Down an Unfamiliar Road

GEORGE WASHINGTON ON HIS KNEES

George Washington was a man of noble character. He is remembered by many as a warrior, patriot and the first president of the United States of America. His relationship with his God undoubtedly played a big part in making him the man he was. In 1891 a manuscript of some of his favorite prayers, written in his own hand, was sold at auction. It is not known if young George (who was twenty years old at the time) authored these prayers or copied them from another source. They were eventually published in a book, George Washington: The Christian, by William J. Johnson. As you read these prayers you discover how much George was influenced by the Bible. He was clearly humble before his God and aware of how dependent he was on Him for his every breath. Today historians are trying to rewrite the history of our nation to remove any references to God. As you read these prayers, you have an opportunity to view some original documents that tell the real story, at least in the case of George Washington. Here is one of his Sunday Morning prayers:

“Almighty God, and most merciful father, who commanded the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to You, that thereby they might glorify and praise You for Your protection both night and day, receive, O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to You; I yield to You my humble and hearty thanks that You have preserved me from the danger of the night past, and brought me to the light of the day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to Your own service and for Your own honor. Let my heart, therefore, Gracious God, be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works, but wait on You, and discharge those weighty duties You require of me.

And since You are a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw near unto You, who does not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Your courts, pardon, I beseech You, my sins, remove them from Your presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me on the merits of Your son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Your temple, and reach Your altar, my prayers may come before You as incense; and as You hear me calling upon You in my prayers, so give me grace to hear You calling on me in Your word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of the soul in the day of the Lord Jesus. Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me, Gracious God, the good work for which You sent it. Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and Guide this day and forever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

In today’s antichrist climate in America, it wouldn’t be surprising if a teacher of American History asked their students to read George Washington’s Prayer Journal, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be in an uproar. But the truth is, they can’t change history. Beside, God was here before they got here and He’ll still be here after they are long gone. So why not be on the side of the One who will stick around for a long, long time. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

GEORGE WASHINGTON ON HIS KNEES

George Washington was a man of noble character. He is remembered by many as a warrior, patriot and the first president of the United States of America. His relationship with his God undoubtedly played a big part in making him the man he was. In 1891 a manuscript of some of his favorite prayers, written in his own hand, was sold at auction. It is not known if young George (who was twenty years old at the time) authored these prayers or copied them from another source. They were eventually published in a book, George Washington: The Christian, by William J. Johnson.

As you read these prayers you discover how much George was influenced by the Bible. He was clearly humble before his God and aware of how dependent he was on Him for his every breath. Today historians are trying to rewrite the history of our nation to remove any references to God. As you read these prayers, you have an opportunity to view some original documents that tell the real story, at least in the case of George Washington. Here is one of his Sunday Morning prayers:

“Almighty God, and most merciful father, who commanded the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to You, that thereby they might glorify and praise You for Your protection both night and day, receive, O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to You; I yield to You my humble and hearty thanks that You have preserved me from the danger of the night past, and brought me to the light of the day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to Your own service and for Your own honor. Let my heart, therefore, Gracious God, be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works, but wait on You, and discharge those weighty duties You require of me.

And since You are a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw near unto You, who does not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Your courts, pardon, I beseech You, my sins, remove them from Your presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me on the merits of Your son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Your temple, and reach Your altar, my prayers may come before You as incense; and as You hear me calling upon You in my prayers, so give me grace to hear You calling on me in You word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of the soul in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me, Gracious God, the good work for which You sent it. Bless my family, kindred, friends, and country, be our God and Guide this day and forever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

In today’s antichrist climate in America, it wouldn’t be surprising if a teacher of American History asked their students to read George Washington’s Prayer Journal, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State would be in an uproar. But the truth is, they can’t change history. Beside, God was here before they got here and He’ll still be here after they are long gone. So why not be on the side of the One who will stick around for a long, long time. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson VIII)

Jewish commentator David Stern rightly asks why is it necessary for Paul to quote so many verses just to make a point? Because if Paul continues to hear the Jews say that God will still call all of them His children even if they don’t have the necessary faith, then he wants their answer to this verse: “I will hide My face from them. I will see what their end will be. For they are a sinful people, children who are not faithful.”¹ But if they continue and say that even though they are children who lack faith, and even if they serve idols they will still be called God’s children. Paul can then have them read this: “A people who are weighed down by iniquity, descendants of evildoers, immoral children, are a sinful nation!”² However, if they become adamant and say they should still be recognized as God’s children even when they do deal corruptly, they’re just not good sons. Paul may question why they keep repeating such things, they might then turn and ask him to read the following that he quotes in verse 26: “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”³ So Stern is trying to help us understand that Paul might be fighting a losing battle with some of the Jews. They just don’t want to admit to all the other Scriptures denouncing them as unworthy to be called the children of God.

Verse 7: Indeed, not all descendants are true children of Abraham.⁴ This is what God said to Abraham: “Your true descendants will be those who come through Isaac.”⁵

Paul continues to build his case against those who claim to be true God’s children just because they trace their ancestry back to Abraham. Paul no doubt got his message of salvation from the same source as John the Baptizer who preached the identical content to his Jewish critics: “Don’t think you are safe because you are descendants of Abraham. That isn’t enough. God can produce children of Abraham from these desert stones!”⁶ And Jesus had this to say about those who rejected Him: “I realize that you are descendants of Abraham. And yet some of you are trying to kill me because my message does not find a home within your hearts.”⁷ This is what inspired Paul to tell the believers in Philippi: “For it isn’t being circumcised that makes us children of God; it is worshiping Him with our spirits.”⁸

To this day the Jews celebrate their relationship with God as a result of being descendants of Abraham. For instance, in the evening service for the Sabbath, the cantor will chant: “As You have redeemed Israel and saved him from arms stronger than his, so may You redeem all who are oppressed and persecuted. Blessed are You, O God, Redeemer of Israel.” Then the choir will respond: “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, and observe it throughout all generations: It is a sign of an everlasting covenant between me and the children of Israel forever, says the Lord.”⁹

This is why Paul felt so strongly about telling them that not all those who claim to be children of Abraham are children of the Promise. This is because Abraham had children by three women: His concubine Hagar, his wife Sarah, and his concubine Keturah.¹⁰ These children all produced numbers of tribes who continue to live in the middle east area, some of which became enemies of the children of Isaac, Abraham’s son through Sarah. So only those descendants of Isaac were rightfully the legal heirs of Abraham because, among all the children these women produced, Isaac was the only one promised to Abraham as his rightful heir. Likewise, since Christ was the one promised, then only those who become God’s children through Him are rightful heirs.

