. The truth is that our English 
 language is richer than the Greek in its posses- 
 sion of the two differentiated terms. But for that 
 very reason both of the terms are relatively im- 
 
20 EXPOSITION OP ROMANS IX. 
 
 poverisbed in import. In Frencli the one word 
 " conscience " retains its original dualism of im- 
 port, and is for that reason a perfect translation 
 of the G-reek term. 
 
 In the usage of the New Testament writers — 
 as in that of the classic writers who were imbued 
 with the Stoic philosophy ^ — the term in question 
 almost always throws out into relief its moral 
 import. Hence we read of a good and pwre, as 
 also of an evil^ defiled, and seared conscience. 
 We read of conscience toioard God, and of con- 
 science void of offence. The moral character of 
 the conscience, in this acceptation of the term, is 
 strikingly represented by the derivative word, con- 
 scientious7iess. The expression, conscience of idols, 
 found in 1 Corinthians viii. 7, rests on a reading 
 which has been abandoned by Lachmann, Tregelles, 
 Tischendorf, Westcott-and-Hort, and which is 
 discountenanced by the important uncial manu- 
 scripts X A B. In Hebrews x. 2, the psycho- 
 logical idea of consciousness is predominant — "lio 
 more" consciousness " of sins." It is also strong, 
 though not predominant in 2 Corinthians i. 12, 
 " the testimony of our a-vveiStja-i?, that in simplicity 
 and godly sincerity we have had our conversation 
 in the world." In the passage before us the psy- 
 chological idea of consciousness must not be lost 
 sight of, but the moral idea of conscience is pre- 
 
 1 See Jalinel's able monograph, Be Conscientice notione apud 
 vetereset tipud Christianos, usque ad Medii ^vi Exituvi. 1862. 
 
VERSE 1. 21 
 
 dominant. The conscientious principle within the 
 Apostle attested the veracity of his utterance, 
 when he said, I am not lying. 
 
 There has been considerable dispute among 
 interpreters in reference to the participial expres- 
 sion, rendered in King James's version, also hear- 
 ing me witness (crvfxfji.apTupou(Tr}9 fji.oi). Does it mean 
 simply bearing witness " to " me ? Or does it 
 mean hearing loitness ^'ivith" me? or hearing 
 '' joint ^' loitness "to" me? Erasmus was for 
 a season perplexed. In the first edition of his 
 New Testament,^ he paid the slightest possible 
 heed to the preposition in composition ; almost 
 treating it as if it were " otiose." In the sub- 
 sequent editions, however, of his translation, he 
 gave emphasis to the preposition, and in his last 
 edition he added a note in reference to it. His 
 amended translation ran thus, my conscience also 
 bearing witness to me.^ He thus landed in the 
 third of the three interpretations specified. And 
 his authority, although running counter to the 
 influence and example of both WycliSe and Tyn- 
 dale, swayed the rendering of Lord- Cromwell's 
 English Version of 1539, and thus the rendering 
 in King James's Version of 1611. Beza adopted 
 the same rendering. But Calvin hesitated. In 
 his Latin Translation he introduced the Eras- 
 mian"also"; but he made no use of it in his 
 
 ^ Attestante conscientia mea. 
 
 ^ Attestante mihi simul conscientia mea. 
 
22 EXPOSITION OF KOMANS IX. 
 
 Exposition. In his French Translation^ as likewise 
 in his French Exposition^ he entirely ignored it. 
 His rendering is the first of the three which we 
 have specified. That is the rendering too of the 
 Vulgate. De Wette vacillated in his various 
 editions. Krehl, with his customary decisiveness, 
 pronounced the translation " with me " to be 
 " false." And Tholuck opposed it perseveringly 
 from the first to the last of the various editions 
 of his Commentary. 
 
 Alford, like Tholuck, opposes the idea of con- 
 current testimony. But, unlike Tholuck, he fails 
 to give any reasonable explanation of the pre- 
 position. He says that it " denotes accordance 
 with the fact, not joint testimony.'" But con- 
 currence in testimony is manifestly the natural 
 implication of the term ; although it might easily 
 happen that the preposition in composition would, 
 in consequence of inexactness in usage, collective 
 or individual, be sometimes practically " otiose." 
 It is so, for instance, in the old incorrect reading 
 of Rev. xxii. 18; and strikingly so in the Com- 
 plutensian reading of the Septuagint version of 
 Jer. xi. 7 (see Spohn in Joe). But there is no 
 reason, arising either from classical or biblical 
 usage, or from the nature of the peculiar case 
 that was present to the apostle's mind, when 
 he dictated the statement, why we should try to 
 get quit of the idea of conscience that is so 
 naturally suggested by the term. In the Philoh- 
 
VERSE 1. 23 
 
 tetes of Sopliokles, Neoptolemos is made to say, 
 *' It is never tlie worthless who die in war, but 
 the worthy," and then Philoktetes replies (439), 
 " I agree with you " [^vimjULapTupM croi), I join mi/ 
 testimony luith yours. It is an obvious case of 
 joint testimony. In the Laius of Plato (book iii., 
 680), Megillus the Lacedemonian says to the 
 Athenian stranger, " Homer seems decidedly to 
 testify {jxaprvpeiv) to your doctrine (regarding the 
 primitive state of mankind)." " Yes," replied the 
 stranger ; " he does indeed co-attest it {^vfxfxaprvpel 
 yap) ; he confirms it ; he concurs ivith me in 
 testifying to that which I have been testifying.''^ 
 This, the natural idea of the word, is obviously its 
 import in many other passages.^ 
 
 As regards the exact relation of the pronoun 
 connected with the verb, the me (i^ol), it must no 
 doubt be regarded as governed by the preposition 
 in composition, so that the proper translation of 
 the expression is "testifying with me.'" In other 
 circumstances, the idea might have been, "jointly 
 testifying to me " or ^^for me.''' The pronoun 
 would then be in the dative of advantage (dativus 
 commodi). But in the case before us such a view 
 of the relationship indicated would be strained. 
 Far better and simpler and more natural is it to 
 construe the preposition with the pronoun, just as 
 in the passage from the PhiloJdetes of Sophokles, 
 
 1 See Xenoplion's GreeJc History, iii. 3, 2, Eiiripides's 
 Hippolytiis, 285, and his Dande, 112 (ed. Barnes). 
 
24 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 and the passage from the Dande of Euripides, and 
 the important New Testament passages, Romans 
 ii. 15 and viii. 17. The apostle^ then sajs, rn,y 
 conscience hearing witness ^^ with me." 
 
 It is worthy of note that the apostle allows 
 himself the use of a popular representation of the 
 conscience. He speaks of it as if it were some- 
 thing distinct from himself. He objectifies it to 
 himself. It reminds one of the fine expression of 
 Dr. Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Senti- 
 ments, — " the Man within the breast." ^ The 
 Apostle makes his appeal to this "Man." He 
 had referred simply to himself when he said, I lie 
 not. That was his own proper testimony con- 
 cerning himself. But, either deliberately or in- 
 stinctively realising that out in the world, men 
 often falsify even when they say, We lie not, he 
 turns, introspectively, to the " Man within his 
 breast," and listens till he hears him distinctly 
 saying, True, thou liest not luhen thou ajffirmest 
 that thou hast great grief and continual sorroio in 
 thy heart over thy countrymen. Of course the 
 Romans could not look into the apostle's breast, 
 as he did himself, and verify the fact of con- 
 current testimony on the part of the Man with- 
 out, and the Man within. To them there was 
 but one testimony. There was but one person 
 in the witness-box, the apostle himself. But 
 
 ^ Theory of Moral Sentiments, part iv., chap, iii., p. 380, 
 seventh edition. 
 
VEKSE 1. 25 
 
 the apostle was not thinking of strictly juridical 
 evidence, or intending to subpoena a plurality 
 of formal witnesses. He was not leading formal 
 evidence at all, to constrain conviction. He had 
 not merely to satisfy the Romans. That might 
 or might not be possible. He had to satisfy 
 himself ; and that was possible, if he was really 
 honest. Thus it is that after his outward affir- 
 mation, he turns in, and receiving inward confir- 
 mation, he, as it were, re-affirms his declaration. 
 To all who knew the man, such a solemn 
 re-affirmation would render " assurance," if that 
 were possible, " doubly sure." 
 
 He adds the important words in the Holy 
 Spirit, which are not, with Winzer and Fritzsche, 
 to be united with the expression. Hie not, as if the 
 intermediate clause, my conscience bearing witness 
 loith me, were parenthetical. Neither are they to 
 be regarded as directly qualifying the expression, 
 my conscience, as if the apostle were representing 
 his conscience as enveloped in the Holy Spirit, 
 and thus swayed and ruled by It. This was 
 the interpretation of Grotius ; but if it had 
 been the idea of the apostle, we should doubtless 
 have had the Greek article interlinking the two 
 expressions.^ It is more probable, as Meyer, 
 Philippi, Van Hengel, Von Hofmann correctly 
 judge, that the phrase is to be connected with 
 the participial expression, hearing icitness with me. 
 
26 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 The apostle's conscience thus bore witness in 
 the Holy Spirit. Like the other apostles, and 
 Stephen and Barnabas, and the rest of the primi- 
 tive worthies, Paul tvas a man ^'full of the Holy 
 Spirit,^' so that, at every point of his spiritual 
 being, he was touched by the heavenly influence. 
 His thoughts, his feelings, his purposes, were 
 all touched and energised. His conscience was 
 touched and bathed. There was still, it is true, 
 the unimpaired principle of moral freedom in the 
 centre of his being, in virtue of which it devolved 
 on himself, as a real "self-contained" person, to 
 welcome and to cherish the hallowing influence. 
 The man's individual manhood was not absorbed 
 into the infinite essence. Neither was his moral 
 accountability merged or superseded. He could 
 still act for or against, toward the right hand or 
 toward the left, in the direction of what is above 
 or in the direction of what is beneath. But his 
 freedom had made its choice ; or rather, he in his 
 freedom had made his choice. " To him to live 
 was Christ." And hence all the avenues to the 
 very centre of his being were habitually left open 
 to the ingress of the Holy Spirit of Grod. He 
 " resisted " not the Holy Spirit. He " grieved " 
 Him not. And when therefore his inward con- 
 science bore concurrent testimony with his out- 
 ward declaration, there was more than itself in 
 the voice of that conscience. There was the 
 echo of the voice of God's Holy Spirit. 
 
VERSE 2. 27 
 
 But what is it which the apostle thus solemnly 
 asseverates " in Christ," and concerning which he 
 says, " I lie not, my conscience bearing witness 
 with me in the Holy Spirit " ? It is what we 
 read in the second verse ; namely, " That I have 
 great grief and continual heaviness in my lieart" 
 
 (oTi XvTTtj ixoi ecTTiv /xeyaXrj, kui aoiaXenrTOS oovi/tj 
 
 rrj KapSia fxov). The word heaviness — in its 
 modern usage at least — is rather a feeble trans- 
 lation of the apostle's term, XJttj; ; but it came 
 down to King James' translators from Wycliffe. 
 Tyndale handed it on; then Ooverdale; then 
 Lord Cromwell's revisers ; then the Geneva trans- 
 lators. Luther's translation was much superior, 
 Traurigheit, as also that of the Rheims — the 
 reproduction of the Vulgate, — sadnesse. Although 
 the radical idea both of the word sadness,^ and of 
 the corresponding word grief, seems to be heavi- 
 ness ; yet in usage, intensity of feeling is indicated 
 by both the terms. 
 
 The word sorrow in the parallel clause, or sorwe 
 as WyclifFe has it, is an excellent translation. It 
 admirably denotes the soreness of heart which the 
 apostle had long experienced. 
 
 His own Greek term {oSvvt]) seems to have in it, 
 onomatopoetically, an echo of the exclamation 
 which is extorted from us when we are in great 
 
 ' Spenser in his Faerie Queene, says : 
 
 " With that his hand, more sad then lomp of lead." 
 
28 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS TX. 
 
 pain. Some of the older expositors, sucli as Peter 
 Martyr, Parens, Trapp, Winckler, explain the term 
 as denoting the pangs of parturition. But they 
 evidently confounded it with another term (coSls), 
 which however is really affiliated, and seems simply 
 to intensify the natural exclamation of pain. 
 
 As the apostle says of his grief that it was 
 great, so he says of his sorroiv that it was con- 
 tinual or unceasing. It abode with him. It lay 
 down with him ; it rose up with him ; it was his 
 sad companion in all his journeys, in all his joys, 
 in all his labours of love. It was too, he says, 
 in his heart. It was no mere external wail, no 
 empty profession, or pretence. It was a real 
 inmate of his soul. 
 
 What was it that occasioned sucli great grief 
 and continual sorrow to the apostle ? He does 
 not directly say. His feelings were breaking 
 loose, so that his language becomes abrupt and 
 broken. When we proceed however to read the 
 next verse, we discover at once the occasion of his 
 sadness. It was the spiritual condition of his 
 countrymen at large that was oppressing him, 
 and filling him with overwhelming grief. To the 
 great body of his countrymen the apostle was no 
 patriot, and Jesus was no Saviour, far less the 
 Saviour. He was to both Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees less than the least of all their Rabbis. 
 They had no faith in Him at all. He was in their 
 estimation either an unconscious and unintelligent 
 
VERSE 3. 29 
 
 errorist and fanatic, or a deliberate impostor. By 
 taking up so wild a chimsera-of-idea in reference 
 to the Saviour, they, as it were with their own 
 hands, shut in their own faces the opened door 
 of salvation. They excluded themselves from the 
 legitimate hope of that " everlasting life " that is 
 bliss. Hence the apostle's protestation of intense 
 and unceasing sorrow over their condition. But 
 yet he does not actually specify the persons of 
 whom he was thinking till toward the conclusion 
 of the following verse ; and hence the statement 
 in this verse is but a phraseological torso. Im- 
 portant parts of the reality are broken off in 
 representation. The apostle's heart was too full 
 to utter forth, all at once, the wail of his spirit. 
 Sob succeeded sob. And, in the abrupt broken- 
 ness of his lamentation, there is a kind of negli- 
 gence in his words that is more effectively and 
 touchingly eloquent than the most cunningly 
 constructed rhetoric. 
 
 He says, verse 3, " For I could wish to God to 
 he myself an anathema from the Christ for the sake 
 of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh " 
 
 (^rjv^ojULrjv ycip avdOefxa eivai avTO's eyco cnro too ysipicTTov^. 
 
 Here the apostle specifies expressly who were 
 occasioning the profound and long-continued 
 anguish of his soul. It was " his brethren, his 
 kinsmen according to the flesh." He had other 
 brethren indeed, kinsmen according to the spirit. 
 
30 EXPOSITION OF KOMANS IX. 
 
 kinsmen in Christ. But it was his Hebrew com- 
 patriots over whom he so bitterly mourned. 
 
 Why such sorrow ? His compatriots were in 
 danger of being anathemata from the Christ. A 
 lurid spiritual doom was gloomily looming over 
 their future. There was, in the apostle's esti- 
 mation, appalling peril. Hence the agony of his 
 heart. The ploughshare of grief had been tearing 
 up and drawing out into furrows all that was 
 most sensitive in his spirit, till he self-sacrificingly 
 felt that if it were possible for him to secure their 
 eternal gain by means of his own eternal loss, he 
 would willingly leap into the abysmal depth of 
 perdition, taking his people's place and suffering 
 in their room. It is the acme of a mood of mind 
 incomparably Christ-like. 
 
 The expression riv-^6fxr]v is a Grreek idiom, mean- 
 ing in English idiom, / could praij, or, I could ivish- 
 to-God. The Grreek idiom grew out of the natural 
 import of the imperfect or incompleted tense, / 
 ivas fraying. 
 
 The apostle does not mean that at some given 
 time in the past he was actually praying that he 
 might be an anathema for his kinsmen. He was 
 using the word in its idiomatic import. We are 
 to think of the natural import of the term only 
 so far as is necessary to impress upon our minds, 
 in passing, the growth of the idiomatic use of the 
 imperfect tense. Take for instance some other 
 case, as for example the idea or idealisation of 
 
VERSE 3. 31 
 
 prayer as present in the apostle's mind. Express 
 it verbally. Put it into the imperfect tense ; 
 then, just because of the essential nature of that 
 tense, it will represent as incomplete the idea 
 affirmed. If it were wished to represent the act 
 as completed, some other tense than the imperfect 
 would require to be employed. Hence grew up 
 the idiomatic use of the imperfect to represent, 
 not what had eventuated historically, but what 
 might or could eventuate in certain given circum- 
 stances. Take another instance : The expression 
 in Gralatians iv. 20, I " could " -wish {for reasons 
 obvious enough^ and if my other engagements did 
 not forbid), to be once more in the midst of you. 
 Or take the expression in Acts xxv. 22 : Agrippa 
 said to Festus, I also " could " ivish to hear the 
 man myself (viz. if it ivere not^ Festus, trespass- 
 ing too far on your indulgence). So in the case 
 before us : J " could " ivish to God to be vicariously 
 an anathema for my kinsmen, if my conceptions of 
 my duty on the one hand, and of God^s wisdom and 
 ivill on the other, ivould allow me to carry forth 
 into completion such a desire and such a prayer. 
 It is implied in the apostle's idiomatic declaration 
 that, as a matter of fact, he had never actually 
 prayed to be made an anathema from the Christ 
 for his unbelieving kinsmen. He never could 
 deliberately offer up such a prayer. It would 
 have involved desire not only for unimaginable 
 suffering, but likewise for something still more 
 
32 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 unimaginable, perpetual alienation from " the 
 Christ," and thus for perpetual moral depra- 
 vation and degradation. It is impossible to 
 entertain the idea that the apostle ever presented 
 such a prayer to liis heavenly Father. Michaelis 
 does not state the case too strongly when he calls 
 it, in its idealism, "a frantic prayer," Others, as 
 Bucer for instance, speak of it as " prodigious or 
 " portentous." The utmost stretch of conceiva- 
 bility extends, we should suppose, no farther than 
 to this, — that the apostle felt, time after time, the 
 incompleted uprising of an impulse to pray to God 
 that, if it were compatible with all great interests, 
 permission might be given him to be, by the 
 sacrifice of his own happiness, the means of rescu- 
 ing his infatuated countrymen from their doom. 
 Such sacrifice he gladly would make if it were 
 among the 'moral 'possibilities} 
 
 Note the collocation of the words : i]vxoMv yup 
 
 avaOe/ma elvai auro? eyia cltto too Xoicttou. It might 
 
 in English be thus represented. For (I) could 
 wish-to-God to be an anathema — I myself— from 
 the Christ. This collocation was recommended 
 by Griesbach, and adopted into the text by Lach- 
 mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott-and- 
 Hort. It has the support of the highest diplo- 
 matic authorities, inclusive of the Sinaitic, 
 Alexandrian, and Vatican manuscripts, as also of 
 D E F G. It receives support, besides, from 
 ^ See Appendix II. The Apostle's Anathejia in Verse 3. 
 
VERSE 3. 33 
 
 the Itala, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the 
 Gothic versions ; as also from a troop of the 
 Fathers. The collocation of the Received Text 
 is somewhat different. It stands thus — n^-)(OMv 
 
 yap avTos eyo) avdOefxa eivai airo tov X^picrrov^ and 
 
 would be literally reproduced thus : For I myself 
 could wish-to-God to he an anathema from the 
 Christ. There is only a slight variation, as re- 
 gards significance, in the two collocations. In 
 that of the Critical Texts the emphasis of the 
 apostle's desire is advanced a perceptible shade 
 beyond what is expressed in the collocation of 
 the Received Text. 
 
 '^ Anathema." The word was originally em- 
 ployed to denote what was, by way of conse- 
 cration, put up in a temple. The anathema 
 might be an offering of gratitude for deliverance 
 or some other blessing; or it might be, in the 
 ages of spiritual darkness, a kind of sacred bribe 
 presented to the deity. But whatever it was, 
 it would, if of convenient bulk and shape, be 
 hung up on a pillar, or suspended on the wall of 
 the shrine. It thenceforward belonged to the 
 god, and it would have been not only theft or 
 robbery, but sacrilege, for any one, even a priest, 
 to have appropriated it. When the term was 
 adopted by the Greek-speaking Hebrews, it was 
 used in exchange for the Hebrew ^"yi, which 
 had for its radical import the idea of severance 
 or cutting off. (See Fiirst in voc.) Whatever was 
 
 D 
 
34 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 by Divine arrangement utterly cut off from any 
 particular man's enjoyment or use was D"in to 
 that man. God reserved its use. It was His 
 D^n. If it were a thing that still continued fit 
 for human use or enjoyment, Grod might assign 
 it to His peculiar servants, for their benefit (see 
 Lev. xxvii. 21 ; Num. xviii. 14 ; Ezek. xliv. 29) ; 
 or, if that were not desirable, he might put it 
 entirely out of the way, or doom it to destruction. 
 A Dirr was frequently a thing devoted to destruc- 
 tion. (See 1 Kings xx. 42.) Such devotement to 
 destruction is often desirable in a world such as 
 ours, so polluted, so perverted, so abused. There 
 are thingfs which cannot be turned to better 
 account \han to be utterly destroyed. There are 
 moral nuisances which can only be swept away 
 by the " besom of destruction." Among these 
 moral nuisances are morally leprous and festering 
 men, who " will not " be healed of their con- 
 tagious sores. These and their infected rookeries 
 must be swept away. The sooner, the better for 
 society at large. God will be glorified in the 
 work of destruction. Hence the word anathema, 
 which at first meant something valuable devoted 
 to a god, came, when applied within the sphere 
 of the moral government of the living and true 
 God, to denote objects which had become irre- 
 claimably corrupt, and which consequently He 
 wisely doomed to be destroyed. The apostle, 
 disintegrating one particular line of Hebrew 
 
VEESE 3. 35 
 
 thought from amid the complexity of ideas that 
 were woven around the word anathema^ felt at 
 times that, if the ethical element were eliminated 
 from the case, he could submit to be himself 
 destroyed, even from " the presence of his Lord," 
 if thereby his kinsmen could be constituted heirs 
 of everlasting life and bliss. The destruction of 
 ■which he thought was thus the annihilation, not 
 of his being, but of substantial elements and 
 factors of well-being. 
 
 From the Christ. The word anathema is used 
 pregnantly, so that the apostle in thinking of its 
 contents sees in them separation from all that 
 renders human existence desirable, and thus 
 separation from Christ Himself, that is to say, 
 *' from the Christ," his dearest Lord. Nothing 
 could have been a greater deprivation to him who 
 said, " To me to live is Christ," and who said 
 again, " I count all things but loss for the excel- 
 lency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my 
 Lord." 
 
 For the sake of my brethren, my hinsmen accord- 
 ing to the flesh. The peculiar preposition (vTrep) 
 used by the apostle, and radically meaning over, 
 is not here employed, as so often in the classics, 
 to express the idea of substitution. This idea 
 indeed is implied in the apostle's statement. But 
 the implication is inherent in the nature of the 
 case, more than in the idiosyncrasy of the word. 
 
 The expression, my kinsmen according to fleshy 
 
A 
 
 36 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 is a primitive Semitic mode of denoting kinship, 
 so far as literal lineage is concerned. Both the 
 apostle and the Jews of his time were descended 
 from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and 
 thus they together constituted a generation of the 
 theocratic people. 
 
 Ver. 4. WIio are Israelites. It is not a simple 
 relative of which the apostle makes use when he 
 says " who." It is a peculiar compound pronoun 
 (o'lTive?), that has no parallel in English. The 
 force of the apostle's expression might be repre- 
 sented thus : ivJio belong to the category of Israel- 
 ites, ivho, ivhatever else they may or may not be, 
 are Israelites. The differentiating characteristics 
 of Israelites were reaHzed in the apostle's com- 
 patriots, inasmuch as, being the descendants of 
 Abraham and Isaac through Israel, they were the 
 heirs of grand theocratic prerogatives. The 
 name Israelites was a most honourable one, and 
 dear to them all. The relationship which it 
 signalised was fitted to remind them that by the 
 condescension of the Omnipotent One there was 
 something " princely " within their reach. (Gen. 
 xxxii. 28 ; Hos. xii. 3.) 
 
 Whose are the adoption, etc. The apostle 
 enumerates several of the most conspicuous pre- 
 rogatives of the Israelites. First of all, he 
 specifies the adoption; i.e. the Divine adoption, the 
 
VERSE 4. 37 
 
 act hij which God puts a people or a person into 
 the position of a " sou.^' Under the Old Testa- 
 ment economy the Divine adoption realised itself 
 specifically in the collective theocratic people as 
 a people. " Israel is My son, My firstborn," said 
 the Lord to Pharaoh. (Exod. iv. 22; see Jer. 
 
 ,,^ xxxi. 9, Hos. xi. 1.) The collective people were 
 
 for great messianic purposes adopted into a 
 relation of Divine sonship, and thus into a 
 relation of peculiar Divine privilege; not how- 
 ever because of a feeling of partiality in the 
 heart of God toward a section of His human 
 family, but because His benignant messianic 
 purposes, wide-spreading to the ends of the earth 
 in their merciful reach, required some arrange- 
 ment of the kind. Such was the Divine plan in 
 the Old Testament ages. The Israelites were 
 Grod's " SOD," or, under another aspect of repre- 
 sentation, they were His " daughter," " the 
 daughter of His people." At times the repre- 
 sentation tended anticipatively toward the grander 
 principle of personal individuality ; as when it is 
 said in Isaiah, *' I have nourished and brought 
 up children, and they have rebelled against Me." 
 But it was reserved for the New Testament age 
 to give emphasis to the idea of personal indi- 
 viduation in relation to the Divine adoption. 
 "Bat as many as received Him, to thein gave 
 He the privilege to become children of God, even 
 to them who believe on His name." (John i. 
 
38 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 12.) " Ye are all sons of God, througli faith in 
 Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 26.) " Behold, what 
 manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon 
 us, that we should be called children of GodJ' 
 (1 John iii. 1.) 
 
 And the glory. The reference is not to the 
 future glory that, by the grace of Grod, will be 
 coupled with celestial honour and immortality. 
 ISTor is it to any form or phase of that ethical 
 glory which transcends all other glories, actual 
 and possible. The reference seems to be to that 
 peculiar symbol of the Divine presence which 
 guided the Israelites out of Egypt and through 
 the wilderness, overshadowing them by day and 
 illumiuatiug them by night. (See Exod. xiii. 21, 
 22; xiv. 19.) This was called, in the daily 
 language of the Israelites, the glonj of Jahveh. 
 It was in some external respects His glory j^;ar 
 excellence. (See Exod. xxiv. 16.) It was a 
 magnificent symbol of Divine guidance and pro- 
 tection, and was denominated in rabbinical 
 phraseology, the shehinah. Wherever it was 
 found, there was God to be found ; not indeed as 
 in His palace-home, the " house not made with 
 hands," but as in His temporary tent beside His 
 tented people in the period of their pilgrimage — 
 a very present Helper and Defence. 
 
 And the covenants; i.e. and the Divine covenants. 
 These were, as the Hebrew word (/T'1^= crwQmi]) 
 suggests, engagements on the part of God to 
 
VERSE 4. 39 
 
 confer distinguishing privileges on the patriarchs, 
 and the IsraeUtes in general, on condition of 
 responsive appreciation on their part, and the 
 observance, in all the affairs of life, of His regu- 
 lative will. (See Gen. xv. 1-6, xvii. 1-8, 15- 
 19 ; Exod. xix. 1-9.) But these engagements, 
 while thus involving in their essence, as is sug- 
 gested by the Hebrew term, a certain ineradi- 
 cable conditionality, were at the same time, and 
 in accordance with the essence of the Grreek 
 term, spontaneous and unencumbered dispositions 
 of goods and distributions of benefits, just as if 
 they had been actually "willed" to them by tes- 
 tamentary deed. Grod " disposed " of certain 
 portions of His means and goods for the benefit 
 of His national son, though it was utterly im- 
 possible that He could alienate the goods from 
 Himself, or alienate Himself from both His pre- 
 sent usufruct and His perpetual right of pro- 
 perty. It is noteworthy that Lachmann, in his 
 text, gives the singular covenant or disposition 
 instead of the plural dispositions. For this 
 reading he has high diplomatic backing ; viz. the 
 Alexandrine MS. and the Vatican, besides the 
 Aug-iensis and Bournerianus. The Vulo^ate ver- 
 sion too supports it, and Cyprian. Still the 
 reading of the Received Text is, on the whole, 
 the best authenticated, having the support of 
 the Sinaitic MS., the two Syriac versions, 
 along with the Grothic, Coptic, and Armenian, 
 
40 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 as also of a troop of the Fathers. It is more- 
 over the more difficult reading, and therefore 
 to be preferred, according to the special canon 
 of Bengel (Proclivi scriptioni prcestat ardua). 
 The singular word covenant occurs frequently 
 in the Old Testament Scriptures. The plural 
 covenants never. It was therefore more likely 
 that the singular word should have been intro- 
 duced by a critical writer to supersede the plural, 
 than that the plural should have been intruded 
 by a transcriber to displace the singular. Yet 
 after all it is matter of only a slight variation 
 of standpoint, whether we regard the Israelitish 
 prerogative as consisting in the various dispo- 
 sitions of possessions and property, made in 
 favour of the peculiar people, or look upon all 
 those deeds as collected into the unity of a heri- 
 tage, which, when enjoyed by men, constitutes 
 them at once " heirs of the world " and " heirs 
 of God." 
 
 And the giving of the laiu. Literally, and the 
 legislation ; i.e. and the Divine legislative enact- 
 ments published from Mount Horeh, and consti- 
 tuting, in their sum, the code ivhich is generally 
 called the " moral laiv." It is incomparably the 
 best of all bases for the innumerable details of 
 practical jurisprudence. It goes back indeed in 
 its form to that remote and primitive era when 
 duty was, to a most preponderating extent, iden- 
 tified with moral self-restraint. Hence its in- 
 
VERSE 4. 41 
 
 junctions are wisely set forth in negations. But 
 when the detailed expanse of the decalogue is 
 condensed into the summation of the duologue, the 
 phase of representation is become affirmative ; 
 and nothing can excel the duological enactments 
 in comprehensiveness, completeness, simplicity, 
 and direct authority over the reason and the 
 conscience. 
 
 And the service ; i.e. the temple service — a grand 
 ritual. It is here regarded as a Divine appoint- 
 ment or grant of grace. Hence it has its place 
 among the prerogatives of the Israelites. Being 
 in its many and varied details instinct with 
 practical significance, it was fitted to recall to 
 the minds of the worshippers what was due to 
 God, on the one hand, and how much was gra- 
 ciously provided by Him, on the other. 
 
 And the promises. JSTo doubt the great messianic 
 promises. The word promises means announce- 
 ments of coming favours. They are the avant- 
 coureurs of the favours themselves, and are sent 
 forth (pro-missiones) to stimulate expectation and 
 to support the heart. All the Old Testament dis- 
 pensations were replete with messianic promises. 
 There were the promises in particular of the 
 Messiah Himself. His coming was *'the promise 
 — the one running promise — made to the fathers " 
 (Acts xiii. 32). It involved all the other messianic 
 blessings, such as the atonement, the kingdom of 
 heaven, the reign to be continued "as long as the 
 
4Z EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 sun," the "new earth," the "inheritance of the 
 "world." (Rom. iv. 13, 14.) It involved peace, 
 joy, hope, all of them unspeakable and full of 
 glory. (Rom. v. 1-11.) 
 
 Ver. 5. The apostle continues his enumeration 
 of the prerogatives of his people, and speedily 
 soars aloft toward the zenith-point of their 
 privileges. 
 
 Whose are the fathers. Tlie patriarch-fathers, 
 the band of whom Abraham was the leader and 
 the conspicuous typical representative. They 
 were far indeed from being men without blemish. 
 But perhaps most of the sinister bars in their 
 escutcheon were parcels of the heritage which 
 they had received from those of their kindred who 
 went before. But notwithstanding their obvious 
 blemishes they were at once child-like in faith 
 and reverential in spirit. Their thoughts rose up 
 on high. They " sought a heavenly country," 
 they "looked for a city whose builder and archi- 
 tect was G-od." (Heb. xi. 10-14.) It was no 
 little advantage to be descended from such sires. 
 
 And from whom arose the Christ as regarded 
 His human nature; i.e. so far as the human element 
 of His being was concerned (Kara a-apKo). The 
 Messiah emerged from among the Hebrews, and 
 thus "salvation was of the Jews." It was their 
 crowning prerogative. Jesus was a Jew. But 
 
VEKSE 5. 43 
 
 His own people knew not their privilege, and tliey 
 perceived not that it was the time of tide in 
 the day of their merciful visitation. " He came 
 to His own, and His own received Him not." 
 (John i. 11.) They slew Him instead. (Matt. 
 xxi. 39.) When the apostle said, so far as His 
 human nature was concerned^ his mind was already 
 mounting the infinite height which rose beyond. 
 Hence what comes immediately after. 
 
 Who is over all, God, to be blessed for ever. 
 Amen. 
 
 The Greek words — strange to say — are, so far 
 as grammatical construction is concerned, sus- 
 ceptible of several interpretations, based on 
 differences of punctuation and intonation. Ezra 
 Abbot specifies and discusses seven of these 
 interpretations. (" The Construction of Romans 
 ix. 5," pp. 87-154 of Journal 'of Biblical Literature 
 and Exegesis, 1882.) We shall not seek to be 
 exhaustive in minute particulars. It suflBces, for 
 our practical aim, that we set in mutual antithesis 
 the two conspicuously conflicting views. The 
 one may be regarded as fairly represented in our 
 public English version, the Bible of 1611 : Of 
 whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, ivho is 
 over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Or it may 
 be represented thus : From whom, as concerning His 
 htimanitij, the Christ arose, ivho is over all, God to 
 be blessed for ever. Amen. The antithetic render- 
 ing is as follows: Of luhom, as concerning the flesh. 
 
44 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 the Christ came. May He who is God over all he 
 blessed for ever. Amen. 
 
 In both renderings there is the expression of 
 exultant feeling. In the latter case, this feeling 
 is bodied forth in abrupt doxological form ; in 
 the former there is continuative christological 
 affirmation, but rapt in character, and ending 
 with the solemn liturgical "Amen." If this 
 interpretation be accepted, the current of thought 
 flows on, full volumed, in the direction of the 
 Christ as distinguished from the infinite Father, 
 and as referred to in the immediately preceding 
 clause. If the other theory of explication be 
 accepted, then the current of thought is suddenly 
 diverted to God the Father as distinguishable 
 from the Christ. According to the former view, 
 our Lord is expressly spoken of as both " over 
 all," and as " God to be praised for ever." 
 According to the latter, he is expressly distin- 
 guished from the Father, in so far as the Father 
 is " God over all." 
 
 This latter view is taken by both Lachmann 
 and Tischendorf, as well as other editors, such as 
 Schott, Buttmann, the two Hahns, and Dr. Hort, 
 all of whom insert not a comma, but a period, 
 after the expression, " according to flesh." 
 
 In the Alexandrine manuscript (A) there is 
 after the word " flesh " a space for a stop, and 
 there is likewise a stop in the space. In the 
 Vatican (B) there is a stop, though no appro- 
 
VERSE 5. 45 
 
 priated space. la the Epliraemi (C), in Paris, 
 there is a space with a cross in it ; and there is 
 likewise a space in the codex Bezse (D)/ The 
 presence in these manuscripts of a stop, or of a 
 space for a stop, whether occupied or not, seems 
 to afford evidence that the writers contemplated 
 an interpretation like the second we have speci- 
 fied, that which ascribes a doxology of thanks 
 to the Father. But during the mediaeval ages 
 this interpretation seems to have retired almost 
 entirely out of sight. 
 
 Erasmus was fascinated by the doxological 
 interpretation, and ultimately settled in it. After 
 the lapse of more than two centuries Wetstein 
 and Semler gave their vote, with great decisive- 
 ness, for the same view, the doxological ; and 
 they have been followed by quite a lengthened 
 retinue of recent expositors and critics, inclusive 
 of Reiche, Winzer, Fritzsche, Kollner, Griockler, 
 Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, Meyer, Oltramare, Van 
 Hengel, Weizsacker, Beyschlag, Volkmar, Beet, 
 Ezra Abbot, etc. 
 
 The patristic writers, on the other hand, went 
 — in almost solid phalanx — for the first or 
 christological interpretation.^ In turning to 
 Romans ix. 5, they found, with unbounded joy, 
 
 1 See Vance Smith's " Biblical Note," in the Expositor, 
 No. liii., first series. 
 
 2 Some however hesitated. See the long notes of Wet- 
 stein and Tischendorf (eighth edition). 
 
4G EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 that the language which was, in tlieir higher 
 dogmatics, usually reserved for the Father was 
 yet freely applied to the Son. It was demon- 
 stration to them that, according to the conception 
 of the Apostle Paul, the Saviour is truly and 
 gloriously " God manifest in flesh.''* 
 
 Let it be further noticed that, in the apostle's 
 theology as evolved in other epistles, the Saviour 
 is represented as Divine in the highest form of 
 divinity. In His pre-existent state He was " in 
 the form of God." (Phil. ii. 6.) " In Him " and 
 "by Him were all things created, in the heavens 
 and upon the earth, things visible and things 
 invisible, whether thrones or dominions or princi- 
 palities or powers ; all things have been created 
 through Him, and to Him ; and He is before all 
 things, and in Him all things consist." (CoL 
 i. 16, 17.) 
 
 Besides, in the christological superscription of 
 this very Epistle to the Romans, the apostle dis- 
 criminates, somewhat as in the passage before 
 us, the two natures of our Lord — His human, 
 metonymically called His " flesh," derived from 
 the lineage of king David ; and His superhuman, 
 called His "spirit of holiness," according to which 
 He was, by His own resurrection, inclusive of all 
 other resurrections, demonstrated to be God's- 
 Son-i7i-power, His Father's fellow in the highest 
 sense of the term, His " fellow " therefore, not 
 merely in ethical resemblance, but likewise in 
 
VERSE 5. 47 
 
 metaphysical nature or being. There is but a 
 step between this representation and that which 
 is embodied in the christological interpretation of 
 Romans ix. 5. 
 
 Then, if we should close the reference to 
 Christ with the words according to fleshy or 
 according to His human nature, and interpret 
 the remainder of the statement as a doxology to 
 the Father, the apostle might seem to lay him- 
 self open to the charge of constructing, for 
 entrance into his idea, one half of a folding 
 door of thought, and one half only, leaving the 
 structure as unaccountably incomplete as Romans 
 i. 3 would be, if verse 4 were wrenched off and 
 verse 3 left in suspended isolation ; thus : " con- 
 cerning His Son, who, as regards His human 
 nature, was born of the lineage of David." . . . 
 Does not that seem to be conspicuously only one 
 half of a grand unity of idea ? 
 
 If it should be said that the antithesis mio^ht 
 be inwardly involved, though not outwardly un- 
 rolled, it would be a legitimate answer, that, 
 ■whether directly or indirectly, outwardly or in- 
 wardly, formally or only virtually, the super- 
 human element must be postulated if there is to 
 be a completed antithesis in thought, of folding 
 to folding, or leaf to leaf. 
 
 Moreover, it is entirely at variance with the 
 doxologies of the New Testament (Luke i. 68, 
 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3), and all but 
 
43 EXPOSITION OF KOMANS IX. 
 
 entirely at variance with the much more nume- 
 rous doxologies found in the Septuagint Version 
 of the Old, to put the subject of the proposition 
 before the predicate. The accredited order of 
 doxological representation is not, He wJio is God 
 over all he Messed ! but. Blessed he He who is 
 God over all !^ And hence it is unlikely that 
 we have here a doxology to the Father, and it 
 is consequently likely that the clause in question 
 is a further characterisation of "the Christ," 
 who emerged from among the Israelites, so far 
 as His human nature was concerned. Beyond 
 that nature, and far aloft, there was a point of 
 unity, at which personality linked itself on to 
 personality, and in which the nature of the 
 Father and the nature of the Son coalesced and 
 coalesce — was and is. 
 
 If moreover the writer had been desirous of 
 inserting a doxology to the Father, it seems 
 
 ^ See Gen. ix. 26, xiv. 20, xxiv. 27, xxiv. 31, xxvi. 29 ; 
 Exod. xviii. 10 ; Deut. vii. 14 ; Ruth ii. 20, iv. 14 ; 1 Samuel 
 XV. 13, XXV. 32, 33, 39 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 28, xxii. 47 ; 1 Kings 
 i. 48, V. 7, viii. 15, 67; 2 Chron. ii. 12, vi. 4 ; Ez. vii. 27; 
 Ps. xviii. 46; xxviii. 6; xxxi. 21; xli. 13; Ixvi. 20; lx\'iii. 
 19, 35 ; Ixxii. 18 ; Ixxxix. 52 ; cvi. 48 ; cxix. 12 ; cxxiv. 6 ; 
 cxxxv. 1 ; cxliv. 1 ; Zech. xi. 5. The one exceptional case 
 is Ps. Ixviii. 19. In all the other instances of occurrence, 
 it is ev\oyr}To^ Krptos. 
 
 The numbering of the Psalms goes on two lines. The 
 one presents them as thej are numbered in Tromm's Con- 
 cordance. The other presents them as they are numbered 
 in our English version. The latter numbering is given in 
 this note in order to facilitate verification. 
 
VERSE 5. 49 
 
 rather difficult to conceive what particular object 
 he could have had in view in introducing: the 
 participle of the substantive verb (wv). It would 
 have been, apparently, so much more natural to 
 have said 6 eirl iravrm Geo?, k.t.X. He wlio is God 
 over all, etc. 
 
 And why, indeed, seek to give emphasis here 
 to the idea of the Father's supremacy? Was 
 there any danger of any of the apostle's disciples, 
 or of any of his remoter followers or brethren, 
 thinking equality with the Father a prize to be 
 snatched at, in the great economy of grace, by 
 the Son ? (Phil. ii. 6.) 
 
 It is to be noted that there is no article prefixed 
 to the Qeo'i, intensifying the idea of divinity. The 
 article which precedes the participle is of course 
 to be construed with the participle, not with 0eo?. 
 The Christ therefore is not here represented as 
 "emphatically" God over all. Still He is repre- 
 sented as God; and He "is^' over all, God to-he- 
 hlessedfor ever. Amen. He is " overall," with one 
 exception, that needed not to be formally specified. 
 (1 Cor. XV. 27.) He is over all the patriarchal 
 fathers ; over all men everywhere ; over all created 
 persons, the sum of whose existences, when added 
 to the existences of things, is the universe. As 
 thus " over all," the Christ is God-to-be-blessed 
 for ever. Amen." He is God; but not so as to 
 cause or occasion the absorption or semi-absorp- 
 tion, or any diminution of the distinctive being of 
 
 E 
 
50 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 the Father. He is one with the Father in ab- 
 solute unison of character, and absolute unity of 
 nature. 
 
 The expression 6 wv is idiomatically insuscep- 
 tible of literal translation into English. We can- 
 not say the being, meaning substantially tvho is, 
 or He loho is^ and thus using the word being, 
 not substantively, but participially. Yet we can 
 think the Greek idiomatic expression, both in its 
 relation to what goes before and in its relation 
 to what comes after. Note the article, on the 
 one hand. It draws attention to the indivi- 
 dual specified in what goes immediately before ; 
 viz. " the Christ." Note the participle, on the 
 other. It fixes attention upon a state of being, 
 characteristic of the specified individual, but far 
 transcendino' the human nature of " the Christ." 
 
 O 
 
 Erasmus — always tending toward the doxolo- 
 gical interpretation — had an alternative conjecture 
 to propose ; viz. that the first moiety of the expres- 
 sion should be attached aflSrmatively and histori- 
 cally to the preceding clause, while the second 
 moiety should be sundered off into a concluding 
 doxology to the Father. The statement in its 
 entirety would then run thus : — From among wJiom 
 the Christ arose, as respects Sis human nature, who 
 is above all. God be blessed for ever. Amen. But 
 such a construction, although approved of by 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, is obviously a product of 
 strong doctrinal prepossession, on the one hand. 
 
VERSE 6. 51 
 
 and of utter exegetical despair, on the otlier. It 
 need not at this time of day be discussed. 
 
 The expression blessed, or better, to-be-hlessed, is 
 based on the assumption that created intelligences 
 should express to their Creator their admiration 
 of His character, and their gratitude for the out- 
 flow of His tender mercy. Since God has so 
 signally " blessed " men, they should stir up all 
 that is within them to " bless " Him. 
 
 For ever. Literally, " into the ages.^' As the 
 apostle looked forward, he could not find, even 
 in the remotest future, a point of time at which 
 created intelligences should cease to bless the 
 great Creator. He looks till he can look no far- 
 ther. Age stretches beyond age, interminably. 
 
 Amen. It folds back, in the liturgy of our 
 spirits, over the finished statement that precedes ; 
 repeating it, so to speak, deliberately, impres- 
 sively, solemnly, doxologically. 
 
 Yer. 6. But it is not such as that the luord of 
 God has failed. 
 
 The apostle's language in the first part of the 
 statement is peculiar, and linguistic purists would 
 not hesitate to speak of it as irregular. It is 
 abrupt and broken ; and hence critics have often 
 been perplexed, — some of them exceedingly — in 
 their efi'orts to untie the grammatical knot. In 
 King James's version, as in Tyndale's, the intro- 
 
52 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 ductoiy coDJunction "but" is unliappilj omitted. 
 It cannot be dispensed with. The apostle had 
 felt his spirit drawn onward and upward as he 
 proceeded with his enumeration of the high pre- 
 rogatives of his countrymen, till at length he 
 found himself climbing "the ladder which Jacob 
 saw," and which leads direct to " glory, hon- 
 our, and immortality." He was, as it were, 
 " caught up " in a rapture, and carried " off and 
 away." Ere he was let down again, he had ex- 
 claimed liturgically and with fulness of heart, 
 "Amen." Being unable for the present to pro- 
 ceed farther in that sublime rapture, he as it were 
 recalls himself, and returns to the melancholy fact 
 which is bewailed in verses 2 and 3. The fact 
 however, as a fact, is not expressly stated. The 
 statement of it is, as it were, semi-smothered 
 under the intensity of the writer's feelings. Yet 
 the enumeration of theocratic prerogatives finds a 
 place in the writer's record, just because there 
 was oppressively present to his mind and heart 
 the fact that his countrymen in general had, 
 through their rejection of Jesus the Messiah, ousted 
 themselves from the privileges of " the kingdom 
 of heaven." They had deposed themselves from 
 the enjoyment of the high prerogatives of the 
 peculiar people of God. They were refusing to 
 be " Israelites indeed," and were virtually passing 
 upon themselves sentence of spiritual expatriation. 
 Such was the lamentable fact which the apostle 
 so sensitively bewailed. 
 
VERSE 6. 53 
 
 Confronting that fact, lie now says, as in a 
 spirit of recoil, " But " the case is not such as 
 that the ivord of God has fallen out of its due ful- 
 filment. The apostle's theodicy commences with 
 this " hut" The melancholy fact referred to 
 might and would occasion much embarrassment 
 to multitudes of men ; but it wOuld not and could 
 not embarrass the Divine moral Governor. It 
 would not and could not frustrate the fulfilment 
 of His promises, even in relation to the people of 
 Israel. The disbelief of the Jews, melancholy as 
 it was, and their self- deposition from their high 
 pinnacle of privilege, melancholy as that too was, 
 were yet within the sphere of the full over-rule- 
 ment of God. 
 
 And hence, as says the apostle, " the state of 
 the case was not such as {to amount to this) that 
 the ivord of God has failed of its accomplishment." 
 Such an allegation would not be in accordance 
 with actual historical fact. 
 
 The apostle might have simply expressed him- 
 self thus, dropping out of view the relative : 
 {But the state of the case is) not {to this effect) 
 that the word of God has failed.^ 
 
 The apostle specifies the word of God ; i.e. the 
 word spoken by God through His prophets to 
 the Israelitish people, and in substance preserved 
 in the volume of the hooh. On the one side, it 
 was simply predictive; on the other, it was 
 distinctly promissory. But in both respects a 
 
 ^ dW OVK icTTLV OTL €K7re7rTa)KCV 6 XoyOS TOV 0€OU. 
 
54 EXPOSITION OP ROMANS IX. 
 
 distinguished and distinguishing share of bless- 
 ing was held out to " the peculiar people," and 
 that peculiar people was "Israel." 
 
 The word of God has not failed of fulfilment ; 
 literally, has not fallen out. The idea is trans- 
 figured from many a homely occurrence ; as when, 
 for instance, from the back of some burden- 
 bearer an article falls, and is lost. 
 
 For not all ivho are of Israel are Israel. The 
 apostle lays down a far-reaching principle. 
 God had an ideal in view when He made choice 
 of Israel to be His peculiar people. He had 
 grand aims for the future ages — aims that are 
 yet to be realised in all peoples. (Gen. xii. 3, 
 etc.) Israel was chosen to be for a season 
 "the peculiar people," not for their own sakes 
 exclusively or chiefly, but for the sake of the 
 whole terrestrial family of nations. The selected 
 people could not all at once grasp the grand 
 idea. It was not to be wondered at. Neither 
 would God be exacting. Still His ideal must 
 not be pushed aside. Neither must it be re- 
 versed, like an inverted pyramid. Still less must 
 it be ignominiously trampled under foot. For 
 God was not shut up to Israel. If needful, 
 He could find in the evolution of the ages an 
 Israel beyond Israel, or an Israel within Israel. 
 And as regards the old Israel, if it should per- 
 sist in misunderstanding its position and mission, 
 fancying itself to be the indispensable centre of 
 
VERSE 7. 55 
 
 the whole human circle, it could be told, in that 
 language of events which makes epochs in 
 history, that its candlestick was removable, and 
 would be removed to make way for a lamp that 
 would actually give light. There were Israelites 
 and Israelites. There were Israelites in full 
 possession of the name, but entirely without the 
 inward ideal that gave it significance ; and there 
 could be Israelites without the name, but with 
 the inward ideal, though yet only struggling 
 like a star through the mists of ignorance and 
 imperfection. (Rom. ii. 29.) 
 
 In the verse before us we have the two kinds 
 of Israelites brought into juxtaposition — not all 
 who are of Israel are Israel ; i.e. not all who 
 are the progeny of the patriarch Israel are truly 
 and ideally the Israel " to whom pertaineth the 
 adoption." God therefore will not break His 
 promise, though He refuse to fulfil it to those 
 who have forfeited, by their unbelief, all right 
 and title to an illustrious position and their illus- 
 trious name. He is free to oust those who have 
 persistently abused their high prerogative, and 
 to introduce into their room a people who would 
 seek to rise to the level of their high calling. 
 
 Ver. 7. Nor because they are Abraham/ s seed 
 are they all children ; but. In Isaac shall seed 
 
 BE NAMED TO THEE. 
 
56 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 Such is a literal translation — perhaps too 
 literal, and literally Semitic. But the outstand- 
 ing idea is obvious ; viz. that the written history 
 of the Hebrews makes it evident that mere lineal 
 descent from the patriarchs, however uncontami- 
 nated, was not sufficient to assure to the apostle's 
 countrymen the high theocratic position of the 
 true Israel. 
 
 Beginning his statement with the negatively 
 continuative nor, he reminds his readers that 
 the principle verified in Grod's dealings with 
 the children of Israel had a parallel appli- 
 cation in His dealings with the immediate off- 
 spring of Abraham. It was not the case that 
 all these ivere children, because they ivere 
 Abraham s offspring. The expression children, 
 here used absolutely, may be interpreted as 
 meaning either children of Abraham or children 
 of God. Theodoret, in ancient times, and Glock- 
 ler, in modern, understand it as having the 
 latter acceptation ; and the next verse makes it 
 obvious that this interpretation must be either 
 explicitly or implicitly received. Most likely 
 it should be received only implicitly, or, in other 
 words, the term children, while strictly relative 
 to the fatherhood of Abraham, is yet unex- 
 hausted by such import and relationship, and 
 is therefore to be understood as having a coin- 
 cident reference to the fatherhood of God. 
 
 There are various ways in which we may 
 
VERSE 7. 57 
 
 contrast Abraham's generic " seed " or *' off- 
 spring" and his peculiar ''children." In the 
 verse before us, it is not so much a distinction 
 as regards faith or the works of faith that is 
 signalised or suggested. Emphasis is elsewhere 
 given to that distinction. (See Rom. iv. 11-17, 
 Gal. iii. 29.) But here it is rather a distinction 
 as regards messianic prerogatives that is referred 
 to. Various races sprang from Abraham ; but 
 only one of them could, in the nature of things, 
 be the messianic people, amid whom the Messiah 
 was to appear, and grow up, and accomplish his 
 great atonement for sinful human beings all the 
 world over. Hence it could not be legitimately 
 contended concerning the Abrahamic peoples, 
 that because they were the patriarch's offspring, 
 therefore they were all his messianic children. 
 
 There is no high and dry distinction intended 
 between the seed or offspring and the children 
 of Abraham. The terminology might have been 
 reversed, so that the contrast would have run 
 thus : Nor because they are Abraham's " children " 
 are they all his " offspring " ; for it is immedi- 
 ately added, But, In Isaac shall " offspring " be 
 called to thee. The idea, whichsoever way we 
 alternate the filial terms, is sufficiently manifest : 
 Nor because they are his lineal " offspring " are 
 they all his messianic ^'^ children '^ ; or thus : Nor 
 because they are his lineally descended ^^ children '' 
 are they all his messianic " offspring.'" Of the 
 
r 
 
 58 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 various races one only could be the messianic 
 people ; so that the reliance of the Jews for the 
 highest messianic blessings upon their pure 
 patriarchal descent, might be, and really was, 
 a broken reed to lean upon. Well might John 
 the herald exclaim, " Think not to say within 
 yourselves. We have Abraham for our father ; 
 for I say unto you, that Grod is able of these 
 stones to raise up children unto Abraham." 
 (Matt. iii. 9.) Grod's hands are not tied. And 
 it is far from being the case that He was re- 
 stricted to the Hebrews for His " holy nation " 
 and " peculiar people." 
 
 Meyer goes backward to the preceding verse 
 to find, in the expression, they wJio are of Israel, 
 the nominative to the substantive verb in the 
 first clause of this verse : Nor hecause " they ivho 
 are of Israel " are Abraham's offspring , are they 
 all children. But the two statements in the 
 two verses are constructed on one principle, so 
 that it is better to go forward to the second 
 clause of the seventh verse for the subject of 
 the proposition : Nor are " all " Abraham's chil- 
 dren because they are his offspring. 
 
 The expression. In Isaac shall offspring be 
 called to thee (Gen. xxi. 12), might be inter- 
 preted thus : In Isaac shall offspring be divinely 
 called forth for thee. (See Rom. iv. 17-21.) But 
 it is better to understand the promise nun- 
 cupatively thus : In Isaac shall offspring be 
 
VERSE 8. 59 
 
 named to thee. The offspring which the patri- 
 arch already had in Isaac, and which was to be 
 increased through Isaac, and carried downward 
 in his descending line, was the offspring which 
 was to be emphatically signalised by name as 
 Abraham's peculiar offspring — his messianic de- 
 scendants. So did Grod arrange in the exercise 
 of His unchallengeable sovereignty. 
 
 Ver. 8. That is, not the children of the flesh, 
 not these are the children of God, hut the children 
 of the 'promise are accounted for offspring. 
 
 This is the apostle's comment on the Old Testa- 
 ment promise. "Within the family circle of Abra- 
 ham there were children who should never have 
 been. They were not really wanted in the world. 
 Their existence was attributable to the unrefined 
 manners of the age. Hence they might be called 
 the children of the flesh. The designation was 
 sufficiently explicit, at least for all practical pur- 
 poses, and could stand in appropriate antithesis 
 to the designation of others as the children of 
 promise, and thus the messianic children of God. 
 Such were Isaac in particular, and then Jacob, 
 and their legitimate descendants. God promised 
 these to Abraham, and they were thus, at once 
 the children of "the" promise and the messianic 
 children of God. To the exclusion of all the other 
 descendants, they were reckoned for messianic 
 
60 EXPOSITION OP EOMANS IX. 
 
 offspring — reckoned by God. He had the sove- 
 reio^n rio^ht to choose — and He exercised His 
 right. 
 
 The phrase, children of God, is susceptible of 
 varied applications. All men are His offspring 
 (Acts xvii. 28), and thus His children. The pure, 
 the benevolent, and the unrevengeful, these in par- 
 ticular are His children. (Matt. v. 45.) And if, 
 from among the lapsed, any rise up and longingly 
 and earnestly urge their way toward purity and 
 benevolence and a forgiving spirit, then all these 
 are emphatically " the children of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 26.) Having " received " 
 Christ, they have " power to become the sons of 
 God." (John i. 12.) Jesus Himself is the Son 
 of God, in the highest possible acceptation of the 
 designation. In metaphysical nature, as well as 
 in creative origination of things, and in ethical 
 assimilation, and express image, is He "the Son of 
 God." But in the passage before us the desig- 
 nation, instead of being extended to any of these, 
 is restricted to those who were God's messianic 
 children. Viewed in unity, they are His national 
 son," His first-born. (Bxod. iv. 22.) Viewed in 
 disintegrated individuality, they are His theocratic 
 sons and daughters. 
 
 Ver. 9. For this word is one of promise. 
 At the return, next year, of this season I shall come, 
 and there will be a son to Sarah. 
 
VERSE 9. 61 
 
 The apostle accounts for his expression, the 
 children of the promise. There was really a 
 promise in relation to the messianic race, and its 
 first application was in the home of Abraham. 
 For this ivord, — says the apostle, pointing forward 
 to the Divine declaration which he is just about 
 to quote. The declaration is promissory in its 
 nature. Jahveh promised to revisit the patri- 
 archal home, after the revolution of a year; 
 and important messianic results were to ensue. / 
 shall come, or, as it is in Grenesis xviii. 10, I ivill 
 certainly return. The precise time is specified, 
 according to this season, or, at this season ( viz. 
 next year). There is in Genesis xvii. 21 a more 
 transparent phrase : " My covenant will I estab- 
 lish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to thee at 
 this set time (next year).^' The expression to 
 which the apostle immediately refers is found in 
 Genesis xviii. 14. But it is not happily rendered 
 in King James's version. It is more correctly 
 translated by Kalisch, tuhen the season is reneived 
 or returns again; and still better by Bishop 
 Browne, when the season revives {Speaker^s Com- 
 mentary). 
 
 The phrase ascribes life to the returning season 
 (T\^r\ -n^3). The successive periods that occur 
 within the cycle of time are conceived of as 
 living by instinct, with a potency of periodic 
 revival. 
 
 Why does the apostle make mention of this 
 
62 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 particular promise in reference to Sarah and her 
 son Isaac? It was because it showed the sove- 
 reign pleasure of God in selecting the channel in 
 which the messianic stream was to flow. Abraham, 
 under the depressing influence of hope-long- 
 deferred, had said to God, Oh that Ishmael might 
 live before Thee I (Gen. xvii. 18.) He would have 
 been content to have had Hagar's son as his heir, 
 and "the heir of the world" (Rom. iv. 13). 
 But God had decided otherwise. And naturally 
 so, one would think, as well as supernaturally ; 
 for the patriarch had no other child so pure in 
 origin as Isaac. Still, whether pure, or less pure 
 in origination, the individual chosen had no claim 
 upon God to be the selected channel of messianic 
 honours. Isaac, apart from God's free engage- 
 ments and promise, had no right to challenge for 
 himself the high prerogative. And he would 
 have suffered no wrong had the distinguishing 
 privilege been conferred on Ishmael. 
 
 Still there seems to be a real congruity in the 
 selection of Isaac, in preference to Ishmael. 
 When once we have the two sons fairly within 
 the field of our vision, and standing, as it were, 
 side by side, with all their antecedents attaching 
 to them, we see that there might have been the 
 suspicion — at least some slight soup(^on of a 
 suspicion — of incongruity if Ishmael had been 
 selected and Isaac passed by. Congruities and 
 incongruities have potent influence in the most 
 
VEKSES 10-13. 63 
 
 judicial thoughts of men ; and much more may 
 they be expected to have sway in the infinitely 
 judicial intelligence of Grod. 
 
 Ver. 10-13. And not only so, hut Rebecca also, 
 conceiving twins by one, Isaac our father — for ere 
 the children were born, or had done anything good 
 or evil, that the elective purpose of God may abide, 
 not of ivories, but of Him who calleth, — it ivas said 
 to her. The greater shall serve the lesser, as it 
 stands written, Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated. 
 
 The apostle takes another step downward in 
 the course of time. And not only so. Not only 
 was Grod's free elective principle in relation to 
 messianic prerogative manifested in His choice 
 of Sarah's son ; it was still more strikingly ex- 
 hibited in His dealings within Rebecca's home, 
 and in what was said, not so much of her, as to 
 hei\ But Rebecca also, conceiving twins by one, 
 Isaac our father. When the apostle says ''our" 
 father, he speaks from the standpoint of his 
 Hebrew self-consciousness. He speaks as all his 
 countrymen might speak. Rebecca's children 
 were equal as regards parentage. In this respect 
 they differed from Isaac and Ishmael. For they 
 had not only the same father, they had likewise 
 the same mother. It was most important for the 
 apostle's countrymen to bear that fact in mind. It 
 was deep-drawing, putting Edomites and Israelites 
 
64 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 on one level; and yet all the more effectually leav- 
 ing the way clear for the conspicuous exercise of 
 the Divine choice in reference to the enjoyment of 
 messianic prerogative. God actually chose the 
 Israelites, in distinction from the Edomites, for 
 the enjoyment of the high privilege ; but the 
 choice was not determined by any special purity 
 of genealogical descent on the part of the 
 Israelites. 
 
 Not only so. It should be particularly noted, 
 that at the time when the destination of the mes- 
 sianic prerogative was announced, there was no- 
 thing of the nature of moral superiority attaching 
 to the Israelites, or to their genealogical ancestor, 
 the younger son of Rebecca. The apostle draws 
 attention to the fact that when the announcement 
 was made to the anxious mother, the children 
 were not yet born, and therefore had not done 
 anything either good or evil (^(pauXov), Nor is 
 there in the ancient record the slightest hint of 
 any tendency to moral superiority in the future 
 that might account anticipatively for the selec- 
 tion. On the contrary, the announcement to 
 Rebecca was made, says the apostle, while the 
 children, not being yet born, had not done either 
 good or evil ; and it was thus made, in order that 
 the elective purpose of God, in relation to mes- 
 sianic prerogative, might remain uninfringed and 
 intact; the choice being determined not by the 
 works of the chosen, but by the pleasure of Him 
 
VERSES 10-13. 65 
 
 who calls whom He wills to the enjoyment of His 
 favours. 
 
 It was not the case then that the Israelites 
 were exalted to the pinnacle of theocratic and 
 messianic privilege because of special purity of 
 patriarchal descent, on the one hand, or because 
 of special superiority in ethical patriarchal 
 character, on the other. 
 
 It was of importance therefore that the Israel- 
 ites should not delude or mislead themselves. 
 They had not earned their superiority in pre- 
 rogative. Nor did it flow in the purity of their 
 blood. And hence that superiority, however 
 great, was no earnest or pledge that the higher 
 blessings still, the blessings whose sum con- 
 stitutes everlasting salvation, would be secured 
 to them whatever should be their treatment of 
 the Saviour. All the generations of their fore- 
 fathers had been contributing to the advent of 
 the Saviour ; and if they did not become a " holy 
 nation," in the higher acceptation of the phrase, 
 they might now cease to be the one " peculiar 
 people." No human right would be violated, 
 no legitimate claim would be dishonoured, by 
 such a revolution. 
 
 The grammatical structure of verses 10-12 is 
 broken. (1) There is no verb to which the word 
 Rebecca might stand as a nominative, and which 
 might form the predicate of the proposition. 
 Had the apostle availed himself of rhetorical 
 
Q6 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 forecast, lie might have used a dative instead of 
 a nominative, and have said. Not only so, hut *' to" 
 Behecca also, ivhen she had conceived twins by one, 
 Isaac our father, it was said, The greater shall 
 serve the lesser. Then (2) the expression, the 
 children, is omitted in verse 11. And (3) the 
 statement, or thought, that gives occasion to the 
 introduction of the reason-rendering for (yap) 
 at the commencement of the eleventh verse, is 
 suppressed. If it had been forthcoming it would 
 have overturned the existing broken relationship 
 between verses 10 and 12, and would have been 
 something to this effect : And not only so, but 
 Rebecca also, conceiving twins by one, Isaac our 
 father, affords another illustration of God's elective 
 principle ; for, etc. The apostle's language, 
 when viewed rhetorically, is found to be dis- 
 jointed. But no advantage would be gained by 
 the expedient of throwing the entire eleventh 
 verse into a parenthesis, as is done in Kicg 
 James's English version. Indeed, such a paren- 
 thesis is impracticable except merely to the eye as 
 a mechanical affair of brackets. It is no real 
 parenthesis. Nor is the construction relieved, 
 or the interpretation facilitated, by the more 
 frequent device of making parenthetical the 
 second part of the verse, consisting of the words, 
 in order that the elective purpose of God might 
 remain, not of works, but of Him who calleth. On 
 the contrary, the statement of verse 12, as an 
 
VERSES 10-13. 67 
 
 integral part of the argument of the apostle, is 
 materially impoverished by the withdrawment of 
 the words in question. '^ 
 
 Meyer is too fastidious in his interpretation of 
 the words, And not only so, but Rebecca also. As 
 it is Sarah that is referred to in what goes before, 
 and as another mother's name is here introduced, 
 he supposes that the relationship subsisting be- 
 tween the two representations is such as might 
 be thus exhibited : Not only had Sarah a saying 
 of God, but Uheivise Rebecca, etc. This is seek- 
 ing, on the one hand, too fine a balance of 
 rhetorical structure, and overlooking, on the 
 other, that in actual historical fact, as well as 
 in the apostle's treatment of the case, it was 
 never stated or suggested that Sarah had a say- 
 ing of Grod to herself. It was to Abraham that 
 Grod spoke, not to Sarah. 
 
 The expression, Isaac oar father, is to be taken 
 as in apposition with the preceding expression, 
 of one ; and the pronoun our has reference, not, 
 as Fritzsche contends, to the spiritual, but to the 
 historical Israelites. 
 
 The participles jevvyfievroov and Trpa^dvrwv are in 
 the genitive absolute ; and the adverbs which pre- 
 cede them are the subjective /xi/Trw and /mriSe, instead 
 of the objective ouwco and ovSe, because the clauses 
 to which they are attached represent negations 
 taken into account in the itiind of God, when He 
 made His elective statement to Rebecca. The 
 
G8 EXPOSITION OF EOMAXS IX. 
 
 statement was made in view of the fact that the 
 twins were unborn, and consequently uncharac- 
 terized by any ethical action whatever, running 
 on to ethical practice. 
 
 Still further, it is to be borne in mind that the 
 Divine statement, made to Rebecca, was not iso- 
 lated and irrelative, standing like a solitary 
 pillar in a waste of wilderness. It was indeed 
 one single utterance; but, as such, it was just 
 one single detail of a vast complex plan. And 
 hence the apostle thought of both its antecedents 
 and its consequents ; and, among its antecedents, 
 took note of the aim which was divinely pre- 
 contemplated. The oracle was delivered, at the 
 particular time referred to, and under the par- 
 ticular circumstances which are recorded in the 
 narrative, in order that the elective pnrijose of God 
 might continue, not of works, hut of Him who 
 calleth. In the preceding election of Isaac in 
 preference to Ishmael, for the enjoyment of 
 messianic prerogative, there had been nothing on 
 Isaac's part to earn the distinction. He had not 
 worked for it, and then got it, because he de- 
 served it. It was " not of works." The Divine 
 choice was determined by some other considera- 
 tion altogether, which however is unrevealed to 
 us, and therefore lies imbedded in the sovereign 
 but all-wise will of Him who never does anything 
 but what He " pleases," and who never pleases 
 to do anything but what is " right." It was 
 
VERSES 10-13. 69 
 
 hence to be expected that in clioosing between 
 Rebecca's twins, for the destination of messianic 
 pre-eminence, no regard would be bad to meri- 
 torious works. For, in tbe first place, there was 
 no scope for the performance of such works 
 before the children were born ; and then, in the 
 second place, it was manifestly wise in God to 
 make such arrangements in reference to the des- 
 tination of the prerogative, that the Israelites, 
 who enjoyed the privilege, should not be war- 
 ranted to build for themselves, in connexion with 
 its enjoyment, a high castle of self-conceit. The 
 apostle was assured — and most reasonably so — 
 that in the choice of one of the twins God's elec- 
 tive purpose would "remain" exactly as it had 
 been in the home of Abraham and Sarah ; and 
 hence it would not be " of works," but " of Him 
 who calleth," and who calleth whom He will. 
 
 The word calleth is not to be overlooked. 
 When applied to moral agents, it assumes the 
 possession of free-will. They are " called^" hut 
 not compelled or necessitated. According to the 
 nature of the case, a " call " may assume the 
 form either of a summons or of an invitation. 
 It may sometimes be allied to a commandment ; it 
 may sometimes" be allied to an entreatij. In the 
 case before us, where the reference is to prero- 
 gative, which in its inner ethical content may 
 be either welcomed and prized, or spurned and 
 stamped under foot, the call will be essentially 
 
70 EXrOSITtON OF ROMANS TX. 
 
 of the nature of a Divine invitation. Some of 
 God's greatest blessings He simply provides and 
 confers without sending forth an invitation. To 
 the enjoyment of others He gives invitation, and, 
 as it were, says, " Ho, every one ! come ye." 
 Some snch invitation is addressed to persons, 
 some snch to peoples. And in both cases invita- 
 tion may pave the way for further and ulterior 
 invitation. They who " have," in the sense of 
 accepting what has been proffered, and of keep- 
 ing and prizing and guarding what they have got, 
 to them shall be given, and they shall "have" 
 more abundantly. Invitation to them will follow 
 invitation, till the highest blessing is reached ; 
 and they find in their delightful experience that 
 blessed are they who are God's invited guests 
 to the everlasting banquet of bliss. To all the 
 highest blessinsfs there is a Divine "call" or 
 " invitation." For " whom He did foreknow, 
 them He also did predestinate to be conformed 
 to the image of His Son (in glory) ; and whom 
 He did predestinate, them He also calls ; and 
 whom He calls^ them He also justifies ; and whom 
 He justifies, them He also glorifies." (Kom. viii. 
 29, 30.) 
 
 We come now to consider the statement that 
 was made to Rebecca : Tlie greater shall serve the 
 lesser. It is quoted from Genesis xxv. 23. In 
 the preceding verses of the ancient record, the 
 twenty-first and twenty- second, we read : And 
 
VERSES 10-13. 71 
 
 Tsaac entreated Jahveh for his wife, because she 
 'Was barren : and Jahveh was entreated of him, 
 and Bebekah his wife conceived. And the children 
 struggled within her ; and she said, If it be so, 
 wherefore ami? (Wherefore is this the case that 
 / am ? The expression is one of despondency or 
 of complaint.) And she went to inquire of Jahveh. 
 And Jahveh said to her, Two nations are in thy 
 w'omb, and tivo peoples shall be separated from thy 
 boivels; and the one people shall be stronger than the 
 other; and the greater shall serve the lesser. There 
 had been some " man of God " within her reach, 
 perhaps kindred in spirit to such an eminent indi- 
 vidual as Melchizedek. Jahveh could be consulted 
 through him. The consultation took place, and 
 the consequence was that an oracle was delivered 
 to the anxious mother, having for its concluding 
 clause the words, the greater shall serve the lesser. 
 
 Let it be noted, first of all, that the words 
 which the apostle quotes from the oracle are 
 introduced in the original Greek by the demon- 
 strative oTi. It is untranslatable, unless we 
 turn the reported words into the indirect form 
 of address, and thus transform shall serve into 
 should serve. It ivas said to her, that the greater 
 " should serve " the lesser. It is better however 
 in translating into English to merge the demon- 
 strative and preserve the future verb shall serve. 
 
 Then let it be noted that the words quoted are 
 a prediction. 
 
72 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 Let it be further noted that the prediction of 
 the relation of the greater to the lesser has no 
 reference whatever to the persons Jacob and Esan. 
 The mind of the seer who spoke for God to Rebecca 
 looked far ahead of the infants concerning whom 
 inquiry was made. He does not speak of them 
 at all, whether considered in their infancy or in 
 their subsequent maturity. He makes not the 
 slightest reference to their personal peculiarities 
 and future fortunes. But as they were to be 
 founders of peoples, it is of these peoples only 
 that the oracle takes notice. Of them only does 
 it make any assertion or mention. It begins thus : 
 " Two nations are in thy womb." It proceeds thus : 
 " Two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels." 
 It then advances thus : " And the one people shall 
 be stronger than the other people.''* And after 
 this comes the statement which the apostle 
 quotes, " And the greater shall serve the lesser." 
 There is thus no reference in any part of the 
 oracle to the persons Jacob and Esau, considered 
 as persons. 
 
 It follows, that it is unfortunate for scientific 
 exegesis that, in the statement quoted by the 
 apostle, the words greater and lesser should be 
 replaced in so many versions by the chronological 
 words elder and younger. For, first, it is awk- 
 ward to make the chronological distinction of 
 elder and younger in reference to peoples so truly 
 simultaneous in ethnological origin, that they 
 
VERSES 10-13. 73 
 
 sprang from twin-patriarchs. We might speak 
 with freedom of the elder or younger of the 
 twins ; but we cannot without tlie greatest awk- 
 wardness speak of the elder and younger of the 
 nations referred to. And so, if we think and 
 speak at all along the line of the statement of 
 the oracle, we must think and speak, not of the 
 patriarcks Jacob and Esau, but of the nations of 
 the Israelites and Edomites, who descended from 
 the patriarchs. 
 
 Then, secondly, the chronological words elder 
 and younger are by no means the most natural 
 rendering of the terms employed by the apostle, 
 and by him borrowed from the Septuagint trans- 
 lator. The word fxel'^cov, for insta"nce, which, we 
 have translated greater, just means greater. It is 
 the case indeed that the elder in a family of two 
 children is generally, for a considerable number 
 of years, the greater. And thus the relative sizes 
 of the two children are for a time proportional 
 measures of their ages. Of two brothers the 
 older is " the big brother." We hence find that 
 both in Greek and Hebrew the common word 
 for great or greater — im-eyag, tiel'Cwv, and ^iii — is 
 occasionally employed as equivalent to the word 
 elder. See for instance Genesis xxvii. 1, in which 
 we read that Isaac " called to him Esau his great 
 son." So reads the Hebrew. In the Septuagint 
 the expression runs thus : " Isaac called Esau 
 
 his elder son (rof vloi/ avrod tov Ttpea-^VTepov). In 
 
74 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 Grenesis xxix. 16, again, we read, "And Laban had 
 two daughters ; the name of the great one was 
 Leah, and the name of the little one was Rachel." 
 In the Septuagint the verse runs thus : " And 
 Laban had two daughters : the name of the larger 
 [t?] ^elX^ovi) was Leah, and the name of the younger 
 {rrj v€(arepri}j was Rachel." Manifestly in this 
 passage the word ixelX^wv is used chronologically as 
 equivalent to Trpea-IBuTepo?, elder. All this must 
 be conceded. Yet it nevertheless remains true, 
 that the radical import of fxel^cov is greater, not 
 elder ; and if, in the passage before us, it should 
 by any translator be rendered elder instead of 
 greater, then there should be forthcoming some 
 good reasons, or, at all events, some one good 
 reason, for the freedom of the rendering. There 
 is all the greater need for the adduction of such 
 reasons or reason, inasmuch, as the word in 
 question, so far as its New Testament usage is 
 concerned, occurs in other forty-four passages, 
 and in not one of them has it ever been, or can 
 it ever be, translated elder. In one of the pas- 
 sages (Jas. iv. 6) it is translated more, " more 
 grace " ; and in all the other instances of its 
 occurrence it is rendered either greater or greatest. 
 Such moreover would be the preferable rendering 
 in James. There would need then to be some 
 imperious reason or reasons for rendering the 
 word elder in Romans ix. 12, inasmuch as, in order 
 to obtain such a version, we have to sweep aside 
 
VERSES 10-13. 75 
 
 the otherwise invariable usa^e of the word 
 throughout the New Testament. 
 
 There is imbedded in the original oracle, as it 
 stands in Glenesis, a parallel clause, to which some 
 attention should be paid, althongh it has not 
 been adduced bj the apostle. The entire oracle 
 runs thus : " Two nations are in thy womb, and 
 two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels ; 
 and the one people shall he stronger than the other 
 people, or shall outstrip (virepe^ei) the other people ; 
 and the greater shall serve the lesser." The word 
 greater thus gathers up what is implied in the 
 expression shall be stronger or shall surpass or out- 
 strip ; and hence the evidence seems irrefragable 
 that we should hold to the ordinary and radical 
 import of the term in question, and render the 
 oracular words thus, the greater shall serve the 
 lesser, and not thus, the elder shall serve the 
 i^ younger. This conclusion is fortified when we 
 take into account that the word in Hebrew which 
 is rendered /jLei^wv in the Septuagint version, but 
 elder in our public English translation, is ^"l, which 
 occurs in the Old Testament Scriptures more 
 than five hundred times in all. That is certainly 
 a sufficient amplitude of field to admit of very 
 various renderings. But yet in not one instance 
 of the word's occurrence, with the single excep- 
 tion of Genesis xxv. 23, is it ever translated 
 elder. It is very frequently rendered great, fre- 
 quently many, and sometimes mighty. 
 
76 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 There is still one other fountain of evidence 
 from which we may draw water. Esau is re- 
 I^resented as Isaac's favourite twin, on whom 
 he intended to confer his principal blessing. 
 (See Gen. xxv. 28 ; xxvii. 1-4, 18-41.) For such 
 preference we may cease to wonder when we 
 take into consideration the simple statements of 
 the text in reference to the simple tastes of 
 the patriarch. But we could never account for 
 it on any principle o£ simplicity, or on any other 
 principle creditable to the patriarch, if we shall 
 suppose that the oracle made it plain, that the 
 pre-eminence was divinely intended to be put 
 past the elder and made sure to the younger. 
 We cannot account for Isaac's strong predilec- 
 tion except on the assumption that the oracle 
 left it entirely indeterminate which of the patri- 
 arch's twins was to be the father of the mes- 
 sianic seed, and to which of the two was to be 
 assigned the first link in that genealogy that 
 was to issue in the greater and stronger people, 
 who yet were to occupy, in relation to the. other 
 people, a position of subordination and servitude. 
 If, contrariwise, we should assume that the oracle 
 made known to Rebecca and Isaac which of the 
 two children was to be blessed with the messianic 
 prerogative; and if in particular we shall still 
 further assume, with the great sixteenth century 
 theologians, both supralapsarian and sublapsarian, 
 such as Calvin, Beza, John Knox, S. Rutherford, 
 
VEESES 10-13. 77 
 
 Perkins, William Twisse, — great eagles all, who 
 soared for ever toward absolute unconditionalism 
 in Divine decrees, — if with these theologians we 
 shall assume that the oracular words quoted by 
 the apostle were quoted just because they repre- 
 sent the reality of unconditional election to eternal 
 life, in the one case, and equally unconditional 
 reprobation to eternal death, in the other, as 
 taking effect in the persons of the twins : then 
 it is utterly inconceivable how Isaac, on the one 
 hand, could set himself in antagonism to God's 
 revealed decrees, and how Rebecca, on the other, 
 could have had heart and hardness enough to 
 nurse the little reprobate that was laid upon 
 her lap. 
 
 We must, it would appear, come to the conclu- 
 sion that it was not said to Rebecca, the " elder'" 
 shall serve the ^^ younger J^ It was said, the 
 ^^ greater ^' shall serve the ''^ lesser ^^ ; and it was 
 left entirely indeterminate which of the two 
 peoples was to be the greater and stronger, and 
 which was to be the lesser and weaker. 
 
 One conclusion from the whole case is incontro- 
 vertible : pure patriarchal descent did not suffice 
 to insure the enjoyment of high messianic pre- 
 rogative. Here were twins, the children of 
 Rebecca by her husband, the patriarch Isaac ; and 
 their respective descendants were to be separated 
 into distinct peoples, and the distinct peoples 
 were by no means to be on an equality in respect 
 
78 EXPOSITION OF ItOMANS IX. 
 
 of messianic and theocratic privileges. " One 
 was taken, and the other was left." They were 
 " made to differ." Full responsibility indeed was 
 left intact on either line. Light sufficient, and 
 opportunities sufficient, were secured to both 
 peoples. The gospel was for all, and, in one 
 way or another, uttered forth its voice to all. 
 The gospel is " preached to every creature under 
 heaven." ^ But the high peculiar prerogatives 
 consisting of and connected with the birth and 
 personal ministry of the Messiah were necessarily 
 restricted to only one of the peoples. And hence 
 the demonstration was complete that pure patri- 
 archal descent was not sufficient to insure the 
 enjoyment, within the inner court of God's grace, 
 of the highest spiritual prerogatives. How could 
 it, when it was not even sufficient to secure for 
 both the Edomites and the Israelites the enjoy- 
 ment of the various outward prerogatives which 
 are to be found in the outer court of the Divine 
 favour ? 
 
 Meyer, while perceiving that the oracle quoted 
 by the apostle should be rendered, " The greater 
 shall serve the lesserj" and not " the elder shall 
 serve the younger," and while admitting that the 
 reference, so far as Genesis is concerned, is, not to 
 two individuals, but to two nations, yet strangely 
 supposes that, so far as Romans is concerned, 
 
 ^ See Col. i. 23, and consider John Goodwin's Pagan's 
 Debt and Dowry. (See Appendix III.) 
 
VERSES 10-13. 79 
 
 the apostle has in view, not the two nations, but 
 only the two individuals ; and he caps this suppo- 
 sition with another, that the words greater and 
 lesser have reference to the size of the respective 
 twins when born, Esau being the larger and Jacob 
 the smaller child. Such suppositions are purely 
 conjectural, in the first place. And, in the second 
 place, they embarrass the interpretation of the 
 expression " shall serve " ; for, as a matter of 
 fact, Esau as an individual never served Jacob. 
 And then, in the third place, they render the pre- 
 dilection of Isaac unaccountable. 
 
