Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson IX)

While growing up in the 1940s and 50s, both in the United States and Germany, whenever there was an evangelistic crusade or church revival, sometimes only a few people came forward for salvation. I used to hear evangelists call those who did not respond as being “Gospel-hardened.” This meant, they had heard so much preaching that they became immune to the power of the Word. And instead of it waking them up to their need for a Savior, it put them to sleep with the numbing effect of indifference.

Adam Clarke addresses this same idea in his comments on this verse. Israel had so willfully closed their eyes to the light, and their ears against the sound of God’s message, that He gave them up to the spirit of slumber. The very word and revelation of God, which should have awakened their consciences, and opened their eyes and ears, had a very different effect. And because they did not, thereby, receive the truth of God’s love that would have been the sweet savor of life unto everlasting life, it became the bitter taste of death unto eternal death. This same phenomenon continues to the present day.¹ In other words, God’s Spirit stopped waking them up so they could respond to the alarm and left them to suffer the consequences of their indifference.

Robert Haldane also addresses God’s process of election or choosing, those to be saved. As he sees it, the election of a sinful creature is an act of the free and sovereign will of God. However, that does not make His punishment a sovereign or arbitrary act of rejected Divine authority. God does not punish without the accused having been found guilty. Condemnation presupposes positive criminality. Humans are in themselves sinful and commit sin voluntarily. So their punishment ends up being that they are hardened and finally perish in their sins. Therefore, their destruction is the execution of a just sentence of God against unforgiven sin. Their sins, which are the cause of their destruction, are their own; the salvation of those whom God chooses and calls to Himself is His gift.

God knows what people abandoned to their own inclinations will do. As to those who are finally condemned, He reluctantly must let them suffer the consequences of their depraved inclinations, and this further hardens them in their rebellion against Him. But as to His determination, by grace, to cause the sinner to believe, to will, and to obey, it requires a positive intervention of Divine power — a power which creates anew, which no person merits or deserves, and which God allows or withholds according to the counsel of His own will. In accord with this, we see throughout the Scriptures, that when people are saved, they are saved by the sovereign grace of God, and when they perish, it is by their own foolish and senseless rejection of God’s amazing grace.²

Charles Hodge also has an interesting commentary on the blinding and hardening of the hearts of the Jews who refused to listen to the truth. Hodge points out that the Greek verb pōroō rendered “were blinded” (KJV), literally means: “to cover with thick skin, to cover with a callus, to grow hard and to render insensible.” That infers that they became insensitive to the truth and life-changing power of the Gospel, and, therefore, disregarded its offers and its claims. This affected their understanding as well as their heart. It was both blindness and resoluteness. The passive form of blindness used here may simply express the idea that they became hardened to the Gospel. It is another way of saying that God abandoned them to the hardness of their own hearts.³

Charles Spurgeon makes the point that when people say that they have no interest in listening to the Gospel, if you should ask them if they wouldn’t mind listening to its simple message again, their answer will probably be, “No, I’ve heard enough!” They are just tired of hearing the same thing over and over. They may offer the excuse that the Gospel is too difficult to understand. So when you offer them an easy-to-read translation of the Gospels and ask them if they would try reading it again in that version, most likely they will tell you that it’s too much trouble and they just don’t have the time.⁴

No doubt Spurgeon would agree, that if you told someone you had a Will from a recently deceased wealthy uncle and that it was hard to understand with all its legal jargon, but could read it they thought it might include them as a beneficiary, they would grab it out of your hand and read it with a magnifying glass if necessary. It is a case of an individual wanting to get something without doing anything in return. So they must not blame anybody if they remain in ignorance. Even so, those who decline to hear what the Gospel has to say should not wonder why they still have such unrest in their soul and such confusion in their mind.

Frédéric Godet says that once the elect are accepted, it follows that all the rest who were not chosen are then eliminated, and this is done in the most regrettable manner. It was their decision to harden their resolve to remain as they are even after God visited them. Godet explains that the Greek verb pōroō, “to harden,”⁵ signifies in the strict physical sense: to deprive an organ of its natural sensibility. But in a moral sense: to take away from the heart the faculty of being touched by what is good or godly, and from the mind the faculty of discerning between the true and the untrue, the good and the bad. What Paul will go on to say helps explain how it is possible for such an effect to be ascribed to a divine decision.⁶

Charles Ellicott has a good explanation of the term, “the spirit of slumber” (KJV) in verse 8. He tells us that this phrase has a curious history. Etymologically, the Greek noun katanyxis translated ”slumber” would seem to agree better with the marginal rendering, “remorse,” since it comes from a root meaning “to prick or cut with a sharp instrument.” In other words, they have become insensitive to even a jab of the skin. There happens to be another root word somewhat similar, but certainly not connected, which means “drowsiness.”

Then we find out that the Greek word in the text has also been used to render the Hebrew word nuwm for “slumber.” It has been thought that there was a confusion between the two. It appears, however, from the Greek Septuagint Version, that the sense of “slumber” had certainly come to be attached to the word as used by Paul. So we can see that from the notion of a sharp wound or blow came the idea that it caused bewilderment or grogginess, and subsequently, it came to signify being in a stupor.⁷

F. F. Bruce helps us understand why the KJV would translate the Greek verb pōroō as “blind” rather than “harden.” He shares that it means “make hard” or “render insensitive” (cf. the noun pōrōsis, “hardening,” in verse 25). In modern English, such moral “blindness” is commonly used to denote spiritual insensitivity. They were made blind to the truth. If we were to ask by whom they were “hardened,” verse 8 seems to provide the answer. It is not the first time in this epistle such inward insensitivity is divinely permitted as a judicial penalty for refusal to heed the word of God⁸.⁹

Theologian Karl Barth gives us a very intellectual explanation of what he finds here. No doubt there were many who saw the ones God selected to be part of His chosen remnant, but how pitiful that Paul tells us, “The rest became as hard as rocks.” The Apostle John echoes this same sentiment with the words, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it!” Hopelessness remains hopelessness, and death remains death. There is no continuity between the bearers of hope and those to whom hope is brought. There is no infection of the one by the other, no influence of the one upon the other. Nothing is transferred. Only God has the power to make a change in these things. Only from God can they obtain that which, if they do not receive it from Him, they cannot find anywhere else.

In Barth’s mind, God’s elect can be for others in this world no more than messengers of His kingdom. They cannot be a spiritual beginning or seed or kernel for others. According to the synoptic narrative of the Gospels, Jesus sent out His disciples to proclaim the Kingdom,¹⁰ not to establish it. Moreover, the disciples, as is expressly mentioned in Matthew 10:28, are in grave and mortal danger of leaving God out of the Gospel equation and projecting themselves “outside” of Christ and thus being hardened and hermetically sealed against the promised blessings for being His servants.

So it is clear, therefore, that the Church needs to appreciate hope, to understand that there is no hope for this world unless God somehow works a miracle. And the miracle of God is the message of the elect. In fact, the only observable truth which the Church can proclaim – and it ought to be inscribed on every church door, to be written on the first page of every hymnal, and to form the title of every religious book – is this truth: hardening of the heart removes all hope. Where God is not recognized and revered, such who do so will forever be part of the unchosen. And they all became so because of their rejection of Him.¹¹

Jewish scholar David Stern believes that what Paul is saying here, in using the words of the Torah, about those who were chosen and the rest who became hardened, can be seen today with the Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah and those who have not. He says, “The Messianic Jews have obtained it through trusting in the atonement God has provided in Yeshua, but the rest have been made stone-like by their rejection of Him.” Stein also makes note of the Greek verb pôroô as found here and in other Scriptures.¹² He then tells us that the related Greek noun, pôrôsis is used in verse 25 below.¹³ In most versions, the verb is rendered “hardened” or “blinded.”

The Complete Jewish Bible’s literal translation points up the allusion to Ezekiel 36:26, where God, speaking of what He will do for Israel in the Latter Days, and says, “I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.” As here in Romans 10:14–21 Paul does not give a tough answer without Scriptural support. Three of Israel’s major religious figures writing in the three main sections of the Tanakh¹⁴ (Moses in the Torah; Isaiah in the Prophets; David in the Writings) are shown to bear witness to Israel’s dullness, blindness and deafness to God, and consequent bondage. Paul, who might otherwise be accused of arrogance or antisemitism, is seen instead to be in the tradition of the great prophets of our people, on whom he is relying.¹⁵

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson VIII) 

You can sense the disappointment and ache in the Lord’s heart as the people He saved from endless slavery drifted away from His love when He said to the prophet Isaiah, “These people approach Me with empty words, and the honor they bestow on Me is mere lip-service; while in fact, they have distanced their hearts from Me, their worship of Me is worth nothing. They follow the doctrines made by humans.”¹ Anyone reading this without knowing that it came from the quill of Isaiah some 2,800 years ago, could think that God was describing some churches today. But praise God that He was not finished with them yet because He then tells Isaiah: “But look, I will once again do great things with these people, great and wonderful things.”² Perhaps it was this promise that Paul had in mind for the revival of his fellow Jews and their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. But Paul is not through, he has more condemnation for those who continued to reject the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth.

One early church scholar clearly puts the blame squarely on the Jews for any failure in God’s efforts to bring them salvation through grace. After all, the promises were made to the Jews that Christ would come to save them from their sins, but since He came and they did not believe, Paul says that the fact Israel failed to obtain salvation is their own fault.³ Then Pelagius adds his insights to this loss of God’s promise. He contends that Israel as a whole did not acquire righteousness because it did not seek it by faith but thought that justification came solely by works demanded by the Law. That is why our Savior said that in their efforts to keep from being contaminated by immoral deeds, they were straining out mistakes as small as a gnat while swallowing sins as big as a camel⁴.⁵ And another early church scholar from Egypt observes that while many in Israel mistakenly tried to obtain righteousness by using the Law, there were others who were elected and sealed did receive it on account of their belief, being justified by their faith. The rest were blinded, being hardened and rebellious.⁶

On Paul’s quote from the writings in the First Covenant, early church scholar Origen confesses that he had never been able to find the source of this quotation. So he asks that if someone who consults holy Scripture more thoroughly than he had done and finds it, let him know.⁷ I’m willing to believe that after reading this, some good friend contacted Origen and told him that it was a combined paraphrase of Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10. This is why a cross-reference Bible is so valuable to a student of God’s Word. Obviously, there were none available in 200 AD.

But when it came to the purpose for which Paul made this quote, Ambrosiaster believes that these are the carnal Israelites who thought they were justified by the law and did not realize that they were actually justified by faith in Christ. In fact, their justification through the law still left them all guilty. The problem was, they blinded and unable to see the way of truth because they had rejected the Gospel which made their coming to salvation by grace impossible.

The examples taken from the prophets reveal that there are two kinds of blind people. The first type consists of those who are blinded forever, who will never be saved. These people are so closed-minded that they keep saying back to God and His prophets, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The second type involves those who, although they try to live according to the law, do not accept what Christ did on the cross as necessary for their being right with God. These people are not doing this by virtue of a stubborn will, but by imitating a tradition of righteousness by works started by their ancestors. They have, therefore, become blind to the great works of Christ which cannot be ignored. They have decided to follow human opinion instead of instruction from God.⁸

Martin Luther does not take Paul’s quote here from Deuteronomy: “God has given them a spirit of dullness — eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear,”⁹ to mean that God created or infused a spirit that was placed in people’s minds. Rather, that the hardness of their mind and resistance of their will are being described this way.¹⁰ In other words, because they would not listen and would not consider what God was saying, there rose a spirit of obstinance within them against God’s message because it was impossible to think that intelligent human beings could not live and act that way on their own strength and wisdom.

John Calvin sees Paul laboring here to prove that the blindness caused by their wickedness that made them deserving of being rejected was an accident. God knew of this rejection before the foundation of the world. Calvin says there is a way we can solve the following riddle: how did the origin of mankind’s self-righteousness, which provokes God’s displeasure, become the unruliness of human nature when forsaken by God. Paul, therefore, while speaking of eternal rejection, has not, without reason, referred to those things which carry on from it, as fruit from a tree or a river from a spring.

For Calvin, the ungodly are indeed bound to incur God’s judgment of spiritual blindness. But if we go back to the source of what caused their ruin, we will discover this: their staying away from God can only lead to all their good deeds, rites, rituals, and ceremonies earning them nothing but eternal torment. Yet the cause of eternal rejection is so hidden from us, that nothing remains for us to do but stand in awe of God’s incomprehensible purpose for His creation. But there are some who come up with the absurd idea that, in spite of being told about the ultimate end, we should still attempt to present evidence that nothing can be done about this because it has been God’s plan from the beginning. In fact, God had already decided what He was going to do with the whole human race before the fall of Adam. Their sin did not catch Him off guard.¹¹

To put what Calvin is saying here in another light, look at it this way: A gardener puts insecticides and pesticides in his garden knowing that if the insects or pests eat the poison instead of the fruit they will surely die. In other words, their predestined death was determined before they ate the poison, not after. Yet, the area where the gardener placed the poison required the insects and pests to actively go in search of it. This is what happened in the Garden of Eden, and as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, all future generations of mankind were under the curse of death. And since so many died of sin’s poison, God sent a Messenger into the world to make everyone aware that there was a cure for the poison that causes sin. This was made possible by His dying on the cross so that His blood would contain the antidote for sin. But even though this Gospel is preached, there are many who still shut their eyes and close their hearts to the light and are thus blinded and numbed to the truth. So it must be concluded that while such blind obstinance is indeed due to an act of God, it is mankind’s fault for not receiving the cure for what is killing them.

John Locke’s paraphrase of these two verses helps us see what he saw. I have toned down some of the old English to make it more understandable. He wrote, “How is this possible? Although many of the Jews failed to find what they were looking for, yet some were chosen to become part of God’s Elect. So why is it that the rest of them remained blind to what was going on? The fact is, they lost interest in what God was doing and fell asleep. So with their eyes closed, they couldn’t see, and with their ears shut they couldn’t hear, and they have remained that way to this day.” He notes that the righteousness which the Jews were seeking is explained back in chapter 9, verse 31. This meant that anyone who had been chosen to be a part of this remnant was to consider it a privilege, not a right. Likewise, the Gentiles who would be joined with them into one body of believers must recognize that they are all now the possession of the One True God and part of one kingdom setup under His Son. Therefore, they owed it all to their having been elected by God’s grace.¹²

John Bengel has an interesting concept here of how those who heard the Word ended up slumbering through the message because of their sinful stupor. He points to Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost and his plea with those who heard him to accept what was being said and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sin. “Change your hearts and lives!” Peter called out.¹³ Luke tells us: “He [Peter] pressed his case with many other arguments and kept pleading with them, ‘Save yourselves from this perverse generation!’”¹⁴ Yet, in spite of his pleading, not everyone who heard his message responded to receive salvation. Says Bengel that the word “slumber” used here, “Denotes suffering from frequent pricking, which terminates in a stupor.”¹⁵ Referencing back to Acts 2:37, where the Complete Jewish Bible renders it: “On hearing this, they were stung in their hearts,” Bengel then points to where Paul used it the same concept when he said: “What is more, their minds were made stone-like; for to this day the same veil remains over them when they read the Old Covenant.”¹⁶

John Taylor says that Paul has his eye on the remnant of the Jews who embraced the Gospel that he just mentioned in Verse 5. So Paul now interjects this verse to show that their standing in the Church had no relationship to, or dependence upon, their past status as Jews or on their observance of the Law. Their standing in the Church and Covenant was according to the election of grace received by faith. That was the only ground upon which they could now build their lives as believers and children of God through Christ. Taylor is insistent that no one should ever suppose that this was some special grace that God created just for the remnant. It was and is the same grace by which all of His children would be chosen. If thought of as something special for each group, then Jesus would have had to die once for the Jews, and then again for the Gentiles.¹⁷

That would be like saying today that if a person who has been raised in the world is reached by the Good News and chosen, that this is a different form of grace than that which is given to people raised in the church. No, it takes the same grace for all. There is only one Savior, who died on one cross, and shed one type of blood as the remedy for all sin and all sinners. So just because a person is raised in a Christian and knows all about the Bible, prayer, and worship, that does not mean they only need half-cleansing. Whether you get sick laying in a hospital or laying on a dump heap, you need the same medicine for the same sickness.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson VII)

Charles Hodge adds his insights on verse 6 to those of the others. He accepts this verse as an exegetical comment on the last clause of the preceding one. If the election spoken of is by grace, it is not founded then on works, for the two things are incompatible. This was no doubt the Apostle’s desire to keep the unmerited gift of the election of individuals by grace in clear view. This, in turn, would also keep the enjoyment of the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom right before our eyes. Paul would not otherwise have stopped in the middle of his discourse to insist that we prioritize this idea.

