Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:14
What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
14 33. Electing Sovereignty: Vindication, Restatement and application
(A) Is God unrighteous?
14. What shall we say then? ] Same words as Rom 3:5, Rom 4:1, Rom 6:1, Rom 7:7, Rom 8:31, Rom 9:30. St Paul often introduces thus an objection which is to be solved. The objection here is twofold; (1) “Is God righteous so to act?” (Rom 9:14,) and (2) “Is man responsible if He so acts?” (Rom 9:19.)
Is there unrighteousness with God? ] On the Gr. rendered “ with ” see note on Rom 1:11. The words here, as the words there, may refer to a court of justice: “Is there injustice at His bar? ”
God forbid ] See on Rom 3:4. On the principle of the reply here, see long Note on Rom 9:11.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
What shall we say then? – What conclusion shall we draw from these acknowledged facts, and from these positive declarations of Scripture.
Is there unrighteousness with God? – Does God do injustice or wrong? This charge has often been brought against the doctrine here advanced. But this charge the apostle strongly repels. He meets it by further showing that it is the doctrine explicitly taught in the Old Testament Rom 9:15, Rom 9:17, and that it is founded on the principles of equity, and on just views of the sovereignty of God; Rom 9:19-23.
God forbid – Note, Rom 3:4.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. What shall we say then?] To what conclusion shall we come on the facts before us? Shall we suggest that God’s bestowing peculiar privileges in this unequal manner, on those who otherwise are in equal circumstances, is inconsistent with justice and equity? By no means. Whatever God does is right, and he may dispense his blessings to whom and or what terms he pleases.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Another anticipation of an objection. Some might object and say: If God elect some, and reject others, their case being the same, or their persons being in themselves equal and alike, then he is unjust and partial. To this he answers,
1. More generally, with his repeated note of detestation: God forbid; the Syriac translator reads it, God forgive; noting thereby the heinousness of such a thought and then he answers this cavil more particularly; showing:
1. That God is not unjust in electing some, Rom 9:15,16. And,
2. That he is not unjust in rejecting others, Rom 9:17.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. What shall we say then? Is thereunrighteousness with God? God forbidThis is the first of twoobjections to the foregoing doctrine, that God chooses one andrejects another, not on account of their works, but purely in theexercise of His own good pleasure: “This doctrine isinconsistent with the justice of God.” The answer to thisobjection extends to Ro 9:19,where we have the second objection.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
What shall we say then?…. A form of expression the apostle frequently uses, when he is about to introduce an objection, as is what follows:
is there unrighteousness with God? This is not an objection of his own, but of an adversary, which he takes up and returns an answer to; and which itself greatly serves to settle and confirm the true sense and meaning of the apostle in this place; as that it could not be, that election and rejection of men should proceed according to their merits; or that God chooses some for their good works, and rejects others for their wicked works, because no man could ever pretend to charge God with unrighteousness on this account; nor could it be that God chose and rejected men, upon a foresight of their good and evil works, for this also would not be liable to such an objection; nor that the Jews, having made the law of none effect by their traditions, despised the Gospel, crucified Christ, and persecuted his disciples, are therefore cast off, and the Gentiles, being obedient both in word and deed, are received into favour, for this likewise would not be chargeable with unrighteousness by men; but that two persons, as Jacob and Esau, and the same may be said of all mankind, being upon an equal foot, not being yet born, nor having done either good or evil, an inequality, a difference is made between them, by God himself; the one is chose, the other passed by: now in this is some show, some pretence at least, for such an objection; nor is it any wonder to meet with it from the carnal reason of men; wherefore we may be sure that the latter, and not either of the former, is the true sense of the apostle; since only this, and not either of them, is liable to such an exception: let us attend to the apostle’s answer, which is “first” in his usual manner, by way of detestation and abhorrence,
God forbid: God is not unrighteous in his nature; nor in any of his ways and works; nor in this, in choosing some and rejecting others. There is no unrighteousness with God in that part of predestination, commonly called election; for this is neither an act of justice, nor injustice; not of justice, but of grace and mercy; of undue and undeserved grace and mercy, of mere sovereign grace and mercy; and is what God was not obliged to do; wherefore to choose some and not others, is no act of injustice; for injustice is a violation of justice, which has no place in this affair: if it is an act of injustice, it must be either to them that are chosen, or to them that are not; not to them that are chosen, to them it is an act of favour and good will, they are chosen to grace and glory, to holiness here, and happiness hereafter; not to them that are passed by, because they had no right nor claim to the grace and glory, which by this act are denied them, and therefore no injustice is done them. Every prince may choose his own ministers and favourites, and who he will have of his privy council, without doing any injustice, to those he takes no notice of; every man may choose his own company who he will converse with, without doing any wrong to such he does not think fit to admit to an intimacy with him; and yet men are not willing to allow the Most High that liberty, which every man daily takes, and may lawfully make use of: nor is there any unrighteousness with God in the other branch of predestination, commonly called reprobation, which is either negative or positive; negative reprobation is the act of preterition, or God’s passing by, leaving, taking no notice of some, while he chose others: now the objects of this act are to be considered either in the pure, or in the corrupt mass; if in the pure mass, i.e. of creatureship, which seems to be the apostle’s meaning, as being not yet created, made, or born, and having done neither good nor evil; no injustice is done by this act, for as it found them, it left them; it put nothing into them, no evil in them, nor appointed them to any, of any kind; man after, and notwithstanding this act, came into the world an upright creature, and became sinful, not by virtue of this act, but by their own inventions: or if considered as in the corrupt mass, as fallen creatures, sunk into sin and misery, which is the case of all mankind; since God was not obliged to save any of the sinful race of men, whose destruction was of themselves, it could be no injustice to pass by some of them in this condition, when he chose others; for if it would have been no injustice to have condemned all, as he did the angels that sinned, whom he spared not, it can be no act of injustice in him, to leave some of them in that condition, which sin had brought them into, whilst he has mercy on others; unless to have mercy on any, can be thought to be an act of injustice: what unrighteousness can there be in this procedure, any more than in drowning the world of the ungodly, whilst Noah and his family were saved in the ark? or in raining showers of fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities of the plain, whilst Lot, his wife, and two daughters, were delivered from the same? Positive reprobation is the decree, or appointment to damnation: now as God damns no man but for sin, so he has decreed to damn no man but for sin; and if it is no unrighteousness in him to damn men for sin, as to be sure it is not, so it can be no unrighteousness in him to decree to damn any for it: upon the whole it appears, that whatever show, upon first sight, there may be for a charge of unrighteousness against such a procedure of the Divine Being, there is no real foundation for it. The objection is to be treated with abhorrence and indignation.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Divine Sovereignty. | A. D. 58. |
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
The apostle, having asserted the true meaning of the promise, comes here to maintain and prove the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, with reference to their eternal state. And herein God is to be considered, not as a rector and governor, distributing rewards and punishments according to his revealed laws and covenants, but as an owner and benefactor, giving to the children of men such grace and favour as he has determined in and by his secret and eternal will and counsel: both the favour of visible church-membership and privileges, which is given to some people and denied to others, and the favour of effectual grace, which is given to some particular persons and denied to others.
Now this part of his discourse is in answer to two objections.
I. It might be objected, Is there unrighteousness with God? If God, in dealing with the children of men, do thus, in an arbitrary manner, choose some and refuse others, may it not be suspected that there is unrighteousness with him? This the apostle startles at the thought of: God forbid! Far be it from us to think such a thing; shall not the judge of all the earth do right? Gen 18:25; Rom 3:5; Rom 3:6. He denies the consequences, and proves the denial.
1. In respect of those to whom he shows mercy, Rom 9:15; Rom 9:16. He quotes that scripture to show God’s sovereignty in dispensing his favours (Exod. xxxiii. 19): I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. All God’s reasons of mercy are taken from within himself. All the children of men being plunged alike into a state of sin and misery, equally under guilt and wrath, God, in a way of sovereignty, picks out some from this fallen apostatized race, to be vessels of grace and glory. He dispenses his gifts to whom he will, without giving us any reason: according to his own good pleasure he pitches upon some to be monuments of mercy and grace, preventing grace, effectual grace, while he passes by others. The expression is very emphatic, and the repetition makes it more so: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. It imports a perfect absoluteness in God’s will; he will do what he will, and giveth not account of any of his matters, nor is it fit he should. As these great words, I am that I am (Exod. iii. 14) do abundantly express the absolute independency of his being, so these words, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, do as fully express the absolute prerogative and sovereignty of his will. To vindicate the righteousness of God, in showing mercy to whom he will, the apostle appeals to that which God himself had spoken, wherein he claims this sovereign power and liberty. God is a competent judge, even in his own case. Whatsoever God does, or is resolved to do, is both by the one and the other proved to be just. Eleeso on han heleo—I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. When I begin, I will make an end. Therefore God’s mercy endures for ever, because the reason of it is fetched from within himself; therefore his gifts and callings are without repentance. Hence he infers (v. 16), It is not of him that willeth. Whatever good comes from God to man, the glory of it is not to be ascribed to the most generous desire, nor to the most industrious endeavour, of man, but only and purely to the free grace and mercy of God. In Jacob’s case it was not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; it was not the earnest will and desire of Rebecca that Jacob might have the blessing; it was not Jacob’s haste to get it (for he was compelled to run for it) that procured him the blessing, but only the mercy and grace of God. Wherein the holy happy people of God differ from other people, it is God and his grace that make them differ. Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him, the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God’s free grace that made that difference. The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness, Matt. iv. 16. In darkness, therefore not willing what they knew not; sitting in darkness, a contented posture, therefore not running to meet it, but anticipated with these invaluable blessings of goodness. Such is the method of God’s grace towards all that partake of it, for he is found of those that sought him not (Isa. lxv. 1); in this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own. Our eye therefore must not be evil because his is good; but, of all the grace that we or others have, he must have the glory: Not unto us, Ps. cxv. 1.
2. In respect of those who perish, v. 17. God’s sovereignty, manifested in the ruin of sinners, is here discovered in the instance of Pharaoh; it is quoted from Exod. ix. 16. Observe,
(1.) What God did with Pharaoh. He raised him up, brought him into the world, made him famous, gave him the kingdom and power,–set him up as a beacon upon a hill, as the mark of all his plagues (compare Exod. ix. 14)– hardened his heart, as he had said he would (Exod. iv. 21): I will harden his heart, that is, withdraw softening grace, leave him to himself, let Satan loose against him, and lay hardening providences before him. Or, by raising him up may be meant the intermission of the plagues which gave Pharaoh respite, and the reprieve of Pharaoh in those plagues. In the Hebrew, I have made thee stand, continued thee yet in the land of the living. Thus doth God raise up sinners, make them for himself, even for the day of evil (Prov. xvi. 4), raise them up in outward prosperity, external privileges (Matt. xi. 23), sparing mercies.
(2.) What he designed in it: That I might show my power in thee. God would, by all this, serve the honour of his name, and manifest his power in baffling the pride and insolence of that great and daring tyrant, who bade defiance to Heaven itself, and trampled upon all that was just and sacred. If Pharaoh had not been so high and might, so bold and hardy, the power of God had not been so illustrious in the ruining of him; but the taking off of the spirit of such a prince, who hectored at that rate, did indeed proclaim God glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders, Exod. xv. 11. This is Pharaoh, and all his multitude.
(3.) His conclusion concerning both these we have, v. 18. He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. The various dealings of God, by which he makes some to differ from others, must be resolved into his absolute sovereignty. He is debtor to no man, his grace is his own, and he may give it or withhold it as it pleaseth him; we have none of us deserved it, nay, we have all justly forfeited it a thousand times, so that herein the work of our salvation is admirably well ordered that those who are saved must thank God only, and those who perish must thank themselves only, Hos. xiii. 9. We are bound, as God hath bound us, to do our utmost for the salvation of all we have to do with; but God is bound no further than he has been pleased to bind himself by his own covenant and promise, which is his revealed will; and that is that he will receive, and not cast out, those that come to Christ; but the drawing of souls in order to that coming is a preventing distinguishing favour to whom he will. Had he mercy on the Gentiles? It was because he would have mercy on them. Were the Jews hardened? It was because it was his own pleasure to deny them softening grace, and to give them up to their chosen affected unbelief. Even so, Father, because it seemed good unto thee. That scripture excellently explains this, Luke x. 21, and, as this, shows the sovereign will of God in giving or withholding both the means of grace and the effectual blessing upon those means.
II. It might be objected, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? v. 19. Had the apostle been arguing only for God’s sovereignty in appointing and ordering the terms and conditions of acceptance and salvation, there had not been the least colour for this objection; for he might well find fault if people refused to come up to the terms on which such a salvation is offered; the salvation being so great, the terms could not be hard. But there might be colour for the objection against his arguing for the sovereignty of God in giving and withholding differencing and preventing grace; and the objection is commonly and readily advanced against the doctrine of distinguishing grace. If God, while he gives effectual grace to some, denies it to others, why doth he find fault with those to whom he denies it? If he hath rejected the Jews, and hid from their eyes the things that belong to their peace, why doth he find fault with them for their blindness? If it be his pleasure to discard them as not a people, and not obtaining mercy, their knocking off themselves was no resistance of his will. This objection he answers at large,
1. By reproving the objector (v. 20): Nay but, O man. This is not an objection fit to be made by the creature against his Creator, by man against God. The truth, as it is in Jesus, is that which abases man as nothing, less than nothing, and advances God as sovereign Lord of all. Observe how contemptibly he speaks of man, when he comes to argue with God his Maker: “Who art thou, thou that art so foolish, so feeble, so short-sighted, so incompetent a judge of the divine counsels? Art thou able to fathom such a depth, dispute such a case, to trace that way of God which is in the sea, his path in the great waters?” That repliest against God. It becomes us to submit to him, not to reply against him; to lie down under his hand, not to fly in his face, nor to charge him with folly. Ho antapokrinomenos—That answerest again. God is our master, and we are his servants; and it does not become servants to answer again, Tit. ii. 9.
2. By resolving all into the divine sovereignty. We are the thing formed, and he is the former; and it does not become us to challenge or arraign his wisdom in ordering and disposing of us into this or that shape of figure. The rude and unformed mass of matter hath no right to this or that form, but is shaped at the pleasure of him that formeth it. God’s sovereignty over us is fitly illustrated by the power that the potter hath over the clay; compare Jer. xviii. 6, where, by a like comparison, God asserts his dominion over the nation of the Jews, when he was about to magnify his justice in their destruction by Nebuchadnezzar.
(1.) He gives us the comparison, v. 21. The potter, out of the same lump, may make either a fashionable vessel, and a vessel fit for creditable and honourable uses, or a contemptible vessel, and a vessel in which is no pleasure; and herein he acts arbitrarily, as he might have chosen whether he would make any vessel of it at all, or whether he would leave it in the hole of the pit, out of which it was dug.
(2.) The application of the comparison, v. 22-24. Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind:– [1.] Vessels of wrath–vessels filled with wrath, as a vessel of wine is a vessel filled with wine; full of the fury of the Lord, Isa. li. 20. In these God is willing to show his wrath, that is, his punishing justice, and his enmity to sin. This must be shown to all the world, God will make it appear that he hates sin. He will likewise make his power known, to dynaton autou. It is a power of strength and energy, an inflicting power, which works and effects the destruction of those that perish; it is a destruction that proceeds from the glory of his power, 2 Thess. i. 9. The eternal damnation of sinners will be an abundant demonstration of the power of God; for he will act in it himself immediately, his wrath preying as it were upon guilty consciences, and his arm stretched out totally to destroy their well-being, and yet at the same instant wonderfully to preserve the being of the creature. In order to this, God endured them with much long-suffering–exercised a great deal of patience towards them, let them alone to fill up the measure of sin, to grow till they were ripe for ruin, and so they became fitted for destruction, fitted by their own sin and self-hardening. The reigning corruptions and wickedness of the soul are its preparedness and disposedness for hell: a soul is hereby made combustible matter, fit for the flames of hell. When Christ said to the Jews (Matt. xxiii. 32), Fill you up then the measure of your father, that upon you may come all the righteous blood (v. 35), he did, as it were, endure them with much long-suffering, that they might, by their own obstinacy and wilfulness in sin, fit themselves for destruction. [2.] Vessels of mercy–filled with mercy. The happiness bestowed upon the saved remnant is the fruit, not of their merit, but of God’s mercy. The spring of all the joy and glory of heaven is that mercy of God which endures for ever. Vessels of honour must to eternity own themselves vessels of mercy. Observe, First, What he designs in them: To make known the riches of his glory, that is, of his goodness; for God’s goodness is his greatest glory, especially when it is communicated with the greatest sovereignty. I beseech thee show me thy glory, says Moses, Exod. xxxiii. 18. I will make all my goodness to pass before thee, says God (v. 19), and that given out freely: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. God makes known his glory, this goodness of his, in the preservation and supply of all the creatures: the earth is full of his goodness, and the year crowned with it; but when he would demonstrate the riches of his goodness, unsearchable riches, he does it in the salvation of the saints, that will be to eternity glorious monuments of divine grace. Secondly, What he does for them he does before prepare them to glory. Sanctification is the preparation of the soul for glory, making it meet to partake of the inheritance of the saints in light. This is God’s work. We can destroy ourselves fast enough, but we cannot save ourselves. Sinners fit themselves for hell, but it is God that prepares saints for heaven; and all those that God designs for heaven hereafter he prepares and fits for heaven now: he works them to the self-same thing, 2 Cor. v. 5. And would you know who these vessels of mercy are? Those whom he hath called (v. 24); for whom he did predestinate those he also called with an effectual call: and these not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles; for, the partition-wall being taken down, the world was laid in common, and not (as it had been) God’s favour appropriated to the Jews, and they put a degree nearer his acceptance than the rest of the world. They now stood upon the same level with the Gentiles; and the question is not now whether of the seed of Abraham or no, that is neither here nor there, but whether or no called according to his purpose.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Is there unrighteousness with God? ( ?). Paul goes right to the heart of the problem. expects a negative answer. “Beside” () God there can be no injustice to Esau or to any one because of election.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
GOD’S MERCY AND SOVEREIGN WILL, V. 14-24
1) “What shall we say then?” (ti oun eroumen) “What therefore shall we say?” Shall we impugn God’s justice, goodness, holiness, love, or wisdom in His purpose, callings, and promises relating to individuals or nations? Who is qualified to question God or be skeptical of his choices and actions? Deu 32:3-4.