 The Edomites — one of the two peoples that 
 were seminally in Rebecca's womb — grew rapidly 
 into might and greatness, even in Esau's life- 
 time ; and for a considerable period afterwards 
 tliey outstripped the Israelites in national develop- 
 ment. In bulk and force and military equip- 
 ment they shot far ahead. When the Israelites 
 were on their journey through the wilderness to the 
 Promised Land, Moses sent envoys from Kadesh 
 to the king of Edom, saying fraternally, " Thus 
 saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the 
 travail that has befallen us. . . . Let us pass, I 
 pray thee, through thy country. We will not pass 
 through the fields or through the vineyards, neither 
 will we drink of the water of the wells : we will 
 go by the king's highway, we will not turn to 
 the right hand or to the left, until we have passed 
 thy borders. And Edom said to him, Thou shall 
 
80 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 not pass bij me, lest I come out against thee with 
 the sword." Moses re-nrged his touching fraternal 
 appeal; but in vain. Edom's army was "mobi- 
 lised," and he came out against his brother Israel 
 " with much people and with a strong hand : . . . 
 therefore Israel turned away from him." (Num. 
 XX. 14-21.) Edora was thus greater and stronger 
 than Israel. But, later on, Saul fought against 
 the Edomites, and "vexed" them. (1 Sam. xiv. 
 47.) And" David at length conquered them, and 
 reduced them to a tributary condition. " He put 
 garrisons in Edom ; throughout all Edom put he 
 garrisons, and all they of Edom became David^s 
 servants." (2 Sara. viii. 14.) The tables were 
 thus turned. Israel had at length become greater 
 and stronger : and the people that had formerly 
 been greater and stronger were made to " serve " 
 the people that been lesser and weaker. In the 
 midst of the feuds however that harassed and 
 fettered the subdivided tribes of Israel, the 
 Edomites " revolted from under the hand of 
 Judah, and made a king over themselves : so 
 Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots 
 with him : and he rose by night, and smote the 
 Edomites who compassed him about, and the 
 captains of the chariots : and the people fled to 
 their tents." (2 Kings viii. 20, 21.) Their effort 
 to regain their national independence failed. 
 Their state of "servitude" remained. "Yet," 
 adds the annalist, "Edom revolted from under 
 
VERSES 10-13. 81 
 
 the hand of Judah unto this day." (2 Kings viii. 
 22.) But not with permanent success. Amaziah 
 re-subjugated them. " He slew of Edom in the 
 Valley of Salt ten thousand, and took Selah (or 
 Petra) by war." (2 Kings xiv. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxv. 
 11, 12.) But they rallied yet again, and "smote 
 Judah, and carried away captives " (2 Chron. 
 xxviii, 17) ; until finally John Hyrcanus com- 
 pletely broke, and for ever, the back of their 
 national independence, slaying many and causing 
 the remainder to be circumcised, and to merge 
 their nationality in the people that had once been 
 lesser and weaher. (Josephus : Antiq. xiii. 9,1.) 
 
 The struggles of the two peoples were in some 
 miniature mode and degree prefigured in the 
 peculiar experiences of Rebecca ere the children 
 were born. Struggles seem to be portended. 
 And the people who at first were greater and 
 stronger became at last the servants of the people 
 who were smaller and weaker. 
 
 When we expand the specific expression 
 " serve " into some such generic idea as is 
 represented by the word inferior, then we see 
 that all along from the respective incorporations 
 of the two nationalities to the final mergence of 
 the greater nation in the lesser, there was pure 
 patriarchal descent, and yet no theocratic and 
 messianic prerogative on the part of the children 
 of Esau. This was demonstration that to lean 
 upon pure patriarchal descent for the highest 
 
 G 
 
82 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 theocratic and messianic privileges was to lean 
 on an utterly broken arm. Therein was mani- 
 fested the infatuation of the apostle's countrymen. 
 
 Yer. 13. As it stands loritten, Jacob I loved, 
 hut Esau I hated} 
 
 The quoted apophthegm occurs in the book 
 of Malachi i. 2, 3. It is an apophthegm which 
 seemed to the apostle to run parallel with the 
 oracle that had been addressed to Rebecca. It 
 is parallel ; but it is more explicit than the oracle. 
 The oracle does not indicate which of the two 
 peoples was to be the greater and which the lesser. 
 But the prophet's apophthegm lifts the veil of 
 uncertainty, and shows most unmistakably which 
 of the two peoples was in actual inferiority to the 
 other, so far as privilege was concerned. The two 
 utterances therefore, while characterised by note- 
 worthy variations, are in full accord with each 
 other ; and thus there was good reason for intro- 
 ducing the apophthegm after the manner of 
 making a phraseological equation, as it stands 
 written. 
 
 As in the case of the oracle, there is no refer- 
 ence in the apophthegm to the man Jacob and 
 
 1 Our inquiry here must be " cautelous, and slow of foot, 
 lest we run violently into error." — Humphrey Sydenham : 
 Jacob and Esau, Election and Beprohation, Opened and Dis- 
 covered, p. 4. (1627.J 
 
VEKSE 13. 83 
 
 the man Esau. The words Jacob aud Esau are 
 used patronymically to denote the respective 
 peoples that derived their origin from the twin 
 patriarchs. Such patronymical application of the 
 two proper names is quite in accordance with 
 the usage of the prophetic Scriptures. Thus, for 
 example, we read that " Balaam took up his 
 parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath 
 brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of 
 the east, saying. Come, curse me Jacob, and come, 
 defij Israel. . . . Who can count the dust of Jacob, 
 and the number of the fourth part of Israel ? . . . 
 Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, 
 neither is there any divination against Israel; 
 accordino; to this time it shall be said of Jacob 
 and of Israel, What hath God wrought ! Behold, 
 the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift 
 himself up as a young lion. . . . How goodly are 
 thy tents, Jacob, and thy tabernacles, Israel ! " 
 (Num. xxiii. 7, 10, 23, 24; xxiv. 5.) These 
 instances of the patronymical use of the name 
 Jacob are but specimens of a very common oc- 
 currence. And so with the word Esau or Eclom. 
 It too, in its lesser sphere of reference, is fre- 
 quently used to denote, not the man, but the 
 people who were descended from him; as for 
 instance in Jeremiah xlix. 10 : "I have made Esaib 
 bare, I have uncovered his secret places, and he 
 shall not be able to hide himself : his seed is 
 spoiled, and his brethren, and his neighbours. 
 
84 EXPOSITION OP EOMANS IX. 
 
 and lie is not." It is admittedly not the man 
 Esau who is here referred to ; it is the people 
 descended from the man. 
 
 So is it in the passage of Malachi that is quoted 
 in Romans ix. 13. It would not be an appro- 
 priate quotation on the part of the apostle, 
 were it not the case that the reference is to the 
 people Esau, as distinguished from the patriarchal 
 man. For the apophthegm is adduced in cor- 
 roboration of the oracle that goes immediately 
 before. And in that oracle, as by the aid of a 
 succession of lights, the reference is most em- 
 phatically to two nations or peoples, one the 
 greater and stronger, and the other the lesser 
 and weaker. 
 
 And then when we turn from the context of 
 the quotation in Romans ix. 12 to the context 
 of the original apophthegm in Malachi i. 2, 3, 
 we find that the reference is still incontrovertibly 
 to the two peoples as distinguished from the 
 two patriarchs. The prophet's words run thus : 
 " The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel 
 by Malachi," — to Israel, mark; not to the man 
 Israel or Jacob, but to the people ivh'o sprang from 
 the man, the people who were living in the time 
 of the prophet : — " I have loved you, saith the 
 Lord." The Lord desired to evoke the gra- 
 titude of the people by impressing upon them 
 the conviction that they had been the objects of 
 very distinguishing favour. He had, through a 
 
VEESE 13. 85 
 
 long series of dispensations, "loved" tliem — 
 seeking- to woo their attachment and devotion. 
 He sought it, still more for their sakes than for 
 His own. He was utterly unselfish in His de- 
 sires; but He knew that His gracious presence 
 was far more essential to them than was their 
 reverential and loyal presence to Him. He could 
 do without them ; but how could they do without 
 Him ? " Yet ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved 
 us ? " They lost sight of the blessings they en- 
 joyed, or at least of the Divine blessing that was 
 in the heart of the advantages they enjoyed ; and 
 they were " unthankful." They brooded over 
 their personal trials and national reverses, and 
 failed, or ceased, to trace in their condition the 
 operation of the great beneficent Hand. They 
 said to God, " Wherein hast Thou loved us ? " 
 
 The Lord answered their petulant question in 
 argumentative manner, thus : " (Is) not Esau 
 Jacob's brother ? " In our national English 
 version, as in the Septuagint and Yulgate, the 
 supplemented substantive verb is given in the 
 past tense : " (Was) not Esau Jacob's brother ? " 
 That however is a mistaken supplement, and 
 unhappily diverts the thought from the patrony- 
 mical to the patriarchal Esau and Jacob. The 
 contents of verses 3, 4, and 5, as well as the 
 exigences of the context in Romans, make it 
 evident that the reference, and the exclusive 
 reference, is to the patronymical Esau and Jacob. 
 
8G EXPOSITION OF KOMANS IX. 
 
 Hence we should, with Luther, supply the sub- 
 stantive verb is, and not luas : " (Is) not Esau 
 Jacob's brother ? " " Supply is," says Grotius. 
 The meaning is, he adds, " Do not the Edomites 
 and the Israelites alike derive their orio^in from 
 Abraham and Isaac ? " The people Esau or 
 Edom was thus brother to the people Jacob. 
 The two peoples, in consequence of the uterine 
 relation of the patriarchs from whose loins 
 they respectively sprang, were " brothers." So 
 Obadiah represents them. Looking into the 
 future he says : " Thy mighty men, Teman " 
 (one of the cities of Edom), " shall be dismayed, 
 to the end that every one of the mount of Esau 
 may be cut off by slaughter. For thy violence 
 against thy ' brother ' Jacob, shame shall cover 
 thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever." The 
 people Esau had been shamelessly devoid of sym- 
 pathy for their brother Jacob in the day of the 
 Babylonian invasions. The prophet proceeds : 
 " In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, 
 in the day that the strangers carried away captive 
 the forces of Jacob, and foreigners entered into 
 his gate, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even 
 thou wast as one of them." Esau was far indeed 
 from acting a brother's part to his brother Jacob 
 in the time of those invasions that terminated so 
 humiliatingly in Jacob's captivity. 
 
 Amos makes use of the same fraternal rela- 
 tionship to expose the aggravated criminality of 
 
VERSE "13. 87 
 
 Esau : " Thus saith the Lord : For three trans- 
 gressions of Edom and for four, I will not turn 
 away the punishment thereof; (1) because he 
 did pursue his ' brother ' ivith the siuord, (2) and 
 did cast off all pity, (8) and his anger did tear 
 perpetually, (4) and he kept his wrath for ever." 
 
 In the light of these passages from Obadiah 
 and Amos, we see clearly the meaning of the 
 words in Malachi, " (Is) not Esau JacoVs 
 ' brother ' ? saith the Lord." The question could 
 only be answered in the affirmative. But the 
 prophet, assuming that the intimate relationship 
 of the two peoples was too incontrovertible to 
 require form'al affirmation, proceeds to say, 
 giving human voice to the self-consciousness of 
 God, "Yet I have loved Jacob, and I have hated 
 Esau." 
 
 Note the perfect tenses. They convey the idea 
 that the love and hatred specified were carried 
 down in thought till the time of the affirmation 
 of the two contrary poles of treatment. Slightly 
 varying the standpoint of representation, we 
 might render the verbs, after the manner of the 
 Septuagint translator, aoristically : ^^ I loved Jacob, 
 and Esau I hated,''^ — thus pointing backward to 
 some indeterminate time when the twofold mode 
 of treatment was meted out to the two peoples. 
 The apostle adopts the Septuagint translation, 
 "Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated"; so that, when 
 expounding Romans, we are to conceive of the 
 
88 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 Divine eye looking through the eyes of the 
 prophet, and fixing its gaze upon some historical 
 fact of desolation — not determinately specified, 
 — which had swept with " the besom of destruc- 
 tion " the land of Idumsea. The desolation had 
 been so complete, that it was in truth the begin- 
 ning of a very bitter end, when, as already stated, 
 the victorious army of the Maccabsean John 
 Hyrcanus compelled the miserable remnant of 
 the people to merge their nationality in that of 
 the Hebrews, and thus to submit to their efface- 
 ment from the map of the nations of tlie world. 
 (JosEPHus : Antiq. xiii. 9, 1.) 
 
 Jacob I loved J hut Esau 1 hated. Sebastian 
 Munster, the illustrious Hebraist, thus remarks 
 on the expression : " This was said by Grod, that 
 He might show that He bad conferred far greater 
 benefits upon the people of Israel than upon the 
 Edomites or other nations ; and yet, so ungrateful 
 were those Israelites, that they did not acknow- 
 ledge the indulgence of their Father and the 
 grace of their Lord." 
 
 The expression, I loved Jacob, or Israel, brings 
 into view such treatment of the Hebrews as 
 might have been expected on the part of God, 
 considered as a Master and a Father. (See Mai. 
 i. 6.) Masters in general will be disposed to do 
 more in behalf of their own servants than for 
 others in the same sphere of life who are not 
 related to them by the bond of kindly ministry. 
 
VERSE 13. 89 
 
 A father in like manner will in general be ready 
 to do for the benefit of his son more than he 
 would feel himself inclined or obliged to do in 
 behalf of others in corresponding circumstances, 
 but yet not his children. Israel was God's ser- 
 vant. Israel was Grod's son. God had peculiar 
 regard to that people. He was peculiarly bene- 
 ficent toward them. He favoured them. He 
 "loved" them. Such is the bright side of the 
 picture,. Let us turn round to the side of the 
 dark shadow. 
 
 Bat I hated Esau, or Edom. The expression 
 is an intentional phraseological foil, placed as it 
 is and where it is for the purpose of lending, by 
 means of its lurid background of representation, 
 intensity of lustre to the preceding affirmation. 
 It was not intended to teach that God was 
 malevolent to Edom. Still less was it meant to 
 convey the idea of unconditional reprobation to 
 a doom of inconceivably dreadful and everlasting 
 misery. The phrase, along with the antithetic 
 expression, has no reference at all to the final 
 doom or spiritual destiny of individuals. If it 
 had, we should be constrained to have hard 
 thoughts of the prophet, or perhaps of the 
 infinite Being who inspired him ; as also to 
 maintain, that when it is said of the Hebrew 
 people, " Jacob I loved," there was the assurance, 
 in relation to the Jews, of their unconditional 
 election to everlasting bliss. But such election, 
 
90 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 if conceived of as involving, as its ethical effect, 
 sanctification, could not be reconciled with the 
 fire of condemnatory criticism that is volleyed 
 forth from multitudes of criminatory utterances 
 throughout the body of the prophecy. 
 
 What then is meant by the expression, Esau I 
 hated ? Some light is thrown upon the strong 
 verb by such passages as these : " No man can 
 serve two masters ; for either he will hate the one 
 and love the other, or else lie will hold to the 
 one and despise the other." (Matt. vi. 24.) "If 
 any man come to Me, and hate not his father, 
 and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, 
 and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot 
 be My disciple." (Luke xiv. 26.) "He that 
 loveth his life shall lose it ; and he that hateth 
 his life in this world shall keep it unto life 
 eternal." (John xii. 25.) In these statements 
 there is certainly no intention of conveying an 
 idea of malice by means of the strong word. 
 The language is intentionally intense. There is 
 in it, just as in the Saviour's remark regarding 
 the camel and the eye of a needle, something of 
 bold hyperbolism. Such hyperbolisms are com- 
 mon, and rife indeed, both in the language of 
 literature and in the language of every-day life. 
 They give piquancy to speech, and are relished 
 by " all the world." So when it is said, but Esau 
 I hated, the idea is comparative, not absolute ; 
 and there is really more in the representation 
 
VERSE 13. 01 
 
 than in the reality, just because a phraseological 
 foil was wanted. The idea is, that in the treat- 
 ment accorded to the Edomites there was the con- 
 spicuous absence of all those elements of mercy, 
 favour, and forgiveness, which distinguished 
 the Divine treatment of the Hebrews and vindi- 
 cated the expression, Jacoh I loved. Taking the 
 diversity of treatment into account, the Edomites 
 might be said to be hated. They might be, they 
 were, they are thus represented ; for in truth 
 there was now no room for national forgiveness 
 to Edom. The cup of their iniquity they had 
 themselves filled to the brim, and it was now 
 time that they should be compelled to drain to 
 its dregs the cup of merited retribution. 
 
 It was otherwise with Jacob in the days of the 
 prophet. God, although greatly provoked, had not 
 dealt with that people according to their desert. 
 In wrath deserved He had remembered mercy. 
 Through the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 over the mighty kings of Babylon, many families 
 were permitted and encouraged to return to the 
 desolated city. The streets were restored. The 
 walls were rebuilt. The temple was recon- 
 structed, and an appreciable amount of prosperity 
 once more rolled over the dilapidated city and 
 the devastated land. " Grod loved Jacob " ; for, 
 with all the waywardness and faithlessness of 
 the peculiar people, they were still, in virtue 
 of their messianic destination, like a peculiar 
 
92 EXPOSITION OF UOMANS IX. 
 
 treasure to God. They were the casket that 
 contained the heavenly jewel; and for the jewel's 
 sake the casket was carefully kept and sedulously 
 guarded. " God loved Jacob." 
 
 It was otherwise with Edom. Like many 
 surrounding peoples, they had a time of merci- 
 ful visitation. Their local habitation had many 
 advantages ; they were blessed in " the fatness 
 of the earth," and by " the dew of heaven 
 from above." Beyond most other peoples, they 
 were sheltered within the munition of rocks ; 
 and had they been willing to be good, they 
 might have had a constant flow and flood of 
 security and prosperity. But they became high- 
 minded, aggressive, selfish, morally rank to 
 heaven with rottenness, and were involved at 
 last in the overflow of the Babylonian devasta- 
 tion. They were swept into captivity, and their 
 country turned into a wilderness. " Whereas 
 Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will 
 return and build the desolate places ; thus saith 
 Jehovah of hosts. They may build, but I will 
 throw down; and all that pass by sliall call 
 them, The land of loichedness, and The people 
 against whom Jehovah hath indignation for ever.'* 
 The prophet continues, addressing Jacob, " And 
 your eyes shall see all this, and ye shall say, 
 Jehovah will be magnified from within the 
 border of Israel." 
 
 We have additional evidence in these state- 
 
VERSE 13. 93 
 
 ments of the prophet's reference to the peoples 
 Jacob and Esau, as distinguished from the in- 
 dividual persons. Edom saith, " We are im- 
 poverished," " loe will return," " tlieij shall 
 build," " the people against whom Jehovah hath 
 indignation for ever." " Ye shall say. The Lord 
 will be magnified from within the border of 
 Israel." 
 
 It is astonishing that, in the face of such 
 accumulated evidence, Meyer can yet say, " Just 
 like Paul, the prophet himself intends by Jacob 
 and Esau, not the two nations Israel and Edom, 
 but the persons of the two brothers." " Paul," 
 says Fritzsche, "in quoting the words of 
 Malachi, takes no account of the contextual 
 statement. All that he means is this : that 
 Jacob, before his birth, was embraced in the 
 love of God, and that Esau, before he saw the 
 light of day, was the object of the Divine hate." 
 " It is," says Philippi, " the individuals Jacob 
 and Esau who are meant by the prophet as well 
 as by the apostle." "The aoristic verbs loved 
 and hated refer, in Paul's conception, to the time 
 before the birth of the twin-brothers." 
 
 Others, who cannot shut their eyes to the 
 fact that the peoples are expressly designated, 
 contend or assume that the individuals are 
 meant, with the peoples included, or that the 
 peoples are meant with the individuals included. 
 " The prophet speaks," says Tholuck, " of the 
 
04 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 patriarcli fathers and the peoples as a unity." 
 " The passage," says Hodge, " relates to the 
 descendants of Jacob and Esau, and to the in- 
 dividuals themselves. The favour shown to the 
 posterity of the one, and withheld from that 
 of the other, being founded on the distinction 
 originally made between the two brothers." 
 
 But such an amalgamation of references is 
 entirely at variance with the representations 
 both of the prophet and of the apostle. Baum- 
 garten-Crusius correctly says, " The reference is 
 to the descendants, not to the patriax'ch-sires." 
 The apostle's argument is irrefragable. Pure 
 patriarchal descent on the part of the Israelites 
 was utterly insufficient to insure to them those 
 highest messianic blessings which are everlasting ; 
 for it was utterly insufficient, on the part of the 
 Edomites, to secure to them those lower and 
 temporary prerogatives, which were conferred 
 on the Hebrews till the fulness of the time. 
 
 We now pass on to another part of the 
 apostle's great argument. The fourteenth verse 
 runs thus : What shall we say then ? Is there 
 unrighteousness with God ? God forbid I 
 
 Of the three distinct clauses of this verse, 
 two are interrogative. The remaining third is 
 a strong and peculiar negation. 
 
 As to the first interrogation. What then shall 
 
VERSE 14. 95 
 
 ■we say ? (rl ow epov/xev ;) It occurs in the same 
 " self-contained " form or mode in the tbirtietli 
 verse of this chapter, as well as in several other 
 parts of the apostle's epistles. In all the in- 
 stances in which it occurs, a new section in the 
 apostle's reasoning is introduced. 
 
 We can readily conceive that the phrase would 
 be in frequent use with Paul, when, in animated 
 oral debate, he advanced from stage to stage on 
 the line of any of his great discussions. It 
 indicated that a natural halting-place in thought 
 had been reached by him, and that it would be 
 opportune to utilize the halt for remustering 
 the mental forces, with a view to a new depar- 
 ture in argument. 
 
 The expression, it is noteworthy, is used by 
 Paul only of all the New Testament writers. 
 And it is still further noteworthy, that it is used 
 by him only in this Epistle to the Eomans. 
 The phrase seemed to find for itself a peculiarly 
 fitting habitat in an epistle of a peculiarly logical 
 character. Hence it is noticeable, that, after the 
 argumentative part of the epistle is concluded, 
 the apostle ceases to make use of the phrase. 
 He has for the time being stepped out of the 
 arena of debate. It thus happens that we do 
 not find the expression in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 
 15th, and 16th chapters, which are all hortatory 
 in their character. 
 
 The inferential then looks backward over the 
 
96 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 ground that had already been traversed. The 
 interrogation, WJiat shall lue say ? looks for- 
 ward to the domain that is stretching out before. 
 The plural lue shows that the debater was wish- 
 ful to carry his readers along with him. 
 
 What then ? What shall ive say ? To what 
 conclusion shall we come ? " Is there unright- 
 eousness attaching to Grod ? Is there unright- 
 eousness by the side of Grod ? " [fJ-h aSiKia irapa TM 
 OcM ;) The character of God is, for the moment, 
 pictorially represented as something outside the 
 Divine selfhood. It is abstracted in thought 
 from the inwardliness of the Divine personality ; 
 and when thus looked at, is it seen to be right- 
 eousness or unrighteousness ? 
 
 Surely, says the apostle, it is " not " the case 
 that unrighteousness attaches to God. Such is 
 the radical import of his interrogation. 
 
 But why should the apostle propose such a 
 query ? Was there any one with whom he had 
 to do, who was likely to be charging God with 
 unrighteousness ? 
 
 We may safely assume that there was no one. 
 
 But why then ask the question he proposes ? 
 
 The reason is, not that any parties contem- 
 plated by the apostle were disposed or tempted 
 to charge God with actual unrighteousness, but 
 that some party was prepared to challenge the 
 apostle's ideas as wrong, and entirely subversive, 
 in princijplei of the righteousness of God. It is 
 
VERSE 14. 97 
 
 the Jews to whom he is referring as his assailants. 
 It is of them that he is speaking in this chapter, 
 and in the next, and in that which follows. 
 
 It was their self-complacent, self-elating views 
 he was combating. He found that they were 
 shielding: themselves from the arrows of con- 
 viction, and from the morally transfiguring in- 
 fluence of the glorious gospel of God's grace, 
 behind a rampart of spiritual presumption. They 
 dreamed that they were the favourites of heaven. 
 Were they not the children of the blessed patriarch 
 Abraham ? Was not their patriarchal blood pure ? 
 Had it not been carefully guarded by all those 
 stringent ordinances that kept them divinely 
 secluded and intact in the midst of the ungodly 
 Gentile world around ? Surely they were not in 
 any imminent danger. To imagine that they 
 might be in danger of perdition — the doom and 
 portion of the uncovenanted and the godless — was 
 nothing less than to suppose that God might deal 
 unrighteously with them. But God forbid ! 
 
 Some expositors, who have strong ideas re- 
 garding Divine fore-ordination, and who imagine 
 that the apostle is in this chapter maintaining 
 that God has unconditionally elected some of 
 mankind to the enjoyment of everlasting life, 
 while He has, with equal unconditionality, repro- 
 bated the rest of our race to the endurance of woe, 
 are of opinion that in the question. Is there 
 unrighteousness loith God? there is a reference to 
 
 H 
 
98 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 the dual statement of the preceding verse, Jacoh 
 I loved; hut Esau I hated. They are of opinion 
 that the apostle anticipated objections to his 
 doctrines of unconditional election and uncon- 
 ditional reprobation. They think that he was 
 aware that there was something in the very form, 
 fashion, and appearance of the doctrines that was 
 apt to suggest the ideas of Divine partiality and 
 unrighteousness. They hence think that the 
 apostle took the earliest opportunity of disclaim- 
 ing the inference of unrighteousness in its relation 
 to absolute predestination and universal fore- 
 ordination. 
 
 But this conception of the apostle's reference 
 proceeds on an entirely inaccurate view of the 
 import of the words, Jacob I loved, and Esau I 
 hated. And it also loses sight of the fact that 
 it is with the Jews' opinion regarding themselves 
 that the apostle is wrestling; and the Jews as- 
 suredly had never dreamed of objecting to any 
 ascription to themselves of high prerogative. It 
 is certain that they would strongly approve of 
 both branches of the antithetic apophthegm in 
 Malachi ; for that apophthegm bore on its front 
 that, while adverse to the interest of the Edomites, 
 it was wholly in favour of the Jews. Nothing 
 would be more improbable therefore than that 
 they — with all their haughty notions of their 
 own secure condition and exalted position — would 
 object to the idea that they were the darlings of 
 
VERSE 14 99 
 
 Jaliveh, while the Ishmaelites and the children of 
 Esau were His menials and outcasts. It is quite 
 impossible that the apostle can be here referring 
 to any supposable objection to the words of the 
 Old Testament apophthegm. 
 
 His reference — as we have seen — goes far 
 deeper into the drift of the chapter in its en- 
 tirety; and most powerfully does the apostle 
 argue that if there was confessedly no un- 
 righteousness in the exclusion of the Ishmaelites 
 and Edomites from the temporal privileges of the 
 theocratic people, there could not possibly be any 
 in the exclusion of the persistently impenitent 
 Israelites from the higher privileges of the king- 
 dom of heaven. 
 
 What then ? What shall we now say ? Is 
 there scope in the apostle's doctrine for the charge 
 of unrighteousness ? He says, God forbid / He 
 is prepared, moreover, to argue the matter ; and 
 argue it he will. But before he moves one hair's- 
 breadth in the direction of debate to prove that 
 there is the utter absence of scope for such a 
 tremendous charge, he relieves his heart by utter- 
 ing his most solemn exclamation, God forbid ! 
 Far be it! Far be that from God! The apostle 
 not merely begs to differ. Strong feeling is heav- 
 ing in his spirit, and bursts forth into articulate 
 expression. Castellio's musical translation of 
 the phrase in his French version is Nenni-dd 
 {No indeed). 
 
100 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 Ere we pass from tlie consideration of this 
 fourteenth verse, it is pleasant to have it to note 
 that it was a settled principle in those early times 
 that God is possessed of holy tnoral character. 
 Hence the shock that had been inflicted on the 
 apostle's heart, and that constrained him to ex- 
 claim in pain Nenni-dd I God is not only Power 
 or Force. He is that. " Power belongeth to 
 Him." Nothing among the possibilities is "too 
 hard " for Him. He has and is infinite Force. 
 It is in touch with everything around us, beneath 
 us, above us, within us. But there is something 
 more. There is thought too. There is reason. 
 There is infinite intelligence. There is wisdom 
 and goodness. Grod is love. It is in the re- 
 cognition of such phases of moral character as 
 these, that we find the logical base on which to 
 build up a theodicee. 
 
 Yer. 15. For He saith to Moses , I will have 
 mercy on ivhom I ivill have mercy, and I loill have 
 com'passion on ivhom I ivill have compassion (rw 
 ^Icovcrei yap Xeyei, 'EXejjcrto ov av eXew, koI oiKTeipt'jau) 
 hv av oiKTeipcA. 
 
 The apostle proceeds to render a reason for 
 his strong negation at the conclusion of the four- 
 teenth verse. 
 
 He fetches his proof out of a passage of the 
 Jewish Scriptures, which clearly shows that God 
 
VEESE 15. 101 
 
 claims for Himself a right to deal with the Jews 
 on the very principle for which the apostle has 
 been contending. Now, if the Jewish Scriptures 
 themselves assert the very principle of procedure 
 which the apostle contends is exemplified in 
 God's dealings with the Jews, there cannot pos- 
 sibly be any discrepancy between the righteous- 
 ness of God and the apostle's doctrine. 
 
 The passage which the apostle adduces is 
 taken from the Pentateuch, which constituted 
 the very charter of the peculiar privileges of the 
 Israelites. It occurs in Exodus xxxiii. 19. 
 
 The quoted passage contains, not a statement 
 of man concerning God, but a statement of God 
 concerning Himself. It must therefore be looked 
 upon by all Jews as containing incontrovertible 
 and unexceptionable doctrine. 
 
 It is likewise worthy of note, that the quoted 
 passage contains a statement made by God to 
 Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews. It was 
 made to him in most interesting circumstances : 
 when God was showing him transcendent kind- 
 ness, and promising distinguishing mercy for the 
 people, in whose behalf he had been interceding. 
 It must be a weighty statement, and one that 
 does full justice to the Jews. 
 
 It runs thus : I ivill have mercy on lohom I 
 will have mercy, and I ivill have comjjassion on 
 whom I will have compassion. Manifestly the 
 passage is most appositely quoted, as will be 
 
102 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 clearly seen, when we go into some details in 
 reference to the circumstances amid which God 
 gave the recorded utterance of His mind to 
 Moses. 
 
 It was after, but soon after, the people had 
 made a golden calf, like the sacred bull Apis, to 
 receive the homage due to " the god which had 
 brought them up out of the land of Egypt." We 
 are told in Exodus xxxii. 9, 10, that, immediately 
 after the fabrication of the idol-calf, " the Lord 
 said to Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, 
 it is a stiff-necked people : now therefore let Me 
 alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, 
 and that I may consume them : and I will make 
 of thee a great nation." Grod thus threatened to 
 consume them for their sin without a moment's 
 delay. But Moses, it is written, (ver. 11, 12, 13,) 
 " besought the Lord his God, and said. Lord, 
 why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, 
 which Thou hast brought forth out of the land 
 of Egypt witli great power, and with a mighty 
 hand ? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, 
 and say. For mischief did He bring them out, 
 to slay them in the mountains, and to consume 
 them from the face of the earth ? Turn from 
 Thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against 
 Thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Israel, Thy servants, to whom Thou swarest by 
 Thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will 
 multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and 
 
VERSE 15. 103 
 
 all this land that I have spoken of will I give 
 to your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever." 
 It is then added, anthropopathically, verse 14, 
 "And the Lord repented of the evil which He 
 thought to do unto His people." He did not 
 execute summary vengeance upon them. After 
 this, as we learn from verse 15 of the same 
 chapter, Moses went down from the mount, 
 where he had been with God. But when he 
 came near the camp and saw the idolatrous 
 phrenzy of the people, the righteous indignation 
 of his soul was stirred up ; and, as we learn 
 from verses 20 to 28, he took and burned, and 
 ground to powder the idol-calf ; and by the 
 help of the Levites put to death about three 
 thousand of the [ringleaders of the] rebellious 
 people. He said to the remainder of them, as 
 we see from verse 30, " Ye have sinned a great 
 sin, and now I will go up to the Lord : perad ven- 
 ture I shall make an atonement for your sin." 
 So he " returned to the Lord," and, as it is 
 written in verses 31, 32, said, " Oh, this people 
 have sinned a great sin, and have made them a 
 god of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their 
 sin — [how blessed shall I account myself!] and 
 if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of the book 
 which Thou hast written." That is. If Thou tvilt 
 consume the people, do not suffer me to survive 
 their destruction. Here we perceive that Moses 
 pleaded with God to forgive altogether the great 
 
104 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 sin of the people. He even asks God to erase 
 his own honoured name from the number of the 
 liviDg, if He would not forgive and preserve the 
 entire people. Earnest however as this prayer 
 was, God did not, to the fulness of its letter, 
 comply with it ; and therefore He says, verses 
 33 and 34, " Whosoever hath sinned against Me " 
 (filling the cup of his iniquity to its brim), " him 
 will I blot out of My book. Therefore now go, 
 lead the people to the place of which I have 
 spoken to thee : behold, Mine Angel shall go 
 before thee : nevertheless in the day when I 
 visit I will visit their sin upon them." It is 
 then added, verse 35, " And the Lord plagued 
 the people, because they made the calf, which 
 Aaron made." 
 
 Afterward, as we learn from the commence- 
 ment of chap, xxxiii., Moses went again to plead 
 with God in behalf of the people. God reiterated 
 His former declaration; and, as we learn from 
 the first three verses, commanded Moses to lead 
 up the people; "and," says He, "I will send 
 an angel before thee. . . . For I will not go 
 up in the midst of thee " (probably in the pillar 
 of cloud and fire) ; " for thou art a stiff'-necked 
 people : lest I consume thee." He promised the 
 presence of a guardian and guiding angel, but 
 threatened to remove from them His own gra- 
 cious and glorious presence. Therefore Moses 
 said to the Lord (ver. 1 2, 13), " See, Thou sayest 
 
YEESE 15. 105 
 
 to me, Bring up this people : and Thou hast not 
 let me know whom Thou wilt send with me. 
 Yet Thou hast said, I knoiv thee hy name, and 
 thou hast found grace (or favour) in My sight. 
 Now therefore, I pray Thee, show me now Thy 
 way, that I may know Thee, that I may find 
 grace in Thy sight : and consider that this nation 
 is Thy people." Then the Lord, we are told, 
 (ver. 14, 17), " was entreated of Moses," and 
 " He said. My presence shall go with thee, and 
 I will give thee rest." " I will do this thing also 
 that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found favour 
 in My sight, and I know thee by name." It was 
 immediately after this gracious reply to his prayer 
 for God's presence to be continued among the 
 people that Moses, with the view of obtaining a 
 sign of the fulfilment of the promised blessing, 
 said (ver. 18), " I beseech Thee, show me Thy 
 glory " — {give me an unclouded vieiv of the 
 ineffahhj lustrous hut ever-shaded symbol of Thy 
 Presence). And it was in answer to this request 
 that God replied (ver. 19), " I will make all My 
 goodness pass before thee (by way of proclama- 
 tion), and I will proclaim the name of the Lord 
 before thee, and I ivill he gracious to ivhom I iinll 
 he gracious, and luill show mercy on ivhoin I will 
 shoiv mercy.^' It is subsequently added that, 
 though it was not possible for any mortal to 
 behold the unclouded lustre of the glory in which 
 God (symbolically) dwelt, yet He did descend in 
 
106 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 the cloud, and passed by before Moses, and 
 proclaimed Himself by name as " the Lord, the 
 Lord Grod, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and 
 abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy 
 for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression 
 and sin, but that will by no means clear the 
 guilty {o7\ but that will by no means absolutely 
 forgive), visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
 the children, to the third and fourth generation." 
 Such are the circumstances in which the 
 declaration, " I will have mercy on whom I will 
 have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom 
 I will have compassion," was made. Moses had 
 desired that all the people should be forgiven. 
 God however would not promise to grant this 
 request. He graciously complied with many of 
 that " mediator's " petitions, and vouchsafed to 
 the Jews, in accordance with these intercessions, 
 inestimable favours, such as respite from destruc- 
 tion, and the blessing of His Presence among 
 them to lead them. But a general and absolute 
 amnesty He refused to bestow. On the contrary, 
 He declared that " whosoever had sinned against 
 Him (and still persisted in defiance and im- 
 penitence), him would He blot out of His book." 
 He would not absolutely forgive. It was in 
 vindication, as it would appear, of such a refusal 
 to bestow a general forgiveness upon the stiff- 
 necked and unbelieving people that the Lord 
 proclaimed before Moses that " He toould have 
 
VERSE 15. 107 
 
 mercy on whom He tvould have mercy, and would 
 have compassion on ivhom He would have com- 
 passion." 
 
 This declaration of God to Moses, thongh. 
 unquestionably involving a great principle, which 
 is applicable to God's dealings with all sinners, 
 was made, not concerning the Gentiles, or the 
 world of men at large, but concerning the Jews. 
 Moses could have no thought of any others, when 
 the declaration was made. It therefore amounts 
 to this : " I will have mercy on whomsoever of 
 the Jews I will have mercy, and I will have 
 have compassion on whomsoever of the Jews I 
 will have compassion." 
 
 When the apostle contends that his unbelieving 
 countrymen were exposing themselves to retri- 
 butive penalty, he simply means that they were 
 in a condition in which, if they persisted, God 
 would not extend to them the " forgiveness " 
 which He claims a liberty to withhold from 
 whomsoever He chooses. Though even Moses 
 pleaded for them, they could not enjoy God's 
 pardoning favour. Their condition demanded 
 the anathema and wrath of a righteous God. 
 This being the case, the passage which, the 
 apostle adduces from the Pentateuch is remark- 
 ably apposite and appropriate ; and so far was 
 it from being true that the apostle's doctrine 
 regarding his countrymen was inconsistent with 
 the righteousness of God, that the very Jewish 
 
108 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 Scriptures tliemselves, whicli confessedly guard 
 and glorify God's righteousness, attribute to Him 
 the identical principle of procedure, and that 
 expressly in reference to the Israelites, for whicli 
 the apostle contends. Truly entitled was the 
 apostle then, putting his twofold question, to 
 ask, What shall lue say then ? Is there unright- 
 eousness ivith God? And. truly entitled was he 
 to exclaim in reply. Far he it ! For, continues 
 the apostle, He saith to Moses, I ivill have mercy 
 on luliom I ivill have mercy, and I will have com- 
 passion on loliom I luill have compassion. 
 
 The expression rendered in our Public Version, 
 I ivill have mercy (iXewoo), would be better and 
 more literally rendered, I shall have mercy. It 
 simply expresses futurition ; and it implies that 
 the objects of the f uturescent mercy were in woful 
 plight. 
 
 The parallel expression in the second clause 
 of the oracle, I ivill have compassion, should of 
 course be congruously rendered, I shall have 
 compassion. It presents the idea of the preced- 
 ing verb in a somewhat intensified light. The 
 word means to be commiseratingly gracious ; as 
 it were, kind and compassionate even to the 
 utterance of wail or the shedding of tears. The 
 term is intimately connected withi oiKTog, which 
 properly denotes the expression of pity, such as 
 lamentation or piteous ivailing. 
 
 Both of the expressions, I shall have mercy and 
 
VEESE 15. 109 
 
 I shall have compassion, evidently refer to sucli 
 mercy and compassion as are manifested in the 
 bestowment of forgiveness. Compare 1 Timothy 
 i. 13, where we read, " but I obtained mercy, 
 because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." There 
 is apparently the same reference in Hebrews iv. 
 16 : " Let us therefore come boldly unto the 
 throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and 
 find grace to help in time of need." Again, the 
 same reference is manifestly involved in four 
 successive instances in which the word occurs in 
 Romans xi. 30-32 : " For as ye in times past have 
 not believed Grod, yet have now obtained mercy 
 through their unbelief; even so have these also 
 now not believed, that through your mercy they 
 also may obtain mercy. For Grod hath concluded 
 them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy 
 upon all." When we consider the twenty-third 
 verse of this chapter, and observe that the expres- 
 sion, "vessels of mercy, '^ is used in contrast to 
 "vessels oi loratli,^^ is it not evident that, as the 
 "vessels of wrath'^ denote "those who are 
 exposed to the punishment due to their sins," so 
 the " vessels of mercy " will " denote those who 
 are blessed to enjoy the forgiveness of their 
 iniquities " ? " By vessels of mercy,''' says John 
 Groodwin, " it is out of question that he meaneth 
 such persons who . . . obtain mercy, that great 
 mercy, forgiveness of sins, with the fruits and 
 consequents of it " {Exposition, p. 306). Now 
 
] 1 EXPOSITION OP ROMANS IX. 
 
 there is an intimate connexion between tliat 
 expression and this verse we are considering ; 
 and the intimate nature of the connexion between 
 them is of itself a sufficient reason why we should 
 conclude that the " mercy " and " compassion " 
 here spoken of are the commiseratiug favour 
 which is manifested in the bestowment of forgive- 
 ness. When moreover we consider the scope of 
 the apostle's argument throughout that part of 
 the chapter already expounded, and remember 
 that he is proving that it would not be unjust in 
 God to punish the unbelieving Israelites, that is, 
 to deny them the blessing of forgiveness ; and 
 when, more particularly, we consider the quoted 
 passage as it stands in its original form in 
 Exodus, and remember that it was a general 
 pardon which Moses implored, but which God 
 refused, we cannot resist the conclusion that, 
 when the apostle repeats the twofold statement 
 of Jehovah, '*' I shall have mercy " and " I shall 
 have compassion," he looked upon the " mercy " 
 referred to as being forgiving mercy, and the 
 " compassion " specified as pardoning compassion. 
 Note now the secondary expression in the par- 
 allelism, that rendered in our public version, on 
 ivliom I will have mercy {ov av eXecoj. The trans- 
 lation is practically sufficient ; only the influence 
 of the particle av on the relative pronoun is such 
 that, instead of the simple pronoun whom, we 
 should substitute the complex ivhomsoever. Cora- 
 
VEESE 15. Ill 
 
 pare the translation of the same mode of expres- 
 sion, or of the kindred o? eaV, in the first gospel, 
 viz. in chap. v. 19, 21, 22, 31, 32; x. 11; xii. 
 32 ; xvi. 25 ; xviii. 6 ; xix. 9 ; xxi. 44 ; xxiii. 16, 
 18 ; xxvi. 48, which are all the passages in the 
 Gospel of Matthew, in which 09 av or 69 'iav occurs. 
 Compare also the uniform translation of the 
 expression throughout the rest of the New Testa- 
 ment. In John i. 33, Acts vii. 3, Gal. v. 17 we 
 have in our Public Version the same insufficiency 
 of rendering as in Romans ix. 15. The illustrious 
 Valla had good ground for his note, when he 
 remarked that the apostle's idea is not so much 
 expressed by wliom as by whomsoever (" nee tam 
 est ciijus quam cujuscumque "). 
 
