Sovereignty over Nations

We find ourselves in a new section,
having completed chapter eight, that great great section of encouragement
to every believing child of God. Come to. A new and a different
section, a section that I would just label along with the rest
of our S’s. Not only sin and salvation, but
then we come into this section that really simply you could
label sovereignty, the sovereignty of God. And it’s interesting how many
people found seems to find Romans 9 through 11 completely disconnected. From the previous chapters. And I am particularly benefited
by the commentators this past week. Any given moment that you
dip into God’s word and that you dip into the commentators. You have this tendency to be
benefited at times by these and by some more than others no doubt
and I was particularly encouraged by one who wrote a very interesting
description of this transition from Romans 8 to Romans 9. He said we may well think that
again there was silence a while in that Corinthian chamber speaking
there of the place from which Romans was written. He says when
Tertius had duly inscribed the last words we have studied Romans
839. He points to the fact that Tertius
was described. Tertius was the one writing down
Paul’s words as Paul likely dictated. He goes on to recount what we
have just enjoyed. He said the apostle has just
been counting up the wealth of salvation and claiming it all
as present and eternal property for himself and his brethren
in the Lord, justifying righteousness, liberty from sin in Christ, the
indwelling Spirit, electing love, coming and certain glory, all
have been recounted and asserted and embraced. A silence in heaven
follows. The vision of the white hosts
of the redeemed Gathered at last in their eternal jubilation before
the throne of the Lamb. And a silence in the soul is
the fittest immediate sequel to such revelation of grace and
glory as has passed before us here. In other words, what he
says, once you come to the end of Romans eight, the fittest
response is just a overwhelming silence. And yet he closes and
I was happy that he did. But he has more to say to the
Romans. And in due time, the pen obeys
the voice again. In other words, Paul and Tertius
take up the great task of completing the Book of Romans. We come into
this new section and it is a difficult section. One had a very interesting
image. I didn’t know anything about
what he referred to as the Eiger. The Eiger is a mountain in the
Bernese Alps in Switzerland, the northern side of which rises
about 10,000 feet above the city of Grindenwald. Since 1935, nearly
70 climbers have died attempting to climb this wall, which has
earned it the nickname the murderous wall. One commentator likened Romans
9 through 11 to that wall. He said the difficulties which
the division of the epistle chapters 9 through 11 presents are notorious. One commentator likened it to
the precipitous north wall of the Eiger. It is a difficult
chapter. It’s a difficult section rather.
These chapters are Among the most difficult of any that Paul
ever penned, said another. Some of the difficulties are
these. What is the relation of Romans 9 through 11 to the rest
of the epistle? Some have suggested that you
could drop out 9 through 11 and you would lose nothing, really. I would contend with that. Others
have pointed out the difficulty of Not just the relationship
of Romans 9 through 11 but even more daunting are their contents
and these are difficult contents. I’m sure that some when they
saw that at least on paper I propose to tackle the entire section
of Romans 9 through 11. They were quite happy knowing
my position on these chapters. What this does what this reminds
me especially in light of my brother’s reading from Revelation.
Is that this is a call to humility. I used to think that when I got
to heaven I used to suggest I can’t wait to get to heaven and so
that I can ask some of these really deep and baffling questions. Maybe 25 years of ministry 25
years of being humbled. I think that when we get to heaven
we won’t have any questions. The way I look at it in looking towards heaven in
looking towards being with God with the saints forever in heaven.
I look I am preparing to be humbled. I don’t know what doctrines it
will be. I don’t know whether Jesus will take me to task on
The cessation of the gifts. I don’t know whether God is a
five point Calvinist. I don’t know you know whether
perhaps there are. I have my opinions on many a
great many things. I don’t know whether God would
have preferred us. To have communion each and every
Lord’s Day. There are a great great many
questions. I believe that there is a literal
Israel but I stand ready to be humbled on this and any other
doctrine. But I come before you today because
we have no choice but to delve into Romans 11 Romans 9 through
11. We have no choice but to take
the next thing, the next section, and to look to it not with arrogance,
but with humility. Some have challenged the fit. Of 9 through 11, they say that
it’s far too abrupt and that it doesn’t logically fit here.
