Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:16
So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
16. of him that willeth ] Not that human willing and running are illusions; but they are not the cause of mercy. They follow it; they may even be the channel of its present action; but they are not the cause. Its origin is not “ of ” them. Cp. Php 2:13.
runneth ] The idea is of one actively moving in the path of right His energy may tempt him to think that he originated the motion; but he did not. The word “ runneth ” belongs to St Paul’s favourite metaphor of the foot-race. See 1Co 9:24-26; Gal 2:2; Gal 5:7; Php 2:16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
So then – It follows as a consequence from this statement of God to Moses. Or it is a doctrine established by that statement.
Not of him that willeth – This does not mean that he that becomes a Christian, and is saved, does not choose eternal life; or is not made willing; or that he is compelled to enter heaven against his own choice. It is true that people by nature have no desire of holiness, and do not choose eternal life. But the effect of the influences of Gods Spirit on the heart is to make it willing in the day of his power; Psa 110:3. The meaning here is evidently, that eternal life is not bestowed because man had any original willingness or disposition to be saved; it is not because he commences the work, and is himself disposed to it; but it is because God inclines him to it, and disposes him to seek for mercy, and then confers it in his own way. The word willeth here denotes wish or desire.
Nor of him that runneth – This denotes strenuous, intense effort, as when a man is anxious to obtain an object, or hastens from danger. The meaning is not that the sinner does not make an effort to be saved; nor that all who become Christians do not in fact strive to enter into the kingdom, or earnestly desire salvation, for the Scriptures teach the contrary; Luk 16:16; Luk 13:24. There is no effort more intense and persevering, no struggle more arduous or agonizing, than when a sinner seeks eternal life. Nor does it mean that they who strive in a proper way, and with proper effort, shall not obtain eternal life; Mat 7:7. But the sense is,
- That the sinner would not put forth any effort himself. If left to his own course, he would never seek to be saved.
(2)That he is pardoned, not on account of his effort; not because he makes an exertion; but because God chooses to pardon him.
There is no merit in his anxiety, and prayers, and agony, on account of which God would forgive him; but he is still dependent on the mere mercy of God to save or destroy him at his will. The sinner, however anxious he may be, and however much or long he may strive, does not bring God under an obligation to pardon him any more than the condemned criminal, trembling with the fear of execution, and the consciousness of crime, lays the judge or the jury under an obligation to acquit him. This fact, it is of great importance for an awakened sinner to know. Deeply anxious he should be, but there is no merit in his distress. Pray he should, but there is no merit in his prayers. Weep and strive he may, but in this there is no ground of claim on God for pardon; and, after all, he is dependent on his mere sovereign mercy, as a lost, ruined, and helpless sinner, to be saved or lost at his will.
But of God that showeth mercy – Salvation in its beginning, its progress, and its close, is of him. He has a right, therefore, to bestow it when and where he pleases. All our mercies flow from his mere love and compassion, and not from our deserts. The essential idea here is, that God is the original fountain of all the blessings of salvation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, c.] I conclude, therefore, from these several instances, that the making or continuing any body of men the peculiar people of God, is righteously determined not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by the will and wisdom of God alone. For Abraham judged that the blessing ought, and he willed, desired, that it might be given to Ishmael; and Isaac also willed, designed, it for his first-born, Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping that it might be his, readily went, ran a hunting for venison, that he might have the blessing regularly conveyed to him: but they were all disappointed-Abraham and Isaac, who willed, and Esau who ran: for God had originally intended that the blessing of being a great nation and distinguished people should, of his mere good pleasure, be given to Isaac and Jacob, and be confirmed in their posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostasy they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses’ willing, nor any prior obligation God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued it to them.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
q.d. Gods election is not of Jacobs, or of any other mans, willing or running; i.e. it is not from his good desires or deeds, his good inclinations or actions, or from the foresight thereof; but it is of Gods mere mercy and good pleasure. This text wounds Pelagianism under the fifth rib. Nec volenti, nec volanti, was the motto of a noble personage.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. So then it is not of him thatwillethhath the inward desire
nor of him thatrunnethmaketh active effort (compare 1Co 9:24;1Co 9:26; Phi 2:16;Phi 3:14). Both these areindispensable to salvation, yet salvation is owing to neither, but ispurely “of God that showeth mercy.” See on Php2:12, 13, “Work out your own salvation with fear andtrembling: for it is God which, out of His own good pleasure,worketh in you both to will and to do.“
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
So then it is not of him that willeth,…. This is not a consequence drawn by an adversary, showing that if this be the case, it signifies nothing for men to will or do, they may even sit still and do nothing, but depend on the mercy of God; but this is a conclusion of the apostle’s from the above cited testimony, inferring from thence, that election, which is what he is discoursing of, is “not of him that willeth”,
nor of him that runneth: that is, is not owing to the will or works of men, to the desires, inclinations, and affections of their minds, or to the actions of their lives; these are not the motives, conditions, or causes of this act:
but of God that sheweth mercy; in a free sovereign way and manner, which he is not obliged to by anything the creature wills or works; he is at full liberty, notwithstanding whatever they will or do, to give his grace and mercy, when, where, and to whom he pleases; and therefore to give it to some, and deny it to others, can never be accounted an act of injustice, since he is not bound to give it to any. Some make the it to be the blessing of Isaac, which was not of the will of any of the parties concerned; not of Isaac who willed it to Esau; nor of Esau who willed it to himself, but had it not; nor of the will of the persons who had their desires, not of the will of Rebecca, who was desirous of it for her son Jacob, nor of the will of Jacob, who desired it for himself, though he had it; nor of either of them that ran, not of Esau, who made haste to hunt for, and prepare venison for his father, nor of Jacob, who ran to the flock, for two kids of the goats; but of God that showed mercy to him, who, according to his sovereign will and pleasure, had signified before to Rebecca, that “the elder should serve the younger”, Ge 25:23: as the apostle had mentioned this so lately, it might still be in his thoughts, and he may allude to it; but election being what he is discoursing of in the context, that is the “it” here designed; and what is true of that, is true of salvation in all its parts, and therefore some understand it in the large sense of salvation; though by others so qualified and limited, as to spoil the glory of the text: some saying that the sense is, it is not of him that willeth and runneth wrong, but of the grace and mercy of God; but as no man would ever assert, that salvation is of him that wills and runs wrong, so the apostle had no occasion to deny it: others say, that it is not only of him that wills, and only of him that runs, but also of God that shows mercy; making man’s will and works joint causes with the mercy of God in man’s salvation; and besides, as Austin k long ago observes, according to this sense, the words might as well be read, it is not only of God that shows mercy, but of him that willeth, and of him that runneth, which no Christian would dare to say: the true sense is, that as election, which is the leading step to salvation, is not owing at all to the will of men, but to the good pleasure and will of God; and not at all to the works of men, that being done before them, and they being the fruits and effects of that, but to the free love, grace, and good will of God; so salvation in all its parts and branches, as redemption, justification, regeneration, calling, and conversion, faith, repentance, hope, love, &c. and eternal life, is not to be ascribed at all to the will of men, nor at all to the works of men, but entirely and alone to the love, grace, and mercy of God through Christ.