 The parallel clause (ov au oiKrelpw) is of course 
 to be rendered as an exact echo of the correspond- 
 ing clause in the first branch of the parallelism. 
 The entire parallelistic oracle is rendered thus in 
 our Public English Version : 
 " I will have mercij 
 
 on whom I ivill have mercy ; 
 and I will have compassion 
 
 on tvhom I ivill have compassion." 
 That of the Revisionists runs thus : 
 " I ivill have mercy 
 
 on whom I have mercy ; 
 and I will have compassion 
 on tvhom I have compassion.''* 
 Both translations are somewhat marred by the 
 
112 EXPOSITION OP ROMANS IX. 
 
 presence of the pronoun whom in place of whom- 
 soever ; and by the presence in the primary 
 parallels of the auxiliary ivill, in its archaic accep- 
 tation, in place of shall. But, apart from these 
 imperfections, the variations in the two modes 
 of translation are, when broadly considered, 
 mutually consistent and complementive. In the 
 Old Version, modified by the substitution of shall 
 for will and of ivhomsoever for whom, the emphasis 
 requires to be laid lightly on the first pair of 
 parallels : 
 
 " I shall have mercy. ^^ 
 " I shall have comjpassion.^^ 
 And heavily on the second pair : 
 
 " On whomsoever I will have mercy. ^' 
 " On luhomsoever I ivill have compassion." 
 The ivill here specified and signalised is not the 
 will of futurition, but the ivill of determination. 
 The two wills would, in actual fact, be present in 
 the original enunciation of the Divine oracle. 
 
 But the second and dependent parallels vary, 
 in the Revised Version, from the form under 
 which they appeared in the old translation. 
 They now run thus : 
 
 " On whom I have mercy." 
 " On whom I have compassion." 
 The explicit reference to icill, so far as the 
 secondary parallels are concerned, is merged. 
 And correctly so, as regards formal expression 
 and grammatical construction. But there would. 
 
VEESE 15. 113 
 
 ou the other hand, be a logical blunder of con- 
 ception, if the implicit reference to the ivill of 
 determination were not recognised. The new 
 translation in the Revised Version is right philo- 
 logically. The old translation is right logically. 
 
 The translation in the Revised Version has been 
 drawn out on Tyndale's lines, which run thus : I 
 u'ill shelve mermj to ivJiom I sJieiue mercy; and 
 loill have compassion on ivhom I have compassion. 
 The Geneva version was intermediate in time 
 between Tyndale's and the Authorized, and runs 
 thus, more theologically than Tyndale's : I ivill 
 have mercie on him, to luhom I ivill sheive mercie : 
 and ivill have compassion on him, on whom I will 
 have compassion. "Wycliffe's version is superior 
 to both ; I schal haiie merci on whom I haue 
 merci ; and I schal gyve merci on whom I shall 
 haue merci. There is too much appearance of 
 truistic representation in Luther's version, which 
 was reproduced in the translation of Myles Cover- 
 dale : I shelve mercy te whom I shelve mercy ; and 
 have compassion on whom I have compassion. The 
 absence of the future element in the first pair of 
 parallels is a real defect in Luther's translation, 
 as is evidenced by the future verbs given by the 
 Septuagint translator, and accepted by the apostle, 
 as also by the strongly f uturescing verbs of the 
 Hebrew original. 
 
 The version of the Vulgate is characterized by 
 freedom and variety, I shall pity whom I pity, 
 
114 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 and slioiv compassion to Mm whom I shall pity. 
 ("Miserebor cujus misereor, et misericordiara 
 praDstabo cujus miserebor.") 
 
 Whichsoever of the various translations may be 
 made use of, through which to explore the Divine 
 idea embodied in the oracle, it seems to be indis- 
 putable that the language employed was intended 
 to convey the idea that God, io His relation to the 
 Jews, no less than in His relation to the Gentiles, 
 is an absolute sovereign in the dispensation of His 
 forgiving grace. 
 
 It is because God is such a sovereign that He 
 may beseemingly say of Himself, in the spirit of 
 high prerogative, I shall have mercy on whomso- 
 ever I have mercy, aiid I shall have compassion on 
 ivhomsoever I have compassion. 
 
 When it is affirmed that the sovereignty of God 
 is absolute, it is simply meant that He is a Being 
 who ca7i do whatever He pleases. " None can 
 stay His hand, or say to Him, What doest 
 Thou ? " He is not accountable for His deeds 
 to any superior. " He giveth not account of any 
 of His matters." But, as He can do whatever 
 He pleases, so He will fulfil His pleasure. He 
 actually " does according to His will in the army 
 of heaven and among the inhabitants of the 
 earth." " My counsel," says He, " shall stand ; 
 I will do all My pleasure." 
 
 But while God is thus an absolute Sovereign, 
 and can do, and will do, whatever He pleases to 
 
VERSE 15. 115 
 
 do, His absolute sovereigaty does nob determine 
 for Him what it is right that He should please 
 to do. Something else than His peerless sove- 
 reignty is needed for that. His peerless intelli- 
 gence is indispensable. In it, and in it alone, 
 does God find the idea of right, an idea without 
 which there could be no ethical imperative, utter- 
 ing itself in the affirmative " I ought." It is the 
 highest glory of Grod that He should always 
 please, and that He does always please, to do 
 only what is right. In Him is no darkness at all. 
 He exercises His sovereignty in doing only what 
 is " holy, just, and good." His sovereignty is 
 itself " holy, just, and good." 
 
 The apostle's adduction of the oracle addressed 
 to Moses is a decided argumentative success. 
 Men without exception are the subjects of Grod's 
 sovereign sway. It cannot be disputed. So 
 therefore are the Jews in particular : universally 
 so. And yet all have " come short of the glory 
 of God " ; so that there is, unless there supervene 
 some great change or new creation, there is over- 
 hanging all, both Gentiles and Jews, a lurid 
 thundercloud of doom. Is there room for hope ? 
 The asseverations, I shall have mercy, I shall 
 have compassion, seem to assume that there is 
 forgiveness with God, that He may be had in 
 reverence. (Ps. cxxx. 4.) 
 
 But there are limits to His pardoning grace. 
 He "keeps mercy indeed for thousands." (Exod. 
 
116 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 xxxiv. 7.) But He will " by no means " clear 
 those whose guilt has deepened and darkened 
 into utter impenitence and defiance. There is a 
 sin "that hath never forgiveness." (Mark iii. 29.) 
 
 Who then shall be pardoned ? Just those 
 whom it pleases God to pardon. He will liave 
 pardoning mercy on luhomsoever He is having 
 pardoning mercy ; He ivill have pardoning cora- 
 passion on whomsoever He is having pardoning 
 compassio7i. 
 
 And who are these ? Under the Old Testament 
 dispensation, the category of the pardonable was 
 not clearly revealed. But under the clearer 
 light of the New Testament none need to walk 
 in the darkness of uncertainty. As regards the 
 ultimate condition of those who enjoy the privi- 
 lege of a verbal and historic revelation, he who 
 believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, or he who puts 
 his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, he shall be 
 pardoned. 
 
 And as regards the others who, by no fault 
 of their own, are destitute of the historic and 
 verbal revelation, "these, having not the Bible, 
 are a Bible to themselves, who show the work 
 of the Bible (the work inculcated in the Bible), 
 written in their hearts." (E-om. ii. 13-15.) Their 
 responsibility is measured by their ability and 
 opportunity. And it lies entirely with Grod's 
 sovereignty to determine who shall be the reci- 
 pients of His bounty. 
 
VERSE 16. 117 
 
 In the statements on wliomsoever I have mercij, 
 or on whomsoever I am having mercy, on ivhom- 
 soever I am having compassion, or, on luhomsoever 
 I do have mercy and compassion, in these state- 
 ments there seems to be the conveyance of an 
 idea to the effect that Grod, at the time when 
 He uttered His oracle, was already in absolute 
 spontaneity at work, forgiving iniquity, trans- 
 gression, and sin. 
 
 This favourite work of Divine grace, however, 
 is so great, august, and far-reaching in its 
 ethical influence, that none but the Highest of 
 the high could reasonably undertake it, or, 
 having undertaken it, could carry it through 
 to a satisfactory issue. " There is none who can 
 forgive sins, but God only." There is hence, 
 on the part of God, the well-grounded assump- 
 tion of a very lofty prerogative, which assumption 
 is tantamount to an assertion to the effect, that 
 He will not sufier any one, not even Moses, to 
 interfere with the administration of His bounty. 
 He is resolved to dispense His bounty to whom- 
 soever He pleases. 
 
 Ver. 16. Our public English Version renders 
 the sixteenth verse thus : So then it is not o/ 
 him that willeth, nor of him that rimnetli, hut of 
 God that showeth mercy. 
 
 Tyndale's version, of both dates, was not so 
 
]18 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 literal. It runs thus : So lieth it not then in a 
 onan^s lulll, or running, butt in the mercy of God. 
 He had looked into his Luther, as so often on 
 other occasions, before he put his own trans- 
 lation upon paper. Wycliffe's version bears 
 indelible marks of its antiquity : Threfor it is 
 not nether of man 2viUing, nether renning, hut 
 of God having merci. The Rheims, though out- 
 lined from the same Vulgate which served as 
 copy for Wycliffe, has its own peculiarity : 
 Therefore it is not of the wilier, nor the runner, 
 hut of God that sheweth mercie. The Geneva 
 of 1557 thrust in a rather peculiar supple- 
 ment: So lieth ^^ election ^^ then, not in him that 
 imlleth, or runneth, hut in God that intieth. 
 This doctrinal supplement was wisely dropped 
 in the succeeding edition of the version. 
 
 There are rhetorical rifts, or gaps, in the 
 apostle's phraseology ; but for that very reason 
 it is singularly forceful and emphatic. Lite- 
 rally it stands elliptically thus : Therefore then, 
 not of him who is luishing, nor of him ivho is 
 running, hut of God, who is pitying. 
 
 The substantive verb is omitted. And there 
 is the still more conspicuous omission of the 
 thing, -which might, in the presence of that 
 verb, be either affirmed or denied. The reader 
 has to vault, with the writer, over both the 
 suppressed verb and the sunken substantive, if 
 he would avoid a phraseological stumble, and 
 
VERSE 16. 119 
 
 reach, on the other side, the apostle's logical and 
 unassailable conclusion. 
 
 "We have but to revert for a moment to the 
 oracular statement quoted in the preceding 
 verse, to see what it is which is not of Itim 
 who is wishing, nor of him who is running, hut 
 of God, ivho is pitiful and pitying. It is mani- 
 festly Grod's pardoning pity, His pardoning com- 
 passion or mercy. His liberty to dispense the 
 boon to whomsoever He pleases is His intrans- 
 f erable prerogative. 
 
 We may rest assured, indeed, that both in 
 conferring and in withholding His inestimably 
 valuable bounty. He will never feel the least 
 temptation to act capriciously, unwisely, or un- 
 righteously. The Judge of all the earth is " too 
 wise to err, too good to be unkind." His name 
 is Love, His nature too. Never, in any of His 
 plans, or purposes, or merciful invitations, or 
 in His threatenings, or in His pains and penal- 
 ties, will He act in a spirit that is antagonistic 
 to, or inconsistent with, the grand ground- 
 principle of universal benevolence. But from 
 the fact that God is represented in verse 15 
 as reserving the right of bestowing pardon on 
 whomsoever He pleases, and the consequent cor- 
 relative right of withholding it from whomso- 
 ever it seems good to Him, the apostle, in this 
 sixteenth verse, infers that it is an axiom in true 
 theology that " forgiving favour is not of him 
 
120 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 who is wishing it, nor of him who runs, or is 
 running, for it, but of God, who has compassion, 
 or is taking compassion." 
 
 The peculiar compound expression {apa ovv) 
 which is made use of by the apostle to an- 
 nounce his inference, is rendered in our public 
 version so then, and might be rendered therefore 
 then or consequently then. It is a " Paulism," 
 not having been found in the writings of any 
 other author, biblical or classical. It is empha- 
 tically a debater's phrase, and is, by a singular 
 idiosyncrasy of the apostle's mind, pushed, here 
 and elsewhere, to the front of his argumentative 
 propositions. 
 
 The apostle's inference is more than a mere 
 repetition or echo of the Divine oracle. In the 
 oracle God announced to the Jewish " mediator " 
 what He was resolved to do, and what, even at 
 the very moment of annunciation He was already 
 actually doing. He had been merciful in the 
 past : He was continuing to be merciful in the 
 present : He was resolved to be merciful in the 
 future. The oracle was concrete throughout. 
 There was in it a touch of the historical, and a 
 touch too of the prophetical. 
 
 But in the logical hands of the apostle, this 
 same concrete oracle becomes transformed into 
 an abstract theological principle, — an axiom of 
 universal applicability in all dispensations of 
 grace. As the oracle stands in Exodus xxxiii. 19, 
 
VERSE 16. 121 
 
 there is no express negation in it. No limits of 
 any description are, by any mode of assertion, 
 expressly afiQrmed. The perspicacious apostle, 
 however, saw that in the heart of the oracle 
 there is what is tantamount to an assertion of 
 high and absolute sovereignty. And he likewise 
 saw, that in this involved assertion it is implied 
 that He who has the absolute prerogative and 
 right to confer forgiving favour as he pleases, 
 must have the same absolute right and title to 
 withhold it whensoever He pleases, and from 
 whomsoever He pleases. God's sovereignty is 
 not merely, as Dr. Edward Williams and Dr. 
 George Payne contended, a right to confer 
 favours ; it is likewise and equally a right to 
 withhold them. God's sovereignty, in its essence 
 and in all its outgoings, is supremacy. It is that 
 peculiar and peerless relationship of God to His 
 creatures, which renders it a fitting thing that 
 His will, in reference to each of them, should be 
 supreme. 
 
 While the reality of the Divine sovereignty has 
 equal reference to the bestowment and to the 
 withholding of favour, the apostle in this in- 
 ferential verse has occasion to specify the former 
 only. He hence speaks of the pitying or com,- 
 passionating God. The expression carries in its 
 bosom a reference to the compassion or mercy 
 which God, in speaking with Moses, claimed for 
 Himself, and ascribed to Himself, as His peculiar 
 
122 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 prerogative. We would not have found in the 
 apostle's inference the word pitying or com- 
 Ijassionating^ had not the apostle found, in the 
 claim put forth by God, when He talked with 
 Moses, that pardon was contemplated and in- 
 tended. The participial expression, the pitying 
 God, brings prominently into view, — so far as the 
 Divine relationship to sinners is concerned — an 
 attributive which is pre-eminently characteristic 
 and attractive. It stands in sublime contrast 
 to the characteristics of the two supposable 
 classes of individuals who are ruled out of court 
 in the apostle's antithetic inference. There is, 
 first, the class of those wlio ivish or are tvishing ; 
 and then, secondly, the class of those who run, or 
 are runnmg. 
 
 The apostle says that the Divine compassion is 
 not of him icho is wishing {it). There is nothing 
 wrong, indeed, in wishing the boon. Contrariwise, 
 it is only natural that it should be desired, and 
 that too with intensity of desire. It would be 
 most unnatural, were the boon, instead of being 
 wished or prized, to be swinishly spurned and 
 trampled in the mire. Still it is not of him ivho 
 is ivishing {for it). It did not origioate with 
 him. It never was his in any other way, or in 
 any other sense, than as a gift from another. 
 He never could say, in reference to it, " It is mine, 
 to do with as I choose; mine, to give to whom I 
 choose ; mine, to grant it to myself, if I choose." 
 
VERSE 16. 123 
 
 Pardoning mercy is not the property or the 
 proprietary possession of him who wishes to 
 enjoy it. It cannot so belong to him that he may 
 dispose of it according to his pleasure. 
 
 Neither is it the property of him wlio runs {for 
 it). No amount of effort and exertion could en- 
 title any one on earth to lay hold of it as a thing 
 that has been earned by merit. It is mercy, not 
 justice, of which the apostle speaks, and of which 
 the pitying and forgiving God spoke to Moses. 
 
 It is worthy of note that the apostle, while 
 bringing into view his weighty theological infe- 
 rence, throws upon his ideas a picturesque drapery 
 of costume. Him ivho is ivisJmig, him ivho is 
 running ! Him whose characteristic it is that 
 he is luishing ! Him ivhose characteristic it is that 
 he is running I Pardoning mercy belongs neither 
 to the one nor to the other. Of course not. But 
 does it not seem likely, nevertheless, that there 
 was a rhetorical gleam of phraseological reference 
 to the desire of Rebekah and Jacob, who wished 
 to secure the patriarch's principal blessing ? Or, 
 may there not be a glancing reference to Isaac's 
 personal predilections and desire in the interest of 
 Esau ? If so, then undoubtedly there will be, in 
 the expression him ivho runneth, an allusion to the 
 running of Esau. It is possible certainly, and 
 indeed by no means improbable, that there is in 
 the apostle's representation a pictorial element, 
 founded on the facts of patriarchal history. Such 
 
124 EXPOSITION OF KOMANS IX. 
 
 facts might naturally suggest themselves to the 
 apostle's mind, inasmuch as he had, in the im- 
 mediately preceding context, namely in verses 
 10, 11, 12, 13, been dealing with those affairs of 
 Isaac's household that were mixed up with 
 solicitudes of wishing ^ on the one hand, and with 
 nimble and strenuous running ^ on the other. Theo- 
 phylact and many other expositors have thought 
 it likely that there is this allusion. But if there 
 be, as it is probable that there is, it must still 
 be carefully borne in mind that the reference is 
 merely literary or rhetorical, and consists only 
 of a passing gleam or glance of representation. 
 
 The dual expression. Him wJio desireth and Jdm 
 who runneth, must be explained, independently of 
 the literary allusion, as simply denoting him, 
 on the one hand, who has honci fide desires, and 
 him, on the other, who makes real and earnest 
 effort to obtain the blessing. 
 
 Ver. 17. For the Scripture (in Exod. ix. 16) 
 says to Fharaohi For this very purpose did I raise 
 thee up, that I might show in thee My power, and 
 that My name might be published abroad in all the 
 earth. 
 
 The reason- rendering conjunction at the com- 
 mencement of this verse demands special con- 
 sideration. It introduces a reason, not for the 
 idea that is expressly stated in what goes im- 
 
VEESE 17. 125 
 
 mediately before, but for an idea that is inciden- 
 tally implied. As God possesses the pi^erogative of 
 conferring: His foro-ivinQ: favour on whomsoever 
 He pleases, so He has the right to withhold that 
 favour from whomsoever He chooses. This latter 
 statement is the idea that is implied. God can, 
 indeed, have no right to do wrong. He claims 
 no such liberty. It is even the case that He can 
 have no right to withhold, in a " wrongous " or 
 '' wrongful " way, or in a capricious and selfish 
 spirit, any blessing whatsoever, inclusive of for- 
 giving favour. Creatures who are held, on the part 
 of the great moral Governor, to be accountable to 
 Him for their conduct, must be in possession of 
 rights, as truly as their Creator. And these 
 rights, being emanations of His own infinite 
 righteousness, He will assuredly ever recognise 
 and honour. We need not fear then, or falter, 
 when facing the formidable contents of this seven- 
 teenth verse. Undoubtedly they are entirely right, 
 and may by us be seen to be righteous. 
 
 The introductory ^^for''^ introduces the dark 
 alternative that is free to God in the matter of 
 His forgiving favour. 
 
 The Scripture says to Pharaoh. It is a some- 
 what complicated mode of representation, but 
 perfectly pellucid in its import. It was, of course, 
 not literally the Scripture that spoke to Pharaoh. 
 It was God. But as the apostle looked upon the 
 entire Scripture as being, in its entirety, the voice 
 
126 EXPOSITION OF KOMANS IX. 
 
 of God to men, Le could, in the free and popular 
 mould of his representation, ascribe to the written 
 word what, in strictness of speech, was- attribut- 
 able only to the spoken word of the living Grod. 
 It is a bold but not unwarrantable personification. 
 
 " The Scripture says." Note the present tense. 
 The apostle might have put the case thus : "The 
 Scripture said." But he does not. The personified 
 Scripture is not in its utterances, a mere thing 
 of the past. It would be nearer the mark to say 
 that there is an element of timelessness in the 
 utterance. If the Scripture ever spoke at all, 
 it continued and continues to speak. It has 
 never been struck dumb. 
 
 It speaks to Fliaraoli, the high autocrat of 
 Egypt; and it speaks in no faltering tone. The 
 particular Pharaoh addressed was a " king who 
 knew not Joseph," and who wantonly made him- 
 self the tyrant and the oppressor of the Israelites. 
 .He must have been a man of a lofty, imperious 
 spirit. But a greater than he was at work 
 around him, upon him, within him. Despite his 
 defiance and impenitence, he was impelled by 
 opposing forces from stage to stage, until, by his 
 own consummate wickedness and folly, he was 
 engulphed in utter ruin. 
 
 For this very purpose did I raise thee iip 
 (e^yjyeipd (re). The nature of this raising up has 
 been much and vehemently debated by doctrinal 
 commentators. Some have supposed that the 
 
VERSE 17. 127 
 
 idea is, I raised thee up to the throne of Egijpt. 
 Such was the interpretation of Theodoret of old, 
 and of Bengel in modern times (ziim Konig ge- 
 macht). It is by no means a probable inter- 
 pretation ; for the term has no special fitness to 
 denote exaltation in general, or exaltation to 
 royal dignity in particular. Raising, in the 
 sense of rousing^ is the natural significance of 
 the term. 
 
 But this idea of rousing must not be inflated 
 or accentuated, as is done by some expositors, 
 who interpret the apostle's expression as mean- 
 ing I have incited thee, or stirred thee up, to 
 oppose Me. This was the conception of Wycliffe 
 (stirid thee) and Tyndale (I ste7'ed thee up), and 
 the authors of the English Greneva Version (also 
 I stared thee up), and, in later times, of Fritzsche. 
 It is not required philologically, and it is some- 
 what offensive theologically. 
 
 There are two other conspicuous interpreta- 
 tions. The one is I preserved thee alive under the 
 plague of " boil hreahing forth ivith hlains,"" and 
 raised thee up from thy sick-bed. The other is, 
 I raised thee up among the children of men, and 
 thus brought thee forth on the stage of the ivorld. 
 The former interpretation was the one advocated 
 in the 1849 edition of this Exposition. The 
 Septuagint translator had taken the same view. 
 His version — free and easy in form — is, For this 
 purpose ivert thou preserved {piernpyjQn^). A multi- 
 
128 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 tilde of interpreters have espoused this interpre- 
 tation. But I feel now disposed, at the instance 
 and in the interest of scientific exegesis, to accept 
 the other. It is given by Theophylact, by Beza 
 hkewise, and by Gomarus of Synod of Dort 
 celebrity; by Meyer too, and Grodet, and many 
 others, both of the older and of the more recent 
 interpreters. The original Hebrew phrase, though 
 not so pronounced in its pictorial import as either 
 version, will, with almost equal facility, bear 
 either interpretation. (^''^1^^}^, caused thee to 
 stand.) 
 
 It is an objection to the Septuagint interpreta- 
 tion that there is no specific mention in Exodus 
 of any particular illness or sickness under which 
 the defiant monarch was himself laid low. The 
 verb employed by the apostle to reproduce the 
 force of the Hebrew word used in the Pentateuch 
 is suitable indeed to denote restoration to health 
 (see Epistle of James v. 15, and Isa. xxxviii. 16). 
 But as nothing is recorded to show that the 
 guilty king had been personally afflicted to the 
 jeopardy of his life, or even to the serious incon- 
 venience of his person in the discharge of the 
 high duties of his station, the aorist tense of the 
 verb employed by the apostle (J raised thee up, 
 not I have raised thee it])) seems scarcely ac- 
 counted for. The apostle, it should be borne 
 in mind, drew his representation from the very 
 annals in the Pentateuch of which we are in 
 
VERSE 17. 129 
 
 possession. And yet there is no record in these 
 annals of sucli a definite occurrence in the ex- 
 perience of the monarch, as, on the hypothesis 
 of the Septuagint translator, we might be led to 
 expect. 
 
 "We turn therefore to Theophylact's interpreta- 
 tion, concerning which I wrote in 1849 : " It does 
 not seem indeed to be, theologically considered, 
 an utterly objectionable opinion. I can easily 
 imao^ine that it mio^ht be shown that there is 
 nothing inconsistent with the holiness and mercy 
 of God, in supposing that He raised up Pharaoh 
 into being, and brought him forward in the 
 world, that He might show to him and in him 
 His Divine power, and that His glorious name 
 might be declared throughout all the earth." 
 {Exposition, p. 314.) 
 
 The apostle's verb, in Theophylact's accepta- 
 tion of its import, is found in the Septuagint 
 version of Zechariah xi. 16 : " For, lo, I raise 
 up a shepherd against the land." In the Gospel 
 according to Matthew xi. 11, the uncompounded 
 verb is used with a similar application, " Among 
 them that are born of women there hath not been 
 raised up (eyijyeprai) a greater than John the 
 Baptist." Harmoniously therewith we read in 
 the Gospel according to John vii. 52, " Search, 
 and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet," 
 or, " no prophet is raised up " {eyelperai). 
 
 In this sense was Pharaoh " raised up." He 
 
 K 
 
130 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 made his appearance in the world. God said 
 Let Mm he ! And he ivas. He became a man 
 and a monarch. 
 
 He had a place in the Divine plan. God said 
 to him, "For this very purpose did I raise thee 
 up, that I might display in thee My poiverJ^ In 
 those idolatrous days the minds of thoughtful 
 men were perplexed by the " gods many " that 
 were worshipped in the separate circles of earth's 
 various nationalities. Less considerate minds 
 assumed the reality of those traditional deities 
 whom they had received from their infancy, and 
 they were ready to do battle for the objects of 
 their adoration. Pharaoh scorned the authority 
 of the God of his Hebrew slaves. " Who is 
 Jahveh, that I should obey His voice to let Israel 
 go ? I know not Jahveh ; neither will I let Israel 
 go." (Exod. V. 2.) A conflict ensued between 
 Jahveh's longsuffering grace and Pharaoh's 
 persistent impenitence and obstinacy. Jahveh 
 appealed to various demonstrations of His peer- 
 less power. It was the kind of proof that was 
 the readiest for argument, and the most adapted 
 at once to the spirit of the age and to the spirit 
 of the Egyptian tyrant. It requires, in some 
 measure, a wise mind to appreciate exhibitions 
 of wisdom, and a benevolent heart to appreciate 
 exhibitions of benevolence. But it requires little 
 more, than a capacity to be stricken with terror 
 or awe, to appreciate exhibitions of astounding 
 
VERSE 17. 131 
 
 power, more especially wlien these come home 
 to one's own person, or substance, or subjects, or 
 friends. Pharaoh was compelled, time after time, 
 to pause and reflect, so vivid were the gleams of 
 light, self-evidencingly emitted in his presence. 
 But the haughty, self-sufficient man continued 
 unsubdued. His spirit was up-borne, and onward- 
 borne, by the wilful determination of a truly 
 imperious and autocratic will. 
 
 Time after time, and many times, the Lord 
 gave to the wilful man opportunities and induce- 
 ments for repentance. But in vain. And hence 
 there was necessity for having recourse to the 
 principle of penal retribution. Meanwhile the 
 Divine wail over opportunities unimproved went 
 forth, " I would ; but ye would not." 
 
 The voice of retribution, in the first mutters of 
 its thunder, is heard in the words, " that I may 
 display in thee My power." The finger of the 
 Divine intention is pointing ultimately to the 
 scene that was enacted in the bed of the Red Sea, 
 when " the Lord triumphed gloriously, and the 
 horse and his rider were overthrown in the sea." 
 (Exod. XV.) " The enemy said, I will pursue, 
 I will overtake, I will divide the spoil ; my lust 
 shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my 
 sword, my hand shall destroy them. Thou didst 
 blow with Thy wind, the sea covered them : they 
 sank as lead in the mighty waters. Who is like 
 unto Thee, Jahveh, among the gods ? Who is 
 
132 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, 
 doing wonders?" (Exod. xv. 9-11.) Thus 
 Jahveh manifested His peerless power in dealing 
 with the infatuated Pharaoh. 
 
 But there is a singular peculiarity in the 
 Hebrew expression that is rendered in the Septua- 
 gint, "that I might show in thee My might." 
 There is no preposition corresponding to in. 
 Instead of in thee, it is simply thee. The ex- 
 pression in Hebrew runs thus : " that I might 
 show thee My power." It conveys, we presume, 
 the idea of mercifulness. And the mercifulness 
 goes before the penal retribution. The recourse 
 to retribution is an alternative, to be reluctantly 
 resorted to only in the sad event of the mercy 
 being spurned. It is not a case of unconditional 
 and inevitable reprobation. The Septuagint 
 translator used liberty with the Hebrew ex- 
 pression. But as the liberty he took was in 
 harmony with the acknowledged principles of the 
 Divine moral government, the apostle held him- 
 self justified in availing himself of the Septuagint 
 variation, as peculiarly appropriate, though by no 
 means indispensable to the argument he had in 
 hand. The display of peerless power was, in the 
 first place, for the instruction of Pharaoh ; and it 
 was only when that instruction was declined and 
 haughtily repelled, that the Lord turned to the 
 dread alternative. The alternative runs onward 
 thus: '^'And that My name might he published in all 
 
VERSE 17. 133 
 
 the earth,^^ that is, " and, failing thy repentance, 
 that My name might he published in all the earth " 
 (by means of thy terrific destruction, and the 
 engulphing of thy host in the waters of the Red 
 Sea). The intervenience of latent conditional 
 clauses, in both promises and threatenings, is of 
 common occurrence. When we read, for example, 
 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall 
 he saved,^^ there is a latent condition in the pro- 
 mise, " And if thou persevere to the end in thy 
 faith, thou shalt be saved." In the reverse 
 threat, " He that believeth not shall be con- 
 demned," there is a corresponding intervenience 
 of latent conditionality. " He that believeth 
 not, and persisteth in his unbelief to the end of 
 his probation, he, though he only, shall be con- 
 demned." 
 
 Jonah's message to the Ninevites is a case in 
 point. " Yet forty days, and [failing the re- 
 pentance of the Ninevites) Nineveh shall be over- 
 thrown." It is on the same principle that we 
 are to interpret Grod's solemn warning to Pharaoh. 
 In the Hebrew representation, the threat, with its 
 enwrapped conditionality, has its incidence in the 
 last clause only of the statement made to the 
 stubborn monarch : " In very deed I raised thee 
 up, that I might show thee My power (and the other 
 involved perfections of My infinite glory), and, 
 failing thine improvement of this instruction, that 
 by the overthrow and destruction of thyself and 
 
134 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 thy host, with all thy pomp of array, My name 
 may be magnified, all the world over, above all 
 the gods of the nations." In the Septuagint 
 version, which was accepted by the apostle, the 
 incidence of the threat extended to both clauses 
 of the Divine statement, thus : " I raised thee 
 up that — failing thy penitence — I might shoiu, in 
 My retributive dealings with thee, My Divine 
 power, and that My name and fame may he pub- 
 lished abroad in all the earth. ''^ 
 
 Yer. 18. Therefore hath He mercy on ivhom 
 He will have mercy, and ivhom He luill He 
 hardeneth. 
 
 The single therefore does scant justice to the 
 apostle's complex illative [apa ow). The phrase 
 is rendered so then in the sixteenth verse. It 
 might be translated therefore then or consequently 
 then. Since Grod is not baffled by men's infa- 
 tuation, but can turn to account, in His universe, 
 even obdurately impenitent Pharaohs, we may 
 rest assured that in the great moral alternative 
 He will either pardon or harden. Whom He 
 pleases to pardon, them He will pardon; and 
 whom He pleases to harden, them He will harden. 
 The Divine treatment of Pharaoh was a case in 
 point. God had a right to warn the haughty 
 monarch ; and He did warn him, again and again. 
 When His warnings were unheeded, He had a 
 
VERSE 18. 135 
 
 right to menace the defiant man. Agjain and 
 again He did menace him. And when His 
 threats, like His warnings, were time after time 
 repeated, and yet in the long ran invariably 
 unheeded, surely the long-suffering One had a 
 right to execute them in befitting doom, and to 
 make use of all legitimate means to render the 
 judicial sentence effective ! 
 
 In the Revised Version the first clause of the 
 inferential verse runs thus : " So then He hath 
 mercy on whom He will." The English expres- 
 sion, on whom He will, is fitted to bring out pro- 
 minently to view a volitional idea : so that the 
 expression seems to mean, on whom He chooses, or 
 on ivhom He pleases, viz. to have mercy. But this 
 volitional idea is not quite so prominent in the 
 apostle's Greek. It is ivish rather than will that 
 is expressed. The same verb (OeXei) is used in 
 2 Corinthians xi. 12, " them which desire occa- 
 sion " ; xi. 32, " desirous to apprehend me " ; xii. 
 6, " though I would desire to glory " ; Gal. iv. 9, 
 "ye desire again to be in bondage"; vi. ]2, "as 
 many as desire to make a fair show " ; iv. 20, " I 
 could desire to be present with you." God, says 
 the apostle, has mercy on whom He " desires " to 
 have mercy. It is His wish. His desire, that is — 
 in the matter of mercy — to be considered and 
 consulted. The mercy referred to is, as in verses 
 15 and 16, pardoning mercy. 
 
 The great alternative in the Divine sovereignty 
 
loG EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 is expressed tlius : And wliom He desires, lie 
 hardens. 
 
 There is a sphere of things in whicli God does 
 not desire to have any recourse to this dread and 
 dark alternative. He " desires the salvation of 
 all." (1 Tim. ii. 4.) He is " not willing that any 
 should perish, but that all should come to repent- 
 ance." (2 Pet. iii. 9.) In that sphere judgment 
 is " His strange act." It would be, and it was, 
 in accordance with the strongest feelings of His 
 nature to leave no legitimate expedient unem- 
 ployed to win the hearts of the unholy from the 
 pursuit and love of unholiness. He would gladly 
 do everything but break down into shivers our 
 moral nature, with its inter-involved free will, to 
 get iniquity degraded in His universe and hunted 
 down, if needed, into everlasting disgrace, from 
 world to world. But when creatures rise up into 
 defiance of His will, and thus into determination 
 to have their own wild will, even when it is 
 utterly wrong, could it be the case that He Him- 
 self would be their true lover and the true patron 
 of what is right and good and morally beautiful 
 and true if He did not desire, as Ruler of the 
 universe, to use every lawful weapon to put down 
 the evil ? There are assuredly circumstances and 
 relationships which make it right for God to 
 desire to brand with His broadest stigma persisted- 
 in iniquity. 
 
 The apostle speaks of "hardness," manifestly 
 
VEESE 18. 137 
 
 because his mind had been brooding over the 
 career of the had Plmraoli. He bore in mind that, 
 in the book of Exodus, much is said of the moral 
 induration of the guilty monarch's heart. 
 
 It was induration that fitly issued in the cata- 
 strophe that so signally manifested the power of 
 God, and published His name and fame far and 
 wide. 
 
 Some have supposed that, in seeking to under- 
 stand the induration referred to, we should avail 
 ourselves of a permissive element in our concep- 
 tion. God, it is supposed, did not by any agency 
 of His own indurate the monarch's heart; He 
 merely permitted the monarch to do the indurat- 
 ing himself. He " left " the monarch to the 
 hardness of his heart. Such is, in substance, the 
 interpretation of QEcumenius, Melanchthon, Oas- 
 tellio, Grotius, A. Turretin, Wesley, Terrot. But 
 it breaks down entirely the moment we consider 
 that class of passages in which it is said that 
 the defiant autocrat himself hardened his own 
 heart. If moreover the permissive principle be 
 applied to the interpretation of the second 
 clause of the verse, then it must not be withheld 
 from the interpretation of the antithetic clause in 
 the first member of the verse. That clause con- 
 sequently would have to run thus : " Whom He 
 desires He ^permits to have mercy.'' It is an im- 
 possible interpretation. 
 
 Some rather brilliant critics, though yet only 
 
138 EXPOSITION OP EOMANS IX. 
 
 lesser lights, interpret the hardness referred to as 
 hardness in "dealing,'^ harshness as it were. 
 God treated Pharaoh tvith severity. So does He, 
 in the long run, treat all others who sin with high 
 hand. Such is the intrepretation of Carpzov, 
 Ernesti, Morus, Nosselt, Schleusner, Wahl (second 
 edition), Bretschneider (second edition), Samuel 
 Sharpe, etc. It is an impossible interpretation. 
 It is nothing better than the meteoric sign of 
 exegetical despair. What could be made of it 
 when, like the permissive principle, applied to the 
 passages in which the indurating action is ascribed 
 to the monarch himself ? 
 
 How then are we to interpret the induration ? 
 Some, inclusive of Origen, and Basil of Cassarea, 
 and Theophylact, as also of Borre, Goodwin, 
 Loveday, Richard Baxter, and Bishop Womock 
 (Deus Justificatiis, 1668), have contended that the 
 hardening referred to is an unintentional process. 
 This interpretation proceeds on the principle that 
 God, in all His indurative dealings with the 
 monarch of Egypt, did nothing to him but what 
 was gracious and merciful, and calculated to bene- 
 fit and bless. It is thence concluded that it never 
 was the intention of God to harden the man's 
 heart. It is contended, on the contrary, that it 
 was His single intention to melt and subdue it. 
 But it is supposed that, while this was the inten- 
 tion of God, it was so perversely and pertina- 
 ciously crossed and frustrated by the madness of 
 
VERSE 18. 139 
 
 the guilty man, that out of all the respite, and 
 indulgent forbearance, and merciful miracles, by 
 means of which God wished and meant to convey 
 to him repenting grace, he extracted nothing but 
 such security in sinning, and such determination 
 in rebellion, that his heart became hardened into 
 adamantine wickedness. The wasp of Egypt 
 converted into the bitterness of poison what 
 the Grod of love meant to be elaborated into the 
 sweet honey of salvation. 
 
 But the terminology of the apostle proclaims 
 intention, as really as in the antithetic clause. 
 " Whom He desires to pardon, these," and these 
 only, " He does pardon ; and whom He desires 
 to harden, these," and only these, " does He 
 harden." 
 
 The language of the Old Testament account of 
 the case seems steeped in the idea of intention. 
 " I "• — says the Lord (Exod. x. 1) — "I have har- 
 dened his heart, and the heart of his servants, 
 that I might shoiv these My signs before him, and 
 that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and 
 of thy son's son what things I have wrought in 
 Egypt, and My signs which I have done among 
 them ; that ye may know how that I am Jehovah " 
 (Jahveh). It seems to be impossible to root out 
 from these expressions the idea of intention ; 
 and hence absolutely impossible to interpret the 
 indurating process referred to as unintentional 
 hardening. 
 
140 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 But what then ? 
 
 Let it be noted, in the first place, that it is the 
 hardening of the heart that is spoken of. The 
 apostle indeed does not mention the word heart ; 
 but the manifest allusion of his statement to the 
 narrative in Exodus makes it evident that it is 
 nothing else that he thinks, so far as the object 
 of the indurating process is concerned. Hence 
 Tyndale translates the latter clause of verse 18 
 thus : " and whom He woll He maketh herde 
 herted." So the Geneva. 
 
 Note, in the second place, that it is possible to 
 conceive of hardness of the heart as manifesting 
 itself either in stiff unyieldingness, or in callous 
 insensibilitij. But the nature of the historic case, 
 nevertheless, as well as the scope of the passage 
 quoted by the apostle, makes it probable that 
 insensibility is the idea intended. Hardness, when 
 predicated of the neck, most naturally denotes 
 stiffness or unyieldingness , but when predicated 
 of the heart, it seems most naturally to denote 
 insensibility. 
 
 This insensibility, — let it be noted, in the third 
 place, — might be predicated, either (1) in respect 
 of duty, — the duty of permitting the Israelites to 
 depart out of Egypt ; or (2) in respect of danger 
 — the danger that was impendi7ig over him for 
 not permitting the Israelites to depart. It is one 
 specialty of hardness to be insensible to duty. 
 It is another to be insensible to danger. The 
 
VERSE 18. 141 
 
 two insensibilities may be often interwoven : still 
 they are essentially distinct, perfectly separable 
 in conception, often separate, and at all times 
 presenting a totally different aspect to the view 
 of the moralist. Insensibility to duty is a directly 
 ethical condition of the soul. Insensibility to 
 danger can be ethical only indirectly and by im- 
 plication. It is a state of those feelings which 
 we have in common with some of the inferior 
 animals. 
 
