VERSES 22, 23. But what if dod. willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, &c.? These verses contain Paul's second answer to the difficulty presented in the 19th verse. He had shown in vs. 20, 21, that in virtue of his relation to men as his sinful creatures, God is at perfect liberty to dispose of them at his pleasure, pardoning one and punishing another, as seerneth good in his sight. He now shows that in the exercise of this right there is nothing unreasonable or unjust, nothing of which his creatures have the least right to complain. The punishment of the wicked is not an arbitrary act, having no object but to make them miserable; it is designed to manifest the displeasure of God against sin, and to make known his true character. On the other hand, the salva tion of the righteous is designed to display the riches of his grace. Both in the punishment of the one class and the salva tion of the other, most important and benevolent ends are to be answered. And since for these ends it was necessary that some should be punished, while others mi.irht lie pardoned, as all are equally undeserving, it results iVom the nature of the case that the decision between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy must be left to God. The apostle would, moreover, have it remarked, that even in the necessary punish ment of the wicked, God does not proceed with any undue severity, but, on the contrary, deals with them with the greatest long-suffering and tenderness. Such seems to be the general purport and object of these difficult verses.
The attentive reader will perceive, that even with the inser tion of the word wlidt^ which has nothing to answer to it in the original, and with a sign of interrogation at the end of ver. 24, the construction of the passage in our version remains unirrammatical and the sense incomplete. As the difficult v exists in the Greek text, and not merely in our translation, the explana tions which have been proposed are verv numerous. Manv of these are presented and canvassed by Tholuck and Wolf, par ticularly the latter. There' are three views taken of the con nection, which are the most plau-ible. 1. The two verses are considered as both referring to the rejection of the wicked, for which ver. 22 assigns one reason, and ver. 23 another. 'What if God, willing to show his wrath, endured with much lonjr-suffering the vessels of wrath, so that also he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, £c.' The treatment of the wicked was not only to display the divine displeasure against sin, but also, by contrast, his mercy towards his people.*
* So, among others, Calvin, who translates verse 23 thus, Ut notas quoque faceret divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae praeparavit in gloriam.
And in his comment he remarks, Est autem secunda- ratio quae gloriam Dei in
But, in order to make the two verses cohere in this way, it is necessary to transpose the words at the beginning of the 23d verse, and read that also, instead of and that, which alters the sense materially, while for such a transposition there is no authority. Besides this, it makes ver. 23 too subordinate to ver. 22; that is, it makes God's dealings towards the vessels of mercy merely an incidental topic, instead of having equal prominence with his treatment of the vessels of wrath. From the context we are led to expect a vindication of his course, not only in the destruction of the latter, but in the salvation of the former.
2. A second explanation is to make the second clause of ver. 22 and the beginning of ver. 23 depend on the first words of ver. 22. 'God willing to show his wrath and make his power known, and (willing) that the riches of his glory should be known, &c.' This gives a good sense, though the construction is suddenly, and rather violently, changed at the beginning of ver. 23, "that he might make known," being substituted for the infinitive, "to make known."
3. Tholuck makes ver. 24 parallel with ver. 23, and explains the passage thus, ' God, willing to manifest his wrath, bore with the vessels of wrath; and that he might make known his mercy, called us, &c.' This gives a very good sense, but assumes the construction to be irregular to a very unusual degree. Though the second method be somewhat irregular, it seems, on the whole, the least objectionable, and gives a sense obviously con sistent with the context. The meaning of the apostle is suffi ciently plain. He asks a question ec os, but if. 4 What can be said if God, to manifest his justice, bears with the vessels of wrath, and to manifest his grace prepares the vessels of mercy?' There is nothing in this inconsistent with the character of God, or the rights of his creatures.
reproborum interitu manifestat; quod ex eo luculentius divinae bonitatis erga electos amplitude confirmatur.
Much in the same way Winer explains the passage, connecting the xx/ iva. of ver. 23, immediately with the verb wiyx.iv of ver. 22, " Wenn Gott beschliessend mit aller Langmuth die Gefasse seines Zornes trug * * auch in der Absicht, den Reichthum * * zuerkennen zu geben." "If God willing * * * bore with all long-suffering the vessels of wrath * * * * also with the view to make known the riches, &c." Gram. p. 443.
The two objects which Paul here specifies as designed to be answered by the punishment of the wicked, are the manifesta tion of the wrath of G-od, and the exhibition of his power. The word wrath is used here as in chap. i. 18, for the divine displeasure against sin, the calm and holy disapprobation of evil, joined with the determination to punish those who com mit it.* The power of God is conspicuously displayed in the destruction of the wicked, no matter how mighty or numerous they may be. Though the inherent ill-desert of sin must ever be regarded as the primary ground of the infliction of punish ment, a ground which would remain in full force, were no bene ficial results anticipated from the misery of the wicked, yet God has so ordered his government that the evils which sinners incur shall result in the manifestation of his character, and the consequent promotion of the holiness and happiness of his intel ligent creatures throughout eternity.
God treats the wicked, not as a severe judge, but with much long suffering. The expression vessels <>f irrdth, no doubt sug gests itself from the illustration of the potter used in the pre ceding verse; though the term vessel is used not unfrequently in reference to men, Acts ix. lf>, 1 Peter iii. 7. l^eascls of wrath, i. e., vessels to receive wrath, or which are destined to be the objects of wrath. This is a modification of the expres sion in ver. 21, ax?ju~ £/~ arr///'/:/, /vxx<7 unto dislmnnur.
Fitted to destruction, xatY^orfff/is^a £/- <\-ti)\=u&. This phrase admits of two interpretations. Tin; passive participle may bo taken as a verbal adjective, fit for destruction. This leaves undetermined the agency by which this fitness was effected. Comp. '2 Cor. x. 10, 1 Peter i. 8. In favour of this view is the change of expression adopted in ver. 2o. Of the vessels of wrath, it is simply said that they arc lit for destruction; hut of the vessels of mercy, that God prepares them for glory. Why this change, if the apostle did not intend to intimate that the agency of ( Jod is very different in the one case from what it is in the other '.' Besides, as it is the object of the writer to vindicate the justice of God in these dispensations, it is specially perti nent to represent the vessels of wrath as lit for destruction in
* Ira Dei non, perturbatio animi ejus est, sed judicium quo irrogatur poena peccato. August. De Civit. Dei, 1. 15, c. 35.
the sense of deserving it. The other interpretation assumes that the reference is to God, and that 7.o.To.f)Ti<ju.iva. has its full participial force; prepared (by God) for destruction. This is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans and Neologists. This sense they say is de manded by the context. God is compared to a potter, who prepares one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. So God prepares some for wrath, and some ftfr mercy. This, however, is not to be understood in a supralapsarian sense. God does not create men in order to destroy them. The pre paration intended is that illustrated in the case of Pharaoh. God did not make him wicked and obdurate; but as a punish ment for his sin, he so dealt with him that the evil of his nature revealed itself in a form, and under circumstances, which made him a fit object of the punitive justice of God. The dealings of God as a sovereign arc often, by the Jewish writers, spoken of in the same terms as those here used; see Moed Katon, fol. 9, 1. Exiit filia vocis, dixitque eis; vos omnes ordinati estis ad vitam scculi futuri. Megilla, fol. 12, 2. Memuchan, Esther i. 14, i. e., Hainan. Cur vocatur nomen ejus Memucan? quia ordinatus est ad poenas..R. Bechai in Pentateuch, fol. 132. Gentes ordinatac ad gchenriam; Israel vero ad vitam. Fol. 220, 4, Duas istas gentes vocat Salomo duas filias, dicitque ad gehennam ordinatas esse. Bechoroth, fol. 8, 2. R. Joseph docuit, hi sunt Persae, qui preparati sunt in gehennam. Wetstein on Acts xiii. 48.
VERSE 23. And that lie, mialit make known the riches of his glory, &c. The grammatical construction of this clause, as before remarked, is doubtful. The Iva Yviopiorj may depend on '^y£?-*£y, he bore with the vessels of wrath in order that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy; or, they may be connected with xaTypreff/jLeva, vessels prepared for destruction, in order that he might make known, &c. Or, we must assume that?va fuajplffj] is used for the infinitive, arid that this clause is coordinate with the preceding. i AYhat if God, to manifest his wrath, bears with the wicked, and to make known his mercy, prepares others for glory.' The vessels of merey, i. e., those destined to mercy. The riches of, i. e., the abundance or greatness of, his glory. The glory refers to the divine majesty or excellence which is glorious, that is, the proper object of admiration. It may be used of the divine per fection in general, or for any of the divine attributes in particu lar, for his power, as Horn. vi. 4, or his mercy, in Eph. iii. 16. Here it should be taken in its comprehensive sense, although from its opposition to the word wrath, the reference is specially to the mercy of God. That is the attribute most conspicuously displayed in the salvation of sinners.
Which he had afore prepared, -rtor^oiimazy. This word is used both in the sense of preparing beforehand, and of predes tining. Many prefer the latter sense here; -whom he had pre destined to glory. Comp. Eph. ii. 10. But the context is in favour of the ordinary meaning of the word. God, as the pot ter, prepares or fashions the vessels of mercy unto <jtory. The word ylory here evidently refers to the glorious state of exist ence for which God is preparing his people, and in hope of which they now rejoice, v. '2.
VERSE '24. Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but alto of the Gentiles. We are the vessels of his mercy, even we whom he hath called, i. e., effectually intro duced by his Spirit into the kingdom of Christ; see chap. viii. 28, 30. The use of the masculine relative at-, although tho antecedent (jy.i'j-^ s/.sou^ is neuter, may be explained as a constructio ad sensum, or better as a case of attraction; u7j~ taking the gender of the following ^na^. Winer, § ()•'!, 1. How naturally does the apostle here return to the main subject of discussion! How skilfully is the conclusion brought out at which he has continually aimed! God chose Isaac in prefer ence to Ishmael, Jacob in preference to Esau; it is a preroga tive which he claims and exercises, of selecting from a 1110110- the guilty family of men, whom he pleases as the objects of his mercy, and leaving whom he pleases to perish in their sins, unrestricted in his choice by the descent or previous conduct of the individuals. He has mercy upon whom he will have mercy. He calls men, therefore, from among the Gentiles and from among the Jews indiscriminately. This is the conclusion at which the apostle aimed. The Gentiles are admitted into the Messiah's kingdom, vs. 25, 2G; and the great body of the Jews are excluded, ver. 27. This conclusion he confirms by explicit
declarations of Scripture. Ex disputatione, quam hactcnus de libcrtate divinae clcctionis habuit, duo consequebantur: nompe Dei gratiam non ita inclusam esse in populo Judaico, ut non ad alias quoque nationes emanare, et in orbcm universum effundere ee posset: deinde ne sic quidem alligatam csse Judaeis, ut ad omnes Abrahae filios secundum carnem sine exceptione pcrvcniat. — Calvin.