One faithful pastor said it this way throughout church history.
This passage has often been greatly misunderstood. Some commentators
and expositors all but ignore it. Others treat it as a parenthesis
that has little if any connection to the rest of the letter. They
take it as an aside in which Paul expresses personal concerns
and insights about his fellow Jews. According to those interpreters,
the central message of justification by faith is interrupted. At the
beginning of Chapter 9 and resumes finally at the beginning of Chapter
12. It is true that if Paul left out chapters 9 through 11, the
argument in the flow of the letter would still seem unbroken. But these three chapters are
integrally related to the rest of the letter. Paul had opened
this letter with a statement. Which is essentially the theme
of the entire epistle. Romans 1 16. For I am not ashamed
of the gospel. For it is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who believes to the Jew first and also to
the Greek. But the facts only seem to contradict
this. The nation of Israel, in large
measure, had not come to faith in Jesus Christ. They had not
enjoyed the power of God for salvation. Quite the opposite. They opposed Jesus from the start
and they ultimately rejected him. And in turn, it appeared
that God had rejected them. What about God’s promises to
his covenant people, Israel? As one commentator put, it was
a paradox. Indeed, a scandal that the very
nation which had been specially prepared by God for the time
of fulfillment, this nation which could glory in so many unique
privileges of divine grace, including above all the messianic hope. The nation into which in due
course the Messiah had been born, should have failed to recognize
him when he came, while men and women of other nations, which
had never enjoyed such privileges, embraced the gospel eagerly the
first time they heard it. It was scandalous. And in a very
real sense, Paul had to take up this subject. What about Israel? What about the people of God?
And so it was crucial in light of all of the promises expressed
in Romans 8, that Paul should contextualize and explain the
situation with Israel. How would anyone take comfort
in those promises if they had any question about God’s faithfulness
to his promises to Israel? If, as so many people surmised,
God’s plan and purpose with Israel had been frustrated. Then how
could we put our hope. In the promises and purposes
expressed to us in Romans 8 and if. God had ceased to love Israel
couldn’t he cease to love us. God had declared his love to
Israel on numerous occasions. Deuteronomy 7. The Lord did not
set his love on you, nor choose you because you were more in
number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all
peoples. But because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which
he swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a
mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery from
the hand of Pharaoh. of Egypt. God didn’t love them because
they were powerful people or good looking people or wealthy
people. God loved them because he loved
them. And that’s a reminder to us that he has mercy upon us
according to his will. Jeremiah 31 3 spoke of the Lord’s
love for this nation, the Lord appeared to him from afar saying,
I have loved you with an everlasting love. Therefore, I have drawn
you with loving kindness. How could we draw any hope? If
God has stopped loving Israel, how could we draw any hope? From
the promises that Paul encouraged that nothing could separate us
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus. Paul had to
take this up. The bottom line truth. Is that
God didn’t fail. God didn’t quit. God didn’t show
himself faithless or loveless towards us or towards the nation
of Israel. His promises still hold. His
love still endures. So Paul. As we saw had pointedly declared
that the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone
who believes to the Jew first and also to the Greek and yet
as chronicled in the pages of scripture and in the annals of
history the great majority of the Jews did not believe and
were not saved. The most obvious questions of
the world would come about from those facts. What about the Jews.
