Chapter Nine

The Apostle’s grief over the rejection of Israel (1–5). This rejection does not contradict the divine promises (6–13). This rejection does not contradict God’s justice either (14–29). Why Israel did not attain righteousness (30–33).

The Apostle said above (Rom 1:16-17), that the Gospel was intended first of all for the Jews. He then pointed out that the Jews were entrusted with the divine promises of salvation in Christ (Rom 3:1-3) and that the Law, though negatively, prepared the Jews to receive the grace of the Gospel (Rom 3:20). Nevertheless, the Jews as a nation found themselves outside the threshold of Christ’s Kingdom — they did not accept the Gospel. This circumstance could not fail to trouble even Christians from among the Gentiles, who made up the greater part of the Roman church. Some of them might even have entertained the thought: is this unbelief of the Jews in the Gospel not proof that what is now being preached as the Gospel is somehow not the true one? In order to dispel all doubts raised by the Jews’ rejection of the Gospel, the Apostle appends to the doctrinal part of his epistle a section that is, so to speak, philosophico-historical, in which he explains in detail the reason for the rejection of the Jews from Christ’s Kingdom and proves that the promises given to the forefathers of the Jewish people will in time nevertheless be fulfilled (chs. IX–XI). In addition, this section has a direct connection with the end of chapter VIII. There the discussion concerned how God, having once foreordained people for salvation, thereafter unfailingly calls them (v. 30). But the Jews seemed to provide evidence to the contrary: they were foreordained or pre-chosen for salvation — and yet God had not called them! The Apostle explains this difficulty in chapter IX.

Romans 9:1. I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, Before proceeding to resolve the question of the Jews’ unbelief, the Apostle considers it necessary to declare that he is by no means an enemy of Israel, as renegades often are. On the contrary, he loves and values his people and would gladly sacrifice his own personal happiness for their salvation, since the rejection of Israel causes his heart the deepest sorrow. The Apostle first says that everything he will go on to say about the Jews will be in full agreement with the truth, because he cannot lie while living in close vital fellowship with Christ. Moreover, his conscience also testifies to the same — that the Apostle speaks from himself personally (to me), and his conscience cannot deceive him, since it gives its witness in the Holy Spirit, that is, being guided not by any fleshly interests but by a higher, impartial principle — the Holy Spirit who dwells in believers. Although Paul’s conscience cannot convey its witness directly to the readers of the epistle, the very fact that the Apostle appeals to it shows that it will not allow him to say what is untrue. Thus, in speaking of the witness of conscience, the Apostle wishes to say that he makes his assurances only after having tested their truth in his own conscience.

Romans 9:2. that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart: The Apostle does not say what he grieves so deeply about, but this is clear without words. Evidently he sorrows over the rejection of the Jews from Christ’s Kingdom.

Romans 9:3. I myself could wish to be cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, “I myself could wish,” that is, if it were possible to save the Jewish people through personal self-sacrifice, the Apostle would be willing for such self-sacrifice. 32. — “To be cut off” (anathema), that is, to be that object which among the Jews was devoted to destruction in order to satisfy the wrath of God (cf. Gal 1:8 and following; 1 Cor 12:3). The Apostle would wish to perish, deprived of fellowship with Christ, to perish eternally for the sake of his brothers, so that the wrath of God would fall not on them but on him (similar to Moses — cf. Exod 32:32).