2) “Is there unrighteousness with God,” (me adikia para to theo) “Is there injustice or unrighteousness associated with God,” does God associate with, participate in, or become party to injustice or unrighteousness?” The nature of the questions suggests that there absolutely is or exists no unrighteousness; with God, as also the Scriptures repeatedly assert, 2Ch 19:7; Job 8:3; Job 34:10; Psa 92:15.
3) “God forbid,” (me genoito) “May it not be so,” so charged, or may it not even exist, in ones mind that such could be charged against an holy, infinite God! Psa 18:25; Psa 18:30; Dan 4:37. Away with such a thought that God may be charged with unrighteousness! It is tantamount to the assertion, “There is no God.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. What then shall we say? etc. The flesh cannot hear of this wisdom of God without being instantly disturbed by numberless questions, and without attempting in a manner to call God to an account. We hence find that the Apostle, whenever he treats of some high mystery, obviates the many absurdities by which he knew the minds of men would be otherwise possessed; for when men hear anything of what Scripture teaches respecting predestination, they are especially entangled with very many impediments.
The predestination of God is indeed in reality a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately, through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea. What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing concerning it, except what Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us hear from Paul how they are to be met.
Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.
In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.
But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Text
Rom. 9:14-18. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. Rom. 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Rom. 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth. Rom. 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.
REALIZING ROMANS, Rom. 9:14-18
415.
To accuse God of arbitrariness is not new. The Jews did it long ago. See Rom. 9:14. Just what type of arbitrariness was meant?
416.
Look up the reference in Numbers in which God spoke to Moses. It will help you to understand the point of Paul.
417.
Please remember the point in this section. What is it?
418.
In what matters does the sovereignty of God operate? In all matters?
419.
Mans will or efforts have nothing to do with Gods decisions. Is this the teaching of Rom. 9:16?
420.
God raised up Pharaoh for a purpose. What was it? What was the point of this illustration as it applied to the saints in Rome?
421.
Explain Gods responsibility in the hardening of Pharaohs heart. Explain Pharaohs responsibility.
Paraphrase
Rom. 9:14-18. What shall we say, then, concerning the election of Isaac preferably to Ishmael, and of Jacob preferably to Esau, to be the seed to whom the temporal promises were made? Is not injustice with God? By no means.
Rom. 9:15 For, to show that God may bestow his favors on whom he pleases, he saith to Moses, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. In conferring favors on nations, and in pardoning those who deserve destruction, I act according to my own pleasure.
Rom. 9:16 So then, the election did not depend on Isaac, who willed to bless Esau, nor on Esau, who ran for venison, that his father might eat and bless him; but it depended on God, who may bestow his favors as he pleaseth.
Rom. 9:17 Besides, the punishment of nations is sometimes deferred, to show more conspicuously the divine justice and power in their after punishment; for the scripture saith to Pharaoh, even for this same purpose I have raised thee and thy people to great celebrity, and have upheld you during the former plagues, that, in punishing you, I might show my power, and that my name, as the righteous Governor of the world, might be published through all the earth.
Rom. 9:18 Well, then, from the election of Jacob, it appears that God bestows his favors on what nation he will; and from the destruction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians it appears, that whom he will he hardeneth, by enduring their wickedness with much long-suffering. Rom. 9:22.
Summary
Is it not unjust in God to choose one and reject another, as in the case of Jacob and Esau? Not at all, for in doing so, he acts according to his own avowed principles of conduct, which must be assumed to be right. Accordingly, he said to Moses, I will make my own sense of right my rule in showing mercy. It was on this principle that he set up Pharaoh to be king. But all these choices create mere worldly distinctions. They are not choices relating to eternal life.
Comment
b.
The second objection stated and answered. Rom. 9:14-18
(1) Objection stated: Rom. 9:14 a. We come now to a new thought. It is connected with what has been said, but it is yet another thought. Paul has answered the question found in Rom. 9:6 concerning the word of God coming to nought, His reply was based upon the sovereign will of God, and although it would in itself answer the objection about to be raised, the apostle nevertheless raises this question: Is there unrighteousness with God? From what has been said, could we not imagine that God was a little too arbitrary, and would not his actions injure our sense of justice? Rom. 9:14 a
(2) Objection answered. Rom. 9:14 b Rom. 9:18. God forbid. Then follow the principle and illustration which most completely answer this objection. First we have the principle stated. God stated it to Moses when Moses desired to see Jehovah (Exo. 33:1-23). He let Moses know that it would make no difference as far as his decision was concerned that Moses wanted to see him since Moses had done nothing that would merit a viewing of God. But because of Gods own choice, he decided to let Moses catch a glimpse of him. Notice, please, that the matters wherein these choices are made never involve salvation of a mans soul. When the eternal destiny of man is involved, God acts in accordance to the principles he has laid down for their salvation, and these principles have ever been the same: faith, repentance and obedience. Nevertheless, Jehovah chooses both the occasion and the object of mercy, and he is not regulated by anything external to him. Likewise the stronger element of compassion (mercy with the heart in it) is also shown to those persons chosen by God. I deem it imperative that we understand one principle right here, and that is that this free reign of Gods mercy and compassion is all related as occurring in the Old Testament and must not be carried over into the New Testament dispensation. We find in the new covenant no such free reign of sovereign decision relating to that great host whom God calls to be his children. God was free, but in his goodness he chose to provide salvation to those who would accept it on his conditions. Thus the Lord, being free, chose to be bound by his covenants and promises, even as the Lord Jesus, being rich, chose to be poor (2Co. 8:9). Paul proves Gods past freedom; no one save the Jew of his day ever denied it; but to say that Paul establishes a present freedom and absolute sovereignty in God, which robs man of his freedom to do right or wrong, repent or continue in sin, accept Christ or reject him, etc., is to dynamite the gospel, and blast to shivers the entire rock of New Testament Scripture. Calvinism denies to God the possibility of making a covenant, or giving a promise, for each of these is a forfeiture of freedom, a limitation of liberty. According to Calvinism, God is absolutely free; according to the Scripture, he is free save where he has pledged himself to man in the gospel. McGarvey and Pendleton, p. 397. Rom. 9:14 b – Rom. 9:15
225.
State in your own words the second objection.
226.
What was the principle stated in the case of the Moses which answered the objection?
227.
In what matters does God make choices? In what matters is he regulated by his own covenant?
