ives and continues to live, how much soever
they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the living one,
either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their
impenitence, or by healing and quickening them, if they become His
children.--_Finally_,--we must still consider the two citations, in
the New Testament, of the passage before us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10,
[Greek: hoi pote ou laos, nun de laos Theou. hoi ouk eleemenoi, nun de
eleethentes], must certainly strike us, inasmuch as this epistle, on
conclusive grounds (compare _Steiger_ S. 14 ff.), cannot be considered
as being addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still more
striking is the second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: [Greek: hos kai en
to hOsee legei. Kaleso ton ou laon mou, laon mou. kai ten ouk
egapemenen, egapemenen. Kai estai, en to topo hou erhrethe autois ou
laos mou humeis, ekei klethesontai huioi Theou zontos.] Here our
passage is not only alluded to, but expressly quoted, and, in
opposition to the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles is proved from it.
But how can a passage which, according to the whole context, can refer
to Israel only, be applied [Pg 223] directly to the Gentiles? The
answer very readily suggests itself when we reduce the prophecy to its
fundamental idea. This is none other than that of divine mercy, which
may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness, be prevented from
manifesting itself, but can never be extinguished, because it has its
foundation in God's nature. Compare Jer. xxxi. 20: "Is Ephraim a dear
son to Me, a child of joy? For as often as I speak of him, I must still
remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him, _I will have mercy_
upon him, saith the Lord." Now, in the same manner as this truth was
realized in the restoration of the children of Israel to be again the
children of God, so it is in the reception of the Gentiles. It is not
at all a mere application, but a real proof which here forms the
question at issue. It is _because_ God had promised to receive again
the children of Israel, that He must receive the Gentiles also; for
otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in mere caprice,
which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God. Although the
Gentiles are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy the claims of
those who are more remote, just because He acknowledges the claims of
those who are near. The necessity of going back to the fundamental idea
appears in the promis