This verse also serves to illustrate several declarations of the Apostle in chapter nine. For example, in Romans 9:11 people are said to be chosen in a sovereign manner, not according to their good deeds, the same as it is said here in verse 6. It is obvious that any charitable deeds a person might do in the future were excluded as all others. Any choice founded upon what may happen in the future may then include anything a person may speculate will happen. Consequently, it would not be accredited to grace, in the sense asserted by the Apostle here. In the second place, the choice which is here declared to be so entirely gratuitous is being chosen to become part of the kingdom of Christ. This is evident from the whole context, and especially from verse 7. It was from this kingdom and all its spiritual and eternal blessings that the Jews, as a body, were eliminated, and to which “the remnant according to the election by grace” was admitted.¹

Frédéric Godet shared his thoughts on verse 6 by saying that the Apostle wished to express the idea, that if Israel possesses this privilege of always preserving within their bosom a faithful remnant, it is not because of any particular merit they have acquired by their good deeds; it is purely a matter of grace on the part of Him who chose them. The moment the idea that a person could merit consideration for being elected by God through good deeds us accepted, it immediately threatens to take away from grace its character of freeness. Why add such an idea to God’s plan? It proved to be a matter of grace by which the loyalty of the remnant was maintained that forced God to reject the masses that did not believe. That’s why such rejection cannot be seen as injustice. If there were, on the part of Israel as a nation, the slightest hint of their good deeds being considered as merit for their election, then the whole idea of the remnant being reserved based on grace would have lost its validity.²

Charles Ellicott takes issue with the KJV rendering of verse six. In the Authorized Version, it reads: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” However, in the Greek, it is rendered: “And since it is through God’s kindness, then it is not by their good works. For, in that case, God’s grace would not be what it really is – free and undeserved.”³ As Ellicott sees it, the preservation of the remnant cannot be due to grace and works at the same time; it must be due to one or the other.⁴ And since it is impossible by works, then only grace remains.

John Stott believes we must keep in mind that grace is God’s merciful kindness to the undeserving, so that if His election is by grace, then it has nothing to do with good deeds according to the Law. If it were, grace would no longer require gratitude. It is refreshing, in our era of relativistic fog, to see Paul’s resolve in maintaining the purity of verbal meanings. His objective is to insist that grace excludes works, that is, God’s initiative excludes ours. If you confuse such opposites as faith and works being equal in strength and value, then words will simply lose their meaning.⁵

Douglas Moo adds his support of this concept by saying that for him grace means that works have no role to play in God choosing and blessing whomever He pleases. Such an act is entirely free and it is God’s prerogative to elect His choice to receive His favor by grace. If those blessings were, in fact, possible by our works, God would not be granting His blessings freely, and grace would no longer be grace. Rather, it would become blessings that God would begrudgingly have to give due to merit.⁶

And Jewish scholar David Stern joins in by noting that in verse 6 Paul reiterates what he said about legalistic works apart from trust in God, and how they are incompatible with grace. This requires no effort or prior deeds, only trust. But here the emphasis is on the relationship between good works and being chosen: works that please God must follow selection by Him, not precede it.⁷ So by now everyone in Rome should have a clear understanding that salvation is God’s choice, not theirs; that God’s choice is made possible by His grace, not by how good a person may claim to be; and God’s decision cannot be swayed one way or the other because He already decided before the world began.

Verses 7-8: So this is what happened: The people of Israel did not obtain the blessings they were striving for. Rather, the ones God selected got His blessings, but the rest became as hard as rocks. As the Scriptures say, “God caused the people to fall asleep. God closed their eyes so that they could not see, and He closed their ears so that they could not hear. This continues until now.⁸”

At this point, we must ask the question: What prompts God to send His Spirit to pick out someone He wants led to Christ for salvation? God gave a clue by what He said through His prophets. Moses, for instance, said to the children if Israel just before they entered the Promised Land: “From there you shall seek Yahweh your God, and you shall find Him, when you search after Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”⁹ Then David told his son Solomon: “If you seek Him, He will be found by you, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever.”¹⁰ And through Jeremiah God told all those who would listen: “Then you will call to Me. You will come and pray to Me, and I will hear you. When you look for Me, you will find Me. When you wholeheartedly seek Me, I will let you find Me, declares the LORD.”¹¹ In other words, all that mankind sees above them and all around them is God’s invitation for them to come and get to know Him better. It is then from these that God makes a selection as to who will be His and who will not.

Paul points out to his readers in Rome that this is what happened to many Jews. Through Abraham’s calling, they were invited to be part of God’s elect. But many of them did not find what they were looking for because they took the wrong road. That’s why the Holy Spirit inspired Solomon to say to those who rejected the truth when it was presented to them: “They will call on Me, but I will not answer. They will look for Me, but they will not find Me. Because they hated much learning and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would not listen when I told them what they should do. They laughed at all My warnings.”¹²

As Jesus made His way to Jerusalem preaching and teaching about the Kingdom of God, many came up to Him and asked how many would be saved from the punishment of sin. Jesus told them that it won’t be easy, and many will try to get in on their own but they won’t make it.¹³ Then the writer of Hebrews uses Jacob and Esau as examples of those who are part of Abraham’s promise. Jacob was renamed Israel as he wrestled with the angel and went on to become the father of all Israelites. But Esau gave up his birthright for a bowl of porridge. Says the writer: “He did not get it even when he asked for it with tears. It was too late to make right the wrong he had done.”¹⁴

So, Paul says, those that God has chosen to be part of the kingdom, were chosen by grace not by any works that they did to deserve it. Paul made this clear to the Thessalonians: “Christian brothers, the Lord loves you… It is because God has chosen you from the beginning to save you from the punishment of sin. He chose to make you holy by the Holy Spirit and to give you faith to believe the truth.”¹⁵ In other words, when Paul came preaching the truth of the Gospel, they saw the light. Some turned to the light as they heard God’s call while others turned from the light and rejected the call.

In fact, it is as though they were blinded by the light or had their eyes covered so they couldn’t see the light and understand what it meant.¹⁶ But in reality, they closed their eyes to the light. That’s why Jesus quoted Isaiah when He said to His disciples who couldn’t understand why so many turned away from the truth: “I speak to them in picture-stories. They have eyes but they do not see. They have ears but they do not hear and they do not understand.”¹⁷ And Paul confessed to the Corinthians that many of the Jews who came out to hear him preach walked away unfazed. He said: “Their minds were not able to understand… They do not see that Christ is the only One Who can take the covering away… But whenever a man turns to the Lord, the covering is taken away. The heart is free where the Spirit of the Lord is.”¹⁸ And to the Thessalonians Paul had this warning about those who turn away from the light: “Those who are lost in sin will be fooled by the things he can do. They are lost in sin because they did not love the truth that would save them. For this reason, God will allow them to follow false teaching so they will believe a lie. They will all be guilty as they stand before God because they wanted to do what was wrong.”¹⁹

The quote from Isaiah that Paul uses here to make his point, comes from an interesting situation. Conditions in Jerusalem had reached such a point that she faced defeat and possible extinction from not only the fury of nature but also the force of her enemies. Isaiah referred to Jerusalem by her symbolic name “Ariel,” which means “victorious with God.” Spiritually speaking, the Jews had become drunk with the wine of the world, and it appeared that there was no way for salvation to come through His neglected Word. Isaiah describes this frustrating situation with an illustration. He writes: “For you this whole prophetic vision has become like the message in a sealed-up scroll. When one gives it to someone who can read and says, ‘Please read this,’ he answers, ‘I can’t, because it’s sealed.’ If the scroll is given to someone else…with the request, ‘Please read this,’ and he says, ‘ But I can’t read.’”²⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson VI)

German Lutheran scholar John Bengel states that when it comes to salvation, the decree of God is absolute. In other words, nothing mankind does can infringe on the sovereignty of God’s choices. Says Bengel: Nature demands works; faith accepts grace. So in his view, in the first part of verse 6 works are excluded because nature is not being satisfied, and in the second part grace is established because the supernatural is being filled. The first states the conditions under which grace is needed, and the last part announces the conclusion of grace applied.¹

John Taylor believes that in order to understand what Paul is saying here about works and grace, we must keep in mind that he was talking about the Jews’ dependence on the Law to save them. His point to them is this: Your obedience to the Law by doing good works is not part of God’s gift of salvation through Jesus the Messiah. This is only possible by God’s grace and your faith in Christ, who did the work for you, meeting in harmony. Therefore, salvation is not a privilege bestowed on those who qualify based on their own merit or self-worth. It can come only as a gift from a gracious God for reasons known only to Him.² Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards implied that if you especially want to see some invincible proof of the doctrine of election, you’ll find it here in Romans 5:11.³

Adam Clarke follows the same line of thinking. He understands that Paul is making the point that when he speaks of the “election by grace,” he is referring to those being saved in his day as examples of those who were to be saved in the future. They are chosen by God’s grace, not on account of any worth or excellence in themselves. Only through His goodness are they chosen to have a place in His Christ’s Church and continue to be God’s people, entitled to all the privileges provided in the Last Covenant.

The election by grace simply signifies God‘s benevolent design in sending the Christian message into the world, and through it saving all those who believe in Christ Jesus, and nothing else. Thus the believers in Christ are chosen to inherit the blessings of the Gospel, while those who seek justification by the works of the Law will never qualify.⁴ This is another way of saying: No credit for my salvation goes to me, not even my confession and sinner’s prayer. All credit goes to God’s grace for selecting me for such an honor, so all praise and glory goes to Him.

Clarke goes on to say that it is important that we understand what election by grace really means. It is not arbitrary nor done at random, it is God’s rule for choosing any person He desired to be His child based solely on His free grace, and that includes everyone who willingly believes in His Son Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Some Jewish people did believe. Therefore, those believing Jews are a remnant according to the election of grace. They are saved in a way by which God alone will save those who believe. And if by grace – then let these same Jews remember, that their election and inclusion in the covenant of God has no connection with their old legal works.