In conclusion concerning the exercise of Gods power of choice, we have a negative statement with a positive conclusion: So then it is not for him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. It is not of him that willeth means that the desires of man have nothing to do with the decisions of God. Mans will has everything to do with his salvation, but nothing to do with the eternal decisions of Gods economy. Nor of him that runneth is another figure of speech describing the same thought, suggesting that man could not influence God any more than a runner who has won a race could influence the judges (Man does influence God in some things, but not in the subject discussed). In other words, the reasons for showing mercy by making a choice between Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, are all of God, not through anything that either Isaac or Jacob did to influence God in his choice. Rom. 9:16
There is yet one more scriptural example of Gods independent selection of men to occupy certain positions on earth. This had to do with his choice of Pharaoh. The choices we have discussed were confined to the Hebrew nation, but we now find an example of Gods supreme authority in the life of a Gentile ruler. This would surely further strengthen the point under discussion that the Jew need not wonder that it behooved the Christ to suffer and that by him everyone that believeth is justified from all things, from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses (Act. 13:39). If God could and did make these unexplainable choices, and especially the one in respect to Pharaoh, if these were not questioned, then neither should his choice be questioned in respect to salvation in Christ. Rom. 9:17
We do not wish to appear to be reproducing the works of another, but the words of McGarvey and Pendleton (pages 398401) speak so well upon these verses that we feel a reproduction of their words would greatly enhance this section. For this very purpose did I raise thee up (cause thee to occupy a time and place which made thee conspicuous in sacred history), that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth. (For the publishing of Gods name, see Exo. 15:14-16; Jos. 2:9-10; Jos. 9:9). The dispersion of the Jews and the spread of Christianity have kept Gods name glorified in the history of Pharaoh to this day. Paul is still establishing by Scripture Gods freedom of choice. He chose the unborn in preference to the born; he chose between unborn twins; he chose between the shepherd Moses and Pharaoh the king. In this last choice Moses was chosen as an object of mercy, and Pharaoh as a creature of wrath, but his latter choice in no way violates even mans sense of justice. Instead of raising up a weak and timid owner of the Hebrew slaves, God exalted Pharaoh, the stubborn, the fearless. And who would question Gods right to do this? Having put Pharaoh in power, God so managed the contest with him that his stubbornness was fully developed and made manifest, and in overcoming his power and stubbornness through the weakness of Moses, God showed his power. The transaction is very complex. God starts by stating the determined nature of Pharaoh (Exo. 3:19) and follows the statement with the thrice-repeated promise, I will harden his heart (Exo. 10:1). Thrice it is said that his heart was hardened as Jehovah had spoken (Exo. 7:13; Exo. 8:19; Exo. 9:35). Once it reads that his heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had spoken (Exo. 7:22). Five times we read that Jehovah hardened his heart (Exo. 9:12; Exo. 10:20; Exo. 10:27; Exo. 11:10; Exo. 14:8). Thus thirteen times (with Exo. 8:15, fourteen times) Pharaohs hardness of heart is said to be the act of God. (cf. Deu. 2:30; Jos. 11:20; Isa. 63:17; Joh. 12:40; Joh. 9:39; Mar. 4:12.) Inexorably so? By no means: God would have gotten honor had he relented before matters reached extremes. Hence Pharaoh is called upon to repent (Exo. 10:3), and several times he is near repenting, and might have done so had not God been too ready to show mercy (Exo. 8:28; Exo. 9:27; Exo. 10:24). So there was sin in Pharaoh. We read that his heart is stubborn (Exo. 7:14); was stubborn (Exo. 9:7). Pharaoh hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had spoken (Exo. 8:15). Pharaoh hardened his heart (Exo. 8:32; 1Sa. 6:6). Pharaoh sinned yet more, and hardened his heart (Exo. 9:34). As the hardening was the joint work of Pharaoh and God, and as Pharaoh sinned in hardening his heart, Gods part in the hardening was not an absolute, overmastering act. It was not even a persuasive act, as in cases of conversion. God hardened Pharaohs heart by providing opportunity and occasion, as the narrative shows, and Pharaoh did the rest by improving the opportunity in the service of the devil. The same act of patience, forbearance and mercy which softens one heart hardens another by delaying punishment, as we may see every day. The same sunshine that quickens the live seed rots the dead one. The Jews approved Gods course toward Pharaoh, but resented the same treatment when turned upon themselves, ignoring the natural law that like causes produce like effects. God found Pharaoh hard and used him for his glory negatively. He found Israel hard and made the same negative use of them, causing the gospel to succeed without them, thus provoking them to jealousy. (Rom. 10:19) So then (see Rom. 9:16) he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. (This does not mean that God arbitrarily chooses the worst people upon whom to shower his mercies and chooses those who are trying hard to serve him and hardens them that he may punish them.) The point is that, in the absence of any promise or other self-imposed limitation, God is free to choose whom he will for what he will. As applicable to Pauls argument, it means that Gods freedom of choice is not bound by mans judgment or estimation, for he may prefer the publican to the Pharisee (Luk. 18:9-14) and may choose rather to be known as the friend of sinners than the companion of the rulers and chief priests, and he may elect the hedgerow Gentile to the exclusion of invited but indifferent Jews (Luk. 14:23-24). God is bound by his nature to choose justly and righteously, but all history shows that man cannot depend upon his sin-debased judgment when he attempts to specify what or whom God approves or rejects. Here we must be guided wholly by his word, and must also be prayerfully careful not to wrest it. In short, it is safer to say that God chooses absolutely, than to say that God chooses according to my judgment, for human judgment must rarely square with the divine mind. Had the Jew accepted Pauls proposition, he might centuries ago have seen the obvious fact that God has chosen the Gentiles and rejected him; but, persisting in his erroneous theory that Gods judgment and choice must follow his own petty notions and whims, he is blind to that liberty of Gods of which the apostle wrote, and naturally
228.
What one principle is of import in a discussion of this section? Prove the principle by examples.
229.
What is the predominant difference between Calvinism and the Scripture?
230.
What is the meaning of Rom. 9:16?
231.
In what sphere or in what realm were the choices of God confined?
232.
Why would the example of Pharaoh be a particularly appropriate one to convince the Jew?
233.
How did these choices relate to salvation in Christ?
234.
How did God use Pharaoh to show in him His power and to publish abroad His name?
235.
How was Gods power evidenced in His dealing with Pharaoh?
236.
Explain the thought of the hardening of Pharaohs heart. What part did God have? What part did Pharaoh play?
237.
What did the Jews accept in the case of Pharaoh that they resented in their own case?
238.
Explain Rom. 9:18, paying special heed to the notes.
For, Och! mankind are unco weak,
an little to be trusted;
If self the wavering balance shake,
Its rarely right adjusted!
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(14) Is there unrighteousness?Again, as in Rom. 3:5, the Apostle anticipates a possible objection. Does not this apparently arbitrary choice of one and rejection of another imply injustice in Him who exercises it? The thought is not to be entertained.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(14-18) These verses contain the second part of the vindication. This power of choosing one and refusing another has always been reserved to Himself by God; as is seen by the examples of Moses and Pharaoh.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Nor is God’s Rectitude impeached by Israel’s Downfall; for God’s Will (as he told Moses) will, in spite of Jewish dictation, extend mercy to faith, and (as He told Pharaoh) will execute wrath on persistent unbelief , Rom 9:14-18 .
14. Unrighteousness with God Unrighteousness in what respect?
Plainly in disregarding the law of lineage and substituting the law of faith as the basis of acceptance, thus endangering unbelieving Israel’s salvation.
The last previous paragraph defends the divine veracity; this the divine righteousness. Neither paragraph, be it noted, discusses the “Divine Sovereignty.”
God forbid (See note on Rom 3:4.) As the insolent Jew truly enslaves the Divine Will to the law of lineage making the pedigree the god of God so the apostle most austerely and indignantly declares the independence of God’s will over all such Jewish dictation in selecting the basis (faith) of acceptance.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not.’
Paul first raises the question that might be asked, ‘does this not mean that God is behaving unfairly?’ Paul’s reply is strong, ‘Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not.’ God cannot in these cases be accused of unrighteousness, that is of acting contrary to His nature, because we are dealing, not with pure justice, but with questions of mercy and compassion. It is not as though anyone deserved God’s favour. The point is that no one does. Thus God is free to give His favour wherever He wills.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Scripture Demonstrates That God Is Sovereign Over All Things And Has Mercy On Whom He Wills (9:14-18).
Paul recognises that what he has just demonstrated about God’s elective mercy might raise the protest, ‘but surely that means that God is being unfair’. So he immediately deals with that charge on the basis of the Scriptures, demonstrating what God had proclaimed to Moses, and what was revealed in God’s treatment of Pharaoh at the Exodus. The point behind these examples is that what he has already said about Israel is justified, and that God does what He wills because no man has any claim on Him on the basis of their goodness. He thus can have compassion on whom He chooses, and He can harden whom He chooses, because they have already all demonstrated their hardness of heart. By this he is bolstering his argument in the previous verses that God acts unilaterally on individuals and nations in order to further the fulfilling of His purposes.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
God’s Promises Based upon His Mercy In Rom 9:14-33 Paul qualifies God’s method of divine election, basing it upon His promises to Abraham, and He bases His promises to Abraham upon His mercy towards mankind.
Rom 9:15 Scripture References – Note:
Pro 16:4, “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”
Rom 9:17 Comments – We read in Exo 4:21 that God told Moses He will harden Pharaoh’s heart.
Exo 4:21, “And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.”
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart many times in the book of Exodus. God also hardened the heart of Sihon, king of Heshbon of the Amorites (Deu 2:30) in order to carry out His divine plan of Israel receiving their inheritance of the Promised Land.
Deu 2:30, “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.”
God hardened the hearts of the Canaanites so that Joshua would destroy them utterly (Jos 11:20).
Jos 11:20, “For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.”
Rom 9:18 Comments While divine election is the gear that turns the wheel of God’s plan of redemption (Rom 9:11), His mercy is the oil that greases the gear that turns this wheel.
Rom 9:11, “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)”
Rom 9:19 Comments Paraphrasing Rom 9:19, we could read, “Why does God find fault with mankind if He is in control of everything?” Paul must have certainly dealt with such objections during his years of ministry in Jewish synagogues and church meetings as he preached and taught God’s Word. Therefore, Paul asks this question in a rhetorical manner because he anticipates the thoughts of his readers.
Rom 9:20 Scripture References – Ecc 8:4 says that God is King of Kings. He is over all kings.
Ecc 8:4, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?”
Rom 9:22 Scripture References – Note:
Pro 16:4, “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Divine Sovereignty and Its Result.
A serious objection answered:
v. 14. What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!
v. 15. for He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
v. 16. So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
v. 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.
v. 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. What inference shall we draw from the argument as presented in the first part of the chapter? The apostle makes ready to meet an objection which he anticipates, not only on the part of the Jews, but on the part of every person that might read these words, namely, that the sovereign freedom of God is essentially unjust. He shows that God does not act unjustly in His sovereign choice, since he claims for Himself in Scriptures the liberty both to favor and to harden as He will. With horror, therefore, the apostle rejects the insinuation: Surely we cannot sap that there is unrighteousness with God? By no means! The principles which the sovereign God chooses for His own actions cannot be unjust, even if our weak human understanding should feel inclined to draw that conclusion. And the apostle quotes a passage from the solemn interview of God with Moses, Exo 33:18-19, to prove His contention. God there said to Moses: Mercy I will show to whomsoever I will show mercy, and compassion I will have upon whomsoever I will have compassion. The mercy and compassion of God have their foundation in God only, in His mercy and compassion; they depend solely upon His own sovereign will; He is responsible to no one outside of Himself; He must render an account to no one but Himself; He is under no obligation to any man. It is important to note that these words were spoken in the case of Moses, for in His case, if in that of any person in the world, the Lord might have been induced to make an exception. But since the same rule was applied in his case as in that of all other men, Paul concludes: So, then, it is not a matter of him that wills nor of him that runs, but of God that manifests mercy. In no way is the merciful application of God’s compassion dependent upon the efforts and endeavors of men, but solely upon God. And what God thus declares to be right and good by that token is right and good. The apostle rests his case upon two assumptions, namely, that the Scripture from which he quotes is the Word of God, and that no act of God can be actually unrighteous. And so he has answered every objection.
But still Paul is not satisfied. He wants to demonstrate also from the case of one that has experienced God’s wrath and displeasure that there is no unrighteousness and injustice in God. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, Exo 9:16: To this end have I had thee arise, come forward, appear in history, that I might show in thee My power, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth. That was the reason why the Pharaoh of Scriptures appeared on the stage of history, that he might he an example of the revelation of God’s power, the power which is able to effect the destruction of obstinate sinners. And this design of God having been accomplished, Exo 9:15-17, the account of the punishment of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the children of Israel was spread far and wide among the heathen nations and served to establish the judgment and justice, the glory of God. And so Moses concludes, taking Pharaoh as a type of the hardened sinners: So, then, God has mercy upon whom He will, but whom He will He hardens. The example of Pharaoh shows the terrible effect of self-hardening. God has thoughts of grace and mercy toward all men, He seriously wants the salvation of all men. He offers His gifts of mercy to all without exception, 1Ti 2:4; Rom 11:32; Eze 33:11. God had extended His call also to Pharaoh; He sent His messengers to him, He pleaded with him, He chastised him to lead him to the way of repentance and righteousness. But the proud king refused to heed each and every offer; he deliberately turned from the attempts of God to direct his feet to the way of peace. And therefore God finally delivered him to his evil mind and intention; He withdrew His hand, His saving grace, from him. That was the judgment by which the heart of Pharaoh was hardened.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Rom 9:14-15. What shall we say then? So far the Apostle, in this chapter, has considered God’s choosing or refusing any body of men in general, without supposing them to be corrupt, or to have forfeited the divine favour; but it is evident from the Scripture quotations, that from Rom 9:15-23 he considers them in another light; namely, as corrupt, and deserving of destruction, which brings his argument to the case of the rejected Jews: and it is observable, that the Apostle arguing here with the Jews, to vindicate the justice of God in rejecting them, uses three sorts of arguments. The first is, the testimony of Moses, concerning God’s asserting this to himself by the right of his sovereignty, which was enough to stop the mouths of the Jews; the second, from reason, Rom 9:19-24.; and the third, from his predictions of it to the Jews, and the warning that he gave them of it beforehand, Rom 9:25-29. See Locke, and Exo 33:19.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 9:14 . A possible inference, unfavourable to the character of God, from Rom 9:11-13 , is suggested by Paul himself, and repelled.
. ;] But is there not unrighteousness with God? Comp. the question in Rom 3:5 . , with qualities, corresponds to the Latin in . See Matthiae, 588. 6. Comp. Rom 2:11 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Rom 9:14-18 . Second part of the Theodice: God does not deal unrighteously, in that His according to election is to have its subsistence, not , but ; for He Himself maintains in the Scripture His own freedom to have mercy upon or to harden whom He will .
This reason has probative force, in so far as it is justly presupposed in it, that the axiom which God expresses respecting Himself is absolutely worthy of Him. Hence we are not, with Beyschlag, to refer the alleged injustice to the fact that God now prefers the Gentiles to the Jews , which is simply imported into the preceding text, and along with which, no less gratuitously, the following receives the sense: “ the Jews have indeed become what they are out of pure grace; this grace may therefore once again be directed towards others, and be withdrawn from, them ” (Beyschlag).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. (17) For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. (18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
The Apostle here enters upon the justification of the doctrine he is establishing the proofs of in this chapter. He shews upon principles of common sense and right reason only, that the doctrine of Election is as clearly proved as any one circumstance in the ordinary transactions of life. And he manifests the justice and equity of God in the appointment. And that he might carry every force of argument with him, he opens the subject in his usual way of a question. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid! There can be none in God’s choosing or rejecting, when neither that choice or rejection is induced by anything out of himself, The children, when chosen or rejected, not being born, and consequently not having done either good or evil, can have had no hand in the business, but the whole is referred into the sovereign will of God. Hence, therefore, the children chosen cannot complain, for to them the sovereign will of God is an act of favor wholly undeserved. And the children rejected cannot charge God with injustice, since they have no claim to any favor, or right, which on terms of strict justice they could demand. Thus the matter stands. And here it must stand, and will stand, to all eternity, in opposition to all the querulous arguments and ungodly reasoning of men.
I do not mean to follow the subject any further than what the Apostle hath done. God’s own declaration, which Paul quotes, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion; is with me final, unanswerable, and satisfactory. And the instance of Pharaoh most express in point. But I would beg the Reader to remark with me one circumstance, which I confess in my view is particularly striking, It hath through grace satisfied my mind for many long years concerning the sovereignty of God.
Among the carnal world, there is nothing that excites the bitter hatred of the human heart equal to the exercise of God’s sovereignty, on the doctrine of election and reprobation. Every son and daughter of Adam, while in the unrenewed state of an unregenerate mind, riseth up in rebellion against it. And yet, wonderful to relate, there is not one of the whole race, either son or daughter, but what, in the proceedings of their own life from day to day, absolutely preach and practise the doctrine both of election and reprobation in all they do or say. From the wayward capricious temper of the little child, to the petulancy and ill-humour of the man of grey hairs, they manifest this in their pursuits and desires, in the objects of their approbation or dislike, their predilection or hatred, almost every hour. They have their choice and aversions, as it respects, their company, their food, their dress, their pleasures, their conversations. If at their daily table there is a variety of dishes, to pamper the appetites of the luxurious, (as through the bounty of a bountiful God too often such persons in a shameful profusion abuse that bounty to the gratification of their unbounded lusts,) they will choose here or there, reject, or dislike, as their fancy directs them. And this without either rule or reason, either wisdom or good sense, nay, sometimes to their sorrow, in inducing sickness, and a thousand evils, and death. And should any venture to call them in question, either in their judgment or conduct, what anger sometimes hath followed? Is this preaching and practising election and reprobation, or is it not? And preaching and practising both with an high hand of sin and folly, and not unfrequently in numberless instances of injustice, dishonesty, and fraud! But, when the Judge of all the earth, who cannot but do right, declares, that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth, the proud unhumbled heart of man riseth in boilings of the most deadly anger, and complains of the righteous decree. So then there is but One Being in the Universe capable of acting with a sovereignty of power and wisdom, whose election and reprobation must be founded on an unerring standard of what is right; and He, according to fallen man’s judgment, shall be the only one precluded from the exercise of this privilege! Such is the blindness and desperately wicked state of the heart of man by the fall!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Ver. 14. ls there ] Carnal reason dares reprehend what it does not comprehend. (Para.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14 29 .] This election was made by the indubitable right of God, Who is not therefore unjust .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
14 .] What then shall we say (anticipation of a difficulty or objection, see reff., but not put into the mouth of an objector )? Is there unrighteousness (injustice) with (in) God (viz. in that He chooses as He will, without any reference to previous desert)? Let it not be:
Rom 9:14-21 . In the second part of his theodicy Paul meets the objection that this sovereign freedom of God is essentially unjust.
Rom 9:14 . ; cf. Rom 6:1 , Rom 7:7 , Rom 8:31 . It is Paul who speaks, anticipating, as he cannot help doing, the objection which is sure to rise, not only in Jewish minds, though it is with them he is directly concerned, but in the mind of every human being who reads his words. Yet he states the objection as one in itself incredible, ; surely we cannot say that there is unrighteousness with God? This is the force of the , and Paul can answer at once : away with the thought! God says Himself that He shows mercy with that sovereign freedom which Paul has ascribed to Him; and the principle of action which God announces as His own cannot be unjust.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Rom 9:14-18
14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
Rom 9:14 “What shall we say then” Paul often used this diatribe form (cf. Rom 3:5; Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14; Rom 9:19; Rom 9:30).
“There is no injustice with God, is there?” The grammar expects a “no” answer. How can God hold humans responsible if God’s sovereignty is the deciding factor (cf. Rom 9:19)? This is the mystery of election. The key emphasis in this context is that God is free to do what He will with humanity (rebellious mankind), however, God’s sovereignty is expressed in mercy (see note at Rom 9:15), not raw power.
