Bible Commentaries

Ro 9:1-33. THE BEARING OF THE FOREGOING TRUTHS UPON THE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE--ELECTION--THE CALLING OF THE GENTILES.

Too well aware that he was regarded as a traitor to the dearest interests of his people

(Ac 21:33; 22:22; 25:24),

the apostle opens this division of his subject by giving vent to his real feelings with extraordinary vehemence of protestation.

1, 2. I say the truth in Christ--as if steeped in the spirit of Him who wept over impenitent and doomed Jerusalem (compare

Ro 1:9; 2Co 12:19; Php 1:8).

my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost--"my conscience as quickened, illuminated, and even now under the direct operation of the Holy Ghost."

2. That I have, &c.--"That I have great grief (or, sorrow) and unceasing anguish in my heart"--the bitter hostility of his nation to the glorious Gospel, and the awful consequences of their unbelief, weighing heavily and incessantly upon his spirit.

3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for--"in behalf of"

my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh--In proportion as he felt himself severed from his nation, he seems to have realized all the more vividly their natural relationship. To explain away the wish here expressed, as too strong for any Christian to utter or conceive, some have rendered the opening words, "I did wish," referring it to his former unenlightened state; a sense of the words too tame to be endured: others unwarrantably soften the sense of the word "accursed." But our version gives the true import of the original; and if it be understood as the language rather of "strong and indistinct emotions than of definite ideas" [HODGE], expressing passionately how he felt his whole being swallowed up in the salvation of his people, the difficulty will vanish, and we shall be reminded of the similar idea so nobly expressed by Moses

(Ex 32:32).

4. Who are Israelites--See

Ro 11:1; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5.

to whom pertaineth--"whose is"

the adoption--It is true that, compared with the new economy, the old was a state of minority and pupilage, and so far that of a bond-servant

(Ga 4:1-3);

yet, compared with the state of the surrounding heathen, the choice of Abraham and his seed was a real separation of them to be a Family of God

(Ex 4:22; De 32:6; Isa 1:2; Jer 31:9; Ho 11:1; Mal 1:6).

and the glory--that "glory of the Lord," or "visible token of the Divine Presence in the midst of them," which rested on the ark and filled the tabernacle during all their wanderings in the wilderness; which in Jerusalem continued to be seen in the tabernacle and temple, and only disappeared when, at the Captivity, the temple was demolished, and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. This was what the Jews called the "Shekinah."

and the covenants--"the covenants of promise" to which the Gentiles before Christ were "strangers"

(Eph 2:12);

meaning the one covenant with Abraham in its successive renewals (see

Ga 3:16, 17).

and the giving of the law--from Mount Sinai, and the possession of it thereafter, which the Jews justly deemed their peculiar honor

(De 26:18, 19; Ps 147:19, 20; Ro 2:17).

and the service of God--or, of the sanctuary, meaning the whole divinely instituted religious service, in the celebration of which they were brought so nigh unto God.

and the promises--the great Abrahamic promises, successively unfolded, and which had their fulfilment only in Christ; (see

Heb 7:6; Ga 3:16, 21; Ac 26:6, 7).

5. Whose are the fathers--here, probably, the three great fathers of the covenant--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--by whom God condescended to name Himself

(Ex 8:6, 13; Lu 20:37).

and--most exalted privilege of all, and as such, reserved to the last.

of whom as concerning the flesh--(See on

Ro 1:3).

Christ came--or, "is Christ"

who is over all, God--rather, "God over all."

blessed for ever. Amen--To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted: (1) To place a period, either after the words "concerning the flesh Christ came," rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father--"God who is over all be blessed for ever"; or after the word "all"--thus, "Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.", &c. [ERASMUS, LOCKE, FRITZSCHE, MEYER, JOWETT, &c.]. But it is fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies the word "Blessed" precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: "Blessed be God,"

Ps 68:35;

"Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,"

Ps 72:18).

Besides, any such doxology here would be "unmeaning and frigid in the extreme"; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ's Incarnation [ALFORD]. (2) To transpose the words rendered "who is"; in which case the rendering would be, "whose (that is, the fathers') is Christ according to the flesh" [CRELLIUS, WHISTON, TAYLOR, WHITBY]. But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as is also the conjecture of GROTIUS and others, that the word "God" should be omitted from the text. It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israelitish nation "as concerning the flesh," He is, in another respect, "God over all, blessed for ever." (In

2Co 11:31

the very Greek phrase which is here rendered "who is," is used in the same sense; and compare

Ro 1:25,

Greek). In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur [BENGEL, THOLUCK, STUART, OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI, ALFORD, &c.]

6. Not as though the word of God had taken none effect--"hath fallen to the ground," that is, failed: compare

Lu 16:17,

Greek.

for they are not all Israel which are of Israel--better, "for not all they which are of Israel are Israel." Here the apostle enters upon the profound subject of ELECTION, the treatment of which extends to the end of the eleventh chapter--"Think not that I mourn over the total loss of Israel; for that would involve the failure of God's word to Abraham; but not all that belong to the natural seed, and go under the name of 'Israel,' are the Israel of God's irrevocable choice." The difficulties which encompass this subject lie not in the apostle's teaching, which is plain enough, but in the truths themselves, the evidence for which, taken by themselves, is overwhelming, but whose perfect harmony is beyond human comprehension in the present state. The great source of error here lies in hastily inferring (as THOLUCK and others), from the apostle's taking tip, at the close of this chapter, the calling of the Gentiles in connection with the rejection of Israel, and continuing this subject through the two next chapters, that the Election treated of in the body of this chapter is national, not personal Election, and consequently is Election merely to religious advantages, not to eternal salvation. In that case, the argument of

Ro 9:6,

with which the subject of Election opens, would be this: "The choice of Abraham and his seed has not failed; because though Israel has been rejected, the Gentiles have taken their place; and God has a right to choose what nation He will to the privileges of His visible kingdom." But so far from this, the Gentiles are not so much as mentioned at all till towards the close of the chapter; and the argument of this verse is, that "all Israel is not rejected, but only a portion of it, the remainder being the 'Israel' whom God has chosen in the exercise of His sovereign right." And that this is a choice not to mere external privileges, but to eternal salvation, will abundantly appear from what follows.

7-9. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children--"Not in the line of mere fleshly descent from Abraham does the election run; else Ishmael, Hagar's child, and even Keturah's children, would be included, which they were not."

but--the true election are such of Abraham's seed as God unconditionally chooses, as exemplified in that promise.

in Isaac shall thy seed be called--

(Ge 21:12).

10-13. And not only this; but when Rebecca, &c.--It might be thought that there was a natural reason for preferring the child of Sarah, as being Abraham's true and first wife, both to the child of Hagar, Sarah's maid, and to the children of Keturah, his second wife. But there could be no such reason in the case of Rebecca, Isaac's only wife; for the choice of her son Jacob was the choice of one of two sons by the same mother and of the younger in preference to the elder, and before either of them was born, and consequently before either had done good or evil to be a ground of preference: and all to show that the sole ground of distinction lay in the unconditional choice of God--"not of works, but of Him that calleth."