Romans Commentary

IN this chapter the Apostle first denies that the whole of the nation of Israel was indiscriminately rejected, for, as he had already intimated, there was to be a remnant saved, and of that remnant he holds himself forth as a noted example. He then brings again into view the sovereignty of God, in reserving this ‘remnant according to the election of grace.’ In the next place, he affirms that, though blindness in part, as had been expressly foretold, had happened to Israel, yet, seeing that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, the period must arrive when, according to the repeated promises of Scripture, all Israel shall be saved. They shall be brought in with the fullness of the Gentiles, when the wisdom and the goodness of God, in His dealings towards both, will be finally unfolded, and the assembled universe shall with one voice acknowledge that God is all in all, and that of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things, to whom the glory shall be ascribed through the endless ages of eternity.

Ver. 1. — I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Dr. Macknight imagines that a Jew, and Mr. Stuart that an objector, is here and in other places in this Epistle introduced as disputing with the Apostle. Such a supposition is not only unnecessary but groundless.

When Paul begins with the words, I say then, he states in a manner familiar to the best writers, a very obvious and probable objection which he was about to remove. Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. — Some might conclude, from the previous declarations of the Apostle, that the whole Jewish nation was now rejected of God, and for ever excluded from the blessings of the Gospel. This inference he strongly disclaims, and shows that God designed even now to reserve for Himself a people out of the Jews as well as out of the Gentiles, while, hereafter, it is the Divine purpose to recall the whole nation to Himself. Paul therefore answers his own pointed interrogatory, by rejecting the thought with his usual energy, while, to strengthen his denial, he further exhibits himself as a signal example of one not cast away. Had his doctrine involved the total rejection of the Jews, he would have pronounced his own condemnation. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. — Besides being an Israelite, Paul here states that he was of the seed of Abraham. This was implied in his being an Israelite, but it is not needless tautology. A charge is often brought of tautology when the reiteration of an important truth is made for the purpose of giving it redoubled force.

Although, in declaring himself an Israelite, he virtually claimed a direct descent from Abraham, yet it was a fact of no ordinary moment, and one therefore on which he emphatically dwells. It is his object to impress on the minds of his readers a sense of its intrinsic importance, as well as to recall to their recollection the covenant of God with Abraham, which confirmed the promises made to him respecting his descendants. This was much to the Apostle’s purpose, in affirming that God had not cast away the children of him who was called the friend of God. Paul likewise adds that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. It was doubtless an honor to deduce his lineage through a tribe which adhered to the true worship of God, and had not revolted from the house of David. The fact, too, of his being enabled with certainty to trace his pedigree from Benjamin was sufficient to establish the purity of his origin, and to prove that he was not merely found mingled with the nation, but was, in the expressive language which he elsewhere adopts, ‘a Hebrew of the Hebrews,’ an Israelite by birth, parentage, and unbroken hereditary descent. The design of the Apostle is evidently to magnify his privileges, that he may produce the conviction that he has no interest in teaching anything derogatory to the just pretensions of his countrymen.

Ver. 2. — God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Ver. 3. — Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

Ver. 4. — But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

In the preceding verse Paul had asked if God had cast away His people.

This he had strongly denied; and the reasons by which he supports this denial form the subject of nearly the whole of the remainder of the chapter.

He first proves, from the beginning of the 2nd verse to the end of the 10th, that a remnant was at present preserved, although the rest were blinded; and, from the 11th to the 33rd verse, that the whole nation shall at last be restored. God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. — The term people, in the preceding verse, refers to the whole of Israel as the typical people of God, but is here restricted to the elect among them who were His true people, and are distinguished as ‘His people which He foreknew.’

