οτι 3754 CONJ εξ 1537 PREP αυτου 846 P-GSM και 2532 CONJ δι 1223 PREP αυτου 846 P-GSM και 2532 CONJ εις 1519 PREP αυτον 846 P-ASM τα 3588 T-NPN παντα 3956 A-NPN αυτω 846 P-DSM η 3588 T-NSF δοξα 1391 N-NSF εις 1519 PREP τους 3588 T-APM αιωνας 165 N-APM αμην 281 HEB
Vincent's NT Word Studies
36. Of - through - to (ex - dia - eiv). Of, proceeding from as the source: through, by means of, as maintainer, preserver, ruler: to or unto, He is the point to which all tends. All men and things are for His glory (1 Corinthians xv. 28). Alford styles this doxology "the sublimest apostrophe existing even in the pages of inspiration itself."NOTE
PAUL'S ARGUMENT IN ROMANS 9, 10 AND 11
These chapters, as they are the most difficult of Paul's writings, have been most misunderstood and misapplied. Their most dangerous perversion is that which draws from them the doctrine of God's arbitrary predestination of individuals to eternal life or eternal perdition.
It can be shown that such is not the intent of these chapters. They do not discuss the doctrine of individual election and reprobation with reference to eternal destiny. The treatment of this question is subordinate to a different purpose, and is not, as it is not intended to be, exhaustive. At the time when the epistle was written, this question was not agitating the Church at large nor the Roman church in particular. Had this been the case, we may be sure, from the analogy of other epistles of Paul, that he would have treated it specifically, as he does the doctrine of justification by faith, in this epistle, and the questions of idol-meats and the resurrection in first Corinthians.
Such a discussion would not have been germane to the design of this epistle, which was to unfold the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, as against the Jewish doctrine of justification by works.
The great question which was then agitating the Church was the relation of Judaism to Christianity. Paul declared that Christianity had superseded Judaism. The Jew maintained, either, that the Messiah had not come in the person of Jesus Christ, and that Christianity was therefore an imposture, or that, admitting Jesus to be the Messiah, He had come to maintain the law and the institutions of Judaism: that, therefore, entrance into the messianic kingdom was possible only through the gate of Judaism; and that the true Christian must remain constant to all the ordinances and commandments of the law of Moses.
According to the Jewish idea, all Gentiles were excluded from the kingdom of God unless they should enter it as Jewish proselytes. Paul himself, before his conversion, had undertaken to stamp out Christianity as heresy, verily thinking that he "ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts xxvi. 9). Hence the Jew "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matt. xxiii. 15). Every Gentile who should resist the conquest of the world by Israel would be destroyed by Messiah. The Jew had no doubts as to the absoluteness of the divine sovereignty, since its fancied application flattered his self-complacency and national pride. All Jews were elect, and all others were reprobate. Paul's proclamation of Messianic privilege to the Gentiles did, perhaps, quite as much to evoke Jewish hatred against himself, as his allegiance to the Jesus whom the Jews had crucified as a malefactor.
The discussion in these three chapters fits perfectly into this question, It is aimed at the Jews' national and religious conceit. It is designed to show them that, notwithstanding their claim to be God's elect people, the great mass of their nation has been justly rejected by God; and further, that God's elective purpose includes the Gentiles. Hence, while maintaining the truth of divine sovereignty in the strongest and most positive manner, it treats it on a grander scale, and brings it to bear against the very elect themselves.
WHAT IS THE PLACE OF THESE CHAPTERS IN THE ORDER OF THE ARGUMENT?
Early in the discussion, Paul had asserted that the messianic salvation had been decreed to the Jew first (i. 16; ii. 10; compare John i. 11). In the face of this stood the fact that the Jewish people generally had rejected the offer of God in Christ. Paul himself, after offering the Gospel to the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia, had said: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts xiii. 46; compare Acts xviii. 6). The Jew had fallen under the judgment of God (Rom. ii. 1, 2). Resting in the law, making his boast of God, claiming to be a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law, he had made him self a scandal in the eyes of the Gentiles by his notorious depravity, and had proved himself to be not a Jew, since his circumcision was not of the heart (Rom. ii. 17-29) Notwithstanding these facts, the Jew claimed that because he was a Jew God could not reject him consistently with His own election and covenant promise. If the Gospel were true, and Jesus really the Messiah, the promises made to the Jewish people, who rejected the Messiah, were nullified. Or, if the election of God held, Israel was and forever remained the people of God, in which case the Gospel was false, and Jesus an impostor. "Thus the dilemma seemed to be: either to affirm God's faithfulness to His own election and deny the Gospel, or to affirm the Gospel, but give the lie to the divine election and faithfulness." (Godet.) Paul must face this problem. It lies in the straight line of his argument. Hints of it have already appeared in chs. iii. 1 sqq; iv. 1. The discussion necessarily involves the truth of the divine sovereignty and election. In studying Paul's treatment of this question, mistake and misconstruction are easy, because the truths of divine sovereignty and electiv