This is also the gist of what early church scholar Diodore says about Paul’s main point. The Apostle wanted the Jews to know that just because they called Abraham the father of them all, it didn’t mean they were also the inheritors of the promises given to him by God. God promised those things according to His foreknowledge of who would be the spiritual children of Abraham. Just as Ishmael could not take Isaac’s place as the son of promise, neither could the wayward and unfaithful Jews be heirs to the promise given to Abraham of another Son of Promise, the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah whom they rejected. How can you expect to get something you’ve already said “No” to?¹¹

Then, early church Bishop of Cyr expands his interpretation by saying that although it was not possible by way of nature, Abraham became a father by way of divine generosity. Remember, Ishmael was Abraham’s first son, his firstborn son.¹² Therefore, why do the Jews boast that you are the only true descendants of Abraham when they are children of only one of Abraham’s sons? If anyone thinks that Ishmael does not count, they are wrong. Holy Scripture records official descent through the father, not through the mother. And just because Hagar was a concubine, and later other children were born to Abraham through another concubine, yet they were all children of Abraham. Hagar was a slave but Keturah was a free woman just like Sarah. Still, just because Abraham’s children with Keturah were free as well, they were never considered to be the children of promise. That might seem odd to some since Jacob had twelves sons by different mothers, and four of which were concubines. Yet, all of them were considered legal sons of Israel. However, it was only through Judah that the Messiah came. Paul was intent on showing his fellow Jews that just because they were children of one of Abraham’s sons, that was not enough. There were plenty of others who could claim the same thing. There was only one son, Isaac, who qualified as the son of promise. By the same token, there is only one Son of God through whom sinners can become children of God.¹³

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster has an interesting commentary on what Paul says here. To him, it is clear that God foreknew who would be heirs to His promise. Abraham believed and Isaac was born on account of his faith. Isaac was born as a type of the Savior by the promise. Therefore, whoever believes that Christ Jesus was the seed promised to Abraham, may not be a physical child of Abraham, but they are spiritual children of Abraham. When Abraham was told that all the nations would be blessed in his offspring,¹⁴ this did not happen through Isaac, but through Him who was promised to Abraham in Isaac. As Ambrosiaster sees it, the other Jews are children of the flesh, and cannot claim God’s promises to Abraham based on that alone. If they do not follow the faith by which Abraham is counted worthy, then they have no part in the promises. The same goes for anyone today, who claims to be a Christian. Only those who have been born again through Christ have that privilege.¹⁵

Reformer Martin Luther has strong words to explain what Paul is saying here. He sees Paul speaking against arrogant Jews while at the same time praising God’s grace. It was his attempt at neutralizing the proud trust they had in their own righteousness and good works. The Jews insisted on being regarded as heirs of the kingdom of God because they were children of Abraham. But Paul turns the tables on them by pointing out that if such an incontestable argument proved true, then Ishmael and the children of Keturah must be included in such a claim. But Genesis, Chapter 25, shows the exact opposite. This leads to the undeniable conclusion that it is not who we are in the flesh that makes us children of God and heirs of salvation. Rather, it is by God’s election to salvation. Only when a person stops trusting in their own efforts or in their upbringing as a reason to be counted among the saved, can they be born again by the grace of God through the work of the Holy Spirit.¹⁶

We can see how this argument by Luther fits our current situation where those who are born into families that adhere to one branch of Christianity, and who have been ceremonially sealed through baptism and christening into the faith, still call themselves children of God. But just as Paul has shown that this outward purification alone is not enough. Nicodemus certainly met all of these requirements, yet Jesus told him he must be born again to become a true child of God. From John Calvin’s point of view, Paul mentions this same truth when it came to those wanting to be counted as true children of Abraham. It was intended to show that the hidden election of God overrules the outward calling. ¹⁷

Verse 7: Indeed, not all descendants are true children of Abraham.¹⁸ This is what God said to Abraham: “Your true descendants will be those who come through Isaac.”¹⁹

Robert Haldane puts Paul’s argument into context by distinguishing the difference between true Israelites and imitation Israelites, both of which were original descendants of Abraham. Paul points out that it is all in understanding what was meant by “the seed of Abraham.” The error made by the Jews was that they counted themselves as children of God just because they were physical children of Abraham. The promise to Abraham about his seed was not made to all his descendants, but to a particular seed. When God said to Pharaoh, “Let my son go,”²⁰ He was using a figure of speech to identify them as His children through Jacob. As of that time, there were none yet born of the spiritual seed of Abraham, either among the Jews or Gentiles.²¹ That would only come after the Son of God came into the world.

Albert Barnes makes note of Paul’s implication that only the seed of Abraham through Isaac can be declared as the children of promise, not through his other wives. Looking at it from his point of view implies a selection or choice is made based on God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, the doctrine of election was illustrated in the very beginning of Israel’s history as a nation only through Issac. As such, part of the natural descendants of Abraham was rejected. Since God made such distinctions at that time between those He chose and those who did not get chosen, what would keep Him from doing it again to establish the Kingdom of Heaven? For Barnes, this is the argument which the Apostle is trying to make.²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson VII)

Reformer Martin Luther points out that Paul is not arguing that the Word of God was somehow made ineffective because of the Jew’s unbelief concerning the Messiah. Rather, that God’s promise to Abraham, which included them, was in His Word. The problem is, they refused to accept and obey it. Therefore, what was intended for them was prohibited from having the expected effect.¹ The same is true for unbelievers today, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. When a preacher stands up and tells those in the audience that God’s love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness is available to those who hunger to be saved, he cannot grant it to them without their confessing their need for a Savior, repenting of their sins, and accepting God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ, with the intent of serving Him out of love as their Lord and Savior.

Fellow reformist John Calvin sees it the same way. He says it may be more evident on what conditions God adopted the descendants of Abraham as a special people to Himself if two things are considered. The first is, that the promise of salvation given to Abraham was meant for all who can trace their natural origin to him. It was given to Abraham without exception, to be passed on to all who were rightly called the heirs of the covenant. In this respect, they can be referred to as, what the Scripture calls them, children of the promise. The second point is this, among all those referred to in the first case, the name “children of promise” is restricted only to those in whom its power and effect are found. That’s what prompted Paul to specify here that not all the children of Abraham became the children of God without any changes in their behavior. In fact, so few had followed through with the requirements of the first covenant that many were not even considered candidates for redemption under the last covenant.²

German scholar John Bengel leaves little doubt as to how he feels when it comes to some who oppose the idea of grace for the human race. He makes the point that God gives faith to whom He will. Therefore, it prevents Him from wasting it on those He knows will not follow His Word. As far as Paul sees it, God gives righteousness to individuals that believe in Him by faith. He does not hand it out to anyone who thinks they deserve it because of their good works. This is not in any way contrary to His Word. God has declared in assorted ways that those He determines to be worthy of His calling will be chosen to be His children. Just claiming you are a child of God does not count unless God claims you as one of His own.

This decree of God is certain and indisputable. We see the same thing when someone who knows the law but tries to get around it or disobey it, cannot be given the same rights and courtesy as someone who not only hears it but obeys it. When it comes to being chosen by God, He will show mercy to the willing but waste no time on the disobedient.³ In other words, there were some in Jerusalem and Rome who apparently felt that God’s grace was limited to a certain portion of mankind, namely the Jews. Paul makes it clear that God’s grace is available to all mankind. However, it is not imposed on everyone. It is theirs for the taking, but only by faith.

Robert Haldane also speaks to the curious claim by Paul that not all Israelis are true Israelites. He offers what he feels is a good explanation of this mystery. Since the Jews, as a people rejected the Messiah this automatically disqualified them as being true Israelites in the spiritual sense of the promise. They may be Israelis by birth, but not the new birth. The Jews certainly might object to Paul’s notion and say if that is true, then God is unfaithful, and His promises are of no value. But Paul has an answer ready. He tells them that some are Israelis because of their claims of being Abraham’s offspring, while others are true Israelites because they are part of the promise God gave to Abraham.

Just like Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was Abraham’s son by way of the flesh, but Isaac was his son by way of a promise. Ishmael did not inherit anything from Abraham, but Isaac was given everything God had promise to his father because he was Abraham’s one and only firstborn son. However, Paul also wanted to point out that the election of the Israelite nation to be God’s people did not prevent the Sovereign of infinite holiness from choosing out of that chosen nation whom He willed for that blessing. This was in accordance with His secret counsel on that selected portion of His creation He determined to redeem and save. That’s why Paul says they are not all Israelites which are part of Israel. We could paraphrase this for today and say that not all who carry a necklace with a cross on it or wear a cross pin on their lapel are true Christians.⁴

H. A. Ironside has an interesting take on this verse. As he sees it, to the faithful Jew who depended on the promises of God to Israel to get them through into the world-to-come, it appears that either their promises failed or God’s promises failed. Why else would Israelites be set to one side and Gentiles brought in to take their place? That is a good question, but Paul was ready to show that God never acted on the principle of blanket grace. All special privileges that Israel enjoyed were to be attributed to another principle. God choose them out from among the nations as an elect group. In doing so, He was able then to call them His people. In the same way, God intended to select from all nations a new people to be regenerated by the Spirit as His chosen children of the promise. That’s why not all descendants of Abraham who were generated by natural means could lay claim to being the true children of God generated by supernatural means.

As such, the natural seed of Abraham, such as Ishmael, were not automatically children of promise. It would take a supernatural seed, as in the case of Isaac, to be in that category. In His electing grace, God said to Abraham, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”⁵ He chose to pass over Ishmael, the man born after the flesh, and take up Isaac, whose birth was the result of a miracle. In this Paul illustrates the principle that, “The children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s true offspring.”⁶ This certainly is a staggering blow to those in our day who are pretentious and boast loudly about what they call the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of all mankind. They must be reminded that the Gospel clearly states that the children of the flesh are not to be confused with the children of the spirit. Jewish scholar and Sanhedrin member Nicodemus came to Jesus hoping that as a faithful Jew and practicing Pharisee he would qualify for the Kingdom of God, and the same answer Jesus gave Nicodemus is given to everyone: “Except a person is born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.⁷”⁸

For Professor F. F. Bruce, Paul has successfully pointed out that true Jews are the ones whose lives are lived to bring honor, praise, and glory to God.⁹ It’s not their genealogy, ethnicity, race, or religion that is taken into account, it is their regeneration. As a matter of fact, when they are chosen by God, none of these things count in His decision. Likewise, Paul points out that in a similar vein, while all descendants of Israel are Israelites on the outward, physical sense, not all are true Israelites on the inward, spiritual sense. Paul explained this back in chapter 4. By the same token, we can say today that not all members of churches are true members of Christ’s body.

Throughout First Covenant history we see God’s purpose was to hand pick an exclusive group, an elect minority, as the saved remnant. Those who would faithfully carry on what God revealed to them step by step. God would use this to save the rest of the world. We know that Abraham had a number of sons, but only through Isaac, the child of promise, can this line be traced. Isaac in turn, had two sons, but only through Jacob was the holy seed transmitted. Bruce wants us to keep in mind that by God passing over Esau and choosing his younger brother Jacob, this did not in the least depend on the behavior or character of the twin brothers. It happened because God in His foreknowledge predetermined this before they were even born.¹⁰

Paul knew what he was up against as far as the Jews in the congregation in Rome were concerned. Their Mishnah made it clear that all Israelites, including those who were executed for their crimes, will still have a portion in the world-to-come. That’s because it is written: “Your people are all righteous; they will inherit the land forever. They are a branch that grew out of what I planted by My own hands.”¹¹ But the Mishnah goes on to say that there are still some who will have no portion in the world-to-come: Whoever says that resurrection is not a Torah doctrine; that the Torah is not from God; one who belittles the Torah, and one who disparages Torah scholars.¹² So unless Paul also agreed that those who did not believe in the resurrection, such as the Sadducees, and those who profaned the Torah and the scholars who studied it, and everybody else was bound for heaven, they did not want to hear his Gospel.

They also pointed to the Babylonian Talmud where a discussion on this same subject is recorded. Instead of giving you the original text which is hard to decipher, let me share this paraphrase. Leading Rabbis interpret this saying in Deuteronomy, “You are sons of Adonai your God,” this way:¹³ When you behave like sons you are called sons, and if you do not behave like sons you are not called sons. However, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir disagreed. They say that in both of these cases you are called sons regardless because there are such things as stupid sons and disobedient sons.¹⁴ The Scripture also says: “They are sons in whom there is no faith.”¹⁵ And in another place, “…a seed of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly.”¹⁶ And again, “It shall come to pass that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it will be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’”¹⁷ What all this adds up to is that Paul and all the Jews in the congregation in Rome were taught that good or bad, right or wrong, smart or stupid, if you are a descendant of Abraham you are guaranteed a spot at the banquet table in heaven. So now you can see what Paul was up against.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson VI)

Charles Hodge explains his understanding of Israel’s adoption as sons of God. He writes that Paul is speaking here of Abraham’s physical descendants. Therefore, the adoption or sonship pertaining to them must also be seen as physical. This is very different from the spiritual relationship Paul talked about in the previous chapter. As sons of God, they were the objects of His special favor. They had been selected from the nations of the earth through Abraham to be the recipients of specific blessings. This put them in a one-of-a-kind relationship with God. Everything in the First Covenant is considered a type or shadow of the blessings of the Last Covenant. So the sonship of the Israelites was a representation of the sonship of believers. This sonship of Israel was extended and became common to all the Jews. It came by way of their relationship with God as recipients of His blessings as their only God and King. The sonship of believers is not common to all who call themselves Christians. It is only extended to those who are true children of God through the new birth. This relationship allows them to stand justified before God by virtue of regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the family of God.¹

The great preacher Octavius Winslow sees here a distinct declaration of the complex person of our Lord. When we speak of His humanity, we can call Him a human being. When it comes to touching His Deity, we can call Him a divine being. When we think of His ethnicity, we refer to Him as a Jew. When we think of His divinity, we call Him God. It is doubtful that any language can make it more explicit than that. Paul stated clearly to Timothy: “Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit; seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”² Now here Christ is declared to be the visible Yahweh, God embodied in Christ. That made it tangible for us to better understand who He really was. Therefore, this one passage should be enough to remove any doubt His being One of the Trinity.³

Frédéric Godet also gives us something to think about as to why Jesus was born a Jew. Paul was well aware that this mode of reference as to His race was only referring to the human side of our Lord’s nature and personality. In the same manner Paul refers to His relationship to the Jews as a kinsman in the flesh, not in the spirit.⁴ The term “flesh,” therefore, encompasses human nature in its totality. Since Paul bore no resemblance with them on the spiritual level, there is no need to believe he was making a contrast between the flesh and the spirit.⁵

In other words, the only thing Jesus owed to the Jews was His natural heritage through His mother Mary. His spiritual heritage came from His Father in heaven. Likewise, all believers owe their heritage to some racial or ethnic origin here on earth. But only those who are redeemed have a spiritual relationship with each other regardless of their earthly race or ethnicity. That’s why Paul made the point that since God is the creator of the entire human race, why then should any of them be left out of His message of salvation and invitation to become part of His spiritual kingdom? That’s why Paul wished he could do something, anything, to get them all through the door of God’s kingdom.

In one of his sermons, Charles Spurgeon spoke on what troubled the Apostle so much concerning the Jews. Why was it that they still enjoyed such an extraordinary privilege of being called the children of God, and yet, end up being thrown away as outcasts? Not only that but in spite of all they did to the prophets in the past, they were still selected to be the race through whom Jesus the Messiah, the Savior of men, should come. Not only that, but His being bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, still did not keep them from rejecting Him, even though He came to save them first. How hard can the human heart become? And whatever they hoped to gain, be it riches or power, notoriety or fame, how could such temporary things be compared to the eternal riches God’s grace?⁶

Let’s imagine Americans hostages, being held in some isolated prison camp, being suddenly confronted by soldiers dressed like that countries’ military, yet spoke English with a southern accent and related to them as fellow Americans, who had secretly crawled into the compound to free them. What would we say if the hostages refused to be rescued because the soldiers were not dressed like they thought they should be as American GI’s? So it was with the Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah because He did not fit the image they concocted in their imagination.

F. F. Bruce points out that it was essential to Paul’s argument that the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached was not of their own innovation. Bruce says there were several things that would help them in any debate: First, that it was attested to in the Hebrew Scriptures; then, that it was the fulfillment of God’s promise to the patriarchs; and further, that it proclaimed that God’s way of righteousness through faith, by which Abraham had been blessed, was still open to all who believed in God as Abraham did. So why was it then that Abraham’s descendants became the first to reject the Gospel, and Jesus as the Messiah?

Surely, the Jews had everything going for them, and no doubt the Jews agreed with Paul on their elite status with God. But certainly, there were objections voiced when Paul told them it didn’t count when it came to being the recipients of God’s redemption plan. Such was the paradox, even perhaps a scandal, that the very nation especially prepared by God to produce and receive the Messiah and His message; the nation which could brag about so many unique privileges of God’s favor and miracle-working power; the nation into which the Messiah had been born, should fail to recognize Him when He came. And, meanwhile, men and women of other nations, who had no such relationship with God as Israel did, and never enjoyed the privileges of the Jews, embraced the Gospel eagerly the first time they heard it. How could this be harmonized with God’s choice of Israel and His declared purpose of blessing the world through Israel, yet now rejecting them as they rejected Him?⁷

Jewish commentator David Stern takes this whole phrase in verse five that describes the Messiah as coming from a Jewish family and to be the One over all things, as a way to thank and honor God forever and ever. When we understand this right, it constitutes one of the few statements in the Last Covenant that the Messiah is God.⁸ No doubt it was the desire of every Apostle and is the desire of every Christian today to find Scriptural support for affirming Yeshua’s divinity. But although it was only right for Paul to make such a strong and surprising theological statement, something that would be especially shocking to Jews, while it would enhance Paul’s argument, required a simpler expression that did not need any complex explanation. That’s because for any Jew hearing this letter read they would immediately have so many questions they would be unable to get past it and concentrate on what else Paul had to say.⁹

Verse 6: The present condition of Israel does not mean that the Word of God has failed. For not everyone from Israel is truly part of Israel.¹⁰

But Paul wanted the church in Rome to know that just as there is a difference between the called and the chosen among Christians, there was also a difference between the children of Israel and those who would have the authority to be called sons of God.¹¹ We can see this distinction when Jesus greeted Nathaniel: “Here comes an honest man – a true son of Israel.”¹² And Paul echoed the same concept in his letter to the Galatians, calling them new creations in Christ Jesus: “As many as by this rule do walk – peace upon them, and kindness, and on the Israel of God!”¹³ The Jewish Bible translation of Galatians renders it the same way.

The early church Bishop of Paul’s hometown of Tarsus sees the point Paul is making this way: Since God originally made the promise of the Messiah and the new covenant with the Jews, it is now being transferred to the Gentiles. But that does not mean that God lied about His promises. Instead, God remains faithful to what He said. It’s the Jews who have been unfaithful. So don’t blame this on God. Paul also wants to make it clear that Scriptures indicates that just because someone claims to be an heir to the promise given to Abraham, it does not make it so. Israelites who by their faith in God and who have walked worthy of their calling are the only ones deserving to be called true children of Abraham.¹⁴

Another way to put this might be: Although a Jew may lay claim to being part of the genealogy of Abraham, this would only be accepted in terms of the flesh. But any Jew who tried to claimed they could be a child of God based on the same evidence would be wrong. Such a spiritual association with God is only possible by way of the Holy Spirit. Today we might illustrate it this way: Anyone born in the United States can certainly claim to be an American. But if they refuse to accept the Constitution, or salute the flag, or say the Pledge of Allegiance, or serve in the military if called during time of war, they are not a true American.

Another early church scholar adds that the Apostle Paul grieves over the fact that although the Jews failed to accept the promises of God by grace, the Word of God was not sent in vain. The things which were promised are due only to those who keep the faith of the patriarchs and are, therefore, reckoned to be their true descendants. This does not apply to someone just because they were born of the stock of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel according to the flesh.¹⁵ Paul is making a case here that just as those who claim sonship with God in the family of Abraham through birth, so in the future, those who claim sonship with God through Christ will do so through a new birth.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson V)

In case the Jews didn’t realize how blessed they were, and why God chose them to be the people through whom the Messiah would come, Paul takes a moment to remind them of just how blessed were. What a tragedy that in spite of God’s goodness, they rejected His only Son who came to save them. Had they forgotten that it was through Moses, God’s firstborn son, Israel, was led to freedom and given the first covenant of the Law. Now through Jesus, God’s only Son, they were offered their freedom from the law and given the last covenant of Grace. Under the first covenant they had to work for their salvation and sealed it with circumcision, but it was futile.¹ Under the last covenant, the work of salvation was done for them by Christ and sealed by baptism, and it is final. Under the first covenant of the Law the promises to Abraham were insured, but under the last covenant of Grace, the promises are assured. This was affirmed by Mary, after Elizabeth proclaimed her the Mother of our Lord, when she exclaimed: “He has helped His servant Israel, In remembrance of His mercy, just as He promised to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”² This was repeated by Zacharias, the father of John the Baptizer.³

It is important to notice that in Jewish writings there are only three who the Jews referred to as “Father.” In the Talmud we read that the Rabbis taught: The term “patriarchs” (meaning “Father”) is applied only to three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob⁴.⁵ It is also been noted that in other Jewish writings we find that the coming Savior is referred to as “The Messiah of Israel.”⁶ This then became part of Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost,⁷ and Paul on his first missionary journey.⁸ Paul also included the Gentiles.⁹

It is also worth noting that Paul mentions three things that came along with the glory and agreements between God and His people, and there were the Law of Moses, the Temple Worship, and God’s Promises. We find in Jewish writings where Rabbi Moses Maimonides quoted Shimon the Righteous as saying: “The world stands on three things: Torah, the service of God, and deeds of kindness.”¹⁰ This same Shimon the Righteous, the son of Gamliel, also taught that the world endures because of these three things: justice, truth, and peace.¹¹ Jesus came to establish these as well. Since Paul was writing to Jews in the congregation in Rome, they were sure to recognize that Paul knew his Jewish theology as well as the Gospel.

Paul goes on to show how privileged his people, the Jews, were by virtue of their glorious predecessors, the great fathers who were the forerunners of the Messiah. Moses also spoke reverently about those who were patriarchs and blessed to be God’s choice: “See, the earth and highest heaven belong to the LORD your God. And yet the LORD took enough pleasure in your ancestors to love them and choose their descendants after them — yourselves — above all peoples, as He does to this day.”¹² It would be wise for the Jewish leaders of the church in Rome to recognize that to dismiss Jesus the Christ as essential to their faith they were going against what God promised Abraham: “I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you are to be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you, and by you, all the families of the earth will be blessed.”¹³ So what God initiated with Abraham was not meant solely for the Jewish people, but all the people of the earth. So Paul urges them to embrace your Gentile brethren because they have also been adopted by God as His children.

Early church theologian Origen makes note of Paul’s assertion that Israel can claim sonship with God and the promises that come with it. For Origen, Israel was adopted by God and given sonship. Does not the Scripture say: “When God parceled out the lands of the earth to the nations, He gave each of them a supervising angel! But He appointed none for Israel; For Israel was God’s own personal possession!”¹⁴ In this light, we must differentiate between “covenants” and “giving of the law.” At first glance, they may seem very similar. Origen sees a difference, however, the law was given once, to Moses. The covenants were given frequently to those God chose to be His own. Every time the people sinned and were cast aside, they were then disinherited. And every time they repented and were reconciled to God He called them back to be heirs of their possessions.¹⁵

Then when it comes to how these descendants of the Patriarchs were chosen to be the family line through which the Messiah would come, Ambrosiaster feels that Paul was motivated to list many hallmarks of nobility and dignity the Jewish people were given, along with the promises they received. This only deepened his grief because by not accepting Jesus, God’s Son, as the Messiah they lost the privilege of their fathers and the merit of the promises made to Abraham. As such, they ended up in a worse state than the Gentiles. Even though the Jews detested the Gentiles when they were still pagans without God, they had made their own condition even worse by losing all the dignity they once had.¹⁶ We might compare this to a rich kid who always made derogatory remarks about the poor and homeless. But when he took his inheritance and squandered it on immoral living and wasted investments, he became poor and homeless himself. That’s why, when sleeping on the sidewalk his plight was worse than those around him because they never had such an inheritance to lose.

Then Augustine sees Paul saying that the Jews, who argued with Christ, understood only half of the enlightenment God gave them when He chose them to be His own. As a result, Jesus refuted what they claimed to have by asking them whose son the Messiah was. They answered, “David’s.”¹⁷ This may be true according to the flesh. But Christ then asked them about the Messiah’s divinity. For that, they had no answer. So Jesus asked them if the Messiah was David’s son, then why did David call Him his Lord?¹⁸ This was to show them that they had only confessed that the Messiah was the son of David, but they failed to understand that David called the Messiah, Lord. It was true, according to the Messiah’s human genealogy, He was, in fact, a descendant of David. But according to His divinity, He was the Son of God – David’s Lord.¹⁹ As such, by only accepting the Messiah’s human identity and not affirming His divine identity, the Jews didn’t recognize Him when He came. In fact, they dismissed Jesus both as a descendant of David and were repulsed by His claim of being God’s Son.

Then, one early church interpreter of Scriptures from Alexandria noted that God chose the Israelites for Himself from the beginning, which is why He called them His firstborn.²⁰ But because of their hardheadedness and hardheartedness, they rebelled against God’s leadership and His prophets. Eventually, they became no better than the pagans because they worshiped the same idols. They killed the prophets and ended up rejecting and killing the Messiah. Therefore, it was not so much that God walked away from them, but that they walked away from God. Jesus warned them that they would be placed behind the Gentiles in God’s kingdom. Little did they know that this also cut them off from the inheritance that was theirs through Abraham.²¹ No doubt Paul was seeing all the being played out in his mind and that motivated him even more in his passionate plea for them to come to their senses and recognize that Messiah had come and His name was Jesus.

John Calvin sees a trend in Paul’s letter to the Roman believers in that the whole effort in Paul’s addressing the apostate condition of the Jewish people was to show that although they had, by their rejection of the Messiah, filed for divorce from God. Yet that separation was not yet final or permanent. That’s what Paul said back in Chapter 3, verse 3. When put that way, then even though they became unbelievers and broke the covenant they had with God, still, their disloyalty to His Word did not mean He would be disloyal to His promises. It was God’s choice to reserved for Himself a remnant from the whole Jewish nation. Not only that but as we can see from the situation in Rome, He even placed a church in their midst.²²

Adam Clarke sees another factor. Here the Apostle Paul points out the two distinct natures of our Lord. First, His eternal Godhead, and, second, His humanity. And there is no so-called abnormality, or speck of doubt, or modifications that can explain away this doctrine. Since this verse contains such superior proof of the deity of Christ, it’s no wonder that those who opposed the claims of His divinity did their very best to destroy and eradicate if from the message of the cross, thereby trying to destroy its power to save.²³ In other words, Paul wanted the Jews to know that the Messiah must be considered as being of God because He came from God. Therefore, if they were to accept the man, Jesus of Nazareth, as the Messiah, they must also accept Him as the Son of God. As a result, they would then see why His sacrifice on the cross would be sufficient as the atonement for all their sins without having to add the Law and righteous works to make it valid.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson IV)

Bible teacher H. A. Ironside takes note that there are differences of opinion among theologians and scholars as to the exact meaning of verse 3. Did Paul really mean to say that there were times when he had actually wished, if possible, to be separated from Christ if it meant he could have saved the unbelieving Jews from their fate of eternal alienation from God? Are we to believe that he would have really gone through with it? Or should we take this as Paul’s way of saying that he empathizes with those Jews who are earnestly seeking the truth, but in the process have mistakenly rejected Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah?

Paul should know, for at one time he himself thought and believed the way the Jews did. So back then, it didn’t matter that Christians believed that the curse of his unbelief had separated him from Christ. If we were to accept this view, we can see Paul expressing here the intensity of his compassion for the unconverted Jews. However, if we take the previously stated opinion of it being only an impossible wish, that would put Paul on the same level with Moses, who cried: “If you will only forgive their sin – but if not, then erase my name from the record you have written!”¹ But in the end, whichever view we subscribe to, it should give us a deep sense of Paul’s painful heartbreak for his fellow Jews who would be forever lost.²

Charles Hodge says that the common interpretation given to this verse, which seems most natural, is this: I am deeply grieved in my heart for my fellow Jews. If I could wish anything, my desire would be that I myself could be made a curse and separated from Christ if it helped them to believe. Yes, I would be willing to be regarded and treated as nonredeemable. That is, someone has a curse placed on them that could not be removed just for their sake. Hodge believes that this should be agreed to among most scholars as the logical way to interpret what Paul says here. The only objection that might be valid is that such a desire to be made a curse is inconsistent and incompatible with the Apostle’s character.³

Let’s put this in modern language. If you saw your daughter lying on the ground after jumping from the window of a 40 story building, you might say to the person next to you, “If I could, I’d go up there right now and jump in her place so she comes back alive and continues to live.” Both you and the person you are speaking to know that doesn’t make sense. You are only wishing for something impossible to become possible. This was what Paul was doing. He knew that there was really nothing that could do to save his fellow Jews unless the Holy Spirit brought them to Jesus Christ.

In his sermon on this subject, Charles Spurgeon advises his listeners that they must not measure these words of Paul by any exact grammatical rule. They must be understood as being spoken out of the depths of a grieving, loving heart. Furthermore, when Paul speaks of having such a bereaved heart, it must not be evaluated by the laws of human logic. Such grief-stricken hearts have immeasurable feelings. His anguish overseeing his fellow countrymen facing eternal separation from God, made him wish there was a way he could take that curse upon him if it meant the whole nation of Israel could be saved. In other words, his love for them was modeled after Christ’s love for this world.

Of course, that was impossible. No one understood that better than Paul. There could be only one Substitute and one Sacrifice for sinners, and His name was Jesus. He only mentioned this impossible task as a way of showing how dearly he loved his fellow Jews. It was on their account he carried such heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart. So Spurgeon asked his congregation if they felt that same concern for the lost citizens of their country? If they are not yet saved, do they wonder if there is anything they can do to bring them to salvation? Are they concerned enough about them to do what it takes to get the Gospel to them? He is convinced that once their hearts are brought to this same level of agony about their souls, such love may soon be the reason that those they grieve for are saved.⁴

Spurgeon believes that many Jews hated Paul intensely because, in their eyes, he was an apostate from the true faith in that he became a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, the false Messiah. Yet, in spite of their feelings toward him, Paul was still willing, as it were, to put his own salvation on hold if by so doing so the Jews might come to their senses and accept Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. We should not be surprised that Paul would express such an impracticable task to help his fellow Jews. After all, we have at one time or another said to a neighbor or friend, “I’ll do anything you want, there’s nothing I won’t do to help you out. Just give me a call, day or night.” We know it’s not possible even as we say it. But we are only trying to express the depth of our concern for them. That’s what Paul was doing here.

F. F. Bruce believes that the situation in the church in Rome requires us to put this statement in context. The first set of believers in Rome were most likely Jews converted while in exile due to emperor Claudius’ expelling them from Rome. Once they returned, the church begins to grow and now they were becoming outnumbered by Gentile members. It is possible that there was a tendency among the Gentiles to regard their Jewish brethren as having been mercifully rescued from a backslidden nation that was still stuck in an outdated religion practicing outmoded customs. On the other hand, it may also have been that some of the Jewish converts grew to resent Gentile slurs made against them.

In order for the Jewish members of the church to stress the need for solidarity with their fellow Gentile believers, they tried to get them to understand the special place they held in the church as authentic children of Abraham. In fact, they may have gone so far as to underestimate those particular features of Christian faith alone which should forge a faith alliance between all believers. They failed to consider these bonds as something stronger that bound them in faith to their Gentile brethren in the spirit, than the connection they had with their Jewish brethren in the flesh. Paul tried to use his wisdom in showing both sides the parts played by both Jews and Gentiles in the saving purpose of God.⁵

One Messianic Jewish scholar looks at Paul’s situation and believes that Paul still considered most Jews who had not yet accepted Yeshua as Messiah as his brethren in the flesh. There were, after all, God’s chosen people even if they continued in unbelief. The writer also points out that the Torah is mentioned in a positive light as a gift from God to Israel. Paul did not fail to reiterate that Yeshua the Messiah was a Jew, promised to the Jews. Paul rooted such comments in the writing of the Prophets which make clear that Israel will always remain God’s chosen people.⁶ Then, Paul’s words about being put under a curse for the sake of his fellow Jews might be compared to those of Moses. It was Moses who prayed for Israel after they had grievously sinned against God, and wished himself to be made a curse if God did not let them repent⁷.⁸

Verses 4-5: They are the people of Israel, God’s adopted children. The Shekinah glory has been with them, the covenants are theirs, the giving of the Law of Moses, the Temple worship, and His promises; the great Patriarchs are theirs; and out from them, as far as the earthly family is concerned, came the Messiah, who is over all things. Praise the LORD forever! Amen.

It is clear that Paul did not turn his back on his people, only their corrupt views of what God actually said to them through Moses, the prophets, and finally through His Son. He echoed what the Psalmist said: “How good God is to Israel.”⁹ And just like the Psalmist, Paul too felt the Jews had lost their balance and were on the edge of the cliff that spelled eternal doom. It was so sad, because as God told them through Isaiah: “But as for you, O Israel, you are mine, my chosen ones; for you are Abraham’s family, and he was my friend.”¹⁰ It seems they were unconcerned that God had once said: “Listen to me, all Israel who are left; I have created you and cared for you since you were born. I will be your God through all your lifetime, yes, even when your hair is white with age. I made you and I will care for you. I will carry you along and be your Savior.”¹¹ And although the Savior had come, they turned away and rejected Him. How sad!