If it turns out that they had been chosen by according to their humanitarian deeds, then grace would lose its divine nature, and cease to be what it really is – a free undeserved gift from God. Clarke concludes that we may observe farther, that since this is not the case, they, as well as the others, have been excluded by remaining in unbelief as others did. The intent of this election of grace sent individually to all Jews, notwithstanding that they were all sinners, was to provide the opportunity for them to receive it by faith. In doing so, Christ, then, would be the only reason why any of them were chosen. This is the true essence of the election of grace. It is not a case of our selecting Yahweh to be our God, but Yahweh electing us to be His children.⁵

Robert Haldane then gives his understanding of election by grace. As we know, the opponents of the doctrine of election maintained that people were chosen on account of their good works, some done in the past, and some to be completed in the future. But here the Apostle Paul expressly declares that it is not on account of works at all, whether past, present or future. What, then, is the source of election by grace? It is an act of grace done with love, kindness, and mercy as part of God’s selection process. It has nothing to do with good deeds of any kind, but purely at God’s favor. Grace and works are here stated as diametrically opposite and totally irreconcilable. If, however, election is somehow understood to include works, that would imply a stark contradiction. Grace would not then be grace. Here we have the guarantee of Scripture for asserting that any discrepancy reveals an untruth and that no authority is sufficient to establish two propositions which actually clash with each other.⁶

Albert Barnes also makes several important points here. He saw it as being similar to what happened to Elijah back in his day. God had reserved for Himself all that turned away from idolatry, so now in Paul’s day, it was by the same gracious sovereignty that God had a remnant that was saved from rejecting the Messiah, Yeshua of Nazareth. The Apostle here does not specify the number, but there can be no doubt that a multitude of Jews had become believing Christians, though compared with the multitude who rejected the Messiah, it was but a remnant. The Apostle shows that neither were all the ancient people of God cast away nor that any yet to come would He outright reject. Those who were rejected were done so because of stubbornness and unbelief. Yet still, there were some who were steadfast in their faith and thus found favor with God. That’s why the Jews in Paul’s day should not think that somehow this was a new or remarkable idea. The story of the remnant selected in Elijah’s day was recorded in their own Scriptures for their own benefit.⁷

Barnes concludes, that if the fact that any remnant had been reserved by grace, then it cannot be that they were chosen upon merit. That’s why Paul uses that occasion to combat the universal notion of the Jews, that they were justified by obedience to the Law. He reminds them that in the time of Elijah it was because God had reserved them; the same was the case now; therefore, their doctrine of merit could not be true.⁸ Again, if people are justified by their works, it could not be a matter of favor, but would be seen as a debt God owed them. If it could be that the doctrine of justification by grace could be accepted and yet the doctrine of merit allowed to be included, then it would follow that grace had undergone a change and was different from what the word properly signifies.

The idea of being saved by merit contradicts the very idea of grace. If a person owes a debt and pays it, it cannot then be said that it was canceled by favor, or by grace. The person to whom they owed the debt had a claim against them, so when they paid that debt, they were not doing the person to whom they owed the debt a favor, they were obligated to pay it.⁹ Why would, or how could, anyone be bold enough to think that God owed them anything? There were some among the Jews who believed that because God allowed the sin of Adam to jeopardize their place in the kingdom-to-come, God owed them some type of reparation. Also, there were those who held that if they took the time and put in the effort to abide by every law and do things according to the very letter of the Law, then certainly God should give them preferential treatment. But this must all be rejected because the doctrine of grace does not allow any thought of God owing the sinner any special favors.

H. A. Ironside makes the point that the great thing for Israel to understand is this: if they are saved at all, they are saved exactly as Gentiles were saved, and that is by grace. Grace, as we have seen, is unmerited favor. In fact, we may put it even stronger: it is favor over merit. This precludes any thought of getting what you’ve worked for. If merit of any sort is taken into consideration, then grace is weakened. If it could be that salvation can be had through works, this leaves no place whatsoever for grace because it would be overshadowed by a meritorious character built on good works and, therefore, not needed. The two principles: salvation by grace, and salvation by works, are diametrically opposed, to one another. There can be no commixture of law and grace; they are mutually incompatible principles.¹⁰

Preacher Octavius Winslow focuses on the term, “grace,” here in verse 6. He turns our attention to a similar passage which declares that the salvation of the sinner is by an act of mere GRACE. The reader must keep in mind one simple definition of grace: it means God’s unmerited favor to sinners. It leaves no room for a person with a sterling character to qualify based on their own merits. This is the glory of the Gospel: “By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”¹¹ “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”¹² “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.”¹³ “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it is by works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”¹⁴

Winslow goes on to ask how the doctrine of grace and the free gift of atonement could be made any clearer or more conclusive than the verses just quoted? You can see the true force of the Apostle’s argument. It stands boldly upon this principle: If there be anything of merit in the individual; if the works of any sinner are the grounds; even partially, on which salvation is bestowed, then the reward, or the blessing, is not a free gift, but the discharge of a debt – a debt, let it be kept in mind, due from God to the sinner! And as a consequence of their merit, and as a result of their works, pardon and justification are then handed over to the sinner as a deserved reward. What doctrine can be more horrendous than this? what idea can be more opposed to God’s Word?

And yet the distorted doctrine that teaches us that we may present ourselves before a Holy God with some self-made fitness of our own, holding some trophy in our hand designed to merit God’s forgiveness, this is what those people are saying that preach this doctrine of salvation by good deeds. Look again at the Apostle’s argument: if there be anything of merit in the individual, if it be so much as the raising of their hand, salvation then is not of grace, the Atonement is not free; and God, we tremble while we write it – God becomes the sinner’s debtor!¹⁵

French experimental biologist and philosopher Jean Rostand (1894-1977) once wrote, “Nothing leads the scientist so astray as a premature truth.”¹ This is another way of saying, you never know if you are right by “Jumping to conclusions.” This results when someone judges or decides something without having all the facts. We have other ways of defining such individuals as being ill-advised, impetuous, immature, indiscreet, reckless, and so on. Neurologist Robert Burton stated, sometimes our brain will reward us with the thrill of finishing whenever we complete a pattern of thought by filling in the gaps with whatever else comes to our mind in order to reach a conclusion.

Many times we may feel forced to come to a quick decision because of the feelings that lie beneath our response. Emotions like anger go hand-in-hand with other experiences, like vulnerability, shame, guilt, and so on. When we can name those underlying feelings, we can better address them. And, when we become willing to accept the fact that sometimes we just don’t know the answer, that, then, can become our new certainty.

Another factor that leads to this opening our mouths before we put our brains in gear is caused by fear and panic. When this happens, most often it results in negative thinking. We think of the worst outcome. It is often a case of what psychologist’s call cognitive distortions. A more natural way to put it is that a person feels all mixed up. They can’t think of what to do at the moment, so they often incriminate others or blame themselves.

I like the way The Message Version renders one of Solomon’s proverbs. It reads: “Don’t jump to conclusions – there may be a perfectly good explanation for what you just saw [or heard].”² This same thinking was behind our Lord Jesus’ caution that we should not be quick to wrongly judge a situation, so that we will not be misjudged as rapidly. Don’t suddenly denounce something as wrong without thinking so we not be thought of as a person who can’t think straight.³ Remember you can give someone or something the benefit of the doubt before assuming that it is wrong. What you thought you saw or heard may not be factual once all the facts are known.

If you want to read a Bible story about a person who jumped to the wrong conclusion but found out later how wrong they were, just read the story in the Bible of the Syrian General Naaman. What he thought was an effort to embarrass him turned out to be the exact thing he needed for healing.⁴ There is no reason to live life thinking that everything and everyone is against you. Remember, the Scriptures tell us that if God is for us, who else in this world could be on your side, that’s any better God? – Dr. Robert R Seyda

THE PRICE OF A MIRACLE

The following story has been told at numerous times by many speakers. All the research of various fact-checkers has not proven it false nor have they found the original individuals. So treat it as a lesson that may give you faith that our God is big enough for such a miracle to be true.

Tess, an energetic eight-year-old girl, heard her Mom and Dad talking quietly in the other room about her little brother, Andrew. She knew that he was very sick and in the hospital, but she was not allowed to see him yet. They were moving to an apartment complex next month for two reasons, they wanted to be closer to the hospital, and because Daddy couldn’t afford the payments on the house where they were living now.

Tess knew that compared to her friends’ families, her Mom and Dad didn’t have a lot of money. Their car was old, their clothes were not new, and their meals were simple but delicious. The family was facing a very costly surgery in order to save little Andrew. But their health insurance would only pay a small part, and they didn’t know who they could borrow the rest from on their meager income. Then, one day, she heard her Daddy say to her tearful Mother with whispered desperation, “Only a miracle can save him now.”