What about God’s promises to them? What is their current standing
before God and ultimately what will become of them? As one pastor
said, why do not the voices of the prophets prove to them as
they do now to Paul? The particular problem which
confronted Paul was the fate of Israel. This was God’s chosen
people. God had set his electing love
on them. God chose to love them and he
said it was an eternal love. But now. Not only had they initially rejected
the Savior, ultimately they condemned the Savior. Paul is wrapping up. But he’s
not done yet with this idea of justification by faith, because
that theme will come up again in chapters 9 through 11. But every thoughtful reader,
every intelligent reader of the scriptures had to give pause
and to say, how how would this justification by faith fit in
now with the Jews? Paul had addressed this question
not once, but several times in his previous treatment. A number
of different times, Paul pointed out their need for the gospel. Romans 1.16 was just one of them. It led Paul ultimately to drive
home the point that the Jews especially had sinned. They had
sinned against the light. They were desperately in need
of justification by faith. Which leads Paul to ask at the
end of that section, what advantage then is the Jew? And only briefly
does Paul begin to answer that question, what advantage? Great
in every respect, he says. This idea of justification by
faith, it wasn’t new then and it isn’t new now. As one said, it was the essence
of Paul’s argument that the gospel, which he and his fellow apostles
preached, was no innovation. This wasn’t new. It was attested
in the Hebrew scriptures, it was the fulfillment of God’s
promises to the fathers. It had proclaimed that God’s
way of righteousness was through faith to which Abraham had been
blessed. And it was still Open to all
who believed as Abraham did, in other words, justification
by faith is not new justification by faith did not just come about
by virtue of a theological meeting of the apostles or even Jesus
Christ himself. Justification by faith was God’s
design from the beginning. Nobody. Nobody has ever been
justified by a strict adherence to law. It was always by faith. When Paul repudiates the Jews
attempts to gain righteousness by means of adherence to the
law repeatedly. He attacks a grotesque mutation
of Judaism. Keeping the law even perfectly
had never been a pathway to salvation. Never by God’s design. God said
it but he knew that nobody could do the law. No one has ever been
justified by law keeping the Jews individually and the nation
of Israel as a whole needed desperately to place their faith in Jesus
Christ just like anyone else of any other nationality. That’s
precisely what Paul concluded in Romans 3, remember? But now,
apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets. This is nothing new.
Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ
for all those who believe, for there is no distinction, for
all, both Jew and Gentile. Both Jew and Greek. For all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And he reminds
them. He reminds them even their father,
Abraham. Was not justified by his works,
he was justified by his faith. In Romans 4, what then shall
we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh is found?
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to
boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say?
Abraham believed God. And it was credited to him as
righteousness. It’s justification by faith.
It’s always justification by faith. Nothing more and nothing
less. And so the place where these
chapters fall is appropriate. It’s not, as some suggested,
a digression, a rabbit trail. It’s not a parenthesis. It’s
not an appendix, an add-on, afterthought. But in essence, this is the climax
to justification by faith. I’d suggested that the commentators were particularly helpful in
this section. Some time ago, I shared with
some of the men in the Institute a particular quote that’s always
an encouragement to me. In his book, Revival and Revivalism,
Ian Murray records the encouraging words of an early American pastor. The pastor’s name was Samuel
Davies, and he said this, I am as happy as perhaps creation
can make me. I enjoy all the necessities and
most of the conveniences of life. I have a peaceful study as a
refuge from the hurries and noise of the world around me. The venerable
dead are waiting in my library to entertain me. I love that.
The venerable dead. It’s as if he has this long table
and he goes in and he sits down at this table With all these
chairs and all these men, worthy men, faithful men. And he has
a conversation, a dialogue. About the very scriptures. That’s my privilege. One in particular
was especially beneficial to me this past week. Cranfield
was is always one of my favorite commentators because he usually
doesn’t skip the difficult parts and likewise true to form he
didn’t skip this one. And I lean largely on his three
point outline of why would Paul entertain and enter into a discussion
of any life about Israel. Why would Paul do that. He points out, first of all,
the same verse that we’ve already looked at, Romans 1, 16. Where
the theme of the epistle is stated, he points out that the gospel
to which reference is made in these verses must be understood
in light of its definition in verse one, one through four.