k Enchiridion, c. 32.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
So then ( ). In view of this quotation.
It is not of (). We must supply with . “Mercy is not of.” The articular participles ( , , ) can be understood as in the genitive with understood (mercy is not a quality of) or as the predicate ablative of source like in 2Pe 1:20. Paul is fond of the metaphor of running.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth. It, the participation in God ‘s mercy. Of him, i e., dependent upon. Runneth, denoting strenuous effort. The metaphor from the foot – race is a favorite one with Paul. See 1Co 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; Gal 5:7; Phi 2:16; 2Th 3:1. God is laid under no obligation by a human will or a human work.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “So then it is not of him that willeth,” (ara oun ou tou thelontos) “So therefore it is not of him who wills; This is Paul’s reasoned conclusion. It is not of man’s will or merit that any receives mercy, but of God’s own choice, on the basis of his knowledge and righteousness that he shows” his mercy and compassion, Exo 33:19; Exo 34:6-7.
2) “Nor of him that runneth,” (oude tou trechontos) “Nor of him who continually runs,” who is always trucking around; God does not show or send forth his essential character attributes of love, mercy, compassion, forbearance, and long-suffering to man, (in redemption) because of man’s deeds or works, or because of man’s will, but because of his own free and sovereign will to do so, Num 14:18; Deu 4:31.
3) “But of God that sheweth mercy,” (alla tou eleontos theou) “But of God who is continually having mercy,” Man has no inborn goodness, no holy dispositions, or will, by inheritance of nature, that makes him a necessary object of God’s mercy, compassion, and salvation. These come to man solely because of, originating from, God’s Grace, mercy and love, Eph 2:4-10; Tit 3:5; Joh 3:16. Even God’s response to a sinner or a backslider’s cry in prayer, repentance, and faith is because of God’s promises and decrees, not because of what man does, but in his decreed pledge to grant personal and special help to those who call upon him, Exo 20:5-6; Isa 55:6-7; 2Ch 7:13-14; Rom 10:9-13; Heb 13:5.
THE MERCY OF GOD
The mercy of God. – The air we breathe, the light we behold, the ground we tread upon, the meat we eat, whatsoever we are, or have, or hope for, it is His mercy. By it “we live, and move, and have our being.” “Thou hast crowned me with Thy mercy,” said David; it is a metaphor taken from a garland, which is composed of many and different flowers. God’s mercy was the only motive to our redemption; His merciful grace, preventing us and assisting us, is the only means to apply this redemption; the consideration of this mercy is that which encourageth us to repentance. As Christ prayed, “Father, forgive them!” the poor thief grew bold, “Lord, remember me!”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. It is not then of him who wills, etc. From the testimony adduced he draws this inference, that beyond all controversy our election is not to be ascribed to our diligence, nor to our striving, nor to our efforts, but that it is wholly to be referred to the counsel of God. That none of you may think that they who are elected are elected because they are deserving, or because they had in any way procured for themselves the favor of God, or, in short, because they had in them a particle of worthiness by which God might be moved, take simply this view of the matter, that it is neither by our will nor efforts, (for he has put running for striving or endeavour,) that we are counted among the elect, but that it wholly depends on the divine goodness, which of itself chooses those who neither will, nor strive, nor even think of such a thing. And they who reason from this passage, that there is in us some power to strive, but that it effects nothing of itself unless assisted by God’s mercy, maintain what is absurd; for the Apostle shows not what is in us, but excludes all our efforts. It is therefore a mere sophistry to say that we will and run, because Paul denies that it is of him who wills or runs, since he meant nothing else than that neither willing nor running can do anything.
They are, however, to be condemned who remain secure and idle on the pretence of giving place to the grace of God; for though nothing is done by their own striving, yet that effort which is influenced by God is not ineffectual. These things, then, are not said that we may quench the Spirit of God, while kindling sparks within us, by our waywardness and sloth; but that we may understand that everything we have is from him, and that we may hence learn to ask all things of him, to hope for all things from him, and to ascribe all things to him, while we are prosecuting the work of our salvation with fear and trembling.
[ Pelagius ] has attempted by another sophistical and worthless cavil to evade this declaration of Paul, that it is not only of him who wills and runs, because the mercy of God assists. But [ Augustine ] , not less solidly than acutely, thus refuted him, “If the will of man is denied to be the cause of election, because it is not the sole cause, but only in part; so also we may say that it is not of mercy but of him who wills and runs, for where there is a mutual cooperation, there ought to be a reciprocal commendation: but unquestionably the latter sentiment falls through its own absurdity.” Let us then feel assured that the salvation of those whom God is pleased to save, is thus ascribed to his mercy, that nothing may remain to the contrivance of man. (298)
Nor is there much more colour for what some advance, who think that these things are said in the person of the ungodly; for how can it be right to turn passages of Scripture in which the justice of God is asserted, for the purpose of reproaching him with tyranny? and then is it probable that Paul, when the refutation was at hand and easy, would have suffered the Scripture to be treated with gross mockery? But such subterfuges have they laid hold on, who absurdly measured this incomparable mystery of God by their own judgment. To their delicate and tender ears this doctrine was more grating than that they could think it worthy of an Apostle. But they ought rather to have bent their own stubbornness to the obedience of the Spirit, that they might not surrender themselves up to their gross inventions.