Romans 9:4. that is, Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, and the promises; Romans 9:5. to them belong the patriarchs, and from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. The Apostle lists the distinctions of the Jewish people, in view of which he considers it would be worth sacrificing his own personal salvation for the salvation of a people so honored by God. Israelites. Even the very name of the Jews — Israelites, given to them in memory of their great ancestor Jacob or Israel, speaks of their dignity (Gen 32:28 cf. John 1:47). — “Adoption.” Israel was adopted by God as a people, and therefore God calls Himself their Father (Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1; Hos 11:1). Other nations were never called sons of Jehovah. — “Glory” — the symbolically visible presence of Jehovah in the pillar of cloud and fire (Exod 24:16) or in the cloud that filled the Temple of Solomon at its dedication (1 Sam 8:10 and following). — “Covenants” — with Abraham and other patriarchs, and then with the whole people (cf. Wis 18:22; Sir 17; Eph 2:12). — “The giving of the Law” — that is, the solemn proclamation of the Law on Mount Sinai. The worship — that is, the service to Jehovah in the Temple (which was not present among other peoples). — “Promises” — preeminently messianic ones. — “Patriarchs” — again in the special sense of that word, namely the God-chosen patriarchs who stood in immediate fellowship with God. Although other nations traced their lineage from great and wise men, these men cannot be compared with those who were called into the closest fellowship with Jehovah.

Romans 1:3. “And from them is Christ according to the flesh.” The Apostle limits the origin of Christ from Israel to the flesh, that is, to the natural-human side of His being (see Romans 1:3). From this addition “according to the flesh” it is clear that the Apostle wishes to say something further about the other, divine, side of Christ’s being. — “God who is over all.” This passage is a stumbling block for commentators. To whom do these words refer? To Christ or to God? Some commentators say that these words cannot refer to Christ, because nowhere else in the Apostle Paul is Christ called so directly God. Therefore they see in this expression a doxology to God the Father. Others, on the contrary, maintain that grammatically these words can perfectly well be a continuation of the preceding expression: Christ according to the flesh, and that there is no basis for seeing in them a doxology to God, since nothing was said about God just before. If one sees in this doxology a thanksgiving to God for the mercies He showed to the people of Israel — of which the Apostle speaks above — this supposition would be contradicted by the fact that in the passage under discussion the Apostle actually praises not the mercy but the power of God (who is over all). Furthermore, there is no need to be troubled by such a direct confession of Christ’s divine dignity, since Christ is already called God in 1 Tim 3:16 (“God was manifested in the flesh”), and in the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle ascribes to Christ a being equal to God (Phil 2:6 \n ιθε). Finally, in all doxologies to God the word “blessed” stands at the beginning of the sentence, but here it is at the end (cf. 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3). Taking into account the weight of arguments advanced in favor of the view that the doxology refers to Christ, as well as the unanimous voice of the ancient Church commentators (Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others), this view must be recognized as the only correct one. Romans 9:6. But it is not as though the word of God has failed; for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel; The rejection of the greater part of Israel does not contradict the divine promises given to the patriarchs of this people. God nowhere said that all descendants of Abraham would attain the salvation promised to Abraham: His promise concerned only a portion of Abraham’s descendants. This is proven by the fact that salvation was promised not to all the children of Abraham, but only to Isaac, the son of Abraham, by promise. This is seen even more clearly in the fate of Rebekah’s sons. The rejection of Ishmael could still be explained somewhat by the fact that his mother Hagar was a slave. But Jacob and Esau were born of the same mother and the same father, who had already at that time been declared heir to the promise. And yet one of them was rejected. From this last example it is clearly apparent that election does not depend on our merit (Esau was, in general, also a decent enough person), but on the will of God, and that God determined their fate even before either was born. “But it is not as though…” The Apostle returns to the thought that oppresses him — the rejection of Israel. Yes, as if to say: Israel is rejected, the people of God are shut out from Christ’s Kingdom! But this does not mean that the divine promises given to the forefathers of this people (the word of God) have not been fulfilled. — “From Israel,” that is, from Jacob, surnamed Israel. The promises given to this patriarch do not apply to all the physical descendants of Israel. The Apostle speaks of Israel before Abraham, probably because what prompted him to do so was that he had already (in verse 4) placed first among the privileges of the Jewish people its designation as Israelites.

