Introduction

My father, who happens to be here this morning, tells the story of the time I attended my aunt’s wedding. The wedding was held at the First Methodist Church Chapel on the S.M.U. campus. My two younger brothers were just babies and so they rode to the church with my parents, but I, being older, was allowed to ride with my great aunt Helen who was getting on in years. Well, we got to the S.M.U. campus, but the directions were somewhat foggy to great aunt Helen so we ended up not at the church but at Perkins Chapel where there was also a wedding being held. We went in and sat through the whole wedding and aunt Helen didn’t realize anything was wrong. Afterwards, we returned to my grandparents home for the reception. There, my father heard aunt Helen say, “Well, I recognized the bride’s father alright. The bride sure did look different, but wasn’t it a beautiful wedding?”

This humorous incident illustrates a less than humorous way that some people seek to approach God. They know that they are supposed to be sincere and to have faith but they seem to miss the point that their faith is only as good as the object of that faith. Placing faith in someone other than Christ is no more pleasing to God than going to the wrong wedding would be to the bride whose wedding you missed.

Paul, in Romans 1-4, has established the fact that men are saved by faith. Now, in chapter 5, Paul keys in on the object of that faith. In chapters 1-4 the verb and noun forms of the word faith are used 36 times, but after Romans 5:2 this word is not used again until chapter 9. However, the name of Christ, used only five times between the introduction of the book and Romans 4:24, is now suddenly used 10 times in this one chapter. The argument is clearly shifting from the means of faith to its object. Let’s go back and trace our argument to this point in order to put the object of faith in perspective.

Paul’s purpose in the first four chapters of Romans is to prove to his readers that the only way a man can be justified and thus obtain salvation and eternal life is through faith. It is impossible, says Paul, for man to be saved by his own endeavors. Having stated this position, Paul deals with three possible objections.

Taking the role of God’s prosecuting attorney, he meets the first objector, the pagan or natural man. This man’s argument says, “I do not accept the fact that man must be justified by faith for I was ignorant of God. Therefore, God is unjust to condemn me simply because I went my own way and did not obediently have faith in His Messiah. I should be pardoned and given eternal life because I was ignorant.” To this Paul answers, “You were not ignorant of God for all of creation proclaims His reality. You are to be judged on the basis of what you did with the little knowledge you had. You rejected even the little that God revealed to you. Therefore, God is just in condemning you. Guilty as charged.”

Now the second defendant steps up. He is a Jew and a moral man. His argument says this: “I reject the proposition that justification must be by faith. I don’t need God’s standards for salvation. I am moral and conform to my own standards as I think I should. I can gain salvation on the basis that I was moral and kept the standards I knew.” To this argument Paul replies, “God will judge you according to your own standards. However, you must keep those perfectly to be acceptable to God since your way of salvation makes no provision for forgiveness of sin. But you were not as good as you could have been for you did things you condemn others for doing. Therefore, God is just in condemning you. Guilty as charged.”

Now, Paul turns to the third defendant, the religious Jew. His argument is this: “I reject the fact that we must be justified by faith. As a Jew, I have many advantages. Because I am God’s chosen tool, I should be saved. God would be unjust in judging those He uses as tools in the world.” To this Paul replies, “The law was written to the Jew. But you have not kept the law. Since you refused to be God’s tool according to His revealed will, you forfeit your right to salvation on this basis. God is just in condemning you. Guilty as charged.”

So then in the first two chapters of Romans, Paul has declared that a man must be justified by faith and he has shown that neither ignorance nor morality nor the Law can provide a basis for man’s salvation.

Having shown man the extent of his lostness in chapters 1-2, Paul, in chapter 3, describes the beauty of God’s salvation by faith. Paul shows in chapter 3 that while man was as bad off as he could be and totally unable to make himself just before God, God had sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross. This death God accepted as the full payment for the sins of all men. God in this became both just and the justifier of all who place their faith in Jesus Christ. Paul here shows that man’s only hope of getting to heaven is for God to provide the way. That way, says Paul, is by faith. Man, in his hopeless position, can place his faith in Christ’s provision for sin and be totally justified by faith.

But a Jew might say, “Isn’t this a new way of salvation?” In chapter 4 Paul says, “No, for the principle of justification by faith is the glue that holds the Old Testament together.” In chapter 4, Paul gives four reasons why the Old Testament would be a pack of lies without the principle of justification by faith. “First,” says Paul, “Abraham in the Old Testament was justified by faith. Second, circumcision was a sign of faith and only has meaning if we are justified by faith. Third, the promise God gave to Abraham is made good by faith. Finally, salvation in the Law was by faith.”

So then, Paul in the first four chapters of Romans has stated the principle that the only way a man can be justified is by faith. He has shown that the means of ignorance, morality and religion are insufficient for salvation. He has clearly shown that faith is the only way sinful men could be saved and illustrated that men of all ages were saved by this same principle.

Now in chapter 5, Paul shifts his emphasis from faith to the object of our faith to show us how our salvation by faith was accomplished. In verses 1-11, Paul will show that we are brought into fellowship with God through the Person of Jesus Christ. In verses 12-21, Paul will show that the work of Christ on the cross is the only rational means of justification and that all the benefits of salvation are provided to mankind through this one act. Let’s first look at verses 1-11.

The Work of Jesus Christ
Has Brought Us Peace and Fellowship With God
(5:1-11)

Jesus Christ has given us peace with God

If someone were to ask you, “What is the most sought-after possession in the world,” what would you answer? Some would say money, some would say wisdom, some would say beauty or popularity. But if you were to analyze these, I think you’d find that it isn’t money people want but rather what they think money will get them. It isn’t wisdom or beauty or popularity but it is the security and peace people believe these things bring. But do these things really bring what they advertise? King Fasel was the most wealthy man in the world, but today his body lies in an unmarked grave. Marilyn Monroe was the beauty queen of Hollywood, but she committed suicide. Leonardo Da Vinci was the most brilliant man of the Renaissance, but he died a discouraged man having admittedly failed in finding the purpose of life.

You see, it is not money, wisdom, beauty or popularity people want most. Just ask the people who have these and you’ll see they aren’t satisfied. Rather, the most sought after thing in the world is inner peace and security. This is the real need of every person. Inner peace is not the cessation of problems on the outside. Rather, it is the ability to remain stable because you can see the end of the problems and know that you will come out on top. The problem we as individuals face is that we are not able to control our circumstances completely. Furthermore, there is someone who is in control of our circumstances—God, and if He is against us, we have no chance of having inner peace. The only way we can have inner peace then is by making peace with God, but how can men who are sinners and stand in God’s wrath become reconciled, changed, to the point that God will make peace with them? Paul tells us in Romans 5:1-2 that Jesus did this for us. He died and paid for our sins. We are then justified, as proved in chapters 1-4, by faith in Him. Now, says Paul, those who believe can and do have peace with God through what Jesus has done.

Verse two gives us a picture of how this peace with God was accomplished when it says “Through whom we have obtained our introduction.” The Greek word for introduction means “to bring to.” It is not that we went to God but rather Jesus brought us to Him and reconciled us, made us right before God by His death. Our peace with God then is not obtained on the basis of what we do but on the basis of what Christ did for us. It is in His work, not ours, that we depend for eternal life and so our peace with God can never be lost for Christ’s work is already done and will never change.

Because of our secure salvation, we can boast in three things

(1) In verse 2, Paul says we can boast in the hope of the glory of God. In chapter 3, Paul has already shown that boasting or placing confidence in man’s works is out of order. But here, he tells us we can place confidence in the hope of the glory of God. Now the biblical definition of hope is “to plan on a future that is guaranteed to us.” That future as explained in Romans 8:30 is that we will be glorified, that we will be conformed to the image of Christ. Here, Paul is saying that we can boast about this because it is accomplished by Christ and not dependent on man’s works. So we can exult or boast in our position for we are at peace with God and assured of a future of glory.

(2) In verses 3-10, Paul tells us that we can boast or exult in our pressures. The Greek word for tribulation is “pressure.” It is an outside force that pushes on you and exerts pressure on you to yield and conform to it. Paul tells us that we can exult in these pressures as believers because of what they produce. The pressures of life, says Paul, are used by God to produce perseverance. This is the quality of a person who when faced with problems he has no control over and to which his only responses are either to endure with anger or to endure with patience chooses to endure with patience. Paul goes on to say that the practice of perseverance under pressure produces in us character which has been proven. Perseverance in trials proves that the godly qualities we practice are what we really are like, rain or shine. This proof of our growth toward godliness then encourages us all the more to trust in our hope—our plans for future glory that God has guaranteed us.

But someone might ask, “How do we know we won’t be disappointed? How do we know God will bring us through our trials to be conformed to the image of Christ and be saved forever?” Paul’s answer is, “We know because of God’s love for us.” Verses 6-10 comprise a profound passage which there is not time to do justice to in a short time. Please listen as we read them together and the import of God’s word brings this truth home to you.

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His Life (Romans 5:6-10).

(3) Verse 11 gives us the third reason for boasting—that we have received reconciliation with God through the death of Jesus Christ. The word, reconciliation, means “to be changed.” Earlier in this book we learned that because of our sin, we were enemies of God. But Jesus’ death changed man as far as God was concerned. Now, God is free to be at peace with man without blighting His holy and just nature. It is important to note that the effect of Christ’s death toward man is called reconciliation—that is, that the effect was to change man in the eyes of God. The effect of Christ’s death toward God is called propitiation which means that God’s justice was totally satisfied. Reconciliation, the manward aspect of Christ’s death, is never said to save anyone. It only renders all men savable. Although as verse 10 tells us, reconciliation occurred while we were enemies, dead in our sin, 2 Corinthians 5:20 points out that we must receive that reconciliation to enjoy its benefits. (Read 2 Corinthians 5:20.)

So in verses 1-11, Paul has proclaimed that because of the object of our faith—Jesus Christ, and what He has done—we have peace with God and we can boast in our position, our pressures, and our possession of reconciliation.

