We had become as Sodom, and had been made like
unto Gomorrah.
What has been already said will have been enough to guard against the
main sources of mistake in reading this section. St. Paul might have
much to say about God's righteousness in general, and large ways of
vindicating it. But here he holds fast to the single aspect of
righteousness according to which it means that God has been true to the
original principles of His covenant. The God who chose Abraham and
Moses is the God who is now, and rightly on His own declared principles
of government, rejecting the greater part of the people of Abraham and
Moses. This--faithfulness to His own declared principles--is what St.
Paul here means by His righteousness. And as it was God's declared
principle to retain His own liberty to show mercy on men according to
His free will, inside or outside the chosen people, so on the other
hand He retained His liberty to exhibit His judgement of hardening
according to His will inside or outside the chosen people. He who
brought Pharaoh the Egyptian upon the stage {38} of history[6], as an
example of hardening judgement, is within His right in doing the same
now with (the mass of) the people of His choice. The liberty asserted
for God is wholly consistent with His being found, in fact, to have
'hardened' those only who have deserved hardening by their own
wilfulness. It was for such a moral cause that God hardened the hearts
of the Jews, that 'seeing they might not see, and hearing they might
not hear[7].' We can feel no doubt that some similar moral cause
underlay the hardening of Pharaoh. But this is not St. Paul's present
point. All his argument is directed to asserting God's liberty to show
mercy or harden, irrespectively of considerations of race, when and
where He in His sovereign moral will chooses.
We should notice that St. Paul's method is here, as elsewhere, what is
called ideal or abstract, in the sense that he makes abstraction {39}
of a particular point of view; and, apparently indifferent to being
misunderstood, substantiates his argument upon the particular aspect
which he has taken apart from the whole matter in hand, till it is done
with, and then other points can be taken in their turn. And he does
not, as a modern writer would do, painfully correlate the various
aspects of the subject[8].
By means of the famous simile of the potter St. Paul asserts two
principles about God: (1) that God is free, and condescends to give no
account to His creatures, in absolutely determining the high or low
vocations of men. To one man or nation He gives five talents, to
another two, to another one. He makes vessels to honourable and
vessels to (comparatively) dishonourable uses. He makes men Jews or
Assyrians, Englishmen or Hottentots, at His absolute discretion. (2)
That God is absolutely free, when the human material which He is
moulding for His purposes proves intractable, to repudiate and reject
what has, by its refusal to mould, become a 'vessel of wrath' fit 'to
be taken and destroyed.' And it is only by a voluntary limitation of
this freedom that He exhibits long toleration with the intractable and
{40} obstinate, and is longsuffering with them even when His wrath is
ready and waiting to show itself. These are the two distinct points in
the simile of the potter. We must distinguish carefully between the
'vessels _destined for_ dishonour'--the 'less honourable limbs' of
humanity--and the 'vessels _of_ wrath,' or 'vessels fitted for
destruction,' i.e. those which have proved themselves unfit for the
vocation to which they were destined and have to be rejected. We note
that St. Paul does not say that _God fitted_ vessels for destruction,
but that He bore long with those which had so _become fitted_. St.
Paul never gives us any real justification--if we look at his language
carefully--for the idea of any predestination to _rejection_, as
distinct from predestination to higher or lower purposes. And the New
Testament is full of assurances that a predestination to a low vocation
in this world may be a predestination to high glory in eternity, if the
humble calling is faithfully followed.
It ought not to be denied, however, that in all this passage St. Paul's
feet, as he moves along his argument, are dogged by the metaphysical
difficulty of finding room for human free-will inside the universal
scope of the divine action and the prescience of the divine wisdom.
This {41} is a perennial difficulty. But St. Paul does not touch it.
He does not even touch the question of whether God does actually (in
our sense) _foreknow_ the final destiny of every individual, and how he
will act on each occasion[9]; he does not touch the question how or how
far human wilfulness can be allowed to disturb the divine order. In
the Pharisaic schools he would certainly have been brought up, as
Josephus tells us, both to 'attribute everything to fate and God,' and
also to recognize that it 'lay with men for the most part to do right
or wrong': to believe that 'everything was foreseen,' and also that
'free-will was given'; or, as Josephus elsewhere puts it (as if it made
no difference), to believe 'that some things, but not all, are the work
of fate, and other things are in men's own power and need not
happen[10].' That is to say, he would have been educated to believe
both in predestination and in freedom, without any {42} special attempt
to reconcile the two. We can tell for certain that this inherited
belief was further moralized in St. Paul's case by his enlarged view of
the divine purpose as working through high and low estates alike, for
the final good of all men; and by his deepened perception of the
correspondence with God's purpose, which, in the exercise of our
freedom, is required of us. But, so far as we know, St. Paul left the
strictly metaphysical question exactly where he found it--as an
imperfectly reconciled antithesis. And there perhaps we men shall
always have to leave it, or at least till we come to know even as we
are known.