1. No external circumstance, no descent from pious parents, no connection with the true church, can secure admission for men into the kingdom of Christ, vs. G — 12.
2. Paul teaches clearly the doctrine of the personal election of men to eternal life, an election founded not on works, but on the good pleasure of God. The choice is to eternal life, and not to external privileges merely. 1. Because the very point to be illustrated and established through this and the two fol io win"1 chapters, is the free admission of men into the Messiah's kingdom, and its spiritual and eternal blessings, 2. Because the language of the apostle seems of itself to preclude the other idea, in vs. 15, 10, and especially in ver. 18, "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth." This is not applicable to the reception of men to a state of peculiar external privileges or their rejection from it. 3. The case of Pharaoh is not an illustration of the refusal to admit some men to peculiar privileges. 4. The choice is between the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath; vessels of mercy chosen unto glory, not unto church privileges, and vessels of wrath who were to be made the examples of God's displeasure against sin. 5. The character of the objections to the apostle's doc trine shows that such was the nature of the choice. If this election is to eternal life, it is, of course, a choice of individu als, and not of communities, because communities, as such, do not inherit eternal life. This is still further proved by the cases of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, between whom, as individuals, the choice was made. From the illustra tion derived from the case of Pharaoh. From the objections presented in vs. 14, 19. From the answer to these objections in vs. 15, 16, 20, 23, especially from the passage just referred to, which speaks of the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory; which cannot be applied to nations or communities. This elec tion is sovereign, i. c., is founded on the good pleasure of God, and not on any thing in its objects. 1. Because this is express ly asserted. The choice between Jacob and Esau was made prior to birth, that it might be seen that it was not founded on works, but on the good pleasure of God, vcr. 11. The same is clearly stated in ver. 1(J, "It is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth merry:" and also in vcr. 18, "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, tfcc." The decision rests with God. 2. Because otherwise there would be no shadow of objection to the doctrine. I low could men say it was unjust if God chose one and rejected another according to their works? And how could any one object, as in ver. 1!>, 'that as the will of God could not be resisted, men were not to be blamed,' if the decision in question did not depend on the sovereign will of God? How easy for the apostle to have answered the objector, 'You are mistaken, the choice is not of God; lie does not choose whom he will, but those who IK- sees will choose him. It is not his will, but man's that decides the point.' Paul does not thus answer. lie vindicates the doctrine of the divine sovereignty. The fact, therefore, that Paul had to answer the same objections which are now constantly urged against the doctrine of election, goes far to show that that doctrine was his. •>. That the election is sovereign, is taught elsewhere in Scripture. In - Tim. i. {>, it is said to bo " not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace." Kpli. i..">, it is said to lie k- accordinir to the good pleasure ol his will." i. e.. his sovereign pleasure. 4. This view alone harmonises with the doctrine, that all good thoughts and right purposes and feelings proceed from God, which is clearly taught in the Scriptures. For if the purpose not to resist 'common grace,' is a right purpose, it is of God, and. of course, it is of him that one man forms it, and another does not. o. This doctrine is alone consistent with Christian experience. "Why was I made to hear thy voice?" No Christian answers this question by saying, because 1 was better than others.
viz., that it is inconsistent with the divine character, and incom patible with human responsibility, are answered by the apostle. It cannot be unjust, because God claims and exercises the right of sovereign choice. It is not inconsistent with human respon sibility, because God does not make men wicked. Though, as their Sovereign, he has a right to dispose of wicked men as he pleases. He can, of the same corrupt mass, choose one to honour, and the other to dishonour, vs. 14 — 23.
4. Scripture must ever be consistent with itself. The rejec tion of the Jews could not be inconsistent with any of God's promises, ver. G.
5. The true children of God become such in virtue of a divine promise, or by the special exercise of his grace. They are born not of the will of the flesh, but of God, ver. 8.
6. Though children prior to birth do neither good nor evil, yet they may be naturally depraved. They neither hunger nor thirst, yet hunger and thirst are natural appetites. They exercise neither love nor anger, yet these are natural passions. They know probably neither joy nor sorrow, yet are these natural emotions, ver. 11.
7. The manifestation of the divine perfections is the last and highest end of all things, vs. 17, 22, 23.
8. The fact that the destiny of men is in the hands of God (that it is riot of him that willeth, or him that runneth,) is not inconsistent with the necessity of the use of means. The fact that the character of the harvest depends on the sovereign pleasure of God, does not render the labour of the husbandman of no account. The same God who says, "I will have mercy on whom I will," says also, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." The sovereignty of God and the neces sity of human efforts are both clearly taught in the Scriptures. At times the former, as in this chapter, at times the latter doc trine is most insisted upon. Neither should be forgotten or neglected, as both combine to produce the right impression on the mind, and to lead us to God in the way of his own appoint ment, ver. 16.
9. Men, considered as the objects of election, are regarded as fallen. It is from the corrupt mass that God chooses one Vessel to honour and one to dishonour, vs. 22, 23.
10. The judicial abandonment of men to their own ways, the giving them up to work out their own destruction, is a righteous though dreadful doom, vs. 18, 22, also chap. i. 24, 26.
1. If descent from Abraham, participation in all the privi leges of the theocracy, the true and only church, failed to secure for the Jews the favour of God, how foolish the expecta tion of those who rely on outward ordinances and church-rela tions as the ground of their acceptance, vs. 6 — 13.
2. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the choice of the objects of his mercy should produce, 1. The most profound humility in those who are called according to his purpose. They are constrained to say, "Not unto us, not unto us, but unto thy name be all the glory." 2. The liveliest gratitude, that we, though so unworthy, should from eternity have been selected as the objects in which God displays '' the riches of his gh>rv." •). Confidence and peace, under all circumstances, because the purpose of God does not change; whom he has predestinated, them he also calls, justifies, and glorifies. 4. Diligence in the discharge of all duty, to make our calling and election sure. That is, to make it evident to ourselves and others, that we are the called and chosen of God. We should ever remember that election is to holiness, and consequently to live in sin, is to invalidate every claim to be considered as one of "God's elect."
3. As God is the immutable standard of right and truth, the proper method to answer objections against the doctrines we profess, is to appeal to what God says, and to what he docs. Any objection that can be shown to be inconsistent with any declaration of Scripture, or with any fact in providence, is suffi ciently answered, vs. 15, IT.
4. It should, therefore, be assumed as a first principle, that God cannot do wrong. If he does a thing, it must be right. And it is much safer for us, corrupt and blinded mortals, thus to argue, than to pursue the opposite course, and maintain that God does not and cannot do so and so, because in our judgment it would be wrong, vs. 15 — l(.b
5. All cavilling against God is wicked. It is inconsistent with our relation to him as our Creator. It is a manifestation of self-ignorance, and of irreverence toward God, ver. 20.
6. What proof of piety is there in believing our own eyes, or in receiving the deductions of our own reasoning? But to confide in God, when clouds and darkness are round about him; to be sure that what he does is right, and that what he says is true, when we cannot see how either the one or the other can be, this is acceptable in his sight. And to this trial he subjects all his people, vs. 20 — 24.
7. If the manifestation of the divine glory is the highest end of God in creation, providence, and redemption, it is the end for which we should live and be willing to die. To substi tute any other end, as our own glory and advantage, is folly, sin, and self-destruction, vs. 17, 22, 23.
8. The fact that God says to some men, "Let them alone;" that "he gives them up to a reprobate mind;" that he with holds from them, in punishment of their sins, the influences of his Spirit, should fill all the impenitent with alarm. It should lead them to obey at once his voice, lest he swear in his wrath that they shall never enter into his rest, vs. 17, 18.
9. We and all things else arc in the hands of God. lie worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. The Lord reigns, let the earth rejoice, vs. 14 — 24.
THE conclusion at which the apostle had arrived in the pre ceding section, was, that God is at liberty to select the objects of his mercy, indiscriminately, from among the Gentiles and Jews. This conclusion he now confirms by the declarations of the Old Testament, according to which it is clear, 1. That those were to be included in the kingdom of God, who origi nally were considered as aliens, vs. 25, 26; and 2. That, as to the Israelites, only a small portion should attain to the blessings of the Messiah's reign, and of course, the mere being a Jew by birth was no security of salvation, vs. 27 — 29. The inference from all this is, that the Gentiles are called, and the Jews, as Jews, are rejected, vs. 30, 31. The reason of this rejection is that they would not submit to the terms of salvation presented in the gospel, ver. 32. As it had been long before predicted, they rejected their Messiah, taking offence at him, seeing in him no form or comeliness that they should desire him,
VERSE 25. The first part of the general conclusion, contained in the 24th verso, is, that the Gentiles are eligible to the bless ings of Christ's kingdom. This the apostle confirms by two passages from the prophecies of Hosea, which express the genera] sentiment, that those who, under the old economy, were not regarded as the people of God, should hereafter (i. e., under the Messiah) become his people. The first passage cited is from Hosea ii. 23, which in our version is, k> I will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to tJ/oti ->r]i t'-1i were not my people, tbou art my people." The Hebrew, however, admits of the rendering given by the apostle, as the word translated to h«>'<' nieroj may signify to love. The difficulty with, regard to this passage is, that in Hosea it evi dently has reference not to the heathen, but to the ten tribes. "\Vhereas, Paul refers it to the Gentiles, as is also done by Peter, 1 Peter ii. 1<). This difficulty is sometimes gotten over by giving a different view of the apostle's object in the citation, and making it refer to the restoration of the Jews..Hut this interpretation is obviously at variance with the context. It is more satisfactory to say, that the ten tribes were in a heathen ish state, relapsed into idolatry, and, therefore, what was said of them, is of course applicable to others in like circumstances, or of like character. What amounts to much the same thing, the sentiment of the prophet is to be taken generally, 'those who were excluded from the theocracy, who were regarded and treated as aliens, were hereafter to be treated as the people of God.' In this view, it is perfectly applicable to the apostle's object, which was to convince the Jews, that the blessings of Christ's kingdom were not to be confined within the pale of the Old Testament economy, or limited to those who, in their external relations, were considered the people of God; on the contrary, those who, according to the rules of that economy, were not the people of God, should hereafter become such. This method of interpreting and applying Scripture is both common and correct. A general truth, stated in reference to a particular class of persons, is to be considered as intended to apply to all those whose character and circumstances are the same, though the form or words of the original enunciation may not be applicable to all embraced within the scope of the general sentiment. Thus what is said of one class of heathen, as such, is applicable to all others, and what is said of one portion of aliens from the Old Testament covenant, may properly be referred to others.