Justification to All Men Comes
Through the Righteousness of One Man, Jesus Christ
(5:12-21)

Now we come to verses 12-21. We know from scripture that God, before the foundation of the earth, decided upon a specific plan of redemption and established the principles necessary for salvation. One of the principles He established as necessary for this plan was the principle of representative headship. By the term, representative headship, we mean that the actions of one man are imputed, put to the account, of those whom he represents. We practice this principle every day. The principle has both good and bad results for us and we tend to enjoy the good while seeking to deny the bad. In the United States, we are represented by our federal government. If they declare war on another country, we become enemies of that country even though we disagree with the government declaration. We have benefits from the actions of the government. We have some law and order, we have a defense against other aggressive countries, we have public roads, pot holes and all. But when April 15 rolls around, we are all ready to disclaim our relationship to our government. Nevertheless, we do have that relation and recognize it. This principle of representative or federal headship is also part of God’s plan of redemption. It is by means of this truth that Paul puts the capstone on his argument that salvation comes through the righteous act of the one man, Jesus Christ. Paul will do this by first proving the principle of headship from its bad effects and finally showing in its light the rational conclusion that salvation comes through one man.

As we begin this section there are two things to keep in mind. First, Paul has already spent four chapters establishing the necessity of faith for salvation. The word, faith, is not used again until chapter 9. It is assumed. Therefore, no statement in this section is to be assumed workable without the exercise of faith.

Second, it is important to note the emphasis of this passage. The word “one” is used twelve times in this passage and the terms “many” and “all” are used eight times. The major idea in the passage is that certain benefits or consequences come through one individual to a multiplicity of individuals. This is why Paul uses the term “the many.” What is important about this term is not the number or extent of those included but rather that there is more than one included— many are included. Now, it is clear that “the many” is in actuality “ the all” several times in the passage but this is not the point. The point is that the act of one representative was imputed to a multiplicity of individuals.

Now, let’s turn to our passage. In verses 12-21 we will see two important points made. Paul shows that the principle of representative headship is biblical. First, Paul sets out to show by the example of Adam that the principle of representative headship is biblical. (Read verses 12-14.)

First, Paul points out that sin came into the world through one man. It was not through Satan who first sinned in the creation. Neither does Paul attribute sin to women, the first human who sinned, but to Adam, a man, for as we shall see Adam’s act of sin was imputed to all mankind. Paul then notes that death entered the world through that one sin and spread to all because all sinned.

Now the question arises, “ How did all sin?” Paul’s answer is clear. He states that these were not personal sins because personal sins were not put to men’s account until the coming of the Mosaic Law. Nevertheless, men died because of their sin. The sin Paul speaks of is the sin imputed to all men because Adam, in God’s redemptive plan, was the representative head of all mankind.

Paul is saying, “There is a valid principle of headship in scripture. This is clear because we know death is a result of sin; all men before the Law died but not for their personal sins. Therefore, they died for the sin imputed to them from Adam.” So then, Paul has established that the principle of representative headship is operational in scripture.

Second, Paul points out that the basis of our faith is rational because our salvation corresponds in principle to our condemnation. Both, you see, were the result of one man’s action being put to the account of a multiplicity of persons.

Through ONE Transgression			Through ONE Righteous Act
Death came to many (v. 15)			Grace came to many (v. 15)
Condemnation came (v. 16)			Justification came (v. 16)
Death reigned (v. 17)			The righteous reign (v. 17)
All condemned (v. 18)			All justified (v. 18)
All made sinners (v.19)			All made righteous (v. 19)
ONE ACT	imputed to -------->	MULTIPLICITY	ONE ACT	imputed to -------->	MULTIPLICITY

Now we can see how verses 12-21 fit into the argument of the Book of Romans. In chapters 1-4, Paul declares and proves that justification is by faith in Christ. In chapter 5:1-11, Paul says since justification is by faith in Christ, therefore, it is He that brought us to God. Finally, in verses 12-21, Paul says since we have been justified by faith and brought to God by Him, therefore, He is our federal head just like Adam was. The implications of this are that everything He did, we did and this is the basis of chapter 6 which we will study next week.

Conclusion

So then, chapter 5 presents to us Jesus Christ, the object of our faith and declares to us that the benefits of salvation are totally the result of His righteous sacrifice as our representative head. The implication of chapter 5 is that faith is only as good as its object.

Last year, I told you the story of the robber who had been sentenced to die for his crime. While in the dungeon awaiting execution, he made a deal with his jailer through which he hoped to escape punishment. The robber was to pretend to die of sickness in his cell. The jailer would then have him buried but later come back and dig him up and the two would split the stolen money. All went as planned. The soldiers came, placed the robber in a casket with another body as was the habit of the prison to conserve work and money, and the casket was buried. The robber was elated at the ease of his escape. As he lay there chuckling to himself, his curiosity got the better of him and he pulled back the grave shroud to see who his coffin-mate was. To his horror, he discovered it was the body of the jailer who was to dig him up!

Now, I’d like to ask you, my friend, when death takes you, what are you trusting to save you from the wrath of God? Are you trusting money, beauty, wisdom, ignorance, morality, religion, good works? You see, none of these things will last any longer than you do. They will be buried with you. The only worthy object for your faith, you see, must be one who has come back from the grave and there is only one who has done this, Jesus Christ. We invite you this morning to receive your reconciliation with God by placing all your faith in the work of the one man, Jesus Christ. Then, you too, having been justified by faith, can have peace with God.

Introduction

Two extremes must always be avoided in the Christian life. The first is what has often been called ‘antinomianism’ or ‘libertinism.’ Essentially, this error centers about the concept that the best law is no law at all.

Today antinomianism is found in a number of forms. Freudian psychology advocates it backhandedly by charging that the major cause of mental and emotional problems is to be found in the unrealistic and abnormal ‘Protestant puritanical ethic.’ This type of therapy attempts to solve psychiatric problems by convincing the patient that his or her guilt is the result of unrealistic and absurd standards of conduct. The rule book is simply rewritten, or thrown out altogether. Jay Adams accuses the Freudian of making an “archaeological expedition back into the past in which a search is made for others on whom to pin the blame for the patient’s behavior.”²⁴

Orthodox Christianity has always been accused of advocating this heresy because of their conviction that men are saved totally apart from works and solely on the basis of faith. The ugly fact is that some Christians have actually advocated ‘antinomianism.’ They maintain that since we are no longer under Law, but under grace (cf. Romans 6:15), we go about our Christian lives ‘as the Spirit leads us,’ and that this leading is independent of any form of biblical absolute. Without exception, this has led to careless and sinful living.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the error of legalism. Legalism seeks to produce godliness through the keeping of a certain set of regulations and prohibitions. It equates finding favor with God with keeping the rules. Most often these rules are far more rigid than those of the Old Testament Law of Moses. In essence, legalism seeks to produce sanctification by works.

Legalism can appear to be a necessity. Put yourself in the place of the devout Jew who has been raised to revere and keep the Law. When a Jew was saved, it was only natural for him to continue to observe much of his Judaism. But when God began to save Gentiles and add them to the Jewish church to the point that they outnumbered the Jews, imagine the board meetings which these Jewish church leaders must have had. Could they trust that God would radically transform these heathen to the point that they would not undermine all that the church stood for?

Perhaps you and I could better identify if we visualized ourselves as a long-time member of a very conservative and very orthodox Bible church. Suddenly God begins to work dramatically in our community and saves dozens of hairy, unkempt, unclean hippies—and worst of all, they decide to join our church. The first Sunday they arrive in full force, and with bare feet and tattered clothes. Wouldn’t we seriously consider establishing some rules for those who were members of our church? Of course, we would. We would resort to some basic codes of conduct on the pretext of protecting the testimony of our church, and, of course, the reputation of the Lord. And, in so doing, we would have become a legalist, just as the Jewish Christians of the first century.

But legalism is both theologically and practically wrong. It not only violates the principle of grace, but it also doesn’t work. John Warwick Montgomery reports: “… ironically, therefore, separationism (we could say legalism here) usually produces exactly the evils it tries to counteract! The fundamentalist church in the town in which I grew up, by effectively keeping its young people from all forms of mixed entertainment, succeeded in having the highest illegitimate birth rate of any church in the community!”²⁵

It is this matter of legalism which Paul lays to rest in Romans 7. We have seen all men, both Jews (chapter 2) and Gentiles (chapter 1) condemned to the eternal wrath of God, for they have rejected the revelation available to them. What men could not do by their works, God did in the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (chapter 3). Justification is not by works, but on the basis of faith, just as the case of Abraham illustrated (chapter 4). Having described both the fruit and the root of justification (chapter 5), Paul moved on to the demonstration of the righteousness of God in the life of the Christian (chapters 6-8). In chapter 6, Paul established the necessity of sanctification. Theologically, it is the only practice consistent with our position in Christ, having died to sin and having been raised to newness of life in Jesus Christ (6:1-14). Practically, it is the only other alternative to the servitude of sin, for either sin or Christ will be our master (6:15-23).

In Romans 7, Paul deals with the Law and its relationship to sanctification. In verses 1-6, Paul will illustrate that we are free from the Law. In verses 7-12, Paul will come to the defense of the Law, as that which is holy, just and good. In verses 13-25, Paul will explain why it is impossible for the Christian to be sanctified by the Law. Here we will discover why legalism will never sanctify anyone.

Freedom From the Law
(7:1-6)

The first word of verse 1, ‘or,’ indicates to us how closely tied these verses are to what Paul has taught in chapter 6. Our death in Christ constituted us as dead to sin, Paul taught in chapter 6 (verses 1-12). Now Paul illustrates how our death in Christ frees us from the Law. In verse 1, we find the principle; in verses 2 and 3, we have the illustration of this principle in the realm of marriage; and in verses 4-6, we are given the application of this to our sanctification.

The Principle (v. 1). The principle is this: the Law has authority and jurisdiction only over those who are alive. By implication, then, those of us who have been reckoned dead in Christ are no longer under the authority of Law.

The Illustration (vv. 2-3). Marriage is an institution governed by Law. The Law declares a woman to be an adulteress who marries another man while her first husband remains alive. But if her husband dies, the Law which bound her to that first marriage no longer has authority over her, and thus she is free to marry the man she chooses. Death releases the married woman from the Law pertaining to marriage.

The Application (vv. 4-6). No illustration is without its shortcomings, and this one is no exception. The analogy of the married woman does not precisely correspond to the death of the Christian to the Law, for the Christian died, but in the case of the married woman, it was her husband who died. Nevertheless, the point is clear. We died in Christ to sin and to the impossible demands of the Law which condemned us to death. Our death and resurrection in Christ has freed us from the jurisdiction and authority of the Law, and we are now free to choose another master, the Lord Jesus Christ, raised from the dead,²⁶ to bear fruit unto God. How foolish to return to slavery to the Law and sin! How delightful the thought of servitude to God!

