This we shall follow in detail through ch. ix., and in general out- lines through chs. x. and xi.
(vy. 1-3.) I have great sorrow of heart for my Jewish kinsmen because of their spiritual condition arising from their rejection of
138 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. (Ca. XL
Jesus, and their consequent exclusion from the blessings of Mes- siah’s kingdom.
(4, 5.) This condition is the more lamentable because of their original privileges involved in God’s election of them to be His chosen people—adoption, visible manifestations of God, covenants, a divine legislation, a divinely arranged order of worship, mes- sianic promises, descent from the revered fathers, selection as the race from whom the Christ was to spring (compare Isa. xlv. 8, 4).
(6.) There is, however, no inconsistency between their posses- sion of these original privileges and their present exclusion. The case does not stand so as that God’s word has failed of fulfilment. Those who make this charge, assuming that they are entitled to acceptance with God on the mere ground of descent, are to remem- ber the general principle that messianic blessing is not conditioned by mere descent; that not all who are physically descended from Israel are the true, ideal Israel of God (compare Rom. iii. 28).
(7-9.) This appears from the history of the patriarchal lineage. Though Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac was selected as the channel of the messianic seed of Abraham, according to the promise, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (compare Gal. iv. 23), and not Ishmael, who was the child of Abraham in a physic- al sense merely, and not the child of the promise which is recorded in Gen. xviii. 10.
(10-13.) Not only have we an example of divine selection in the case of children of different mothers, but we have an example in the case of the children of the same mother. Between Jacob and Esau, representatives of the two nations of Israel and Edom (Gen. xxv. 23), a divine choice was made, and it was declared by God that the elder should serve the younger. This choice was not based upon purity of descent, since both children were by the same father and lawful mother. Nor was it based upon moral superiority, since it was made before they had done either good or evil. The choice was made according to God’s sovereign will, so that Hig messianic purpose might remain intact ; the characteristic of which purpose was that it was according to election ; that is, not determ- ined by merit or descent, but by the sovereign pleasure of God.
(14.) If it be asked, therefore, “Is there unrighteousness with God? Does God contradict Himself in His rejection of unbeliev-
Cu. XL] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 139
ing Israel?”—it must be answered, “No!” If there was no unrighteousness in the exclusion of Ishmael and Edom from the temporal privileges of the chosen people, there is none in the exclusion of the persistently rebellious Israelites from the higher privileges of the kingdom of heaven. If not all the physical descendants of Abraham and Isaac can claim their father’s name and rights, it follows that God’s promise is not violated in exclud- ing from His kingdom a portion of the descendants of Jacob. Descent cannot be pleaded against God’s right to exclude, since He has already excluded from the messianic line without regard to descent. This choice Israel approved and cannot, therefore, repud- iate it when the same choice and exclusion are applied to unbe- lieving Israel. God is not restricted to the Hebrew race, nor bound by the claims of descent. As He chose between the child- ren of the flesh and the children of the promise, so He may choose between mere descendants and true believers, whether Jew or Gentile.
It is to be remarked on this passage that the matter of eternal, individual salvation or preterition is not contemplated in the argu- ment, as it is not in Mal. i. 2, 3, from which the words “Jacob have I loved,” etc., are quoted. The matter in question is the part played by the two nations regarded from the theocratic stand- point.