It must also be stated that God’s sovereign choices are not based on foreknowledge of human’s future choices and actions. If this were true then ultimately individual’s choices and actions and merits would be the basis of God’s choices (cf. Rom 9:16; 1Pe 1:2). Behind this is the traditional Jewish view of prosperity to the righteous (cf. Deuteronomy 27-28; Job and Psalms 73). But, God chooses to bless the unworthy through faith (not performance, cf. Rom 5:8). God knows all things but He has chosen to limit His choices (1) in mercy and (2) in promise. There is a necessary human response, but it follows and ultimately confirms God’s life changing elective choice.
“May it never be” This is a rare optative form that was often used by Paul for an emphatic negation usually to his diatribe objector’s questions (cf. Rom 3:4; Rom 3:6; Rom 3:31; Rom 6:2; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:11 also 1Co 6:15; Gal 2:17; Gal 3:21; Gal 6:14). It is possibly a Hebrew idiom.
Rom 9:15 This is a quote from Exo 33:19. God is free to act according to His own redemptive purposes. Even Moses did not merit God’s blessing (cf. Exo 33:20). He was a murdered (cf. Exo 2:11-15). The key is that His choices are in mercy (cf. Rom 9:16; Rom 9:18-23; Rom 11:30-32).
Rom 9:15-16 “mercy” This Greek word (eleos, cf. Rom 9:15-16; Rom 9:18; Rom 9:23; Rom 11:30-32) is used in the Septuagint (LXX) to translate the special Hebrew term hesed (remember the writers of the NT were Hebrew thinkers writing in street Greek), which meant “steadfast, covenant loyalty.” God’s mercy and election are plural, corporate, (Jews [Isaac], not Arabs [Ishmael]; Israel [Jacob], not Edom [Esau], but believing Jews and believing Gentiles, cf. Rom 9:24) as well as individuals. This truth is one of the keys to unlocking the mystery of the doctrine of predestination (universal redemption). The other key in the context of Romans 9-11 is God’s unchanging character-mercy (cf. Rom 9:15-16; Rom 9:18; Rom 9:23; Rom 11:30-32), and not human performance. Mercy through selection will eventually reach all who believe in Christ. The one opens the door of faith to all (cf. Rom 5:18-19).
SPECIAL TOPIC: LOVINGKINDNESS (HESED)
Rom 9:17-18 Rom 9:17 is a powerful universal quote from Exo 9:16; Rom 9:18 is the conclusion drawn from the quote. Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart in Exo 8:15; Exo 8:19; Exo 8:32; Exo 9:34. God is said to have hardened his heart in Exo 4:21; Exo 7:3; Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20; Exo 10:27; Exo 11:10. This example is used to show God’s sovereignty (cf. Rom 9:18). Pharaoh is responsible for his choices. God uses Pharaoh’s arrogant, stubborn personality to accomplish His will for Israel (cf. Rom 9:18).
Also notice the purpose of God’s actions with Pharaoh were redemptive in purpose; and inclusive in scope. They were intended:
1. to show God’s power (versus the Egyptian nature and animal gods, as Genesis 1 does to the Babylonian astral deities)
2. to reveal God to Egypt and, by implication, the whole earth (cf. Rom 9:17)
Western (American) thought magnifies the individual, but eastern thought focuses on the need of the corporate whole. God used Pharaoh to reveal Himself to a needy world. He will do the same with unbelieving Israel (cf. Romans 11). In this context the rights of the one diminishes in light of the needs of the whole. Remember, also the corporate OT examples of
1. Job’s original children dying because of God’s discussion with Satan (cf. Job 1-2)
2. the Israeli soldiers dying because of Achan’s sin (cf. Joshua 7)
3. David’s first child with Bathsheba dying because of David’s sin (cf. 2Sa 12:15).
We are all affected by the choices of others. This corporality can be seen in the NT in Rom 5:12-21.
“For the Scripture says. . .” The personification of Scripture is a way to show it is alive and relevant (cf. Rom 10:6-8). Paul personifies “sin” and “death” in Romans 6-7)!
What, &c. See Rom 3:5.
unrighteousness. Greek. adikia. App-128.
with. Greek. para. App-104.
God forbid. See Luk 20:16.
14-29.] This election was made by the indubitable right of God, Who is not therefore unjust.
Rom 9:14. , what then?) Can we then on this ground be accused of charging God with unrighteousness and iniquity by this assertion? By no means; for what we assert is the irrefragable assertion of God; see the following verse.- , God forbid) The Jews thought, that they could by no means be rejected by God; that the Gentiles could by no means be received. As therefore an honest man acts even with greater severity [] towards those who are harshly and spitefully importunate, than he really feels (that he may defend his own rights, and those of his patron, and may not at an unseasonable time betray and cast away his character for liberality) so Paul defends the power and justice of God against the Israelites, who trusted to their mere name and their own merits; and on this subject, he sometimes uses those appropriate phrases, to which he seems to have been accustomed in former times in the school of the Pharisees. This is his language: No man can prescribe anything to the Lord God, nor demand and somewhat insolently extort anything from Him as a debt, nor can he interdict Him in anything [which He pleases to do] or require a reason, why He shows Himself kind also to others [as well as to himself]. Therefore Paul somewhat abruptly checks by a rather severe answer the peevish and spiteful objectors. Luk 19:22-23, is a similar case. For no man is allowed to deal with God as if by virtue of a bond of agreement, [as if he were His creditor], but even if there were such a bond, God even deals more strictly with man [i.e. with a man of such a hireling spirit]; let the parable, Mat 20:13-15, which is quite parallel, be compared: I do thee no wrong, etc. There is therefore one meaning of Pauls language, by which he gives an answer to those who contend for good works: another, of a milder description, in behalf of believers, lies hid under the veil of the words. In the Sacred Scriptures too, especially when we have come from the thesis [the proposition] to the hypothesis [that on which the proposition rests], the manners, , as well as the reasonings, , ought to be considered; and yet there can be no commentary so plain, which he, who contends for justification by good works, may more easily understand than the text of Paul.
Rom 9:14
Rom 9:14
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.-Because God chose Jacob before he was born, shall we say that he is unrighteous? Did he deal by partiality or favoritism and not by the rule of right which he revealed through Peter when he said: Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him? (Act 10:34-35). [Paul now shows that the Scriptures approve this liberty, and these Scriptures, reverenced by the Israelitish objector to whom he is writing, would not assign injustice to God. The argument is wholly scriptural.]
the Righteousness of Gods Choices
Rom 9:14-24
God desires to do His best for every man. But, as in the case of Esau, who wantonly sold his birthright, and of Pharaoh, who turned all Gods revelations into occasions of aggravated resistance and stronger revolt, the Heavenly Father is sometimes compelled to cast away those who might assist in the execution of His purposes, and use inferior vessels made from common clay. In the earlier part of the conflict with the proud Egyptian monarch, it is said that he hardened his heart, and afterward that God hardened it, Exo 8:15; Exo 10:20. To the froward God becomes froward; that is, the means that He takes to soften and save will harden, just as the sun which melts wax hardens clay.
The same power which was thwarted and resisted by the unbelief and stubbornness of the Chosen People, has taken up us Gentiles, who have had none of their advantages, and what wonderful mercy has He shown to us! Riches of glory on vessels of mercy! Rom 9:23. What an argument for us all not to resist the grace of God, which strives with us so earnestly and continually! God can make saints out of the most unlikely material. Let us see that He has full opportunity.
shall: Rom 3:1, Rom 3:5
Is there unrighteousness: Rom 2:5, Rom 3:5, Rom 3:6, Gen 18:25, Deu 32:4, 2Ch 19:7, Job 8:3, Job 34:10-12, Job 34:18, Job 34:19, Job 35:2, Psa 92:15, Psa 145:17, Jer 12:1, Rev 15:3, Rev 15:4, Rev 16:7
Reciprocal: Jos 22:29 – God forbid Job 34:17 – wilt Job 36:3 – ascribe Job 36:23 – Thou Psa 18:25 – thou wilt Psa 119:137 – General Mat 20:13 – I do Rom 2:2 – judgment Rom 3:4 – God forbid Rom 9:30 – shall
:14
Romans 9:14. Since no personal injury was done to Esau by this choice, there was no unrighteousness on the part of God in making this official selection.
Rom 9:14. What shall we say then? This question introduces an objection, as in chaps. Rom 3:5; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7, which is then stated in the form of another question. The usual indignant denial follows, and then the detailed answer (Rom 9:15-18). In Rom 9:19, etc.,, a further objection (growing out of the answer to this one) is raised and answered. The question is not put in the mouth of an objector, still less is it represented as the language of an unbelieving Jew. The connection of thought is natural: may it not be said that the exercise of this free choice on the part of God, as already illustrated, involves unrighteousness in Him? Let it never be He only is unrighteous who is under obligations which he does not fulfil; but God is under no obligations to His creatures who have become sinful, i.e., opposed to Him. The blessings they receive of Him are not their right, but of His mercy, as the words of God Himself in the Old Testament plainly show. The underlying principle, already assumed in this Epistle, is that Gods will is the absolute and eternal norm of righteousness, and all that He does is necessarily right (see references). If there were any superior norm of righteousness to which this Personal God is subject then He would cease to be God.