And so we see the implications of our death, burial and resurrection in Christ. We are released from the Law as a cruel taskmaster. We are free to become the servants of God.

A Defense of the Law
(7:7-12)

But hasn’t Paul gone too far? Hasn’t Paul implied that the Law is not something good, but something evil? Isn’t this precisely what his Jewish opponents accused him of doing (Acts 21:28)? Anticipating this charge, Paul asks the question for his opponent in verse 7: “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?” Paul’s response is one of sheer amazement: “May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law …” (Romans 7:1b).

To think the Law to be sinful is like calling an x-ray evil, simply because it has some kind of relationship to cancer. An x-ray is good and beneficial simply because it exposes what is fatal to man if not dealt with. So, too, the Law exposes sin in man, which must be dealt with through the blood of Jesus Christ.

In these verses, Paul gives a specific illustration from his own experience. Had the Law not forbidden coveting, Paul would not have recognized the sin of covetousness in his own heart. Sin found a handle in the life of Paul through this commandment, “You shall not covet” (Exodus 20:17). Sin took up the opportunity provided by the entrance of the Law.²⁷

Paul describes from his own experience how sin took advantage of the entrance of the Law. There are several ways of understanding what Paul describes, but the most natural explanation would seem to be that Paul relates his experience as a young Jewish boy when he became a ‘ son of the commandment’ at the age of 13. Until this time, Paul had not realized his own sin, but once he became aware of the requirement of the Law, “ Thou shall not covet,” all kinds of evil desires sprang up within him.

Apart from the Law, “sin was dead” (verse 8), not in the sense that it did not exist, but that it was inactive, until prompted by the Law. I once was given some sweet pea seeds that came originally from sweet pea seeds found in King Tut’s tomb. Now those seeds which originally came from that tomb had been dormant for thousands of years, but when they were put in the correct environment of soil and water, they sprang to life. So it is with sin. Sin had existed in the heart of Paul, but it was when he became conscious of the Law and its righteous requirements that this sin came to full bloom. The Law reveals sin.

In verses 7-12, we find a three-fold relationship between sin and the Law. (1) The Law defines sin; (2) the Law condemns sin; and (3) the Law provokes sin.

When Dan Tarbox was so ill for such a long period of time, we all knew that something was wrong, but no one knew what it was. What was needed was something that would present some symptoms or some sure indication of the source of his illness. It was an x-ray which finally exposed the growth around his lungs. Now treatment has begun. The cancer of sin would never have been exposed apart from the Law, and so the Law is revealed to be holy, and righteous, and good (verse 12).

The Real Culprit Exposed
(7:13-25)

If the Law is not the real villain of the story, what is? In verses 13-25, Paul pursues the real culprit and exposes it. In the process of putting the responsibility for evil where it belongs, Paul also continues to vindicate the Law as holy and good. Verse 13 raises the same basic question in slightly altered form: “Are we to say then that this good thing was the death of me?” (NEB). The essence of the question is this: All right, so the Law is not intrinsically evil. Nevertheless, it is responsible for death, isn’t it? Paul’s summary answer is that sin’s use of that which is really and truly good to bring about death is more proof of the exceeding wickedness of sin.

When I taught school in a state penitentiary in Washington, I had a young inmate tell me that he was certain that the study of psychology would be beneficial to him, even in the practice of crime. In fact, this young man was preparing to set up a consulting service in crime. He was learning all he could while in prison so that he could establish a business which would lay out bank robberies and the like for the less talented criminals. And for his services, he would of course charge a fee. Now we should not say that education was the real culprit, but rather that this man’s misuse of what is basically good shows him to be a real scoundrel.

Atomic energy is basically good, and it can be used to save countless lives and benefit millions. But when it is misused to destroy lives more quickly and efficiently than ever before dreamed, this tells us of the wretchedness which is within men, not about any evil in atomic energy. Sex is holy and good in terms of the purposes for which it was created by God. Men have abused and perverted it, and this reveals to us the wickedness of men.

So the Law is holy, righteous and good, and its misuse only proves the exceeding wickedness of sin.

When we come to the matter of sanctification, or the outworking of the righteousness of God in the life of the Christian, the root problem is not the Law itself, but that which makes the Law weak, the flesh. The problem of our sanctification is not to be found in the Law, but in man himself. Verses 13-25 reveal to us (1) the condition of the Christian; (2) the conflict in the Christian; and (3) the conclusions of Paul’s argumentation. Let’s look at these more closely.

The Condition of the Christian.²⁸ The problem of the Christian is that he has within him two natures, each drawing him in a different direction. The sin nature Paul calls the ‘old man’ (Romans 6:6) or the ‘flesh’ (Romans 7:14,18). This nature is diametrically opposed to the new man, the new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and the Spirit of God (Galatians 5:17). Although the ‘old self’ has positionally been put to death in Christ, it is practically very much alive and well in the saint, prompting him to continue in sin. The normal Christian experience is to progressively lay aside the characteristics of this old self and to put on the qualities of the new man in Christ (Colossians 3:10ff.). The challenge of the New Testament epistles is to become what we are, and to lay aside what we were.

The Conflict of the Christian. The resulting dilemma of the Christian is that he finds himself torn in opposite directions. To every decision there are two opposing choices, two desires. The Christian is a virtual battleground on which two opposing forces wage a life and death struggle. The inner man or the new creation desires to serve God, but finds himself frustrated by the fact that the flesh, the old man, is dominated and permeated with sin. What he desires to do, he cannot. What Paul despises as a Christian, he does anyway.

Many have sought to avoid the obvious by insisting that these verses which describe this great conflict within the apostle depict a struggle in the apostle before his conversion. Let me mention several facts which leave no room for this explanation:

(1) The context is one of sanctification, not salvation. What purpose would a description of Paul’s preconversion struggles serve in the context of living out the righteousness of Christ as a Christian? The context demands that Paul’s struggle be the struggle of the saint, trying to live a godly life.

(2) There is a conflict. Conflict and agony over the commission of sin is not the experience of the unbeliever. Paul agrees with the Law; he desires to do what is right and pleasing to God. This is not the desire of the unbeliever. Paul hates the evil which he does. Can this be the case with the unsaved? The only sensible explanation for this struggle is that Paul struggled as a Christian.

(3) The change in tense supports Paul’s struggle as a Christian. When Paul spoke of the way the coming of the Law awakened sin like a sleeping giant in verses 7-11, the tenses of the verbs were past. But in his description of his struggle with sin, they are all present: “… the Law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh …” (Romans 7:14). The only reason for a change in tense is to make it plain that Paul now spoke of his struggle in the matter of sanctification.

(4) Our experience as a Christian corresponds to Paul’s. I have not known of a Christian who has not found real identification with the apostle in the struggle which he describes. Our experience as Christians trying to live godly lives perfectly fits that of Paul in these verses.

Some have tried another explanation to avoid admitting that Paul as a mature Christian could have such spiritual struggles with sin. They acknowledge that Paul is a believer here, but a carnal one. This was Paul in his early days as a Christian. They would say that every Christian must pass through Romans 7 in order to reach the victory of chapter 8. Now I would agree that before victory comes struggle, but I have to maintain that this struggle never ends in this life, and that the victories won are far from decisive or conclusive. I would agree with Stott when he states:

… this is the conflict of a Christian man, who knows the will of God, loves it, wants it, yearns to do it, but who finds that still by himself he cannot do it. His whole being (his mind and his will) is set upon the will of God and the Law of God. He longs to do good. He hates to do evil—hates it with holy hatred. And if he does sin, it is against his mind, his will, his consent; it is against the whole tenor of his life. Herein lies the conflict of the Christian.²⁹

My friend, you and I will never get out of Romans 7 in this life. Hopefully, the old man will be progressively defeated, but he will not be irradicated until we leave this earthly tabernacle. I suspect that most of us have figured this out for ourselves already, but it is still so. That is why Paul concludes with a word of victory, combined with a description of continual struggle in verse 25: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.”

The promise of Romans 8:1 is not that of no more sin, but of no more condemnation. No one would delight more than I in the total irradication of sin in this life, but no one is more convinced that it has not happened, and according to the Word of God, it shall not happen. No condemnation. That’s a promise we can live with!

Conclusions

There are two major conclusions which Paul drives home in chapter 7:

(1) The Law is holy, righteous, and good. The Law is good because it reveals the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. The Law drives us to Christ. The Law is also good, for I in my inner man agree with it and want to abide by it.

(2) The Law can never sanctify the Christian because of the weakness of the flesh. The Law cannot and does not subdue our sinful nature; it stimulates it. The only cure for the flesh is death, and this has already taken place on the cross. The power to live the Christian life is not found within myself, but in the Holy Spirit of God. This is the message of chapter 8.

Application

(1) We must come to understand that sanctification, like justification, is the work of God. The greatest need of the sinner is to realize his utter depravity and the fact that he is hopelessly lost. Justification is the work of God on behalf of man, which is received by faith, apart from works. The greatest need of the saint is that he is totally incapable of living a life pleasing to God in the power of the flesh. He must then come to realize that in Christ, he died to sin and was raised to newness of life, and that God makes this possible through the work of the Holy Spirit.

(2) We must realize that the road to spiritual power is through self-despair.³⁰ As Stott has said, man’s great problem has been too high an opinion of himself. And yet, in spite of this, so many today are appealing to Christians to live the Christian life in their own strength. The emphasis of most revivals, and nearly all re-dedication pleas is the emphasis of self. Sanctification is presented as the certain result of following a few simple steps. That is not, in my estimation, the teaching of the Word of God. The Christian life is a life of continual struggle, of victories and defeats, and Christian victory comes only when we totally distrust self, and rely on the provision of God. How frequently we throw works out the front door of justification, and invite them in the back door of sanctification.

(3) We should gain from Romans 7 a biblical understanding of the Law. The Law is not evil, but good. The Law has several functions. It was never given to save or to sanctify, but rather to reveal our sin and to drive us to Christ. It is as valid today and a standard of righteousness as it was in the Old Testament days. It reveals to us the righteousness and holiness of God (Hebrews 12:18, 29; Deuteronomy 28:58). In the New Testament, both the motive for keeping the Law, and the method of doing so have changed. The motive for Law-keeping is not in order to be saved or sanctified, but in order to bring honor and glory to the God we serve. The Method of Law-keeping is not that of self-works, but the provision of the power of the Holy Spirit. Freedom from the Law as a master does not mean the Law is evil; it simply means the Law is powerless because of the weakness of the flesh. The Law drives us to Christ, and Christ delivers us from sin.