Tess suddenly had an idea. She went to her bedroom and pulled a glass jelly jar from its hiding place in the closet. She poured out all of the coins on the bed and counted them carefully, three times. She wanted to be sure she had the right amount for what she decided to purchase to help Andrew. Carefully placing the coins back in the jar and twisting on the cap, she slipped out the back door and made her way over to the nearby Rexall Drug Store, the one with the big red Indian Chief sign above the door.

She went in and found her way back to the pharmacy where she waited patiently for the pharmacist to give her some attention. But at the moment he was busy talking to someone else at the counter. Tess twisted her feet to make a scuffing noise. It received no attention. She then cleared her throat with the most attention-getting sound she could muster. Still no good. Finally, she took her jar and begin banging it lightly on the glass counter. That did it!

The pharmacist whirled around and in a pleasant voice said, “I’ll be with you in just a moment.” But Tess wouldn’t be denied. She told him that what she needed was very, very important. The pharmacist told her kindly that he would be with her as soon as he was through talking to this other person. Then, in order for Tess to understand a little better, the Pharmacist said, “This is my brother from Chicago whom I haven’t seen in ages. I’ll be with you as soon as I can.”

“Well, I want to talk to you about MY brother,” Tess answered back in with a pleading sound in her voice. “He’s really, really sick… and I want to buy a miracle to make him better.” This got the Pharmacist’s and his brother’s attention. “I beg your pardon,” he said, you want to buy a what?” A miracle Tess replied. My little brother is very sick. His name is Andrew, and he has something big growing inside of his head, and my Daddy says only a miracle can save him now. So how much does a miracle cost?”

The pharmacist was amused, but he told her, “Well, we don’t sell miracles at this drug store, young lady. They cost a lot of money, so I don’t think I can help you.” “Listen, I have the money to pay for it. If it isn’t enough, just tell me how much it costs, and I’ll see if I can get the rest.” The pharmacist’s brother was a well-dressed man. He walked over and stooped down and asked the little girl, “What kind of a miracle does you brother need?” “I don’t know,” Tess replied with her eyes welling up with tears. “I just know he’s really sick and Mommy says he needs an operation. But, my Daddy can’t pay for it, so I want to use my money.”

The Pharmacist’s brother smiled kindly and asked gently, “How much do you have?” “Four quarters, a dime, and a penny,” said Tess proudly. I think I know where to get a little more if you need it. “My, what a coincidence,” beamed the man. “A dollar and eleven cents is the exact price of a miracle for your little brother.” He told her to hold on to the money, but first, he wanted to talk to her parents. He asked where they lived, and Tess said it was just down the street. So the man took Tess by the hand and said, “Let’s go see your Mom and Dad. Maybe they can tell me what kind of miracle they need for Andrew.”

When Doctor Carlton Armstrong, prominent Chicago neurosurgeon, talked with the parents they confessed they had no resources for more money. They had borrowed all they could on their house, and now the bank was foreclosing so they had to move to a small apartment. Doctor Carlton replied that he had good news, the cost of the surgery had already been paid. The parents were shocked, they couldn’t believe it! He couldn’t tell them the source, only that it was an anonymous donor.

The operation was completed without charge. It wasn’t long before Andrew was home again and doing well. Mom and Dad were happily talking about the chain of events that had led them to this place.

“That surgery,” Mom breathed out with while shaking her head in almost disbelief, “that was a real miracle. Dr. Armstrong didn’t tell us, but I wonder just how much it cost?” Tess was standing there smiling real big. She knew how much it cost, one dollar and eleven cents. But that wasn’t all, neither Tess nor her parents realized how priceless this little girl’s faith was that helped pay the whole price.

Sometimes in life when we face hard times and difficulties that are far beyond our control and capability to handle on our own, the first thing we think of is the monetary cost. But God doesn’t take money for His miracles. Jesus said that heaven’s currency was called “faith.” So sometimes it isn’t how much money you have in the bank down here, but how much faith you have on deposit up there in your heavenly account. – Dr. Robert R Seyda.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson V)

Verses 5-6: It is the same now. God has maintained a chosen few by virtue of grace and election. And if He chose them by grace, then it is not what they have done that made them His people. If they could be made His people by what they did, His gift of grace could no longer be called grace.

This world has only the children of God to thank for their continued longevity. Had it not been for Noah, the entire human race would have been exterminated and the planet returned to a lifeless sphere in the sky. Sodom and Gomorrah could have been saved if only ten righteous were found. Over and over again it boiled down to a small minority who refused to bow their knee to the prince of this world, otherwise, catastrophes would have long ago overtaken the earth. Woe to those who are left after Jesus raptures the church! Even Sodom and Gomorrah will open their eyes in wonder at what will come upon the wicked and ungodly. God doesn’t need the majority to be moved and show mercy and compassion; so even though you may feel you are in the minority, you are on the winning side.

This concept of “the chosen” or “the elect” has been a source of great debate among Bible scholars for centuries. Paul explained it to the Ephesians this way: “Even before the world was made, God chose us for Himself because of His love. He planned that we should be holy and without blame as He sees us. God already planned to have us as His own children. This was done by Jesus Christ. In His plan God wanted this done. We thank God for His loving-favor to us. He gave this loving-favor to us through His much-loved Son.”¹

The reason this causes some confusion is that when compared with John 3:16, Matthew 28:19, and Romans 10:13 it seems like a waste of time if God has already chosen who He wants. But when you look closer you will see that in John 3:16 it says: “that whosoever believes,” and in Matthew 28:19, it refers to those who are baptized, and in Romans 10:13, “whosoever calls on the name.” In other words, we are not to go out in search of the chosen or elect, but to share the good news with everyone God leads us to and let Him and His Holy Spirit do the choosing and electing.

Paul did not want the Roman believers to misunderstand that salvation would be their choice, but God’s choice. If it were their choice, then it would lose its character, its very sanctified nature, and become an award for doing what they thought was right. It could be that Paul was also echoing what Moses told the surviving children of Israel would happen when they finally entered the Promised Land. He told them that they would encounter strong resistance from known warriors, but not to forget that the LORD their God was crossing the Jordan River with them.

Not only that, but should they become afraid, it would be the LORD Himself who would drive out those who had settled without permission on the land God promised to Abraham. Then Moses cautioned them: “After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say in your heart, ‘The Lord has brought me in to take this land because I am right and good.’ It is because of the sin of these nations that the Lord is driving them out in front of you. It is not because of your being right with God that you are going to take their land. But it is because of the sin of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out in front of you.”²

So we can see the possibility that in Paul’s mind, those Jews who accepted Jesus as the Christ should not think they got rid of their sin – represented by the heathens who occupied Abraham’s promised land, by their own efforts. It was God who through His love, grace, and mercy drove out the sin that occupied their souls. And Paul also may have wanted them to know that it wasn’t by anything he was doing that brought about the choosing or electing of those who would become children of God. As he told the Corinthians about their coming to believe on the Lord Jesus: “I worked harder than all the other missionaries. But it was not I who worked. It was God’s loving-favor working through me.”³ Paul also reminded the Galatians: “I say that we are not to put aside the loving-favor of God. If we could be made right with God by keeping the Law, then Christ died for nothing.”⁴

And for his two protégés Timothy and Titus he had a similar message. He told Timothy: “He is the One Who saved us from the punishment of sin. He is the One Who chose us to do His work. It is not because of anything we have done. But it was His plan from the beginning that He would give us His loving-favor through Christ Jesus.”⁵ And Paul wrote to Titus: “It was not because we worked to be right with God. It was because of His loving-kindness that He washed our sins away. At the same time, He gave us new life when the Holy Spirit came into our lives.”⁶ So in Paul’s mind, it was clear that no one showed up among those declared saved by chance, accident, happenstance, coincidence, good luck, being in the right place at the right time, through bargaining, good works, or even flattery. It is God’s decision and God’s choice. And when God makes a choice, He does not make mistakes. Not even choosing the children of Israel to be His own.

Early church preacher Chrysostom begins with this question: “If we are all saved by grace, some might argue, why is everyone not saved?” Because they did not want to be, is the answer. For grace, even though it is grace, saves the willing, not those who refuse it and turn away from it⁷.⁸ Then early church scholar Augustine offers that grace is not given to us because we have done good deeds but in order that we may have the power to do them; not because we have done all that the Law said needed to be done, but in order that we may be able to fulfill it through Christ.⁹ However, early Greek church scholar Gennadius notes that the Apostle Paul expresses himself this way because he wants to show that the Law and Grace are completely incompatible when it comes to salvation. The two of them were never intended to work together. So, of necessity, one must replace the other out¹⁰.¹¹

Martin Luther is quick to point out that all those in Paul’s day that were reserved as God’s own from Israel, and all those in Luther’s day that God had reserved for Himself were in both instances reserved by God’s grace. In Luther’s mind, the two share the same mutual favor of God. The Apostle explains the expression here in verse 4, “I have reserved for myself,” with the words “by virtue of grace and election,” here in verse 5. So we can see that the words, “I have reserved,” includes the idea of election, and explains and magnifies grace.¹² In other words, all those whom God set aside for Himself were selected by the goodness of grace. Therefore, it is easy then to say that except for the grace of God we would all be hopelessly and eternally lost.