It is necessary at this point to chronicle the relationship between the children of Israel and God as their heavenly Father. We know that Abraham was a Chaldean, a race tied to Noah’s son, Shem. Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel Löw, who was also known as Maharal of Prague (1520–1609) explains that the Chaldeans were mostly descendants of Assur (a son of Shem, see Genesis 10:22) but were called “Chaldeans” because the descendants of Kesed conquered them.¹² It was through Abraham’s son Isaac that Jacob was born. Jacob received Isaac’s blessing, although by false means, but it was Jacob who wrestled with the angel and his name was changed to Israel. So Jacob’s son’s were the ones who went into Egypt to avoid the famine in the land of Canaan where they were living. It was there that God raised up a deliverer named Moses, who would return to lead them out of their bondage, back to the land they came from, which God had promised to Abraham. That’s why it is called the Promised Land.

To the Egyptians, these Hebrews, an Aramaic term meaning, “wanderers” were immigrants who had once achieved a high status under Joseph’s leadership, but had fallen back to being an underclass of slaves. But when Moses was sent by God back to lead them to freedom, He told Moses to deliver this final warning to Pharaoh: “You are to tell Pharaoh: ‘Adonai says, “Isra’el is my firstborn son.”’”¹³ Israel was God’s son, not by birth, but by adoption. That’s the way Paul describes them here in this verse. Calling Israel His firstborn son was repeated to the prophet Jeremiah.¹⁴ Then later on, through the prophet Hosea, God said: “When Isra’el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son.”¹⁵ It is also noted, that after Joseph and Mary escaped to Egypt to avoid the murdering of the innocents by King Herod. When Matthew’s Gospel was written, as this story of their escape is told, Matthew quotes this verse in Hosea as also applying to Jesus.¹⁶

Not too long ago I saw this quote: “To be good is not enough; a person must be good for something.”¹ It reminded me of another quote; “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”² The point of both quotes seem to be quite obvious: If you are going to count for anything in this life in order to be significant in other people’s lives, you must commit to something. That can be anything from being the best worker at your place of employment to being a person of your word. To put this another way, if you said it, you meant it and will stick by it.

But there is no area of our lives where this virtue is more important than in our spiritual life. If we say we believe in the Bible that it is the Word of God, then we must commit to it in every area of our lives – in word and in deed. If we claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then our character and tendencies must be Christ-like. If we just begin with our Lord’s beatitudes in Matthew 5, that would be an excellent start.

After all, it’s how we want to be known among our family, friends, acquaintances, and even strangers that really counts. Do they see anything in us that convinces them that we are what we say we are; that we’re going to do what we say we’ll do. Just remember, if we claim to be a Christian and then don’t live up to what we claim, we not only embarrass ourselves, but we bring shame on His holy name. – Dr. Robert R Seyda.

YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A GENIUS TO TALK TO GOD

I found this story that has been around for about 25 years. Unless the young author was attending a Christian Academy, there’s little chance it would have been an assignment in a public school. Also, the way boys in third grade talk and write, this must have been edited by an adult to correct all the spelling errors and incomplete grammar. But it still doesn’t change the message.

The story was supposedly told by an eight-year-old boy named Danny Dutton, who attended third grade in Chula Vista, CA. As a homework assignment, he was asked to explain who God was. The following is what he included in his explanation:

One of God’s main jobs is making people. He makes them to replace the ones that die so there will be enough people to take care of things on earth. He doesn’t make grownups, just babies. I think because they are smaller and easier to make. That way he doesn’t have to take up his valuable time teaching them to talk and walk. He just leaves that to their mothers and fathers.

God’s second job is listening to prayers. An awful lot of this goes on, since some people, like preachers and things, pray more than just their bedtime prayers. God is so busy I don’t think he even has time to listen to the radio or watch TV. Because he hears everything, there must be a terrible lot of noise in his ears, unless he has thought of a way to turn it off. God sees everything and hears everything and is everywhere which keeps Him pretty busy. So you shouldn’t go wasting his time by going over your mom and dad’s head asking for something they said you couldn’t have.

I was told that atheists are people who don’t believe in God. I don’t think there are any in Chula Vista. At least there aren’t any who come to my church. Jesus is God’s Son. He used to do all the hard work like walking on water and performing miracles and teaching people who wanted to learn about God. But some didn’t want to hear him preach, and they got mad and they put him on a cross. But he was good and kind, like his father in heaven, and so he told his father that they didn’t really know what they were doing and to forgive them, and God said O.K.

His father up in heaven appreciated everything that he had done and all his hard work on earth so he told him to come on back home up in heaven, that he could stay there. So he did. And now he helps his father out by listening to all the prayers and seeing all the things which need to be taken care of. There are even some things he takes care of himself without having to bother God. Like a secretary, only more important. You can pray anytime you want and he will help you get things worked out.

That’s why we should always go to church on Sunday because it makes God happy, and if there’s anybody you want to make happy, it’s God. Don’t skip church or do something you think will be more fun like going to the beach. This is wrong. And besides, the sun doesn’t come out at the beach until noon anyway.

If you don’t believe in God like an atheist does, you will be very lonely, because your parents can’t go everywhere with you, like to camp, but God can. It is good to know He’s around you when you’re scared, in the dark or when you can’t swim and you get thrown into really, really deep water by big kids.

But, you don’t need to keep asking God to do things for you, you can do things for him too. I figure God put me here and he can take me back anytime he wants. And that’s all I know about God

Needless to say, such a composition would make the parents of any eight-year-old boy proud. But the simple truths contained in this narrative are indisputable, even when they come from the thought process of a young child. After-all, Jesus did say that some fantastic things will come out of the mouth of babes. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER NINE (Lesson III)

Reformer Martin Luther sees Paul’s motive quite differently than these early church writers. He believes that Paul is trying to win back the confidence of his fellow Jews. As far as they were concerned, Paul’s actions and message since his conversion gave them no reason to believe that he had any interest in their salvation. In fact, the Gospel he preached seemed to be an attempt to destroy their faith and salvation in keeping the Law. Since none of this was true, it caused Paul great sorrow and he wanted them to know how he really felt. However, their stubbornness and unwillingness to change confirmed what he already knew as a former Jew himself. They were convinced that righteousness will be given as a prize to the one that runs the race. They don’t see it as a merciful gift from God; a person is more than capable of earning their salvation.¹ It doesn’t surprise Luther that Paul wished he could give up his life for his people, it goes with what he told the Corinthians: “As for me, I will most gladly spend everything I have and be spent myself for your sakes. If I love you more, are you going to love me less for doing so?²”³

John Calvin says that what bothered Paul the most was their hell-bent attitude on not changing and giving up good works and seizing faith as the way to salvation. This caused him great anguish and he wanted to express that to them. Yet, Paul had to admit that this was all planned by God. This teaches us that we can be obedient to being what God wants us to be, but it shouldn’t prevent us from grieving for those who are lost, especially our own family or nation. Although we know they are doomed by God’s fair and equal justice, still, we should not give up on trying to win them to His saving grace.