Romans 9:7. and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants, but it is said: “In Isaac shall your offspring be named. This verse is better translated as follows: “and if they (that is, the Israelites) are ‘descendants of Abraham,’ this does not yet mean that they are ‘children.’” The word children (tekna) here undoubtedly has a special meaning: it means children of God (cf. Rom 8:16), that is, heirs of the divine promises. In favor of this understanding speaks also the next verse 8 (“children of God”). — “In Isaac…” Only when one looks at Isaac will everyone say: “There is a descendant of Abraham!” There will be other descendants of Abraham through Ishmael and other sons — but they will not be universally recognized as his true children.

Romans 9:8. That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of promise are counted as the offspring. “Children of promise,” that is, born by virtue of the Divine promise (Gal 4:23), like Isaac, who was born at a time when his parents could not have children by the natural order of things (Rom 4:19). “The power of the promise gave birth to the child” (John Chrysostom). — “Are counted” — of course, by God. — “As the offspring,” that is, as the true descendants of Abraham, possessing certain rights.

Romans 9:9. For this is the word of promise: “At this same time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. The general proposition stated in verse 8 the Apostle grounds in a well-known particular historical event described in chapter XVIII of Genesis. — “At this same time,” that is, in a year, or: around this same time the following year. — “Shall have a son.” This prediction of the birth of a child — specifically a son — to Sarah was proof that Isaac was indeed born through the action of a special power.

Romans 9:10. And not only this; but also Rebekah, when she had conceived children at one time by Isaac our father. The story of Rebekah’s sons even more strongly confirms the thought that the reception of salvation is independent of physical descent. Both her sons, Jacob and Esau, were entirely equal in their origin — both were born at the same time and from the same father and mother, and yet the same thing happened (it was so), as in the case of Isaac and Ishmael, that is, as we see from what follows, the election of one and the rejection of the other. — “Our father.” The Apostle calls Isaac “ours” because here he is addressing first of all the Christians of Jewish descent.

Romans 9:11. For when they had not yet been born and had done nothing good or bad [so that God’s purpose in election might stand Romans 9:12. not from works, but from the one who calls], it was said to her: “The older will serve the younger, Before citing the divine decree concerning the fate of Esau and Jacob, the Apostle considers it necessary to speak about the circumstances under which this decree was announced. This is important in that the significance of the said decree is thereby all the greater. The first circumstance is that Rebekah’s two sons had not yet been born at the time, and the second — as a result of the first — that neither of them had yet manifested his disposition in any deeds. Nevertheless God had already at that point predetermined the fate of both, so that it should always be clear to everyone that He elects and draws certain persons to Himself by His own will. Why does God act thus? The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously answer: “By His foreknowledge” (cf. Rom 8:29). Although Jacob and Esau did not yet exist, God already knew what they would be like (John Chrysostom). — “It was said to her.” The passage from Gen 25:23 the Apostle cites according to the LXX text. — “The older” — this is Esau. — “The younger” — this is Jacob. — “In servitude.” Since the descendants of Esau were subject to the descendants of Jacob only from the time of David until Joram and during the Maccabean period, whereas here an evidently permanent relationship between these peoples is indicated, it is more natural to see in this servitude an indication that Jacob would become the heir of all theocratic privileges, while Esau would be deprived of them. Just as a slave ordinarily did not receive an inheritance after his master’s death — all the property went to the master’s sons.

Romans 9:13. as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. God’s attitude toward Esau and Jacob remained the same throughout the entire Old Testament period. The last prophet, Malachi, cites words of Jehovah in which Jehovah speaks of His love for Jacob and His hatred for Esau (Mal 1:2-3 freely after the LXX). Of course, the hatred toward Esau must be understood in the same sense in which Christ spoke of the hatred that His disciples should bear toward their fathers, mothers, and even themselves (Luke 14:26). Just as Christians must prefer the direct demands of Christ above everything dear to them, in the event of a conflict between their personal interests and the benefit of Christ’s cause, so also God, for the realization of the purposes of His economy of salvation, preferred Jacob to Esau. But, having not received theocratic rights, Esau did not forfeit the rights to eternal salvation that were extended to all the Gentiles.

Romans 9:14. What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? By no means. The Apostle has explained by examples from the history of the patriarchal period that the election of a person by God depends solely on the one who elects or calls. This could seem unjust to someone, and in order to resolve such a doubt the Apostle appeals further to the words of God Himself spoken to Moses, and to the scriptural account of God’s hardening of Pharaoh. Thus by words of Scripture he confirms his teaching about the freedom of God in the work of election, and moreover finds a basis for the thought that God even hardens people by His will (14–18). To this again someone might object: “If God does everything Himself, then why will He judge people? After all, they are not at fault for not finding themselves among the elect.” The Apostle answers that again we cannot reproach God for unjust treatment of us, because in general we have no rights in relation to Him. He has the full right to deal with His creatures as He sees fit! And besides, God does not use His inviolable rights to the harm of people. On the contrary, He spares them, although they have, properly speaking, long since ripened for destruction. He awaits their repentance in order to show them the riches of His mercy. Even those who have already found God’s mercy, who are saved, ought to think of themselves as vessels of dishonor that only by God’s mercy have become vessels of mercy. After all, all people were subject to the wrath of God — whether they were Gentiles or Jews (19–24). And was this not already known before? Long ago it was foretold about the calling of the Gentiles and of a remnant, that is, a small number of Jews. And it was indicated that even this remnant of Jews would be saved again only by God’s mercy (25–29). Thus it is clear that God acted justly overall in the matter of calling people: they all should have been rejected, but He did not do this, and called and glorified many. “Is there injustice with God,” that is, does He prefer one over another without regard for the merits and rights of people? — “By no means.” God cannot be accused of injustice. He looks upon all people as sinners, and they cannot make demands or express any discontent when they see that God is not calling them. The choice belongs to God alone, and He, of course, by His wisdom and foreknowledge, makes such a choice.

Romans 9:15. For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. Romans 9:16. So then it depends not on the one who desires it, nor on the one who strives, but on God who has mercy. God Himself told Moses — the lawgiver — that He rewards with His mercy whomever He wills (Exod 33:19 — according to the LXX). Here a general norm for God’s relations with people is given: thus the Lord acted always and will act so. No direct reference to Moses alone is discerned here. “To have mercy” and “to have compassion” are synonymous concepts. The Lord God with these words wishes to convey that people can receive any good from God precisely as a mercy, as a gift. — “Not from the one who desires it, nor from the one who strives.” This refers to all people without exception — both Gentiles and Jews. They cannot obtain the gift of God’s mercy by their own efforts, however strongly they desire it, and however hard they strive. The term “to strive” (trekhō) was originally used of those competing on a race-track, who strained every effort to reach the goal as quickly as possible (cf. 1 Cor 9:24).

Romans 9:17. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout all the earth. Romans 9:18. So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. In exactly the same way the Apostle confirms by words of Scripture the thought that God also hardens whomever He wills. For this purpose the Apostle cites verse 16 of chapter IX of the book of Exodus (Exod 9:16), which he quotes according to the LXX with some variations. — “Scripture.” Of course, it was not Scripture itself that spoke to Pharaoh, but God; but in the present case the Apostle needed to bring forward precisely the witness of the Word of God in order to silence all objectors. It is written in Scripture — this was quite sufficient for the purpose the Apostle had in view. — “I raised you up,” that is, into the position that the Pharaoh of the Exodus occupied. This man, therefore, by special providential ways of God, became king of Egypt at precisely the time when the Lord willed to manifest His glory. — “That I might show My power in you,” namely through your complete humiliation. — The Apostle has in mind here the miraculous plagues sent by God upon Egypt. — “That My name might be proclaimed.” So that word would spread throughout the whole earth about the one who so mightily punished the powerful Pharaoh. “So then…” The Apostle once more points to the conclusion that follows from what Scripture says about God’s freedom in showing mercy and hardening people. The conclusion is this: God is not bound in His relation to a person by any human strivings or deeds (v. 16). “Hardens,” that is, renders a person incapable of receiving the impressions that could serve to bring about their reformation (cf. Acts 19:9; Heb 3:8). 33.

