Tag Archives: Matthew 7:15-16

Sowing to the Flesh, Part 1

Posted on by

The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials,[1] Peter wrote to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted (λαχοῦσιν, a form of λαγχάνω) a faith just as precious as ours.[2]  Another thing the Lord knows, Peter continued, is how to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority.  Brazen and insolent, they are not afraid to insult the glorious ones, yet even angels, who are much more powerful, do not bring a slanderous judgment against them before the Lord.[3]

I think some things in these letters are hard to understand.  Who, for instance, were the glorious ones (δόξας, a form of δόξα)?  Who did the angels (ἄγγελοι, a form of ἄγγελος) not bring a slanderous judgment against?  The glorious ones?  Or those brazen and insolent ones who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority, who are not afraid to insult the glorious ones.

The angels “are greater in power and might,” Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary[4] on 2 Peter, “and that even than those who are clothed with authority and power among the sons of men, and much more than those false teachers who are slanderous revilers of magistrates and governors.”  In Mr. Henry’s mind the glorious ones insulted by those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority were human “magistrates and governors.”  If this is what Peter meant I’ve already written about the difference between Peter’s writing on the subject and his own actions.

“These ungodly ones are proud, despising authority,” David Guzik wrote in his commentary of 2 Peter 2.  “In their presumption they will even speak ill of spiritual powers (Satan and his demons) that the angels themselves do not speak evil of, but the angels rebuke them in the name of the Lord instead.”[5]  If this was what Peter meant, then the glorious ones insulted by those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority were the gods of Rome and its environs.  Frankly, I can’t tell if Peter meant either or both or none of the above.

Peter, in my opinion, wrote just enough to demonstrate why John and Paul were called to write most of the Gospel commentary in the New Testament.  I don’t mean to criticize Peter as a man, a believer, an apostle or a leader, simply as a writer.  But I think sometimes we Protestants are too quick to exonerate him from the Catholic contention that Peter was the first Pope.

Consider what he wrote about faith (2 Peter 1:5-7 NET):

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love.

This sounds a lot like the piling on of merits in the “form of absolution used among the monks”[6] quoted by Luther/Graebner 1,300 years later.

God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.

Granted, Peter may have been misunderstood.  The Greek word translated add was ἐπιχορηγήσατε (a form of ἐπιχορηγέω).  Another form— ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται—of the very same word was translated will be…provided just six verses later.  Peter may have meant that we should make every effort to “be provided” with excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly affection and unselfish love by the fruit of the Holy Spirit; since Jesus’ divine power has bestowed (δεδωρημένης, a form of δωρέομαι) on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence.[7]  But apparently Peter’s writing has made that difficult to suss out.

Now I sincerely doubt a first century Jewish apostle of Jesus Christ consciously thought of himself as Pope (Pontifex Maximus), the leader of the Roman state religion.  The title was probably assumed sometime after 381 when “Christianity [was] made [the] state religion of [the] Roman Empire.”[8]  But I have no doubt that Peter was received as leader, or bishop, if or when he arrived in Rome, if not during his lifetime, surely after his martyrdom.

I may not qualify as an historian but I have an interest in history.  That interest may compel me to hear the reasoning of the author of The Lonely Pilgrim blog: “Every historical record that speaks to Peter’s later life and death attests that he died in Rome a martyr under the emperor Nero, ca. A.D. 67.  No record places the end of his life anywhere else.”[9]  But as a believer I can’t follow his reasoning when he asserts:

The fact that so many Protestants deny [that Peter ministered in Rome] so vehemently, and refute it so absurdly, tells me that they, however basically, realize the power in our claim.  They recognize and in effect acknowledge what we have maintained for many centuries: that having the chief of Apostles as our foundation gives the Roman Catholic Church legitimacy and primacy.

“We have Peter as our founder” is the same species of error that John corrected when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism (Matthew 3:7-9 ESV) [for repentance]…

“Bear (ποιήσατε, a form of ποιέω) fruit in keeping (ἄξιον, a form of ἄξιος) with repentance.  And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.”