Is there unrighteousness with God? In making this choice of individuals, the objection ends here.
Let it never be. See chap. Rom 3:4, etc. Some of the fathers took Rom 9:15-18 as a renewal of the objection, but the close connection, with for and so then, as well as the Scripture citations, show that those verses give the reason for this indignant denial.
The apostle having by the two foregoing instances asserted his doctrine, concerning the purpose and decree of God to justify those that should believe in his Son, be they Gentiles or Jews: and consequently made it good, that no word or promise of God falls to the ground by the rejection of the unbelieving Jews; proceeds in this verse to demonstrate the righteousness of God in the execution of this his purpose.
Is there then, says he, unrighteousness or injustice with God? God forbid. As if the apostle had said, “Is there any cause to say, That God, who preferred the posterity of Isaac before that of Ishmael, and the seed of Jacob before the numerous offspring of Esau; is there any just reason to say, that God is no unjust in calling the Gentiles, and upon their faith owning them for his people, the spiritual seed of Abraham, and rejecting the Jews because of their unbelief? God forbid that we should accuse him of unrighteous dealing upon this account.”
Learn hence, That God is just, infallibly and inflexibly just and righteous, in all his dealings with, and dispensations towards the children of men: Is there unrighteousness with God? That is, there is none, there can be none.
Learn, 2. That all such tenets or doctrines which reflect any manner of unrighteousness upon God, or charge him with hard dealing, ought to be disclaimed with the utmost abhorrency and detestation: Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Observe next, How the apostle proves that there is no unrighteousness in this dispensation of God, in rejecting the Jews and calling the Gentiles, because he had said to Moses, he would show mercy, where, when, and to whom, or to what people, he pleased. If therefore, upon the infidelity of the Jews, he will call the idolatrous Gentiles, and receive them to be his people, who can accuse him of any injustice upon that account? Shall not Almighty God dispense his favours where and upon whom he pleases? May he not confer his kindness upon some, which he owes to none?
Learn hence, That God is absolutely and ultimately resolved to follow the counsel of his own will, in and about the justification of sinners; and whatsoever he doth, or resolves to do, his will being the rule of righteousness, is for that reason exactly just and undeniably righteous.
Rom 9:14-16. What shall we say then? To this. The apostle now introduces and refutes an objection. Is there unrighteousness, or injustice, with God? In the distribution of his providential blessings, in this or any other instance that can be produced? Was it unjust in God to choose Jacob and his posterity to be the members of his visible church on earth, and to inherit the promises in their literal meaning, rather than Esau and his posterity? Or to accept believers who imitate the faith of Jacob, and them only? God forbid In no wise: this is well consistent with justice. For he saith to Moses, &c. For he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy; according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had been guilty of idolatry in worshipping the golden calf; I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy According to the terms I myself have fixed; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion Namely, on those only who submit to my terms; who accept of it in the way that I have appointed. So then The inference to be drawn is; It The blessing; therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and mans running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.
Vv. 14-16. What shall we say then? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be! For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
Several commentators, and Mangold among the last, have taken Rom 9:15-18 not as the answer to the objection raised in Rom 9:14, but as the continuation and justification of the objection itself. But nothing is needed to refute this opinion beyond the exclamation: , let it not be, which cannot be a simple parenthesis; besides, the form of the question with the negation , in Rom 9:14, already assumes a negative answer, the development of which is necessarily expected in what follows.
The answer is taken solely from Scripture, which is an authority for Paul’s opponent in the discussion as well as for himself. This opponent is a Jew, who thinks that the sovereign liberty which the apostle ascribes to God, and by which he seeks to justify the rejection of Israel, wrongs the divine character. It must, indeed, be borne in mind that the Jewish conscience, being developed under the law, was accustomed to consider God’s dealings with man as entirely dependent on human merit or demerit. Man’s doings regulated those of God.
Vv. 15. Scripture itself, that foundation of all Israel’s theocratic claims, demonstrates divine liberty as it is taught by Paul. This liberty therefore cannot involve any injustice. And first, a quotation proving the absence, in the case of man, of all right to God’s favors. It is taken from Exo 33:19, where God, when condescending to grant the bold request of Moses that he might behold His glory with his bodily eyes, gives him to understand that nothing in him, notwithstanding all he has been able to do up till now in God’s service, merited such a favor. If God grants it to him, it is not because he is that Moses who asks it, or because there is any right in the matter; it is pure grace on God’s part. The passage is cited according to the LXX. The only difference between it and the Hebrew is, that here in each proposition the first verb is in the past (present), the second in the future; while in the Greek the first is in the future, the second in the present. It matters little for the sense. The two verbs in the present (or past) express the internal feeling, the source, and the verbs in the future the external manifestations, the successive effects. But the emphasis is neither on the first nor on the second verbs; it is on the pronoun , him, whosoever he may be. It is the idea of God’s free choice which reappears. The condescension of God to Moses is certainly not an arbitrary act; God knows why He grants it. But neither is it a right on the part of Moses, as if he would have been entitled to complain in case of refusal. The difference of meaning between the two verbs and is nearly the same as that between the two substantives and , Rom 9:2. The first expresses the compassion of the heart, the second the manifestations of that feeling (cries or groans).
Vv. 16 enunciates the general principle to be derived from this divine utterance in the particular case of Moses. When God gives, it is not because a human will (he that willeth) or a human work (he that runneth) lays Him under obligation, and forces Him to give, in order not to be unjust by refusing. It is in Himself the initiative and the efficacy are (Him that calleth), whence the gift flows. He gives not as a thing due, but as a fruit of His love; which does not imply that therein He acts arbitrarily. Such a supposition is excluded, precisely because the giver in question is God, who is wisdom itself, and who thinks nothing good except what is good. The principle here laid down included God’s right to call the Gentiles to salvation when He should be pleased to grant them this favor. The words: of him that willeth, of him that runneth, have often been strangely understood. There have been found in them allusions to the wish of Isaac to make Esau the heir of the promise, and to Esau’s running to bring the venison necessary for the feast of benediction. But Isaac and Esau are no longer in question, and we must remain by the example of Moses. It was neither the wish expressed in his prayer, nor the faithful care which he had taken of Israel in the wilderness, which could merit the favor he asked; and as no man will ever surpass him in respect either of pious willing or holy working, it follows that the rule applied to him is universal. So it will always be. Israel, in particular, should understand thereby that it is neither their fixed theocratic necessities, nor the multitude of their ceremonial or moral works, which can convert salvation into a debt contracted toward them by God, and take away from Him the right of rejecting them if He comes to think it good to do so for reasons which He alone appreciates.
But if the words of God to Moses prove that God does not owe His favors to any one whomsoever, must it also be held that He is free to reject whom He will? Yes. Scripture ascribes to Him even this right. Such is the truth following from another saying of God, in reference to the adversary of Moses, Pharaoh.
What shall, we say then? [The apostle makes frequent use of the semi-dialogue. Five times already in this Epistle he has asked this question (Rom 3:5; Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31). He begins with this question which calls out an objection in the form of a question, to which he replies with an indignant denial, which he backs up by a full and detailed answer, or explanation. The question called out is] Is there unrighteousness with God? [The indignant denial is as usual] God forbid. [Poole calls this “Paul’s repeated note of detestation.” He uses it fourteen times. It expresses indignant, pious horror. Literally it is, “Let it not be;” but as this form of expression was too tame for our English ancestry who have ever held God’s name in that light reverence which makes free use of it for emphasis, we find it translated “God forbid” by Wyclif, Coverdale, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, etc. But the use of God’s name, being needless, is inexcusable. The import, then, of verse 14 runs thus: If God chooses arbitrarily, is he not unjust? and does he not thereby do violence to his moral character, his holiness? The apostle’s answer is unique; for it is merely a quotation from Scripture. His argument, therefore, rests upon a double assumption; first, that God is truly represented in the Scripture, and, second, the Scripture everywhere represents him as just, holy and perfect. Paul’s objector, in this case, would be a Jew, and any Jew would accept both these assumptions as axiomatic. If, therefore, Paul’s Scripture quotation shows that God’s power of choice is absolutely free, then the apostle by it has likewise shown that God’s arbitrary choices are nevertheless just and holy, and objection to them as unjust is not well founded. The arbitrary choice of a sinful heart is sinful, but the arbitrary choice of the Sinless is likewise sinless, just and holy partaking of his nature who chooses.]
14. Then what shall we say? Is there Unrighteousness with God? It could not be so.
SECTION 29 NOR IS GOD UNJUST
CH. 9:14-18
What then shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with God? Be it not so. For to Moses He says, I will have mercy on whomsoever I have mercy, and will have compassion on whomsoever I have compassion. Therefore it is not of him that desires nor of him that runs, but of God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very end I raised thee up, in order that I may show forth in thee My power, and in order that My name may be announced in all the earth. Therefore on whom He will He has mercy; and whom He will He hardens.
Rom 9:14. What then etc.? what shall we infer? as in Rom 4:1, etc. The objection is based, not on Gods hatred to Esau, but on the words not of works. For no Jew would say that Gods treatment of Esau was unjust.
