The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 266

u Goo blE1..<!>ed for ever.'' The positiye not Ill I■raal who are of IffB■h n■lth■r, 'l'l'llllOne for ~taining the ancient interpreta- beoau■e they ara the eaad of Abraham, a.re tions may be stated as follows: (1) Not they all ohlldren : but, In IIIUO ahall thJ one of the Greek or other Fathers. or Rny ■eed be oallacl. The promises to the pntri• int.erpreter before Enlsmus, is ln1own to a.robs never, from the first, i.mplled the have nnden,tood it otherwise. (2) It giYes inheritanoe of them by aU the physical the m~ obnous l!ense of the words them- deecendanh! of thoae patril!.l"Ohs: even in eelYes. It mRY well be contended thRt no Israel there is a reoognized distinctiou ot.ber would have been thought of, but for between being of tho mce of Iere.el and the supposed discrepance with the apostle's being the true Isre.el of God ; in the origine.l nsue.l way of speaking of Christ. (S) Where- promise to Abraham the deecendunte of as a doxology to God the Fe.ther does not Ishmael (though equally with those of Iee.110, seem ca.lled for here, or to have any very ob- his pbysioe.l seed) were excluded. And so vious bearing on the writer's train of thought, even the moe of Isre.el is but a pa.rt of the i;ome 881!&tion of the Dinne greatness of whole seed of Abre.be.m, to whom the Chriet seems wanted to oomplete the repre- promise we.a made. Hence it follows the.t sentation of the fine.I and crowning privilege the present exclusion of the majority of of the race of Israel. 'O .t,,, nrl ,r,J..,.,.,.,,, even the race of Israel from the inherite.nce would indeed suffice for this purpose, if it of the promises is not inconsistent with the could be dieseYeredfrom whe.t follows. But, origine.l purport of those promises. The 118 has been said above, it is not e.llowable so quote.tion from Gen. xxi. 12, "In Isaac," to break up the sentence. Cf. als.o eh. i. 4, etc., is properly (e.e in the origine.l Hebrew) -where the statement that Obrist had been " In Isaac shall a seed be named to thee ; " born of the seed of David, according t,o the i.e. " In Isae.c it shall come to pa.as the.t flesh, is followed by a.n assertion e.lso of his posterity of thine ehe.ll he.ve the name and Dinne Sonship. (4) If the sentence had position of the seed of Abraham, and be re- been intended as a doxology, Ei,>..o-y,,.,-1,s oaght cognized e.11 the inheritors of the promise " properly t.o have preceded 8Ells (of. Luke i (Meyer). 68, EvA0")'7r,OS Kvp,os I, @Ells 'TOV 'Iapu.~>,.; Vere. 8, 9.-That ii, They whioh are the Eph. i 3, Ei,>..oy,,.,-1,s 6 @Ells 11:al nu..,-~p, etc. ; ohildren of the flesh, these are not the chil- 1 Pet.. i 3, where the same expression dren of God: but the ohildren of the promise occurs); whereas in every other ps.sse.ge are counted for seed. For the word of where EVAD')'l]"TOs follows the sabject of the promise is this, At this time will I oome, aentence, it ie an assertion, and not a a.nd Sarah shall have a son (Gen. xviii, 10). doxology (cf. eh. i 25; 2 Cor. xi 31). (5) In other words, it is not in virtue of mere The whole objection to the ancient interpre- ce.mal descent, but of the promise, that tation rests solely on the views of modem any a.re so counted; mere came.I descent critics as to what they think St. Paul we.a establishes no claim. It ie to be observed Zikelg to mean-not on what his langnage that in the first recorded promises to most obrionsly intimates that he did mean Abraham (Gen. xiii 15 ; xv. 5 ; xvii. 7) --il very unsafe principle of interprete.tion. there was no restriction ; and so through Our safe conclll8ion seems to be that modem Ishmael, who is e.leo called Abre.he.m's criticism has not me.de out a sufficient ca.se seed (Gen. xxi. 13), e.s well e.s through for departing from the nnanimon.s ancient lee.ac, the falfilment might have been. interpretation of this passage. But the eubeequent promise (Gen. xvii. 191 21; xviii 10, 14) limited it to Ieo.a.o; which Vera. 6--13.-(2) (a) Aft.er this avowal limiting promise is, therefore, in ver. 9, re- of his deep s.onow, and his reasons for feeling ferred to. With .,-IKvu. 'rov 0eoiJ in ver. 8 compare ;, vlo6ecrlu. (ver. 4), e.nd also Isa. it, the apostle now proceeds to deal with the I.xiii. 16. Th11 apostle me.y he.ve been led BUbject. First (e.11 has been se.id above) he to use the expreBSion here in view of the !!hows (Tera. 6--13) that the present ex- spiritual sonship to God of Christians (of. clusion af the great me.jority of the Jew1 eh. viii. 15, eto.) which we.a typified and pre• bom Christian privileges doe1 not imply pared for by the vlo6ecrlu. of the ohoeen seed. any fJITl,faitkfulnua au God's part to his A still further limite.tion of "the ohildren of the promise " ie next referred to ; and ontc• ancient promises; and thus it follows that still more tolling for the apostle's argument. the fact of their exclusion is no proof of It might be said the.t Ishmael we.a not, even the gospel not being the true fulfilment of carnally, the true eeedbe.s being born, not of thoile promises. the wife, but of the oadwoman; or per- haps that he he.d forfeited any claim he Vere:. 6, 7.-But it iH not a, though the might he.ve he.cl by his proved unworthiness Word of God bath taken none effect (or, hath (Gou. xxi. U, etc.). Bat Esau and J11cob come u, flllMflht, ln-n-.,.,,,,...,). 'Eor the)' are were twin children, not only of the aemo ou. rx. 1-83.] THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 285