(298) The terms “willing” and “running” are evidently derived from the circumstances connected with the history of Esau. “In vain,” says [ Turrettin ] , “ did Esau seek the blessing. In vain did Isaac hasten to grant it, and in vain did Esau run to procure venison for his father; neither the father’s willingness nor the running of the son availed anything; God’s favour overruled the whole.” But the subject handled is God’s sovereignty in the manifestation of his favour and grace. Esau was but a type of the unbelieving Jews, when the gospel was proclaimed, and of thousands of such as are in name Christians. There is some sort of “willing,” and a great deal of “running,” and yet the blessing is not attained. There was much of apparent willing, and running in the strict formality and zeal of Pharisaism, and there is much of the same kind still in the austerities and mechanical worship of superstition, and also in the toils and devotions of self-righteousness. The word or the revealed will of God is in all these instances misunderstood and neglected.
Isaac’s “willingness” to give the blessing to Esau, notwithstanding the announcement made at his birth, and Rebecca’s conduct in securing it to Jacob, are singular instances of man’s imperfections, and of the overruling power of God. Isaac acted as though he had forgotten what God had expressed as his will; and Rebecca acted as though God could not effect his purpose without her interference, and an interference, too, in a way highly improper and sinful. It was the trial of faith, and the faith of both halted exceedingly; yet the purpose of God was still fulfilled, but the improper manner in which it was fulfilled was afterwards visited with God’s displeasure. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) Of him that runneth.A metaphor taken from the foot-races as St. Paul may very possibly have seen them practised at Corinth. (Comp. Rom. 9:16; Gal. 2:2; Gal. 5:7; Php. 2:16.) The meaning is that the prize does not depend on human will or human effort, but on the grace of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.’
‘It’ clearly refers to the previous verse, speaking of God’s showing of mercy, whilst the present tense of the verbs suggests that here Paul is enunciating a general principle. He is thus saying that in consequence of what God had said we can discern the general pattern that a man does not receive mercy in view of what he himself purposes (wills) or in view of what he has done, or indeed in view of what he promises to do. Neither his will nor his actions alter God’s decision. Rather, because by his will and actions he is subject to judgment, his hope can only lie in the mercy of God. And God dispenses that mercy as He wills. This again stresses that in order to receive mercy there is no requirement on man’s part. It is not a question of foreseen faith or works, it purely results from God’s sovereign decision. Faith and works must certainly follow that decision, but ultimately salvation is of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 9:16. God that sheweth mercy Shewing mercy, and obtaining mercy, are applied to the donation of extraordinary favours and privileges upon a people, chap. Rom 11:30. 1Pe 2:10.; and that it is to be so understood here, appears from the context. One would imagine that this verse should have come in immediately after the 13th; but the reason why the Apostle inserted it here, most probably was, that he might take the affair of Moses’s intercession for the Israelites into his conclusion, as well as the two foregoing instances relating to the sons of Abraham and Isaac; for, the instance of Moses’s intercession, first, with respect to his will and earnest desire, has relation to the preceding cases of Abraham and Isaac; and so it comes into the conclusion in this verse; and secondly, with respect to the sovereign will and pleasure of God, in continuing to the Israelites the favour of being his peculiar people, it has also relation by way of contrast to the subsequent case of Pharaoh, Rom 9:17.; and so comes also into the conclusion, Rom 9:18. This is an example of the Apostle’s consulting brevity in arranging and wording his arguments. The passage from Rom 9:14 may be paraphrased thus: “And now, what shall we say to these things? Shall we suggest that God’s bestowing religious privileges in this unequal manner, upon those who otherwise are in equal circumstances, is inconsistent with equity and justice?By no means; Rom 9:15. I gave a general answer to this objection, chap. Rom 3:6 which I now confirm by the words of God himself to Moses, Exo 33:19 after he had declared that he would spare the Jews of old, and continue them in the relation of his peculiar people, when they had deserved to be cut off for their idolatry. I will, says he, make all my goodness pass before thee, &c. as if he had said, ‘I will make such a display of my perfections as shall convince you I am of a kind and beneficent nature: but know, that I am a debtor to none of my creatures; my benefits and blessings are merely from my own good-will; nor can any people, much less a rebellious people, challenge them as their due in justice or equity; and therefore I now spare the Jews, not because either you who intercede for them, or they themselves have any claim upon my favour; but of my own free and sovereign grace I choose to shew them mercy and compassion:’ Rom 9:16. I conclude therefore, from these three several instances foregoing, that the making or continuing any body of men the peculiar people of God, in respect to spiritual or national privileges, is righteously determined, not by the judgment, hopes, or wishes of men, but by the will and wisdom of God alone. ForAbraham judged that the blessingought, and desired it might be given to his eldest son Ishmael; and Isaac also designed it for first-born Esau: and Esau, wishing and hoping it would be his, readilywent a hunting for venison, that he might receive it. But they were all frustrated; Abraham and Isaac who willed, and Esau who ran; for the blessing of being a great nation, and his peculiar people, God, of his mere good pleasure, originally intended first for Isaac, and then for Jacob and his posterity; and to them it was given. And when by their apostacy they had forfeited this privilege, it was not Moses’s willing, nor any prior obligation that God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued the enjoyment of it.” See Locke, and Whitby.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 9:16 . Paul now infers from this divine word the doctrine implied in it of the causality of the divine redemption.
] sc . . Accordingly, therefore, it (the participation in that which has just been designated in the divine utterance as and ) is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who is merciful; it depends not on the striving and urgent endeavour of man, but on the will of the merciful God. The relation of the genitive is: penes . See Bernhardy, p. 165; Khner, II. 1, p. 316 f.
, a figurative designation of strenuously active endeavour , borrowed originally from the competitive races (1Co 9:24 ). Comp. Gal 2:2 ; Gal 5:7 ; Phi 2:16 ; also in the classical writers. Incorrectly, Reiche (following Locke and others) thinks that was probably chosen with reference to the wish of Abraham to instal Ishmael, and of Isaac to instal Esau, in the heirship; and . with reference to the fruitless running in of Esau from the chase (Theophylact understands it of his running off to the chase). For Paul, in fact, draws an inference with his only from the divine utterance issued to Moses ; and hence we are not even to conjecture, with van Hengel, a reference to Pharaoh’s hasty pursuit of the Israelites. Not on the runner himself depends the successful struggle for the prize (in opposition to Reiche’s objection), but he, whom God has chosen to obtain it, now on his part so runs that he does obtain it. Consequently the conception is, that man by his never meritoriously acquires the divine favour; but, fulfilling the predetermination of God, he, in the power of the grace already received, demeans himself conformably to it ; hence Paul, in another place, where the context suggests it, exhorts to the (1Co 9:24 ). Beck’s opinion, that and are here intended not in the moral sense, but metaphysically and juridically, is nothing but an exegetically groundless deviation from the simple and clear meaning of the words.