VERSE 26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place ivJiere it was said to them. Ye are not my people, &c. This quotation is more strictly conformed to the Hebrew than the preceding. It is from Hosea i. 10. The sentiment is the same as before. The combination of two or more disconnected passages in one quotation, is riot unusual in the New Testament, and was a common practice with the Jewish Rabbins, who, as Surenhusius says, Interdum plura loca sacrae Scripturae in unum contrahi solent ad efficaciorem rei demonstrationem. In the place where, Iv TW TOTTOJ ov, is by many understood of Palestine. The pro phet predicts the ten tribes should be restored, and that they should be again recognised as part of the people of God in the very place where they had been regarded as apostates and out casts. Others think that the apostle refers to the church, in coetu Christianorum, ubi diu dubitatum est, an recte Gen tiles reciperentur, ibi appellabantur filii Dei. — Fritzsche. Much the most common and natural explanation is, that the reference is indefinitely to the heathen world. Wherever, in every place, where the people had been regarded as aliens, they should be called the children of God. That is, those formerly not his people, should become his people.
VERSES 27, 28. The second part of the apostle's conclusion, ver. 24, is, that the Jews, as such, were not to be included in the kingdom of Christ, which, of course, is implied in all those predictions which speak of them as in general cut off and rejected. Two such passages Paul quotes from Isaiah. The first is from Isaiah x. 22, 23. Thowjh the number of the chil dren of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved, for he will finish the work and cut it short in righteous ness: because a short work will the Lord 'make in the earth. This passage is nearer the LXX. translation than to the Hebrew. The general sense is the same in both, and also in the apostle's version, k However numerous the children of Israel might be, onlv a.small portion of them should eseape the judgments of God.' This being the case, it is evident that the mere being a Jew was never considered sufficient to secure the divine favour. The portion of the prophecy contained in ver. 27 is the principal point, 'Only a few of the Jews were to be saved/ What is contained in ver. 2-S is an amplification, or states the converse of the preceding proposition. " Must of the- Jews should be cut off'.' The passage in Isaiah, therefore, is strictly applicable to the apostle's object.*
Our version of ver. 2-S is consistent with the original."}" But it mav also he rendered, •• lie will execute and determine on the judgment with righteousness, for a judgment determined on, will the Lord execute in the earth." The word (//^-ov) ren dered work in our version, means properly a word, something spoken, and may refer to a promi**', or threatening, according to the context. Here of course a threatening is intended; the judgment threatened by the prophet in the context. The word (<ryi/T£/(0^) rendered Jie. will Jiniish* means bringing to an end, and here perhaps, e.reenfinf/ at once, bringing to an end speedily. And the term (ff'j^rsf^w^) translated ruffing x/turt, may mean deciding upon. See Dan. ix. 24, " Seventy weeks <//v deter mined (auiszTfjrj&rjGav) upon my people." But the ordinary
* Sed quia M <le sno temporc vaticinatus cst propheta; videndnni, quomodo ad institutmn suuna Paulus rite accommodet. Sieautem debet: Ouniu Dorninus vellet o captivitate Babylonica populum suuiu liberare, ex imrnensa ilia multitucline ad paucissimos modo liherationis s\iae benefioium pervenire voluit; qui excidii reliquiae merito dici possent prat' numeroso illo populo quern in exilio perire sinebat. Jam re.stitutio ilia carnalis verani ecclesiae Dei instanrationein figuravit, quae in Chri>to pcragitur, iino ejus duntaxat fuit exordium. Quod ergo tune accidit, multo certius nunc adimpleri convenit in ipso liberationis progressu et complemento. — Calvin.
f Calvin translates it much in the same way, Sermonem enim consummans et abbrevians, quonian sermonem abbreviatum faciet Douiiuus in terra.
sense of the word is in favour of our version, and so is the con text.* If it were allowable to take the same word in different senses in the same passage, the verse might be rendered thus, 'For he will execute the judgment, and accomplish it speedily, for the judgment determined upon will the Lord execute in the earth/ This same word is used in one of these senses, Dan. ix. 24, and in the other in vcr. 20 of the same chapter. See, too, an analogous example in 1 Cor. iii. 17, " If any man ((p&£if)si) defile the temple of God, him will God (qd-sps!) destroy." Here the same word is rendered correctly, first defile, and then destroy. We may, therefore, render the last clause of the verse either as in our version, or as given above.
VERSE 29. The second passage quoted by the apostle is from Ls;i. i. 9, Except the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, been made like unto Gomorrah. The object of this quotation is the same as that of the preceding, viz., to show that being Israelites was not enough to secure either exemption from divine judgments or the enjoyment of God's favour. The passage is perfectly in point, for although the prophet is speaking of the national judgments which the people had brought upon themselves by their sins, and by which they were well nigh cut off entirely, yet it was necessarily involved in the destruction of the people for their idolatry and other crimes, that they perished from the kingdom of God. Of course the passage strictly proves what Paul designed to estab lish, viz., that the Jews, as Jews, were as much exposed to God's judgments as others, and consequently could lay no special claim to admission into the kingdom of heaven.
Paul here again follows the Septuagint. The only difference, however, is, that the Greek version has (creep pa) a seed, instead of a remnant, as it is in the Hebrew. The sense is precisely the same. The Hebrew word means that which remains; and seed, as used in this passage, means the seed reserved for sowing. The figure, therefore, is striking and beautiful. Lord of Hosts is a frequent designation for the Supreme God in the Old Testament. As the word host is used in reference
* See Koppe and Wetstein for a satisfactory exhibition of the usus loquendi as to this word.
to any multitude arranged in order, as of men in an army, of angels, of the stars, or of all the heavenly bodies, including the sun and moon, so the expression Lord of hosts, may mean Lord of armies, Lord of angels, or Lord of heaven, or of the universe as a marshalled host; see 1 Kings xxii. 19, "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him;" 2 Chron. xviii. 11, Ps. ciii. -1, Ps. cxlviii. 2, '•Praise ye him, all his angels, praise ye him, all his hosts." In other passages, the reference is, •with equal distinctness, to the stars, Jer. xxxiii. 22, Deut. iv. 19, and frequently. It is most probable, therefore, that God is called Lord of hosts in reference to his Lordship over the whole heavens, and all that they contain, Lord of hosts being equivalent to Lord of the universe.
VKRSE 30. Having proved that God was free to call the Gentiles as well as the Jews into Ins kingdom, and that it had been predicted that the great body of the Jews were to be rejected, he conies now to >tatc the immediate ground of this rejection. ll'/idt xhaU ice,sv/ty then / This may mean either, * What is the inference from the preceding discussion?' and the answer follows, "The conclusion is, the Gentiles are called and the Jews rejected;' or, 'What shall we say, or object to the fact that the Gentiles arc accepted,' \c., &c. So Flatt and others. Put the former explanation is better suited to the context, especially to ver. 32, and to the apostle's common use of this expression; see ver. 1.4, chap. vii. T, viii. 31.
Tlmt ili.f Gr entiles ir/drj/ followed not <ifter righteousness^ hare attained., A:c. The inference is, that what to all human probability was the most unlikely to occur, has actually taken, place. The Gentiles, sunk in carelessness and sin, have attain ed the favour of God, while the Jews, to whom religion was a business, have utterly failed. Why is this? The reason is given in ver. 32; it was because the Jews would not submit to be saved on the terms which God proposed, but insisted on reaching heaven in their own wav. To follow after righteous ness^ is to press forward towards it as towards the prize in a race, Phil. iii. 14. Righteousness, dtmcoa'jvr), uniformly in Paul's writings, means either an attribute, as when we ascribe righteousness to God; or, what constitutes righteousness, i. e., that which satisfies the demands of justice or of the law, as when God is said to impute righteousness. That is, he ascribes to men, or sets to their account, that which constitutes them righteous in the sight of the law. Sometimes, however, the word includes by implication, the consequences of possessing this righteousness. This is the case in this passage. Those who sought after righteousness, sought to be regarded arid treated as righteous in the sight of God; that is, they sought after justification. This, however, does not imply that or/Mfocnj^ signifies justification. It means righteousness, the possession of which secures justification. Justification is a declarative act of God; righteousness is the ground on which that declaration is made.
Even the righteousness which is of faith, i. e., even that righteousness which is attained by faith. Throughout this verse, the word righteousness, as expressing the sum of the di vine requisitions, that which fulfils the law retains its meaning. 'The Gentiles did not s-eek this righteousness, yet they attained it; not that righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith,' Phil. iii. 9. They obtained that which satisfied the demands of the law, and was acceptable in the sight of God.