24 Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), p. 6.

25 John Warwick Montgomery, Principalities and Powers (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1973), p. 170.

26 The implication is that since Christ is risen from the dead, no more to die, this union between Christ and the Christian is eternal, as opposed to that of a man and a woman in marriage.

27 The word ‘opportunity’ in verse 8 is used in the ancient Greek in a military sense of a ‘a base of operations’ and in a literary sense, ‘to take a hint.’ The Law gives sin the opportunity it has been waiting for. Cf. William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), p. 179.

28 This three-fold analysis of this section is adapted from the excellent exposition of Romans 5-8 by John R. W. Stott, Men Made New (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1966), pp. 75-76.

29 Stott, p. 76. Notice also this quotation of a statement by Dr. Alexander Whyte, who said: “As often as my attentive bookseller sends me on approval another new commentary on Romans, I immediately turn to the seventh chapter. And if the commentator sets up a man of straw in the seventh chapter, I immediately shut the book. I at once send the book back and say ‘No, thank you. That is not the man for my hard-earned money.’” Quoted by F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963), p. 151.

30 Stott, p. 74.

Introduction

If Romans 8 has the distinction of being the high-water mark of the New Testament, chapter 9 has the dubious honor of teaching one of the most emotionally volatile doctrines of all the Bible, that of election. This chapter is so troublesome to some Bible teachers that they would prefer it not to be in Scripture. One of the pastors I regard most highly in terms of his ministry in my life told me that he would try not to teach on chapter 9, even if he were teaching through the Book of Romans chapter by chapter.

Romans 9 is vitally important to the Christian, not only in the sense that it provides a basis for the theological doctrine of election, but in that it has great bearing on our spiritual life. If salvation finds its origin in the will of the creature, rather than in the will of the Creator, then I can never be fully assured of my salvation, for I may someday lose my faith in God, or I may decide to reject my faith altogether. If the salvation of others is not in the control of God, then I have little reason to pray for the salvation of the lost.

But if salvation finds its origin in the will of God, then I know that I am forever secure as a Christian, for even though I may change, God is immutable. Since it was He Who purposed my salvation and He cannot change, then my salvation is as certain as the One Who is its source. If salvation is that which is determined by God, then I may come to Him in prayer with the confidence that He is both able to save, and that He takes pleasure in saving as well as in answering my prayers.

Romans 9–11 were vitally important to the apostle Paul as he penned this epistle. Paul was a Jew—today we would call him a fulfilled or completed Jew, but a Jew just the same. Paul had taught that the Christian faith was no innovation, certainly not opposed to Old Testament revelation, but rather the fulfillment of all that the Jews had hoped for. In chapter 4 Paul taught that Abraham himself was saved by faith and not by works, and that the kind of faith required for salvation today is precisely the same kind as that exercised by Abraham.

But herein lies Paul’s problem. If the gospel which Paul preached was the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament anticipated, then why was it that the Jews were missing out on its blessings? Why were scores of Gentiles who never had this hope coming to Christ while the vast majority of the Jews were still unbelieving, failing to realize the blessings of God?

Beyond this there is the question of the righteousness and integrity of God, for it would appear that He has purposed that which He failed to bring to pass. Then, too, the reliability of the Word of God is not beyond question, for all that the Old Testament promised to the Jew seemingly is being frustrated. To this problem, the apostle devotes himself for the next three chapters.

It must be emphasized here that chapters 9–11 are a package, and that the answer to the dilemma of the unbelief of Israel cannot be adequately answered by any one of these three chapters. Chapter 9 speaks to the unbelief of Israel by stating that God did not purpose to save all Israel. In other words, God didn’t choose those who disbelieve. In chapter 10 Paul presses on to state that neither did Israel choose God. In chapter 11 Paul shows how God purposed the unbelief of Israel to accomplish the salvation of the Gentiles, and that the hopes of the nation Israel are yet to be fulfilled, for the unbelief of Israel is neither complete nor permanent.

Romans 9:1-5 pose the problem which underlies the entire section. Why is Israel in unbelief in spite of all the privileges they experienced in the past, and in spite of the promise of blessing for the future? Verses 6-13 answer the question by insisting that God never promised these blessings to every physical descendent of Abraham, but only to those who were children of Abraham by faith. If the masses of the nation Israel are not saved because they are not elect, then there are two objections to the doctrine of election which must be responded to: the charge of injustice (verses 14-18) and the claim that man is therefore not accountable before God (verses 19-23). Paul concludes by turning the tables and asserting that the Word of God, far from being frustrated by the unbelief of Israel, was being fulfilled (verses 24-29).

The Problem Posed:
Why Has Israel Failed in Spite of All Her Privileges?
(9:1-5)

Paul’s Sincere Sorrow (vv. 1-3). The charge of the Jewish community against the apostle was that he was no friend of theirs. They claimed that the gospel which Paul preached was opposed to all that Israel had stood for and hoped for. Paul does not begin to deal with the dilemma of the Jews until he has established the fact that he is no enemy, but a grieving friend; in fact, if he could do so he would be willing to suffer the wrath of God for his people if by this means they could be brought to salvation (v. 3).

Israel’s Failure Highlighted By Her Privileges (vv. 4-5). Israel’s unbelief was not so much to be considered ‘because of’ as ‘in spite of,’ for she had privileges no other nation could claim. They were ‘Israelites,’ and as such they could claim these seven particulars. (1) They could claim national adoption (cf. Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1); (2) they were eye witnesses of the revelation of God’s glory, such as the splendor of the theophanies and the shekinah glory; (3) they were the beneficiaries of the divine covenant⁴⁶ made by God with His people; (4) they were the recipients and custodians of the Law of God given at Sinai; (5) they had the privilege of the temple service, the “prescriptions for divine worship”;⁴⁷ (6) they also were the recipients of the many promises of God, many of which were yet future; and (7) they had a lineage that any nation could be proud of; their forefathers were the patriarchs, and they were the nation through whom the Messiah came.

In spite of these great privileges the Jews as a nation were not experiencing the blessings which one might rightfully expect. It is not explicitly stated but Israel’s problem is the widespread unbelief and failure to arrive at the blessings which they had been waiting for.⁴⁸

Although Israel Has Failed, God’s Word Has Not
(9:6-13)

On the surface of the issue it might seem to some that Israel’s failure is to be explained as God’s failure—that it is really the Word of God that has failed, since what it appears to have promised has not come to realization. Paul approaches the problem by first of all clarifying just what the Scriptures promised. The error of assuming God’s Word to be at fault is two-fold. First of all the Scriptures never promised blessing to every physical descendent of Abraham. Second, the basis of God’s blessing is not to be found in one’s physical relationship to a particular forefather, but rather to one’s spiritual relationship to God by faith.

As Paul introduces the subject of election, there is something we are to understand about it. The devout, but unbelieving, Jew not only delighted in it, but depended on it. The Jew was a devout believer in the doctrine of election—that is the doctrine of corporate election. They relished the thought that God had selected them from all the nations of the earth to be the recipients of all the blessings and privileges described by Paul in verses 4 and 5. They had no problem in viewing all the other nations as the ‘non-elect.’ They were perfectly content to relegate the heathen to hell.

Paul uses the theological position of the Jews as the starting point of his argumentation, but he presses their theology much farther than they intended. He takes the principle of election which they accepted on a national level, and applies it on an individual level.⁴⁹ If Israel could delight in their national election, then their dilemma of why so many Israelites disbelieved could be explained on the basis of individual election. Why were so many Jews failing to arrive at God’s promised blessings? Because God hadn't chosen them to be blessed by salvation. While Israel’s erroneous claim on God’s blessing was based upon their ancestry and their works, the cause of blessing was God’s calling by free choice. Such a claim must be documented, so Paul turns to the example in Israel’s history of Isaac and Jacob.

The Example of Isaac, Not Ishmael (vv. 7-9). If blessing was guaranteed by physical relationship to Abraham, then many Gentiles would have the same claim as did the Jews for Abraham was the father of more than just Isaac. Ishmael would have equal claim to the blessings of the Jews if physical lineage was the sole cause of blessing. But as the Scriptures stipulated: “Through Isaac your descendants will be named” (Romans 9:7b, Genesis 21:12). Ishmael was the result of Abraham’s feeble efforts to bring about what God had promised, but Isaac was the product of God’s work in fulfillment of His promise of a son.

The Example of Jacob, Not Esau (vv. 10-13). To some, the example of Isaac might not be convincing because each child had a different mother. If this is a problem, it will be swept away by the example of Jacob and Esau, for they had the same father and mother; in fact, they were the offspring of the same conception, since they were twins.

Surely all must grant that God specified the blessing to come through the seed of Jacob, and not Esau. This confirms again that the blessings of God do not belong to men purely on the basis of origin. But what is the basis of God’s designation of Jacob over Esau? The Jews would claim that it was because of some obligation which God had to Jacob, but the Genesis narrative does not support such a claim. God’s choice was not conditioned by any human activity or instrumentality, but was determined solely on the free choice of God.

God’s choice was apart from custom or tradition, for tradition would have granted supremacy to the first-born child, Esau. Neither was God’s choice influenced by any good which would be done by Jacob, or any evil done by Esau, for Paul insists, “For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls” (Romans 9:11).

Of course, God knew what Jacob and Esau would do, but His choice was not a result of this knowledge. Indeed God’s choice of Jacob was in spite of such knowledge, for he was a rascal.⁵⁰

What, then, was the basis of God’s choice of Jacob over Esau? God acted not out of any obligation, but rather out of His sovereignty, and thus chose freely on the basis of His own will. The election of God is not based upon the works of the individual, but on the will of God. “… in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls” (Romans 9:11b). As the Scripture says, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13, Malachi 1:2f).⁵¹

Let us be sure we fully understand what Paul has said about divine election, for there are many misconceptions of this doctrine. Some would explain election in this way: God is voting for us; Satan, against us; and we must break the tie. Others have said that God has determined a certain number of elect, but not the specific individuals—that is up to us. Others seem to say that God has elected us ‘in Christ’ and therefore, whoever are in Christ are the elect. Again, this leaves the ultimate determination of who the elect will be to the elect themselves. This is the position, apparently, of W. B. Riley, when he states, “The soul’s election depends upon the soul’s choice. Thou, my friend are the only person who can settle this question of election. It is not settled in Heaven; it is settled on earth. It is not settled of the Lord; it is settled by man.”⁵²

Even a casual reading of Romans 9 demands that we hold an entirely different position than those just mentioned, for the election of men to eternal salvation is the work of God, and I am grateful for it. If my election depended upon me casting my vote in favor of God, I would be forever damned, for my unregenerate will would always vote against God, for as an unbeliever I was dead in my sins, and by nature God’s enemy and a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 3:10-18). No other kind of election could be attributed to a God Who is truly sovereign than that which is described by Paul in Romans 9, for sovereignty implies absolute freedom and complete independence of action. God’s decisions are not contingent upon ours. Our decisions are contingent upon His.

Here, then, is the answer to the problem of Jewish unbelief. Israel’s unbelief was not a failure of the Word of God, but an outworking of the will of God. Israel failed because God willed it so. God’s reason for Israel’s unbelief will be explained in chapter 11, but for now we must accept the fact that God, far from being obliged to bless every Jew on the basis of his ancestry, is free to choose whomever He wills and to reject whom He wills. Such was evident from God’s previous dealings with the nation.

Election Defended
(9:14-23)

Perhaps one of the strongest lines of evidence for election being defined as God’s absolutely free choice of those who will be saved is to be found in verses 14 and 19. In these verses, two objections to what Paul has taught about election are raised. The first is, “It isn’t fair!,” and the second is “It (unbelief) isn’t my fault!” Now neither of these objections are valid unless Paul has indeed taught that God chooses men on the basis of His own free will, apart from man’s will or his works. If Paul wasn’t teaching the doctrine of election, then all he had to do was to answer these questions by saying, “You have completely misunderstood what I have been saying.” The fact that he answers these objections demands that we understand Paul’s teaching just as his objectors did—that of an act of God independent of men.

In fact, it is interesting that every time I have had the occasion to teach the doctrine of election it has never failed that the same objections that are raised in verses 14 and 19 are raised from the audiences I teach. It is, therefore, vital that we come to understand Paul’s defense of his position on the doctrine of election, for we, too, will need to use these same lines of defense to answer our objectors.

(1) It Isn’t Fair (vv. 14-18). Do you mean to tell me that if God has chosen me to be saved I will be saved in spite of myself, and that if God has not chosen me, there is no hope for my salvation? Why that isn’t fair at all! Why should one person go to heaven and another go to Hell, just on the whim of God. Put in its simplest form that is the objection of verse 14: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (Romans 9:14). The problem is that the objector is arguing the point of justice, while Paul is speaking of mercy. Justice speaks of men getting what is rightfully theirs. God’s justice has already been discussed in chapters 1-3. The justice of God demands that the death penalty be paid by every man, woman, and child, for, “There is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10). If we demand that God be just and just alone then every soul would spend eternity in Hell.

Election has nothing to do with justice, it is a matter of mercy. We are speaking of the grace of God when we speak of election. Mercy withholds punishment which is rightfully deserved. The guilty criminal cries for mercy before his judge. Grace goes even beyond mercy in that it bestows that which is completely undeserved. Any man whom God chooses to save is a man who deserves to die, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). The penalty which should be paid by the elect sinner has been paid by the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. In addition to this, this sinner is declared righteous in the Person of Jesus Christ, and he is made a son of God and a co-heir with Christ (Romans 8:15-17). This is grace!

As someone has rightly said, “The question should not be, ‘Why has God not saved all men?,’ but ‘Why has God saved any?’” We do not deserve the grace of God, and we dare not call God unjust because He has withheld His grace from some and bestowed it upon others. I believe it was Bill Gothard who used the illustration (to prove a different point) of a man who walks down our block giving out $1000 bills—to every other house. Now what right do we have, if we have been passed over, to confront this man and charge him with injustice? How much time would a police officer give us if we tried to file a formal complaint? The issue is not one of justice, but one of grace.⁵³ God is absolutely free to bestow His grace on whomever He chooses, and He is not one whit guilty of injustice for withholding it from any or all men.

Paul illustrates this point by contrasting God’s activity in the lives of two men who were contemporaries of each other, Moses and Pharaoh. To Moses, God exercised mercy, and toward Pharaoh God exercised His justice. God was just in both cases, and interestingly, God used both men to further His purposes. God raised up Moses to be a deliverer of His people and a type of Messiah to come. God raised up⁵⁴ Pharaoh to display His great power and to proclaim His glory: “For 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” (Romans 9:17).

Stifler reminds us that, “God’s glory is promoted in the overthrow of a sinner as much as in saving one.”⁵⁵

To press this point further, the hardening of Pharaoh was an act of grace so far as the Jews were concerned, for it provided the occasion of their release. All Moses had asked for initially was to let the people of Israel go into the wilderness for a time to worship God (cf. Exodus 5:1). The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart occasioned the ten plagues, which more than answered the challenge of Pharaoh, “ Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?” (Exodus 5:2). More than this, his unbelief brought about the release of the nation from its bondage. This is precisely what the unbelief of Israel is accomplishing today.⁵⁶

(2) It Isn’t My Fault (vv. 18-23). But doesn’t the case of Pharaoh raise another problem? If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that He accomplished His purposes, if God is truly sovereign and His will is inevitable, then how can He blame us for our rebellion? Far worse than the charge often heard, ‘the devil made me do it,’ is the protest found here, ‘God made me do it.’

This question Paul refuses to answer immediately and reserves his response to the charge until the next two chapters. What Paul does attack vigorously is the attitude which occasions such a response. “Do you realize, O man, what you are doing?” “You, have set yourself above God, and have gone far beyond your privileges as a mere creature, to challenge the Creator of the universe!” “You’re completely out of line!”

I am reminded of the Book of Job where Job begins to challenge the wisdom and the justice of God in dealing with him as He had. The final chapters record for us the rebuke of God, the Creator, of a mere creature. “Where were you, Job, when I placed the heavens?” “What part did you have in the creation of the universe?” “What did you contribute to My works?” It is at this point that Job places his hand over his mouth and remains silent.

It is at this point that Paul has figuratively placed his hand over the mouth of the objector, reminded him of who he is, and more important, Who he is objecting to. God is the potter; we are the clay. God is just in disposing of us just as He wills. And we have no right to challenge His sovereignty, but we must submit to it or be crushed by it. We can be either a Moses or a Pharaoh. As a Moses we are the recipients of God’s grace, and we are vessels which God will employ to demonstrate His mercy. If we rebel we will be used as Pharaoh, and by our hardening we will be vessels by which God will reveal His wrath on sin. Either way, God is free to dispose of His creatures, and either way we will bring glory to Him. But, oh, what a difference for us!

I am fascinated by Paul’s reference to the fact that both vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath are made from the same lump. The same lump (Romans 9:21) is not the lump of innocent and deserving individuals, but the same barrel of rotten apples.⁵⁷ Each of us deserve the wrath of God, but God has delayed His judgment of all in order to reveal His mercy toward some.

Just as God had chosen to bestow His blessings on the nation Israel, now He is blessing the Gentiles. Just as He once selected individual Jews to receive His grace, so He is choosing out some of the Gentiles for blessing as well (Romans 9:23).

God’s Word Is Not Being Frustrated, But Rather Fulfilled
(9:24-29)

The original charge (v. 6) was that the Word of God was somehow failing due to the failure of the nation Israel to turn to her Messiah and her blessings. After correcting a misconception as to the basis for blessing (not physical descent, but faith; not on the basis of man’s will or works, but on the basis of God’s sovereign will) in verses 6-13, and then answering certain objections (verses 14-23), Paul now concludes this section by reminding his readers that both the hardening of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles was foretold in the Old Testament. The point is not that the Scriptures have been frustrated by Israel’s unbelief, but that they have been fulfilled. This Paul proceeds to show by quoting several Old Testament passages.

Salvation of Gentiles Foretold (vv. 24-26). Verse 24 returns the focus to the question at hand, the unbelief of many Jews and the salvation of many Gentiles. God’s choice of vessels of mercy was not intended to come only from the nation Israel, but from the Gentiles as well. The prophet Hosea spoke of this when he wrote: “I will call those who were not my people, ‘My people,’ and her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’ And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ There they shall be called sons of the Living God” (Romans 9:25, 26; Hosea 2:23; 1:10).

Hosea was the prophet who was to marry a harlot. His relationship with his adulterous wife was a picture of Israel’s infidelity to God. Because of the infidelity of Israel, God disowned them, so that they were no longer His people. But God also promised that after their chastening He would once again draw them to Himself and call them His people.

Technically, this passage referred to God’s relationship to Israel. But Paul saw in this passage a principle. This principle was that God was going to restore to Himself a people that was not His own (just as Israel had become). This principle could equally apply to the Gentiles as it could to the adulterous nation Israel.⁵⁸

A Remnant in Israel Promised (vv. 27-29). In verses 27-29, Paul turns to the prophet Isaiah to show that God’s judgment demanded severe punishment on disobedient Israel, so that the vast majority of the nation would perish. But in this message of punishment was a ray of hope, for God promised to preserve a remnant, and in this remnant rested Israel’s hopes for future blessing.

The context of Isaiah’s prophecy was that of the apostasy of the northern kingdom of Israel and the judgment of God through the Assyrians. Although God’s judgment was devastating (‘quick and thorough,’ v. 28), there was the promise of the preservation of a small remnant, without which Israel’s hopes would have been destroyed.⁵⁹

Again in this passage, Paul deals with the presumption of the Jews exhibited in the opening verses of this chapter that God was obliged to save all Israel. These verses in Isaiah confirm Paul’s contention that God’s covenant promise never contemplated the salvation of all Israel.

Summary

Why were so many Israelites failing to experience the blessing of God? Why were the Gentiles finding this blessing? Because the sovereign God is not obligated to choose on the basis of works or on the basis of ethnic origin. Just as God elected to bless the nation Israel above others, just as God chose Jacob and not Esau, Moses and not Pharaoh, so He has chosen only a remnant of the Israelites at the present time, while He is calling out a people to Himself from the Gentiles as well. God is not unjust in choosing some and rejecting others because it is an issue of grace and mercy, not justice. We dare not question the choices of the sovereign God lest we step far beyond our prerogatives as mere creatures. Even in the Old Testament, the things which are now taking place were predicted in principle.

Conclusion and Application

There is much more at stake in these crucial verses than the defense of some theological doctrine, although that is certainly important. There is at stake the character of God and our proper attitude toward His sovereignty.