In the quotations from the Old Testament, with which the section
concludes, we notice that St. Paul varies the original application of
the passages from Hosea. In the prophet they refer to the recovery of
dejected and dishonoured _Israel_, while the apostle applies them to
the exaltation of _the Gentiles_ from their low estate. As is often
the case, while other passages in the prophets were there to prove
exactly what he wanted[11], St. Paul takes the words which come {43}
into his mind with a considerable latitude of application, and without
any critical argument. Thus, if he makes somewhat free with the
particular texts, it is in order to vindicate the real teaching of the
Old Testament. He has, if not exact criticism, what is much better,
profound spiritual insight.
The passages quoted from Isaiah are characteristic and central. This
great prophet first clearly perceived that most striking law of human
history--that progress comes, not mostly through the majority of a
nation, but through the faithful remnant. It is the few best through
whom alone God can freely work. It is the best who in the long run
determine the moral level of the nation, and either keep the mass of
men around them from corruption, or, if that is impossible, provide a
fresh point of departure and hope in a society now inevitably, as a
whole, hastening to decay and judgement. 'As a terebinth, and as an
oak, whose stock remaineth, when they are felled; so the holy seed is
the stock thereof[12].'
[1] Isa. xxix. 16, xlv. 9, lxiv. 8; Jer. xviii. 6; Ecclus. xxxiii. 13.
[2] xv. 7.
[3] 1 Cor. xii. 22-5; 2 Tim. ii. 20.
[4] Jer. xviii. 4. The passage continues with a strong assertion of
God's freedom to govern the destinies of nations on moral principles.
[5] When Moses asked to see God's glory (Exod. xxxiii. 18), what was
revealed to him was His goodness and free mercy, and what St. Paul here
means by God's glory is His mercy especially.
[6] In the original the words run, 'For this cause have I made thee to
stand,' i.e. probably, 'I have preserved thy life under the plague of
boils, and other plagues, in order to make thee an example of a more
conspicuous judgement.' But St. Paul, departing from the Greek Bible,
uses a word 'raised thee up,' which in Pharaoh's case, or in that of
Cyrus, means to bring upon the stage of history. Isa. xli. 2; cf. Jer.
1. [xxvii in the Greek] 41; Hab. i. 6.
[7] See Matt. xiii. 14, 15; Mark iv. 12; John xii. 40.
[8] Cf. vol. i. p. 75.
[9] On the meaning of divine foreknowledge in St. Paul see vol. i. p.
317.
[10] See Joseph. _Antiq._ xiii. 5, 9; xviii. 1, 3; _Bell. Jud._ ii. 8,
14. Cf. Schuerer, _Jewish People_ (English trans.), Div. ii. vol. ii.
pp.14 ff.; James and Ryle, _Ps. of Solomon_, p. 96. The Essenes,
Josephus says, believed in fate, and not in free-will; the Sadducees in
free-will and not in fate; but the Pharisees in both. No doubt
Josephus is importing Greek philosophical views into his account of
Jewish parties, but substantially his account is probably true.
[11] e.g. Isa. xix. 24; Ezek. xvi. 55. (The exaltation into the
fellowship of the chosen people of Egypt, Assyria, Sodom, and Samaria.)
[12] Isa. vi. 13.
{44}
DIVISION IV. Sec. 3. CHAPTER IX. 30-X. 21.
_Lack of faith the reason of Israel's rejection._
What is to be our conclusion then? That Gentiles, men beyond the pale
of God's covenant, who made no pretension of pursuing righteousness,
all at once laid hold on righteousness and made it their own, simply by
accepting in faith the divine offer which came their way; while Israel,
the chosen people, devoted to pursuing a law of righteousness, never
caught up with that of which it was in pursuit. The result seems
strange enough. But the reason of it is apparent. Israel[1] had been
put under a divine election, which required of them the open ear, the
responsive will, of faith. But instead of cultivating this temper of
faith, they fastened upon the specified {45} observances of the Mosaic
law, and blindly adhered to them, as if God had nothing deeper or
greater to teach them, and they had nothing deeper or greater to
receive. Thus, when the Christ came, with His completer light and
claims, they would not have Him. They wanted nothing further, nothing
more than they were accustomed to. And thus Isaiah's prophecy was
fulfilled, that the Christ, the tried foundation stone, the destined
security of all who should believe in Him, would turn out to be a stone
at which the chosen people should stumble, and a rock on which it
should meet disaster[2] (ix. 30-33).