Membership in a church Peter founded is not equivalent to trusting the Savior Peter trusted.  Mason Gallagher, an American pastor, wrote, “Rome sends her heralds to this land who come to me in the name of Peter and demand my adherence, and complete subjection…”[10]  The problem was made more acute because he believed “that Peter had such power, proved by Holy Writ” (Matthew 20:20-28).  He quoted a Catholic priest, Reuben Parsons, D. D.:

The simplest way of proving that the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of St. Peter, is by establishing as a stubborn fact that St. Peter himself, the presumed source of the Roman claims, never was Bishop of Rome; in fact that he never was in the Eternal City.

But isolated as this quote is, it’s impossible to determine if it was a genuine admission of potential persuasion or a false alternative thrown off like countermeasures from a warplane caught in an enemy’s missile lock.  But Mr. Gallagher cited other quotations under the heading “What Rome Teaches.”  I’ve put them in a table opposite Peter’s words.

What Rome Teaches

What Peter Taught (Acts 4:11, 12 NET)
“If anyone should deny that it is by the institution of Christ, the Lord, or by Divine Right, that blessed Peter should [have] a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the Primacy, let him be anathema!”

— Decree of Vatican Council, 1870.

 

“He that acknowledgeth not himself to be under the Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome is ordained of God to have Primacy over all the world, is a heretic and cannot be saved, nor is of the flock of Christ.”

— Canon Law Ch. of Rome.

 

Creed of Pope Pius IV., 1564: “I acknowledge the Holy ‘Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, for the mother and mistress of all Churches; and I promise true obedience to [the] Bishop of Rome — successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. I do at this present freely profess, and sincerely hold, this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved.”

 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone.  And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.

I will not argue before the judgment seat of Christ that Peter at Pentecost was ignorant of a church he would found at Rome to usurp Jesus’ salvation.  And I would not recommend that anyone else do so.

I’m not inclined to argue with anyone who believes that Babylon means Babylon in Scripture.  As A. Allison Lewis (See: “Testimony” at the bottom of the page) wrote, “In 1 Peter 5:13, it tells us very plainly that [Peter] wrote that epistle from the city of Babylon.”[11]  This kind of literalism is my customary and preferred way to read Scripture.  But in this case—as the original fundamentalists identified themselves to one another by shortening their first names to an initial and using their middle names as their “Christian” names—I think Babylon might have been code for Rome.[12]

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

I moved across the country about the time I began to form a negative opinion of Peter’s writing.  Looking for a church online I came across a sermon series on Peter’s epistles.  The pastor praised Peter as a clear and concise author.  Since the sermons where also online and I could catch up and keep up with the series while I was traveling, I started attending that church when I was home on Sunday.  Though the pastor praised the clarity of Peter’s writing, whenever he wanted to explain what Peter meant he turned to John or Paul.

This may be more relevant than whether Peter founded the church at Rome.  Protestants more often than not turn to John and Paul to understand Peter.  If I were more inclined to favor Peter’s writings and utilized them to understand John and Paul, I might derive a Gospel understanding more like that of the Roman Catholic Church.

But these men, Peter continued—describing those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority—like irrational animals – creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed (φθοράν, a form of φθορά) – do not understand whom they are insulting, and consequently in their destruction (φθορᾷ, another form of φθορά) they will be destroyed (φθαρήσονται, a form of φθείρω), suffering harm as the wages for their harmful ways.[13]

The Greek word φθοράν, translated destroyed above, was translated corruption in the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption (φθοράν, a form of φθορά) from the flesh.[14]  Another form φθορᾶς was translated decay in the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay (φθορᾶς, another form of φθορά) into the glorious freedom of God’s children.[15]  Peter described false teachers who promised people freedom while they themselves are enslaved to immorality (φθορᾶς, another form of φθορά).[16]  And he wrote (2 Peter 1:3, 4 NET):

…his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence.  Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption (φθορᾶς, another form of φθορά) that is produced by evil desire.

