THE KING’S BUSINESS
667
and Revised Version is unquestionably cor rect. There is a similar comparison of what Jesus was according to the flesh and what He was according to His Divine nature in the first chapter, third and fourth verses. There are equally plain assertions of His absolute Deity elsewhere (e. g. Heb. 1:6-8; John 1:1; John 20:28). Sunday, July 25 . Rom. 9 : 6 - 13 . Though Israel had fallen short of their high calling, the word of God had not failed, for not all that came out of Israel were really Israel. Not natural descent but the promise of God determines who are the real “seed.” Ishmael was born out of a human (and unbelieving and unholy) expedient. Isaac came supernaturally according to a promise of God. Isaac was the real seed. Not the children of the flesh, i. e. the product of nature, but the children of promise, the product of grace, are “reckoned for a seed.” (cf. John 3:6). As it was in the case of Abraham’s seed, so was it in the case of Rebecca’s children. It was the promise of God (and not Rebecca’s motherhood) that determined all. Before the children were born or had done a thing, good or evil, God in His soverign choice said that “the elder shall serve the younger.” Why did God say so? Because He so chose. He is under no obligation to make any explanation to anybody, and man never appears so utterly a fool as when he demands explanations frqm the Infinite God. God saw fit to prefer Jacob to Esau, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.” We must not, however, go beyon'd what is written and read into this word “hate” a stronger meaning than it has in the Bible usage. The word “hate” when used' in such con nection as here means to turn away from one in preference put upon another. God did not hate Esau in the absolute, but in comparison with the preference he bestowed upon Jacob (cf. Gen. 29:31; Luke 14:26, compared with Matt. 10:37; John 12:25). God gave Esau many evi dences of His love; but .His choice was upon Jacob.
Thursday, July 26 . Rom. 9 : 14 - 16 .
Paul sees that someone might say, as many now do say, “there is then unright eousness with God.’ Paul cries, as every true soul must cry, “Away with the thought.” But while Paul cries “away with the thought,” he does not tone down the truth to please cavillers. No, he reaf firms-it more strongly, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have com passion.” It is all a matter of God’s sov ereign will. Is God then arbitrary? No, there is a counter-balancing truth, viz that there is wisdom and love in the sov ereign will of God, and that God wills to have compassion wherever in wisdom He can have compassion (cf. 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). But Paul does not introduce this counter-balancing truth here. He lets the greater fundamental truth of God’s sovereign will stand out alone in all its rugged grandeur. It is well to do that often in order to humble the stout-hearted pride of men. The great fundamental truth is that “it is not a man that willeth, nor of man that runneth, but of God that hath mercy,” Friday, July 27 . Rom. 9 : 17 , 18 . Even Pharaoh, with all his opposition to God and oppression of God’s people, was a part of God’s plan. It was God who raised him up and raised him up for the vpry purpose that he fulfilled. God raised him up for this purpose to show in him His power and that His name might be “published abroad in all the earth.” This of course did not interfere at all with Pharaoh’s freedom pf choice. He could at any moment have yielded to God’s will if he would, but he would not, and Jehovah knew from the beginning that he would not, and took him just as he was into his great plan, and glorified Himself in him. God “hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He m il he hardeneth.” - But we learn from other passages of Scripture that God willeth to have mercy on whom-
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker