determined to cast off his ancient covenant people, as such, and to extend the call of the gospel indiscriminately to all men, is the point which the apostle is about to establish. He does this by showing, in the first place, that God is perfectly free thus to act, vs. 6 — 24, and, in the second, that he had declared in the prophets that such was his intention, vs. 25 — 33.
That God was at liberty to reject the Jews and to call the Gentiles, Paul argues, 1. By showing that the promises which he had made, and by which he had graciously bound himself, were not made to the natural descendants of Abraham, as such, but to his spiritual seed. This is plain from the case of Ishmael and Isaac ; both were the children of Abraham, yet one was taken and the other left. And also from the case of Esau and Jacob. Though children of the same parents, and born at one birth, yet "Jacob have I loved and Es^u have I hated," is the lan- guage of God respecting them, vs. G — 13. 2. By showing that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours; that he is deter- mined neither by the external relations, nor by the personal character of men, in the selection of the objects of his mercy. This is proved by the examples just referred to ; by the choice of Isaac instead of Ishmael, and especially by that of Jacob instead of Esau. In this case the choice was made and announced before the birth of the children, that it might be seen that it was not according to works, but according to the sove- reign purpose of God, vs. 6 — 13.
Against this doctrine of the divine sovereignty there are two obvious objections, which have been urged in every age of the world, and which the apostle here explicitly states and answers. The first is, it is unjust in God thus to choose one, and reject another, at his mere good pleasure, v. 14. To this Paul gives two answers; 1. God claims the prerogative of sovereign mercy ; saying, " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," vs. 15 — 16. 2. He exercises this right, as is evident from the case of Pharaoh, with regard to whom he says, " For this same purpose have I raised thee up," vs. 17, 18. The second objection is, if this doctrine is true, it destroys the responsibility of men, v. 19. To this also Paul gives a twofold answer; 1. The very urging of an objection against a prerogative which God claims in his word, and exercises in his providence, is an irreverent contending with our Maker, especially as the right in question necessarily arises out of the relation between men and God as creatures and Creator, vs. 20, 21. 2. There is nothing in the exercise of this sovereignty inconsistent with either justice or mercy, God only punishes the wicked for their sins, while he extends unde- served mercy to the objects of his grace. There is no injustice done to one wicked man in the pardon of another, especially as there are the highest objects to be accomplished both in the punishment of the vessels of wrath, and the pardon of the vessels of mercy. God does nothing more than exercise a right inherent in sovereignty, viz. that of dispensing pardon at his pleasure, vs. 22 — 24.