Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 9

Romans 9:3. The verbal order ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγώ (recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.) receives preponderant attestation from A B D E F G, min., VSS., and Fathers; as also from א, reading εἶναι before ἀνάθ. Erroneously attached to ηὐχόμην, αὐτὸς ἐγώ became placed before ἀνάθ. (Elz.).

Romans 9:4. αἱ διαθῆκαι] B D E F G, min., Vulg., with several Fathers, read ἡ διαθήκη, which Lachm. has adopted. An alteration, because the plural was understood of the Old and New Test. (Galatians 4:24), and yet the latter could not be considered as a privilege of the Jews.

Romans 9:11. κακόν] Lachm. and Tisch. read φαῦλον, according to A B א, min., Or. Cyr. Damasc. Rightly; the more usual opposite of ἀγαθόν easily intruded.

Romans 9:15. The order τῷ Μωϋσεῖ γάρ is decidedly to be received, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D E F G א. The Recepta τ. γ. Μ. is a mechanical alteration.

Romans 9:16. ἐλεοῦντος] A B* D E F G P א, 39, read ἐλεῶντος; so Lachm. and Tisch. But since in no other passage of the N. T. is ἐλεάω, the form belonging to the κοινή (see Etym. M. 327. 30), to be found; and in Romans 9:18 only D* F G have ἐλεᾶ instead of ἐλεεῖ (and yet in both places Paul doubtless used one form); it is most probable that Ω instead of ΟΥ was merely an early copyist’s error, which, as the form -αω was actually in existence, became diffused, and also induced in some Codd. the alteration ἐλεᾶ in Romans 9:18 (so Tisch. 7).

Romans 9:27. κατάλειμμα] A B א* Eus. read ὑπόλειμμα; so Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; see LXX. Isaiah 10:22.

Romans 9:28. ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ὁτι λόγον συντετμημένον] is wanting in A B א*, 23*, 47*, 67**, Syr. Aeth. Erp. Copt. Eus. Damasc. Aug. It certainly bears the suspicion of being an addition from the LXX.; but its deletion, which Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have carried out, is precluded by the ease with which it was possible for transcribers to turn from συντέμνων at once to συντετμημένον.

Romans 9:31. The second δικαιοσύνης is wanting in A B D E G א, 47, 67**, 140, Copt. It. Or. and several Fathers, and is marked with an obelus in F. Omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the omission admits of no sense accordant with the context. See the exeg. notes. The weight of the omitting codd. is much diminished by the counter-testimony of ancient VSS. (including Syr. and Vulg.) and of most Greek Fathers. The omission itself might easily, from the frequent recurrence of the word in Romans 9:30-31, occur through a homoeoteleuton, which led, in the first instance, to the disappearance of the words εἰς νόμ. δικαιοσύνης (they are still absent from 2 min.), followed by their incomplete restoration.

Romans 9:32. νόμου] Wanting in A B F G א*, min., Copt. Vulg., and several Fathers. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A defining addition.

The γάρ after προσέκοψαν, which is wanting in A B D* F G א* 47*, Copt. It. Vulg. ms, Goth. Ambr. Ruf., Dam. (and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), is simply a connective insertion.

Romans 9:33. πᾶς] has preponderant evidence against it, and must, with Lachm. and Tisch., be struck out. An addition from Romans 10:11, where it stands in all the witnesses.

Chap. 9–11. On the non-participation hitherto of the greater part of the Jews in the Christian plan of salvation; and specially (a) the lamentation over this (Romans 9:1-5); (b) the Theodicée on its account (Romans 9:6-29); (c) the fault thereof, which rests upon the Jews themselves (Romans 9:30-33 and Romans 10:1-21); (d) the consolation in reference to this (Romans 11:1-32), with final giving glory to God (Romans 11:33-36). Paul could not do otherwise, he must still settle this great problem; this is inevitably demanded by all that had gone before. For if the whole previous treatise had as its result, that only believers were the recipients of the promised salvation, and if nevertheless the Messianic promise and destination to salvation had their reference in the first place (comp. Romans 1:16) to the Israelites, concerning whom, however, experience showed that they were for the most part unbelieving (comp. John 1:11), this contradictory relation thus furnished an enigma, which Paul, with his warm love for his people, could least of all evade, but in the solution of which he had on the contrary to employ all the boldness and depth of his clear insight into the divine plan of redemption (Ephesians 3:4 ff.). The defence of the efficacy of his Gentile apostleship (Th. Schott, and in another way Mangold and Sabatier) is not the object of the section—that object Paul would have known how to meet directly—but such a defence results indirectly from it, since we see from the section how fully the apostle had recognised and comprehended his place in connection with the divine plan of salvation. The problem itself, the solution of which is now taken in hand by the apostle, was sufficiently serious and momentous to be treated with so much detail in this great and instructive letter to the important mixed community of the world’s capital, which, however, does not thereby appear to have been a Jewish-Christian one.

Romans 9:1-3.] The new section is introduced without connection with the foregoing, but in a fervent outburst of Israelitish patriotism, the more sorrowful by contrast with the blessedness of the Christian previously extolled and so deeply experienced by the apostle himself. This sorrow might be deemed incredible, after the joyous triumph which had just been exhibited. Hence the extremely urgent asseveration with which he begins: truth I speak in Christ, that is, in my fellowship with Christ; ἐν Χ. is the element, in which his soul moves. Just so Ephesians 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 12:19. The explanation adopted by most of the older commentators (especially Joh. Capellus, Clericus, Locke), and by Nösselt, Koppe, Böhme, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, and others, of ἐν in the sense of adjuration, is a perfectly arbitrary departure both from the manner of the apostle, who never swears by Christ, and also from Greek usage, which would have required πρός with the genitive (Kühner, II. 1, p. 448; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 647); and cannot at all be justified from Matthew 5:34, LXX. Jeremiah 5:7, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 10:6, because in these passages ὁμνύειν expressly stands beside it.

Οὐ ΨΕΎΔΟΜΑΙ] ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ ΔῈ ΔΙΑΒΕΒΑΙΟῦΤΑΙ ΠΕΡῚ ὯΝ ΜΈΛΛΕΙ ΛΈΓΕΙΝ· ὍΠΕΡ ΠΟΛΛΟῖς ἜΘΟς ΠΟΙΕῖΝ, ὍΤΑΝ ΜΈΛΛΩΣΊ ΤΙ ΛΈΓΕΙΝ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤΟῖς ΠΟΛΛΟῖς ἈΠΙΣΤΟΎΜΕΝΟΝ (comp. e.g. Acts 21:21), καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ σφόδρα ἑαυτούς εἰσι πεπεικότες, Chrys. Compare 1 Timothy 2:7. Conversely, Lys. Romans 4:12 : ΨΕΎΔΕΤΑΙ Κ. ΟὐΚ ