In my previous article we addressed his first argument. This article addresses the second.
With this national rejection of Israel the Apostle now deals: Then, as to the rejection of so large a portion of Israel, their own self-righteousness Romans 9: Has God then cast off his people Romans No—for a remnant shall be saved according to the election of grace, but the rest hardened, not however for the purpose of their destruction, but Romans The divine side of the history of Israel and the world is in the greater part of this portion thus insulated: Of the eternal salvation or rejection of any individual Jew there is here no question: De Wette has well shewn, against Reiche and others, that the apparent inconsistencies of the Apostle, at one time speaking of absolute decrees of God, and at another of culpability in man,—at one time of the election of some, at another of a hope of the conversion of all,—resolve themselves into the necessary conditions of thought under which we all are placed, being compelled to acknowledge the divine Sovereignty on the one hand, and human free will on the other, and alternately appearing to lose sight of one of these, as often as for the time we confine our view to the other.
This deprecation and assertion of sympathy he puts in the forefront of the section, to take at once the ground from those who might charge him, in the conduct of his argument, with hostility to his own alienated people. The reason of this grief is reserved for a yet stronger description of his sympathy in the next verse.
All persons and animals thus devoted were put to death; none could be redeemed, Leviticus The subsequent scriptural usage of the word arose from this.
It never denotes simply an exclusion or excommunication, but always devotion to perdition,—a curse. Attempts have been made to explain away the meaning here, by understanding excommunication, as Grot. Perhaps the strangest interpretation is that of Dr. Paul had been set apart and consecrated by Christ to His service; and he had prayed that this devotion of himself might be for the good of his countrymen: No other meaning will satisfy the plain sense of the words.
On this wish, compare Exodus The wish is evidently not to be pressed as entailing on the Apostle the charge of inconsistency in loving his nation more than his Saviour. It is the expression of an affectionate and self-denying heart, willing to surrender all things, even, if it might be so, eternal glory itself, if thereby he could obtain for his beloved people those blessings of the Gospel which he now enjoyed, but from which they were excluded.
Nor does he describe the wish as ever actually formed; only as a conceivable limit to which, if admissible, his self-devotion for them would reach.
Others express their love by professing themselves ready to give their life for their friends; he declares the intensity of his affection by reckoning even his spiritual life not too great a price, if it might purchase their salvation. Who are Israelites a name of honour, see John 1: So Abraham is described, Hebrews 7: In all those places, however, except Acts 7: The punctuation and application of this doxology have been much disputed.
By the early Church it was generally rendered as above, and applied to Christ,—so Iren 69Tert 70Orig 71 h. The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the emperor Julia 74 Cyril, p.
The next is in the punctuation of two cursive mss. This is followed by Erasm. The objections to this rendering are, 1 ingenuously suggested by Socinus himself Thol. In the one place, Ps. So Stuart, and even Eichhorn, Einleit. Such cases as 3 Kings Romans And this collocation of words depends, not upon the mere aim at perspicuity of arrangement Yates, p.
It is not the habit of the Apostle to break out into irrelevant ascriptions of praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one.
If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology,—surely such a view is most unnatural: The places are, ch. Another mode of punctuation has been suggested Locke, Clarke, al.
Variety of reading there is none worth notice: Crell not Schlichting, see Thol. The rendering given above is then not only that most agreeable to the usage of the Apostle, but the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement.
It also admirably suits the context:For this is the word of the promise - By the power of which Isaac was conceived, and not by the power of nature.
Not, Whosoever is born of thee shall be blessed, but, At this time - Which I now appoint.
The Book of Romans Chapter 9. Chapter Overview: In this chapter St. Paul, after strongly declaring his love and esteem for them, sets himself to answer the grand objection of his countrymen; namely, that the rejection of the Jews and reception of the gentiles was contrary to the word of God. 1) Dave's blog post addressing non-Calvinist exegesis of Romans 9.
The second half of the post and the comments by Adomnan, Nick, and Maroun are relevant to you. The second half of the post and the comments by Adomnan, Nick, and Maroun are relevant to you. Dennis McCallum, Exegesis of Romans 9 and Romans May 13, , posted by bossmanham Lead pastor of Xenos Fellowship Dennis McCallum has presented what many consider a fascinating and very well done exegesis of Romans 9.
Introduction. If Romans 8 has the distinction of being the high-water mark of the New Testament, chapter 9 has the dubious honor of teaching one of the most . Aug 07, · There are of course other errors in his exegesis, but I’ll leave it at those for now.
Further, if you haven’t read Dr. James White’s exegesis of Romans 9, you can do so on his blog, here and here.