The definition of φθαρήσονται in the NET offers the following historical insight: “in the opinion of the Jews, the temple was corrupted or ‘destroyed’ when anyone defiled or in the slightest degree damaged anything in it, or if its guardians neglected their duties.”  I want to link this to another quote and another Greek word ἀπώλεια (2 Peter 2:1b-3 NET):

These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive (ἀπωλείας, a form of ἀπώλεια) heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them.  As a result, they will bring swift destruction (ἀπώλειαν, another form of ἀπώλεια) on themselves.  And many will follow their debauched lifestyles.  Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.  And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words.  Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their destruction (ἀπώλεια) is not asleep.

If false teachers bring swift destruction on themselves, where do they find the time to lead others into their debauched lifestyles?  But I’m not convinced that this particular confusion was Peter’s fault.  The definition of ἀπώλεια online caught my attention:

apṓleia  (from 622 /apóllymi, “cut off“) – destruction, causing someone (something) to be completely severed – cut off (entirely) from what could or should have been.

If what could or should have been was that Jesus’ divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness then this swift destruction may be, not an end of human life, but being completely severed from what Jesus has bestowed on us and intended for us, a destruction of corruption (Romans 1:18, 22-32 NET).

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness…Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves [Table].  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!  Amen.  For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions.  For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another.  Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.  And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.  They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice.  They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.  Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

So we would have (2 Peter 2:12, 13):

But these men, like irrational animals – creatures of instinct, born to be caught and [corrupted] (φθοράν, a form of φθορά) – do not understand whom they are insulting, and consequently in their [corruption] (φθορᾷ, another form of φθορά) they will be [corrupted, led astray][17] (φθαρήσονται, a form of φθείρω), suffering harm as the wages for their harmful ways.  By considering it a pleasure to carouse in broad daylight, they are stains and blemishes, indulging in their deceitful pleasures when they feast together with you.  Their eyes, full of adultery, never stop sinning; they entice unstable people.  They have trained their hearts for greed, these cursed children!

And (2 Peter 2:1b-3 NET):

These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with [corrupting] (ἀπωλείας, a form of ἀπώλεια) heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them.  As a result, they will bring swift [corruption] (ἀπώλειαν, another form of ἀπώλεια) on themselves.  And many will follow their debauched lifestyles.  Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.  And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words.  Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their [corruption] (ἀπώλεια) is not asleep.

Watch out for false prophets, Jesus said, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves.  You will recognize them by their fruit.[18]  Do the teachers proclaim and exhibit the fruit of the Spirit?  Or are they sowing to their own flesh and reaping corruption from their own flesh?

[1] 2 Peter 2:9a (NET)

[2] 2 Peter 1:1b (NET)

[3] 2 Peter 2:9b-11 (NET)

[4] http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/2-peter/2.html

[5] https://enduringword.com/commentary/2-peter-2/

[6] Commentary on Galatians 2:18

[7] 2 Peter 1:3 (NET)

[8] “Constantine: First Christian Emperor” Christianity Today

[9] Early Testimonies to St. Peter’s Ministry in Rome

[6] Rev. Mason Gallagher,D. D., “Was the Apostle Peter ever at Rome? A critical examination of the evidence and arguments presented on both sides of the question”

[11] A. Allison Lewis, “Was Peter Ever in Rome?”

[12] “Was Peter in Rome?”

[13] 2 Peter 2:12, 13a (NET)

[14] Galatians 6:8a (NET)

[15] Romans 8:21 (NET)

[16] 2 Peter 2:19a (NET)

[17] Forms of φθείρω were translated corrupts in 1 Corinthians 15:33 (NET); corrupted in 2 Corinthians 7:2 (KJV); may be led astray in 2 Corinthians 11:3 (NET); who is being corrupted in Ephesians 4:22 (NET) and corrupted in Revelation 19:2 (NET)

[18] Matthew 7:15, 16a (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 15

Posted on by

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea that caught all kinds of fish.  When it was full, they pulled it ashore, sat down, and put the good (καλὰ, a form of καλός) fish into containers and threw the bad (σαπρὰ, a form of σαπρός) away.  It will be this way at the end of the age.  Angels will come and separate the evil (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) from the righteous (δικαίων, a form of δίκαιος) and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.[1]  This parable about the kingdom of heaven focused commentators’ attentions on the church as opposed to the world at large.