. ] to be taken together . Had Paul intended . as independent , and as an apposition , he would have only weakened the antithetic emphasis by the very superfluously added (in opposition to Hofmann).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1885
GODS SOVEREIGN MERCY THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR BLESSINGS
Rom 9:16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
THE Apostle, being about to declare the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles, introduces his subject with a most solemn appeal to God, that he had continual sorrow and heaviness in his heart, on account of the unhappy state of his Jewish brethren. He knew that the subject would be very painful to the Jews; and yet he could not, consistently with his duty to God, conceal it from them: but he strove as much as possible to lessen the offence it would occasion, by assuring them of his unbounded affection for them, and his willingness to endure any thing, if it might but be subservient to their eternal welfare.
The subject as treated by the Apostle is no less offensive to the great mass of nominal Christians, than it was to the Jews: for he insists so strongly on Gods right to dispense the blessings of his Gospel according to his own sovereign will, that the proud heart of man cannot endure it. We are apt to think we have a claim upon God; and that he is bound to do for us all that he has at anytime done for his most favoured servants: and, when we are told, that he has a right to do what he will with his own, we deny him that right, and accuse him of injustice, precisely as the Jews themselves did. But the servant of God must speak, whether men will hear, or whether they forbear: he must declare to men the whole counsel of God, even though briers and thorns be with him, and he dwell among scorpions. At the same time, it should be his most anxious endeavour to speak the truth in love. This we would do. God knoweth that it is painful to us to give offence; yet not so much on our own account, as on account of those who are not able to receive our word. We would gladly do, yea, and suffer too, whatever should be necessary for their welfare: but still we cannot conceal the truth, or keep back any thing that is profitable unto men. We entreat however, that, if we speak any thing which may not at first approve itself to those who hear it, they will give us credit for seeking conscientiously their best interests, according to the light that God hath given us.
The words of our text are evidently a conclusion drawn from a preceding argument. To view them therefore aright, we must consider,
I.
The statement on which the conclusion is founded
Having intimated the danger to which his countrymen were exposed of perishing in unbelief, he anticipates an objection which they were disposed to make; namely, That they were in no danger, because, as descendants of Abraham, they were interested in the covenant made with him, and were heirs of all the blessings which were promised to him and to his seed: and that, consequently, if they were to perish, the word of God would have been of no effect [Note: ver. 6.]. To this the Apostle replies, that the promises were not made to Abrahams natural seed, but to his spiritual seed, who should be partakers of Abrahams faith: and that, as they were yet in unbelief, they had no part or lot in Abrahams blessings [Note: ver. 7, 8.]. This he proceeds to prove to them,
1.
From undeniable and acknowledged facts
[The blessings of the covenant were not given to all Abranams natural seed, even in the very first instance. Ishmael, who was born according to the course of nature, had no part in that covenant; the blessings of which were restricted to Isaac, who was born many years afterwards, not according to the common course of nature, but solely by virtue of an express promise. Here then was a proof, even in the immediate children of Abraham, that persons might be lineally descended from him, and yet be left without any interest in the covenant made with him.
But a further, and still stronger, proof of this took place in the children of this very Isaac, to whom the promise was restricted. His wife Rebecca bare him twins: and whilst these children were yet in the womb, and before they could possibly have done either good or evil, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger [Note: ver. 912.]: which prophecy was accomplished to their latest posterity, as the Prophet Malachi attests, saying, Jacob have I loved; but Esau have I hated [Note: ver. 13. with Mal 1:2-3.]. Now if they should think that in the former instance respect was bad to the character of the two children, Ishmael and Isaac, and that the decree was founded on that, such a notion is altogether excluded from the present instance, because the children had done neither good nor evil; and the reason of the decree is expressly said to be, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.
Here then an exclusion of a part of the natural seed is further proved, and that too by the sovereign disposal of God himself, irrespective of the characters of the persons respecting whom the decree was made. How much more therefore might those of Abrahams descendants who should continue obstinate in unbelief, be excluded from the blessings of that covenant, which they themselves were so averse to embrace.]
2.
From the express declarations of God himself
[The Jews in the Apostles days trusted in the words of Moses, which they interpreted as comprehending all the Jewish nation without exception within the bonds of the covenant. To Moses therefore the Apostle has recourse; and appeals to what God himself had spoken to him. As in the foregoing instances God had exercised his own sovereign will in appointing who should, and who should not, be partakers of his covenant, so, in his communications with Moses also he had claimed to himself the same right, and declared that he would act in the same sovereign way: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion [Note: ver. 15. with Exo 33:19.]. Here God considers all the human race as in a state of guilt and misery, no one of them having any claim on him for mercy, or any thing that could entitle him to a preference beyond his brethren: and he declares, that as he would exercise his own sovereign will in dispensing his blessings to them, so he would have his sovereign grace and mercy acknowledged by all who should receive them.
This point is further confirmed by the Apostles adducing what God had spoken also to Pharaoh. God had exalted Pharaoh to the throne of Egypt, and had invested him with the most arbitrary and unbounded power. Such power was necessary, in order that there might be full scope for the rebellion of man, and the consequent triumphs of God over him. God knew that there were in the heart of Pharaoh all those dispositions which would resist him to the uttermost; and that he would thus call forth eventually those judgments which God, for his own glory, had determined to inflict on the oppressors of his people: and, whilst Pharaoh was in the very act of rebellion, and hardening himself more and more against his God, God said to him, For this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. The Apostle, having cited this in confirmation of what he had said respecting Moses, asserts in yet stronger language than before, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thus the Apostle has proved beyond all contradiction the unquestionable right of God to give, or to withhold, his blessings, according to his own sovereign will and pleasure.