 Which is the insensibility that was afl&rmed of 
 Pharaoh ? Did the action of Grod upon the 
 monarch's heart effect insensibility to the obliga- 
 tion under which he lay to let the Israelites 
 depart ? Or did it effect insensibility to the 
 dangers that were impending over him if he 
 should refrain to let thenigo ? Or, did it effect, 
 interblendingly, both of these insensibilities? 
 
 Before determining the answer which should 
 be given to this tripartite question, it may be 
 noted, in the fourth place, that, whichever of 
 the three ideas be affirmed, there can be no real 
 theological difficulty in reference to the action of 
 God upon the monarch's heart. This will appear 
 evident when we present the case under a slight 
 variation of aspect, and propound and press the 
 consideration that there must have been certain 
 specific effects, naturally and necessarily produced 
 in the sensibilities of the Pharaoh's heart by that 
 determined unbelief in view of which, and failing 
 
142 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 liis penitence, God purposed to take action 
 penally, and thus to ripen for tlie fulness of 
 doom. 
 
 It is psychologically impossible that such de- 
 termined impenitence could be cherished by the 
 monarch, and yet produce no effects in the sen- 
 sibilities of his heart. Faith always works. And 
 so does penitence. And so do unbelief and dis- 
 belief. 
 
 In such necessary working the hand of God 
 must needs be immanent. When we impersonally 
 say " must," and speak impersonally of " neces- 
 sity," in reference to the conditions of the human 
 sensibility, we either expressly or implicitly 
 point to the operation of God. God did harden 
 of old, and still He hardens when sin is cherished. 
 There must be some efficient cause of the neces- 
 sary effect, just as there must be some demeri- 
 torious cause or reason for the penal infliction. 
 
 Whatever view then be taken of the nature 
 of the insensibility effected in the unbelieving 
 monarch's heart, there is no theological difficulty 
 in reference to the action of God in relation to it. 
 God's hand was in the hardening, and must have 
 been. 
 
 All the blame, indeed, of the hardness must be 
 laid at the door of the guilty man himself. It 
 was he, and he only, who furnished the reason 
 why God hardened him. He and he alone, by 
 means of his cherished impenitence and unbelief, 
 
VERSE 18. 143 
 
 was the procuring and demeritorious cause of the 
 hardness of his heart ; and hence he is sometimes 
 said to have hardened his own heart, just as 
 believers are sometimes said to purify theirs. 
 Nevertheless it was God who was the efficient 
 cause of all that was penal in the case, and 
 who, by being its efficient cause, vindicated His 
 government over the monarch's soul, and mani- 
 fested His displeasure at the obstinate impeni- 
 tence by which that soul was characterised and 
 stained, and turned into a moral nuisance. 
 
 There is then no real theological or philoso- 
 phical difficulty as regards the penal action of God 
 upon the Pharaoh's heart. Whether the indu- 
 ration spoken of was such a penal condition as 
 consisted, on the one hand, of insensibility to the 
 duty of permitting the Israelites to depart, or, 
 on the other, of insensibility to the danger im- 
 pending over him because of not permitting them, 
 or, of the two insensibilities intertwined, there is 
 no difficulty in supposing an actual penal harden- 
 ing by the hand of God. Such an actual harden- 
 ing must, on pure psychological principles, be 
 maintained. 
 
 But there is a critical reason, and also some 
 exegetical reasons why we give the preference to 
 that interpretation of the hardness, which resolves 
 it into penal insensibility to the danger that was 
 impending over the defiant autocrat, for not per- 
 mitting the Israelites to depart in peace. 
 
144 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 The critical reason is this : There are three words 
 in Hebrew employed to describe the hardness of 
 the Pharaoh's heart. Of these three one (i^^f^) is 
 employed only twice (Bxod. vii. 3 ; xiii. 15) ; 
 another p-?^) seven times (Exod. viii. 15, 32 
 (28); ix. 7, 34; X. 1; 1 Sam. vi. 6; see also 
 Exod. vii. 14). The third (ptrr) occurs twelve 
 times (Exod. iv. 21; vii. 13, 22; viii. 19 ; ix. 12, 
 35; X. 20, 27; xi. 10; xiv. 4, 8, 17). Now the 
 word that is employed twelve times is a term 
 that naturally suggests insensibility to danger, 
 for, in its intransitive form, it properly means to 
 he strong, and is translated (in Josh, xxiii. 6 ; 2 
 Sam. X. 12, xiii. 28; 1 Chron, xix. 13; Ezra x. 
 4; Ps. xxvii. 14, xxxi. 24 (25); Isa. xli. 6) to 
 be of good courage, to be courageous ; while, in its 
 transitive form, it properly means to make strong, 
 and is actually translated (in Deut. i. 38, iii. 28 ; 
 2 Sam. xi. 25 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 2 ; Ps. Ixiv. 5 
 (6) ; Isa- xli. 7) to encourage. "When such, a term 
 is used to denote penal induration, it is natural 
 to suppose that the " hardness " will be some- 
 what allied to a spirit of courage, and conse- 
 quently that it will consist of a kind of dread- 
 nought spirit. There will be something of 
 hardiness in it; indeed, some strong accentuation 
 of fool-hardiness. 
 
 Besides the three terms that are employed to 
 characterize the hardness of the Pharaoh's heart, 
 there are other three that receive the same 
 
VERSE 18. 145 
 
 translation in other parts of the Scriptures. Two 
 of these (J\^ and V?^) properly mean to be strong, 
 when used intransitively; and to make strong, 
 when used transitively. And the term that occurs 
 most frequently (V'?^) is ten times translated 
 to be of good courage, and twice to be courageous. 
 There thus seems to be a somewhat weighty 
 critical reason for considering the induration 
 that was penally inflicted upon the unbelieving 
 monarch's heart, as resolvable into fool-hardy 
 insensibility to the danger that ivas im^endln^ 
 over him. 
 
 The exegetical reasons, which go hand in hand 
 with this critical reason, consist of the contents 
 of the various passages in which the monarch's 
 obduracy is spoken of. In none of these passages 
 does there appear to be anything at variance with 
 the idea that the hardness of his heart was 
 infatuated hardiness and insensibility to danger. 
 All of them, indeed, are more easily explicable on 
 the principle of this idea, than on the principle of 
 any of the other theories of induration. 
 
 Look, for instance, at the representations in the 
 fourteenth chapter of Exodus. *' And the Lord 
 spake to Moses, saying (ver. 2), Speak to the 
 children of Israel, that they turn and encamp 
 before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, 
 over against Baal-zephon : before it shall ye en- 
 camp by the sea. For Pharaoh will say of the 
 children of Israel, They are entangled in the 
 
 L 
 
146 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I 
 %oill harden PharaoKs heart (or, as Ainsworth 
 translates it, I tvlll make strong the heart of 
 Pharaoh), that he shall follow after them ; and I 
 will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his 
 host ; that the Egyptians may know that I am the 
 Lord. And they did so. And it was told the 
 king of Egypt that the people fled : and the heart 
 of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against 
 the people, and they said. Why liave we done this, 
 Jfhat we have let Israel go from serving us ? And 
 he made ready his chariot, and took his people 
 with him : and he took six hundred chosen 
 chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and 
 captains over all of them. And (thus) the Lord 
 hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and 
 he pursued after the children of Israel : and the 
 children of Israel went out with a high hand." 
 Again the Lord said to Moses, " Lift thou up thy 
 rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and 
 divide it : and the children of Israel shall go on 
 dry ground through the midst of the sea. And I, 
 behold, I ivill harden the hearts of the Egyptians, 
 and they shall follow them : and I will get Me 
 honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, 
 upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen." 
 (Yers. 16, 17.) Here again there is the spec- 
 tacle of remarkable insensibility to the peril of 
 pursuing the Israelites. The Pharaoh was in- 
 fatuated. He was intoxicated with his own high 
 
VEESE 19. 147 
 
 sufficiency. A penal blight had fallen on his 
 reason. He was penally blinded. Rushing on- 
 ward in daring recklessness, he and his chivalry 
 were penally swept into destruction. And thus 
 the Lord, by inflicting on them, first, the most 
 insensitive obduracy,^ and, secondly, the most 
 tragical termination of their career, got Him 
 honour upon Pharaoh and upon all his host. 
 "Pharaoh," says Fry, in his Lectures Explanatory 
 on Romans, " had not, in immediate consequence 
 of his hardiness or obduracy, any more sinfulnesl^ 
 in his heart than he had previously ; but he dared 
 to do morer (P. 387.) 
 
 In selecting the word hardens to denote the 
 penal deterioration in character of the persis- 
 tently impenitent, the apostle suggests a parallel 
 between Pharaoh, on the one hand, and the 
 Israelites, on the other. There was something 
 ominously Pharaonic in the spirit of the unbe- 
 lieving Jews. 
 
 Ver. 19. TJiou ivilt say to me then, Why does 
 He yet find fault ? For lulw has resisted His 
 pleasure ? 
 
 The apostle still, as throughout the entire 
 chapter, makes reference to his countrymen ; but 
 
 1 Borre says well : " Indnrari proprie idem valet quod 
 andacem, animosum, pertinacem, et imperteiTitum fieri." 
 (^Expl. Dil, p. 146.) 
 
148 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 here lie widens for a little tlie incidence of the 
 queries that are proposed. When he singles out 
 a representative antagonist, and says to him, 
 *' Tliou wilt say to me then," he has indeed in his 
 eye a Jewish objector. But this Jewish objector 
 wears a veil over his Judaism, so that, if not 
 carefully scrutinised, he bears the aspect rather 
 of a man generically considered than of a Jew. 
 He speaks out against the apostle's teaching, not 
 from the standpoint or platform of Israelitish 
 peculiarities, but from the higher platform and 
 vantage ground of those great ethical principles 
 that are of world-wide applicability and signi- 
 ficance. 
 
 The first clause of the verse, that which links 
 on the objector's queries to the preceding context, 
 may be read either affirmatively, Tliou wilt say to 
 me the7i, or interrogatively. Wilt thou say to me 
 then ? The difference in the Greek of the two 
 modes of reading is nothing more than a slight 
 modification of intoning. The affirmative in- 
 toning is on the whole the more likely mode, Tliou 
 unit doubtless then he saying to one. But in our 
 English idiom the interrogative element may be 
 recognised, in a state of semi-latency, Thou wilt 
 doubtless then he saying to me {ivilt thou not ?) 
 
 Why yet does He find fault ? Why does He, 
 who is the hardening God, find fault with him 
 who is the hardened man ? Why find fault with 
 the obduracy that is to be traced, in part at 
 
VERSE 19. 149 
 
 least, to the agency of God's own will? These 
 questions are not the apostle's. They are ])ut 
 to him by those who objected to his teaching. 
 Tlioii wilt say to me. The objector, in putting 
 them, fails indeed to discriminate. Grod, it is 
 true, lias to do with men's hardness of heart. In 
 so far as the hardness is penal, it is right that 
 God should take to do with it. But if it be 
 penal, it must come after transgression. And if 
 it come after transgression, surely, unless exor- 
 bitant in degree — and this is not hinted — it is 
 right. It is right to punish wilful wrong-doing. 
 It is right in God — the great Patron of morals — 
 to " find fault " with sin. The advocate of the 
 great body of the Jews will not succeed in effec- 
 tively defending his clients by ringing changes on 
 the query, Why doth He yet find fault ? 
 
 This query however is buttressed by another, 
 from which the objector might expect to derive 
 an irresistible argument in support of his unbe- 
 lieving clients : For who has resisted His pleasure ? 
 If no one has, then how can any one be to 
 blame ? If man be incapable of resisting the 
 pleasure of God, and if therefore, as a matter of 
 fact, he never does resist it, how can it be right 
 to punish him ? He would then be in truth and 
 in the highest sense of the phrase an unpunish- 
 able being. He might be a sufferer. He might 
 be maltreated. He might be lashed till he should 
 die, and then be lashed again for ever, with a 
 
150 EXPOSITION OP EOMANS IX. 
 
 scourge more terrible than any earthly lash ; but 
 if he has never resisted the will of God he cannot 
 be punished. Tormented he may be, but he can- 
 not be punished. The argument behind which 
 the unbelieving Jew had got hope of logical 
 shelter is blown into utter shreds. 
 
 We have thus answered, from our own philo- 
 sophic standpoint, handed down to us as a heri- 
 tage from many successive ages, the queries 
 proposed by the Israelitish objector. Let us now 
 take note more particularly of the way in which 
 the apostle himself, as distinguished from his 
 modern readers and critics, deals with the objec- 
 tion that had been flung in his face. 
 
 Ver. 20. Indeed ! man ! Wlio art tliou 
 that art replying against God ? Shall the thing 
 moulded say to him ivho moulded it, Why didst 
 thou make me thus ? 
 
 The apostle, in opening his reply, says with 
 deep emotion, man ! He does not say, Jew ! 
 He is keeping in the background all Jewish 
 peculiarity. He has before his observation man 
 as man in antagonism to God as God. How 
 different the potency of the one, as related to the 
 other ! How insignificant the creature ! 
 
 In realizinsf this insignificance of one of the 
 parties before him, the apostle, as it were, groans 
 in spirit^ and says, " Indeed ! " It is in Greek an 
 
VEESE 20. 151 
 
 untranslatable idiomatic expression (fxevovvye). It 
 occurs in Luke xi. 28, and is rendered yea rather. 
 It occurs again in Romans x. 18, and is rendered 
 yes verily. It occurs again in the received text of 
 Philippians iii. 8, and was rendered by King James's 
 translators yea doubtless. Here, in Romans ix. 20, 
 the only other New Testament passage in which 
 it occurs, it is, in accordance with its frequent 
 function as a corrective, rendered in King James's 
 version. Nay but. Many translators, such as 
 the Vulgate, Wyckliffe, and the authors of the 
 Rheims, leave it entirely untranslated. None of 
 the renderings given is literal, or could be. Idiom 
 must just confront idiom, and, in some intelligible 
 though peculiar way, give expression, as by means 
 of the versatile term " indeed ! " to a mingled 
 feeling of surprise, indignation, and distress. 
 
 Who art thou, who art replying against God? 
 The apostle was not mistaken in supposing that 
 the Jewish advocate, in his zeal to repel the in- 
 sinuation contained in the word hardeneth (ver. 
 18), had, as it were, threatened to throw off 
 from his clients moral accountability, and to 
 throw it over upon God. If it be the case that 
 the mass of the people were, as the apostle con- 
 tended, unbelieving in reference to the Christ, 
 and hence involved in a penal process of moral 
 degeneration and induration, ivhy blame us ? con- 
 tended the Jew. Roiv could we help ourselves ? 
 
 Such queries do not, as we have seen, repre- 
 
152 EXPOSITION 01^ KOMANS IX. 
 
 sent difficulties which pressed upon the heart and 
 intellect of the apostle. He had at hand logical 
 and psychological truth, which afforded his spirit 
 complete relief. But the queries referred to re- 
 present objections to his doctrine on the part of 
 his unbelieving countrymen, who were prepared 
 to urge the most sweeping objections to the moral 
 conduct of God, if the apostle's representations 
 were to be accepted and maintained. The apostle 
 however does not here argue, as in a tModicee, in 
 defence of the moral perfection of God. He con- 
 fronts the objector sternly, and says, Who art 
 thou ? or, as Tyndale renders it. What art 
 thou ? and what is thy position in the great 
 universe, to warrant thee to " chop logic with God " 
 (Day), and to throiv out against Him infamous 
 charges ? Thou mightest ash indeed, if reverently, 
 for " light, light, more light." But to answer 
 pertly and presumptuously is utterly inconsistent 
 in a reasonable being. 
 
 Shall the thing moulded say to him that 
 moulded it, Why didst thou make me thus ? Let a 
 man transfer himself for a moment to an earthen- 
 ware establishment. Suppose that some article 
 of the ware were endowed with self-consciousness 
 and abihty to speak, would it be reasonable that 
 it should complain of the form of the vessel into 
 which it had been manufactured by the moulder's 
 hand ? What scope is there for grumbling to the 
 effect that it was not fashioned into something 
 
VERSE 21. 153 
 
 else ? The maker and proprietor of the articles 
 moulded has, beyond all controversy, the sovereign 
 right to make what sorts of things he pleases out 
 of the material that belongs to him; and there 
 is neither obligation on the part of the moulder, 
 nor responsibility on the part of the mould, on 
 the one hand, or of the clay, on the other. 
 
 Ver. 21. Or, hath not the potter a right 
 over his day to make, out of the same lump, one 
 vessel to honour and another to dishonour ? ^ 
 
 The preceding clause concerning the moulder 
 paves the way for the more picturesque repre- 
 sentation, in this verse, of the potter. The 
 potter, who owns the clay on which he operates, 
 has absolute control over every lump of it, and 
 the riofht to make of it whatever kinds of vessels 
 he pleases. Human potters however are not 
 always wise, even for their own interest. They 
 are sometimes the victims of negligence or 
 caprice, or temper, and may carelessly or wan- 
 tonly mar the vessel on which they are engaged. 
 But God is as unerringly wise as He is absolute 
 in power. If any vessel be marred in His hand, 
 the blame will not be attributable to Him. 
 Vessels for honour and dishonour respectively 
 are vessels for either noble or ignoble uses. 
 
 1 See J. Wetzel's Be Jure Figuli in Vasa. 
 
154 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 Vers. 22, 23. But if God, though lolshful to 
 disjiilay His indignation, and to mahe His ijower 
 hiown, endured, in much longsuffering, vessels of 
 ivrath fitted for destruction, and thus endured 
 them in order that He might mahe known the 
 riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy lohich 
 He fitted afore for glory. 
 
 The figure of the potter or the moulder is by 
 far too limited to afford anything approximating 
 a full-orbed view of the relation of God to sinful 
 men. And hence the wider and richer and 
 more varied representation that we find in verses 
 22, 23. 
 
 But if (it be the case that Grod is " will- 
 ing," or " wishing," to give high significance to 
 certain elements in particular, out of the sum 
 total of the severer manifestations of His attri- 
 butes), if that should be the case, and if 
 nevertheless He refrain, for a lengthened period, 
 from inflicting condign punishment upon the 
 defiant criminals who prowl about at a distance 
 from the throne, giving them respite, what 
 then ? 
 
 Before answering that question, take note of 
 the strong word ivishing or wishful or desiring, 
 " God though ivishing.''^ God, as the apostle 
 knew, had strong desire in a certain given 
 direction; and yet He withheld from Himself 
 what He desired. There are some, of whom 
 
VERSES 22, 23. 155 
 
 the Lord says, " Ifc is in My desire that I should 
 chastise them." (Hos. x. 10.) But " how shall 
 I give thee up, Ephraim ? How shall I sur- 
 render thee, Israel ? How shall I make thee as 
 Admah ? How shall I set thee as Zeboim ? 
 Mine heart is turned within Me ; My repentings 
 are kindled together. I will not execute the 
 fierceness of Mine anger." (Hos. xi. 8, 9.) 
 
 There are contrary, though not contradictory, 
 desires in the heart of God, as in other hearts. 
 He desires, on the one hand, to display His 
 indignation in reference to persistent sinfulness ; 
 and that is right. And He desires, on the other, 
 that even those who have long persisted in sin 
 should have renewed opportunity of abandoning 
 their evil ways ; and that too is surely right. 
 
 Aiid to make known His power: His infinite 
 ability, not merely to guide the stellar firma- 
 ments along their intricate paths, but in par- 
 ticular to bring to nought the machinations of 
 the adversaries of His peerlessly excellent ethical 
 rule, — all the machinations, in other words, of 
 the selfish to secure for themselves the un- 
 checked gratification of their selfishness. 
 
 Hath endured, in much longsuffering, vessels of 
 torath fitted for destruction. 
 
 There was endurance on the part of God. The 
 doings of certain men were ill to bear; yet 
 God has borne, and bears. Of the contrary 
 desires, that seemed to struggle in the Divine 
 
156 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 heart for the mastery, God yielded to that in 
 which mercy was predominant. He endured the 
 ill with " much longsuffering." No other being 
 could or would have borne so wonderfully long. 
 
 The objects endured or borne are called by the 
 apostle vessels of ivrath. We must think on two 
 intermingling modes of representation. One is 
 that of literal reality ; the other is that of figura- 
 tive conception. The " vessels of wrath," looked 
 at in the light of literal reality, are men, living 
 men, sadly sinful, and most persistent in their 
 sinfulness. Hence they are objects of Divine 
 indignation. This idea of living men, persist- 
 ently sinful, must be intermingled with the other 
 idea' of pottery-vessels fit and " fitted for de- 
 struction." These vessels, we may represent to 
 ourselves, as stained and full of blemishes, 
 splintered and chipped, bedaubed and encrusted 
 with abominations that sniell rank with poisonous 
 exhalations. If such vessels were brought forth 
 for the inspection of the proprietor, they should, 
 one would suppose, be instantly condemned, and 
 broken, it may be, into a thousand shivers. They 
 are " fitted for destruction." No human pro- 
 prietor would be wishful or willing to retain 
 them in his home or in his store. But when 
 we drop this figurative representation, and take 
 into consideration the principles on which God 
 acts in His literal relations to living men, then 
 vessels of wrath are men who, in consequence of 
 
VERSES 22, 23. 157 
 
 persisted-in sin, are the fit objects of Divine indig- 
 nation. In heing fitted for destruction, there is no 
 specification of any agency. But agency of one 
 kind or other must of course be assumed, and it 
 is to be borne in mind that the apostle has said, 
 " Whom He desires He forgivingly pitieth, and 
 lohom He desires He unforgivingly hardeneth." 
 Man's own hand is doubtless operative in the 
 matter; and so is the hand of God. There are 
 double factors at work with a view to the ulti- 
 mate issue in destiny both of those on the right 
 hand, and of those on the left. 
 
 There is a difference in the standpoint of 
 representation between the pottery-vessels spoken 
 of in verse 21, and those that are spoken of in 
 verse 22. Those mentioned in verse 21 are such 
 as have just come from the hand of the potter, 
 whereas those that are referred to in verse 22 
 are such as have been in household use. The 
 men referred to were " endured with much long- 
 suffering.^^ Even after a long career of mis- 
 improved privileges, Grod's patience towards them 
 is not utterly exhausted. 
 
 There is something of ellipsis — twofold indeed 
 — in the phraseology of verse 23. Hence, at 
 the commencement of the verse, the first clause, 
 if we assume the genuineness of the copulative 
 conjunction^ and, may be supplemented thus, 
 
 ^ The whole troop of uncials, with the exception of 
 B, read koX Iva. 
 
158 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 "and hore iviththem"; that is, "and if He bore 
 with them" in order that He might make known 
 the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, 
 which He prepared afore for glory," — if Re 
 did so. 
 
 Here is the other supplement, — What ground 
 has any one to complain ? Some such supple- 
 ment is required to complete the apostle's query, 
 and to repel the odious, fault-finding objection 
 which is but the echo of verse 19. 
 
 In the expression, The riches of His glory ^ there 
 is doubtless a reference to high celestial con- 
 dition. Such a condition is glorious, and all are 
 truly enriched who enjoy it. The apostle, though 
 not rich in the materialisms of this world, had a 
 profound conception of the value of riches when 
 righteously used and diffused ; so that his fre- 
 quent use of the term in one or other of its phases 
 is a kind of Pauline idiom of thought. (See E,om. 
 ii. 4, xi. 12, 33; 2 Cor. viiL 2; Eph. i. 7, 18, iii. 
 8, 16; CoL i. 27.) 
 
 The expression, " upon vessels of mercy," is 
 founded on the idea that the heavens are above 
 us, so that if any element of things heavenly 
 becomes to any a blessing and inestimable boon, 
 it descends and comes 'upon them. Thej'^ are 
 hence "vessels of Divine mercy." Some great 
 boon from God is indicated. But we must pass 
 from the figurative to the real in our considera- 
 tion of it ; and thus vessels of mercy are men ivho 
 
VERSE 24. 159 
 
 are objects of God's forgiving mercy. They may 
 have done much injury to themselves, but the 
 great Proprietor has had patience and long- 
 suffering. In the figurative presentation the 
 vessels have been diligently cleansed and reno- 
 vated, so that they are ready for use in the " great 
 house " of the great King. These " vessels of 
 mercy " God Himself has cleansed and restored — 
 " He has prepared them afore." In the light of 
 this decisive reference to the agency of Grod, one 
 can appreciate the delicacy of the impersonal 
 representation of the corresponding clause in 
 verse 22. All good may always, either directly or 
 indirectly, be traced to the agency of Grod. Evil 
 has an entirely different source. Grod is not a 
 Fountain of both sweet waters and bitter. If evil 
 be darkness, then " God is light, and in Him is 
 no darkness at all." There are spots on the sun, 
 but none in God. The word prepared in the 
 phrase, prepared afore, is just such a representa- 
 tion of sanctification as normally assumes the 
 supremacy of the future in its relation to the past 
 and the present. 
 
 Ver. 24. Whom He called, even us, not from 
 among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 
 
 Not only are the heirs of glory prepared afore 
 for their ultimate exaltation, they receive express 
 invitation. They are called. They are invited 
 
160 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 as guests to the banquet of bliss. And as they 
 pass on in relays their ranks are filled up, not 
 exclusively from the favoured circle of the Jews, 
 but from Gentiles as well. 
 
 Ver. 25. As also He says in Hosea, Them who 
 were not-My-people I will call My-people, and 
 her Beloved ivho was not-Beloved.^ 
 
 The word call is here used, not quite as in 
 the preceding verse, but as equivalent to name. 
 There is indeed an ultimate connexion between 
 the two nuncupative significations. They spring 
 from one stem. But nevertheless there is a dis- 
 tinction and a difference. 
 
 God Himself speaks in the Old Testament 
 words. "He says." He had spoken long before. 
 He had used a painfully significant name, or 
 rather two names, which might be used to replace 
 each other. The idea of repudiation is prominent 
 in them both. Not-My-people, or Lo-ammi ; Not- 
 beloved, or Lo-RUHAMAH. Yet this repudiated 
 people is not to be always alien. The names are 
 to be turned upside down ; for the relationship 
 is to be entirely different from what it had been. 
 God therefore, in speaking to the people, is to 
 call out the new names Am mi, or My-people, and 
 
 1 See Immanuel Hoffmann's Observationes PMlologico- 
 Criticce in oracula V.T. Hosece c. ii. 1, 25, et Esaice c. x. 22, 
 23, a Paulo, m Rom. ix. 25-28, citata. 1766. 
 
VERSE 25. 161 
 
 EuHAMAu, or Beloved. The " prepared " ones 
 will be gathered out from among both Jews and 
 Gentiles, and Grod will give them their new 
 names. The prophecy, as it lies in Hosea, will 
 be completely fulfilled only in millennial times. 
 But ere the dawn of these times, and their ulti- 
 mate ascent to the zenith of their glory, there may 
 be, and there doubtless will be, successive instal- 
 ments of fulfilment. In the condition of the 
 individual the group will be reflected. In the 
 condition of the group there will be the reflection 
 of the condition of the great congregation. In 
 the condition of the great congregation there will 
 be the vivid representation and vastitude of the 
 incoming fulness of every kindred and tongue 
 and people and nation, like the fulness of the 
 sea. 
 
 The prediction in Hosea ii. 23 — freely rendered 
 as it is by the Septuagint translator, as also 
 by the apostle — seems to be intended to give 
 emphasis to the reality of the blessing that is in 
 store for the beloved people — the "prepared'* 
 ones, the "vessels of mercy." We need not at 
 this stage of the subject inquire minutely into 
 the contextual relations of the passage quoted. 
 Taking the words by themselves, and as they are 
 presented to us by the apostle, there is no 
 information given us regarding their primary 
 application. But they are most admirably appli- 
 cable to both Grentiles and Jews. When we turn 
 
 M 
 
162 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 indeed to tlie original trend of the prediction, as 
 made known by the context, we find a manifest 
 reference to the children of Israel as distinguished 
 from the Grentiles. 
 
 JSTevertheless the beautiful language is as 
 applicable to Gentiles as to Israelites, and the 
 apostle seems here to quote it because of its 
 inherent applicability to both. Unless we take 
 this view of the relevancy of the quotation, we 
 would find it necessary to assume that the apostle 
 regarded the degenerated Israelites, the ten 
 tribes, as a Gentilised community. To assume 
 that the apostle misunderstood the prophet would 
 be the quintessence of puerility. 
 
 Yer. 26. And it shall be that in the place where 
 it was said, Ye are not-Mt-peoplb, there they shall 
 be called sons of the living God. 
 
 A parallel representation to that of the pre- 
 ceding verse, and quoted from Hosea i. 10. It 
 is taken verbatim from the Septuagint version. 
 Wherever it has been said by God, though in 
 the language of works, as distinguished from 
 that of words. Ye are not-My-people, in that very 
 place would men, who look so frequently on the 
 mere surface of things, be constrained to recog- 
 nise them as sons of the living God, sons in 
 privilege because sons in character. They will 
 be a filial people, and thus a " holy people," a 
 
VERSE 28. 163 
 
 " willing people," a " peculiar people," a " people 
 zealous of good works." 
 
 Yer. 27. But Isaiah cries concerning Israel ^ 
 If the number of the sons of Israel {he) as the 
 sand of .flie sea, the remnant shall he saved. 
 (Isa. X. 22.) 
 
 '^e prophet in awful earnestness, and as with 
 a Scream of anguish (/f|Oa^et), cries over Israel to 
 this effect. Let the numher of the Israelites he as 
 multitudinous as may be, it is the remnant, the 
 mere remnant, that will he saved. The prophet 
 saw days of desolation looming in the future ; 
 and of the people only one here and two or three 
 there would be saved. *' The remnant of the 
 trees of their forest shall be so few that a child 
 may write them." Why? Look forward to ver- 
 ses 30-33. At the expression, shall he saved, 
 the apostle, as distinguished from the prophet, 
 steps over the line that separates in this pro- 
 phecy relationships material from relationships 
 spiritual. It is spiritual salvation of which he 
 thinks. 
 
 Yer. 28 is perspicuously rendered by Godet 
 thus : For the Lord will make a short and' summary 
 reckoning on the earth. Consult Johan Aurelius's 
 Dissertatio-Exegetico-Theologica de verbo abhrevi- 
 
 d 
 
164 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 atOi ex Bom. ix. 28, collat. cum les. x. 23. 1710. 
 Compare also Ps. ii. 9-12, ex. 5-7. 
 
 Ver. 29. And as Isaiah said in a previous 
 oracle, Unless the Lord of sabaoth had left us a 
 seed, we should have been as 8odom and made like 
 to Gomorrha. (Isa. i. 9.) 
 
 Of sabaoth, that is, of hosts. A seed, " a little 
 remnant, like the residuum of corn which the 
 husbandman leaves for his seed-corn, and out 
 of which new crops are to arise. . . . Unless 
 the Lord of sabaoth had left us such a little 
 remnant, containing within itself the hopes of 
 the nation for the future, . . . we had be- 
 come, long ere this time, a complete desolation." 
 (Elnathan Parr in loc.) It is a marvel that they 
 had not been long ago consumed, more especially 
 after the unfurling of the fulness of the gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 Yer. 30. What shall ice say then ? That 
 Gentiles, who ivere not pursuing after righteous- 
 ness, obtained righteousness, the righteousness that 
 is from faith. 
 
 It is the righteousness that comes to us from 
 God (Phil. iii. 9), as His gift to unrighteous men 
 (Rom. V. 17). It was wrought out by Jesus, 
 who was thereby " Jesus Christ the righteous " (1 
 
VERSE 31. 165 
 
 Jolin ii. 1), and " the Lord our righteousness.^^ 
 He was wondrously " the end of the law for 
 righteousness to every one ivho believeth.^^ (Rom. 
 X. 4.) " He who knew no sin was made sin for 
 us, that we might be made the righteousness of 
 God in Him:' (2 Cor. v. 21.) The gospel is 
 God's lever-power for salvation, because /' therein 
 is revealed the righteousness of God from faith 
 to faith." (Rom. i. 16, 17.) Alas! the great 
 majority of the Jews disbelieved the good news, 
 and hence the stream of transformative power 
 was shut off and utterly diverted from its grand 
 ethical function. 
 
 Yer. 31. But Israel, pursuing after the law of 
 righteousness, has not attained to the latv ? 
 
 It was a conspicuous term of honour, this word 
 laiv, and by no means inapplicable to the subject 
 which the apostle had in hand. The Jews knew 
 that righteousness is indispensable for the weal 
 of all moral beings. Hence they aimed at it, and 
 pursued after it. They prosecuted their aim by 
 seeking to obtain guidance from their law. Un- 
 happily however they took a remarkably super- 
 ficial, outside view of the requirements of " the law 
 of righteousness," and neglected the weightier 
 and far more important matters of justice, mercy, 
 and fidelity. They tithed punctiliously mint, 
 anise, and cummin, but could extortionately 
 
166 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 
 
 screw and victimise widows and orphans. With 
 a kind of rigid zeal they passed onward with 
 their performances, but did not attain to the 
 " law of righteousness." They were neverthe- 
 less content with their state, and looked with 
 high and haughty eyes as they stalked about in 
 society. 
 
 Ver. 32. Wherefore? Because not by faith, 
 hut as hy works. For they stumbled on the stum- 
 bling stone. 
 
 There is the ellipsis in the first clause of an 
 appropriate active verb ; yet, in English, as well 
 as in G-reek, it is not necessary that any one 
 definite term should be formally specified even 
 in thought. The masses of the apostle's country- 
 men were diligently engaged in the performance 
 of religious services with a view to salvation, or 
 at least to safety and glory. But the spirit that 
 actuated them was wrong. They turned their 
 faces in the direction of the law, as if they were 
 to attain eternal life by meritorious observances. 
 They would not stoop to take note of the true 
 foundation on which they might repose in abso- 
 lute security. The gospel was a heraldic an- 
 nouncement of the true and only way of salvation 
 for sinners. Faith in it was the link that would 
 have secured, in their behalf, all the resources 
 of infinity. Just as if there had been no such 
 
VERSE 33. 167 
 
 principle available as faith in a Divine interpo- 
 sition, tliey sought for safety " as by works," and 
 repudiated the one true way of salvation. They 
 trusted to their own merit, not to that of the 
 long-promised Mediator and Redeemer. For tliey 
 stumbled on the stone of stumbling. It is a case 
 of culpable colliding. The fault was entirely 
 theirs, and so is the resultant injury that has to 
 be endured. 
 
 Ver. 33. As it stands tvritten, Lo, I lay in 
 Zion a stone of stumbling, and a roch of collision : 
 and he who helieveth on Him shall not be ashamed. 
 
 Our attention is turned to a great founda- 
 tion-stone laid by Grod. Its intent was merciful. 
 It could be used as a place of refuge. If not 
 thus used, and if a storm arise and torrents 
 come rushing on, the fugitives will, in their 
 wild panic, be in danger of dashing along until 
 they come into crashing collision with the stone, 
 and be utterly broken. The stone, though 
 primarily a provision of mercy and a secure re- 
 treat, can be turned to penal account, and made 
 use of to be a beacon throughout the world and 
 the vast moral universe. The great body of the 
 Jews rushed against the stone — the Rock of 
 ages. But there was a remnant ; and " he who 
 believed on Him, on the Stone, on the Saviour, 
 would never be ashamed or confounded world 
 
168 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS IX. 
 
 without end." The prophet Isaiah thus repre- 
 sents the idea of chapter xxviii. 16 : " He that 
 believeth shall not malce haste." The apostle's 
 representation is as follows : " He that believeth 
 shall not be ashamed.^' The parallelism of the 
 two shades of promise is peculiarly interesting, 
 varying as it does in form, but being identical 
 in substance. The Old Testament statement re- 
 presents the refugee as standing calm and secure 
 on the Stone. He has no need to be in an 
 anguish of " hurry." Knowing that procrasti- 
 nation is perilous and delusive, he had improved 
 " the day of his visitation " ; and now " iu perfect 
 peace" he awaits the issue. 
 
 The apostle represents the refugee as safe in 
 his position on the Rock, looking steadily in the 
 face, — and free from any confusion of counte- 
 nance, — those who, in their self-security, may 
 have formerly taunted him for fleeing to such a 
 Refuge. But his boasting is not in vain. He 
 knows in whom he has believed. Therefore he 
 shall never be confounded; for that Bode is 
 Cheist. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. — Principle of Interpretation. 
 
 (1) Not allegorical ; 
 
 (2) Not national ; 
 
 (3) But historical. 
 
 1. Not Allegorical. — Some ingenious inter- 
 preters have supposed that the Old Testament 
 facts concerning Isaac and Ishmael, and then 
 concerning Jacob and Esau, as respectively re- 
 ferred to in Romans ix. 6-13, were intended to 
 be interpreted on an allegorical principle. With 
 varying consistency and with varying acuteness 
 and ability has this idea been accepted and 
 wrought out by Irenceus {Contra Omnes Hceres. 
 lib. iv. 88), Ambrosiaster (Comment, in loc), 
 Pelagius [Comment, in loc), and Sedulius Scotus 
 {Collectan. in loc.) ; and among the moderns by 
 Gellius (Isagoge in loc), Arminius (Analysis in 
 loc), Borre (Explicat. Diluc. in loc), Goodwin 
 (Ex;pos. in loc), Poelenburg (Bpist. Eccles. et 
 TheoL, p. 911), and many others. Of all these 
 authors none seems to have exhibited more 
 
 169 
 
170 APPENDIX. 
 
 masterly exegesis than Borre. The principle of 
 interpretation however is untenable. 
 
 For (1) there is no hint given by the apostle 
 that he is speaking allegorically. In Gralatians 
 iv. 24-31, he speaks allegorically; but he pre- 
 intimates the fact by saying, anva ea-nv aXXrjyo- 
 povfxem — ivliicli things are not an allegory in their 
 own nature, but allegorised^ namely by me Pauly 
 in the following manner. 
 
 (2) If we adopt an allegorical interpretation of 
 certain verses of the chapter, who shall determine 
 the line of thus far and no farther to which we 
 are to carry the principle ? Most of the alle- 
 gorists referred to conclude their allegorising at 
 verse 12 or 13, and regard the remainder of the 
 chapter as a vindication of the truths allegorically 
 enunciated in these and the preceding verses. 
 But this division of the chapter into allegorical 
 and non-allegorical verses is entirely arbitrary. 
 
 (3) According to the allegorical interpretation, 
 the phrase, in verse 7, " In Isaac shall seed to 
 thee be named," must mean, " In those who are 
 supernaturally born again, after the similitude 
 of Isaac's birth, shall thy true spiritual seed b^ 
 called." See all the allegorical expositors. But 
 it seems to be impossible that the expression, " in 
 Isaac," can bear such a meaning, more especially 
 as it is immediately added in Grenesis xxi. 13, 
 " And also of the son of the bond-woman will I 
 make a nation, because he is thy seed." This 
 
APPENDIX. 171 
 
 cannot mean that " Grod would make a people 
 conformed in their spiritual condition to the 
 natural birth of Ishmael " ; and therefore the 
 preceding clause regarding Isaac cannot refer 
 to a people to be conformed in their spiritual 
 condition to the supernatural birth of Isaac. 
 Moreover the apostle would not have said, ev 
 'lo-aa/c, had his idea been run into the allegorical 
 mould. He would doubtless have used some 
 such expression as Kara, rhv ofioioTtjra IcraaK, or 
 simply /caret Icraa/r. (See Gal. iv. 28.) 
 
 (4) The allegorical interpretation is at variance 
 with verse 9, " For this word is (one) of promise. 
 At this time will I come, and Sarah shall bear a 
 son." We are here informed what is the precise 
 " promise " referred to in the expression, " the 
 children of the promise." Note the introductory 
 and causative particle " for." AUegorists how- 
 ever are necessitated by their system to give a 
 very different interpretation of " the promise " in 
 the expression, " the children of the promise." 
 That expression, according to them, describes 
 those who " depend on the gracious and free 
 promise of Grod for adoption, justification, and 
 salvation" (Goodwin, Expos., p. 79); and there- 
 fore the promise referred to must denote the 
 great and precious sum of promises which is 
 assured to us in Christ (Borre, 110). But such 
 an idea is immensely removed from that of the 
 apostle : " For this word is one of promise, At 
 
172 APPENDIX. 
 
 this time {next year) u-'dl I come, and Sarah shall 
 have a son.'' 
 
 (5) The allegorical interpretation, in making 
 Esau the typical representative either of the un- 
 believing Jews in particular (Gellius), or of those 
 unbelievers in general who seek justification by 
 the works of the law (Borre), and in explaining 
 his " servitude," as indicating the denegation of 
 the heavenly inheritance to the self-righteously 
 impenitent, fails to find a reason why the servi- 
 tude should be predicated of him before he was 
 born or had done any evil. Can an unborn babe 
 — considered without respect to its future good 
 or evil deeds — be a fit representative of self- 
 righteously impenitent Jews or Gentiles ? 
 
 (6) In the case of Jacob too, the allegorical 
 interpretation, whether regarding him as the type 
 of believing Grentiles (Grellius) or of believers in 
 general (Borre), entirely fails to account for the 
 fact that the blessing of the first-born seems to 
 have been awarded to him without any respect 
 to anything in him, good or evil, that might have 
 morally distinguished him from his brother. An 
 unborn man can no more believe than he can per- 
 form, or try to perform, tJie tvorks of the laiv. 
 