“In the visible church,” Matthew Henry (1662-1714) wrote, “there is a deal of trash and rubbish, dirt and weeds and vermin, as well as fish….Hypocrites and true Christians shall be parted.”[2]  John Gill (1697-1771) added, “as many as [the angels] find to have a good work of grace wrought and finished in their souls, they will gather into Christ’s barn, into the everlasting habitations, the mansions in Christ’s Father’s house, he is gone to prepare: but as for the bad, who shall appear to be destitute of the grace of God, and righteousness of Christ, notwithstanding their profession of religion, they shall be rejected, as good for nothing, and shall be cast into the lake which burns with fire and brimstone.”[3]

“Our Saviour never fails to keep before our minds the great truth that there is to be a day of judgment,” wrote Albert Barnes (1798-1870), “and that there will be a separation of the good and the evil.  He came to preach salvation; and it is a remarkable fact, also, that the most fearful accounts of hell and of the sufferings of the damned, in the Scriptures, are from his lips.  How does this agree with the representations of those who say that all will be saved?”[4]

On the meaning of σαπρὰ (a form of σαπρός) the Pulpit Commentary (1884) reads: [5]

Not to be pressed to mean “corrupt, dead fish, in a state of rottenness” (Goebel), for surely fishermen seldom get many of these, but simply the worthless, the unfit for use.  This would include the legally unclean.  Tristram writes,” The greater number of the species taken on the lake are rejected by the fishermen, and I have sat with them on the gunwale while they went through their net, and threw out into the sea those that were too small for the market or were considered unclean” (‘Nat. Hist. of Bible,’ p. 291, edit. 1889)

Watch out for false prophets, Jesus said, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves.  You will recognize them by their fruit (καρπῶν, a form of καρπός).[6]  I can be fairly specific here: Does the would-be prophet demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,[7] the fruit (καρπὸς) of the Spirit?  Or does the would-be prophet practice (πράσσοντες, a form of πράσσω) sexual immorality (πορνεία), impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing,[8] the works (ἔργα, a form of ἔργον) of the flesh?

Jesus continued, Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they?  In the same way, every good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree bears good (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit, but the bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός) tree bears bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit.[9]  I think it worth mentioning that the word translated bears is ποιεῖ (a form of ποιέω) in both occurrences.  A good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree is not able to bear bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit, Jesus continued, nor a bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός) tree to bear good (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit.[10]

Make a tree good (καλὸν, another form of καλός) and its fruit will be good (καλὸν, another form of καλός), Jesus said to religious people, or make a tree bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός) and its fruit will be bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός), for a tree is known by its fruit.[11]  I’ve written elsewhere how the religious mind reverses this teaching.  Every tree that does not bear good (καλὸν, another form of καλός) fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire, Jesus continued his warning about false prophets.  So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.[12]

This leads me inevitably to the old and new human (ἄνθρωπον, a form of ἄνθρωπος in Greek; I see no reason to specify gender).  You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on (ἐνδύσασθαι, a form of ἐνδύω) the new man who has been created in God’s image – in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.[13]  The word ἐνδύσασθαι means to sink into.  In movies the femme fatale slips into something more comfortable.  To put on the new human is considerably more macho.

I am working class all the way, rarely wear a suit.  If I do, it is to fit in, to impress or to intimidate.  It is a put-on in every sense of the word.  “Fake it until you make it” works in those situations when “you can fool all of the people some of the time.”  It doesn’t work with the new human because no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.[14]  To put on the new human I must believe that God has prepared it beforehand, ready and able to respond as He would have me respond.

This new human is the one who has been fathered by God: We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one cannot touch him.[15]  Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.[16]  This new human is the one who is led by the Spirit: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.[17]  The old human is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.  It gets progressively worse, never better.

This was vividly portrayed for me—in me—the Saturday before Mother’s day.  I had a rare opportunity to be home.  My eighty-four-year-old mother asked me to finish trimming her bushes.  Now, of course, she had a particular way it needed to be done.  As I untangled the long extension cord that powered the trimmer I recalled that handling that cord caused her fall last summer.  She broke her hip and lay on the driveway for ten hours, parched and burnt in the sun and then shivering in the rain, until my sister found her.  But the whole time I trimmed those bushes the old human did nothing but bitch, moan and complain about her.