God had cast off the nation, but even then He had a people among them whom from eternity He foreknew as His people. The word foreknow, as formerly observed, signifies to know before, or it denotes a knowledge accompanied by a decree, or it imports a preconceived love, favor, and regard. Divine foreknowledge, in the first of these senses, is God’s foresight of future existence and events, and His eternal prescience of whatever shall take place in all futurity. This foreknowledge is not only to be distinguished from God’s decree, by which everything future comes to pass, but must be considered in the order of nature as consequent and dependent upon the determination and purpose of God. For the futurity of all things depends on the decrees of God, by which every created existence and event, with all their circumstances, are ordered, fixed, and ascertained. Being thus decreed, they are the objects of foreknowledge; for they could not be known to be future unless their futurity was established, and that by the Divine decree. God foreknew all things that were to come to pass, by knowing His own purposes and decrees. Had God determined or decreed nothing respecting future existences by creation and providence, there could have been no foreknowledge of anything whatever. Because, therefore, this foreknowledge of God necessarily implies and involves His decrees, His foreknowledge is in the inspired writings sometimes accompanied by the mention of His decrees; as, for example, ‘Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain,’ Acts 2:23. And it is sometimes put for the decree, as in the following passage, where the word here translated foreknew is rendered fore-ordained: ‘Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world,’ 1 Peter 1:20. In the third sense, as taken for a knowledge of love and approbation, it signifies, as in the verse before us, to choose and recognize as His own. God had not cast away His people whom He had before loved and chosen, for the Apostle alleges this foreknowledge as the reason why God did not cast away His people.

The people of God, whom He foreknew, were those whom He chose from all eternity, according to His sovereign pleasure; and in this sense the expression is clearly explained, when they are declared, in the 5th verse, to be a ‘remnant according to the election of grace,’ and when it is said, in the 4th, that God had ‘reserved’ to Himself His true worshippers in the time of Elijah. This proves the correctness of Calvin’s observation, ‘that foreknowledge does not mean a certain speculative view, by which the uncreated Cause of all effects foresaw the character of every individual of the human family, but points to the good pleasure of the decree of the Sovereign Disposer of all events, by which He hath chosen for His children those who were not yet born, and had no power to insinuate themselves into the favor of the Author of all happiness. Thus ( Galatians 4:9), Paul says, they are known of God, because He prevents by His grace and favor, and calls them to a knowledge of Christ.’ Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? — The quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures, which the Apostle here brings to bear on the point in question, fully establishes the view that has been given of the preceding passage. There was an elected remnant in the days of Elijah, when things were at the worst; and so, at the time when the Apostle wrote, there was also an elected remnant whom God had reserved. How he maketh intercession to God against Israel. — First Kings 19:10, cited by Paul,’ says Calvin, ‘contains no implication, but a mere complaint.

Since, however, his complaint implies a total despair of the religion of the whole Jewish nation, we may rest assured that he devoted it to destruction.’ But Paul’s comment may assure us that Elijah, at the time referred to, not only complained but interceded against Israel. The Apostle spoke by the Spirit that indicted the words in which Elijah’s complaint is recorded, and we should not look for a voucher for such testimony. Such a mode of strengthening the Scriptures is only to weaken them. It teaches us to undervalue the inspired commentary of the New Testament, unless we can produce some other confirmation. Elijah, when solemnly interrogated by the Lord why he was in the place where he was then found, away from the proper scene of his ministry, accounted for his flight to save his life, which seems to have been without any Divine admonition, by complaining of the apostasy of the nation. As this was an exposure of their wickedness, and, had it been true in all its extent, would have led to their destruction, it was in effect intercession against Israel. But the answer of God showed that he was mistaken. God had even then reserved to Himself a goodly number, who had not apostatized from His worship.

From these words, in this answer of God, I have reserved to Myself, we learn that if any are preserved from false worship, if any are brought to the knowledge of God, it is by His special influence and agency, and not owing to themselves. Such favored individuals are said to be ‘reserved’ by God. How different is this from the views of multitudes who profess Christianity! It is a comfort to think that in the worst times there may be many more of the people of God than we are apt to imagine. Bowed the knee. — This shows that any overt act of idolatry, or any compliance with the requirements of false religion, renders men unworthy of being accounted the true servants of God. So Job, in declaring the integrity of his conduct towards God and man, says, ‘If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, this also were an iniquity to be punished; for I should have denied the God that is above.’

Ver. 5. — Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

This is the object of the reference to the election in the times of Elijah, and renders the words at the beginning of the 2nd verse quite definite. As there was a remnant then reserved by God, so there is a remnant now. Both were necessary for the preservation of the nation. The seven thousand were its salt in Elijah’s time, as were the remnant here spoken of during its present blindness. According to the election of grace. — Than this nothing can be more explicit. God had formerly reserved for Himself, by His gracious influence and special agency, a small number in Israel; and in the same way, at the time when the Apostle wrote, He had reserved, according to His sovereign choice, a remnant of that nation. And to set aside every idea that this election was the reward of an inherent good foreseen in those chosen, or of anything meritorious performed by them, the Apostle adds that it was of grace. It was an unconditional choice, resulting from the sovereign free favor of God.

Ver. 6. — And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.

The opponents of the doctrine of election maintain that men are chosen on account of their good works foreseen. But here it is expressly declared by the Apostle that it is not on account of works at all, whether past, present, or future. What, then, is the source of election/ Grace. — It is an election of grace, or free favor; that is, a gratuitous election, not by the merit of works of any kind, but purely from the favor of God. Grace and works are here stated as diametrically opposite and totally irreconcilable.

If, then, election is by grace, it is not of works; for this would imply a contradiction. Grace would not then be grace. Here we have the warrant of Scripture for asserting that a contradiction is necessarily untrue, and that no authority is sufficient to establish two propositions which actually contradict each other. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work. — Many suppose these words are spurious, because they are wanting in some manuscripts, and because the idea is substantially included in what has been already stated. This reason, however, is not conclusive, and those who build on such a foundation show little knowledge of Scripture. It is not useless to reverse the idea, and draw the same conclusion from the converse. It is far more likely that human wisdom has in some manuscripts omitted this passage, than that it should have been transcribed from the margin into the text.

In the foregoing verses, as well as in the eighth and ninth chapters, the doctrine of election is stated in the clearest manner. This doctrine, as implying the total inability of man to recover himself from guilt and ruin, and the necessity for this end of Divine interposition, has ever been highly offensive to human pride and human wisdom. These and the preceding strong statements of it, can never be silenced; but they have often been subjected to the most violent perversions. Every artifice of human ingenuity has been employed to turn away the Apostle’s words from bearing on the point; but it has been employed in vain; and nothing will ever be able to reconcile these statements to the mind of the natural man.

But, after all, what does this doctrine assert that is not necessarily and obviously implied in every other doctrine of the Gospel? Are all men by nature dead in sin? If so, he that is made spiritually alive, must be made so by Him who alone gives life; and it is nothing short of Divine sovereignty that constitutes the difference between him and those who remain in death and enmity to God. Are Christians represented as being born again? Does not this refer men’s spiritual existence to the sovereign choice, and mercy, and agency of their heavenly Father? Are Christians saved by faith? If faith be the gift of God, salvation by faith implies election. Why, then, should the Scriptures be wrested to avoid the admission of a doctrine which is not only essential to their consistency with themselves, but which the whole system of Christianity implies?

The salvation of every individual of the human race who partakes of it must be wholly gratuitous on the part of God, and effected by His sovereign grace. Sinners could have no claim upon God; His justice demanded their punishment, and they could plead no right to mercy, which, if admitted, would make mercy justice. The sending of His Son, therefore, into the world to save sinners, was an act of free grace; and Christ, accordingly, is spoken of as God’s gift. ‘He gave His only begotten Son,’ John 3:16. ‘Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift,’ 2 Corinthians 9:15. It is no impeachment of the mercy of God, that all the fallen angels perished, and that upon the whole of them justice took its course. Could it then have been impeached, if in like manner God had left all men to perish? and if not, can it be so because only a part of them are left under that condemnation into which they have fallen, while to another part, He, who ‘hath mercy on whom He will have mercy,’ has extended that mercy? These truths, when unreservedly admitted, greatly contribute to promote in Christians, in contemplating the distinguishing goodness of God to them, joy in the Lord, and to their bringing forth all the fruits of the Spirit It leads them to admire the mercies of God, who hath brought them from darkness to light, and hath saved and called them with an holy calling, not according to their works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Timothy 1:9; whereby they have the hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, ‘promised,’ in like manner, ‘before the world began,’ Titus 1:2.

The fact that the doctrines of election and of the Divine sovereignty are so clearly taught in Scripture, is a most convincing proof that they are not the invention of man. Such a view could not have suggested itself to the human mind, and, if suggested, could not have been pleasing to its author. As little would it be calculated to serve the purpose of an impostor, being universally unpalatable to those intended to be gained as converts. Nothing but the supposition of their truth and Divine origin can account for their being found in the Bible. ‘It is a glorious argument,’ says President Edwards, in his Enquiry respecting the Freedom of the Will,’ of the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, that they teach such doctrines, which in one age and another, through the blindness of men’s minds, and strong prejudices of their hearts, are rejected as most absurd and unreasonable by the wise and great men of the world; which yet, when they are most carefully and strictly examined, appear to be exactly agreeable to the most demonstrably certain and natural dictates of reason.’ If the Scriptures, he observes, taught the opposite doctrines to those which are so much stumbled at, viz., the Arminian and Pelagian doctrine of free will, and other modifications of these errors, it would be the greatest of all difficulties in the way of the internal evidence of the truth of the Bible.