 The allegorical interpretation again, though 
 ingeniously representing (in the system of Borre) 
 " the elder son of Rebecca " as typifying " the 
 children of the old covenant," and " the younger 
 son" as typifying "the children of the new," 
 
APPENDIX. 173 
 
 yet stumbles in this very representation on an 
 inconsistency. For while Hagar, the mother of 
 Ishmael, may denote the old covenant, and Sarah, 
 the mother of Isaac, the new, Rebecca, being 
 the mother both of Jacob and of Esau, cannot 
 denote both covenants ; and how therefore could 
 her sons indicate, in the priority and posteriority 
 of their respective births, not younger and older 
 children of one covenant, but the children of two 
 different covenants, one old and the other new ? 
 
 2. JSfot National. — The illustrious John Locke 
 says, " He that will, with moderate attention and 
 indifferency of mind, read this ninth chapter, will 
 see that what is said of Grod's exercising of an 
 absolute power, according to the good pleasure 
 of His will, relates only to nations or bodies 
 politic of men incorporated in civil societies, 
 which feel the effects of it only in the prosperity 
 or calamity they meet with in this world, but 
 extends not to their eternal state in another 
 world, considered as particular persons, wherein 
 they stand each man by himself, and shall so 
 answer separately at the day of judgment." 
 {Works, vol. iii., p. 308, ed. 1740.) The same 
 idea is substantially maintained by John Taylor, 
 of Norwich (Paraphrase and Notes, in loc), 
 Richard Watson (Theol. Instit., vol. iii., p. 34 ff., ed. 
 1829), and others. It is however untenable, for — 
 
174 APPENPIX. 
 
 (1) The apostle, when lie says in verse 6, " For 
 they are not all Israel which are of Israel,' 
 seems, in the expression " not all," to be refer- 
 ring distributively to his countrymen, individually 
 considered. So in the parallel expression next 
 verse. 
 
 (2) In the quotation from Exodus xxxiii. 19, 
 contained in verse 15, there is, as is evident 
 from the context of the original passage, a 
 reference not to nations, but to individuals in 
 the one nation of the Israelites, as the objects 
 of Grod's forgiving mercy : "I shall have mercy 
 on whomsoever [i.e. on whatsoever individual 
 person] I will have mercy," etc. 
 
 (3) When it is said, in verse 16, " So then it 
 is not of him that desireth, nor of him that 
 runneth," the " desiring " and the " running " 
 ones are certainly more naturally conceived of 
 as being individual men, than as being collec- 
 tive peoples. 
 
 (4) In verse 17 the individual Pharaoh is 
 adduced as affording an appropriately illustrative 
 example of the treatment which [not Egyptian- 
 like nations, but] Pharaoh-like individuals will 
 receive at the hand of an unbelief-avenging 
 God. 
 
 (5) In verse 18, the repeated expression, 
 "whomsoever He will" most naturally leads us 
 to think of individuals, individually considered. 
 
 (6) In the same verse 18, the expression, 
 
APPENDIX. 175 
 
 " He bardeneth," i.e. " He hardenetli the heart," 
 leads us to think not of the heart of a nation^ 
 but of the hearts of individual men, individually 
 considered. 
 
 (7) The expression in verse 18, " For who 
 hath resisted His will?" when understood .to 
 be spoken by a captious Jew, must mean, not 
 " what nation on the face of the earth," but 
 *' who of us Jews [i.e. what hardened individual 
 among us] hath resisted his will ? " 
 
 (8) The parable in verse 21, though explicable 
 on a national principle, if considered apart from 
 the context, most naturally brings into view 
 Grod's authority over such individual men as are 
 referred to in the preceding and succeeding 
 contextual passages. 
 
 (9) The expression, " vessels of wrath," in 
 verse 22, seems, seeing it is plural, most natu- 
 rally to denote, not wrath-deserving nations, but 
 wrath-deserving men ; and if they are " fitted for 
 destruction " in the sense of being " fashioned 
 unto dishonour " and " hardened in heart " (and 
 the connexion seems to demand such an inter- 
 pretation), then assuredly it must be individual 
 hearts that are referred to. 
 
 (10) The " vessels of mercy, prepared afore 
 unto glory," spoken of in verse 23, are said by 
 the apostle, in verse 24, to be " not of the Jews 
 only, but also of the Gentiles," i.e. " not from 
 among the nation of the Jews only, but also 
 
176 APPENDIX. 
 
 from among Gentiles," and therefore they must 
 be individuals prepared for heavenly glory, and 
 not nations fitted for exaltation to earthly 
 privileges. 
 
 (11) In verse 27, the "vessels of mercy" 
 *' from among Jews " are compared to " a rem- 
 nant," and are therefore not nations or a 
 nation. 
 
 (12) When the apostle says, in verse 30, 
 " That Gentiles, which followed not after right- 
 eousness, have attained to righteousness," he 
 certainly describes the experience only of indi- 
 vidual Gentiles here and there in heathendom; 
 for it has not yet become historically true that 
 whole Gentile nations have attained to saving 
 righteousness. 
 
 (13) When the apostle describes, verse 30, the 
 righteousness attained by the " Gentiles " to 
 whom he referred, as being " the righteousness 
 which is [available] by faith," he certainly does 
 not refer to such a thing as national faith. He 
 must mean the faith of individuals individually 
 considered. 
 
 (14) When he speaks, in verse 31, of " Israel," 
 he must certainly mean tlie Israelites^ individually 
 considered; for he speaks of them as "following 
 after the law of righteousness," and yet not 
 attaining to it because they sought it not by faith. 
 He cannot be referring to national faith. 
 
 (15) When he winds up the chapter by saying. 
 
APPENDIX. 177 
 
 " wliosoever believeth od Him shall not be 
 ashamed," it is beyond all possibility of dispute 
 that he refers to individual men. 
 
 (16) And as verses 30-33 evidently contain the 
 key of the entire chapter, it must be the case, 
 seeing they refer not to nations, nationally con- 
 sidered, but to individuals, individually con- 
 sidered, that the entire chapter is to be explained 
 on a principle precisely the reverse of that 
 enunciated by John Locke, and adopted by too 
 many of his exegetical followers. 
 
 3. But Historical. — The apostle commences the 
 chapter with a bit of his own history, his auto- 
 biography — for autobiographic history he had. 
 When he speaks of one who loved his people, and 
 so loved them that he was willing to make almost 
 unparalleled sacrifices in their behalf, — it is to him- 
 self, a historic man, that he refers. His life was 
 history. When he proceeds to depict the pecu- 
 liar prerogatives of his people, he simply writes 
 more history. When he goes back to Abraham, 
 Isaac, Jacob, and David, he touches on the lives 
 of men and women who actually lived in the East 
 and helped to make important history. He traces 
 a historic line from the patriarch-fathers, down 
 through the ages, to Christ. 
 
 When Rebecca received her oracle, informing 
 her in reference to her twins, the information is 
 
 N 
 
178 APPENDIX. 
 
 regarded by the apostle as matter of historic 
 fact. 
 
 Nations, it is true, were referred to under the 
 the words Jacob and Esau; but the nations were 
 real peoples, who had a real history, into which 
 they fitted, and who for generations were con- 
 spicuous for the part they acted on their peculiar 
 ethnological stage in time. 
 
 Moses is introduced, speaking on the one hand 
 with God, and on the other with men, historically. 
 Pharaoh too is introduced on the scene. Egypto- 
 loofists know his name and his character. He 
 is assuredly a historical personage. And thus, 
 from the commencement of the chapter to its 
 close, the apostle deals with public facts; i.e. with 
 history. His writing in this ninth chapter of 
 his Epistle to the Eomans is to be interpreted 
 historically. 
 
 II. — The Apostle's Anathema. (Ver. 3.) 
 Quite a thicket of literature has sprung up 
 around the apostle's statement of his willinghood 
 to be an anathema. See Jo. Jacobus Hottin- 
 gerus : Diatriba Theologica de anathemate Pau- 
 lino. 1710. — Christophorus Hancke : Anathema 
 Pauli Votivum in Ejpist. ad Rom. 1729. — J. T. 
 Lindner: Anathema Pauli Votivum. 1729. — Jo. 
 Christoph. Trautermann : Illustratio loci vexa- 
 tissimi Bom. ix. 3, in quo Paullus se loro fratribus 
 
APPENDIX. 179 
 
 suis devovlt. 1748. — Bartholomew Keeling : St. 
 FauVs wish to he Accursed from Christ, for the 
 sake of his Brethren, Illustrated and Vindicated 
 from Misconstructions. In three discourses; to 
 which is added an appendix containing a collection 
 of the most material observations upon the text hy 
 ancient and modern turiters. 1776. The same 
 author published a kindred work, entitled, Moses's 
 Petition to be Blotted Out of the Booh of Godj 
 Explained and Vindicated from Misconstruction ; 
 and the Excellence of his Character displayed. In 
 three discourses. 1767. — I add J. F. Winzer : 
 Explanatur locus Pauli ad Bomanos Epistoloi, 
 cap. ix. 1-6. 1832. — From among numerous 
 pulpit discourses I select as of transcendent 
 ability and wisdom, Dr. John Lightfoot's Sermon 
 on Romans ix., St. Paul's Wish to be Accursed. 
 (Pitman's edition, vol. vii., pp. 312-333.) 
 
 A considerable group of expositors have 
 regarded the first moiety of this third verse as 
 parenthetical. They thus connect directly the 
 words of the second moiety {for my brethren, my 
 kinsmen according to flesh) with the affirmation, 
 that I have great grief in reference to them, and 
 continual sorrow in my heart. The parenthetical 
 statement is translated thus : {for I myself used 
 to wish to be accursed from the Messiah). The 
 apostle is supposed to be referring to his own 
 infatuation, during the time of his antagonism 
 to Christ and Christianity, for the purpose of 
 
180 APPENDIX. 
 
 obliquely depicting, from the standpoint of his 
 own experience, the lamentable spiritual condition 
 of his countrymen, and of thus accounting for 
 the overwhelming sorrow under which, in virtue 
 of the genuine sympathy of his heart, he was 
 suffering. This interpretation has substantially 
 been given to the passage by Glas, Bowyer, 
 Wakefield, Toplady, Belsham, Rodolphus Dickin- 
 son, Walford, Oraik. All of these interpreters 
 throw the first moiety of the verse into a paren- 
 thesis, and obliterate the full-point at the con- 
 clusion of the second verse. Wakefield's render- 
 ing of the parenthesis is {for I also was once an 
 alien from Christ). Belsham' s is (for I myself 
 once gloried in being an alien from Christ). Tre- 
 gelles seems to have taken the same view, for he 
 incloses the first moiety of the verse in a paren- 
 thesis. 
 
 Others, without the mechanical parenthetical 
 expedient, give substantially the same interpreta- 
 tion. They regard the words of the first moiety 
 of the verse as descriptive of the apostle's men- 
 tal condition while he was yet an opponent of 
 Christianity. This is Heumann's interpretation 
 in his monograph, and Trautmann's in his mono- 
 graph, and also Dr. Chalmers's. It would seem 
 to have been Luther's also, and Tyndale's, and 
 Coverdale's. The author of the Itala had taken 
 the same view, so far at least. He rendered 
 the word, not potentially, but historically, / 
 
APPENDIX. 18.1 
 
 was tvishing,^ viz. at a former period, not now ; 
 I was, at a former period, in the habit of wish- 
 ing. This translation was continued in the Vul- 
 gate, and was accepted and commented on by 
 Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius. Ambrosiaster 
 says, " I IV as wishing, not I do wish." ^ Pelagius 
 sajs, " I was wishing — formerly when I was a 
 persecutor of Christ." ^ Primasius says, " I 
 was wishing formerly, not I could now wish.''^ * 
 Wycliffe followed the Vulgate. His translation 
 of the clause is, " Forsothe I my silf desyride for 
 to be cursid fro Crist." The Kheims version 
 corresponds, "For I wished myself to be ana- 
 thema from Christ." 
 
 It cannot be objected to this interpretation 
 that it attributes to the verb an unnatural or 
 unidiomatic import ; for the imperfect tense in 
 G-reek, as in Latin, naturally denotes repeated, 
 continued, persistent, or habitual action in past 
 time. And sometimes the reference to the par- 
 ticular portion of past time in which such action 
 took place is only indirectly indicated ; as when 
 it is said, in Mark xv. 6, " Now at that feast he 
 released to them one prisoner, whomsoever they 
 desired." The meaning is, " Now at that feast 
 he was wont to release to them one prisoner." 
 (Comp. Matt, xxvii. 15.) 
 
 1 " Optabam." 2 " Qptabam, non opto." 
 
 2 " Optabam aliquando cum persequerer Christum." . 
 * " Optabam aliquando, non nunc optarem." 
 
182 APPENDIX. 
 
 N"evertlieless, even in tlie case of such a pas- 
 sage as Mark xv. 6 there is reference, though 
 indirect, to the particular portion of past time 
 during which the repeated action of the Roman 
 procurator transpired. It was the portion which 
 embraced those recurrent seasons of the Passover 
 feast which had occurred during Pilate's pro- 
 curatorship. It was at the annual festival time 
 that he paid the Jewish people the compliment 
 specified. But as regards Romans ix. 3, there is 
 no reference, beyond the verb itself, to the past 
 as past ; and of course there is not in the verb 
 itself any particularisation of any distinct portion 
 of past time. There is nothing corresponding to 
 Pelagius's interpretation, " when I was a per- 
 secutor of Christ," or even to the indefinite 
 " once " of Wakefield and Belsham. The apostle 
 does not speak of his " conversation " or conduct 
 in time past in the Jews' religion, when " beyond 
 measure he persistently persecuted the Church 
 of God " (G-al. i. 13) ; and hence it is improbable 
 that his statement here is, like his statement in 
 Galatians i. 13, historical. 
 
 Further. The apostle's expression is not sim- 
 ply " accursed from Christ." It is far stronger 
 — " accursed from the Chist,'" accursed from the 
 Messiah. 
 
 We may rest assured that as Saul of Tarsus 
 was both an eminently earnest and an eminently 
 ecclesiastical man, he never did wish to be not 
 
APPENDIX. 183 
 
 only "accursed," but so accursed as never to 
 have part or lot in the bliss of the Messiah's 
 reign. We can easily conceive of him, in the 
 days of his impenitence, pouring contempt and 
 hatred upon Jesus of Nazareth as a mere preten- 
 der to Messiahship, and wishing himself to be for 
 ever far away from such a pretender. But we 
 cannot conceive of him feeling — under any pres- 
 sure, however strong, on his temper or his pre- 
 judices — the same contempt and hatred for the 
 ideal Deliverer of his race, to whose advent he 
 was, in common with all the pious of his people, 
 looking longingly and eagerly forward. 
 
 The potential rendering is in perfect accord- 
 ance with usage, in both classical and biblical 
 Greek. 
 
 The apostle did not actually desire to be an 
 anathema. He knew that such a desire would 
 never be divinely fulfilled, and hence he did not 
 cherish it. A wise man keeps his desires under 
 control. He has, indirectly, command over them. 
 A pious man takes Grod's desires and purposes 
 into account, and does not entertain any desire 
 which he knows to be at variance with the Divine 
 will, or with the Divine arrangements that are 
 dependent on the Divine will. Hence it is that 
 the apostle does not say, I desire ; he only says, 
 I could desire. He would have been willing and 
 wishful to be anathema for his countrymen, pro- 
 vided such an awful self-sacrifice had been in 
 
184 APPENDIX. 
 
 harmony with the will and wish of God, and thus 
 consistent with the best interests of God's 
 immense moral empire. So far as the apostle 
 himself was concerned, he was ready for the 
 self-sacrifice, provided it should be legitimate, 
 on the one hand, and could be efficacious, on the 
 other. 
 
 It would not, however, have been of avail, 
 and hence the wish was never fully formed. The 
 potential did not pass into the actual. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that the potential translation 
 of the verb used by the apostle, viz. I could wish, 
 though doubtless the only correct rendering that 
 is possible in the circumstances, is nevertheless 
 an imperfect reflection of the original "imperfect" 
 tense. The idioms of the English and Greek 
 languages are by no means identical. The poten- 
 tial could is not actually part and parcel of the 
 Greek imperfect tense, although its use in 
 English is, on the present occasion, the best ex- 
 pedient to which we can have recourse, to repro- 
 duce substantially the nicety of the original. The 
 Greek imperfect tense is really a tense, or time, 
 not a potency. It is a past tense, not present or 
 future. But it is a past tense incomplete. It 
 is to be carefully differentiated from a strictly 
 " perfect " time or tense — a tense completed and 
 complete. Hence the real idea of the word is, I 
 tvas desiring. The desire rose up in the apostle's 
 heart, and to a certain extent he allowed and 
 
APPENDIX. 185 
 
 sanctioned it. Yet only to a certain extent, for 
 a higher desire struck in and controlled it — the 
 desire to be in perfect accord with Grod's desire 
 and will. Hence his desire to be anathema for 
 his countrymen never was completed and com- 
 plete. It hung suspended. It remained "im- 
 perfect." It was conditional, and the condition 
 that would have brought it to maturity was never 
 forthcoming. Thus the embryo-desire was in 
 reality but a potency, so that the translation 
 I could desire is vindicated. 
 
 It may now still further be noticed that the 
 word rendered I could "ivish,'^ or I could " desire," 
 properly means I could ^^ pray " {^v^o/xriv). Kee- 
 ling takes note of the fact,^ and Schrader trans- 
 lates the verb, I have prayed/' The word is ex- 
 pressly rendered pray in 2 Corinthians xiii. 7 and 
 James v. 16 ; and it really has the same meaning 
 in 2 Corinthians xiii. 9 : " This also loe wish, even 
 your perfection," — " This also ive pray for." 
 The expression doubtless doubles back on the 
 seventh verse, where the true reading is not, I 
 pray, but, " ive pray to God." The word occurs 
 again in 3 John 2, where King James's translators 
 have rendered it, I wish; but it really means I 
 pray. It has the same meaning also in Acts 
 xxvii. 29, where King James's translators, follow- 
 ing the older English versions, have far too 
 
 ^ St. Paul's Wish to be Accursed from Christ, p. 25. 
 " " Icli habe gebetet." (Der Ajpostel Paulus, iv. 354.) 
 
186 APPENDIX. 
 
 feebly translated thus : " Then fearing lest we 
 should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four 
 anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day." 
 They did more than simply ivish; they lifted up 
 their desires to their gods, and prayed for the 
 break of day. So the Syriac-Peshito correctly 
 translates the word. The word occurs in only 
 one other passage of the New Testament (Acts 
 xxvi. 29), where St. Paul says to Agrippa, " I 
 would to God that not only thou," etc. The ex- 
 pression in the original is instinct with the most 
 gentlemanly courtesy, — I could' pray to God. It 
 is as if he had said. If I might venture to use the 
 liberty of openly expressing the fidness of my feel- 
 ings, I ivoidd audibly lift up my prayer to God that 
 not only thou, etc. The apostle's meaning in 
 Romans ix. 3 is admirably expressed in our idio- 
 matic phrase, I coidd wish to God. 
 
 III. — Goodwin's "Pagan's Debt and Dowry." 
 The following is the full title of John Good- 
 win's treatise : The Pagan's Debt, and Dowey. 
 Or, A Brief Discussion of these Questions, Whether, 
 Ho IV far, and in luhat Sence, such persons of Man- 
 Tcinde amongst whom the Letter of the Gospel never 
 came, are notwithstanding bound to Believe on 
 Jesus Christ ? (with some other particulars re- 
 lating hereunto.) Returned by way of Answer 
 
APPENDIX. 187 
 
 to a Discourse in writing, lately sent without 
 Name, (together with a Letter, subscribed only 
 T.S.,) unto Mr. John Goodwin, the author as yet 
 being unknown to him, yet (as appears by the 
 said discourse) a person of worth, and learning, 
 and (as he supposeth) a minister of the Grospel. 
 By the said John Goodtuw, minister' of the Gospel, 
 1651. 
 
 A far more wonderful book, bearing on the 
 same subject, is the work of Raimond de Sebonde, 
 entitled Theologia Naturalis, sive Liber Greatura- 
 rum, specialiter de Homine et de natura ejus in 
 quantum homo, et de his quce sunt ei necessaria ad 
 cognoscendum se ipsttm et deum et omne dehitum 
 ad quod homo tenetur et obligatur tain deo quam 
 proximo. 2nd ed., 1496. A masterpiece, but 
 utterly misunderstood by Professor Dugald 
 Stewart. See Collected Works, vol. i. (1854). 
 
 IV.— Esau. (Ver. 13.) 
 
 I give a few references to the literature on the 
 subject: (1) Jo. Aug. Stempel : Exercitatio Theo- 
 logica de Salute Esavi. 1665. — (2) Hen. Opitius : 
 JJisputatio Theologica de Jacoho Dilecto et Esavo 
 Rejecto, cum nondum nati essent, nee quicquam 
 honi aut mali egissent. 1698. — (3) Jo. Gottlieb 
 Hoffmann : De odio Dei adversus Esavum, ad loca 
 Bom. ix. 13, Gen. xxv. 23, a7id Mai. i. 3, 4 : a 
 Jo. Marclcii aliorumque corruptelis vindicanda. 
 
188 APPENDIX. 
 
 1724. — Calvin: Thirteene Sermons of Maister 
 John Galvine, entreating of the Free Election of 
 God in Jacob, and of reprobation in Esau. A 
 treatise wherein every Christian may see the ex- 
 cellent henefites of God toivardes His children, and 
 His marvellous judgments towards the reprobate, 
 fir ste published in the French toung, and noio trans- 
 lated into Englishe by John Fielde, for the com- 
 fort of all Christians. 1579. This work is quite 
 distinct from the illustrious author's Latin and 
 French Commentaries. 
 
 Y. — Phaeaoh. The Woed. 
 
 Josephus tells us that the word Pharaoh, in 
 Egyptian, means hing (6 ^apaoiv kut AiyuirTiovs 
 ^aa-iXea crrnxalvei. Antiq. viii. 7, 2). The etymo- 
 logical import of the term has been much debated 
 among Egyptologists. Wilkinson identifies the 
 word with Phra, " the sun," {Ancient Egyptians i. 
 310,) supposing that in the adulatory usage of the 
 Egyptians the term was constrained to throw its 
 own lofty significance on the reigning head of the 
 empire. But with increasing research, new light 
 has been thrown upon both the form and the 
 primary import of the designation. In the Essay 
 at the close of the Speaher^s Commentary on 
 Exodus we read as follows : " The vocalisation 
 and diacritic points show that the Hebrews read 
 Par-aoh, not Pa-raoh. This is important, since 
 
APPENDIX. 189 
 
 the name, whatever it might signify, was well 
 known as the proper official designation of the 
 kings of Egypt, and its correct pronunciation 
 must have been familiar to the translators of the 
 Pentateuch, and probably also to the punctuators 
 of the Bible. The cuneiform inscriptions have 
 the same division, Pir-u, not Pi-ruJ' (P. 477.) 
 
 Strangely enough, the original meaning of the 
 designation is supposed to be " the Sublime 
 Forte ^^ I that is, the Sigh Gate, or more literally 
 the Great House, or still more literally, the Double 
 House. Note the dual inclosure in the hierogly- 
 phic representations. 
 
 YI. — The Pharaoh of Exodus. (Ver. 17.) 
 It has been very generally supposed that the 
 second Ramses (Raamses) was the particular 
 Pharaoh referred to. But Sayce says : " The 
 Pharaoh under whom the Exodus actually took 
 place could not have been Ramses II. himself, but 
 his son and successor, Menepta II., who ascended 
 the throne about B.C. 1325. His reign lasted but 
 a short time, and it was disturbed, not only by 
 the flight of the children of Israel, but also by 
 a great invasion of Northern Egypt by the Liby- 
 ans, which was with difficulty repulsed." (Fresh 
 Light from the Ancient Monuments, p. 63.) 
 
] 90 APPENDIX. 
 
 VII. — Is Gtod's 'Wii:<l ever really Resisted ? 
 (Ver. 19.) 
 
 - Oa this subject take note of the views of 
 the Greek Fathers. Hagenbach says: "All the 
 Greek Fathers, the apologists Justin, Tatian, 
 Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the Latin Father 
 Minucius Felix, as well as the theologians of the 
 Alexandrian school, Clement and Origen, re- 
 present the avre^ovcriou (or Self- determining ivill) 
 of the human soul, with all the early warmth 
 and freshness of Hellenistic idealism, and know 
 nothing of vice apart from voluntary determina- 
 tion." {History of Doctrines ^ vol. i., § 57.) 
 
 Calvin thought that the term self- determining 
 will is " too arrogant " to be a legitimate repre- 
 sentation of man's ethical constitution. (In- 
 stitutes, lib. ii. 2, 4.) • 
 
 The Greek Fathers thought of God as looking 
 out for the things which are casting their shadows 
 before, and as thus foreknowing all things, but 
 yet not doing all things, and not even fixing all. 
 
 Hence the author of the Questions and Ansivers 
 in Justin Martyr's Works (p. 425, ed. 1686) says, 
 " Foreknowledge is not the cause of that which 
 is about to be, but that which is about to be is 
 the cause of foreknowleds^e." 
 
 John Damascene says, "It is necessary to 
 know that, though God foreknows all things, He 
 does not predestinate all." {De Orthodoxa Fide, 
 lib. ii., cap. xxx.) 
 
APrENDlX. 191 
 
 To come to comparatively modern times, it is 
 worth while taking into account what is testified 
 concerning the illustrious Archbishop Ussher by 
 Bishop Brian Walton, the editor of the London 
 Polyglot Bible. " This I can testify, that having 
 0/^67?. discourse with the late most reverend father 
 in God, James, Lord Primate of Armagh, con- 
 cerning divers controversies in divinity ; and, in 
 particular, the last time that he was in London, 
 which was 7iot long before his death, concerning 
 the controversies of grace and freewill, election 
 and reprobation, and the dependents thereon : 
 he did declare his utter dislike of the doctrine 
 of absolute reprobation, and that he held the 
 universality of Christ's death ; and that, not 
 only in respect of sufficiency, but also in regard 
 of efficacy, so that all men thereby were savable ; 
 and that the reason why all were not thereby 
 saved, was, because they did not accept of sal- 
 vation offered. And that the grace of conversion 
 was not irresistible, but that men might, and 
 often did, resist and reject the same. And that in 
 these points he did not approve the doctrine of 
 Geneva, but was wholly of Bishop Overall's 
 opinion. All which I took the more notice of, 
 because he was generally conceived to be of 
 another judgment." (Henry John Todd : Me- 
 moirs of the Life and Writings of the Bight Bev. 
 Brian Walton, D.D., voL i., p. 205.) 
 
192 APPENDIX. 
 
 VIII. — Practical Excursus on the Potter and 
 HIS Clay. (Ver. 21.) 
 
 " Hath not the potter power over the day, of 
 the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and 
 another to dishonour ? " 
 
 Hath he not ? Yes, he has. That is the 
 answer which the apostle expects. It is the 
 answer which he himself, looking at the subject 
 from his own peculiar standpoint, was fully pre- 
 pared to give. He was right. The potter has 
 power over his clay, when it is really his own, to 
 make of the same lump one vessel to honour and 
 another to dishonour. And God, the almighty 
 Potter, has unchallengeable power over His clay, 
 to make of the same human lump, subjected in all 
 its parts to the same process of careful prepara- 
 tory kneading, one vessel to honour, and another 
 to iofnominious uses or dishonour. 
 
 Let it be noticed, in the first place, that when 
 the apostle speaks of the potter's power, he does 
 not refer to his physical force. It is not ability 
 to do of which he speaks. He does not mean 
 that the almighty Potter is, in virtue of His 
 almightiness, able to make, out of the same 
 human lump, one vessel to honour and another 
 to dishonour. He has no reference at all to any 
 such ability. Grod indeed is possessed of the 
 irresistible and almighty force that is essential to 
 
THE POTTER AND HIS CLA.Y. 193 
 
 creating ; but it is not to tbis tbat the apostle 
 refers. The word translated power (e'^ova-la) is 
 quite a different word from that which means 
 power (Suuaiui.1?) in the sense of force or ahiJity to 
 do. Calvin's word in his French commentary is 
 puissance. But the apostle's word brings out the 
 idea of authority^ prerogative, right. The apostle 
 means that Grod possesses the right to fashion, 
 out of the same human lump, one vessel to honour, 
 and another to dishonour. In virtue of His high 
 position as the Monarch of the universe, God has 
 — in the estimation of the apostle — authority thus 
 to act. He has a rig^ht to do with His own as 
 He pleases. He is self-authorised. It is within 
 the range of His rights to make, if He chooses, a 
 distinction in human destinies. If the apostle's 
 view may be accepted, Grod is not under obliga- 
 tion to confer equal honour, or equal dishonour, 
 upon all the children of men, without distinction 
 or exception. He will be doing no wrong al- 
 though He make a difference, and fashion on His 
 wheel one human being with high aptitudes and 
 aims, and another with lowlier qualifications 
 fitting for some humbler sphere. 
 
 But now we note, in the second place, that we 
 are not to look upon Grod's prerogative or right 
 to fashion either to honour or to dishonour as 
 utterly unconditional. True indeed the preroga- 
 tive of the literal potter over his literal clay 
 may, so far as his relations to his fellow men are 
 
 
 
194 ArPENDIX. 
 
 concerned, be absolute. He may do with it what 
 he pleases, even although the thing which he 
 pleases may be ridiculous, absurd, injurious to 
 himself, and ultimately ruinous to the success of 
 his affairs. He may, if he chooses, by adding 
 capriciously foreign admixtures and inappropriate 
 ingredients, spoil his clay for all but ignoble 
 vessels ; or he may stupidly attempt to make 
 fine vessels out of coarse clay. He may mis- 
 shape his vessels, if he chooses, and as he 
 chooses. He may mar them all while they are 
 in his hands, if he pleases ; or, if he prefer it, 
 he may wait till the whole batch are fashioned, 
 and dried, and hardened in the kiln, and then 
 he may take an iron rod, if he pleases, and dash 
 them into shivers. If the clay be his own, and 
 the wheel be his own, and the time be his own, 
 and the rod be his own, he may act as absurdly 
 as he pleases with his vessels. He has an abso- 
 lute prerogative over his clay, — a right to do 
 with it as he pleases, provided he do no injury, 
 by his freaks, to men round about him. 
 
 But then in the tliwd place, this absolute right 
 of the human potter is not fitted to shield him 
 from the free, unsparing criticism of his fellow 
 men. They may not indeed interfere between 
 him and his clay, and say, " No ; this ivon't be 
 permitted. Yoit are ill-tising your day. We 
 wonH allow it." They may not feel at liberty, or 
 be at liberty, to act thus. But certainly they 
 
THE POTTER AND HIS CLAY. 195 
 
 would be at perfect liberty to say of the man, 
 what Jonathan Edwards said of the devil, " that 
 he is one of the greatest fools and blockheads 
 in the world." ("Miscellaneous Observations." 
 Works, edit. 1839, vol. ii., p. 612.) 
 
 It should be noted in the fourth place, that 
 while, in some important respects, men in their 
 relation to Grod are like the clay on the potter's 
 wheel, they are not like clay in all respects ; and 
 in particular, they are unlike it in this very 
 special respect, that theij are possessed of rights. 
 All men indeed are little, feeble, and dependent. 
 But still theij have rights ; and he who denies 
 that they have is a slanderer, witting or un- 
 witting, at once of men's real nature and of 
 Grod's real character. Man has a right, for 
 instance, to be treated with justice. He is 
 wronged if he be treated unjustly. He has a 
 right to be furnished with ability to do his duty, 
 if he is to be held responsible for not doing it. 
 He would be wronged if this ability were with- 
 held from him. Man has a right to have the 
 gate of heaven opened wide before him, or at 
 least held ajar for him, if he is to be blamed for 
 not entering in. Both Grod and men have rights 
 because they are moral beings, possessed at once 
 of intelliofence and of freedom of will. Man 
 must have some power of formative self-control 
 " unto honour," if he is to be blamed for being 
 fashioned into a vessel " unto dishonour." 
 
196 APPENDIX. 
 
 All this being the case, it is obvious that God's 
 prerogative over the human clay is not utterly 
 unconditional. His right to do with it as He 
 pleases is, by His own benevolent arrangement, 
 modified and limited by the rights which He bas 
 conferred on His human creatures. He has not 
 reserved to Himself the right to do wrong. The 
 idea of such a reservation is infinitely absurd and 
 blasphemous. 
 
 It cannot be the case then, that Grod has re- 
 served to Himself the right to deal maliciously, 
 or cruelly, or tyrannically, with His poor feeble 
 human creatures. If human creatures are to be 
 held by Him as responsible for the shape which 
 their character assumes, then something or other 
 is due to them as the basis of their accountability. 
 That is, they are, as contradistinguished from 
 mere clay, in possession of rights ; and thus, by 
 the very existence of their rights, God's own 
 rights are not utterly unconditioned. He has 
 Himself conditioned them by conferring rights on 
 His human creatures. 
 
 All this being the case, we now note, in the 
 fifth place, that it would be a mistake to quote 
 this statement of the apostle in support of the 
 doctrine of unconditional reprobation. We can- 
 not indeed entirely object to the idea of repro- 
 bation. There are beings that need to be repro- 
 bated. There are human beings who deserve 
 universal reprobation, and who therefore deserve 
 
THE POTTEE AMD HIS CLAY. 197 
 
 Divine reprobation. Neither can we object to the 
 idea of future retribution, and of such future 
 retribution as cannot be thought of but with the 
 most tremulous solemnity and awe. But we ask 
 liberty to object to the idea of absolutely uncon- 
 ditional reprobation, or such reprobation as is 
 absolutely unprovoked and undeserved. 
 
 It is right indeed to magnify the sovereignty of 
 Grod. But it should not be forgotten that there 
 is more in the circle of divinity than sovereignty. 
 There is justice too ; there is righteousness ; there 
 is holiness ; there is graciousness, goodness, 
 wisdom, mercy, love. It would be a strange in- 
 version of theology to hold in abeyance these, 
 the moral contents of the character of God, for 
 the purpose of making infinite room for the one 
 relationship of sovereignty. Such inversion of 
 theology would be akin, in philosophic mons- 
 trosity, to the wild political aphorism of a former 
 age, that monarchs reigned by Divine right, and 
 could do no ivrong. 
 
 But what then, in the sixth place, was the 
 apostle's aim in proposing his query, " Hath not 
 the potter poiver over the clay, to make, out of the 
 same lump, one vessel to honour and another to 
 dishonour?'' Why should he be solicitous to 
 show that Grod has the right to turn some of the 
 human race into a condition of dishonour, even as 
 He has the right to turn others on His wheel 
 into a state of glory, honour, and bUss ? The 
 
198 APPENDIX. 
 
 reason is tins : he is discussing in the ninth, 
 tenth, and eleventh chapters of this epistle the 
 relation of his countrymen to the gospel and to 
 Jesus. Alas ! the great mass of them were un- 
 believing. They rejected the true Messiah, the 
 Prince of life, the only Mediator between God 
 and sinful men, whose name is the only name 
 given under heaven among men, whereby they 
 may be saved. What then ? If they should per- 
 sist in their rejection and rebellion, what was to 
 become of them ? Would they, notwithstanding, 
 be all turned on the Divine wheel into vessels of 
 honour and glory? The Jews themselves con- 
 tended that they should and would. They were, 
 they contended, the darlings of God. They were 
 the chosen, the elected nation, the kingdom of 
 God, the kingdom of heaven. It was the idola- 
 trous Gentiles, and they only, who were to be 
 fashioned into vessels unto dishonour; not the 
 Jews, if they remained true Jews. Not they. God 
 would be unfaithful, they contended, were He 
 thus to deal with them. They were the children 
 of Abraham, and therefore they were the children 
 and the heirs of God. It was glory only to which 
 they were destined. 
 
 Thus they reasoned ; thus they dreamed. But 
 " No," says the apostle. " You are wrong, my 
 countrymen. It is with the intensest sorrow of 
 spirit that I say it. You are entirely wrong. It 
 is the penitent only and the believing, whether 
 
THE POTTER AND HIS CLAY. 199 
 
 Jews or Grentiles, who shall be saved. And Grod, 
 the almighty Potter, who has us all on His wheel, 
 has power and prerogative and right, out of the 
 same lump both of Jews and Gentiles, to turn one 
 man, even though he be a Grentile, provided he be 
 penitent and believing, ioto a vessel to glory, and 
 to turn another, even though he be a Jew, pro- 
 vided he be unbelieving and impenitent, into a 
 vessel to dishonour." 
 
 The apostle had evidently in his eye the repre- 
 sentation that occurs in the eighteenth chapter of 
 Jeremiah. If a vessel becomes marred in the 
 hands of the potter, then, instead of proceeding 
 with it according to the original desire and design, 
 he may crush the clay together, and fashion it 
 into another kind of vessel altogether, as seems 
 good to him. The Jewish people, for instance, 
 were put upon the almighty Potter's wheel ; and 
 He desired to fashion them, as a people, into a 
 glorious vessel. He began His operation ac- 
 cordingly, and was carefully and most skilfully 
 proceeding with it, doing it all manner of justice, 
 when, lo ! it became marred in His hand, and He 
 had to make it into another vessel, a vessel unto 
 dishonour. Why ? Why did He not rather, after 
 it was marred, fashion it once more into what He 
 originally desired, a noble vessel destined to noble 
 uses, a vessel to honour ? The reason was this : 
 the vessel was marred, not because of any imper- 
 fection in the manipulation of the Potter, for the 
 
200 APPENDIX. 
 
 almighty Potter is not liable to imperfection of 
 manipulation, or to mistakes or blunders. It was 
 spoiled clay that was in the Potter's hands. 
 Some bad and coarse ingredients had been by 
 some enemy flung in, so that only a coarser vessel 
 than what was desired by the Potter could be 
 made of it. Hence He fashioned it into a vessel 
 that was fit to be used only for comparatively 
 ignominious purposes, a vessel to dishonour. He 
 had no alternative. 
 
 Instead of the nation of the Jews — as con- 
 templated by Jeremiah — the Apostle Paul was 
 considering the condition and prospects of the 
 individuals of the nation. The salvation which 
 he proclaimed, was a salvation not for peoples as 
 peoples, but for persons as persons. What then 
 was to be said of the persons of the Jews ? Alas ! 
 the great majority of them were persistently un- 
 believing and perseveringly disobedient. What 
 would the almighty Potter do with them ? Lo ! 
 as He operates on His wheel, vessel after vessel, 
 and vessel after vessel, are marred in His hand. 
 They do not turn out as He desired. Hence it is 
 that, while He joyfully fashions some men into 
 vessels to honour. He feels mournfully constrained 
 to turn others into vessels to dishonour. The 
 Lord is not willing that any should perish. That 
 is. He does not wish, out of this particular lump, 
 to have any vessels fashioned and shaped for a 
 destioy of dishonour. He would have all to be 
 
CHRIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 201 
 
 beautiful, and honourably serviceable ; that is, He 
 would have all the vessels He is fashioning, the 
 whole set of them, to be vessels unto honour. He 
 would have all men everywhere to be saved and 
 to come to the knowledge of the truth. Speak- 
 ing in the person and through the lips of Jesus, 
 He says to the wilfully impenitent, " I would : but 
 ye iDOuld not." And just because they would not, 
 they spoiled the good clay that was in the 
 almighty Potter's hand, so that there was no 
 alternative. The vessels which He had graciously 
 desired to fashion after His own sublime ideal 
 being marred and spoiled by human folly. He 
 must needs — if He would utilize the precious clay 
 at all — put it on His wheel and fashion it bit after 
 bit into vessels to dishonour. It is the great 
 moral alternative, all-glorious to God. 
 
 IX. — A Peactioal Exouesus on Christ a Stdm- 
 bling-Stone and Rook of Collision. (Ver. 33.) 
 
 " It is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a Stum- 
 hlincj- stone and a Rock of collision; and ivJiosoever 
 helieveth on Him shall not he ashamed." 
 
 These are astounding words. Their import 
 overflows with something terrific. They tell us 
 of a stumbling-stone and a rock of collision ! 
 " Behold," says one, " I lay it in Zion." 
 
 "Who is it that thus speaks ? What is it that 
 
202 APPENDIX. 
 
 is the stumbling-stone and rock of collision ? 
 Who are they that have stumbled ? And what 
 is meant when it is sweetly, consolingly, sub- 
 limely added, " Whosoever believeth on Him 
 shall not be ashamed " ? 
 
 We shall endeavour to answer these several 
 questions in their order. 
 
 First then, who is it that says, " Behold, Hay 
 in Sion a Stumblin2:-stone and Rock of colli- 
 sion " ? Is it Paul ? That cannot be ; Paul 
 only quotes from Isaiah ? Is it Isaiah then ? 
 That cannot be. He only saw it from afar, and 
 persons and peoples were stumbling on it in 
 dreadful collision. A greater than Isaiah, a 
 mightier than Paul, is here. Who is it ? 
 