It didn’t affect my behavior.  (I trimmed her bushes to the best of my ability.  No, it wasn’t topiary by any stretch of the imagination.)  The old human didn’t affect my attitude toward her.  (I called and asked her to make sure.)  But I can hardly wait to be rid of the foul thing!  So when I hear—Angels will come and separate the evil from [ἐκ μέσου; literally “out from the midst of”] the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth—I wonder if that describes my release from this sin condemned in my flesh.  And I’m confounded that so many pastors thought instead of members of their congregations.  Why?

Do we differ in our understanding of the fruit of the Spirit?

“And here we may observe that as sin is called the work of the flesh,” Matthew Henry wrote, “because the flesh, or corrupt nature, is the principle that moves and excites men to it, so grace is said to be the fruit of the Spirit, because it wholly proceeds from the Spirit, as the fruit does from the root…”  John Gill was a bit more equivocal:  “Not of nature or man’s free will, as corrupted by sin, for no good fruit springs from thence; but either of the internal principle of grace, called the Spirit, Galatians 5:17 or rather of the Holy Spirit, as the Ethiopic version reads it; the graces of which are called ‘fruit’, and not ‘works’, as the actions of the flesh are; because they are owing to divine influence, efficacy, and bounty…”

Albert Barnes was explicit: “That which the Holy Spirit produces…Paul does not trace them to our own hearts, even when renewed.  He says that they are to be regarded as the proper result of the Spirit‘s operations on the soul.”  In the Pulpit Commentary the fruit of the Spirit was rationalized as “dispositions and states of mind,” and demeaned somewhat as “states of mind or habits of feeling [rather] than concrete actions,” but are still acknowledged as produced by the Holy Spirit: “[Paul] reckons up the dispositions and states of mind which it was the office of the Holy Spirit to produce in them.”

Do we differ in our understanding of the necessity and efficacy of God’s mercy?

“It is not of him that willeth….Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him,” wrote Matthew Henry, “the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God’s free grace that made that difference.  The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness, Matthew 4:16.  In darkness, therefore not willing what they knew not sitting in darkness, a contented posture, therefore not running to meet it, but anticipated with these invaluable blessings of goodness.  Such is the method of God’s grace towards all that partake of it, for he is found of those that sought him not (Isaiah 65:1) in this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own.  Our eye therefore must not be evil because his is good…”

John Gill wrote: “but of God that sheweth mercy; in a free sovereign way and manner, which he is not obliged to by anything the creature wills or works; he is at full liberty, notwithstanding whatever they will or do, to give his grace and mercy, when, where, and to whom he pleases; and therefore to give it to some, and deny it to others, can never be accounted an act of injustice, since he is not bound to give it to any.”

Albert Barnes wrote: “But of God that showeth mercy – Salvation in its beginning, its progress, and its close, is of him.  He has a right, therefore, to bestow it when and where he pleases.  All our mercies flow from his mere love and compassion, and not from our deserts.  The essential idea here is, that God is the original fountain of all the blessings of salvation.”  The Pulpit Commentary doesn’t comment on Romans 9:16 directly but reads: “The argument (thus introduced by γὰρ) requires two understood premisses—that God cannot possibly be unrighteous, and that what he himself said to Moses must be true.”

Do we differ on who may be shown mercy?

Matthew Henry didn’t comment directly on Romans 11:32: “He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.  Christ’s errand into the world was to turn away ungodliness, to turn away the guilt by the purchase of pardoning mercy, and to turn away the power by the pouring out of renewing grace, to save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), to separate between us and our sins, that iniquity might not be our ruin, and that it might not be our ruler.  Especially to turn it away from Jacob, which is that for the sake of which he quotes the text, as a proof of the great kindness God intended for the seed of Jacob.”

So far so good.  Mr. Henry quoted Paul quoting Isaiah:

NET

 Parallel Greek

Septuagint
The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

Romans 11:26b

 ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ρυόμενος,

ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.

