Schaff - History of the Christian Church Vol. 8 - Media Sabda Org

473
therefore, be understood as a strong Hebraistic expression for loving less
or putting back; as in Gen. 29:31, where the original text says, “Leah was
hated” by Jacob, i.e. loved less than Rachel (comp. 29:30). When our
Saviour says, Luke 14:26: “If any man hateth not his own father and
mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple,” he does not mean that his disciples should
break the fifth commandment, and act contrary to his direction: “Love your
enemies, pray for them that persecute you” (Matt. 5:44), but simply that
we should prefer him above everything, even life itself, and should sacrifice
whatever comes in conflict with him. This meaning is confirmed by the
parallel passage, Matt. 10:37: “He that loveth father and mother more than
me is not worthy of me.”
(b) Rom. 9:17. Paul traces the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart to the
agency of God, and so far makes God responsible for sin. But this was
a judicial act of punishing sin with sin; for Pharaoh had first hardened
his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34). Moreover, this passage has no
reference to Pharaoh’s future fate any more than the passage about
Esau, but both refer to their place in the history of Israel.
(c) In Rom. 9:22 and 23, the Apostle speaks of “vessels of wrath fitted
unto destruction” kathrtisme>na eijv ajpw>leian), and “vessels of
mercy which he (God) prepared unto glory” (a} prohtoi>masen eijv
do>xan). But the difference of the verbs, and the difference between the
passive (or middle) in the first clause and the active in the second is
most significant, and shows that God has no direct agency in the
destruction of the vessels of wrath, which is due to their selfdestruction;
the participle perfect denotes the result of a gradual
process and a state of maturity for destruction, but not a divine
purpose. Calvin is too good an exegete to overlook this difference, and
virtually admits its force, although he tries to weaken it.
They observe,” he says of his opponents, “that it is not said without
meaning, that the vessels of wrath are fitted for destruction, but that God
prepared the vessels of mercy; since by this mode of expression, Paul
ascribes and challenges to God the praise of salvation, and throws the
blame of perdition on those who by their choice procure it to themselves.
But though I concede to them that Paul softens the asperity of the former
clause by the difference of phraseology; yet it is not at all consistent to
transfer the preparation for destruction to any other than the secret counsel