 Isaiah explicitly informs. The apostle's quota- 
 tion from the prophet is a blend of two distinct 
 passages. The one is found in the twenty-eighth 
 chapter of his prophecies, verse 16 : " Therefore 
 thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Z ion for 
 a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a 'precious 
 corner-stone, of sure foundation : he that believeth 
 shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay 
 to the line, and righteousness to the plummst : and 
 the hail shall sweep aivay the refuge of lies, and 
 the luaters shall overfl.ow the hiding place " (the in- 
 sufficient refuge). The other passage is found 
 in the eighth chapter, verses 11, 13 to 16. ^' For 
 the Lord spake thus to me, . . . Sanctify the 
 Lord of hosts Himself (have high ideas of His 
 
CHBIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 203 
 
 purity aud righteousness) ; and let Him he your 
 fear, and let Him be your dread. And He shall 
 be for a sanctuary (for a refuge) ; but for a stone 
 of stumbling and for a rock of collision to both the 
 houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them 
 shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be 
 snared, and be taken.^' 
 
 It is tlie Lord Grod then, Jehovah, who says, 
 " Behold, I lay in Sion a Stumbling-stone and 
 Rock of collision." It is One therefore who has 
 a right to speak great and terrible things. He 
 dwelleth in His own immensity, and liveth in His 
 own eternity. " He doeth according to His will 
 in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants 
 of the earth ; and none can stay His hand, or 
 say to Him, complainingly. What doest Thou?" 
 "Behold," says He, "I lay in Sion a stone of 
 stumbling and a rock of collision." 
 
 What then is this "stone of stumbling and 
 rock of collision"? This was our second ques- 
 tion. And in reply I would say that, whatever it 
 be, it is that which is also "for a foundation stone, 
 a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure 
 foundation stone." It is that which is for a 
 sanctuary, for a refuge. 
 
 What then is this ? Or, rather, who is this ? 
 Yes, who is this ? It is a grand living Person- 
 ality that is referred to. It is Jehovah Himself. 
 It is Jehovah, " strong and mighty " — Jehovah, 
 
204 APPENDIX. 
 
 *' the King of Glory." It is indeed none else than 
 Jehovah- Jesus. "Sanctify and magnify" — says 
 a voice from heaven — " the Lord of hosts Him- 
 self." That is, sanctify and magnify Jehovah- 
 Jesus. Make Him your sanctuary and refuge. 
 Set Him sublimely apart; "let Him be your Fear, 
 and let Him be your Dread " ; let Him be your 
 only Fear and Dread, and " He shall be for a 
 sanctuary," for a refuge ; but also — mark it — 
 " for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of 
 collision to both the houses of Israel." 
 
 The language is highly figurative. But it is 
 exceedingly graphic and instructive. The mind 
 that studies to get behind its figures will be amply 
 repaid for its pains, if it &ucceeds in deciphering 
 the grand but portentous hieroglyphs, and if it 
 can grasp the great realities that are so vividly 
 shadowed forth. 
 
 When Jehovah- Jesus then is represented under 
 the alternative figure of a refuge and a stone of 
 stumbling and rock of collision, the expression 
 obviously implies that men need a refuge. They 
 do indeed. Men everywhere. The men round 
 about Sion of old needed one. The men about 
 Sion in Isaiah's days, and thereafter in Paul's 
 days, needed a refuge. Men in Great Britain 
 need the same. Men in France, Rome, Egypt, 
 China, India, — all need a refuge. 
 
 But why ? It is because men everywhere are 
 pursued. They are pursued by penal evils. 
 
CHRIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 205 
 
 Every individual man is thus pursued. Every 
 family is pursued, every nation, by hosts of penal 
 evils. 
 
 Why is this ? How comes it to pass that in 
 the dominion of Him whose name is Love, and 
 whose tender mercies are over all His works, — 
 how is it that, under the rule of infinite wisdom 
 and infinite goodness, the whole world and 
 every particular nation in it, and every indi- 
 vidual in every nation, all, all are pursued by 
 penal evils ? Why is it that penal evils with- 
 out number are treading on the heels of men 
 everywhere ? 
 
 It is because men everywhere are themselves 
 pursuing after evils of another kind. Men every- 
 where are pursuing after moral evils. Hence it 
 is that penal evil is in return pursuing all men 
 everywhere. All the world over we see men 
 bending their energies in the pursuit of moral 
 evil. They love supremely " the lust of the 
 flesh," it may be, and they are keenly pursuing 
 after it. Or they love supremely " the lust of 
 the eye," and they are keenly pursuing after 
 it. Or, it may be, they love supremely the 
 vain-glory and pride of life, and they are keenly 
 pursuing after it. One man is making life subor- 
 dinate to the ignoble pursuit of sensual indul- 
 gence. Others pursue with inordinate eagerness 
 fame or power, while myriads more pursue after 
 wealth, as the means of gratifying some pre- 
 
206 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 dominant and more subtle passion. But what- 
 ever the peculiar phase of moral evil may be, and 
 whether it be something that is altogether evil in 
 itself, or something that is only evil in its excess, 
 alas ! all the world are more or less infected by 
 it, and attracted to it, and pursuing after it. It 
 seems as if men everywhere are bent on obtaining 
 some sinful gratification or other. 
 
 But the earth, on which men live, belongs to 
 God, and He has therefore a right to rule in it 
 and over it. Having this right, and being " holy, 
 holy, holy," His malediction — as opposed to His 
 benediction — is lying on every form of sinful 
 gratification. It is lying, as befits His universal 
 magistracy, on every form of moral evil, so that 
 it is His infinitely wise, infinitely righteous, and 
 infinitely benevolent will that every one who 
 pursues any form of moral evil shall become 
 himself pursued by penal evil. Penal evil is the 
 dark shadow of moral evil. In one form or 
 another it is the invariable consequent of sin. 
 Hence every nation under the sun is pursued by 
 a host of evils. All the great nations of the 
 earth are, time after time, driven almost to their 
 wit's end to devise schemes by means of which 
 they may contrive to stave off* for a season these 
 evils. 
 
 In vain. But what then is to become of each 
 immortal man ? What is to become of the great 
 nations of Europe? what of the great world as a 
 
CHRIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 207 
 
 whole, eager in the pursuit of sweet indulgences 
 and other moral evils ? 
 
 Let us hear the voice of God. " Behold," 
 says He, " I lay in Sion a stone, a tried stone, 
 and it shall be for a refuge." That is, Jehovah- 
 Jesus is for a refuge. Every nation's refuge is 
 in Him, and is He. Our world's refuge is in 
 Him, and is He. There is refuge for all in Him, 
 but in Him only. Jehovah-Jesus, when inter- 
 preted aright and truly understood, is found to 
 be " the Desire " of the whole world. When 
 we go to the heart of the human heart, then 
 that which all nations desire, and which every 
 individual in the whole world longingly, but too 
 often, alas ! indefinitely, yearns after, is in Jesus. 
 Refuge is in Jesus, in Jesus alone. There is 
 " no other name under heaven given among 
 men," whereby sinners can be saved from their 
 penal evils, and whereby the world can be saved 
 from its penal and moral evils, " but the name 
 of Jesus." He is " the Saviour of the world." 
 Never until the world turn to Him and take 
 refuge on Him, or in Him, will it be a happy 
 and prosperous world. Never until nations turn 
 to Him, and arrange all their affairs in conscious 
 relationship to His desires, will they be steadily 
 happy and prosperous. And as the world is 
 but a world-ful of individuals, as nations are but 
 clusters and masses of men, never will individual 
 men be, to their hearts' contentment, happy and 
 
208 APPENDIX. 
 
 prosperous iu time and for eternifc}'', until they 
 turn to Jehovali-Jesus and flee to Him, and take 
 refuge in Him. He is the only refuge and safe 
 asylum of sinful humanity. 
 
 But why then is He called, in the words before 
 us, " a stumbling-stone and a rock of collision"? 
 Is a stumbling-stone a refuge ? Is a rock of 
 collision an asylum and sanctuary? Undoubtedly 
 it is. It is just according as Jehovah-Jesus is 
 made use of by us, that He will be found to be 
 either, on the one hand, a refuge and asylum and 
 sanctuary, or, on the other, a stone of stumbling 
 and rock of collision. That which is the greatest 
 boon, wheu rightly used, may become our utter 
 ruin when abused. Take fire, for instance, one 
 of the greatest terrestrial blessings. If a man 
 will insist on leaping into a blazing furnace, the 
 fire will be to him instant destruction. Take 
 water, another of our chief terrestrial blessings. 
 If a man will plunge into a seething flood, he 
 will find instantaneously a watery grave. Look 
 at steam engines ; they have wonderfully re- 
 volutionised for the better all commerce, and 
 multiplied almost indefinitely the world's means 
 of obtaining the comforts of life : but if a man 
 will rush into the machinery when it is in full 
 operation, all the world's comforts will in one 
 moment cease to be comforts available to him. 
 
 The same principle holds good in the relation 
 of Jehovah- Jesus to men. If they use Him 
 
CHRIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 209 
 
 aright, He will prove to be a refuge, an asylum, 
 a retreat, a sanctuary. If they will not use Him 
 aright, but insist on going on as if He tvere not 
 in existence at all, then He will be to them a stone 
 of stumbling and rock of dreadful collision ; and 
 they will rush upon Him and fall, and be broken 
 and ruined. 
 
 According to the metaphor that is embedded 
 in the words of the prophet, men, having been 
 guilty of moral evil, are pursued by a flood of 
 penal evil. The floodgates of the Divine opposi- 
 tion to sin have been opened, and wrath like a 
 whelming torrent, penal evil like a deluge, rushes 
 onward upon men ! What shall they do ? They 
 must flee for their lives. They must run to some 
 refuge or other, or they will be overtaken, swept 
 away, overwhelmed, and destroyed. 
 
 Men are running. They are fleeing hither and 
 thither to find refuge from penal evil. All with- 
 out exception. All are eagerly striving, in one 
 way or another, to escape those sufferings which 
 are the penal awards of sin. Individual persons 
 are thus fleeing as fast as they can from penal 
 evil. Nations too are often fleeing, as eagerly 
 and swiftly as panic can impel, from penal evil; 
 for as nations consist of individuals, who act 
 sinfully in society as well as apart, nations in- 
 cur penalties on account of their sins. But as 
 they love not sufferings, they seek to escape from 
 them. They try hard to avoid them. Every 
 
 p 
 
210 APPENDIX. 
 
 nation runs and flees to get out of their way, as 
 they come avengiugly on. Sucb. is the similar 
 condition of all nations upon the earth and of all 
 individuals in all nations. 
 
 Grod however has had marvellous mercy on all 
 nations and men. He has provided a refuge. 
 He has " laid in Zion a Stone " — and not in Zion 
 only, but in Britain too, and in every nation, — 
 " a great stone, a tried stone, a sure foundation- 
 stone, a rock." It is " the Rock of ages." Who- 
 soever flees to it, in mind and soul and heart ; 
 flees, believing Grod's testimony regarding Jesus to 
 be true ; whosoever thus flees to Jesus settles on 
 the Rock. He rests upon it and is safe. When 
 the flood of vengeance comes on apace, all who 
 are on the Rock of ages, all who have foot- 
 hold there will be in perfect security ; and the 
 torrent will rush past. Those who are on the 
 Stone will find it to be " the Rock of their salva- 
 tion." 
 
 But, alas ! the great majority of Jews, the 
 great majority of Britons, the great majority 
 of all other peoples on the face of the earth, 
 scorn thus to make use of Jehovah-Jesus. Men 
 in general disdain to bethink themselves, and to 
 avail themselves of Jehovah-Jesus, and of His re- 
 fuge. Onward they run, " making haste," onward 
 after happiness, onward and away from the penal 
 evil that is hotly pursuing them, onward thus they 
 run without ever thinking of Jehovah-Jesus. 
 
CHRIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 211 
 
 They pour contempt upon the notion that any- 
 thing that Jehovah-Jesus did can be the means 
 by which they are to escape wrong and to reach 
 the enjoyment of bliss. They expect to escape 
 woes — all the woes that are the penal consequences 
 of selfishness — by a still more determined and 
 indomitable pursuit of selfishness. Onward, on- 
 ward they madly run, ignoring altogether the 
 finished work of Jehovah-Jesus, treating it as if 
 it were a mere nonentity or absolute nullity. 
 
 What is the consequence ? Paul says con- 
 cerning his countrymen, " they stumbled on the 
 stumbling-stone " ; and the masses of all other 
 peoples are in this matter as were the masses 
 of the Jews — " they stumble on the stumbling- 
 stone." They come into dreadful collision with 
 tlie Rock that might have been their Refuge. 
 They who will not use Jehovah- Jesus as a Refuge- 
 Rock must run foul of Him as " a Stone of stum- 
 bling, and a Rock of collision." 
 
 The Divine idea is this : if men will have none 
 of Jesus, if they will despise the propitiation, the 
 prepared work of Jesus, and run on in their way 
 without deigning to look so lowly or so low as to 
 see Jesus, the interests which they pursue must 
 come into terrific collision with the interests 
 which He pursues ; and whensoever the collision 
 takes place, they, and they only, will suffer. They 
 will be like fugitives from a flood, who dash with 
 all their highest pressure of force full on, upon a 
 
212 APPENDIX. 
 
 stone, and stumble on a jagged rock. The stone, 
 the rock, will remain uninjured ; but they will fall 
 and be broken, and the flood will overtake and 
 overwhelm them. They will be miserably ruined 
 and destroyed. Such is the doom of all anti- 
 christiau persons. Such is the doom of all anti- 
 christian confederations and institutions and 
 policies and peoples. Grreat and terrible will be 
 the day of retribution. 
 
 But there is a sweet addition to the portentous 
 threatening : " Whosoever believeth on Him (Him 
 the Rock of ages) shall not be ashamed." Almost 
 all men are expecting, notwithstanding their 
 selfishness, and indeed by means of it, to be 
 happy. They fancy that they will dexterously 
 escape from the overflowing flood of penal evil 
 that is sweeping along in the direction of eternity. 
 Alas ! they forget that God has not abdicated, 
 and that every man is accountable to Him. Penal 
 evil cannot always be staved off from nations ; 
 and though it be to a degree staved off from 
 individual men in time, it cannot by any act or 
 effort be always kept at bay by the impenitent. 
 The hopes of the antichristian will thus, some 
 day or other, give up the ghost. Antichristians, 
 who have entertained these hopes, will be dis- 
 enchanted, disappointed, and ashamed. But he 
 who has built his hope of escape upon " the Stone, 
 the tried Stone, the precious corner Stone, the 
 sure foundation," the Bock, the Rock of ages, the 
 
CURIST A STUMBLING-STONE. 213 
 
 work of Christ, lie who has found his refuge 
 there, is in the great sanctuary, and shall not be 
 disappointed. His security, his salvation is cer- 
 tain. The rain may descend, the floods may roll 
 and rush, the winds may blow and beat upon 
 the Rock on which the refugee reposes : but his 
 hopes will not fail, for they are founded upon 
 the Rock. He that believeth will not need to 
 "make haste," or, to put it otherwise, he who 
 believeth will never be " disappointed," and hence 
 he will never be "ashamed" before his Grod, be- 
 fore his fellow men at large, and before his own 
 conscience. 
 
THE JEWS AND THE GOSPEL. 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 Yer. 1. Brethren! The apostle in this word 
 characterises the persons to whom his letter was 
 addressed, and for whose benefit, primarily, the 
 discussions which are contained in it were insti- 
 tuted. They were his brethren ; that is, his 
 spirittml brethren. Both he and they belonged 
 to a great spiritual brotherhood, the members of 
 which were most intimately related to one another 
 in love. They were drawn close to each other by 
 the centralising influence of Jesus at the heart. 
 The apostle wished to carry the judgment of his 
 brethren with him, when he felt constrained to 
 speak plainly and sadly in reference to the great 
 body of his countrymen. My heart's desire and 
 prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be 
 saved. Instead of the expression " for Israel," 
 the modern critical editions read " for them," the 
 reference being obviously to the people signalised 
 in the last three verses of the preceding chapter. 
 " Israel " would get substituted for the pronoun, 
 when it became a custom to commence a congrega- 
 tional lection at this particular part of the epistle. 
 
 215 
 
216 AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 The expression, mij hearfs desire, would be more 
 literally rendered the goodwill of my heart. The 
 word evSoKia, which is translated desire in our 
 public English version, is not found in classical 
 writers. But it occurs not infrequently in the 
 Septuagint and the Neiv Testament, and it is 
 expressly rendered goodivill in Luke ii. 14 and in 
 Philippians i. 15. It is correspondingly rendered 
 good pleasure in Ephesians i. 5, 9, Philippians ii. 
 13, and 2 Thessalonians i. 11. The apostle 
 means that it would impart the liveliest gratifica- 
 tion to his heart, if his countrymen were to be 
 saved. His pleasure in that matter was a lofty 
 benevolence. It was good-pleasure, good-iuill. 
 There was will, as well as luish, in it ; but this 
 loill or %oish was good. The apostle's word, 
 though not simply meaning desire, nevertheless 
 carried desire within its bosom, and is not, in this 
 place, and so far as our English language is con- 
 cerned, unhappily represented by that term. His 
 prayer to God for them was, that they might he 
 saved ; or, it might be represented thus, and the 
 prayer which I present to God in their behalf 
 {is) for their salvation. It is assumed that his 
 countrymen had invariably a warm place in his 
 heart when he was offering his sacrifice of suppli- 
 cations. He did not forget to spread out their 
 case before Grod. But he did not content himself 
 with offering up indefinite intercessions. There 
 was one particular point toward which his peti- 
 
VEESB 2. 217 
 
 tions in his countrymen's behalf converged, and 
 that point was their salvation. It was that which 
 he most earnestly desired, and for that he most 
 urgently pleaded. N'ot that he would desire it, 
 or ask for it, unconditionally. That could not 
 be, more especially in the case of a man like 
 the apostle, with great breadth of mind and soul, 
 and the loftiest reverence in his heart for Grod. 
 Momentous as salvation is, there are things 
 which, in importance, transcend even the saving 
 of sinners. 
 
 It may here be noted, that it would be difficult 
 to vindicate the apostle's importunity at the 
 throne of grace for the salvation of his country- 
 men at large if it were indeed the case that, in 
 the immediately preceding chapter, he had been 
 consciously, and with elaborate argumentation, 
 demonstrating that it is the secret will of God 
 that only a remnant of them should be saved. 
 
 The proper position for the unexpressed sub- 
 stantive verb requires to be considered. Shall 
 we put it before, or shall we put it after, the 
 expression, in their hehalf? (inrep avrwv.) King 
 James's translators put it after ; the English 
 Revisers have put it before. We agree with the 
 former, though in truth the difference between the 
 two representations is somewhat shadowy. 
 
 Ver. 2. For I testify in reference to them that 
 
218 AN EXPOSITION OF EOMANS X. 
 
 tliey have zeal toivard God ; but not according to 
 knowledge. 
 
 Their zeal, nob being intelligent, was not 
 guided by knowledge. It was led, and led 
 astray, by ignorance. Its existence, however, 
 was so far creditable. Better to have zeal toward 
 Grod, even although it should be tinged with fana- 
 ticism, and to that degree be marred, than to 
 have no zeal at all except for self. Hence the 
 apostle's regard for his countrymen. In their 
 souls, — blurred and turned awry though these 
 were, — they had " some soul of good." The 
 phrase zeal of God, as meaning zeal in reference to 
 God, may be illustrated by the forcible expression 
 in Psalm Ixix. 9, which was applied to our Lord 
 by His disciples, " The zeal of Thine house hath 
 eaten me up"; that is, ^^ zeal ^ for"* Thy house 
 hath consumed me." It hath devoured me. 
 
 Yer. 3. The apostle proceeds to show the 
 unintelligent nature of their zeal for God. 
 
 For, not knowing the righteousness of God, and 
 seeking to set up their own righteousness, they did 
 not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 
 
 They were culpably ignorant of it. The refer- 
 ence cannot be to God's essential righteousness, or 
 that righteousness in virtue of which He Himself 
 is spotlessly righteous. The Jews were unani- 
 mous in holding that God is "holy, holy, holy," 
 
VERSE 3. 21^ 
 
 and absolutely " righteous." There was no dis- 
 pute between them and the apostle as regards 
 the personal righteousness of God. 
 
 To what then does he make reference ? 
 
 It must be to some righteousness of God that 
 may have over against it a hind of rival righteous- 
 ness, to which some might accord a preference. 
 Let the antithesis in the apostle's representation 
 be observed : They, being igyiorant of God^s right- 
 eousness, and seeking to set up their own righteous- 
 ness. If the reference, in the first clause of 
 this antithesis, were to the righteousness that is 
 essentially inherent in the ethical character of God, 
 how could it ever be imagined that any Jews or 
 Gentiles would or could set up, in opposition and 
 rivalry, any righteousness of their own ? 
 
 The righteousness of God referred to by the 
 apostle is manifestly the same Divine righteous- 
 ness that is spoken of in verse 30 of the 
 preceding chapter, where we read, "What shall 
 we say then? That Gentiles, who followed not 
 after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, 
 even the righteousness ivhich is of faith. ''^ That 
 which is called, in chapter x. 3, the righteousness 
 of God is, in chapter ix. 30, designated the 
 righteousness of faith. It is a righteousness 
 which may be obtained hy faith in the gospel of 
 God's grace ; and it is thus a righteousness which 
 may become a characteristic of man. 
 
 It is the righteousness which is referred to in 
 
220 AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 Pbilippians iii. 9, " where the apostle expresses 
 his longing to win Christ," and " be found in 
 Him, not having," says he, "wme oivn righteous- 
 ness, which is of the law, but that which is 
 obtained through faith in Christ," the righteous- 
 ness which is from God, and conditioned, as 
 regards its acceptance by man, on faith (eV 9eoi/, 
 
 It is signalised in Romans iii. 20-22 in the 
 words, " Now the righteousness of God without 
 law has been manifested, being witnessed by 
 the law and the prophets, even the righteousness 
 of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, 
 and upon all them thai believe.^^ It is God's 
 unspeakable gift to men, without distinction or 
 exception. 
 
 Compare also what is said in Romans i. 16, 17, 
 where the apostle represents the gospel as tbe 
 mighty moral lever of God to lift up the fallen 
 children of men, because therein is the righteous- 
 ness of God revealed from faith to faith, even 
 as it is written in Habakkuk ii. 4, " the righteous 
 by faith" — the man who has got hold of right- 
 eousness by faith, even the righteousness of 
 God, — he " shall live." This is the good news 
 that something has been graciously provided for 
 us out of God's infinite bounty, — something which 
 is gloriously fitted to be to us, for salvation, in 
 the place of perfect personal righteousness. 
 
 This was the righteousness of God, of which the 
 
VERSE 3. 221 
 
 apostle's countrymen were cnlpally " ignorant," 
 because they persisted in closing their eyes and 
 shutting their ears. It had been clearly pro- 
 claimed to them in the gospel. But they sought 
 to dispense with it, and to make a pathway for 
 themselves. They persisted in thinking that if 
 they carefully observed their ceremonies, and 
 punctiliously tithed their mint, anise, and cummin, 
 even although they omitted the weightier matters 
 of the Divine law, their righteousness, thus 
 wrought out, would suffice. Vain imagination ! 
 It was passing strange that they did not see 
 that this righteousness was but another and a 
 whitewashed name for unrighteousness. They 
 needed to be saved from it. It was not a pure 
 and spotless " garment of salvation," but some- 
 thing to be cast off and abhorred, a leprous robe. 
 It did not defend, or adorn, or ennoble the soul. 
 They should have known that the true wedding- 
 garment which gives the guest a title to the 
 marriage-supper of bliss, is the righteousness 
 woven throughout in the loom of the life of 
 " Jesus Christ the righteous." The cry of all 
 the ages should be, " None hut Christ ! " lie is 
 the Lord our righteousness ! " Every Luther will 
 exclaim, " I am His sin, and He is my righteous- 
 ness." Every Paul will exclaim, " Yea doubt- 
 less, I count all things but loss for the excellency 
 of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord : that 
 I may win Him, and be found in Him, not having 
 
222 AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 mine oivn righteousness ^ which is of the law, but 
 that which is through the faith of Christ, the 
 righteousness ivhich is from God through faith.^' 
 Jehovah-Jesus is "the righteousness of God" 
 for unrighteous men. He is, that is to say, " the 
 Lord our righteousness." But they did not sub- 
 ject themselves: they should have voluntarily 
 surrendered themselves to the imperial influence 
 of \he atoning righteousness of God. But they 
 did not. Their faith would have been obedience. 
 Their unbelief was disobedience. It was either the 
 defiant rejection, or it was the defiant neglect of 
 the great salvation. 
 
 Ver. 4. In this verse the apostle gives a 
 glimpse into the essence and the genesis of the 
 saving righteousness of God. 
 
 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness 
 to every one who believeth. 
 
 The emphasis is resting, not so much on 
 the word Christ, as on the expression, end of 
 laiv ; or, as it maybe presented, "the" end of 
 law, or " the " end of " the " laiv. " None but 
 Christ," indeed, could be to us the end of law. 
 But the apostle is not so anxious to accord to 
 Christ the fulness of His pre-eminence, as he is 
 desirous of holding up to view the great Divine 
 fact finished on Calvary by the Christ, that there 
 might be provision for human salvation. Hence 
 
VERSE 4. 223 
 
 tile transposition of the predicate of the propo- 
 sition into the place of the subject. Instead of 
 saying, For Christ is end of laiv^ there is a sig- 
 nificant houleversement of order, Fo7' end of laiv is 
 Christ. Taken either way the statement is re- 
 markable, and its meaning may be most effectively 
 reached by means of some other statements lying 
 on the same line of idea. For instance, there is 
 the statement in chapter vi. 15, " ^^hsLt th%n ? 
 Shall we sin because we are not under Jaw, but 
 under grace ? " There is to believers an " end 
 of law," and that end is a thing of grace. There 
 is also the statement in chapter vii. 2, " Know ye 
 not that the law has dominion over a man as long 
 as he lives, and verse 4, " Ye are dead to the law 
 through the body of Christ." See also Galatians 
 ii. 19, 20, " I died through the law to the law, that 
 I might live to Grod : I have been crucified ivith 
 Christ : but I live; though no longer I myself, but 
 Christ liveth in me." To men believing in the 
 crucified Christ there is an end of laiu. The law 
 indeed had dominion over them as long as they 
 lived, or remained uncrucified with Christ ; but, 
 being believers in the Christ who died, they too 
 died in the Christ, and are no longer "under the 
 law." It has no longer legislative authority to 
 come to them, with any one of its distinctive pre- 
 cepts and its awful sanctions, and to say. Do this, 
 and live! Do this, or die! When they believed, 
 they "died to the law through the body of Christ," 
 
224; AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 in wliose death they are dead. There is thus an 
 " end of the law " in Christ. So far as eternal — 
 geviternal — penalty is concerned, Jesus terminated 
 the law. " It is finished." And His aim in the 
 entire transaction has been the "impetration " of 
 *' righteousness for every one who believeth." 
 
 Ver. 5. The apostle proceeds to make a 
 distinction in reference to the indispensable 
 righteousness that is the causa meritorla of en- 
 during bliss. He begins by saying, For Moses 
 descriheth the rigliteousness luJiich is of the law, 
 That the man ivhich doeth those things shall live by 
 them ; or, as it is given in the Revised Version, 
 For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the 
 righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. 
 The Revised Version is founded on the critical 
 reading of Tischendorf as accepted by Westcott 
 and Hort. It certainly simplifies the construc- 
 tion exceedingly, if indeed not too exceedingly. 
 For if such were the original reading, one might 
 wonder that there should ever have been any 
 divergences among the early readers and tran- 
 scribers of the epistle. Lachmann and Tregelles 
 did not accept the full tale of the modifications 
 that have approved themselves to Tischendorf 
 and Westcott and Hort. Of this however we 
 may be assured, that the text, as given by these 
 latest critics, exhibits the idea that was strug- 
 
VERSE 6. 225 
 
 gling for expression ia the apostle's mind. And 
 if be said, according to the reading of the Erasmian 
 text, that Moses " writeth the righteousness " which 
 is of the laio, when he wrote that the man ivho did 
 those things shall live by them, he really meant, 
 however perplexed the order of his words, that 
 the great lawgiver's writing is to the effect, that 
 if a man has " done^^ the statutes of God, he shall 
 live by his doing. It is, for all practical purposes, 
 an admirable description of that righteousness 
 which consists of personal obedience to law, the 
 righteousness of merit, the righteousness of per- 
 fect goodness or holiness, the righteousness of 
 ministry and love. The expression, shall live by 
 them, is literally shall live in them. He shall find 
 in the things done the roots of enduring life. In 
 the reading accepted by the Revisers, shall live 
 thereby, i.e. shall live by it, literally shall live 
 " in^' it, the reference is to the righteousness 
 which consists in the sum of the righteous things 
 done. In that righteousness, if real, there is 
 life, — life throughout the normal time for life, 
 whether the lifetime be that of a person or of 
 a people. 
 
 Yer. 6. In antithesis to this ideal righteous- 
 ness of law, the apostle proceeds to delineate 
 that other and real and infinitely meritorious 
 righteousness which brims with hope for the 
 
 Q 
 
226 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 unrigliteous children of meD, but which was 
 strangely repugnant to the masses of his coun- 
 trymen. 
 
 But the righteousness ivhich is of faith speaJceth 
 thus. Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend 
 into the heaven ? that is, to bring Christ doion. 
 
 The apostle employs a strong personification, 
 investing the *' righteousness which is of faith " 
 with powers of speech in general, and of dis- 
 criminative and persuasive speech in particular. 
 The personified object is represented as "o/" 
 faith, that is, ^' from'' faith (e/c Tr/o-reco?). Not that 
 it originates ^'' in" faith, or is identical ^'ivith" 
 faith. It is conveyed to the soul of the recipient 
 " hy " faith. The soul thus gets it ^^ from " 
 faith. It is made known in the gospel ; and 
 the righteousness thus revealed and obtained is 
 the same that is elsewhere represented as from 
 God, to be enjoyed by man on condition of faith 
 (e/c Qeov ewl t>7 TrLcrrei). If it were gifted with 
 perspicacity and speech, it would address each 
 man dissuasively, and somewhat as follows : " Say 
 not in thy heart. Who shall ascend into the 
 heaven ? That is, to bring Christ down." No 
 such mightily straining effort on the part of the 
 spiritually necessitous is required. Men who have 
 fallen into unrighteousness can be lifted up again. 
 It is a great work. But it is not to be effected 
 by some supernatural effort on the part of men 
 themselves. They do not need, for instance, to 
 
VERSE 7. 227 
 
 soar aloft into sky beyond sky in order to find 
 Christ, and to induce Him to come down to the 
 earth to achieve what is required for human 
 salvation. Supernatural forthputting of energy 
 is indeed indispensable. But it has already been 
 put forth by One to whom the supernatural 
 is natural, and who is " mighty to save to the 
 uttermost." The apostle weaves the woof of the 
 utterances of his personified pleader into the warp 
 of some grand oratorical pleading addressed by 
 Moses to the Israelites on the eve of his dis- 
 appearance within the obscuring veil. (See Deut. 
 XXX. 11-14.) 
 
 Yer. 7. An alternative is oratorically intro- 
 duced, not identical with that which was laid 
 down by Moses in Deuteronomy xxx. 13, but yet 
 substantially parallel. 
 
 Or who shall descend into the abyss ? that is, 
 to bring Christ up from the dead. 
 
 Moses spoke of " going over the sea." But 
 the apostle, for his peculiar purpose, modifies 
 and intensifies the representation. He desired 
 to make the way plain for introducing a reference 
 to Christ's resurrection; and hence he speaks of 
 the world of the deceased, representing it, in 
 one of its awsome aspects, as an abyss. Will 
 it be needful to go down into that dismal region, 
 which, as " bottomless," has never been explored 
 
228 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 by human travellers ? Say not, Who shall make 
 this terrible descent? 
 
 Ver. 8. But what says it ? Near thee is the 
 word, in thy mouth, and in thy heart ; that is, the 
 word of faith lohich we ijreach. 
 
 The personified Righteousness continues to 
 speak, and, as it speaks, it draws attention to 
 the ivord in which it is conveyed to the soul. In 
 Deuteronomy xxx. 11-14, it is not Righteousness 
 that speaks : it is Moses himself, in the name of 
 God. Hence there is no rhetorical personifi- 
 cation : there is the living personality of the 
 lawgiver. And it is with his own living voice 
 that he specifies " the commandment which Grod 
 commanded," and says, " It is not hidden from 
 thee, neither is it far off," — "but the word is very 
 nigh to thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that 
 thou mayest do it." The " word " referred to is 
 the commandment exhibiting the duty devolving 
 on the Israelites, The apostle's reference is 
 difi"erent. The "word," with him, is "the word 
 of the truth of the gospel." It is, that is to say, 
 the gospel itself; for that is " the word of faith." 
 It is so called, because it is the proximate object 
 toward which faith points, and on which it ter- 
 minates. It is, says the apostle, the word which 
 " we " preach. He really refers to his own per- 
 sonal preaching ; but for the moment he realises 
 
VERSE 8. 229 
 
 that lie is only one of a company of heralds. 
 He was by no means alone in his labour of love. 
 The gospel is a "word," though not necessarily, 
 or generally, a mere vocable. As there may be 
 several vocables in a loord of exhortation, so in the 
 proclamation of the ''word" of faith, or the "word'' 
 of the truth of the gospel, harmonious groups of 
 vocables may be requisite. Sometimes indeed the 
 gospel may be condensed into a single vocable, 
 such as " Jesus," or " Christ," or " propitiation," 
 or " ransom." But more frequently the single 
 vocable expands itself into some such worded 
 utterance as this, " Grod so loved the world, that 
 He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever 
 believeth in Him should not perish, but have 
 everlasting life." Let a man study till he under- 
 stand this "word"; or let him even master the 
 " vocables " referred to, and a great light will 
 dawn upon his spirit. The personified pleader 
 says of the " word," it is near thee, in thy mouth, 
 and in thy heart. It has been brought near — by 
 proclamation, or by conversation, or by some 
 kindred modification of instrumentality, or by 
 some more subtle influence still, not tabulated in 
 our categories. But, howsoever communicated, 
 it ivas in the mouths and in the hearts of the 
 apostle's countrymen. And it is in our mouths too, 
 and in our hearts. Men heedlessly utter gospel 
 words with their mouths; and, both before and 
 after the utterance, the words are in the heart or 
 
230 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS X. 
 
 mind. Like other words, liowever, they have 
 both a kernel and a husk : and too often is the 
 attention occupied with the exterior to the neglect 
 of the interior. 
 
 Ver. 9. That if tliou slialt confess wiili thy 
 mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy 
 heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou 
 shalt be saved. 
 
 The apostle opens up analytically the con- 
 tents of " the word of faith " which he 
 preached. Hence the demonstrative import of 
 the introductory on, that or namely that ; not, 
 as given by Meyer, seeing that, or because. It is 
 the Lord Jesus Himself that is the kernel of 
 " the word of faith "; and whosoever confesses 
 Him with the mouth, and believeth on Him in 
 the heart, shall, says the apostle, be saved. In 
 his representation he begins with the outer, viz. 
 confessing ivith the mouth, and thence goes back 
 to the inner, viz. believing with the heart. He 
 might have reversed the order of presentation, 
 as indeed he does in the very next verse. For 
 manifestly, in Christian experience, faith is the 
 fountain, and confession the stream. Neverthe- 
 less confession is as essential as if it were first 
 and fontal. It is the outward form of an inward 
 reality. Just as truly as there must be a stream 
 where there is a fountain, so there must be con- 
 
VERSE 9. 231 
 
 fession wliere tliere is faitli. Confession is faitli 
 uttering itself. But tlie utterance tliat is its 
 essence is not only secondary in significance, it 
 is also second in historical sequence. It is of the 
 nature of a response — confession. One hears in 
 it the echo of a prior utterance. The echo, in all 
 Christian confession, is responsive to the testi- 
 mony of the Spirit of Grod ; and that testimony is 
 the gospel. 
 
 Led by the Vatican MS., Westcott and Hort 
 give the text thus : " If thou shalt confess with 
 thy mouth the ivorcl that Jesus is Lo7\i." But it 
 is probable that this reading, so scantily sup- 
 ported, owed its origin to the marginal annotation 
 of some early owner of a MS., who was glad to 
 take note that in the affirmation that Jesus is Lord 
 there is " ^/^e word" so peculiarly emphasised in 
 the preceding verse. 
 
 This emphasised " word " and " word of faith " 
 is, as should be specially noted, a many-sided 
 reality; and hence the apostle only selected one 
 out of several presentations that lay close to 
 his hand when he represented, as the object of 
 " saving faith," the sublime and wondrous fact 
 that God raised our Saviour from among the dead. 
 Let that fact be apprehended in its momentous 
 relations to God's justice and mercy, on the one 
 hand, and to man's sins, sorrows, and hopes, on 
 the other, and it will be found to have within 
 itself all the elements of a grand ethical revolu- 
 
232 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS X. 
 
 tion in the soul and in the life. If Christ was 
 really raised from among the dead by the glory 
 of the Father (Rom. vi. 4), then assuredly the 
 work, which received its consummation in the 
 crucifixion, must, in its essence and its aims, 
 have been, and must still be, well-pleasing to 
 Him with whom we have to do; and therefore 
 the adequate basis of spiritual security and peace 
 to unrighteous men penitentially conscious of 
 their unrighteousness. 
 
 Yer. 10. The apostle reiterates in epigram- 
 matic form the asseveration of verse 9, turning at 
 the same time his reiteration into an insistence 
 of emphasis. 
 
 For with the heart man helieveth unto righteous- 
 ness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation. 
 
 It is as if he had said, The conditions of the 
 hypothetical case just presented to view being 
 realised, the man will certainly be saved ; "/or 
 with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, 
 and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation." 
 
 Note the phrase ivith the heart (KapSia). It has, 
 like the phrase tvith the mouth (^a-rojULan) in the 
 clause that follows, an instrumental signification ; 
 whereas the corresponding phrase in the preced- 
 ing verse {in thy heart) has a locative import, 
 
VERSE 10. 233 
 
 denoting the locality or region in which the 
 believing takes place. 
 
 The expression, inan helieveth, is, as Paul gave 
 it, impersonal (ina-TeveTai). Believing takes place, 
 or is put forth, or is exerted, or exercised. It 
 is thus exercised ^tnto righteousness , or so that 
 righteousness is obtained. Personal righteous- 
 ness is the result. For personal righteousness is 
 what man needs for full self-evolution in harmony 
 with his moral nature. Righteousness is moral 
 rightness. Things may be right; only persons 
 can be righteous. God is absolutely righteous. 
 The incarnated Saviour is " Jesus Christ the 
 righteous. ^^ In assuming our human nature, and 
 living in it, and working out in it day by day 
 some part or parts of an immaculate human 
 righteousness. He acted not for His own glory 
 in particular, nor indeed for selfism in any phase 
 whatever. He sought not "to be ministered 
 unto, but to minister." It was man's benefit and 
 bliss at which He aimed. His whole life on earth 
 therefore, with all the ingredients of suffering 
 that were intermingled with His labours of love, 
 was righteousness for men. 
 
 It is the same righteousness which, as we have 
 seen again and again, is spoken of in chap. i. 17 ; 
 iii. 21-24; ix. 80-32; x. 3-7. 
 
 Viewed in another relationship, it is the 
 righteousness provided by God — the righteous- 
 ness consequently of which He makes an " un- 
 
234 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS X. 
 
 speakable gift" to the unrighteous children of 
 men. 
 
 There is a parallehsm in the two epigrammatic 
 members of the proposition, like arm stretched 
 out with arm. The second arm is this, and loitli 
 the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 
 There is no Christian faith without Christian 
 confession. There is no Christian confession 
 without Christian faith. Confession is just faith 
 turned from its obverse side to its reverse. The 
 two sides of the precious unity are inseparable 
 and mutually indispensable. When faith comes 
 forth from its silence to announce itself, and to 
 proclaim the glory and the grace of the Lord, its 
 voice is confession. 
 
 The other ingredients of the parallelism are set 
 over against one another in the words Righteous- 
 ness and Salvation. They reciprocally inter- 
 penetrate. God''s righteousness, when received 
 by faith, becomes at once man's salvation; and 
 man's salvation is a possibility in Divine moral 
 government because of that righteousness of God 
 which has " magnified the law and made it 
 honourable." 
 
 In popular theology a somewhat inconsiderate 
 use has not infrequently been made of the second 
 member of the apophthegm, " with the heart 
 man believeth unto righteousness." A strong 
 distinction has been drawn, by a hard and fast 
 line, between " believing with the heart " and 
 
VERSE 10. 235 
 
 " believing with the liead^ But the inspired 
 writers did not make the distinction that we 
 make between head and heart. With them the 
 word heart was wider in its embrace. And hence 
 we read of the thoughts of many hearts, and the 
 imaginations of the heart. We read of men 
 understanding with their heart, and considering^ 
 and conceiving, and even reasoning in their hearts ; 
 and of musing, and saying, and intending or 
 having intent. We read of men whose hearts are 
 foolish ; and of other men who are luise in heart. 
 The word, in its Hebrew usage, is substantially 
 equivalent to our word mind. It denotes the 
 inner man in general, viewed spiritually, and 
 relative to the outer man. But it is to be par- 
 ticularly noted that here the apostle is making 
 no distinction at all between heart and head. 
 His distinction is explicitly between heart and 
 mouth, and thus between believing and confessing. 
 It is to the apostle a distinction with a very small 
 difference ; and hence his aphorism. Believing is 
 a mode of thinking, not of feeling. It is that 
 particular mode of thinking that is guided to its 
 object by the testimony of another, or by some 
 kind of inter-mediation. It is not intuition. 
 The believing that is " unto righteousness " is 
 that mode of thinking that is guided hy the 
 testified thoughts of God. These testified thoughts 
 are the contents of the gospel. 
 