We must never forget that the mind and will of any person can still be influenced by two things. First, when we look at the lost and know that it is their lot to be judged as sinners, in the end, we can console ourselves because it is God’s decision. But secondly, when we look at the evil they are in we can empathize with the heartache and sorrow they are going through. Calvin echoes what Martin Luther had to say about Paul’s perceived attitude here: “Whoever laughs at his neighbor’s loss and delights in it, while saying that he loves him, adds to their envy a lie.”⁴ Calvin feels that people are deceived when they say that the godly should have no compassion and be calloused toward those who are bound for destruction so that they will not be in danger of going against God’s will.⁵

But Calvin was not finished. As he sees it, Paul could not have presented a greater expression of true love than by what he did here. It is surely perfect love that causes anyone to give up their life for a friend. But to this Paul adds another word, “anathema,” which means being denounced and have the most abhorrent and disgraceful evil wished upon you. This not only speaks about dying at a young age with swift sentencing to eternal punishment. And for Paul, nothing could be worse or carry out such anathema than to be forever separated from Christ.

Once one is separated from Christ, they are then permanently excluded from the hope of salvation. This was certainly proof of Paul’s ardent love for his fellow Jews. But here is what hurt the most, what they may wish upon him as anathema, was already something coming their way. And Paul only considered taking their anathema upon himself was that he might thereby deliver them from their destiny of everlasting punishment into everlasting life. We should not object to Paul’s willingness to say these things even though he knew that his salvation was secure in being chosen by God. That meant his salvation could not fail. It also did not mean that his passion and love for his fellow Jews was something said in haste and that he did not really mean it.⁶

In response to Paul’s confession of the heaviness of heart over the plight of the Jews, John Bengel remarked that when it comes to spiritual things, the deepest grief and highest joy may coexist in the same heart. Paul was sure that his fellow Jews were excluding themselves from the many blessings he had already spoken of. At the same time, he made it clear that what he was saying about their lost state was not done in a spirit of hostility.⁷ Ministers and teachers will often find that when they must call sin for what it is and make clear what the punishment will be, while they speak with a sense of authority, they do so with the voice of compassion, not condemnation.

Bengel then goes on to say that sometimes words can not fully express the emotions we hold within us. That’s because we often have mixed emotions. There are times when the most dedicated servant of God can pray a prayer such as Paul does here. But those who are still young in faith and immature in the ways of the Spirit would find it impossible to do the same. When we look back on Moses and Paul, it’s not easy to estimate the measure of love they had for those around them. It certainly showed in what they were willing to do on their behalf of they fellowman. For those of us with limited powers of reason, it’s hard to grasp, as a child cannot fully comprehend, the courage of such heroes. What makes Moses and Paul so extraordinary is that there were able to perform such acts as these at any time they chose.⁸ No doubt this is why Jesus told His disciples to go back to Jerusalem and wait until they were endued with power from on high, for He knew they couldn’t do what He was asking them to do without the help of the Spirit.⁹

Adam Clarke touches on the difficulty of understanding what Paul says here. He admits that there are very few passages in the New Testament that have puzzled critics and commentators more than this. When taken in the literal sense, Paul wishing for anathema to come on him was absurd. No person in their right mind would ever contemplate such a thought. Who could themselves to be eternally damned in order to save those who might not want to be saved at all? And to think that such an illogical and atrocious thing could be brought about by the sacrifice of one man was equally as ludicrous and laughable. Paul was only mentioning what had passed through his mind as the length to which he might go to if it were at all possible. After he was filled with God’s love, he saw, as a Jew, how wrong his rejection of Christ really was. The same can be said of people today. Once they are born again they can see more clearly what a miserable sinner they were. No wonder they have such compassion for the family and friends to be saved.

This is what gave Paul such insight into their condition and why their future in eternity was so hopeless unless they were changed by the power of the Gospel. Paul said all of this out of love, not boasting. It was meant to show his humility, not his pride. He does not mention that he had any divine inspiration to make such a wish. All he was doing was trying to show how unreasonable and preposterous it might become for the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah and be saved.¹⁰ In other words, Paul was only expressing a thought that he knew beforehand was unfeasible, but one that even Moses had entertained when he saw these people’s forefathers turn their backs on God.¹¹

Robert Haldane thinks that to understand the real meaning of this passage, there are three things of importance we must look at. In the first place, Paul is speaking in the past tense, not the present tense. This is seen in the original Greek. That should require the English translation to read: “I was wishing,” or “I did wish,” instead of “I wish.” Haldane sees this wish as referring to the Apostle’s state before his conversion. The second thing to notice is that the verb which the King James Version translated as “wish,” would have been more correctly rendered as “boast.” In other words, Paul was saying that it would be nice if he could boast about being separated from Christ on their behalf. Such a rendering of Paul’s words makes Paul’s statement much clearer, we have the most unquestionable authority. And the third thing Haldane points out is that in the first part of the 3rd verse, it should include in parenthesis the words: “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I myself made it my boast to be separated from Christ) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”¹² The Complete Jewish Bible renders it this way: “I could wish myself actually under God’s curse and separated from the Messiah if it would help my brothers, my own flesh and blood.”

Albert Barnes also notes that this passage has been greatly misconstrued by many interpreters. Some proposed it should be translated, “I did wish,” as referring to Paul’s former state as an unbelieving Jew, when he renounced who Christ was, and sought with fervor to eradicate this heretical sect in loyalty to his Jewish religion and culture. But such an interpretation presents insurmountable objections. Paul had no intentions of trying to describe what he felt before, but what he was feeling now about how he felt about his fellow countrymen who were lost without Christ. He suffered little for them back then. He wanted them to know what he was willing to suffer now. Barnes says that the proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not “I did wish,” but “I would have desired.” That is if the thing were possible. In other words, it is not something Paul had wished for, or even wished for now. Paul wanted them to know that if it were even possible, he would do whatever he could to save them from ruin and apostasy.¹³

Noting that many interpreters of Scripture have wrestled with Paul’s meaning of wanting to be cut off from Christ, Henry Alford brings up the point that there should be no effort in pressing the Apostle Paul into admitting that he is being inconsistent by saying that he loves his nation more than his Savior. What we have here is the expression of an affectionate and self-denying heart. It comes from someone who is willing to surrender whatever it takes, even if it meant losing eternal glory itself in order to obtain those blessings of the Gospel which he now enjoys for his beloved people, but from which they will be excluded unless they repent and believe. But it must be remembered that Paul does not want anyone to believe that such a fatal wish would ever be made. His intent was to show the inconceivable limit to which, if admissible, his self-devotion would take him. Alford acknowledges that while others may express their love by professing themselves ready to give their life for their friends, Paul declares an intensity of affection that made even the spiritual life he now enjoyed not too great a price to pay if it might purchase their salvation. And what greater example could Paul be thinking of than Jesus Christ his Lord and Savior?¹⁴