We should not leave this chapter without a spirit of wonder and adoration. We dare not focus on the question, “Why not others?,” but should exclaim “Why me!” The wonder of it all is that God chose us by His own free will, and in spite of what we are or will become. What a keynote for worship!

The doctrine of election is a doctrine of grace and of salvation. We should look on the bright side of it, and not endeavor to look on the dark side of it. The great Calvinist, Benjamin B. Warfield, underscored this when he wrote,

When Christ stood at the door of Lazarus’ tomb and cried, ‘Lazarus, come forth!’ only Lazarus, of all the dead that lay in the gloom of the grave that day in Palestine, or throughout the world, heard his mighty voice which raises the dead, and came forth. Shall we say that the election of Lazarus to be called forth from the tomb consigned all this immense multitude of the dead to hopeless, physical decay? It left them no doubt in the death in which they were holden and to all that comes out of this death. But it was not it which brought death upon them, or which kept them in its power. When God calls out of the human race, lying dead in their trespasses and sins, some here, some there, some everywhere, a great multitude which no man can number, to raise them by his almighty grace out of their death in sin and bring them to glory, his electing grace is glorified in the salvation it works it has nothing to do with the death of the sinner, but only with the living again of the sinner whom it calls into life. The one and single work of election is salvation.⁶⁰

Second, we should look at this doctrine of election as one of great comfort for it instructs us that our salvation is the work of God, that our salvation was initiated by an act of God and not by the activity of man. Our salvation is as secure as its foundations, and, my friend, there is no surer foundation for our salvation than the elective will of God. My will can change, but God’s cannot. Therefore, my salvation is as secure and certain as the immutability of God. If He does not change (and so the Scriptures say, James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8), then my salvation is secure, for it began with His will and it rests on His immutability.

There should be comfort as well as far as our unbelieving friends and loved ones are concerned. If the salvation of my friends and loves ones depends either on my ability to convince and persuade, or their willingness to receive the gospel, Heaven help us. But if their salvation is in the hands of God, I have every reason for encouragement. First of all, God is able to save. Second, God is desirous to save (1 Timothy 2:4). Third, God loves to answer the prayers of His children. I would much prefer to plead with God for the salvation of the lost, than to rely on myself or on the receptivity of the lost.

I will never forget an experience I had when I was preaching on the East coast several years ago. I went to a certain church to preach and to consider ministering there. Before I went, I warned these Christians that I was a thoroughgoing Calvinist. They said in effect, “That’s okay, some of our best friends are Calvinists.” When I arrived, I was quickly taken to lunch with the leading man in the church movement in that area, and he was a believer only in eternal security—we would call him a one-point Calvinist. He refused to accept man’s total depravity, unconditional election, and so on. When he began to put me through my paces, I turned the argument on him and asked him this question, “Brother, why do you pray for the salvation of the lost? If your doctrine is true, then God has already done all that He can so far as man’s salvation is concerned. He died on the cross to make salvation possible for all who decide to vote for God. For what then do you pray, since God has done all He can and the rest is between you and the lost?”

How wonderful it is to know that God has not only made salvation possible, but that God actually saves men.

Now it is possible that you are thinking to yourself fatalistically, just as the objector in verse 19. If I am not saved, it is really God’s fault and there is nothing I can do about it. And furthermore, there is no sense trying to be a Christian either, because if I am elect I will be saved in spite of myself. God forbid! I must give you enough of a preview of chapter 10 to remind you that the reason you will go to hell is because you have refused to believe in Christ as your Savior. No one has or will ever come to Him for forgiveness of sins and eternal life who will be turned away. Our Lord Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).

The apostle Paul wrote in chapter 10, “For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). If you have never come to trust in Jesus Christ for your eternal forgiveness and salvation, trust in Him just now. We are saved by ‘calling on the name of the Lord,’ by acknowledging our sin and His righteousness in the Person of Jesus Christ. We are saved by trusting in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on our behalf, apart from any contribution we could ever hope to make. And, ultimately, we are saved because God in His grace chose to open our hearts to respond to the gospel (Acts 16:14).

Finally, it would seem to me that there is nothing quite so telling about the spiritual condition of the Christian as his response to the sovereignty of God. The reason why so many Christians are repulsed by the doctrine of God’s sovereignty is that this is not really the kind of God they want. They want a god of their own making, rather than a God Who is supreme and sovereign.

Ultimately, to reject the sovereignty of God is to express our own depravity and sinfulness. We do not like to think of a God Who is in complete control over us. We want to be the ‘captain of our souls’ and the ‘master of our fate.’ My exhortation to each of us is, ‘let God be God.’ And thank God that He is Who He is, sovereign, holy, immutable, and not subject to the whims of mankind. To God be the glory!

46 “There is very weighty evidence (P. 46, B,D, etc.) for the singular reading ‘the covenant,’ in which case the covenant at Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 8) would be meant. But the plural should probably be preferred (cf. Eph. ii. 12); ‘the covenants’ will then include those made by God with Abraham (Gn. xv. 18, xvii. 4ff.), with Israel in the days of Moses (Ex. xxiv. 8, xxxiv. 10; Dt. xxix. 1ff.) and Joshua (Dt. xxvii. 2ff.; Jos. viii. 30ff., xxiv. 25), and with David (2 Sa. xxiii. 5; Ps. lxxxix. 28); not to mention the new covenant, promised in the first instance to ‘the house of Israel and … the house of Judah’ (Je. xxxi. 31).” F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963), p. 185.

47 Ibid., p. 185.

48 We should not pass by verse 5 without noting the fact that this verse is perhaps the clearest statement from the pen of Paul on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sanday and Headlam, after considerable discussion, affirm: “in these circumstances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alternative and translate ‘Of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’” William Sanday, and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1968, reprint), p. 238.

49 It is assumed by this writer that although Paul’s starting point is that of national election, he shortly presses to individual election. This view is supported by many commentators. Murray deals with this question extensively and concludes that the election of which Paul speaks is individual for several reasons: (1) Paul’s use of the terms ‘election’ and ‘purpose’ in other passages is clearly soteriological. (2) Corporate election doesn’t answer the question Paul has raised, only individual election does. (3) In Romans 11:5, 7 the same term ‘election’ is used in contrast with ‘hardening’ and there election is clearly referring to individual salvation. (4) The clause ‘not of works, but of him that calleth’ refers to the effectual calling of the sinner to salvation through the work of Christ. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), Vol. II, pp. 15-20.

Note also this comment by Stifler: “The subject is not one about nations, but about individuals, not one about ethnic supremacy or leadership, but about personal salvation.” James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960), p. 164.

50 “The selection then, was not made either on the ground of their character or on the ground of their works. To say that God foresaw the good character and good works of Jacob is to impart an idea that is repugnant to the logic of the statement here made by Paul and contradicted by the subsequent facts. Jacob’s history does not show him to be a better man morally than his brother; his very name indicates his character. … Human merit, present or foreseen, does not enter into God’s choice.” Stifler, p. 161.

51 “We must, therefore, recognize that there is in God a holy hate that cannot be defined in terms of not loving or loving less. Furthermore, we may not tone down the reality or intensity of this hate by speaking of it as ‘anthropopathic’ or by saying that it ‘refers not so much to the emotion as to the effect.’ The case is rather, as in all virtue, that this holy hate in us is patterned after holy hate in God.” Murray, Vol. II, p. 22. These words are a summary of Murray’s excellent argument on this point in pages 21-24.

52 Quoted by Samuel Fisk, Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Bros, Inc., 1973) p. 15.

53 “God’s grace is far wider than anyone could have dared to hope, but just because it is grace, no-one is entitled to it, and no-one can demand that God should give an account of the principles on which He bestows His grace, or that He should bestow it otherwise than in fact He does. Grace in its sovereignty may impose conditions, but it cannot be made subject to them.” F. F. Bruce, p. 191.

54 “In view of the preceding verse (Exod. 9:15), the verse quoted could be understood of the preservation of Pharaoh from being cut off from the earth in that particular instance by the pestilence of boils. But the term that Paul uses here, ‘raise up,’ is one that is used in the Greek Old Testament in the sense of raising up on the scene of history for a particular purpose (cf. Numb. 24:19; II Sam. 12:11; Job 5:11; Hab. 1:6. Zech. 11:16)” Murray, Vol. II, p. 27.

55 Stifler, p. 164.

56 “Historically, Pharaoh supplied the occasion for the deliverance of the people; if there had been no ‘Pharaoh of the oppression’ there would have been no ‘Exodus, and the proclamation of the Exodus (in Scripture, and in the Passover service) would never have taken place. Paul’s interpretation of this history is as clear as the history itself, though it involves the transference of imagery from Pharaoh to Israel. In the present time, Israel (like Pharaoh in his) exists for a double purpose, (i) to provide the occasion or context for a divine act of deliverance—that in which men are freed from the law, and thereby from sin and death; (ii) to act so as to cause the publication of God’s act of deliverance through all the world—which took place precisely because Israel rejected the Gospel (xi. 11, 15, 19, 25). Thus, as Pharaoh’s plans were overruled to God’s ends, so Israel’s self-will is to be overruled to God’s ends; and his ends are merciful.” C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York, Harper and Row, 1957), pp. 186-187.

57 “It must be borne in mind, however, that Paul is not now dealing with God’s sovereign rights over men as men but over men as sinners.” Murray, Vol. II, p. 32.

58 “There might appear to be a discrepancy between the purport and reference of these passages in the prophecy and as applied by Paul. In Hosea they refer to the tribes of Israel and not to the Gentile nations. There should be no difficulty. Paul recognized that the rejection and restoration of Israel of which Hosea spoke have their parallel in the exclusion of the Gentiles from God’s covenant favour and then their reception into that favour.” Murray, Vol. II, p. 38.

59 “In all cases, as Philippi says, ‘the fundamental thought is still this, that in the destruction of Israel and the salvation merely of a holy remnant, a divine judicial punishment is carried out.’ Here again Paul finds in escape from the Assyrian conquest an example of God’s government of Israel as it applies to the actual situation with which he is dealing.” Murray, Vol. II, p. 40.

60 “Election,” Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, I, John E. Meeter (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Col, 1970), p. 297.

Introduction

J. I. Packer, in his significant recent book, Knowing God, condemns the current trend toward what he calls a ‘Santa Claus Theology.’⁶⁵ This theology lays great emphasis on the goodness and love of God, but refuses to come to grips with His holiness, severity, and judgment. Commonly stated, this ‘Santa Claus Theology’ goes something like this: “I believe in a God of love and not in a God of hate and anger. The kind of God I worship would never allow anyone to spend eternity in hell.”