And here is the pathos of the situation. Here is what puts passion
into St. Paul's desire and his prayer for Israel's entrance into the
great deliverance. It is that they have such a real zeal for God,
though without any spiritual insight to guide it. A real zeal for God!
of that St. Paul's own experience qualified him to testify. But in
what sense without insight? In the sense that with Jesus of Nazareth
there appeared a divine righteousness, which God was communicating to
men[3]; but the Jews, {46} preoccupied with maintaining a standard of
righteousness which they had taken for their own--which had become
identified, that is to say, with their own self-satisfaction and pride
of privilege and independence of interference--failed to perceive the
divine purpose, and, in fact, refused to submit themselves to it. For
that principle of law which the Jews had come to regard as God's final
word, He really intended only as a temporary discipline to be brought
to an end by the coming of the Christ, and by the disclosure of the
real righteousness which, in Christ, God should offer and man should
simply accept in faith. Law and faith are in sharp and intelligible
contrast. Under the law of works a man, as Moses says[4], stands to
preserve his life (or save his soul) according as he performs the
specified requirements (as if man were an independent being who could
thus stand over against God on his merits). But faith, attributing
nothing to itself, simply accepts the offer of God, the divine message
of compassion brought near to it. Moses of old told the Israelites[5]
that the commandment was not {47} too hard for them, neither was it far
off. _It was not in heaven, that they should say, who shall go up for
us to heaven, and bring_ it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we
may do it? Neither was it beyond the sea, that they should say, _who
shall go_ over the sea for us, _and bring_ it unto us, and make us to
hear it that we may do it? But _the word was very nigh unto them, in
their mouth and in their heart_, that they might do it. These words
really describe the character of the Christian message of faith, of
which the apostles are the heralds. Truly there is no need for the
believer in Jesus to seek some one to scale heaven to reach a remote
God, for Christ is come down. Or to descend into the abyss to seek a
Christ dead and lost, for Christ is risen. The great deliverance is
offered to us on very easy terms. A man has only openly to confess
that the human Jesus is really the divine Lord, and heartily to believe
that God raised Him from the dead. Let him heartily accept that
message, and the fellowship in the divine righteousness is his. Let
him publicly confess that creed, and the great salvation is open to
him. It is the old teaching of Isaiah[6]--if a man but believe (in the
Christ) there is no {48} fear of his being put to shame. And here Jews
and Greeks are all on the same level of need and opportunity. There is
over all the same Lord Christ, with the same inexhaustible good will
towards all who simply call on Him. Again the old scripture testifies
that it is every one who calls on the name of the Lord who shall be
saved[7]. The conditions then are very simple. To call on the Lord,
we may say, men must believe in Him. To have the opportunity of
believing on Him, they must have heard about Him. To hear about Him,
they need one to speak in His name. And how can men speak in the name
of God except as His apostles, as men commissioned and sent from Him?
And these terms we know well enough have all been fulfilled. The
commissioned heralds of the good tidings of God have gone forth, so
that all men may hear and believe and call out to God. Truly Isaiah's
vision of the welcome preacher of good tidings[8] is realized to-day
(x. 1-15).
Now we have clear before us the simplicity of the gospel, the message
to faith. And we have before us the plain fact that the Israelitish
people, preoccupied with their own temporary {49} and misunderstood
standard of the law, have not generally accepted it. But this is no
more than Isaiah led us to expect. 'Lord,' he cries, 'who gave
credence to our message[9]?' (Faith, you see, according to the
prophet, requires just a listening to a divine message; and this
message has come to men by the preaching about Christ.) And can it be
pleaded that the Jews have not had the opportunity of hearing the
message? No, truly, as the Psalmist says, the voice of God's
messengers has gone over all the earth, and their words to the end of
the inhabited world[10]. Or can it be said that Israel did not know
that a preaching to the _Gentiles_ was to be looked for? No, a
succession of warnings had reached them. Thus Moses foretold that it
should be a nation which (religiously speaking) was no nation, a people
without understanding, that God would use to provoke His people to
jealousy, and stimulate their emulation[11]. Again, Isaiah uses
startling words, and declares that God has been discovered by those who
never sought Him, and revealed to those who never asked for
Him[12]--that is the Gentiles. But the words of Isaiah {50} that
follow describe truly the relation of God and Israel. God has tenderly
and persistently been offering His love to them, but they have proved
themselves only rebellious and full of contradiction (x. 16-21).
This, then, is the plain summary. Israel is rejected because, after
every offer, and with every opportunity, they have refused God's
leading, refused to be docile, refused to believe, refused to obey.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after
righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which
is of faith: but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did
not arrive at _that_ law. Wherefore? Because _they sought it_ not by
faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of
stumbling; even as it is written,
Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence:
And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.