Reformer John Calvin was very focused on the fact that grace is a gift, not a reward. He explains that no credit for good works can be allowed to be mixed with the election process because it would obscure the gracious goodness of God. He designed it to be freely offered to us. So what solution can be given to Paul to answer his critics? What can he say to those egotistical individuals who credit the reason for their election to the worthiness they saw in themselves? For whether you introduce past or future works as evidence, this declaration of Paul shuts you down. For he says that grace leaves nothing left for good deeds to do.

Paul does not speak here concerning our reconciliation with God, nor of the means by which it is accomplished, nor of any immediate effect of our salvation; he ascends higher, even to this: Why did God, before the foundation of the world, chose only some as His own and passed by others? Paul also declares that God was motivated to make this difference by nothing else than His own good pleasure. And there was no place given for good works to count as having any merit. To have done so would have taken away the full measure of grace.¹³

Calvin goes on to say that since this selection by God was made before we were ever born, how then could good works be part of the formula that qualifies us to be elected? The same goes for those whom He did not select since He saw beforehand that they were not open to salvation. Calvin explains what he understands about the justification of Abraham. He tell us that if good works were involved, it would have required a debt to be paid. This means that grace was not freely bestowed. So now Paul draws his argument from the same fountain: that if good deeds are credited to a person’s account when God adopts an individual to be His child, then it becomes a matter of debt, not a free gift through grace.

Now, though the Apostle speaks here of election, and although it is a general reasoning which Paul adopts, it ought to be applied to the whole of our salvation. This will help us understand that whenever it is declared that there are no merits of works, our salvation is ascribed solely to the grace of God. This is said that we may believe that the righteousness by works is taken off the list whenever grace is mentioned.¹⁴ That raises the question: How many has God predetermined to be elected and how many are to be rejected? Only He knows.

John Locke, suggests that the term “works” may be part of the confusion here. What should be inferred is the idea of “merit.” It is reasonable to understand that good works would certainly be part of whether or not someone was considered worthy of being saved. But so would their character and behavior. But who could be given credit for good works when the Law required perfect obedience. If anyone was able to be in perfect obedience to the Law then they were given the reward. But those who failed were left out in the cold and, therefore, condemned to die. And since all are sinners, then there are none worthy of salvation. Thank God that if any are saved it is only by the grace and mercy of God. Locke goes on to illustrate the idea of being chosen by God by noting that if a jeweler is looking at a pile of stones to select for his use in making jewelry, he only picks out the best gems and leaves the rest. So as far as God is concerned, those He saves are gems meant to sparkle in His Kingdom.¹⁵

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson IV)

For Robert Haldane, when Paul used the term “people” in verse one, he was referring to Israel. But here in verse two, the term “people” is restricted to the elect among all the Jews. They were His true people because they were the ones He foreknew to be chosen. Even though God had rejected Israel as a nation, yet He had been able to retain a group of faithful believers. The words foreknow and foreknew signify having knowledge of something before it comes into being. As an example, if you plant a seed into the ground and later it grows into a tall plant, you can tell your surprised neighbor that you knew about the plant even before it appeared above ground. In other words, you had foreknowledge of its existence. In relationship to this faithful remnant of true believers among all of Israel, they were accompanied by a decree from God concerning a certain seed of Abraham.

Also, for Haldane, God’s foreknowledge, in the first of these senses, is God’s foresight of future events and their existence, and His certainty of what will take place in the future. We must also note that this foreknowledge itself is not an order for it to come to pass. That will not happen until God decrees it. But it is a necessary part of the natural consequences that bring it into being and is dependent upon the purpose God has for its existence. As far as Haldane is concerned, the future of all things depend on God’s order by which every supernatural event, with all its circumstances, are decreed, the date fixed, and then ordered into reality.

The second of these senses, for Haldane, is that once God commands that they come into being it proves that they were already contained in His foreknowledge. To put this another way: they could not be part of the future events in God’s plans unless they were already part of the God’s plans, and will, in the past. So when we say that God foreknew such things would come to pass, it means that they were already part of His purpose and plans from long ago. We often find that His foreknowledge is sometimes displayed in Scripture accompanied by the mention of His commands.

For instance, in Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he tells the listening crowd that this Jesus whom they just crucified, “Was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.”¹ Also, later on in his Epistle, Peter writes to his readers about the precious blood of Christ as the Lamb of God without blemish or defect, and how it redeemed them from their empty way of life. Then he says: “He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.”²

But there is a third sense that Haldane sees in this foreknowledge of God as it is explained here in verse two. In this case, it involved God’s love and approval. It signifies that God chose and recognize who already belonged to Him before they were revealed. This proved that when God rejected all of Israel, it was predetermined that it would not include His remnant whom He loved and chose from the beginning. This is the point the Apostle Paul was trying to explain to these Jews who complained that he was suggesting that all of Abraham’s descendants were thrown away in favor of the Gentiles. Paul makes it plain God has already chosen those whom He will keep.³ So with this truth in mind, when we read where John said that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that decision was not made at the last moment but was ready-made in heaven before the earth was formed.

Bible scholar Albert Barnes continues the examination of the Greek word proginōskō in verse 1 and now it helps us understand what Paul is saying in verses 2-4. The word proginōskō, basically means, “to know ahead of time” or “to foreknow.” But this is more than simply foreseeing or forecasting something. As used here, it implies that a previous purpose or plan already existed and was just now coming to fruition. So it isn’t that God decided to reject the unbelieving Jews after they rejected His Son Jesus, but that they were already on the list to be rejected since time began. But in the same way, all those who became His true disciples were already on the list of “the chosen.” This is why predestination is not possible without proginōskō. So never think that you were chosen by chance.

This foreknowledge also provides proof that God is unchangeable. After all, if it is already decided then it cannot be changed. That’s why those in the group of 7,000 that God told Elijah about were already listed as the faithful remnant. Therefore, when God rejected Israel as a whole, He could not throw away the remnant along with them. But Barnes takes this even further. As he sees it, God will make no covenant of salvation with those who are not already on the list to be saved. Likewise, those who are designated as the unbelieving and the wicked to be rejected cannot be saved.⁴

This is the hardest part of the Doctrine of Predestination as taught and preached by some. That is until another provision is revealed and considered. It was discovered in God’s foreknowledge He arranged for a Savior to come and give hope to those predetermined to be lost. So if they were willing to accept His Son as their Savior, His death, blood, and resurrection would be enough to take them off the list. Does this mean that God changed His mind about who was on the list? No! It has always been part of His plan from eternity past. It means that those who chose to go against the tide were given the opportunity to be rescued because of their faith that Christ came to save them.

Preacher Octavius Winslow sees another aspect of this foreknowledge of God that must be taken into consideration. The term foreknowledge, as Paul uses it here, is limited to a particular class of people who are said to be “conformed to the image of God’s Son.”⁵ By accepting this, it is not possible to apply this same foreknowledge to all of God’s creation. So when this term is used properly, it anticipates a particular and specific meaning. As such, it includes the everlasting love of God and His choice of who are His people. That’s why they are thought of as His special and unusual treasure. We see Paul address this here in verse two: “God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew.” When used this way, it implies two ideas – love and choice. That’s why we are justified using the phrase “foreknowledge” in relationship to those God has called and chosen as being special. They were not only on the list to be chosen but were put there by His love. So it is no wonder then why His church is referred to as a “peculiar people.”⁶ But none of it would be possible were it not for His eternal love, grace, and faithfulness.⁷

Theologian Charles Hodge observes that in verse 2 the words His people may be interpreted two ways. In the context of verse 1, it refers to the Jewish nation and when connected to the clause in verse 2 whom He foreknew it provides the reason why God did not reject all of them. The second interpretation takes this same formula in reverse. In other words, placing emphasis on the words whom He foreknew qualifies and distinguishes the phrase, His people. This allows for the understanding that while God did indeed reject the Jewish nation as a whole, He did not reject those He foreknew. While this may sound complicated as theological jargon, it does make a great point. Perhaps what Hodge is trying to say is better understood when put this way: Those God rejected in Israel had always been known as His people. But among those were some He did not reject, and those are the one He foreknew would be faithful and true. They are the ones who were truly His people.⁸

Charles Spurgeon draws an analogy from this to make it clearer by way of illustration. For instance, even when things were so bad in Israel that the man representing the situation best was the weeping prophet, Jeremiah. But even he could not express their sorrows properly since they were more than even he could bear. However, it was in the midst of this calamity that God revealed His love and promised that blessed days should dawn for the seed of Abraham.⁹ These days are yet to come, but they shall surely arrive, for God has not rejected those He did foreknow.¹⁰ In other words, it would be hard for God to go back on His promise because that would show His judgment to be imperfect. However, all of God’s promises come with conditions, and if mankind does not abide by those conditions, then, even though the promise still remains in effect, mankind’s arrogance and disobedience have disqualified them from receiving its benefits.