236 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 Ver. 11. The salvation involved in the Divine 
 righteousness is certain, 
 
 For the Scripture saith, Whosoever helieveth on 
 Him shall not he put to shame. 
 
 It is the same aphorism, from Isaiah xxviii. 
 16, that has been quoted in chapter ix. 33. 
 There is perfect certainty and security that the 
 believer, to whatever nationality he may belong, 
 will be saved. He shall not be put to shame by 
 being disappointed where most he trusted. The 
 apostle does not quote direct from the Hebrew 
 original. He quotes, though not verbatim, from 
 the Septuagint version. The Hebrew representa- 
 tion is, The believer will not make haste. He will 
 not be swept away in panic, when the pent up 
 waters of vengeance burst forth. He will be 
 safe upon the Eock of ages — a sure Foundation. 
 Such is the Hebrew picture. The Septuagintal 
 picture, though entirely different in form, is of iden- 
 tical ethical significance. The believer's safety 
 and bliss are so secure that he will never be af- 
 fronted by finding his bright anticipations belied. 
 The Rheims version, simply reproducing the Latin 
 Yulgate, is " shal not be confounded.''^ Conybeare's 
 translation is, " shall be saved from confusion." 
 
 Ver. 12. The apostle insists upon the uni- 
 versal scope and range of human salvability. 
 
VERSE 12. 237 
 
 For there is no distinction of Jew and Greek, for 
 the same is Lord of all, being rich to all who call 
 upon Him. 
 
 The apostle has employed in the immediately 
 preceding verse the expression, ivhosoever, or as 
 it may be still more literally rendered, every 
 one ivho. In this 12th verse he vindicates the 
 employment of such an all-embracing phrase in 
 reference to the Divine accessibility and gracious- 
 ness. For there is 7io distinctio7i of Jeio and 
 Greek. The Jews in general thought that there 
 was a distinction, and that the true God was 
 their God in particular. They had by special 
 dotation, as they imagined, a larger share than 
 all others of present and prospective prerogatives 
 and blessings. They assumed that God was 
 actuated by a spirit of partiality or favouritism, 
 and they were sure that they were the favourites. 
 
 The apostle does not say, " Jew and Gentile,'^ 
 but " Jew and Greeh.'^ The two expressions are 
 in substance identical ; and it is of Gentiles, as 
 Gentiles, that the apostle thinks. But the 
 Greeks were distinguished representatives of the 
 whole group of peoples who were depreciated by 
 the Jews. They were, says Este, " species 
 nominatissima." 
 
 There are two ways of construing the remain- 
 der of the verse. (1) The way that is taken in 
 King James's Yersion, for the same Lord over all 
 (is) rich to all that call upon Him; and (2) the 
 
238 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS X. 
 
 way that is taken by the English Revisers, /or the 
 same Lord (is) Lord of all, and is rich unto all 
 that call on Him. In the former construction 
 the subject of the proposition is the same Lord 
 over all, and the predicate consists of the 
 remainder of the verse. In the latter, the subject 
 is simply the same, that is, the same (Lord), and 
 the predicate is the twofold declaration, (1) is 
 Lord of all, and (2) is rich to all ivho call upon 
 Him. There should be no doubt, in presence of 
 the participle (jrXovrcov), that this latter location 
 of the unexpressed substantive verb is the correct 
 construction. We could not with propriety say, 
 as if it were a complete, self-contained affirmation. 
 For the same Lord of all, " being " rich to all who 
 call upon Him. In making such a participial 
 statement, we should, in taking one step, be 
 vainly waiting for another. But with the utmost 
 propriety we can say, For the same [Lord) is Lord 
 of all, " being " rich to all tvho call on Him. The 
 participle prolongs the asseveration, and in our 
 English idiom it may with advantage be analy- 
 tically spread out thus, and is rich, or thus, ivho 
 is rich. The word Lord is doubtless to be taken 
 here in its ordinary Old Testament usage as the 
 designation of Him who is Yahveh or Jehovah. 
 It is not so used in antithesis to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. There is no antithesis intended, and 
 most assuredly no intention of putting the 
 Saviour into some secondary or subordinate 
 
VEESE 12. 239 
 
 sphere of subsistence. It is the one true and 
 plural God who is referred to, and who is at 
 once Lord and God. The fulness of the Grodhead, 
 — the fukiess of Grodhood, — is in Him, whether 
 we view Him absolutely, as living His own 
 eternity in His own immensity, or as graciously 
 manifesting Himself in the person, the personal 
 character, and the personal work and ministry 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ. This God the Lord 
 is Lord of all men everyivliere. He is their liege- 
 Lord and absolute Suzerain. It is a blessing to 
 them that they stand in such a relation to 
 Him. Unlike many petty princes — petty in 
 reality, though high and haughty in their own 
 overweening imaginations — He is " rich to all 
 who call upon Him." The word ricli is here 
 used in its ethical import, as equivalent to liberal 
 or bountiful. Hence the remarkable expression, 
 rich unto, or rich to. In the sphere of ordinary 
 life, when men become rich, they are in general 
 simply said, absolutely, to be rich. At times it 
 may be said that they are rich in this world's 
 possessions, or that they are rich in the posses- 
 sion of devoted friends, or rich in mental imagery, 
 it may be, or in genius ; rich in thought. But 
 God is here represented as rich unto. It is the 
 riches of benevolence that are spoken of. He is 
 " abundant in goodness." He is rich in grace, 
 compassion, mercy, tender mercy, forgiving 
 mercy, to all who call upon Him. They call upon 
 
2-tO EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 Him, in their own behalf (ext/caXof/xeVou?), to help 
 them, to befriend them, to save them. They call 
 upon Him by name, and He hearkens. They 
 invoke Him, and He answers and delivers them. 
 Such calling is one important aspect of their 
 heart's desire. 
 
 Yer. 13. The apostle fortifies his statement by 
 quoting a favourite aphorism found in Joel ii. 32, 
 For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord 
 shall be saved. 
 
 The for is no part of the quotation, but 
 is the apostle's logical method of introducing 
 the aphorism into his discourse. Whosoever, be 
 he who he may, whatever his nationality, shall 
 call — or, should call — 07i the name of the Lord, 
 and thus call upon the Lord Himself by name. 
 The mere name would be a "tinkling cymbal," 
 " vox et praeterea nihil." But when we call upon 
 persons, it is customary, for the sake of discrimi- 
 nation, to make use of their names. We think 
 of things and persons by their names, or by some 
 circuitous method of the mind equivalent to 
 nomenclature. We speak too of persons, as of 
 things, by means of their names. Shall be saved. 
 It was "great salvation" which the prophet had 
 in view, and most definitely was it " the great 
 salvation" that was contemplated by the apostle. 
 To him it was the salvation which runs on into 
 
VERSE 14. 241 
 
 eternity. Its foretastes bere are but little parts 
 and parcels of its infinite reality. The words of 
 the prophet were words that were susceptible of 
 " germinescent fulfilment." Their " fulfilments " 
 are "going on continually" (Bacon). 
 
 Ver. 14. Nothing is more natural and more 
 fitting, in the perilous condition of unrighteous 
 men, than calling for help on the Lord. But the 
 apostle realised that certain intellectual and 
 practical preliminaries are indispensable. 
 
 Then, i.e. it being the case that any of the 
 children of men, whatever be their nationality, may 
 be saved by calling on the Lord, Jiow shall they 
 call ? — how should they call ? — hoiv could they call ? 
 (eiriKaXea-oovrai, not eTTiKaXea-ovrai) — on Him in lohom 
 they have not believed ? Literally : to ivhom they 
 believed not ? to whom their faith did not extend ? 
 Without faith in the Lord's existence, and power, 
 and grace, their calling could have no " occasion- 
 ing cause," and thus no pillar of support on 
 which to rest. And how shall they, or should 
 they, or could they, believe in Him of ivhom they 
 have not heard ? Some testimony, or what is 
 equivalent to a testimony, is indispensable in 
 order to intelligent faith. A report, or what is 
 equivalent to a report, is necessary. In Greek 
 it could be idiomatically said " whom " they heard 
 not. But in English we need to say *' of whom" 
 
242 EXPOSITION OF EOMANS X. 
 
 tliey have not heard. And how shall they hear 
 without a preacher? If the report is about Christ 
 or God-in-Ohrist, then a special reporter or 
 preacher is required — a herald of the news. The 
 apostle's representation is moulded, not so 
 much on generic principles as on the specialties 
 of the gospel, as an all-important Report, Testi- 
 mony, or Heraldic Cry. His aim is exclusively 
 practical. He has no reference to philosophic 
 faith. And yet there is this in common with 
 both faith as a method in philosophy and the 
 special faith of the gospel, comprehending faith 
 in Christ, that respectively they are mental condi- 
 tions that lie, not on the primary line of intuition, 
 but on the secondary line of information based on 
 prior intuition or report. 
 
 Ver. 15. And how shall they preach except they 
 be sent? or, And how should they, or coiild they, 
 preach, unless they were sent ? 
 
 True preachers are apostles, in the original 
 sense of the term. They are missionaries; men 
 sent out by God ; men who feel that an apostolic 
 work is devolved upon them. They have a 
 heraldic errand to fulfil. Hence they must haste 
 from group to group, from population to popu- 
 lation, from person to person, as far as wisely 
 regulated energy can reach. Thus only can they 
 unburden their consciences in respect to the re- 
 
VEESE 15. 243 
 
 sponsibility laid upon them to annoutice faitlifully 
 and affectionately the glad tidings of salvation. 
 
 Yer. 15, continued. As it stands written^ How 
 beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad 
 tidings of good things ! 
 
 The apostle's mind seemed to acquire increas- 
 ing fervour as he advanced from query to query, 
 till, in a moment of rapture, there gleamed 
 athwart his observation the sublime utterance of 
 Isaiah lii. 7. He instantly seized the salient idea 
 in the prophetic utterance, and made it his own. 
 The cluster of exclamations is so feUcitously re- 
 produced in our English version, that it may be 
 questioned which of the two representations, the 
 Hebrew or the English, is the more exquisite. 
 Hoio beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of 
 him that bringeth good tidings^ that publisheth 
 peace ! that bringeth good tidings of good ! that 
 publisheth salvation ! that saith unto Zion, Thy 
 God reigneth ! It is a picture on the canvas of 
 imagination. In a time of intense anxiety and 
 imminent peril, many are the earnest and wistful 
 looks that are directed toward the mountain pass 
 in the distance. At length, when hope deferred 
 was turning into despair, the messenger is de- 
 scried. He is striding in haste, waving a token 
 of the glad tidings he is commissioned to com- 
 municate. The feeti which bear him rapidly 
 
244 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 along, are beautiful objects to behold, — beautiful 
 to the ejes of the hopeful. In the Erasmian 
 text the apostle appropriates a twofold announce- 
 ment of glad tidings : *' How beautiful the feet 
 of them that announce the glad tidings of peace, 
 that announce the glad tidings of good things!" 
 Lachmann however and Tischendorf, as also 
 Tregelles and Westcott-and-Hort, have thrown 
 out the first of the two exclamations, as an 
 instance of overdoing on the part of some 
 ancient annotator or transcriber. It is wanting 
 in >^ A B C, and other important authorities. 
 The repetition indeed of the word evayyeXi^ofxeuoou 
 might lead to the omission of one of the clauses, 
 the eye being misguided. But, on the other 
 hand, the one exclamation seems enough for the 
 apostle's logical purpose ; the two seem de trojJ ; 
 and at the same time it was not unnatural for 
 some interested owner of a MS. to piit in the 
 margin so interesting an addition, in a parallel- 
 istic point of view, to the quotation. Instead of 
 beautiful some very ancient interpreters, and many 
 others besides, have given to the apostle's term 
 its etymological import of timely or opjjoy'tune 
 (tempestivi). Unnatural. The Septuagint version 
 (o)? copa) is, as regards the word, still more un- 
 natural, and far inferior to that of the apostle. 
 Instead of the indefinite expression good things, 
 Tischendorf, on insufficient evidence, reads, along 
 with the Erasmian text, the good things. But 
 
VERSE 16. 245 
 
 both in the Hebrew original and in the Septua- 
 gint the definite article is wanting; and its 
 presence seems rather an intrusion. 
 
 Yer. 16. But not all became obedient to the 
 gospel. 
 
 The apostle does not particularise the persons 
 of whom he is thinking and speaking. But it 
 is manifest that his reference is to his country- 
 men. It is their condition that has been giving 
 him anxiety all along the line of his discussions 
 from the commencement of the ninth chapter. 
 It is their condition that is still the burden 
 of his heart throughout the remainder of this 
 chapter, and then throughout the whole of 
 chapter xi. They did not all obey the gospel ; 
 not all? Had the people then in general obeyed? 
 Alas ! they had not, and the apostle might have 
 said, that it ivas feiv ivho yielded submission to 
 the gospel. But, while he is intent on the 
 validity of his argument, he by litotes uses 
 phraseology that somewhat veiled the dread 
 arithmetical reality, but that yet was sufficiently 
 transparent to reveal or suggest the widely ex- 
 tended range of his reference. The authors of 
 the Revised Version have not, in this case, effected 
 an improvement on the older version. They 
 render the expression thus : But they did not all 
 hearken to the glad tidings. They under-rate the 
 
246 EXPOSITION OF KOMANS X. 
 
 import of the verb, wbich they render hearhen^ 
 and which their predecessors rendered obeyed. 
 It occurs in other twenty passages of the New 
 Testament, and in all of these, with one excep- 
 tion, it means ohey^ and is so rendered. The 
 cognate noun invariably receives a corresponding 
 cognate rendering. It is the idea of the apostle 
 that the gospel is instinct with imperative. It 
 claims reception of itself. Men are bound to 
 accept it. It is the authoritative will of God 
 that men should believe the gospel. Faith in 
 it is a duty, as well as a privilege. Instead of 
 gospel the Revisers have substituted glad tidings^ 
 under the impression that the apostle's mind was 
 still strongly vibrating to the spell of Isaiah's 
 rapture. But that rapture, apparently, only 
 gleamed for a moment athwart the horizon of 
 his spirit, as seems to be made manifest by 
 the use of the word obeyed. The apostle is 
 already back to his ordinary didactic and argu- 
 mentative style. Undoubtedly his real reference 
 is to the gosi?el, and to the gospel not viewed 
 generically, but most specifically as the one 
 gospel of salvation. 
 
 Ver. 16, continued. For Isaiah says, Lord, 
 who hath believed our report ? or, very literally, 
 who believed our report ? The spokesman in the 
 prophet's oracle, and the apostle in his peculiar 
 
VERSE 17. 247 
 
 sphere of argument, were looking back to a 
 completed event. Who believed our report {at 
 the time lohen ive made it ?) When we went to 
 the people with our report, our message of salva- 
 tion (through Christ), our glad tidings of great 
 joy, loho believed what we proclaimed ? The be- 
 lievers among the Jews were few and far between, 
 and hence " the arm of Jahveh," which He would 
 so willingly have stretched down to lift up, 
 remained covered in its drapery. 
 
 The Yulgate Version is rather grotesque : who 
 hath believed our hearing ? {auditui nostro.) The 
 Rheims Version is ineffectual in its eflfort to 
 smooth the rendering : who hath believed the 
 hearing of us ? 
 
 Ver. 17. 8o then belief {spring eth) from ivhat 
 is reported. And what is reported {is given) 
 through Ghrisfs ivord. Hence the apostle's coun- 
 trymen should have been believers, believers of 
 the gospel. It was the gospel which was the 
 subject-matter of the all-important report which 
 had been made to them. The report, being 
 intelligible and well authenticated, should have 
 been cordially welcomed. All intelligible and 
 well-authenticated reports claim to be believed 
 by those for whom they are intentionally pre- 
 pared, and to whom they are legitimately sent. 
 They are fitted in their nature to elicit belief as 
 
248 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 regards their contents. Thus belief springs from 
 reports. " The belief " specially referred to by 
 the apostle, the belief of the gospel, wells up 
 out of the very Dature of the report made or 
 the testimony giveD. It was the business of 
 the apostles and their coadjutors to report the 
 good news of finished propitiation and salvation 
 to their countrymen, and by-and-by to their 
 fellow men at large. This their special ministry 
 was based on the teaching of Christ Himself. 
 He did much more than teach : but He did 
 teach incessantly, educating in particular His 
 personal disciples. All the teaching and preach- 
 ing of the apostles and evangelists were but 
 the reproduction and echo of the teaching and 
 preaching of the great Teacher and Preacher 
 Himself. Their report to the people around was 
 through the ivord of Christ to themselves. The 
 knowledge which they had of the nature of the 
 work of their Lord was almost all derived from 
 what had fallen from His lips, and was either 
 heard by them or reported to them. In the 
 Received Text, tbat of Erasmus, the expression 
 is not through Christ's word, but through God's 
 ivord. The two readings almost reciprocally 
 balance. The Old Latin Version has Christ's 
 ivord ; the Syriac Versions have God's icord. The 
 reading Christ's is on the whole the best sup- 
 ported. The Gothic, Sahidic, Coptic, Armenian 
 Versions support it. It is the reading that was 
 
VERSE 18. 249 
 
 least likely to have been obtruded in tbe margin, 
 if God's ivord had been in the autograph. 
 
 Ver. 18. Bat I say, Is it not the case that they 
 did not hear ? No, indeed. Into all the earth 
 went out their sound, and to the ends of the ivorld 
 their words. 
 
 The apostle anticipates for himself an objection 
 that might be started to his teaching regarding 
 the perilous position of his countrymen. Would 
 they be culpable on account of their unbelief, 
 if they had never heard the gospel-report ? 
 The apostle does not plunge into a discussion of 
 the abstract principle. lie had leaped into that 
 whirlpool before, in chapter ix., and had come 
 victoriously out. But the case he has now in 
 hand did not require any such elaborate argu- 
 mentation. For what is the matter of fact re- 
 garding this non-hearing ? It is not the case, is 
 it, that they did not hear ? 
 
 M-evovvye, " No indeed " ; it is far from being 
 the case, that they did not hear. The apostle, 
 having thus strongly repelled the suggestion 
 that perhaps his countrymen had not heard, 
 clothes his conception of the facility of hearing 
 in the garb of the psalmist's parallelistic lan- 
 guage : Into all the earth tvent forth their sound; 
 and to the ends of the world, their words. (See 
 Ps. xix. 4.) The pronoun, in the expression 
 
250 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 their loords, refers in particular to the heavens 
 spoken of in verse 1. Compare the concluding 
 clause of verse 4. All nature is vocal. " It has 
 a language, but not one that can be classed with 
 any of the dialects of earth" (Perowne). It is 
 " in reason's ear " that the works of nature, or 
 rather of nature's God, " utter forth a glorious 
 voice " (Addison). The apostle means that Jews 
 everywhere have been as assuredly within the 
 radius of the gospel as men everywhere, with 
 ears to hear, are within the reach of the voices 
 of nature. It is at the same time to be borne in 
 mind that in the chorus of nature's voices there 
 are utterances not of wisdom only, and of power, 
 but of benevolence likewise, and very " tender 
 mercy." There is more than tender mercy. There 
 are " tender mercies " over all our Father's works. 
 In the adoption of the universal language of the 
 psalmist, the apostle may by some be regarded as 
 dealing in hyperbolical representation. But if 
 hyperbole there be, it is a legitimate figure of 
 speech, enlivening style, and imposing on none 
 who are unsophisticated in natural taste. But, 
 apart from the sphere of hyperbole, there can be 
 no room for charging with exaggeration the 
 assertion that in the ears of the Jews, as a com- 
 munity, there was heard, in synagogue, and home, 
 and other places of stated and casual meeting, 
 the sound or clang of the glorious gospel. 
 
VERSE 19. 251 
 
 Yer. 19. But I say, Is it not the case that 
 Israel knew not ? First Moses saith^ I will in- 
 cite you to jealousy of a people who are not a 
 people ; I ivill exasperate you with a people void of 
 intelligence. 
 
 The apostle repeats himself, with variations, 
 in wave after wave of thought. But I say, Is 
 it not the case that Israel knew not ? No : that 
 is not the case. It may indeed be the case that 
 the masses of the people did not earnestly carry 
 out to its legitimate consequences the knowledge 
 which they possessed. That is likely enough. 
 Indeed it is certain. But the fulness and the 
 freeness of the gospel, to Gentiles as well as to 
 Jews, were made known to them by the teaching 
 of their prophets, and by the explicit words of 
 their Scriptures. The words were "in their 
 memories." And to that extent they had a 
 lodgement "in the heart." They were "in their 
 mouths," as they conversed one with another. 
 How could it then be said that Israel was un- 
 aware that " ivhosoever believeth on the Lord the 
 Christ would never be put to shame"? (Yer. 11.) 
 Was it not clearly made known to them that the 
 Lord is Lord of all, and that whosoever should 
 "call upon His name would be saved" ? Yerily, 
 " Israel did know," and they should all have 
 fostered their knowledge so that it might grow, 
 and bud, and blossom, and bring forth the fruit 
 
252 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 of righteousness and true benevolence. The im- 
 partial and universal relationship of the gospel, 
 as opposed to the idea of monopoly in behalf of 
 the Jews, should have been treated by them all 
 as a first principle, for assuredly it had been 
 clearly revealed to them. 
 
 First Moses saith. In adducing documentary 
 evidence in support of his allegation, he quotes 
 in the first place from Moses, the father at once 
 of their commonwealth and of their literature. 
 The word first is relative to a quotation which 
 is to follow in the second place. Priority in the 
 order of adduction is naturally conceded to the 
 words of the great lawgiver. 
 
 He said, in the name of his people's Grod, I 
 ivill incite you to jealousy hy a people ivho are not 
 a people, I ivill exasperate you tvith a people void 
 of intelligence. It is language of poetic rhythm, 
 and steeped in an element of anthropopathy. 
 God threatens to stir the spirit of jealousy in 
 their heart ; indirectly, no doubt, and inter- 
 mediately. They had, on their part, provoked 
 Him to indignation by reason of their infatuated 
 preference for idol-gods. " They provoked Him 
 to jealousy with strange gods ; with abominations 
 provoked they Him to anger." (Deut. xxxii. 16.) 
 By a righteous application of the talionic law, 
 they were now to reap the hurricane and the 
 " whirlwind." Their special privileges had been 
 forfeited, and were about to be withdrawn. Their 
 
VERSE 19. 253 
 
 organisation as the peculiar people of Grod re- 
 quired to be broken up. The Gentiles would 
 be elevated to the highest water-mark of Israel's 
 level ; and indeed, if they should be grateful and 
 faithful, a much higher level would be reached. 
 Thus would Grod move His Israelitish people to 
 jealousy and provoke them to anger. They 
 would be exasperated by being superseded. And 
 their exasperation would be nursed within them, 
 just as if they could have had a right to prero- 
 gatives when no ethical improvement was realised 
 or attempted. These threatenings, contained in 
 the hymn of Moses, are irrefragable evidence that 
 " Israel knew." And Israel ought to have con- 
 sidered carefully, that the gospel is G-od's voice 
 to Gentiles as well as to Jews. It proclaims 
 blessings that are free to all. Its veriest threaten- 
 ings are demonstrations of the universality of 
 grace. 
 
 When God is anthropopathically represented 
 as jealous in relation to idol-gods, the substrate 
 of thought involves such ideas as these : (1) He 
 longed for human love. (2) He Himself loved 
 sincerely and devotedly. (3) His love was not 
 reciprocated. It was allowed to lie, bleeding 
 inwardly. (4) There was in His heart some- 
 thing akin to a sense of disappointment. He 
 did not receive the treatment which He had a 
 right to expect. (5) There was a feeling of 
 moral indignation intermingling with His sorrow. 
 
254 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 When, again, Grod is represented as inciting 
 His Israelitish people to jealousy and indignation, 
 we are conscious of instantly descending to an 
 immeasurably lower level of conduct and char- 
 acter than what is brought into view in the 
 indignation and jealousy of God Himself. The 
 Israelites were actuated, not by an impartial 
 feeling of benevolence, but by a grasping spirit 
 of selfism and selfishness. Hence their jealousy 
 in reference to tbe Gentiles, and tbeir exasperated 
 feeling in reference to those who worked for the 
 weal of the Gentiles, — the apostle and his coad- 
 jutors. God's hand was operative in the super- 
 induction of penalties, not in giving shape to 
 the evil spirit that had been developed. The 
 abused prerogatives were withdrawn. And, as 
 a result of that withdrawal, there was jealousy 
 and exasperation. 
 
 The expression, not a people, or more literally, 
 not a nation or no nation, is not to be accounted 
 for on the principle that the Gentiles referred 
 to were destitute of true national organization 
 or incorporation, so that they were only an 
 immense mob, or a fortuitous concourse of 
 impersonated atoms or individuals. The Sep- 
 tuagint translation, followed by tlie apostle, does 
 scant justice to the original, in which a distinc- 
 tion is drawn between two distinct words, 2;^ and 
 '''i^. The distinction, though not rigid, needed 
 not to be ignored. The Gentiles in their sum 
 
VERSE 20. 255 
 
 total, were an immense "'''^ or e^vo?, but no people 
 (D;l^■^j7) so far as God's peculiar heritage is con- 
 cerned. Had the reference been, not to the 
 mass of Grentile persons, but to a single indi- 
 vidual, he might have been represented as " a 
 nobody." In their sum total they were an 
 " ethnic " people, devoid for long centuries of 
 spiritual intelligence. 
 
 Ver. 20. Andj in the second place, Isaiah 
 makes bold to say^ I was found of them who sought 
 Me 7iot, I became manifest to them ivho asked not 
 after Me. The passage quoted is part of the first 
 verse of chapter Ixv., and is regarded by the 
 majority of modern German expositors and Jewish 
 commentators as intentionally applicable, not to 
 the Gentiles, but to the Jews. They demur to the 
 relevancy of the apostle's quotation. But the last 
 clause of the verse, the clause not adduced by the 
 apostle, as not being required to authenticate the 
 legitimacy of his reference, is decisive evidence 
 that the prophet had the Gentiles in view. The 
 clause runs thus : I said, " Here am /," " Here am 
 J," to a nation " 7iot called by My name." Most 
 assuredly that nationality was not the Jews, but 
 the Gentiles. For not the Gentiles, but the Jews, 
 were called by the name of Jahveh or Jehovah. 
 It was they who were known among men as the 
 people whose God was Jahveh. Hence the 
 
256 EXPOSITION OF ROMANS X. 
 
 apostle was historically accurate in his application 
 of the two preceding clauses to the Gentiles. 
 
 The prophet is regarded as speaking " boldly." 
 His language was fitted to shock the prejudices 
 of his countrymen as regards that very prero- 
 gative in reference to which they were most 
 sensitive. Was not the true Jahveh their most 
 peculiar and exclusive possession ? And yet here 
 is their own peerless prophet *' boldly " asserting 
 that Grod was the God of the Gentiles as indis- 
 putably as He was the God of the Jews. I ivas 
 found by them who sought Me not. Jahveh sought 
 them, and they said Here are toe. They did not 
 repel His advances. There is a transposition in 
 the order of the clauses. / became manifest to 
 them who asked not for Me. God revealed Him- 
 self to them, and they did not close their eyes 
 and stop their ears. He made Himself accessible 
 to those who wished to inquire reverently and be 
 divinely guided. (See the peculiar Hebrew word 
 ^•^^1"!^, bringing " oracle " into view.) 
 
 Yer. 21. But as to Israel lie saith, All the day 
 long I stretched forth My hands to a disobedient and 
 gainsaying jJ^ople. 
 
 The word gainsaying, though an excellent ren- 
 dering, is archaic. Contradictory is ambiguous. 
 Contradicting is literal and good. Instead of 
 disobedient, Tyndale and Coverdale, following the 
 
VERSE 21. 257 
 
 Vulo^ate, have that beleveth not. So Bengel, 
 imbeUeving. 
 
 While, on the one hand, the Lord was found by 
 tliem wh.0 sought Him not, and was made manifest 
 to them who asked not for Him ; on the other, 
 He was rejected, as with scorn, by those to wliom 
 He stretched forth His hands. The hands were 
 stretched forth invitingly, winningly, urgingly, 
 imploringly. They had been thus stretched forth 
 all the day ; i.e. unintermittingly, unweariedly. 
 
 Alas ! alas ! No wonder that the tenderest 
 heart, that ever throbbed within human bosom, 
 should have burst forth wailingly into tears 
 and pangs and such bitter utterances as these, — 
 " Jerusalem^ Jerusalem^ which Jdllest the pro- 
 phets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how 
 often ivould I ha.ve gathered thy children together, 
 as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, 
 and ye would not ! Behold, your house is left unto 
 you desolate.^' (Luke xiii. 34, 35.) 
 
 En tier S: Tanner, The Sol wood Printing Works, Frome, and London. 
 
 S 
 
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 I. 
 
 Sixth Edition, in 8vo, price 14s. 
 
 A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 
 
 II 
 
 Fift/i Edition, in Zvo, price \2s. 
 
 A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 
 
 PRESS NOTICES. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 
 
 " We have found Dr. Morison a very able expositor. He has a 
 sound judgment, great capacity for criticism, and immense industry." 
 
 Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. 
 
 " No student can well do without it. It is a marvellous display of 
 learning and labour." 
 
 Rev. J. Agar Beet. 
 
 " This great work is a long way beyond and above our criticism. 
 The unanimous verdict of the best judges, of men differing most widely 
 in their theological opinions, has declared it to be one of the ablest 
 expositions of Holy Scripture produced in any age or nation." 
 
 Expositor. 
 
 " Dr. Morison's Commentaries on St. Matthew and St. Mark are 
 simply invaluable. His style is so racy, so graphic, so idiomatic, that 
 one reads him not only with no sense of labour, but with constant 
 surprise and delight." 
 
 Rock. 
 
 " Its criticisms are keen, well sustained, and never feeble or puerile ; 
 while no difficulty of text or interpretation is ever shrunk from. Dr. 
 Morison's Commentary gives evidence of the best qualities of a 
 scholar and a divine ; and it is a work which we recommend to all 
 theological students as giving very valuable aid, to be sought in vain 
 elsewhere." 
 
London Quarterly Review. 
 
 " This is, on the whole, the most wise, exhaustive, and serviceable 
 Commentary on Matthew which we have yet seen." 
 
 Scotsman. 
 
 " To come down to recent times, the venerable Dr. James Mori- 
 son has, in his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, exhibited a 
 deeper insight into gospel history than any living expositor, native 
 or foreign." 
 
 United Presbyterian Magazine. 
 
 "We have seldom dipped into any exegetical performance with 
 more pleasure. Our admiration has been excited by the displays of 
 learning, acuteness, and lively imagination, combined with devout- 
 ness, which mark every page. We feel that we are in the hands of 
 an independent and original thinker, and that under his guidance we 
 are really adding to the stock of our knowledge in the things of the 
 Spirit." 
 
 Methodist Recorder. 
 
 " On the whole. Dr. Morison's Commentaries on the Gospels of 
 Matthew and Mark are the best we know." 
 
 Record. 
 
 " Dr. Morison's Commentary on the first of the Gospels was highly 
 recommended in the Record as scholarly, exhaustive, and thoroughly 
 devout. We are able with much satisfaction to recommend the work 
 before xx's,— Commentary on Mark — as marked with much ability. 
 Dr. Morison is evidently a divine of no ordinary erudition. His 
 expositions, characterised by common sense and sound judgment, are 
 evangelical and edifying ; and the theological student will especially 
 value the combination of patience, critical sagacity, and fairness." 
 
 Expositor. 
 
 "Our opinion of this masterly work, the value we put on it is well 
 known. It was, in our judgment, the best Commentary on St. Mat- 
 thew's Gospel a dozen years ago ; and, despite the almost incredible 
 advance in the art and practice of exposition which has been wit- 
 nessed since then, it remains the best to this day." 
 
 Nonconformist. 
 
 " Not only has he studied the great commentaries, ancient and 
 modern, on the Scripture he takes in hand ; he has also studied the 
 voluminous dissertations that have been written on single and often 
 minute points of interpretation. He has digested what he has read ; 
 and is not content to give other men's views, but also gives both his 
 own and his reasons for forming them. He has the rare gift of 
 common sense in singular perfection." 
 
 London: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row. 
 
III. 
 
 ^vo, cloth, price i,s. ba. 
 
 ST. PAUL'S TEACHING ON 
 SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 A Practical Exposition of Romans VI. 
 
 " Dr. Morison's unfolding of the force and bearing of each word in 
 the sacred text is admirable. We thank him heartily for an able and 
 admirable piece of expository work, the value of which those who best 
 know the dangers and difficulties of such a work will be prompt to 
 recognise. We heartily recommend this ' practical exposition ' to our 
 readers." — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 " The treatise is a logical and doctrinal exposition of Romans vi., 
 and we have no reservation in expressing high appreciation of this 
 commentary." — Clergymati s Magazine. 
 
 " The ripe fruit of vigorous and deep study. We heartily commend 
 this very able and lucid series of expositions of the thoughts of a 
 chapter reveahng the inmost convictions and most elaborated reason- 
 ings of the great apostle." — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 " Dr. Morison's monograph on one of the weightiest and most 
 profoundly interesting chapters of the Epistle to the Romans is a 
 really valuable contribution to our expository and practical divinity." 
 — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 " An admirable specimen of the manner in which a thoroughly 
 instructed and vivacious teacher can lead the lay mind to the most 
 exact scrutiny of the words and thoughts of his text." — Expositor. 
 
 " This scholarly, vivacious, and intensely interesting e.xposition." — 
 Homiletic Magazine. 
 
 " Characterised by ability, scholarship, critical sagacity, sound 
 exegetical judgment, and great devoutness of spirit. As a contribution 
 to theological science it is invaluable." — Methodist Times. 
 
 " As a learned and thorough and yet at the same time a perfectly 
 clear and intelligible exposition of the meaning of the apostle and of 
 the logical sequence of his thought, the work could not easily be 
 surpassed." — Scotsman. 
 
 London : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, P.^ternoster Row. 
 
 3 
 
IV. 
 
 S7'o, c/o//i, price \2s. 6d. 
 
 A CRITICAL EXPOSITION 
 
 of the Third Chapter of Paul's Epistle to 
 
 the Romans. A Monograph. 
 
 " The work is marked by much ability. The author's ei-udition is 
 uncommonly extensive. He has abundance of Greek and Hebrew- 
 learning, and is familiar with technical theology in its minutest details. 
 Nor have his accumulated stores of knowledge weighed down his 
 brains so that they are incapable of thinking. On the contrary, the 
 author is metaphysical and acute. He can criticise the great mas- 
 ters of exegesis that have preceded him, bringing a clear intellect 
 to bear upon their expositions, and subjecting their opinions to a 
 minute analysis. As an example of exhaustive exposition, the volume 
 is unique in these days. . . , Every verse and every word are can- 
 vassed ; while the opinions of many writers upon these words and 
 verses are fairly given. . . . The multifarious reading and intel- 
 lectual vigour of the author shows that he is peculiarly gifted. In 
 the great majority of instances in which he enters into elaborate inves- 
 tigations of special words or phrases, we agree with his conclusions, 
 admiring, all the while, his patient consideration and calm judgment. 
 A scholar must produce cogent reasons for dissenting from the views 
 at which the author has arrived through inductive processes, indica- 
 tive of much labour, reading, and thought." — Atheiiaiim. 
 
 "We regard the work, on the whole, as a rare specimen of most 
 varied research, combined with independent judgment and critical 
 sagacity ; of minute acquaintance with the opinions of others, accom- 
 panied with a severe analysis of their merits ; of linguistic aptitudes 
 united with logical power and intellectual vigour. Dr. Morison 
 possesses a far greater number of the qualifications requisite for a 
 satisfactory explanation of Scripture than most of his fellow labourers 
 in the same field." — British Quarterly Revieiu. 
 
 " See generally the thorough defence of the forensic meaning of 
 tiKaiovaSai in the New Testament, supported from classic authors, and 
 from the Old Testament,— in Morison, p. 163 fiP—TJie late H. A. 
 W. Meyer, of Hannover {in his " Coinmentary on the Epistle to the 
 Romans" vol. i., p. 161). 
 
 ^^ Morison\<; monograph on Romans iii. is, as it seems to me, a 
 unique specimen of learning and sound exegetical judgment." — Dr. 
 F. Godet, Neiichatel {in his Introductio7i to his " Commenta7y on the 
 Epistle to the Romans," vol. i., p, 117). 
 
 4 
 
NEW AND IMPORTANT HO MILE TIC WORK. 
 
 Now ready — Genesis to 2 Samuel, Volume I., containing 
 sonxe hundreds of Outlines. 
 
 THE SERMON BIBLE. 
 
 This Series of Volumes will give in convenient form the essence 
 of the best homiletic literature of this generation. As yet the preacher 
 desirous of knowing the best that has been said on a text has had 
 nothing to turn to but a very meagre and inadequate Homiletical Index. 
 In this he is often referred to obsolete or second-rate works, while he 
 misses references to the best sources. The new Sermon Bible will 
 take account of the best and greatest preachers, and will be compiled 
 from manuscript reports and fugitive periodical sources as well as 
 from books. Many of the best sernaons preached by eminent men 
 are never printed in book form. It will thus contain much that will 
 be new to its readers. 
 
 UNDER EVERY TEXT WILL BE GIVEN: 
 
 1. Outlines of important sermons by eminent preachers existing 
 
 only in manuscript or periodicals, and thus inaccessible. 
 
 2. Less full outlines of sermons which have appeared in volumes 
 
 which are not well known or easily obtained. 
 
 3. References to or very brief outlines of sermons which appear 
 
 itt popular volumes such as are likely to be in a preacher's 
 library. 
 
 4. Full references to theological treatises., commentaries., etc., 
 
 where atty help is given to the elucidation of the text. 
 
 Thus the preacher, having chosen his text, has only to refer to the 
 Sermon Bible, to find some of the best outhnes and suggestions on 
 it and full refei-ences to all the helps available. 
 
 The range of books consulted will be far wider than in any Homi- 
 letical Index — we cannot say than in any work of the kind, because 
 no work of the kind is in e.xistence. 
 
 The Series will be under the general supervision of the Editor of 
 the " Clerical Library," who will be assisted by specialists in each 
 department. 
 
 It will extend to 12 volumes, consisting of about 400 
 
 pages, price 7/6 each, and will be published at the rate 
 
 of at least two volumes a year. 
 
 Great care will be taken to observe due proportion in the volumes^ 
 the space given to each book of the Bible depending on the number 
 of sermons that have been preached from it. — 
 
 As the volumes will be indispensable to every preacher, and 
 as they will be in constant use, they will be issued well bound, and at 
 an exceedingly moderate price when the amount of matter is con- 
 sidered. 
 
 London : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row. 
 
 5 
 
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE. 
 
 ■EDITED BY REV. 
 
 W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., 
 
 Editor of " THE EXPOSITOR." 
 
 This Series will contain Expository Lectures on the Bfble by the foremost 
 Preachers and Theologians of the day. While regard will be had to the latest 
 results of Scholarship, the Volumes will be essentially popular and adapted to 
 general readers quite as much as to the clergy. It is especially to be noticed that, 
 with one or two exceptions, all the Volumes will be absolutely fiew, not having 
 appeared in either magazine or book form. 
 
 SIX VOLUMES WILL BE PUBLISHED A YEAR. 
 
 In Large Crown Octavo, cloth, price yj. 6d. each. 
 
 Nmi) Ready. 
 
 ST. MARK. By Very Rev. G. A. Chadwick, D.D., Dean 
 
 of Armagh. 
 
 "It is at once scholarly, popular, and orthodox, and written in clear, vigorous 
 English. " — Scotsman. 
 
 "Dr. Chadwick's style is characteristic, thoughtful, clear, and vigorous. He is 
 never commonplace or trivial." — Record. 
 
 "A valuable, interesting, and delightful work, almost every page of which con- 
 tains something worthy of quotation." — English Churclunan. 
 
 COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON. By Rev. Alex- 
 ander Maclaren, D.D. 
 
 "In nothing Dr. Maclaren has written is there more of beauty, of spiritual 
 insight, or of brilliant elucidation of Scripture. Indeed, Dr. Maclaren is here at 
 his best." — Expositor. 
 
 GENESIS. By Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D. 
 
 "Dr. Dods has a steady head, a practised hand, and a determined will. With 
 admirable address he has steered his way between the shoals and rocks of prelimi- 
 nary questions, and has brought safely to port his rich cargo of exposition, the pro- 
 duce of many an arduous voyage of discovery and research. The style of this book 
 is so simple, the march of the thought so strong and unencumbered, and there is in 
 the ripe result such a perfect assimilation of varied erudition, that none but fellow 
 craftsmen will realize the amount of study, industry, and many-sided ability that 
 was requisite to produce it." — Professor W. G. Elmslie, Ai.A. 
 
 I and 2 SAMUEL. By Rev. Professor W. G. Blaikie, 
 
 D.D., LL.D. In Two Volumes. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Rev. 
 Principal T. C. Edwards, D.D. 
 
 London : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row. 
 
 6 
 
BS2665.M862 
 
 Exposition of the ninth chapter of the 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00068 7410