There in chapter one, go ahead and flip back there for a moment,
because I want to point out a couple of key features that he highlights
in chapter one, verse one. We read. Paul, a bondservant of Christ
Jesus, called as an apostle set apart for the gospel of God,
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy
Scriptures concerning his son, who was born of a descendant
of David, according to the flesh, we can pause right there for
a moment. The very use of the title Christ Messiah was a Jewish
reference. It pointed to the Jewish Messiah. That suddenly was being offered
to the Gentiles in Rome. And so the very theme. Of this
book of Romans, Romans 116 essentially points us back to that one truth. a discussion of Israel’s Messiah,
a discussion of God’s special people. And how is it that they
passed over him? How is it that they rejected
him? Glance again at that section,
because he points also to the fact that Paul defines it as
the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand. How? Through his
prophets, Israel’s prophets, Jewish prophets in the Holy Scriptures. What scriptures? The Old Testament.
The Hebrew Bible. So the epistle draws us in to
this dialogue, to this question of the interpretation of the
Old Testament, and he points to the fact that there can be
no satisfactory Interpretation of the Old Testament without
taking into account the people. On whom God had said his love.
The people on to whom these promises were made to the people to whom
these prophets had come. His third point. In regard to
the Jews. Becomes very explicit. When he
says, I am not ashamed of the gospel in 116, for it is the
power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. To the
Jew first. And also to the Greek. And so
when Paul takes up that question in chapter three, it’s only briefly.
It’s only briefly with regards to the Jews, what advantage has
the Jew great in every respect? First of all, they were entrusted
with the oracles of God. You can almost tell that Paul’s
coming back. Paul’s going to finish the discussion.
Paul’s going to flesh it out. Paul’s going to answer the questions.
And so Cranfield concludes that a serious discussion of God’s
faithfulness in relation to Israel’s unfaithfulness is still outstanding. The question of the Jews involves
the question of God’s faithfulness. So it was absolutely crucial.
That Paul take up this question this historic and really sad
situation. Which presented itself which
the Jews. As a nation, not as individuals,
the Jews as a nation had rejected essentially not just the Messiah,
but the very righteousness of God. And now Paul. Had to show he had to take this
present unbelief of the people of Israel and show to them how
it related to the Gentiles and how it did not underscore God’s
promises and God’s faithfulness. The very peace and stability
of the Gentiles and of their faith depended on it. Let me
give you some necessary information so that we don’t have to just
throw out buzzwords. What we’re essentially wrestling
with is the difference between or What we’re skirting around is
essentially covenant theology. There are some key features in
covenant theology built and I’m going to give you a very quick
thumbnail sketch. We tend to think of covenant
theology is built only around the covenants that that’s that’s
the undergirding of covenant theology and that is pretty much
the case. Some people even more simplistically
look at it as those are the ones who practice pedo baptism. Well
one of the most primary features is that covenant theology largely
not exclusively holds that they the church is the new Israel. The church has replaced Israel
and Israel no longer figures into God’s plan the literal Israel. One said it this way covenant
theology does not acknowledge any distinction but rather equates
Israel and the church. That’s the simple way to state
it. And the way that they look at
it is the Israel of the Old Testament is superseded by the church.
All of that passes away and now the church comes fully into focus
and the prophecies. Concerning the nation of Israel
are for the most part no longer literally applied to the nation
of Israel. But now they belong. They are
the exclusive property of the church. Some people refer to
this and it gets quite confusing sometimes they refer to this
as reformed theology. And to a degree they’re right.