VERSE 31. What the Gentiles thus attained, the Jews failed to secure. The former he had described as "not follow ing after righteousness;" the latter he characterizes as those who follow after the law of righteousness. The expression laiv of righteousness may be variously explained. Law may be taken in its general sense of rule, as in chap. iii. 27, and else where. The meaning would then be, 'They followed after, i. e., they attended diligently to, the rule which they thought would lead to their attaining righteousness or being justified, but they did not attain unto that rule which actually leads to such results.' Law of Righteousness is, then, norma juxta quam Deus justificat. This is the interpretation of Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, and many others. Or, 2. The word law may be redundant, and Paul may mean to say nothing more than that 'The Jews sought righteousness or justification, but did not attain it,' This, no doubt, is the substance, though it may not be the precise form of the thought. 3. Law of righteousness is often understood here as equivalent to righteousness which is of the laiv. This, however, is rather forced, and not very con sistent with the latter clause of the verse, "Have not attained to the law of righteousness," which can hardly be so inter preted. Meyer, Tholuck, and others, take the phrase law of righteousness in both parts of the verse in what they call an ideal sense. The Jews strove to realize the justifying law, i. e., to attain that standard which secured their justification. It is more common to take the words as referring to the Mosaic and moral law, as revealed in the Scriptures, in the former part of the verse, and in the latter, the law of faith. "The Jews made the Mosaic law, (the law of works,) the object of their zeal, ius the means of attaining righteousness, and therefore did not attain to that law (the law of faith, Horn, iii. 27,) which really secures righteousness.' They were zealous to attain righteousness, but failed. Why? The answer is given in the next verse.
YEKSK o2. Jlcranxe tliey wit'/hf if not l>/ f<ntl^ out, '/*• it were, fit/ tli- works of tin' law. In other words, they would not submit to the method of justification proposed by (lod, which was alone suitable for sinners, and persisted in trust ing to their own imperfect works. The reason why one man believes and is saved, rather than another, is to be sought in the sovereign grace of God, according to Paul's doctrine in the proeeding part of this chapter, and chap. viii. 2S, '1 Tim. i. (>, &c.; but the ground of the rejection and condemnation of men is always in themselves. The vessels of wrath which are destroyed, arc destroyed <>n account of their sins. No man, therefore, can throw the blame of his perdition on any other than himself. This verse, consequently, is very far from being inconsistent with the doctrine of the divine sovereignty as taught above. The force of the word rendered «x it wv/v, may be explained by paraphrasing the clause thus, 'as though thev supposed it could be obtained by the works of the law.' See '2 Cor. iii. 5, ii. 7, 'They sought it as (being) of the works of the law.' For tltey stumbled at that stumbling -stone. That is, they did as it had been predicted they would do, they took offence at the Messiah and at the plan of salvation which he came to reveal.
VERSE 33. What it was they stumbled at, the apostle
declares in this verse, and shows that the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews was predicted in the Old Testament. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling-stone, and a rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. This passage is apparently made up of two, one occurring in Isa. xxviii. 16, the other in Isa. viii. 14. In both of these passages mention is made of a stone, but the predicates of this stone, as given in the latter passage, are transferred to the other, and those there mentioned omitted. This method of quoting Scripture is common among all writers, especially where the several passages quoted and merged into each other, refer to the same subject. It is obvious that the writers of the New Testament are very free in their mode of quoting from the Old, giving the sense, as they, being inspired by the same Spirit, could do authoritatively, without binding themselves strictly to the words. The former of the two passages here referred to stands thus in our version, " Behold, I lay in Zion for a foun dation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste," which is according to the Hebrew. The other passage, Isa. viii. 14, is, "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to both houses of Israel."
Isaiah xxviii. is a prophecy against those who had various false grounds of confidence, and who desired a league with Egypt as a defence against the attacks of the Assyrians. God says, he has laid a much more secure foundation for his church than any such confederacy, even a precious, tried corner stone; those who confided to it should never be confounded. The pro phets, constantly filled with the expectation of the Messiah, and, in general, ignorant of the time of his advent, were accus tomed, on every threatened danger, to comfort the people by the assurance that the efforts of their enemies could not pre vail, because the Messiah was to come. Until his advent, they could not, as a people, be destroyed, and when he came, there should be a glorious restoration of all things; see Isa. vii. 14 — 16, and elsewhere. There is, therefore, no force in the objection, that the advent of Christ was an event too remote to be available to the consolation of the people, when threatened with the immediate invasion of their enemies. This passage is properly quoted by the apostle, because it was intended originally to apply to Christ. The sacred writers of the New Testament so understood and explain it; see 1 Peter ii. 6, Matt. xxi. 42, Acts iv. 11; compare also Ps. cxviii. 22, 1 Cor. iii. 11, Epli. ii. 20, and other passages, in which Christ is spoken of as the foundation or corner stone of his church. The same interpretation of the passage was given by the ancient Jews-*
The other passage, Isa. viii. 14, is of much the same charac ter. God exhorts the people not to be afraid of the combina tion between Syria and Ephrairn. The Lord of hosts was to be feared and trusted, he would be a refuge to those who con fided in him, but a stone of stumbling and rock of offence to all others. This passage, too, as appears from a comparison of the one previously cited witli Ps. cxviii. 22, and the quotation and application of them by the New Testament writers, refers to Christ. AYhat is said in the Old Testament of Jehovah, the inspired penmen of the New do not hesitate to refer to the Saviour; compare John xii. 41, Isa. vi. 1, Ileb. i. 10, 11, Ps. cii. 25, 1 Cor. x. (,», Exod. xvii. 2, 7. When God, therefore, declared that he should be a sanctuary to one class of the peo ple, and a rock of o Hence to another, he meant that he, in the person of his Son, as the Immanuel, would thus be confided in bv some, but rejected and despised by others. The whole spirit, opinions, and expectations of the Jews were adverse to the person, character, and doctrines of the Redeemer, lie was, therefore, to them a stumbling-block, as he was to others fooli.-hness. They could not recognise him as their fondly anticipated Messiah, nor consent to enter the kingdom of heaven on the terms which he prescribed. In them, therefore, were fulfilled the ancient prophecies, which spoke of their rejec tion of Christ, and consequent excision from the people of God.
1. Exclusion from the pale of any visible church does not of itself imply that men are without the reach of divine mercy,
* Martini Pugio Fidci, Lib. II. cap. 5, p. 3-12, and the passages quoted by EosenmQllcr and Geseuius on Isa. xxviii. 16.
2. As the world has hitherto existed, only a small portion of the nominal members of the Church, or of the professors of the true religion, has been the real people of God, vs. 27, 28, 29,
3. Error is often a greater obstacle to the salvation of men than carelessness or vice. Christ said that publicans and har lots would enter the kingdom of God before the Pharisees. In like manner the thoughtless and sensual Gentiles were more susceptible of impression from the gospel, and were more fre quently converted to Christ, than the Jews, who were wedded to erroneous views of the plan of salvation, vs. 30, 31.
4. Agreeably to the declarations of the previous portion of this chapter, and the uniform tenor of Scripture, the ground of the distinction between the saved and the lost, is to be found not in men, but in God. He has mercy on whom he will have mercy. But the ground of the condemnation of men is always in themselves. That God gave his saving grace to more Gen tiles than Jews, in the early ages of the Church, must be refer red to his sovereign pleasure; but that the Jews were cut off and perished, is to be referred to their own unbelief. In like manner, every sinner must look into his own heart and conduct for the ground of his condemnation, and never to any secret purpose of God, ver. 32.
5. Christ crucified has ever been either foolishness or an offence to unrenewed men. Hence, right views of the Saviour's character, and cordial approbation of the plan of salvation through him, are characteristic of those "who are called;" i. e., they are evidences of a renewed heart, ver. 33.
1. The consideration that God has extended to us, who were not his people, all the privileges and blessings of his children, should be a constant subject of gratitude, vs. 25, 26.
2. If only a remnant of the Jewish Church, God's own peo ple, were saved, how careful and solicitous should all professors of religion be, that their faith and hope be well founded, vs. 27—29.
3. Let no man think error in doctrine a slight practical evil. No road to perdition has ever been more thronged than that of false doctrine. Error is a shield over the conscience, and a bandage over the eyes, vs. 30, 31.
4. No form of error is more destructive than that which leads to self-dependence; either reliance on our own powers, or on our own merit, ver. 32.
5. To criminate God, and excuse ourselves, is always an evidence of ignorance and depravity, ver. 32.
G. Christ declared those blessed who were not offended at him. If our hearts are right in the sight of God, Jesus Christ is to us at once the object of supreme affection, and the sole ground of confidence, ver. 33.
7. The gospel produced at first the same effects as those we now witness. It had the sumo obstacles to surmount; and it was received or rejected by the same classes of men then as now. Its history, therefore, is replete with practical instruc tion.
THE object of this chapter, as of the preceding and of the one which follows, is to set forth the truth in reference to the rejection of the Jews as the peculiar people of God, and the extension to all nations of the offers of salvation. The first verses are again, as those at the beginning of elm p. i\-., intro ductory and conciliatory, setting forth the ground of the rejec tion of the Jews, vs. 1 — 4. The next section contains an exhibition of the terms of salvation, designed to show that they were as accessible to the Gentiles as the Jews, vs. f> 10. The plan of salvation being adapted to all, and God being the God of all, the gospel should be preached to all, vs. 11 — 17. The truth here taught (the calling of the Gentiles, &c.,) was pre dicted clearly in the Old Testament, vs. 18 — 21.
\Vlin his usual tenderness, the apostle assures his brethren of his solicitude for their welfare, and of his proper appreciation of their character, vs. 1, 2. The difficulty was, that they would not submit to the plan of salvation proposed in the gospel, and, therefore, they rejected the Saviour. This was the true ground of their excision from the people of God, vs. 3, 4. The method of justification, on which the Jews insisted, was legal, and from its nature must be confined to themselves, or to those who would consent to become Jews. Its terms, when properly understood, were perfectly impracticable, ver. 5. But the gospel method of salvation prescribes no such severe terms, it simply requires cordial faith and open profession, vs. 6 — 10. This, he shows, in the next verses, is the doctrine of the Scrip tures, and from it he infers the applicability of this plan to all men, Gentiles as well as Jews.