Frédéric Godet sees Paul saying here is that out of all the nations on earth, God chose only one to be called His people. This was done as a divine act based on God’s foreknowledge. That foreknowledge allowed them to also be predestined as the nation through whom the Messiah would come to offer everyone who believes in Him for salvation. So we can see in the process that the emphasis was shifted from the group to the individual. No longer would God save a nation as a whole. All those saved would be saved as individuals.

So while Israel as a nation rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah, Jesus did not reject those among the Israelites who believed He was the Son of God. However, God’s promise was based on His foreknowledge that He would appeal once again to Israel as a nation. As Godet sees it, God is under no pressure to act on anyone else’s timeline; time can stretch out as long as He pleases. He will add, if need be, ages to ages, until there comes a day when the generation representing Israel will have their eyes opened and freely welcome their Messiah. God foreknew this nation as believing and saved, and sooner or later they cannot fail to be both.¹¹

Why is this so hard to explain? The main reason is that mankind does not have the mind and wisdom of God. Even that which we do understand has only been made possible by the help of the Holy Spirit. Then we might ask, what reason would there be to comprehend it all, right down to each letter and syllable? There is none except a person’s pride of wanting to know what God knows. Furthermore, would God keep anything from us that we should know? Absolutely not! This much we know for sure: this is God’s plan, we have been chosen as part of that plan, so all we need to do is accept by faith what we do know and let God do the rest.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson III)

Spreading the Gospel of the Messiah among the scattered Jews was important, that’s why when Paul and Barnabas were in the city of Antioch in the country of Pisidia,¹ they went to a synagogue to preach the Good News. They recounted how God led the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt, brought them to the Promised Land, put a king after His own heart named David on the throne, and from this family line the promised Messiah was to come into the world. Their message was, that the Messiah had come. Now everyone who puts their trust in Him will be freed from the curse of the Law and saved by grace, not by works.

But Paul and Barnabas had more plans. The next Sabbath they went over to where the Gentiles lived and gave them the same message. This made the Jews jealous and they started saying bad things about Paul hoping the Gentiles would be turned-off and not listen. However, here is what Luke recorded: “The people who were not Jews were glad when they heard this. They were thankful for the Word of God. Those who were chosen for life that lasts forever believed. The Word of God was preached all over the area.”² This should be a lesson for all who go out to preach the Gospel. Don’t become disappointed or discouraged when the people you were sent to share the good news with do not respond. God has His eyes on everyone He wants to call as His chosen. So don’t give up, God won’t.

Almost as a second-thought, Paul reminds the Roman believers of what was already written in the Scriptures. This was the same method used by Jesus, reminding the opposition of what was said by the prophets on the subject. For instance, when Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the council, after giving his testimony the Apostle James reminded everyone in the room of what was said by the prophet Amos: “After this, I will return; and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David. I will rebuild its ruins, I will restore it, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, that is, all the Goyim [Gentiles] who have been called by my name,’ says Adonai, who is doing these things.³”⁴

Paul now turns and focuses on Elijah and the complaint he had about Israel. This was not the first time one of God’s servants broke down in anger because the Israelites rejected their leadership. At one time God wanted to destroy Israel as a whole, but Moses and Aaron both fell on their faces and cried out: “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, when one man sins, will You be angry with all the people?” So God relented and punished only Korah, Dathan, and Abiram with 250 of their followers by opening the earth and swallowing them alive in what would become a mass grave.⁵

In Elijah’s case, after Jezebel destroyed many of the prophets, he took the surviving 100 and hid them by distributing them throughout the caves in the area and provided them with bread and water.⁶ Then Jezebel chased Elijah and he ended up hiding in a cave. But the time came for God to show Who was in charge. So he sent Elijah out to anoint a new king for Aram,⁷ and a new king for Israel, and to anoint his own successor, Elisha.⁸ These two kings were to destroy the enemies of Elijah among God’s own people.⁹ However, God had good news for Elijah: “I will leave 7,000 in Israel whose knees have not bowed down in front of Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.¹⁰”¹¹

Paul also recalls what happened when Elijah proved to the believers in Israel that God was still on their side when he had them build an altar to the LORD. Jewish Rabbi Rashi tells us what he learned about this altar. That King Saul built an altar on Mt. Carmel. That is what the Scriptures tell us in Samuel: “Samuel got up early in the morning to meet Saul; however, Samuel was told, Saul came to Carmel to set up a monument for himself there, but now he has left and is on his way down to Gilgal.”¹²

According to ancient Jewish commentaries, this monument set up by King Saul was an altar on which to make sacrifices to God. We must remember Judah did not occupy Jerusalem during Saul’s reign and so there was no Temple yet. But later, the kings of Israel tore down all the altars and high places in their land to honor God. So Jewish tradition suggests that the altar Elijah built was, in fact, a restoration of the altar King Saul had erected. And the reason Elijah had this altar rebuilt was to remind Israel that they should keep God’s Name always before their eyes.¹³

This altar, however, was surrounded by a ditch, and Elijah instructed his assistants to pour four huge jugs of water on the burnt sacrifice three times until it soaked the sacrifice and filled up the ditch. Then we read: “When it came time for offering the evening offering, Elijah the prophet approached and said, ‘Adonai, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Isra’el, let it be known today that you are God in Isra’el, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your command. Hear me, Adonai, hear me, so that these people may know that you, Adonai, are God and that you are turning their hearts back to you.’ Then the fire of Adonai fell. It consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones and the dust; and it licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, ‘Adonai is God! Adonai is God!’”¹⁴

A number of early church scholars have a variety of comments on what Paul says here. For instance, Ambrosiaster does not feel that Paul is referring here to Jews at large but to those who did follow Jesus when He came. To support his interpretation Ambrosiaster quotes Jesus’ prayer in John 17:12. So for him, it is clear that Paul shows that not only did Elijah remained as one devoted to God who did not worship idols, but that there were many who remained faithful to God, just as there were many Jews in Paul’s day who believed in Christ.¹⁵

Augustine of Hippo, in one of his tracts, wrote about what he feels Paul is inferring here. As he sees it, Paul was pointing out that predestination is sometimes designated by the concept of knowing in advance, as Paul says here in verse 2. So we can safely say that the Israelites were predestined to be chosen as God’s children.¹⁶ Early church scholar Pelagius argues along the same line. How could God reject those whom He knew in advance would believe on His Son? By so doing, Paul eliminates any occasion for pride among the Gentiles, just in case they became boastful because so few Jews, but so many Gentiles, believed in Jesus as their Savior.

The First Covenant prophets had no such foreknowledge. They could only repeat what was revealed to them by the LORD. That is why King Zedekiah asked Jeremiah if he had received any word from the LORD.¹⁷ So it seems that Elijah was also unaware that there were others besides himself who had remained faithful to God.¹⁸ For Augustine, the question now is: If so many faithful Israelites were hidden from the prophet Elijah back then, how many more Jews might be believers in his time in the 4^th Century AD? We cannot always be aware of who is saved and who is to be saved just by counting heads!¹⁹

Bishop Theodoret asked the same question of his people in the 5^th Century AD. Could it be that they, like Elijah who didn’t know about these 7,000 until God revealed their existence to him, were unaware of how many Jews had believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior?²⁰ So Paul uses these instances where God picked out and saved numbers of those who had remained true to His Word, His Will, and His Worship. He wanted his fellow Jews to be aware that there were many Jews who had accepted Christ as their Savior by grace and forsook trying to achieve everlasting life by works.

Martin Luther feels that Paul was not satisfied with just using himself as an example of how God’s grace was always flowing despite the Jew’s hardheadedness and arbitrary attitude with respect to His sovereignty. So he argues against the Jews with a very effective illustration. It was Paul’s way of saying that not all Jews were going to be kept in the fold. Just because none of them had been rejected, then they must think that God was lying when He said it would happen. So Paul asks what could they say when he related an incident in the past where this actually took place? So if it would have been foolish at one time to think that God would not reject any of His people, it would be just as foolish to do the same today. Maybe we all can learn something from history.

What prompted Paul to take such a stance was the fact that the Jews arrogantly assumed that they were God’s people simply because the Gentiles were not. Of course, Paul was speaking of the days in which Elijah thought he was the only one left serving God in Israel. But he found out much to his surprise that there were 7,000 more just like him. Luther focuses on the Greek word kataleipō in verse 4 which means: “to cause to be left over, to reserve, to leave remaining.” By understanding these words we can see how God’s grace and election are magnified. After all, He was the One who reserved them for Himself. What Paul was doing here was reiterating what he said back in Romans 9:16: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”²¹

Puritan scholar Jonathan Edwards points out one factor that should make all of us even more aware of the kindheartedness of God. He begins by saying: Here in this verse we can see the success the Gospel had among the Jews, for God first began with them.²² He sent His only Son to deliver the Good News to them first; His Son chose all of His disciples from among the Jews; all His miracles and wonders were displayed to convince the Jews first that He was the Messiah. God also sent the Holy Spirit first upon the Jews, and the earliest preachers, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, and Apostles were Jewish. Even though God knew they were going to reject His Son, nevertheless, His first elect were called out from the Jews. So how could they complain if He rejected those who did not and would not believe, and call Gentiles to take their place?

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER ELEVEN (Lesson II) – 04/24/18

Albert Barnes assesses Paul’s argument here concerning clarification of which laws in the first covenant Jews would not be enforced by the Gospel in the last covenant. In previous chapters, Paul declared that all Jews who were not true spiritual Israelites were unqualified to share in the inheritance of the promises to Abraham. Furthermore, they were the ones who mainly rejected the Gospel of Christ and Yeshua as the Messiah.¹ To most Jews, however, it would be unthinkable that the God who chose them and called them His children would now turn around and abandon them.

So it was important for the Apostle Paul to show that his doctrine was consistent with all the prophecies God gave to His people. Yes, if Paul had said that God had universally rejected all the descendants of Abraham and canceled the first covenant, they would be justly outraged at such a doctrine. But that’s not what Paul was saying. He goes on to tell them that should they eventually return to God and be reinstated to His favor, it would clearly prove that God did not cast off His people, or that He voided His promises.²

Canadian Bible teacher H. A. Ironside sees this as a continuation of what Paul has been discussing in the previous chapter. It is based on his rhetorical question of whether or not there was any reason to believe that God had done away with any agreement He had with the children of Israel. This would obviously be the expected reaction of those who didn’t like another Jew telling them they were no longer God’s only children. So Paul shares his own experience to prove that God had not thrown away His covenant with the descendants of Abraham. He himself an Israelite, a natural seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, had been called by the Spirit of God and brought to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. So if this happened to him, then it could happen to any Jew who turned away from the Law of Moses and turned toward Jesus Christ to be their Savior from the curse of the Law.³

Frédéric Godet offers no objection to Paul using himself as an example. However, he does quote from German theologian and New Testament critic Karl Heinrich Weizsäcker (1822-1899) who stated that Paul could not possibly limit his proof to his own persona when the believers in Rome were Judeo-Christians themselves, and therefore, qualified to refute the idea of rejection being raised.⁴ In other words, why did Paul use himself as an example of God’s continued dealing with Jews to effect their salvation through Christ? There were plenty of other Jews who had become Christians in the Church in Rome. What Dr. Weizsäcker fails to consider is that Paul felt more comfortable speaking on behalf of himself, whom he knew, instead of on behalf of others he did not know.

F. F. Bruce wrote a very informative preface to this chapter in which he states that in spite of how disobedient and contrary the people of Israel might have been, God had not disowned them because they rejected His word through Jesus the Messiah, anymore than He repudiated them earlier when they rejected His word through Moses and the prophets. Where it says that those whom He foreknew He also predestined, was a principle still in effect for the Jews.⁵ God did not change the way He was choosing people in the time of the Apostles from the way they were chosen during the era of the Prophets. Those He selected were safeguarded by His promise to always retain a faithful remnant.

Although Israel had stumbled, it wasn’t to the point they couldn’t get up again. In fact, it was through Israel’s misstep that the blessings of the Gospel went out to the Gentiles in neighboring lands. This is illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles where we read that the repeated refusal of the Jewish community on one side of the city allowed the Gospel to be taken to the Gentiles on the other side of the city. In other words, every minister sent to the Jews God turned into a missionary to the Gentiles because of the Jews’ rejection of the Good News.⁶

Verses 2-4: God chose not to renounce the Israelites,⁷ the people He chose before they were born. Surely you remember what the Scriptures say about Elijah, how he pleaded with God against the people of Israel. He said, “Lord, they have killed your prophets and destroyed your altars. I am the only prophet still living, and they are trying to kill me now.⁸” So, what answer did God give to Elijah? God said, “I have reserved for myself seven thousand men who have never bowed down before Baal.⁹”

At the time of the anointing of King Saul, Paul’s namesake,¹⁰ in Gilgal, Samuel wanted to set the record straight. He asked the Israelites if they believed him to be an honest prophet, and they said, “Yes.” Then Samuel mentioned that it was the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron to lead them out of Egypt. But their forefathers quickly forgot and so God allowed them to be conquered by their enemies.¹¹ Then the LORD appointed Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel to deliver them. But now that they were in fear of being conquered by Nahash, King of Ammon, instead of turning to God to appoint another deliverer, they decided to choose their own. So Samuel says to them: “All right then, here is the king you asked for. Look him over. You wanted him, and the Lord has given him to you.”¹²

Then Samuel instructed them to continue to revere and worship the LORD, obey His commandments, and follow the king He gave them, and they would do well. But if they rebelled again, they would be in serious trouble, just as their ancestors were in the wilderness. To prove his point, Samuel mentioned that it was highly unusual for it to rain that time of year in Israel,¹³ so he was going to ask God to send rain as a sign that they had displeased Him by rejecting Him as their King and chose a human monarch to be their leader. Sure enough, Samuel prayed and a thunderstorm immediately showed up.¹⁴ That’s when the people realized what a gross error they had made, and pleaded with Samuel to pray for them lest God in His anger destroyed them. That’s when Samuel told them this: “For the sake of His great reputation, Adonai will not abandon His people; because it has pleased Adonai to make you a people for Himself.”¹⁵

So with this background, Paul stated that he was convinced that God would never spitefully turn His back on the people He chose for Himself. Later on, Ethan the Ezrahite wrote a Psalm about God’s love for His people, and in it he penned: “If his [David’s] children forsake my laws and don’t obey them, then I will punish them, but I will never completely take away my loving-kindness from them, nor let my promises fail. No, I will not break my covenant; I will not take back one word of what I’ve said.”¹⁶

I’m also sure that Paul had as much confidence in making his statement about God’s faithfulness as the prophet Jeremiah did when he declared this: “This is what Adonai says: ‘If the sky above can be measured and the center of the earth be penetrated, then I will reject all the offspring of Isra’el for all that they have done,’ says Adonai.”¹⁷ But that still wasn’t enough, the people of Israel were still in doubt, so once again Jeremiah received this assurance from the LORD: “Here is what Adonai says: ‘If I do not keep My schedule for sunrise and sunset, and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will turn away from the children of Jacob and David My servant.”¹⁸

Now, to show that he was not just a bystander or some alienated Jew who took up another religion, Paul assures his readers that he is vouching for God’s steadfast love as an insider. Paul used the same claims with the Corinthians who were taught things different from what Paul told them, by people also calling themselves messengers of the Messiah: “Are they Jews? So am I. Are they from the family of Israel? So am I. Are they from the family of Abraham? So am I. Do they work for Christ? I have worked much closer with Him than they have.”¹⁹

As a note on Jewish thinking on this subject of God overlooking the Jews in favor of the Gentiles, Jacobus Trigland, a Dutch Reform Church theologian (1583-1654), became interested in a sect called Karait Judaism (or Qarait Judaism),²⁰ who arose in the 9th Century AD. The Karaites believed in strict interpretation of the literal text of the Scripture without rabbinical interpretation or paraphrase. They believed that spoken rabbinical law was not part of what had been handed down from God, nor was it inspired by God, but was fictional work of the sages. As such, rabbinical teachings are subject to the flaws of any document written by mere mortals. Nevertheless, each scholar can consider and establish teachings according to their own understanding of the Scriptures.

However, a Karaite motto, quoted in much of their literature, is this: “Search scripture well, and don’t rely on your own opinion.” This doesn’t make it a total free-for-all – like the Rabbinic Jews had done with their commentaries. Karaites derive law from scripture according to their own traditions, scholars, and standards of legal interpretation. They just don’t believe man’s spoken word can ever override the written word of God. In their writings, Trigland found this saying: “The blessed God has not cast away the men of the [Babylonian] captivity, though they are under the chastisement of God.”²¹ This no doubt is in line with Paul’s thinking in this letter.

Paul continues to build his case of defending the Jews’ right not to give up on God because God had not given up on them. But at the same time, Paul wanted to remind them that God will not sit still and become inactive just because the people He chose were sitting on their hands. That’s why God told Elijah, who was despondent over the lack of faith among the Israelites and their allegiance to God, that He will reach out His hand to whosoever will come to Him and believe in Him. Now, if God felt that way about the Jews, how do you think He feels about you, called out of sin, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, chosen to be His own, sanctified for His use, and empowered for His glory?