Brethren, my heart's desire and my supplication to God is for them,
that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal
for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of God's
righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject
themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the
law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses writeth
that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall
live thereby. But the righteousness which is of {51} faith saith thus,
Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring
Christ down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring
Christ up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee,
in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we
preach: because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus _as_ Lord,
and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the
scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame.
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same _Lord_
is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for, Whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall
they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they
believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent?
even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring
glad tidings of good things!
But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith,
Lord, who hath believed our report? So belief _cometh_ of hearing, and
hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, Did they not hear? Yea,
verily,
Their sound went out into all the earth,
And their words unto the ends of the world.
But I say, Did Israel not know? First Moses saith,
I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation,
With a nation void of understanding will I anger you.
And Isaiah is very bold, and saith,
I was found of them that sought me not;
I became manifest unto them that asked not of me.
{52}
But as to Israel he saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands
unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
In this passage St. Paul gives us the other side of the question of the
rejection of the Israelites. God had retained an absolute freedom, not
to be questioned by men, to reject whom He willed. That was the first
point. But can we see whom our God wills to reject, or why in
particular He rejected (though not finally, as will appear) the chosen
people? It is because they failed in faith. And faith is precisely
that which is necessary to maintain correspondence with God--it is
_the_ faculty of fellowship with Him. They failed because the false
principle of justification by works had obscured in their minds the
need and meaning of faith. The false principle meant, as we have
already seen, the maintaining an accepted standard of conduct and
divine service, especially in outward matters, and for the rest
claiming to be left alone. The accepted standard was that which
distinguished Israel from the rest of the world, and what they had
become accustomed to. It was a righteousness of 'their own.' They
prided themselves on it. Their public opinion required its observance.
It had come to usurp the place of any direct {53} relationship to the
voice of God. They had no idea that God could have anything more or
deeper to require of them. They had lost personal touch with Him.
Therefore seeking to establish this, their own righteousness, they
failed to submit themselves to the (now newly revealed) righteousness
of God in Christ. This unprogressiveness of the Jewish ideal, this
substitution of the accepted standard under the law for the word of
God, on the part of the Pharisees, the religious representatives of
Israel, is precisely what the pages of the Gospel record. Therefore
the 'corner stone of sure foundation' for the divine building became to
them the stone on which they stumbled and fell. And yet that the law
was a temporary expedient, and not the whole counsel of God, was the
deepest witness of the Old Testament; and in being false to the further
revelation of the will of God in Christ, they were false to their own
deepest principles. All this ground we have gone over already, and
need not traverse again[13].
So also we have already become familiar with the simplicity of the
message of God in Christ, and the simplicity of the faith which, {54}
rooted in the consciousness of sin and need, and equally possible for
all men who can share this consciousness, is required to welcome God's
offer, and so be brought by Christ into living union with Him. All
this St. Paul has already elaborated, and is here only resuming and
recapitulating by the way. But one or two points in the recapitulation
require notice.
1. St. Paul takes the basis of his statement of the principle of grace
and faith out of the heart of the books of Moses--the idea of the 'word
very nigh thee,' of the simple message claiming only to be simply
accepted, and of the 'very present help' of a gracious God needing only
to be welcomed. The fact is that St. Paul usually idealizes when he
treats of 'the law of Moses'; as, for example, when he here says that
'Moses writeth that the man that _doeth_ the righteousness ... shall
_live_ thereby,' as if that was all that Moses said. The principle of
law, as Saul the Pharisee had learned to understand it, is the dominant
principle in the five Books of the Law, but not the only one. 'Grace,
already existing in the Jewish theocracy, was the fruitful germ
deposited under the surface, which was one day to burst forth and
become the peculiar character {55} of the new covenant[14].' The God
of the new covenant is the God also of the old, and was there already
intimating His truer and deeper character. To this St. Paul bears
witness by resting his statement of the principle of the new covenant
upon the words of the old.
2. In this passage we have the germ of what we call the creed. The
lordship of Jesus, in the sense which implies His proper divinity, and
His resurrection and triumph over death--was already matter of public
confession in the Christian church: to make profession that 'Jesus is
Lord' qualified for 'the salvation'[15]: and in this lay hid all that
is essential to the Christian creed. Already then in the earliest
church subjective faith involved a certain objective and public
creed[16] which came very soon to be called 'the faith.' In this
passage also, as in xiv. 9 and in St. Peter's epistle, we recognize, as
an element in the common tradition, the belief in the Descent into
Hades (the abyss).