And that’s one of the reasons that I’ve never I’ve never liked
being called reformed. I’ve never liked especially never
liked having our church called reformed. I like the way the
Puritans put it reformed and reforming. We’re not finished
yet. We haven’t been fully completed
yet. But even to use the word reformed is somewhat confusing
to the greater body of God’s people. When you speak of reformed
there are elements that I can affirm. I can affirm. The doctrines of the Reformation,
I can affirm the solas of the Reformation by grace alone, by
faith alone. By Christ alone. But to imbibe
and to affirm the entire body. of covenant theology that’s what
most of them refer to when they talk about being reformed. If and when we acknowledge that
to a degree we affirm some of the teachings of the reformed
faith what we’re really pointing to and exclusively so is the
doctrines of grace. We hold to the doctrines of grace
and in that sense we have a great and powerful touchstone with
our covenantal friends. But we are not covenantal nor
are we reformed. I’ve said before the greatest
heroes in the faith in my book the venerable dead if you will
are the Puritans. And as I’ve said before it makes
absolute sense that the Puritans were almost exclusively covenantal
in their approach to the scriptures. They were exclusively, if you
will, reformed. Because the Puritans, as they
looked about them, there was no Israel. There was no literal
Israel. There is much to be said Before
we even delve into Romans 9 to 11 there is much to be said about
the great overlap that we have. I’ve already mentioned the doctrines
of grace but there is a great deal of overlap with a wide variety
of elements of God’s church with the Baptists. Obviously we hold
to believers baptism we affirm what they affirm. We don’t agree
with their church government. I don’t agree with largely the
drift and the trend of those who articulate being Baptist. Particularly some larger denominations
south of the Mason Dixon line. But there is a lot of common
ground also with covenantalists. I affirm wholly the government
of the church by means of a plurality of elders. In fact we believe
it more strongly than many. Covenantal reformed Presbyterian
churches. We affirm obviously with all
of them. The Christ of the scriptures
the Lord Jesus Christ is the only savior. With those who say
that they are just generally reformed. We would agree with
the doctrines of grace the soul of the Reformation and the like.
But a question had to be posed. We had to at least step into
a mode of humility when in 1948 a nation chose to put a six pointed
star on the top of a hill in the midst of the Arab world.
You have to pause. You have to pause and at least
wonder. I said it before, why do I believe in a literal Israel?
I’ll give you six million reasons. Why would anyone? Why would any
human choose to affiliate, associate, let alone identify with a people
so venomously hated throughout its entire existence? Not just
with the Philistines, not just with Germany, but with almost
the entire world. Not the least of which are the
Muslims. Especially Ishmaelites, Arabs,
Muslims, why would anyone do so right there in their backyard?
Why would anyone hoist a flag with a six pointed star there? I had a disturbing cup of coffee
recently. There wasn’t anything wrong with
the coffee. It was the conversation that soured. It was meeting with a covenantal
leaning brother. Who came off as almost rooting
for Muslims to finish the Arab Spring and wipe out Israel so
that his covenantal position might be justified once for all.
Sad. The bottom line is I do believe
In a distinction between Israel and the church, but I’m well
ready. To arrive in heaven and to be
humbled by that or any other doctrine. As I meet face to face with God. As Paul Gunware, whose book on. Prophecy and eschatology was
just so beneficial in our study of Luke’s gospel he said that
there is a distinct program for the nation of Israel and one
for the church. Those two programs ultimately
dovetail into one great purpose and that is the glory of God.
The church does not take over covenantal promises made to Israel.