Romans 9:19. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will? Romans 9:20. But who are you, O man, to argue with God? Will the molded thing say to the one who molded it, “Why did you make me like this? Alongside the indications of God’s complete freedom, with which He shows mercy on some and hardens others, the writings of the prophets frequently contain speeches of Jehovah full of reproofs toward stubborn sinners. Readers of the prophetic books, where such rebukes are most frequently encountered, could after what the Apostle said doubt the justice of such an attitude on God’s part toward sinners. If hardening in sin is the work of God’s will, then no one will be able to go against that will and all will sin! Is God then justified in reproaching such a person? The Apostle responds to this objection by pointing to the insignificance of a person before God. A person is a creature of God and has no right to address the Creator with questions about why he has been assigned one purpose by God rather than another. — “O man.” This is how the Apostle addresses the objector, to show his insignificance before God. Clearly this word stands in correspondence with the following word: “God.” “The molded thing” — in Greek plasma — denotes any object made by a human being, especially the work of a sculptor or carver.

Romans 9:21. Has the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Here is another comparison clarifying the rights of God the Creator in relation to the creature. The meaning of this comparison is as follows. Just as a potter has full right to assign its own purpose to each vessel he makes, so the Creator has the right to do the same with regard to the creature, even if thereby one creature turns out to be in greater honor than another. But how the Creator actually uses His rights in practice — this the Apostle does not yet say here. He only needs to refute the objection raised in verse 19 against the freedom of God spoken of in verse 18.

Romans 9:22. What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, Romans 9:23. in order also to make known the riches of His glory for the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory, Romans 9:24. even us whom He has called, not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles? “What if?” The question contained in these verses is what is called an anacoluthon, that is, a subordinate clause without a main clause. But this sentence clearly needs to be completed from verse 14, specifically as follows: “What if? Shall we then declare God unjust if…” and so on. — If in verses 19–21 God’s righteousness was explained from an abstract point of view, then here is depicted — standing as if in contrast to this righteousness — His actual relationship to people. The Apostle wishes to say the following: God bears or spares with great patience the vessels of wrath, in order to make of them vessels of grace. All who have attained glory must acknowledge that they were initially vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that they owe only to God’s patience the fact that they have become vessels of grace. And this truth applies equally to Gentiles and to Jews.

Romans 9:25. As He says also in Hosea: “Those who were not My people I will call My people, and her who was not beloved I will call beloved. Romans 9:26. “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God. Romans 9:27. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved; Romans 9:28. for the Lord will carry out His sentence on the earth, finishing and cutting it short in righteousness, a decisive sentence will the Lord execute upon the earth. Romans 9:29. And as Isaiah foretold: “If the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us offspring, we would have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah. Here the Apostle cites from the Old Testament proofs that the vessels of mercy owe their existence solely to God’s patience, with which He previously spared them even though they were vessels of wrath. Along with this the Apostle proves that these vessels of mercy are called equally from among the Jews and from among the Gentiles. — “As He says also in Hosea.” The Apostle cites the prophecy of Hosea as a foretelling of the future conversion of the Gentiles to the Church of Christ (it is placed evidently to explain the last phrase of verse 24: and also from among the Gentiles). But on what basis did the Apostle have grounds for interpreting the words of Hosea as applying to the Gentiles? After all, in that passage (Hos 2:23) the reference is properly to the conversion to God of Israel which had apostatized from the true faith? Yes, that is so. But what did this Israel — which had turned away from Jehovah — represent if not the Gentiles themselves?! Naturally, therefore, for the Apostle Paul it represented all of paganism, and the salvation that in Hosea was promised to Israel — which had become like the Gentiles — was rightly counted as the portion also of all the Gentiles scattered throughout the world. Every Gentile people, in its own land, without becoming proselytes of the people of Israel, can become a people of God. “And Isaiah cries out…” Here the Apostle provides proof of the thought he expressed at the beginning of the chapter — that from the people of Israel only those who walk in the footsteps of Abraham will be saved, while those who are not true Israelites must be rejected (vv. 27–28). But even this salvation of the remnant is again, as with the calling of the Gentiles, an act of divine mercy (v. 29). They are saved not because by nature they are vessels of mercy, but because God’s prevenient grace gave them the ability to hear and receive the preaching of the Gospel. Without this condition, people remain children of God’s wrath (cf. Rom 1:18). It may be noted that here, therefore, the teaching both on divine predestination and on the freedom of the human will are combined: God leads to faith in Christ only those who are willing to believe; and that there are people who can receive the preaching of the Gospel — this is already the result of the action of prevenient grace (or patience) upon the human heart. However, on some this grace acts, on others it does not. The reason for this difference lies already within the people themselves…

Romans 9:30. What shall we say then? Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained righteousness, the righteousness that comes from faith. The Apostle has sufficiently explained that God’s gracious election does not exclude the freedom of the human will. In keeping with this position the Apostle now proves that the Jews are themselves to blame for their rejection. They did not accept the righteousness of God opened to them also in the Gospel, and did not wish to accept it, because they placed righteousness solely in the fulfillment of the deeds of the Law. “What shall we say then?” that is, what is the conclusion from what has been said? The conclusion is that justification was obtained not by the Israelites who sought it so earnestly, but by the Gentiles who had not counted on it. — “The righteousness that comes from faith.” The expression “from faith” indicates the way by which the Gentiles attained justification.

Romans 9:31. But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, did not arrive at the law of righteousness. “The law of righteousness.” The ideal toward which the Jews strove was not righteousness itself, but the law of righteousness — not the substance but the shadow, not the spirit but the letter. Had they been concerned with righteousness in itself, the Law would have pointed them to the direct way to it, namely through faith in Christ (cf. Rom 10:4). But in their striving after externals, they fell onto the wrong path of works. — The Apostle does not at all wish to say that the fall of Israel came about as a result of its attachment to the Law of Moses, but makes clear that Israel did not understand the meaning of the Law itself, which sought to lead them to Christ. What a supreme tragedy for a people who took such pride in their Law and yet inwardly remained utterly alien to it!

Romans 9:32. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if by works of the Law. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, Romans 9:33. as it is written: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame. The Apostle’s thought here is: why did the Jews not attain the new law of life? Because they tried to achieve this goal not by faith but by works (the word “of the Law” in the better manuscripts is an insertion here). They also stumbled upon, as upon an obstacle, that stone about which Isaiah had already warned them — a stone of extraordinary importance, which by the decision of the divine will was to be the object of their faith (Isa 8:14). Thus Christ, or the righteousness He brought, was the true revelation of God’s will: God willed that the Jews should turn to Christ, but the Jews did not wish to do this (cf. 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11). * * * Notes Zahn translates the word ēuchomēn simply as: desired. There were moments in the Apostle’s life when he genuinely had such a desire (cf. 2 Cor 1:8). The Apostle does not explain in what exactly the hardening of Pharaoh by God consisted, and commentators understand this hardening in various senses. Most ancient Christian commentators explained it not as something produced by God Himself, but as something permitted by God (propter permissionem). “God hardened Pharaoh,” says Basil the Great, “by patience and the removal of plagues, thereby intensifying his wickedness.” Theophylact adds: “The more kindly a master treats a wicked servant, the worse he makes him — not because he himself teaches him vice, but because the servant exploits his master’s patience to increase his own depravity.” Godet adds to this that Pharaoh initially hardened his own heart, as is stated in chapters VII, VIII, and IX of the book of Exodus, and then, as punishment for this, God also hardened him (chapters X, XI, and XIV of Exodus). Pharaoh first rejected the admonitions of God that he received through Moses, and only thereafter did God make him utterly deaf to all further admonitions. And so his obstinacy served as a means for the glorification of God’s power. No injustice was committed here, that is, on God’s part, and Pharaoh would obviously have perished in any case, even if he had not been on the throne but had been an ordinary citizen: his character would have led him to destruction even then.