Ver. 7. — What Then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

What then? — What is the result of all that the Apostle had been saying?

It is this: Israel as a nation hath not obtained righteousness, of which it was in search, ch. 9:31; but the election among them — the chosen remnant reserved by God, spoken of above — hath obtained it. Can anything more expressly affirm the doctrine of election? And the rest were blinded. — How strong is this language! How can it be softened by the most subtle ingenuity, so as to make it agreeable to the taste of the natural man? The election had received the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ; but the whole nation besides not only did not attain to the righteousness of which they were in search, but were blinded. This is a hard saying, who can hear it? It is God’s saying, and it is unsafe to reject it. It is the duty of His people, as little children, to receive it with meekness.

The election of a sinful creature is an act of the free and sovereign will of God; while his punishment is not a sovereign or arbitrary act of Divine authority. God does not punish without an existing cause in the guilty.

Condemnation supposes positive criminality. Men are in themselves sinful, and commit sin voluntarily; and for their punishment, they are hardened, and finally perish in their sins, and their destruction is the execution of a just sentence of God against sin. Their sins, which are the cause of their destruction, are their own; while the salvation of those whom God chooses and calls to Himself is His gift. God knows what men left to their own inclinations will do; and as to those who are finally condemned, He determines to abandon them to their depraved inclinations, and hardens them in their rebellion against Him. But as to His determination, by grace, to cause the sinner to believe, to will, and to obey, it requires a positive interposition of Divine power — a power which creates anew, which no one merits or deserves, and which God vouchsafes or withholds according to the counsel of His own will. Conformably to this, we see through the whole of the Scriptures, that when men are saved they are saved by the sovereign grace of God, and when they perish, it is by the appointment of God, Jude 4, through their own fault.

Ver. 8. — (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day.

Mr. Stuart asserts that it is not necessary to understand this as a prediction, in the appropriate sense of the word. But it is most undoubtedly a prediction; and although it was adapted to describe the Jews at a preceding period, the Holy Spirit, as from Paul’s application we are bound to believe, intended it to describe the people of Israel in the time of the Apostles. The same thing that in one sense is ascribed to God, in another is ascribed to man. Although, by the decree and providence of God, Israel was blinded, yet the blame was their own. The Jews, at that period, had the light of natural understanding, yet they did not see what was exhibited with the clearest evidence. This is still the case. Multitudes who are distinguished for their intellectual vigor and mental powers, are altogether blind in spiritual things. Unto this day. — Some join this with she words of the Prophet, and others make it the additional observation of Paul. In whatever way this is understood, they are equally the words of the Apostle, for he applies them to the case in hand.

Ver. 9 — And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them; Ver. 10. — Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

And David saith. — It is highly erroneous to suppose, with Mr. Stuart, that the Apostle quotes these passages merely to illustrate a general principle. In this sense they could be of no use. But they are eminently to the purpose as predictions. Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense unto them. — Let them experience misery and disappointment in their daily occupations and concerns, and let them find those things, of whatever description — whether sacred or common — which were calculated to be for their welfare and advantage, a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block, and a punishment to them. For the hope of retaining their temporal kingdom, they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ, and by this means they lost the kingdom also, with all temporal prosperity, John 11:48,50. Mr. Stuart observes, ‘It is enough to say, at present, that the Apostle, in making this quotation, need not be supposed to design anything more than to produce an instance from the Psalm, where the same principle is developed as is contained in the assertions which he had made; i.e., the ancient Scriptures speak of a part of Israel as blind and deaf, as in deep distress and under heavy punishment because of their unbelief and disobedience. What happened in ancient times may take place again; it has, in fact, happened at the present time.’ How trifling would be the conduct of the Apostle, according to this representation of Mr. Stuart? Are all these quotations made just for the purpose of showing that something in some way similar happened long ago? Is this likeness merely accidental? Whatever application the words might have to David and David’s times, their import as a proper prediction is clear, and since they are so appropriated by the Apostle, ought never to be questioned. These words of the Old Testament Scriptures are too strong to represent anything else, in their full extent, but the fearful blindness of the Jews in the time of the Messiah, when they saw His miracles, and nevertheless did not perceive their import; when they heard, yet did not listen to the calls of His Gospel. Then, truly, their heart was made fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes were closed, John 12:40; and then, by the issue, it appeared that God would not convert them, because He would not any more at that time do them good.