The Achilles’ heel of a ‘Santa Claus Theology’ is the fact of suffering and evil.⁶⁶ If God is a God of love, a God who only bestows good and pleasant gifts, then what is the source of all the evil and tragedy and suffering on the face of the earth? If God is all good, then He must not also be all powerful or evil could not exist.

A couple of years ago, I attended the funeral of a young wife and mother of two children who had died a tragic death from cancer. The liberal minister who officiated at the funeral made this tragic statement: “I am convinced that the death of this young woman was not the will of God.” I must say I wanted to stand up and shout. So God was all love, therefore, He did not will for this woman to die. But, then, God was not all powerful or she would not have died, for a God who is all powerful accomplishes what He wills.

The God whom Paul served and of whom he wrote is described in the eleventh chapter of Romans as a God characterized both by His goodness and His severity. “Behold then the kindness and severity of God …” (Romans 11:22a). The specific issue at hand is the kindness and severity of God with regard to Israel and the Gentiles. At the present time, God is displaying His kindness to the Gentiles, while He concentrates His severity upon the Jews. The question underlying chapters 9-11 is “Why?” Why are the vast majority of the Jews failing to experience God’s promised blessings while many Gentiles are coming to faith in Israel’s Messiah and abounding in His kindness?

In Romans 9, Paul contended that it was not the word of God that had failed because God never promised blessing on the basis of works or physical descent, but on the basis of mercy, displayed on the basis of God’s sovereign and independent choice. In short, those Israelites who failed, failed because God didn’t choose to bestow mercy on them. In Romans 10, Paul added that correspondingly Israel rejected God. They refused the salvation offered by our Lord and His apostles.

In Romans 11, the curtain is removed so that we may behold the entire scene. God has temporarily hardened the Jews so that salvation may come to the Gentiles even as the Scriptures had stated. The salvation of Gentiles will provoke Israelites so that they will eventually turn to God. Israel’s failure is neither total (there is a faithful remnant) nor permanent. In God’s good time, Israel will be restored to a place of national prominence and blessing.

Israel’s Rejection, Even Now, Is Not Total
(11:1-10)

Romans 9 and 10 have explained to us why many Jews have failed to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. God has not chosen them, and they have not chosen Him. This we can live with. God had never purposed or promised to save every individual offspring of Abraham. But God had made promises concerning the nation Israel as a whole. What of these promises? Were they not to be honored? Were God’s dealings with the nation Israel throughout their history an exercise in futility? Are we to conclude, as some theologians teach, that God has no program for Israel as a nation, distinct from the church? This is the question of verse 1: “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He?”

The positive side of the answer to this question is recorded in verses 1-6. In verses 1-4 we are given three reasons why God has not forsaken Israel as a nation.

The Apostle Paul is a believing Jew (v. 1). Paul replies in astonishment, “May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1b). As a devout Jew, Paul could never delight in such a conclusion. Indeed, Paul himself was a forceful argument against any claim that God had rejected the nation Israel. Paul was a believing Jew.⁶⁷ More than this, Paul in his pre-conversion days could make Bonnie and Clyde look like Jack and Jill. Paul had adamantly rejected the gospel and was guilty not only of persecution, but of shedding the blood of innocent saints.⁶⁸ Paul could refer to himself in 1 Timothy 1:15 as ‘chief of sinners.’ If a rebel like Paul could be made to do a spiritual about-face, surely there is hope for Israel.

Israel has hope for a bright future because God foreordained this nation to privileges and blessings which cannot be revoked (v. 2). “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew” (Romans 11:2a). This foreknowledge is that of God’s free choice in eternity past to create a nation on which He would bestow special privileges. It should be evident in this context that God’s foreknowledge is here far more than ‘knowledge of,’ but rather ‘prior choice of.’ Israel can be assured of future blessing because of God’s calling, and His calling and election are ‘irrevocable’ (verse 29).

Israel’s present situation can be likened to that in Elijah’s day (vv. 2b-6). Does it seem as though all Israel has forsaken God? So it seemed in the days of Elijah. Elijah was plagued by the ‘Lone Ranger Syndrome’: I alone am left. Paul might be tempted in this same direction, but for a reminder of what God told Elijah, “You may think you’re the Lone Ranger, but I have kept for Myself a faithful remnant of 7,000 who have not followed after Baal” (Romans 11:4, my paraphrase). God has always kindled the fires of Israel’s hope by maintaining a faithful remnant, through whom He can fulfill His promises. This is a remnant according to divine election (verse 5) and not according to works, for works and grace are incompatible with each other (verse 6).

And what of the rest? (vv. 7-10). Summing up the matter in verses 7-10, Paul says that Israel failed to arrive at that for which they sought. Those who were chosen obtained salvation, and the rest were hardened. This hardening was nothing new and unusual, but fully in keeping with the teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures.

How can Israel fail to see what is so obvious? Simple; God has judicially blinded them, just as Isaiah described of his own day (verse 8). The same was true in Paul’s time, and, for that matter, in ours⁶⁹ as well. Of this stumbling, David also wrote in the Psalms (verses 9 and 10). The Israelites had always been a stiff-necked and rebellious people (cf. Acts 7:51). After years of rebellion, God judicially blinded them so that it was impossible to turn and believe in Christ as their Messiah. No man, unaided by the Holy Spirit, can see God, but God has determined for the present to convert only a handful of the Jews.

Israel’s Rejection Is Not Permanent
(11:11-32)

We can find consolation in the fact of a small remnant of believing Jews who have come to faith in Christ, but is there no hope for the nation as a whole? Is Israel’s ailment terminal? “I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall did they?” (Romans 11:11a) At long last with this question the whole counsel of God is placed before our eyes so far as the hardening of the Jews and the salvation of the Gentiles is concerned. In verses 11-15 we see the two-fold purpose of God as it relates to Jewish unbelief and Gentile conversion. In verses 16-24, we Gentiles are given a word of warning against pride and arrogance. Verses 25-32 contain the clearest possible promise of Israel’s national restoration.

Israel’s loss is the Gentile’s gain (vv. 11-15). The hardening of Israel was not a capricious act on God’s part. From eternity past, it was the will of God that through the disobedience and unbelief of Israel the Gentiles would come to faith in God. “But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles …” (Romans 11:11b).

But God’s purpose extends beyond Gentile conversion. The conversion of Gentiles is a back-handed blessing for the Jews in that it is intended to provoke them to jealousy. This was something the Jews of Paul’s day did not yet appreciate. They violently resisted Paul’s offering of the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 22:21, 22). But to Paul preaching to the Gentiles had a double intent. First of all it resulted in the salvation of Gentiles. Second, it furthered God’s purpose of provoking the Jews to jealousy. In this way, the offering of the gospel to Gentiles was good for both Gentiles and Jews alike.

Presently, the Gentiles have much to gain by Israel’s unbelief. Ultimately, Israel has much to gain by Gentile belief. There is no need, however, for the Gentiles to dread the time when God once again restores the nation Israel to a place of faith, blessing and prominence. Paul’s argument in verses 12 and 15 is from the lesser to the greater. God had promised Abram that He would bless the entire world through his offspring (Genesis 12:3). True, God would bless Israel, but He would also bless the world through Israel. God blessed the Gentiles with salvation through the unbelief of the Jews. If the Gentiles could be blessed by the Jews due to their unbelief, imagine the blessing that will come through their faith and obedience! Surely, the Gentiles should not dread the day of God’s blessing on Israel, but should await it with eager anticipation.

A lesson to be learned by the Gentiles: A word of warning (vv. 16-24). Throughout verses 16-24, there is clearly implied a hope for the national restoration of Israel. The hardening of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles is compared to the process of grafting a branch into the trunk of a tree. Normally, grafting is done to make a useless tree productive. An old tree that fails to produce is pruned back so that the vitality of the stock is not wasted on unproductive limbs. Then a hearty, productive limb is grafted into the stock to produce good fruit. I have watched my father do this with useless apple trees, and I have eaten the excellent apples that have been produced by the grafted limbs.

But it is easy to see that this is not at all what Paul is describing. The stock of the tree is Israel; not faithless unbelieving Jews, but the patriarchs to whom God had made His promises, men who had trusted in God. These holy men assured the future of Israel as a holy nation (verse 16). So the tree is not itself unfruitful. The unfruitful branches, which represent unbelieving Jews, have been pruned away. Those branches which are grafted into the stock represent the Gentiles. But rather than being highly desirable and highly productive branches they are the branches of a wild olive tree (verse 24).

Do you see the difference between the normal grafting process and that which God has performed with His rich olive tree (the nation Israel) and the undesirable Gentile branches? God has done that which is highly unnatural.⁷⁰ Rather than grafting good branches into a worthless stock, He has grafted worthless branches into a good stock.

It is precisely here that we can see Paul’s point. For in this analogy we find a word of encouragement and hope for the Jews, and a word of warning for the Gentiles. If God can graft wild olive branches into a cultivated olive tree, a process which is unnatural, surely He can much more easily graft in cultivated branches into a cultivated tree. If God can include Gentiles in the blessings originally promised to the Jews, how much more so can He restore Jews to these blessings? Here, then, is the word of hope for the Jews.

But on the other hand, there is a word of warning for the Gentiles. Just as the Jews became proud and arrogant about the blessings God had given them as a nation, so the Gentiles might foster such a spirit of arrogance. Such arrogance is based upon ignorance of the facts.⁷¹ The root sustains the branch, and not the branch the root (verse 18). The Gentiles are, so to speak, living off of the blessings of Israel as a kind of parasite, and there is no room for pride here. The limbs become a part of the tree by faith and dependence upon the stock. There is no basis for boasting, for our life and blessings come from God and not by works.

We must remember also that it was this very Jewish attitude of pride and arrogance toward their privileges which caused their severance from God’s blessing. If God removed the natural branches for such pride, surely He will not tolerate it in His grafted branches. They, too, can be removed. The blessing of God on the Gentiles should lead us to grateful praise and humility. The fall of Israel should prompt us to sorrow and godly fear.

So there is in this grafting analogy a word of hope for the Jews and a word of warning for the Gentiles. God deals with both on the same basis. Men are grafted in on the basis of faith and are removed on the basis of rebellion, sin and unbelief.