But before we proceed to the conclusion which the Apostle draws from hence, we would guard what has been already spoken from any misconstruction. Though Gods right to give or to withhold his blessings is asserted, together with the actual bestowment of them according to his sovereign will, yet he never withholds his blessing from any creature who humbly seeks it at his hands; much less does he ever infuse evil into the mind of any man in order to glorify himself in his destruction. His hardening of Pharaohs heart consisted in leaving him to himself, and to the unrestrained exercise of his own evil dispositions: and if we were all left as Pharaoh was, we should harden our own hearts precisely as Pharaoh did. In a word, Gods blessings are never dispensed but in a way of grace; his judgments are never executed but in a way of righteous retribution.]
Having thus stated the argument on which the Apostles conclusion is founded, we come to the consideration of,
II.
The conclusion itself
The conclusion is justly formed from the premises. It is indeed a humiliating conclusion, and a truth which our proud hearts are very averse to acknowledge; but still we must join issue with the Apostle, and say, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Let not this however be understood, as though it sanctioned any want of exertion on our part
[God does not here forbid us to will or to run, nor does he exempt us from the duty of both willing and running: no such thing is here expressed, nor can any such thing be deduced from it. How grievous is it that any should be found impious enough to cite this passage as discountenancing exertions on our part! In the whole sacred records, from the beginning to the end, there is not to be found one single word that can warrant such an idea as this. On the contrary, God always complains of us for not exerting ourselves, and refers our final condemnation to this as its proper ground and cause: Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life, says our Lord. How often would I have gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! As for those who say, I can do nothing without God, and therefore, till God come, I may as well sit still, and attempt nothing; God, so far from giving occasion for such a sentiment and such conduct, calls us most earnestly to exertion, and promises that we shall not exert ourselves in vain: Ask and ye shall have; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: and, Whosoever cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out: and, When said I ever to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain? Know then, that to found any such sentiment on the words of the Apostle, is a gross perversion of the word of God, and an impious plea for antinomian licentiousness. But, that you may have a just view of this assertion,]
Its plain import is, that Gods free grace and mercy are the true and only sources of all good
[Whatever be our success in the divine life, we must not refer it to our own volitions, or our own exertions. For, what inclination has the natural man to that which is truly good? None at all: there is not one good thought or desire in the heart of an unregenerate man: his will is altogether towards what is evil [Note: Gen 6:5.]: and if a good inclination be manifested by any one of us, it has been previously put into our hearts by Him who giveth us to will and to do, of his own good pleasure [Note: Php 2:13.]. Nor can any exertions of ours in our natural state be of themselves effectual; for our blessed Lord expressly says, Without me, or separate from me, ye can do nothing. We must therefore never sacrifice to our own net, or burn incense to our own drag. God must have all the glory: it is he who worketh all our works in us: Of him is our fruit found: and to all eternity our song must be, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be the praise. It is impossible for us ever to be too jealous upon this head. We are told, that of him are all things, and for him are all things: and therefore to him we must look for every thing that we need; and to him, even to his sovereign grace and mercy, must we ascribe every thing that we have received. If we differ, either from others, or from our former selves, we must never forget, one moment, who it is that hath made us to differ: and if we be able to say with the Apostle, I have laboured more abundantly than others, we must instantly correct ourselves, and add, Yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me [Note: There are some who put a totally different construction on our text, and interpret it as though the Apostle had said, It is not of him only that willeth, &c. Thus, by their interpolation, they expressly contradict the Apostle, and subvert the whole train of his reasoning. If this were the meaning of the Apostle, what occasion would there be for the objections of his adversaries in ver. 14 and ver. 19.? Alas! that ever such liberties should be taken with the word of God!].]
It remains only now that we shew you,
1.
How these sentiments are to be maintained
[We confess with grief and shame that many carry these sentiments too far, and maintain them in a very unhallowed way. But, whilst we maintain what God has so plainly taught, we would lift our voice without ceasing against every abuse of these doctrines. To those who accord with these views of divine truth, we most affectionately suggest the following cautions. Take heed to the manner in which you maintain these truths. Let none of you maintain them presumptuously, as though you could fathom the depths contained in them, or as though they gave you any licence for sloth and supineness. They contain mysteries, which God alone can fully comprehend, and difficulties which he alone can fully reconcile: but be it remembered, that there are far more and greater difficulties involved in a denial of them: and that our wisdom is, to receive every word of God with child-like simplicity, and to say, What I know not now, I shall know hereafter.
Nor let any hold them irreverently. Some will speak of these deep things of God as familiarly as if there were no mystery at all in them, or as if they were the uninspired dogmas of some ancient philosopher. But when we enter on such holy ground, we should, as Moses, take off our shoes, and proceed with reverential awe. God is in heaven, and we upon earth; therefore should our words be few, and diffident, and humble.
Nor should they be maintained uncharitably. Many there are who cannot see these truths, who yet are in a state truly pleasing to God; yea many, at whose feet the best of us may be glad to be found in heaven. It is a great evil, when these doctrines are made a ground of separation one from another, and when the advocates of different systems anathematize each other. Let all such dispositions be banished from the Church of God. Whoever may be wrong, they never can be right who violate charity, or refuse to others the right of judging for themselves. For the fundamental truths of Christianity, we must contend to the uttermost, (though even for them with meekness and love:) but in reference to truths which are involved in so much obscurity as those which relate to the sovereignty of God, mutual kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion.
Lastly, let not these truths be maintained exclusively. Many are so partial to these deeper truths, that they can hardly condescend to speak of repentance and faith; and, as for exhortations to duty, they are apt to think such things legal and carnal. O beloved! flee from such a spirit, as you would from the plague: wherever it exists, it betrays a sad want of humility. Be ye as little children: let every word of God be dear to you; and be as ready to dwell upon the invitations, and precepts, and exhortations of the Gospel, as on these deeper mysteries, which may easily be strained too far, and may give occasion for inferences, plausible indeed, but erroneous, and contrary to the analogy of faith.]
2.