The predictions concerning their spiritual blindness, as well as the denunciations contained in these verses, have been literally accomplished.

Many pretend to find a difficulty in regard to the threatenings denounced against the enemies of God in the Psalm, but the difficulty arises from their own erroneous views of the subject. Does it imply a malicious or revengeful temper to utter the dictates of the Spirit of God, whoever may be the Object of the Divine denunciations? This is not merely trifling, but blasphemous.

To represent this passage otherwise than as a prediction, gives a false view of the sixty-ninth Psalm, from which the quotation is taken, which contains so illustrious a prophecy of our Lord Jesus Christ. God had announced by David, in that Psalm, the maledictions it records in connection with crimes committed by the Jews. Those here quoted, in the 9th and 10th verses, immediately follow the prophetical description in the Psalm of their treatment of the Messiah. It should also be observed, that during the whole period of the former dispensation, God employed the most powerful external means to bring them back to Himself, so that they were entirely without excuse.

The <196901> sixty-ninth Psalm consists of three parts. The first respects the violent persecutions which the Lord Jesus Christ experienced from His enemies and the Jews. The second part is a prediction of the fearful judgments of the Lord, especially upon the traitor Judas. The third part regards the exaltation of Jesus Christ to glory, and the success of the Gospel. First, the prophetical characters of the Psalm are representative of the extraordinary sufferings of Him of whom it speaks, and of the reproaches against Him — sufferings and persecutions which would be both exaggerated were they limited to those persecutions which David endured at the hand of His enemies. Secondly, the cause of His sufferings is ascribed to His love of God. ‘For Thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered My face. I am become a stranger unto My brethren, and an alien unto My mother’s children. For the zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon Me.’ Now, we do not read that David was ever persecuted on account of his religion, nor that he suffered because of His love to God.

Thirdly, although the words, ‘They gave Me also gall for My meat; and in My thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,’ may be understood figuratively of David, they cannot be literally applied to him, but they apply literally to Jesus Christ.

The first division of the Psalm, which foretells the ruin of the persecutors, is too strong to be understood of the persecutors of David, as appears from what is said from the 22nd to the 28th verses inclusive, which conclude with these awful words: ‘Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into Thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.’ It cannot be said that the enemies of David were absolutely cut off from the covenant of God; but these words were fully accomplished on the body of the nation of the Jews, when they did not attain, as the Apostle says, to the law of righteousness, and refused to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God. They were, therefore, blinded or hardened; the awful maledictions contained in the verses before us descended on their devoted country, and thus they were blotted out of the book of the living, and were not written with the righteous.

In the third part of the Psalm, the deliverance vouchsafed by God is declared: ‘Let Thy salvation, O God, set me up on high,’ which signifies the ascension of the Lord to heaven. It is afterwards said, ‘I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns or hoofs,’ which marks the abolition of the legal sacrifices.

Finally, the filling of the earth with the glory of God is declared. ‘Let the heaven and earth praise Him, the seas, and everything that moveth therein.’ This is too great to be applied to the temporal deliverances which God vouchsafed to David, the fame of which did not extend so far. It must, then, be ascribed to the glory which God received after the exaltation of Jesus Christ, as He Himself said, ‘ Father, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee.’

The words in the beginning of the 9th verse of this Psalm, ‘The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up,’ are applied to the Lord Jesus Christ, John 2:17; and the concluding words, ‘The reproaches of them that reproached Thee, are fallen upon Me,’ by Paul, Romans 15:3. ‘They gave Me also gall for My meat; and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink,’ is applied in the three Gospels, by Matthew, and Mark, and John, to what took place at His crucifixion. The words contained in the 25th verse, ‘Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents,’ are applied to Judas, Acts 1:20, who may be considered in this matter as the representative of the nation. ‘Let their table become a snare before them,’ verse 22, is quoted by the Apostle in the verse before us, predicting the condition of the Jewish nation when he wrote. And are all these passages to be considered as quoted by way of accommodation, and not as predictions? Such an interpretation is not only erroneous, but is degrading to the Holy Scriptures, and utterly at variance with their true meaning.