Israel has a distinct future in the program of God since so
many of the promises remain yet unfulfilled. Likewise. I believe humbly so I hope. That the church began. Not with
the covenant with Abraham God’s covenant with Abraham but on
the day of Pentecost. Jesus in his one of his only
references to the church indicated that even during his days on
earth it was still a future reality. Matthew 16 18. I say to you that
you are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church and the
gates of Hades will not overpower it. The church, by its very nature
as the body of Christ, which is what it’s articulated to be,
was obviously dependent on Christ’s coming, his finished work and
ultimately the coming of the Holy Spirit. And that’s what
scripture seems to point to. Acts 20, be on guard, verse 28,
for yourselves and for all the flocks among which the Holy Spirit
has made you overseers to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased
with his own blood. Jesus Christ purchased the church. 1 Corinthians 12, 13, by one
spirit, we were all baptized into one body. So the church
in Israel, I just can’t see that the church in Israel began at
the same time. They’re distinct entities. Israel
essentially began when God called Abraham. The church had its beginning
in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. Even Peter in Acts chapter 11,
Interesting scene that I’ll just have to let you review. But at the end of that lengthy
sentence where he’s essentially defending his opening up to the
Gentiles. He’s declaring to them what happened
on the day of Pentecost and he says the Holy Spirit fell upon
them just as he did upon us at the beginning. And the question
the obvious question is the beginning of what. At the beginning of
the church I’m convinced in Acts chapter 2 obviously the beginning
of the church with a given crucified ascended Lord and now the divine
provision of the Holy Spirit. The other interesting point is
that the writers of the New Testament make a distinction between Israel
and the church consistently. First Corinthians 10 32 give
no offense to Jews or Greeks or to the Church of God. There’s
a distinction there. The New Testament doesn’t confuse
Israel and the church. The church being that body of
Christ made up of individuals from all kinds of different nations.
Israel essentially referring to a people that came physically
from the loins of Abraham, from the seed of Abraham. And this
is what you get in the book of Acts. When Peter is addressing
the crowds there at Pentecost, he says, men of Israel, he wasn’t
talking to the church. Men of Israel, listen to these
words, Jesus, the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles
and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your
midst. In other words, he says to them, look, nation of Israel,
look, Acts 13 or 3 12 refers to them again as men of Israel.
Peter is arrested. Says that he said in verse 10
let all let it be known to you and to all the people of Israel. By the name of Christ Jesus the
Nazarene whom you crucified. He was indicting them for the
rejection of Christ. He’s not talking to the church.
Acts 521, Acts 531, pleading for repentance to Israel. Acts
535, 21, 28, men of Israel, men of Israel. But particularly here
in Romans 9 through 11, Israel as the nation is referred to
not only by name 10 times, but specifically referenced by pronouns
they, them, whom, dozens of times. So much so that it cannot be
legitimately construed as referencing the church. It just can’t. I’ll
give you a couple of examples in a moment. It is clearly the
nation of Israel and not merely the people of Jewish descent
who are in view. Not individuals. In Romans 9,
verse 3 through 5, Paul is clearly speaking of the nation of Israel,
not merely individuals of Jewish descent, when he says, I wish
that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the
sake of my brethren. Who are they? My kinsmen, according
to the flesh. Well, who are you talking about?
Israelites. Are you sure? To whom belongs
the adoption of sons and the glory and the covenants and the
giving of the law and the temple service and the promises. No doubt about it, he’s talking
about the nation of Israel, he’s not talking about the church. Later on. He points to Israel
in verse 31. We did not pursue a law of righteousness
He’s clearly pointing to the fact that the nation as a whole
fell to works as over against faith. Since it is biblically
and historically factual that some Jews came to faith in Christ,
some Jews believed. Paul never talks about an entire
literal every person of Israel that has ever been born has to
come to faith in order for the nation of Israel to be rescued. Likewise, same
thing in ten one through three, they them they all point to the
nation of Israel, the nation as a whole had an uneducated
zeal is what he’s pointing to a zeal that sought to please
God with good works. But there were those of Jewish
ancestry who did place their faith in Jesus Christ while he
walked the earth immediately after and after he departed.
There continue to be Jews placing their faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ. So the terms aren’t used interchangeably. There is one term that points
to the nation of Israel and another that points to the church. There
is a distinction maintained in the scriptures. I want to take you to the book
of Romans. and to chapter nine. There are essentially. Several different divisions,
grammatically speaking, I think the safest way to look at it.