How they are to be improved
[The proper use of these deeper truths is to abase us with humility, as creatures destitute of all good; and at the same time to exalt us, as creatures infinitely indebted to the grace of God. Make this improvement of them, and they can never do you any harm: yea, receive them for these ends, and there are no other truths whatever that will operate to an equal extent. Who ever maintained the doctrines of grace more strenuously than the Apostle Paul? yet who ever so laboured in the cause of his adorable Redeemer? Take him then for your pattern, both in your sentiments and conduct; and then you will shew, that nothing so constrains, as the love of Christ; nothing so stimulates to a compliance with Gods will, as a sense of obligation to the riches of his grace.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Ver. 16. So then it is not, &c. ] Nec volentis, nec volantis (as a nobleman gave it for his motto), though a man could run as fast as a bird can fly.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] So then (inference from the citation) it is not of (God’s mercy ‘does not belong to,’ ‘is not in the power of,’ see reff.) him that willeth (any man willing it) nor of him that runneth (any man contending for it, see reff. and Phi 3:14 . There hardly can be any allusion to Abraham’s wish for Ishmael, Gen 17:18 , and Esau’s running to hunt for venison, as Stuart, Burton, al.), but of God that hath mercy . I must pause again here to remind the student, that I purposely do not enter on the disquisitions so abundant in some commentaries on this part of Scripture, by which it is endeavoured to reconcile the sovereign election of God with our free will. We shall find that free will asserted strongly enough for all edifying purposes by this Apostle, when the time comes . At present, he is employed wholly in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. I must also protest against all endeavours to make it appear, that no inference lies from this passage as to the salvation of individuals . It is most true (see remarks at the beginning of this chapter) that the immediate subject is the national rejection of the Jews : but we must consent to hold our reason in abeyance, if we do not recognize the inference, that the sovereign power and free election here proved to belong to God extend to every exercise of His mercy whether temporal or spiritual whether in Providence or in Grace whether national or individual. It is in parts of Scripture like this, that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written : not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of God’s Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 9:16 . Conclusion from this word of God. It (namely, the experience of God’s mercy) does not depend on man’s resolve or effort (for cf. 1Co 9:24 ff.), but on God’s merciful act. This, of course, merely repeats Rom 9:12-13 , buttressing the principle of God’s sovereign freedom in the exercise of mercy by reference to His own word in Exo 33:19 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
willeth. Greek. thelo. App-102. Isaac willed, Esau ran.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] So then (inference from the citation) it is not of (Gods mercy does not belong to,-is not in the power of, see reff.) him that willeth (any man willing it) nor of him that runneth (any man contending for it, see reff. and Php 3:14. There hardly can be any allusion to Abrahams wish for Ishmael, Gen 17:18, and Esaus running to hunt for venison, as Stuart, Burton, al.), but of God that hath mercy. I must pause again here to remind the student, that I purposely do not enter on the disquisitions so abundant in some commentaries on this part of Scripture, by which it is endeavoured to reconcile the sovereign election of God with our free will. We shall find that free will asserted strongly enough for all edifying purposes by this Apostle, when the time comes. At present, he is employed wholly in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to distract by continual downward looks on this earth. I must also protest against all endeavours to make it appear, that no inference lies from this passage as to the salvation of individuals. It is most true (see remarks at the beginning of this chapter) that the immediate subject is the national rejection of the Jews: but we must consent to hold our reason in abeyance, if we do not recognize the inference, that the sovereign power and free election here proved to belong to God extend to every exercise of His mercy-whether temporal or spiritual-whether in Providence or in Grace-whether national or individual. It is in parts of Scripture like this, that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is written: not to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of Gods Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 9:16. , therefore) so also Rom 9:18. The inference of Paul here is not drawn from the particle , whomsoever, but from the words and , I have mercy, and I have compassion.- ) not of the man that willeth, nor of him that runneth, supply it is, the business, or, will, course [the race is not of him that runneth, etc.]; not that it is in vain to will rightly, and, what is of greater importance, to run, or strive rightly, 1Co 9:26; Php 3:14 : but because to will and to run produce none of the things aimed at by those, who trust to their works. The human will is opposed to divine grace, and the course [the run] of human conduct to divine operation.-Comp. Rom 9:30-31.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 9:16
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.-He illustrates what he means by the case of Jacob and Esau. Isaac willed that Esau should inherit the blessing, and Esau ran with haste to obtain the venison for his father that he might have the blessing; but neither Isaacs will nor Esaus running could defeat the purpose of God to bless Jacob. If Esau had possessed the character approved by God, God would have willed to bless him; but as he did not possess the character approved by God, his fathers anxiety for him to have the blessing could not secure it.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Rom 9:11, Gen 27:1-4, Gen 27:9-14, Psa 110:3, Isa 65:1, Mat 11:25, Mat 11:26, Luk 10:21, Joh 1:12, Joh 1:13, Joh 3:8, 1Co 1:26-31, Eph 2:4, Eph 2:5, Phi 2:13, 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14, Tit 3:3-5, Jam 1:18, 1Pe 2:9, 1Pe 2:10
Reciprocal: Gen 19:16 – the Lord Gen 45:8 – it was not Exo 11:9 – Pharaoh Act 11:17 – as God Act 16:14 – whose Rom 9:15 – I will have Rom 9:18 – hath 1Co 4:7 – who Eph 2:9 – General Tit 3:5 – by works
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:16
Viewing things on the side of Gods absolute sovereignty, confining ourselves exclusively to the conclusions which follow from the conception of Gods infinite knowledge and infinite power, we must admit that all depends on Gods willhuman merit is utterly excluded. Attainment of salvation is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. But we cannot state this truth absolutely, unconditionally, as if it were a statement of the complete truth.
I. Scripture recognises quite as frequently and as positively the balancing truth of mans free will and mans responsibility.It argues with men, it entreats them to accept the proffered blessings of the Gospel, it uses language which certainly implies that it lies with men to choose or refuse what is offered. St. Paul himself, who, when occasion offers, affirms so strongly the doctrine of the Divine election, states the counterbalancing truth of mans free will. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Though he entertains within himself a humble hope that he is personally a subject of the Divine election, he can yet speak as if he were fully conscious that he might by his own demerit forfeit his privilege. I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway, a man rejected and disapproved at the final decision of the race. Grace is contemplated as liable to be lost. St. Peter admonishes, Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall. The surety of the calling, then, is dependent on continued diligence in Christian living. If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
II. We must hold at the same time the two great truths of Gods predestination and mans free will.They cannot be stated separately as complete intellectual propositions; they are mysteries which we cannot adequately conceive or express. In philosophy as well as in religion they are mysteries. We cannot conceive of God as absolute will; that makes Him the author of evil as well as of good, and denies His attribute of righteousness. We cannot conceive of mans absolute free will, for that is a denial of the obvious fact of the weakness of his moral nature and of the almost overwhelming forces of habit and example. To preach predestination only is to preach fatalism and to drive the ungodly to despair or recklessness; to preach mans free will only is to deny the need of Gods grace and to claim all for human merit. Extreme Calvinism makes God a capricious tyrant. Extreme Arminianism denies the corruption of human nature, and makes man his own saviour.