Full assurance of Israel’s recovery (vv. 25-32). Israel’s full and final recovery has surely been implied in the preceding verses, but lest there be any doubt that God is going to restore Israel to a place of prominence and blessing in fulfillment of His covenants with the patriarchs, the final recovery of Israel is clearly established in verses 25-32. “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25).

The failure of the nation Israel at present is only partial, for there is a faithful remnant of Jewish saints. But more than this, the failure of Israel is only temporary, for when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in God will once again cause His wayward nation to return to Him. He will remove their sins and will restore then to privileges and blessing (verses 26, 27).

The expression, ‘until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in’ is a difficult one which has created much discussion by the commentators.⁷² Although the precise meaning of the expression may be in doubt, the argument of Paul is crystal clear. God has decreed a dispensation in which the Jews are hardened and the blessings of the Jews are being poured out on the Gentiles. The Gentiles are having their day of salvation and blessing due to Israel’s unbelief. But the day of the Gentile will come to an end and Israel’s day is soon coming. The fulness of the Gentiles refers to that time when the day of the Gentiles ends and the restoration of Israel begins.

When Paul writes in verse 26 that “all Israel will be saved,” he does not mean that every individual Israelite will be saved, but that the nation in general will turn to God in faith and obedience.⁷³ Although the Jews are at present the ‘enemies of the gospel,’ their hope lies in the fact that by virtue of their national election to prominence and blessing, they are ‘the beloved of God for the sake of the fathers.’ Israel’s national future is not conditioned by their faithfulness to God but is based upon God’s faithfulness to His covenants made with their forefathers. “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28, 29). Here is the key to Israel’s future as a nation;⁷⁴ it is God’s faithfulness to His Word, “for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

God elected a nation to be the recipients of certain privileges and blessings through the offspring of Abraham. This elect nation was to bring blessing to all nations. The specific promises and blessings were stated and reiterated to the patriarchs. The promise of Israel’s hardening, chastening, and future restoration was made through the prophets. Israel’s future is as certain as the reliability of God, and His promises are irrevocable. There is no greater security than this!

Look back with me for a moment to review what God is doing by means of Israel’s hardening. He is giving the Gentiles the opportunity to cash in on the blessing of salvation and on the riches of God’s blessings to Israel. By the turning of the Gentiles to Christ, God is wooing unfaithful Israel to Himself. And in the case of both the Jews and the Gentiles, He has brought both to disobedience in order to bestow mercy upon them (verses 31 and 32).⁷⁵

Man’s Proper Response
to God’s Sovereignty as Revealed in History
(11:33-36)

There is only one response appropriate to what Paul has taught us in chapters 9-11. It is not accusation, but acclamation. We cannot, we dare not, challenge the sovereignty of God. We must bow before it. The sovereignty of God is neatly summed up for us in verse 36: “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory, forever. Amen.” God is the source of all things. All things originate from His eternal decree. God is the efficient cause of all things. He is the One Who brings His will to pass. God is the goal of all things. He is the One for Whose benefit all things take place. We, like all creation, are here for God’s glory.

Our response to the sovereignty of God as expressed in history through the partial and temporary rejection of Israel and the salvation of Gentiles should be one of wonder and praise at the wisdom of the One Who has willed it so. Further, it should impress upon us our incapability and inadequacy to challenge the working and the will of God in the affairs of men. Could we ever advise a God like ours? Does He need our counsel or our approval? Let us bow, with Paul, in speechless praise, to the sovereign God Who does all things well.

Application

First of all we should be reminded of the sovereignty of God, and of our proper response of praise and wonder and worship at the wisdom of God and at the mercy of God. These two terms, wisdom and mercy, should be the central themes of our thought as we study Romans 9-11.

Second, we should view chapters 9-11 as a beautiful illustration of Romans 8:28. God does cause all things to work together for the good of the elect and the glory of God. Jewish unbelief has prompted Gentile evangelism; and this Gentile evangelism will provoke the Jews to jealousy. Those things which ‘appear’ to be tragic and catastrophic are but a part of a much larger picture, which contribute to the accomplishment of God’s holy and perfect will, a will which for the Christian is always good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2). Whenever we find ourselves in circumstances that appear to be counter-productive to our spiritual advancement, we must assume that our situation is like that of Israel described in Romans 9-11. That God is at work in a way which we could never have devised to promote God’s glory and our good.

Third, this passage should remind us of the absolute security of the individual believer. “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). Israel erred in supposing that God’s election of the nation as a whole implied His election of every physical descendant of Abraham. Paul showed such thinking to be spurious in chapter 9. Individual election is based not upon man’s ethnic origins, nor on his earthly works, but on the free and sovereign choice of God.

But God’s choice of Israel as the nation through whom He would bless the world and on whom He would bestow particular privileges and blessings was irrevocable. God did elect the nation Israel and He will stand by it. This is the hope of Israel.

But what applies to every Christian is the fact that we are individually the elect of God, and that His promises to us are as certain of realization in our lives as God is reliable. If God will keep His promises to faithless and unbelieving Israel, He will be sure to keep us in His love as well.

Finally, we must beware of adopting a ‘Santa Claus Theology.’ We cannot rightly reflect the character of God by only focusing upon His goodness apart from His severity. As Paul has written, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God” (Romans 11:22a).

My unsaved friend, just as I can assure the Christian of ‘the absolute certainty of realizing God’s promises and blessings, I must ask you to contemplate the rebellion of unbelieving Israel and the consequences which unbelief brings. God’s blessings flow through faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. God’s severity is expressed through those who reject the righteousness of Christ and attempt to establish their own standing before God on the basis of works. Behold, the goodness and severity of God.

65 J. I. Packer. Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 143ff.

66 “This was inevitable, for it is not possible to see the good-will of a heavenly Santa Claus in heartbreaking and destructive things like cruelty, or marital infidelity, or death on the road, or lung cancer. The only way to save the liberal view of God is to dissociate Him from those things, and to deny that He has any direct relation to them or control over them; in other words, to deny His omnipotence and lordship over His world. Liberal theologians took this course fifty years ago, and the man in the street takes it today. Thus he is left with a kind God who means well, but cannot always insulate His children from trouble and grief. When trouble comes, therefore, there is nothing to do but grin and bear it. In this way, by an ironic paradox, faith in a God who is all goodness and no severity tends to confirm men in a fatalistic and pessimistic attitude to life.” Packer, p.145.

67 “The appeal to his own salvation would be of marked relevance because of his previous adamant opposition to the gospel (cf. Gal. 1:13, 14; I Tim. 1:13-15). The unbelief of Israel (cf. 10:21) had been exemplified in no one more than in Saul of Tarsus. The mercy he received is proof that God’s mercy had not forsaken Israel. On this view, ‘of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin’ would serve to accentuate his identity as truly one of that race with which he is now concerned.” John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), Vol. II, p. 66.

68 Cf. Acts 8:1; 22:4.

69 “The image is that of men feasting in careless security, and overtaken by their enemies, owing to the very prosperity which ought to be their strength. So to the Jews that Law and those Scriptures wherein they trusted are to become the very cause of their fall and the snare or hunting-net in which they are caught.” William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1966, reprint), p. 315.

70 “St. Paul is here describing a wholly unnatural process. Grafts must necessarily be of branches from a cultivated olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one which would be valueless and is never performed. But the whole strength of St. Paul’s argument depends upon the process being an unnatural one (cf. verse 24, kai para fusin enekentrisqh"); it is beside the point therefore to quote passages from classical writers, which, even if they seem to support St. Paul’s language, describe a process which can never be actually used.” Ibid., p. 328.

71 “From this simile St. Paul draws two lessons. (1) The first is to a certain extent incidental. It is a warning to the heathen against undue exaltation and arrogance. By an entirely unnatural process they have been grafted into the tree. Any virtue that they may have comes by no merit of their own, but by the virtue of the stock to which they belong; and moreover at any moment they may be cut off. It will be a less violent process to cut off branches not in any way belonging to the tree, than it was to cut off the original branches. But (2)—and this is the more important result to be gained from the simile, as it is summed up in verse 24—if God has had the power against all nature to graft in branches from a wild olive and enable them to bear fruit, how much more easily will He be able to restore to their original place the branches which have been cut off.

“St. Paul thus deduces from his simile consolation for Israel, but incidentally also a warning to the Gentile members of the Church—a warning made necessary by the great importance ascribed to them in in verse 11f. Israel had been rejected for their sake.” Ibid., p. 327. I would agree with this statement by Sanday and Headlam with the exception. that the warning for the Gentiles is Paul’s primary thrust and that the consolation for Israel is incidental. This section is specifically addressed to the Gentiles (cf. verse 13).

72 Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, 1957) p. 223; James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago: Moody Press, 1960), pp. 195-196; Sanday and Headlam, p. 335; Murray, Vol. II, pp. 93-96.

73 “In what sense does Paul mean ‘all Israel’? ‘Israel as a whole’ or ‘each individual Israelite’? There is an interesting parallel to Paul’s words in Sanhedrin, x. 1: All Israelites have a share in the world to come. This statement certainly does not refer to each several Israelite, for it proceeds to enumerate a long list of exceptions: from ‘all Israel’ must be subtracted all Sadducees, heretics, magicians, the licentious, and many more. It means that Israel as a whole is destined for eternal life in the age to come. This, of course, does not prove that Paul’s meaning was the same; but when his two statements, about Gentiles and Jews, are taken together, it seems probable that he is thinking in representative terms (see on the rest of this paragraph, and on xv. 19); first the remnant of Israel, then Gentiles, finally Israel as a whole.” Barrett, pp. 223-224.

74 It is almost incredible that the renowned scholar F. F. Bruce could make this statement: “One further point: in all that Paul says about the restoration of Israel to God, he says nothing about the restoration of an earthly Davidic kingdom, nothing about national reinstatement in the land of Israel. What he envisaged for his people was something infinitely better.” F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), p. 221. Clearly, Paul is speaking of Israel’s national recovery, so that God’s promises to the patriarchs will be fulfilled literally through the nation Israel and not through the church.

75 “That is, God has brought men into a position which merits nothing but his wrath in order that his relations with them may be marked by nothing but mercy. God’s rejections, punishments, and abandonments (i. 24, 26, 28) are rightly understood as the foil of his mercy. Only sinners can be the objects of his mercy, and only those who know that they are sinners can know that they are loved. The righteous ‘need no repentance’ (Luke xv. 7) and cannot know what it is to be forgiven. Every man must be damned if he is to be justified.” Barrett, p. 227.