Is the first section I would say is. Romans nine, verses one
through twenty nine, a section which I would call unbelief and
rejection, and I’ll provide you an outline next Lord’s Day. What
I want to do is immediately get into the Scriptures once I lay
out just an overview. Righteousness by works in 930
all the way down through 1021. And then finally, Paul closes
it out with a discussion of Israel’s purpose and restoration there
in 11. 1 through 32, culminating with
the doxology. If you would, Romans chapter
9, I am telling the truth. In Christ, I am not lying, my
conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit that I have
a great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart, for I wish
that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the
sake of my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. Who are
Israelites, to whom belong the adoption of sons and the glory
and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service
and the promises who are the fathers and from whom is the
Christ, according to the flesh. who is overall God blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though
the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who
descended from Israel, neither are they all children because
they are Abraham’s descendants. But through Isaac, your descendants
will be named. That is, it is not the children
of the flesh who are the children of God, but it is the children
of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is a word
of promise. At this time, I will come and
Sarah will have a son. And not only this, but there
was Rebecca also when she had conceived twins by one man, our
father Isaac. For though the twins were not
yet born and had not done any good or bad in order that God’s
purpose according to his choice might stand not because of works,
but because of him who calls. It was said to her, the older
will serve the younger, just as it is written, Jacob, I have
loved, but Esau, I hated. What should we say, then? There
is no injustice with God. Is there? May it never be, for
he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and
I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it
does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but
on God who has mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh,
for this purpose, I have raised you up to demonstrate my power
to you and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the
whole earth. So then he has mercy on whom he desires and he hardens
whom he desires. You will say to me, why does
he then why does he still find fault? For who resists his will? On the contrary who are you a
man who answers back to God the thing molded will not say to
his molder why did you make me like this will it or does not
the potter have a right over the clay to make some from the
same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use.
What if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and
to make his power known endured with much patience vessels of
wrath prepared for destruction. And he did so in order that he
might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy. Which he prepared beforehand
for glory, even us. Whom he also called not from
among the Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. And he says
to Isaiah, I will call those who were not my people, my people. And her who was not beloved,
beloved. And it shall be that in that
place where it was said to them, you are not my people there,
they shall be called sons of the living God. And Isaiah cries
out concerning Israel, though the number of the sons of Israel
be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved
for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth thoroughly
and quickly, just as Isaiah foretold. Except the Lord of Sabbath, Had
left up to us a posterity we would have become as Sodom we
would have resembled Gomorrah. What should we say that the Gentiles
who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness even the
righteousness which is by faith but Israel. Pursuing a law of righteousness
did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue
it by faith. But as though it were by works,
they stumbled over the stumbling stone. Just as it is written,
behold, I lay in Zion, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
And he who believes in him will not be disappointed. We’ll take it up there next time.
And the remainder of the reading of 9 through 11. But I want to
close. With one quote that Hopefully
puts this in perspective. Cranfield said it this way Paul
is here concerned to show that the problem of Israel’s unbelief
which seemed to call into question the very reliability of God himself
is connected with the nature of God’s mercy. For all peoples
to show that Israel’s disobedience together with the divine judgment
which it merits is surrounded on all sides by divine mercy. It is only where the church persists
in refusing to learn this message. Where it secretly. Perhaps quite
unconsciously. Believes that its own existence
is based on human achievement. And so fails to understand God’s
mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and
unscriptural notion that God has cast off his people and simply
replaced it by the church. These three chapters emphatically
forbid us to speak of the church of having once for all taken
the place of the Jewish people. We’ll take it up there next Lord’s
Day. Our merciful God, we humble ourselves before you and in a
very real sense, we can’t wait to be bathed in truth. We can’t
wait. To be humbled. In your presence,
as we will know all truth. Lord God, until then, grant us
humility as we approach these things. Grant us your eyes and
your perspective on these deep truths of God, that they remain
not for us a precipitous wall, but you would give us a glimpse
into the truth of the mysteries of God and the outworking of
your plan of redemption. Grant us that grace, Father.
It’s in Jesus’ name that we ask.