Unrighteousness: as in Rom 1:18, deviation from the standard of right. In a ruler, we call it injustice. While overturning an objection that the Gospel is contrary to the faithfulness of God, Paul has suggested another based on His justice. The unbelieving Jew may say that his own case differs altogether from that of Esau, that, whereas Gods words to Rebecca determined only the temporal lot of her sons and left them and their children to be judged at the great day according to their works, the Gospel announces eternal life for those who a few days ago were publicans and harlots, and shuts out from the promises of God some who have lived strictly moral lives. The teaching of Christ put Saul of Tarsus on the same level in reference to salvation as the outcasts around; and offers salvation to all on the same terms. Such teaching seemed to slap in the face morality itself. The Pharisee declares that the justice of God makes inconceivable that such teaching is divine. If the moral unbeliever cannot appeal to the ancient promises, he will appeal to something older than they, to the eternal justice of God. This objection, Paul meets with a direct denial: Be it not so.
Rom 9:15-16. In proof of this denial, Paul appeals to words spoken to Moses at one of the most solemn moments of his life: Exo 33:19.
Mercy: kindness to the unfortunate and helpless: so Rom 11:30-32.
Compassion: a stronger form of the same: so Rom 12:1.
I-shall-have-mercy refers to practical manifestation of mercy; I-have-mercy, to the inward disposition. While granting Moses prayer to see His glory, God asserts the great principle that His gifts are acts of mercy; and that therefore the objects of them are chosen not because of their merit but because of their helplessness and Gods pity. God revealed His glory to Moses, not because he deserved it, but because God had compassion on him. Rom 9:16 is Pauls inference from Gods words.
Runs: intense effort like that of a racer: so 1Co 9:24. The blessings of the Gospel cannot be obtained by mans desire or effort, however intense, but are gifts of Gods mercy. Therefore no work of man gives a claim to them.
A ruler is unjust if in administration he deviates from the proclaimed principles of his government; or if he makes laws contrary to the eternal principles of right and wrong. By proclaiming in the Gospel that He will bestow His favour on believers without consideration of previous morality, God acts on a principle of government announced at Sinai, at the foundation of the Jewish state, a principle which none can call unjust. Its justice is evident from the case of Moses. He had certainly no claim to a revelation of Gods glory. God might justly have refused it; and therefore might justly give it to whom He would. Now in the Gospel God proclaims to all believers, of whatever previous character, a still grander revelation of His glory. He thus exercises the prerogative asserted at Sinai. He might justly have delayed for a century the manifestation of Himself in Christ. If so, Paul and his compeers would never have seen it. Was it then unjust in God to choose, apart from all thought of merit, the objects of this revelation? Was it unjust to refuse it to Saul of Tarsus who had desired it so long and sought it so earnestly, and to grant it to Zacchaeus and Mary of Magdala?
This quotation is the more suitable because of the argument lying in the word mercy. Mercy is not matter of justice, but is better than justice. It is evoked, not by merit, but by helplessness. If Gods kindness to a man like Moses, in the noblest moment of his life, was an act of mercy, prompted, not by what Moses had done, but by divine compassion, then the most moral man has no claim whatever to any gift from God: and God may justly bestow His gifts without reference to human conduct.
Rom 9:17. Proof of the above inference. From the case of Pharaoh, Paul will prove that God hardens whom He will, and thus put beyond doubt that He has mercy on whom He will.
The Scripture says: as in Rom 4:3. For the solemn and express words of God, Paul claims no higher authority than that they are the voice of the Scripture: so Rom 11:2; Gal 4:30; cp. Gal 3:8; Gal 3:22. See Diss. iii. The quoted passage is Exo 9:15-16 : For now had I stretched out My hand and smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence, then hadst thou been cut off from the earth.
And indeed for this end I have made thee to continue, to the end that I may show thee My power, and that My name may be declared in all the earth. Instead of destroying the king at once, God permitted him to continue his resistance; and thus reserved him for a more conspicuous overthrow, which would spread to all nations the name and fame of the God of Israel. This purpose was attained: see Jos 2:10. Instead of made to continue, Paul writes I raised thee up. A cognate but less strong word in Act 13:22-23. Those whom God lifts out of the mass of mankind and puts into a conspicuous position, He is said to raise-up. This alteration embodies a correct inference. They who occupy thrones are placed on them by God, to work out His purposes: Dan 4:25; Isa 37:26. God here says that He had formed a purpose that through Pharaoh His name should be made known. Therefore we cannot doubt that for this end He not only spared his life but placed on the throne of Egypt at that time a man of Pharaohs character. In later days, to accomplish a different purpose, He put on the throne of Persia (Ezr 1:2) a man of different character. Gods perfect foreknowledge (Rom 8:29) enabled Him to do all this without interfering with human freedom. He knew beforehand the men to whom He gave the sceptre, and knew that their character would serve His purpose. We therefore infer from Exo 9:16 that God placed Pharaoh on the throne in order that his obstinacy and overthrow might be a means of making known to nations around the greatness of God.
Rom 9:18. Inference from Gods words to Pharaoh, including, and supplementing, and supporting, the inference in Rom 9:16.
Hardens: so Exo 4:21, I will harden his heart; also Rom 7:3. Same or cognate word in Heb 3:8; Heb 4:7; Act 19:9; Rom 2:5. The heart is hard when it is incapable of receiving divine impressions. To harden, is to make less susceptible of such impressions. We may well believe that each refusal made Pharaoh less open to divine influences. Moreover, this progressive hardening was a part of the order of human life, and therefore a divinely-ordained consequence of his refusal to obey, a divinely-ordained punishment of his disobedience. In this real and awful sense it was an act of God. For He ordained that they who reject His influences leading men towards obedience shall by their rejection become less susceptible to such influences. It is also the sinners own act. For, had he not resisted God, his heart would not have been hardened. This hardening is no more inconsistent with the character of God than is any other kind of punishment. This verse asserts Gods right to inflict this punishment on whomever He will. In Exo 4:21; Exo 7:3, God announced that He would inflict it on Pharaoh: and no Jew would deny the justice of the punishment.
Pharaoh was an exact parallel to Pauls opponents: for what he did, they are doing. The only bad thing recorded of him is a repeated rejection of an embassy from God: and they have rejected a more solemn embassy: 2Co 5:20; Heb 2:3. Therefore, it God make them, in spite of their morality, a monument of wrath, He will only treat them as He treated Pharaoh. By condemning him, the Jews admitted the justice of their own condemnation.
That God bestows blessing on grounds, not of merit, but of mercy, and that He selects, from men equally guilty, objects of special and conspicuous punishment, does not make in the least uncertain who are the objects of the blessing and the curse. For Gods purposes flow from His moral character, and are therefore in harmony with His love and wisdom. Moreover, while reserving to Himself the right to choose the objects of His favour and His anger, He has made known to us His choice. In the Gospel He proclaims mercy for all who believe, of whatever previous character; and destruction for all who reject the offered mercy. We never read of a purpose of God still kept secret. In Christ, the purpose once hidden is now made manifest: Rom 16:26; Eph 3:5.
Rom 9:15-18 are full of comfort. When we ask blessing from God, we look, not at our efforts to obtain it or at our merit, but at our helplessness and Gods compassion. For His gifts are acts of pure mercy: and He has promised them to all who ask in faith. We therefore ask for them in humble and joyful confidence that God will fulfil His promise.
These verses are also a solemn warning to some who think that because of their morality God cannot justly condemn them to final destruction. He will harden and punish and raise into a monument of anger whom He will. And we read in 2Th 1:8 that He will destroy those who obey not the Gospel. The justice of this punishment will appear in the great day: Rom 2:5.
Nearly all the difficulties of these verses vanish when we remember that they are a reply to one who objects that it would be unjust for God to destroy those who reject the Gospel. To such objectors, the case of Pharaoh, whose only recorded sin is a rejection of an embassy from God, is a triumphant answer.
9:14 {10} What shall we say then? [Is there] {n} unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(10) The first objection: if God loves or hates without any consideration of worthiness or unworthiness, then is he unjust, because he may love those who are unworthy, and hate those who are worthy? The apostle detests this blasphemy, and afterward responds to it in depth, point by point.
(n) Man knows no other causes of love or hatred, but those that are in the persons, and thereupon this objection arises.
3. God’s freedom to elect 9:14-18
The question of fairness arises whenever someone makes a choice to favor one person or group over another. Paul dealt with the justice of God in doing what He did in this pericope.
"These verses are a detour from the main road of Paul’s argument. Paul takes this detour because he knows that his insistence on God’s initiative in determining who should be saved and who rejected (see Rom 9:10-13 especially) will meet with questions and even objections. Appropriately, therefore, Paul reverts to the diatribe style, with its question-and-answer format and references to a dialogue partner, that he has utilized earlier in the letter (see Rom 2:1 to Rom 3:8; Rom 3:27-31; Romans 6-7)." [Note: Moo, pp. 549-50.]
The apostle first flatly denied the charge that God is unjust. God cannot be unjust because He is God.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)