VERSE 1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.* As the truth which Paul was to reiterate in the ears of the Jew was, of all others, to them the most offensive, he endeavours to allay their enmity, first, by assuring them of his affection, and secondly, by avoid ing all exaggeration in the statement of their case. The- word Eudoxia means either good pleasure, sovereign purpose, Matt. xi. 26, Luke ii. 14, 2 Thess. i. 11, Eph. i. 5, 9, or benevolence, kind feeling, or desire, as in Phil. i. 15. The latter sense best suits this passage. Paul meant to assure his brethren accord ing to the flesh, that all his feelings towards them were kind, and that he earnestly desired their salvation. He had no pleasure in contemplating the evils which impended over them, his earnest desire and prayer was (ere ff&Typiav) that they might be saved; literally to salvation, as expressing the end or object towards which his wishes and prayers tend; see chap. vi. 22, Gal. iii. 17, and frequent examples elsewhere of this use of the preposition ere-
VERSE 2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of Crod. So far from desiring to exaggerate the evil of their con-
* Hinc videmus, quanta sollicitudine sanctus vir offensionibus obyiarit. Adhuc enim, ut temperet quicquid erat accerbitatis in exponenda Judaeorum rejectione, suam, ut prius, erga eos benevolentiam testatur, et earn ab effectu comprobat, quod sibi eorum salus curae esset coram Domino. — Calvin.
duct, the apostle, as was his uniform manner, endeavoured to bring every thing commendable and exculpatory fully into view. The word for, has here its appropriate force, as it introduces the ground or reason of the preceding declaration. CI desire their salvation, for they themselves are far from being uncon cerned as to divine things.' Zeal of God may mean very great zeal, as cedars of God mean great cedars, according to a com mon Hebrew idiom; or zeal of 'which God is the object; the latter explanation is to be preferred. John ii. IT, " The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.'' Acts xxi. 22, "Zealous of the law." Acts xxii. 8, "Zealous of God." Gal. i. 14, &c., &c. The Jews had great zeal about God, but it was wrong as to its object, and of consequence wrong in its moral qualities. Zeal, when rightly directed, however ardent, is humble and amiable. ~\\ hen its object is evil, it is proud, censorious, and cruel. Hence, the importance of its being properlv guided, not merely to prevent the waste of feeling and effort, but prin cipally to prevent its evil effects on ourselves and others. Hut not according to knoivledge. Commentators notice that Paul uses the word i-c{\,w(j>~. The Jews had '(\,MCII~ (knowledge), what they lacked was e-q^om^. correct knowledge and appre ciation. Their knowledge was neither enlightened nor wise; neither right as to its objects, nor correct in its character. The former idea is here principally intended. The Jews were zeal ous about their law, the traditions of their fathers, and the establishment of their own merit. How natural! v would a zeal for such objects make men place religion in the observance.1 of external rites; and be connected with pride, consoriousness, and a persecuting spirit. In so far. however, as this zeal was a zeal about God, it was preferable to indifference, and is, therefore, mentioned by the apostle with qualified commendation.
VEKSE •]. For the// being ignorant of God'x r/t/hfeousncss, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not. &c. The grand mistake of the Jews was about the method of justification. Ignorance on this point implied ignorance of the character of God, of the requirements of the law, and of themselves. It was, therefore, arid is, and must ever continue to be a vital point. Those who err essentially here, err fatally; and those who are right here, cannot be wrong us to other necessary truths. Their own righteousness, ryv idiav dixaio- G'jvry, which Theophylact correctly interprets. Try s^ loftou edicov xac TiOvcov xaToofioujuev/jv. The phrase righteousness of Grod, admits here, as in other parts of the epistle, of various inter pretations. 1. It may mean the divine holiness or general moral perfection of God. In this way the passage would mean, 4 Being ignorant of the perfection or holiness of God, and, of course, of the extent of his demands, and going about to estab lish their own excellence, &c.' This gives a good sense, but it is not consistent with the use of the expression righteousness of Grod, in other similar passages, as chap. i. 17, iii. 21, £c. And, secondly, it requires the phrase to be taken in two different senses in the same verse,' for the last clause, 'Have not sub< mitted themselves to the righteousness of God,' cannot mean, 'They have not submitted to the divine holiness.' 2. The term may mean that righteousness of which God is the author, that which he approves and accepts. This interpretation is, in this case, peculiarly appropriate, from the opposition of the two expressions, righteousness of Grod and their oiun righteousness. ' Being ignorant of that righteousness w^hich God has provided, and which he bestows, and endeavouring to establish their own, they refused to accept of his.' The sense here is perfectly good, and the interpretation may be carried through the verse, being applicable to the last clause as well as to the others. A comparison of this passage with Phil. iii. 9, "Not having my own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God," is also in favour of this interpretation. For there the phrase the righteousness which is of Grod, can only mean that which he gives, and with this phrase the expression the righteousness of Grod, in this verse, seems to be synonymous.* 3. Thirdly, Some interpreters take righteousness in the sense of justifica tion, "justification of God" being taken as equivalent to ' Crod's method of justification.'' 'Being ignorant of God's method of justification, and going about to establish their
* Judaei habuere et liabent zelum sine scientia, nos contra, proh dolor, scientiam sine zelo. — Flacius, quoted by Bcngel. Melius est vel claudicare in via, quani extra viam strenue currere, ut ait Augustinus. Si religiosi esse volumus, meminerimus verum esse, quod Lactantius docet, earn demum veram esse religionein quae conjuncta est cum Dei verbo.— Calvin.
own, they have not submitted themselves to the method which X he has proposed.' The cause of the rejection of the Jews was their rejection of the method of salvation through a crucified Redeemer, and their persisting in confiding in their own merits and advantages as the ground of their acceptance with God. Although this is the meaning of the passage, it is not the sense of the words. Righteousness does not signify justification. It is that on which the sentence of justification is founded. Those who have righteousness, either personal and inherent, or imputed, are justified. As we have no righteousness of our own, nothing that we have done or experienced, nothing per sonal or subjective, that can answer the demands of the law, we can be justified only through the righteousness of God, imputed to us and received by faith.
VERSK 4. For Christ /.s the end of the law for righteousness to every one that Iclieveth. The precise connection of this verso with the preceding, depends on the view taken of its meaning. The general import of the passage is sufficiently obvious, but its exact sense is not so easy to determine, on account of the am biguity of tin- word (rs/.oc) translated e)t<1. The word may signify, 1. The object to which an// thing li'ailx. Christ is, in this sense, the end of the law, inasmuch as the law was a schoolmaster to lead us to him, Gal. iii. 24; and as all its types and prophecies pointed to him, u They were a shadow of things to come, but the body i> of Christ,'' Col. ii. IT, Ileb. ix. 9. The meaning and connection of the passage would then be. 'The Jews erred in seeking justification from the law, fur the law was designed, not to afford justification, but to lead them to Christ, in order that they might be justified.' To Christ all its portions tended, he was the object of its types and the subject of its predictions, and its precepts and penalty urge the soul to him as the only refuge. So Calvin, Dengel, and the majority of commentator.-.
* Indicat lejris prsieposterurn intcrpretcm essc, qui per cjus opera justifil carl quaerit, quoniam in hoc lex data est, quo nos ad aliam justitiam maim duceret. lino (piicquid doceat lex, 4uicquid praecipiat, quicquid promittat semper Christum habet pro scopo; ergo iu ipsuni dirigendae sunt omnes partes. — Calvin.
Lex hominem urget, donee is ad Christum confugit. Turn ipsa dicit: asylum es nactus, dcsino tc pwrsequi, sapis, salvus vs. — Bengel.
2. The word may be taken in the sense of completion or fulfilment. Then Christ is the end of the law, because he fulfils all its requisitions, all its types and ceremonies, and satisfies its preceptive and penal demands. See Matt. v. 17, " Think not I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil;" and Rom. viii. 4. The philological ground for this interpretation is slight. 1. Tim. i. 5, is compared with Rom. xiii. 10, in order to prove that the word (TS).O^) here translated end, is equivalent to the word (ntypco[j.a) which is there (Rom. xiii. 10) rendered fulfilling. The sense, according to this interpretation, is scriptural, but is not consistent with the meaning of the word.
3. We may take the word in its more ordinary sense of end or termination, and understand it metonymically for he who terminates or £>uts cm end to. The meaning and connection would then be, ' The Jews mistake the true method of justifica tion, because they seek it from the law, whereas Christ has abolished the law, in order that all who believe may be justified.' Compare Epli. ii. 15, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments;" Col. ii. 4, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, &c," Gal. iii. 10, 12, Rom. vi. 14, vii. 4, 6, and the general drift of the former part of the epistle. In sense, this interpretation amounts the same with the preceding, though it differs from it in form. Christ has abolished the law, not by destroying, but by fulfilling it. He has abolished the law as a rule of justifica tion, or covenant of works, and the whole Mosaic economy having met its completion in him, has by him been brought to an end. In Luke xvi. 16, it is said, " The law and the prophets were until John;" then, in one sense, they ceased, or came to an end. When Christ came, the old legal system was abolished, and a new era commenced. The same idea is presented in Gal. iii. 23, "Before faith came we were kept under the law," but when Christ appeared, declaring, "Believe and thou shalt be saved," we were no longer und erthat bondage. The doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture, that those who are out of Christ are under the law, subject to its demands and exposed to its penalty. His coming and work have put an end to its authority, we are no longer under the law, but under grace, Rom. vi. 14;
we are no longer under the system which says, Do this, and live; but under that which says, Believe, and thou shalt be saved. This abrogation of the law, however, is not by setting it aside, but bv fulfilling its demands. It is because Christ is the ful filler of the law, that he is the end of it. It is the latter truth which the apostle here asserts. The word law is obvi ously here used in its prevalent sense throughout this epistle, for the whole rule of duty prescribed to man, including for the Jews the whole of the Mosaic institutions. That laiv is intended which has been fulfilled, satisfied, or abrogated by Jesus Christ. For righteousness to every one tJc.it believeth. The general meaning of this clause, in this connection, is, 'So that, or, in order that, every believer may be justified:' Christ has abolished the law,?j/« dexouco&fj ~'/c o 7ir,(j~i')wv Irr" aurw, in in order that every believer may attain righteousness, which is unattainable l>v the law. The law is abolished by Christ, not as a rule of life, but as a covenant prescribing the condition of life. The wav in which this idea is arrived at, however, may be variously explained. 1. The preposition (s/c) rendered for, rnav be rendered as to, as it relat<'$ to. "Christ is the end of the law, as it relates to righteousness.' 2. Jt may be under stood of the effect or result, and be resolved into the verbal construction with that, or so that: 'Christ is the end. \c., that righteousness is to every believer; or so that, every believer is justified.' •>. It may point out the end or olji'vt. "Christ has abolished the law in order that every one that believes, &c.' The last is the correct explanation. The Jews, then, did not submit to the righteousness of (lod, that is, to the righteous ness which he had provided, for they did not submit to Christ, who is the end of the law. lie has abolished the law, in order that every one that believes may be justified.