III. But it remains none the less true that predestination, resting on a Divine purpose, is a doctrine of Scripture, and therefore as such asserted by every Church true to the deposit of primitive faith. And there is a right use of the doctrine, spite of all its grievous perversions. But that right use is only for godly persons, i.e. such as are leading godly lives and feeling in themselves the waking of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their minds to high and heavenly things. That right use is
(a) To greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, according to Christs own encouragement. Fear not, little flock; it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
(b) To kindle fervently their love towards God. That is the way in which St. Paul used the doctrine in that eighth chapter of the Romans, where, at the close, we have the very triumph song of adoring gratitude and love. If in the immediate prospect of the hour of death and the day of judgment we are enabled in any measure to appropriate its sublime consolations to ourselves, we shall feel that the Divine election is not a puzzle of the intellect, nor a wrangle of barren controversy, but a stay of the fainting soul, and that in very deed salvation is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rev. Prof. Inge.
Illustration
This ninth chapter of the Romans brings us upon one of those passages of St. Pauls Epistles in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. We get into the region of such mysterious subjects as predestination and election and reprobation. These subjects occupy now much less general attention than they did in earlier days of Christian doctrine. We know that in the fifth century they formed the principal topic of controversy in Western Christendom, when St. Augustine protested so vehemently against Pelagianism. At the period of the Reformation and in the following century they assumed enormous prominence under the powerful influence of the eminent theologian John Calvin. The rival systems of Calvinism and Arminianism separated whole Churches. The Presbyterian Churches of England and Scotland, under the guidance of the West-minster Assembly, epoused the Calvinist theory. The Nonconforming communities which looked up to John Wesley and George Whitfield respectively as their founders parted asunder owing to their divergence of views on this great controversy. In this century the antagonism is not so violent. Rival views are, indeed, held firmly and conscientiously, but they are not so perpetually pressed upon attention. Pulpits do not so constantly resound with sermons on what used to be called the doctrines of grace, the five points of predestination, the extent of Christs redemption, free will and human corruption, conversion by irresistible grace, final perseverance. The probable reason of this may be a consciousness that whatever may be the truth on these high matters, they are only a part and not the whole of Christian doctrine, and are rather speculations of the intellect than foundations of practical rules of holy living. And possibly, too, with this consciousness is associated a conviction that the mysteries handled in this controversy are really mysteries.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
:16
Romans 9:16. The selection is not left to the person to do his own choosing, since it was not for personal advantage, but to God whose will is supreme.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 9:16. So then. With this favorite expression, Paul introduces an inference from the passage cited: In consequence of all this, it is proven that. The word to Moses is accepted as a divine axiom, and the inference is to be regarded as of universal validity, since neither the preceding context nor the scope of the argument suggests any limitation. It is in parts of Scripture like this that we must be especially careful not to fall short of what is writtennot to allow of any compromise of the plain and awful words of Gods Spirit, for the sake of a caution which He Himself does not teach us(Alford).
It is not of him that willeth, etc. The participation in any and all of the effects of Gods mercy and compassion, does not depend on human will, nor on human effort, but on the will of God, who thus spoke to Moses. The reference of him that willeth to Abrahams wish respecting Ishmael, and of him that runneth to Esaus running home from hunting, is worth mentioning as a specimen of farfetched interpretation.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
As if the apostle had said, “The foregoing instances abundantly show, That it is not of him that willeth; for Abraham willed that Ishmael might live to be partaker of the blessing promised to his seed, when he said, O that Ishmael might live before thee! Gen 17:18 Nor is it of him that runneth: for when Esau ran to fetch venison for his father, that he might receive the blessing, Gen 25:28 the wisdom of God saw fit to have it otherwise, and to confer the blessing upon Jacob; but it is of God that showeth mercy, that any one is chosen to be the seed to which the promise made to Abraham belongs, and so to be his church and people.”