Romans 11:26b

 καὶ  ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ

Isaiah 59:20

Then Mr. Henry quoted the same verse in Isaiah from the Masoretic text: “In Isaiah it is, The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto those that turn from transgression in Jacob, which shown who in Zion were to have a share in and to reap benefit by the deliverance promised, those and those only that leave their sins and turn to God to them Christ comes as a Redeemer, but as an avenger to those that persist in impenitence.”  Then he proposed an unbelievable solution: “Putting both these readings together, we learn that none have an interest in Christ but those that turn from their sins, nor can any turn from their sins but by the strength of the grace of Christ.”

In other words, no one can be saved since God will only show mercy to those who turn from their sins and none can turn from their sins apart from God’s mercy.  With a Gospel message like that we need not wonder at the “deal of trash and rubbish, dirt and weeds and vermin” in his church.  That’s not quite fair.  Mr. Henry didn’t specify whether the “deal of trash and rubbish, dirt and weeds and vermin” were members of his own congregation or another.  According to an online bio “he began his regular ministry as non-conformist pastor of a Presbyterian congregation…”  Perhaps he wrote thus of Anglicans or Catholics.  But I think I understand why he had no comment to make on Paul’s declaration: For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[18]

“Jews, though for the present unbelievers,” John Gill wrote, “yet it may be thought, that through the mercy the Gentiles had received, they would some time or other be provoked to seek for, and so obtain the same mercy, Romans 11:31, and the rather this may be given into and received, not only because they both have been in a state of unbelief, but the end and design of God in concluding them in it, were to have mercy on each of them, Romans 11:32…” I may be mistaken but I take Mr. Gill to mean that God will have mercy on some Jews and Gentiles (those who turn from their sins perhaps?).  Mr. Gill continued, “which dispensation of God both to one and to the other by turns, in different ways, was so amazing and unaccountable to the apostle, that he breaks out into admiration at the wisdom and knowledge of God…”

“Mercy is favor shown to the undeserving,” wrote Albert Barnes.  “It could not have been shown to the Jews and the Gentiles unless it was before proved that they were guilty.  For this purpose proof was furnished that they were all in unbelief….Thus, all people were on a level; and thus all might be admitted to heaven without any invidious distinctions, or any dealings that were not in accordance with mercy and love….It does not prove that all people will be saved; but that those who are saved shall be alike saved by the mercy of God; and that He intends to confer salvation on Jews and Gentiles on the same terms.”  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 human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. [19]

“Thus the latter expression [e.g., Romans 11:32] is not in itself adducible in support of the doctrine of universalism,” the Pulpit Commentary reads.  “Certainly the prospect of a universal triumph of the gospel before the end rises here before the apostle in prophetic vision; and it may be that it carries with it to his mind further glories of eternal salvation for all, casting their rays backward over all past ages, so as to inspire an unbounded hope.  Such a hope, which seems elsewhere intimated (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24-29; Ephesians 1:9, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:20-23; Colossians 1:15-20) would justify the glowing rhapsody of admiration and thanksgiving that follows more fully than if we supposed the apostle to contemplate still the eternal perdition of the multitudes who in all the ages have not on earth found mercy.”

Here the Pulpit Commentary referred to Romans 11:32-36 (NET):

For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.  Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways!  For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?  Or who has first given to God, that God needs to repay him?  For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be glory forever!  Amen.

I’ll pick this up again later.

[1] Matthew 13:47-50 (NET)

[2] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible

[4] Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible

[5] Pulpit Commentary

[6] Matthew 7:15, 16a (NET)

[7] Galatians 5:22, 23a (NET)

[8] Galatians 5:19-21a (NET)

[9] Matthew 7:16b, 17(NET)

[10] Matthew 7:18 (NET)

[11] Matthew 12:33 (NET)

[12] Matthew 7:19, 20 (NET)

[13] Ephesians 4:22-24 (NET)

[14] Hebrews 4:13 (NET)

[15] 1 John 5:18 (NET) Table

[16] 1 John 3:9 (NET)

[17] Romans 8:14 (NET)

[18] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[19] Romans 9:15b, 16 (NET)