ArKRjK f>. For J/'^v.v dcscribeth tJf righteousness which is of the lair. That is, concerning the righteousness which is of the law, Moses thus writes. In the last clause of the pre ceding verse it was clearly intimated that faith was the con dition of salvation under the gospel. ' To every one, without distinction, that believeth, is justification secured.' On this the apostle connects his description and contrast of the two methods of justification, the one by works and the other by faith, with the design of showing that the former is in its nature impracticable, while the other is reasonable and easy, and adapted to all classes of men, Jews and Gentiles, and should therefore be offered to all.
The righteousness which is of the law. The word righteous ness has here its common and proper meaning. It is that which constitutes a man righteous, which meets the demands of the law, or satisfies the claims of justice. The man who is righteous, or who possesses righteousness, cannot be condemned. The apostle in his whole argument proceeds on the assumption that God is just; that he does and must demand righteousness in those whom he justifies. There are but two possible ways in which this righteousness can be obtained — by works, or by faith. We must either have a righteousness of our own, or receive and trust in a righteousness which is not our own, but which has been wrought out for us, and presented to us, as the ground of our acceptance with God. The quotation is from Lev. xviii. o, "The man that doeth those things shall live by them." Those things are the things prescribed in the law. It is the clear doctrine of the Scriptures, that obedience to the law, to secure justification, must be perfect. For it is said, " Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them;" and, he that offendeth in one point, is guilty of all. It is not necessary that a man who commits murder should also steal, in order to bring him under the penalty of the law. The legal system, then, which demanded obedience, required perfect obedience. Those, and those only, who were thus free from sin, should live, i. e., shall enjoy that life which belongs to him as a rational and immortal being. It is a life which includes the whole man, soul and body, and the whole course of his existence, in this world and in that which is to come. Zr^era: ex mente Judaeorum interpretatur de vita aeterna, ut Tar gum, Levit. xviii. 4. The Jewish writers also well remark, that Moses says, Qui fecerit ea homo; non dicitur, Sacerdos, Levita, Israelita, sed homo; ut discas, etiam gentilem, si proselytus fiat, et det legi operam, intelligi. See Wetstein.
VERSES 6, 7. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this ivise, Say not, &c. Moses says one thing; the righteousness of faith says another thing, The same kind of personification occurs in Gal. iii. 23, 2«3. The phrase righteous ness of faith, or as it is here, which is of faith, admits of differ ent interpretations, if we limit ourselves to the mere force of the words. Righteousness of fait L may mean that righteous ness which consists in faith; or, which ilows from faith, (i. c., that inward excellence which faith produces); or, the righteous ness which is received by faith. This last is the only interpre tation consistent with the context, or with the analogy of Scripture. The righteousness which consists in faith, or which ilows from faitli, is our own righteousness. It is as true and proper! v our own as any righteousness of works on which Pharisees relied. Besides, it is the whole doctrine of the apostle and of the gospel, that it is Christ's righteousness, his obedience, blood, or death, which is the ground of our accept ance with. (Iod, and which it receives and rests upon.
It is clearly implied in that verse that the attainment of is for -infill men impossible. It is the object of this and the succeeding verses, t<> declare that the go.-pel requires no such impossibilities; it neither requires us to scale the heavens, nor to fathom the great abvss; it demands only cordial faitli and open profession. In expressing these ideas the apostle skilfully avails himself of the language of Moses, Dent. xxx. 10—14. It is clear that the expressions used by the ancient lawgiver were a familiar modi1 of saving that a thing could not be done. The passage referred to is the following, " For this command which I command thee this day. it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest sav, AVho shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we mav hear it, and do it? l»ut the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." The obvious import of this passage is, that the knowledge of the will of God had been made perfectly accessi ble, no one was required to do what was impossible;; neither to ascend to heaven, nor to pass the boundless sea, in order to attain it; it was neither hidden, nor afar off, but obvious and at hand. Without directly citing this passage, Paul uses nearly the same language to express the same idea. The expressions here used seem to have become proverbial among the Jews. To be "high," or "afar off," was to be unattainable; Ps. cxxxix. 6, Prov. xxiv. 7. "To ascend to heaven," or "to go down to hell," was to do what was impossible, Amos ix. 2, Ps. cxxxix. 8, 9. As the sea was to the ancients impassable, it is easy to understand how the question, 'Who can pass over the sea?' was tantamount to 'Who can ascend up into heaven?* Among the later Jews the same mode of expressions not unfrequently occur. Bava Mezia, f. 94, 1. Si quis dixerit mulieri, si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris mihi dcsponsata, hacc conditio frustranea est. — Wetstein.
Instead of using the expression, 'Who shall go over the sea for us?' Paul uses the equivalent phrase, 'Who shall descend into the deep?' as more pertinent to his object. The word (dftuffffov) rendered deep, is the same which elsewhere is render ed abyss, and properly means, without bottom, bottomless, and, therefore, is often applied to the sea as fathomless, Gen. i. 2, vii. 11 (in the Septuagint), and also to the great cavern beneath the earth, which, in the figurative language of the Scriptures, is spoken of as the abode of the dead, and which is often opposed to heaven. Job xxviii. 24, " The abyss says it is not in me;" compare the enumeration of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth, in Phil. ii. 10, and else where; see also Gen. xlix. 25, God "shall bless tliec with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the abyss which lieth under." In the New Testament, with the exception of this passage, it is always used for the abode of fallen spirits and lost souls, Luke viii. 31, Rev. xvii. 8, xx. 1, and frequently in that book, where it is appropriately rendered the bottomless pit. The expression is, therefore, equivalent to that which is com monly rendered hell in our version. Psalm cxxxix. 8, " If I make my bed in hell." Amos x. 2, "Though they dig into hell," &c., and was no doubt chosen by the apostle, as more suitable to the reference to the resurrection of Christ, with which he meant to connect it, than the expression used by Moses in the same general sense, " Who shall pass over the sea?"
Paul connects each of the questions, virtually borrowed from the OKI Testament, with a comment designed to apply them more directly to the point which he had in view. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, &c. The precise intent of these comments, however, may be differ ently understood. 1. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to namely * or to wit, and the apostle's comment be connected, as an explanatory substitute, with the questions, 'Say not who shall ascend into heaven': to wit, to bring Christ down; or who shall descend into the deep'.' to bring him up again from the dead. The sense would then be, 'The plan of salvation by faith does not require us to do what cannot be done, and which is now unnecessary; it does not require us to provide a Saviour, to bring him from heaven, or to raise him from the dead; a Saviour has been provided, and we are now only required to believe, «fcc.' 2. The words that is, may be taken as equivalent to the fuller expression, that is to say, 'To ask who shall ascend into heaven?' is as much as to ask, "\\lio shall bring Christ down from above? And to ask, '"Who shall descend into the deep? is as much as to ask, who shall bring Christ airain from the dead?' The comments of the apostle mav, therefore, be regarded as a reproof of the want of faith implied in such questions, and the passage may be thus under stood. Do not reject the gospel. Say not in thy heart that no one can ascend to heaven, as the gospel says Christ has done; and no man can descend into the abyss and thence return, as is said of Christ. The incarnation of the Son of God, and his ascension to heaven, are not impossibilities, which would justify unbelief. The doctrines of the gospel are plain and simple.
Instead of regarding the apostle as intending to state gener ally the nature of the method of justification by faith, many suppose that it is his object to encourage and support a desponding and anxious inquirer. 'Do not despairingly inquire who shalf point out the way of life? No one, either from heaven or from the deep, will come to teach me the way. Speak not thus, for Christ has come from heaven, and arisen from the dead for your salvation, and no other Saviour is required.'* But this view does not seem to harmonize with the spirit of the context.
It has been questioned whether Paul meant, in this passage, merely to allude to the language of Moses in Deut. xxx. 10 14, or whether he is to be understood as quoting it in such a manner as to imply that the ancient prophet was describing the method of justification by faith. This latter view is taken by Calvin, De Brais, and many others. They suppose that in the passage quoted in the 5th verse from Lcvit. xviii. 5, Moses describes the legal method of justification, but that here he has reference to salvation by faith. This is, no doubt, possible. For in Deut. xxx. 10, &c., the context shows that the passage may be understood of the whole system of instruction given by Moses; a system which included in it, under its various types and prophecies, an exhibition of the true method of salvation. Moses, therefore, might say with regard to his own law, that it set before the people the way of eternal life, that they had now no need to inquire who should procure this knowledge for them from a distance, for it was near them, even in their hearts and in their mouths. But, on the other hand, it is very clear that this interpretation is by no means necessary. Paul does not say, 'Moses describes the righteousness which is of faith in this wise,' as immediately above he had said of the righteous ness which is of the law. There is nothing in the language of the apostle to require us to understand him as quoting Moses in proof of his own doctrine. It is, indeed, more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, to consider him as merely expressing his own ideas in scriptural language, as in ver. 19 of this chapter, and frequently elsewhere. 'Moses teaches us that the legal method of justification requires perfect obedience; but the righteousness which is by faith, requires no such impos sibility, it demands only cordial faith and open profession. The modern interpreters who understand the apostle as quoting the language of Moses to prove the true nature of the gospel, differ among themselves. Meyer and most other advo cates of this view of the context, assume that Paul departs entirely from the historical meaning of the original text, and gives it a sense foreign to the intention of the sacred writer. Others, as Olshausen, suppose him to give its true spiritual sense. The passage in Deuteronomy is, in this view, strictly Messianic. It describes, in contrast with the inexorable demand of obedience made by the law. the spiritual power of the future dispensation. All this, however, retpiires unneces sary violence done both to the passage in Deuteronomy and to the language of the apostle. In tins very chapter, ver. 18, we have another clear example of Paul's mode of expressing his own ideas in the language of the Scriptures. This is done without hesitation by every preaeher of the go-pel. The apostle, therefore, is not to be understood as saying. Moses describes the righteousness of the law in one way, and the righteousness of faith in another way; but he contrasts what Moses says of the law with what the gospel savs.