Learn hence, That it is of God’s mere grace and mercy, that any sinners are called and admitted to the privilege of justification and adoption, upon any terms and conditions whatsoever. The reason why the sinful and unworthy Gentiles were called to be a people who were not a people, while the Jews were left out, and cast off for their obstinate unbelief, was not because the Gentiles were either more worthy or more willing, but from God’s discriminating grace and mercy: It is not of him that willeth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
So then [With these words Paul introduces the answer to the question in Rom 9:14; as inferred or deduced from the citation in Rom 9:15; as though he said, “As a conclusion from what I have cited, it is proven that as to the obtaining of God’s favor”] it is not [the accomplishment] of him that willeth [of him that wants it], nor of him that runneth [of him that ardently strives, or offers works for it; as a runner does for his prize], but of God that hath mercy. [Many expositors, following Theophylact, refer this “willing” to Isaac, who sought to bless Esau against God’s choice in Jacob, and refer the running to that of Esau, who ran to get the venison. But that running of Esau was too literal; it lacked in that moral effort Godward which Paul’s argument implies. Others, as Meyer, Godet, etc., confine the willing and running to Moses, but this, too, is objectionable, as too narrow a base for so broad a principle. Paul includes Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses, and all like them. No man is chosen of God because he chooses or strives to be chosen till God has first chosen him (Joh 15:16-19). The first choice rests in the will of God. If God did not call all (Joh 3:16; Tit 2:11; Rev 22:17) and choose all who respond by sincerely wishing and striving to be chosen, the dark side of Calvinism might indeed be true. Originally there was no curb to the freedom of God in dealing with fallen man save the unspeakable mercy and goodness of God. Justice at that time afforded no curb; for man was a sinner without means of propitiation or atonement, and stood condemned by justice. The verbal form “runneth,” though it comes in abruptly, is not of special, but of general, reference (“him” being equivalent to “any one”), and indicates strenuous moral effect toward God, or salvation (Psa 119:32). It is part of the old and familiar figure wherein life is regarded as a race or “course,” moral effort being a “running” therein (see comment, Rom 9:31-32). This figure is so well known that it is customarily introduced thus abruptly (Act 13:25; Act 20:24; 2Ti 4:6-7). The use of the verb “to run” is as common as the noun “course,” and is also brought in abruptly, as needing no gloss (Gal 2:2; Gal 5:7; Phi 2:16; Heb 12:1 . Comp. Phi 3:11-14 and 1Co 9:24-26; where the apostle elaborates the figure). These very references to Paul’s use of this figure afford abundant proof that after God chooses us (and he has now chosen us all, for he would not that any should perish, but that all men be saved, and come into the knowledge of the truth– 2Pe 3:9; 1Ti 2:4; Rom 2:4; Tit 2:11: Eze 18:23; Eze 18:32; Eze 33:11), then everything depends upon our “willing” (Luk 13:34; Act 13:46) and “running,” for we ourselves having obtained of God’s free will and grace a calling and election, must of ourselves make that calling and election sure (2Pe 1:10-11); yea, we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and the aid of God (Phi 2:12), and must so “run” that we may obtain. Paul is here proving the unfettered freedom of the Almighty before he gave the gospel. A freedom which permitted him to give it when, how, where and to whom he chose, save as he had gradually limited himself, slightly, from time to time, by his promises. This freedom permitted him at last to give such a gospel that the self-righteous Jews saw fit to reject it and become castaways. Paul in all his argument says never a word about God’s limitations in the gospel after the gospel was given; for they have nothing to do with his argument which relates to God’s freedom when preparing the gospel and before the gospel was given. Failure to note this simple, obvious distinction has brought forth that abortive system of inexorable logic called Calvinism, which has gone near to attribute both the sins of man and the iniquities of the devil to God himself. 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 God’s 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.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
16. Then therefore it is not of him that willeth nor him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy. This progenitorship, the greatest blessing this side of heaven, was bestowed on Abraham and his seed by the sovereign discriminating mercy of God. Yet while it was special to Abraham and his seed, instead of excluding all others from the kingdom of grace and glory, it was the provision of Gods redeeming love for the whole human race.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 16
The meaning is, that divine favors are never earned by the spontaneous exertions of man; they are bestowed gratuitously by the mercy of God. We must not consider this verse as implying that men may honestly strive, and yet fail of obtaining the favor of God, but that they do not strive for it. The expression is, as If we were to say, “The fertility of Egypt is not of rain, but of the overflowing of the Nile.” This does not imply that rain, if it were to descend, would not produce fertility,–but that it does not descend, and so the land is dependent upon another source. So in this case; if men were honestly to attempt to do their duty and please God, they would doubtless please him; but they do not make the attempt,–and so their salvation rests entirely on his mercy.
Romans 9:17,18. This is, perhaps, the most of the numerous passages, occurring in the Scriptures, in which it is asserted that the control of Almighty God is absolute and entire over all the moral conduct of his creatures, whether evil or good–a control so absolute and entire, that if, in the course of his administration, he deems it expedient to exhibit to the universe a spectacle of sin and its consequences, he can do so,–while yet the moral responsibility and ill desert of the sin rests solely with the being who commits it. Such a doctrine awakens very different feelings in different minds. Some repose in quiet and submissive confidence under the absolute and boundless moral sovereignty with which it invests Jehovah. Others find it utterly irreconcilable with what they regard as plain principles of justice, and the very statement of it seems to awaken in their minds feelings of abhorrence and detestation. Many classes of excellent Christians endeavor to soften this doctrine by allowing to the power of Jehovah an efficient control over all the right and holy desires and acts of his creatures, while they limit, and qualify in various ways, his agency in respect to those that are wrong; for the minds of mankind at large are found to acquiesce much more readily in assigning to God a direct agency in the production of holiness, than in that of sin. It is, however, somewhat doubtful whether the real difficulty is much alleviated, in a philosophical point of view, by this management; for we cannot easily conceive how one kind of moral conduct or character can be determined by a superior power, consistently with the freedom of the agent, rather than another; that is to say, if God can produce penitence in David’s heart, which shall yet be wholly David’s penitence, and for which David only shall be morally responsible, it is difficult to show any reason why the same kind of moral power, operating reversely, may not produce obduracy in Pharaoh’s heart, which shall be wholly Pharaoh’s obduracy, and for which Pharaoh alone is morally accountable. There is a great difference between the two cases, in respect to the readiness with which the mind is willing to admit such a power; but it would probably not be easy to establish between them any philosophical distinction. The difficulty seems insurmountable to human powers in either case. But, then, we must consider that, whatever difficulties may attend this subject, they seem to be involved in the very idea of a divinity really supreme. And, even if we relinquish the idea of a divinity, and substitute, as in that case we must, the control of steadily-acting laws, mental and corporeal, over the phenomena of matter and mind,–the doctrine of philosophical necessity takes the place of that of the personal sovereignty of Jehovah, and it is, to say the least, quite as intractable in respect to its consistency with human freedom. The difficulties, then, would seem, cannot, on any hypothesis, be either solved or avoided. The result is, that the only way in which the mind can be really at peace on this subject is humbly to acquiesce in our incapacity to fathom this gulf, in theory, and then practically to yield our full and cordial assent, on the one hand, to the dictates of conscience, which testify that we are entirely unrestrained in our moral conduct, and so accountable for it,–and, on the other, to the word of God, asserting that Jehovah is supreme, and that his providence includes and controls all that takes place under his reign.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:16 {12} So then [it is] not of him that {q} willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(12) The conclusion of the answer: therefore God is not unjust in choosing and saving from his free goodness, such as it pleases him: as he also answered Moses when he prayed for all of the people.
(q) By “will” he means the thought and endeavour of heart, and by “running”, good works, to neither of which he gives the praise, but only to the mercy of God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
It is not man’s desire or effort that causes God to be merciful but His own sovereign choice. God is under no obligation to show mercy or extend grace to anyone. If we insist on receiving just treatment from God, what we will get is condemnation (Rom 3:23).