According to the interpretation given above, it is assumed the design of this passage is to present the simplicity and suita bleness of the gospel method of salvation, which requires only faith and confession, in opposition to the strict demands of the law, which it is as impossible for us to satisfy as it is to scale the heavens. According to the other view, mentioned above, the design of the apostle was to rebuke the unbelief of the Jews. They were not to regard the resurrection and ascension of Christ as impossible..Hut the whole context shows that the purpose of the apostle is to contrast the legal and the gospel method of salvation — to show that the one is impracticable, the the other easy. l>y works of the law no ilcsli living can bo justified; whereas, whosoever simply calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
VERSE 8. l>ut what saith it? The word i* nif/h thee, crcn in tin/ mouth and in t/t// heart, that is, the imrd nf faith which we preach. As the expressions to be hidden, to be far off, imply that the thing to which they refer is inaccessible or diffi cult, so to be near, to be in the mouth and in tJ/e heart, mean to be accessible, easy, and familiar. They are frequently thus used; see Joshua i. 8, ''This law shall not depart out of thy mouth," i. e., it shall be constantly familiar to thee; Exod. xiii. 9, "That the law maybe in thy mouth;" Ps. xxxvii. 31, xl. 8, The meaning of this passage then is, ' The gospel, instead of directing us to ascend into heaven, or to go down to the abyss, tells us the thing required is simple and easy. Believe with thy heart and thou shalt be saved.' The word is nigh thee, i. e., the doctrine or truth contemplated, and by im plication, what that doctrine demands. Paul, therefore, repre sents the gospel as speaking of itself. The method of justifi cation by faith says, c The word is near thee, in thy mouth, i. e., the word or doctrine of faith is thus easy and familiar.' This is Paul's own explanation. The expression word of faith, may mean the word or doctrine concerning faith, or the ivord to which faith is due, which should be believed. In either case, it is the gospel, or doctrine of justification, which is here intended.
VERSE 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, &c. The connection of this verse with the preceding may be explained by making the last clause of ver. 8 a paren thesis, and connecting this immediately with the first clause. ' It says, the word is nigh thee; it says, that if thou shalt confess and believe, thou shalt be saved.' According to this view, this verse is still a part of what the gospel is represented as saying. Perhaps, however, it is better to consider this verse as Paul's own language, and an explanation of the "word of faith" just spoken of. 6 The thing is near and easy, to wit, the word of faith which we preach, that if thou wilt confess, &c.' The two requisites for salvation mentioned in this verse are confession and faith. They are mentioned in their natural order; as confession is the fruit and external evidence of faith. So in 2 Peter i. 13, calling is placed before election, because the former is the evidence of the latter. The thing to be con fessed is that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is, we must openly recognise his authority to the full extent in which he is Lord; acknowledge that he is exalted above all principality and powers, that angels are made subject to him, that all power in heaven and earth is committed unto him, and of course that he is our Lord. This confession, therefore, includes in it an acknowledgment of Christ's universal sovereignty, and a sincere recognition of his authority over us. To confess Christ as Lord, is to acknowledge him as the Messiah, recognised as euch of God, and invested with all the power and prerogatives of the Mediatorial throne. This acknowledgment is conse quently often put for a recognition of Christ in all his offices. 1 Cor. xii. 3, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Phil. ii. 11, ''Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." 'To preach the Lord Jesus,' or ' that Jesus is the Lord,' Acts xi. 20, is to preach him as the Saviour in all his fulness. Horn. xiv. i>, ''For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." The necessity of a public confession of Christ unto salvation is frequently asserted in the Scriptures. Matt. x. 32, "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Luke xii. 8, 1 John iv. 15, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."
Tht1 second requisite is faith. The truth to be believed is that God hath raised Christ from the dead. That is, we must believe that by the resurrection of Christ, God has publicly acknowledged him to be all that he claimed to be, and has publicly accepted of all that he came to perform. He has recognised him as his Son and the Saviour of the world, and has accepted of his blood as a sacrifice for sin. See Kom. iv. L!,J, i. 4, Acts xiii.:>2. 33, 1 Peter i. 3—5, 1 Cor. xv. 14, et seq. Acts xvii. 31, "Whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. To believe, therefore, that God has raised Christ from the dead, involves the belief that Christ is all that he claimed to be, and that he has accomplished all that he came to perform. In tluj heart. Faith is very far from being a merely specula tive exercise. When moral or religious truth is its object, it is always attended by the exercise of the affections. The word heart, however, is not to be taken in its limited sense, for the seat of the affections. It means the whole soul, or inner man. Confession is an outward act, faith is an act of the mind in the wide sense of that word. It includes the understanding and the affections. Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent, but a cordial receiving and resting on Christ alone for sal vation.
YEKSE 10. For with the heart man lelieveth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. This is the reason why faith and confession are alone necessary unto salvation; because he who believes with the heart is justi fied, and he who openly confesses Christ shall be saved. That is, such is the doctrine of Scripture, as the apostle proves in the subsequent verse. Here, as in the passages referred to above, in which confession is connected with salvation, it is evident that it must be not only open but sincere. It is not a mere saying, Lord, Lord, but a cordial acknowledgment of him, before men, as our Lord and Redeemer. Unto righteousness, i. e., so that we may become righteous. The word righteousness has two senses, answering to the two aspects of sin, guilt and moral depravity. According to the former sense, it is that which satisfies justice; in the latter, it is conformity to the precepts of the law. A man, therefore, may be righteous and yet unholy. Were this not so, there could be no salvation for sinners. If God cannot justify, or, pronounce righteous, the ungodly, how could we be justified? Here, as generally, where the subject of justification is discussed in the Bible, righteous ness has its forensic, as distinguished from its moral, sense. And when Paul says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness," he expresses the relation of faith, not to our sanctification, but to justification. Unto salvation is equiva lent to saying 'that we may be saved.' The preposition ren dered unto, expressing here the effect or result. Acts x. 4, Heb. vi. 8. By faith we secure an interest in the righteousness of Christ, and by confessing him before men, we secure the per formance of his promise that he will confess us before the angels
of God. Caeterum viderint quid respondeant Paulo, qui nobis hodie imaginariam quandam fidem fastuose jactant, quae secreto cordis contenta, confessione oris, veluti re supervacanea et inani, supcrsedeat. Nimis enim nugatorium est, asserere ignem esse, ubi riihil sit flammae neque caloris. — Calvin.
1. Zeal, to be either acceptable to God or useful to men, must not only be right as to its ultimate, but also as to its immediate objects. It must not only be about God, but about the things which are well pleasing in his sight. The Pharisees, and other early Jewish persecutors of Christians, really thought they were doing God service when they were so exceedingly zealous for the traditions of their fathers. The moral character of their zeal and its effects were determined by the immediate objects towards which it was directed, ver. 2.
2. The doctrine of justification, or method of securing the pardon of sin and acceptance with God, is the cardinal doctrine in the religion of sinners. The main point is, whether the ground of pardon and acceptance be in ourselves or in another, whether the righteousness on which we depend be of ourselves or of God, ver. 3.
3. Ignorance of the divine character and requirements is at the foundation of all ill-directed efforts for the attainment of salvation, and of all false hopes of heaven, ver. 3.
4. The first and immediate duty of the sinner is to submit to the righteousness of God; to renounce all dependence on his own merit, and cordially to embrace the offers of reconciliation proposed in the gospel, ver. 3.
o. Unbelief, or the refusal to submit to God's plan of salva tion, is the immediate ground of the condemnation or rejection of those who perish under the sound of the gospel, ver. 3.
<J. Christ is every thing in the religion of the true believer. He fulfils, and by fulfilling abolishes the law, by whose demands the sinner was weighed down in despair; and his merit secures the justification of every one that confides in him, ver. 4.
7. Christ is the end of the law, whether moral or ceremo nial. To him both, as a schoolmaster, lead. In him all their demands are satisfied, and all their types and shadows are answered, ver. 4.
8. The legal method of justification is, for sinners, as impracticable as climbing up into heaven or going down into the abyss, vs. 5 — 7.
J). The demands of the gospel are both simple arid intellio-ible. The sincere acceptance of the proffered righteousness of God, and the open acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord, vs. (> —!».
10. The public profession of religion or confession of Christ is an indispensable duty. That is, in order to salvation, we must not only secretly believe, but also openly acknowledge that Jesus is our prophet, priest, and king. Though faith and confession are both necessary, they are not necessary on the same grounds, nor to the same degree. The former is necessary as a means to an end, as without faith we can have no part in the justifying righteousness of Christ; the latter as a duty, the performance of which circumstances may render impracticable. In like manner Christ declares baptism, as the appointed means of confession, to be necessary, Mark xvi. 16; not, however, as a sine qua non, but as a command, the obligation of which pro vidential dispensations may remove, as in the case of the thief on the cross, ver. 9.
11. Faith is not the mere assent of the mind to the truth of certain propositions. It is a cordial persuasion of the truth, founded on the experience of its power or the spiritual percep tion of its nature, and on the divine testimony. Faith is, there fore, a moral exercise. Men believe with the heart, in the ordinary scriptural meaning of that word. And no faith, which does not proceed from the heart, is connected with justification,
1. If we really desire the salvation of men, we shall pray for it, ver. 1.
2. No practical mistake is more common or more dangerous than to suppose that all zeal about God and religion is neces sarily a godly zeal. Some of the very worst forms of human character have been exhibited by men zealous for God and his service; as, for example, the persecutors both in the Jewish and Christian churches. Zeal should be according to know ledge, i. e., directed towards proper objects. Its true charac ter is easily ascertained by noticing its effects, whether it produces self-righteousness or humility, censoriousness or char ity; whether it leads to self-denial or to self-gratulation and praise; and whether it manifests itself in prayer and effort, or in loud talking and boasting, ver. 2.
3. We should be very careful what doctrines we hold and teach on the subject of justification. lie who is wrong here, ruins his own soul; and if he teaches any other than the scriptural method of justification, he ruins the souls of others,
4. A sinner is never safe, do what else he may, until he has submitted to God's method of justification.
5. As every thing in the Bible leads us to Christ, we should suspect every doctrine, system, or theory which has a contrary tendency. That view of religion cannot be correct which docs not make Christ the most prominent object, ver. 4.
6. How obvious and infatuated is tiie folly of the multitude in every age, country, and church, who, in one form or another, are endeavouring to work out a righteousness of their own, instead of submitting to the righteousness of God. They are endeavouring to climb up to heaven, or to descend into the abyss, vs. 5 — 7.
7. The conduct of unbelievers is perfectly inexcusable, who reject the simple, easy, and gracious offers of the gospel, which requires only faith and confession, vs. N —!>.
8. Those who are ashamed or afraid to acknowledge Christ before men, cannot expect to be saved. The want of courage to confess, is decisive evidence of the want of heart to believe,
THE object of the apostle in the preceding comparison and contrast of the two methods of justification, was to show that the gospel method was. from its nature, adapted to all men; and that if suited to all it should be preached to all. In ver. 11 the ([notation from the Old Testament proves two points. 1. That faith is the condition of acceptance; and 2. That it matters not whether the individual be a Jew or Gentile, if lie only believes. For there is really no difference, as to this point, between the two classes; God is equally gra cious to both, as is proved by the express declarations of Scripture, vs. 12, 13. If, then, the method of salvation be thus adapted to all, and God is equally the God of the Gen tiles and of the Jews, then, to accomplish his purpose, the gospel must be preached to all men, because faith comcth by hearing, ver. 14 — 17. Both the fact of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, and the disobedience of the great part of the Jews, were clearly predicted in the writings of the Old Testament, vs. 18—21.
VERSE 11. For the Scripture saith^ Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. This passage is cited in support of the doctrine just taught, that faith alone is necessary to salva tion. There are clearly two points established by the quota tion; the first is, the universal applicability of this method of salvation; WHOSOEVER, whether Jew or Gentile, believes, &c.; and the second is, that it is faith which is the means of securing the divine favour; whosoever BELIEVES on him shall not be ashamed. The passage, therefore, is peculiarly adapted to the apostle's object; which was not merely to exhibit the true nature of the plan of redemption, but mainly to show the propriety of its extension to the Gentiles. The passage quoted is Isa. xxviii. 16, referred to at the close of the pre ceding chapter. We must not only believe Christ, but believe upon him. The language of Paul is,?rac b TztoTeucov In ol>rw, H((TTZ>j£u ixi Tew, to trust upon any one. That is, it expresses confiding reliance on its object. It is all important to know what the Bible teaches, both as to the object and nature of saving faith. That object is Christ, and saving faith is trust. He is so complete a Saviour as to be able to save all who come unto God by him; and therefore whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Hoc monosyllabon, says Bengel, 7ia$ (omnis), toto mundo pretiosus, propositum, ver. 11, ita repetitur, ver. 12 et 13, et ita confirmatur ulterius, vs. 14, 15, ut non modo significet, quicumque invocaret, salvum fore; sed, Deum velle, se invocari ab omnibus salutariter.
VERSE 12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the G-reek, &c. This verse is evidently connected logically with the whosoever of ver. 12, ' Whosoever believes shall be saved, for there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile/ That is, there is no difference in their relation to the law or to God. They are alike sinners, and are to be judged by pre cisely the same principles, (see chap. iii. 22); and conse quently, if saved at all, are to be saved in precisely the same way. Far the same Lord over all, is rich unto all who call upon him. This is the reason why there is no difference between the two classes. Their relation to God is the same. They are equally his creatures, and his mercy towards them is the same. It is doubtful whether this clause is to be understood of Christ or of God. If the latter, the general meaning is what has just been stated. If the former, then the design is to declare that the same Saviour is ready and able to save all. In favour of this latter, which is perhaps the most common view of the passage, it may be urged that Christ is the person referred to in the preceding verse; and secondly, that he is so commonly called Lord in the New Testament. But, on the other hand, the Lord in the next verse refers to God; and secondly, we have the same sentiment, in the same general connection, in chap. iii. 2!'. 30, w'ls he the God of the Jews only V &c. It is the same God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." The name Lord over all, in this connection, means 'one and the same Lord is over all/ All are equally under his dominion, and may, therefore, equally hope in his mercy. As good reasons may be assigned for both interpretations, commentators are nearly equally divided on the question whether the immediate reference be t<> Christ or to God. Doctrinally, it matters little which view Inpreferred. Faith in God is faith in Christ, for Christ is God. This is the irreat truth to be acknowledged. The condition of salvation, under the gospel, is the invocation of Christ as God. The analogy of Scripture, therefore, as well as the context, is in favour of the immediate reference of xitpeo? to Christ. The words is rfr/t, may be either a concise expression for is rich in mercy, or they may mean is abundant in resources. He is suf ficiently rich to supply the wants of all; whosoever, therefore, believes in him shall be saved.
Unto all who call u^on him, i. e., who invoke him, or worship him, agreeably to the frequent use of the phrase in the Old and New Testament, Gen. iv. 2G, xii. 8, Isa. Ixiv. G, Acts ii. 21, ix. 14, xxii.!<;, 1 Cor i. 2, 2 Tim. ii. 22. This religious invocation of God implied, of course, the exercise of faith in him; and, therefore, it amounts to the same thing whether it is said, 'Whosoever believes,' or, ' Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved. This being the case, the passage quoted from Joel, in the next verse, is equivalent to that cited from Isaiah, in verse 11. The meaning, then, of this verse is, k That God has proposed the same terms of salvation to all men, Jews and Gentiles, because he is equally the God of both, and his mercy is free and sufficient for all.'
VERSE 13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. As this verse is not introduced by the usual form of quotation from the Old Testament, as it is ivritten, or as the Scripture, or the prophet saith, it is not absolutely necessary to consider it as a direct citation, intended as an argument from Scripture, (compare ver. 11.) Yet, as the passage is in itself so pertinent, it is probable that the apostle intended to confirm his declaration, that the mercy of God should be extended to every one who called upon him, by showing that the ancient prophets had held the same language. The prophet Joel, after predicting the dreadful calamities which were about to come upon the people, foretold, in the usual manner of the ancient messengers of God, that subsequent to those judgments should come a time of great and general blessedness. This happy period was ever characterized as one in which true religion should prevail, and the stream of divine truth and love, no longer confined to the narrow channel of the Jewish people, should overflow all nations. Thus Joel says, "It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, &c., and whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered," Joel ii. 28, 32. WHOSOEVER, therefore, betakes himself to God as his refuge, and calls upon him, in the exercise of faith, as his God, shall be saved, whether Gentile or Jew, (sec 1 Cor. i. 2.) The prophecy in Joel has direct reference to the Messianic period, and therefore the Lord, who was to be invoked, who was to be looked to, and be called upon for salvation, is the Messiah. All, whosoever, without any limitation as to family or nation, who call on him, shall be saved. This is Paul's doctrine, and the doctrine, with one accord, of all the holy men who spake of old, as the Spirit gave them utterance. This being the case, how utterly preposterous and wicked the attempt to confine the offers of salvation to the Jewish people, or to question the necessity of the extension of the gospel through the whole world. Thus naturally arid beau tifully does the apostle pass from the nature of the plan of mercy, and its suitableness to all men, to the subject princi pally in view, the calling of the Gentiles, or the duty of preaching the gospel to all people.
VERSES 14, 15. How then shall they call on him in ivhom they have not believed.' and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard.- etc., &c. Paul considered it as involved in what he had already said, and especially in the predictions of the ancient prophets, that it was the will of God that all men should call upon him. This being the case, he argues to prove that it was his will that the gospel should be preached to all. As invocation implies faith, as faith implies knowledge, knowledge instruction, and instruction an instructor, so it is plain that if God would have all men to call upon him, lie designed preachers to be sent to all, whose proclamation of niercv bcini: heard, might be believed, and being believed, illicit lead men to call on him and be saved. This is agreeable to the prediction of Isaiah, who foretold that the advent of the preachers of the gospel should lie hailed with great and universal joy. According to this, which is the common and most natural \ie\v of the passage, it is an argument founded on the principle, that if God wills the end, he wills also the means; if he would have' the Gentiles saved, according to the predic tions of his prophets, he would have the gospel preached to them. u Qui vult finem, vult etiam media. Dens vult ut homines invoeent ipsum salutariter. Ergo vult ut credant. Ergo vult lit audiant. Ergo vult ut habeant pracdicatores. Itaque praedicatores misit." — Jlemjfl. Calvin's view of the object of the pa>sai:e is the same, but his idea of the nature of the argument is very different. He supposes the apostle to reason thus. The Gentiles actually call upon God; but invocation implies faith, faith hearing, hearing preaching, and preaching a divine mission. If, therefore, the Gentiles have actually received arid obeyed the gospel, it is proof enough that God designed it to be sent to them. This interpretation is ingenious, arid affords a good sense; but it is founded on an assumption which the Jew would be slow to admit, that the Gentile was an acceptable worshipper of God. If he admitted this, he admitted every thing and the argument becomes unnecessary. According to De Wette, Meyer, and others, the design of the apostle is to show the necessity of divine messengers in order to ground thereon a reproof of disobedience to that message. The whole context, however, shows, that he is not here assigning the reasons for the rejection of the Jews, but vindicating the pro priety of preaching to the Gentiles. God had predicted that the Gentiles should be saved; he had provided a method of sal vation adapted to all men; he had declared that whosoever called upon the name of the Lord should be saved; from which it follows, that it is his will that they should hear of him whom they were required to invoke.
VERSE 15. As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things. The word here rendered preach the gospel, is the same as that immediately afterwards translated, bring glad tidings. The word gospel, therefore, must be taken in its original meaning, good news, the good news of peace. The passage in Isa. lii. 7, which the apostle faithfully, as to the meaning, follows, has reference to the Messiah's kingdom. It is one of those numerous prophetic declarations, which announce in general terms the coming deliverance of the Church, a deliverance which embraced, at the first stage of its accomplishment, the restoration from the Babylonish cap tivity. This, however, so far from being the blessing princi pally intended, derived all its value from being introductory to that more glorious deliverance to be effected by the Redeemer. How beautiful the feet, of course means, how delightful the approach. The bearing of this passage on the object of the apostle is sufficiently obvious. lie had proved that the gospel should be preached to all men, and refers to the declaration of the ancient prophet, which spoke of the joy with which the advent of the messengers of mercy should be hailed.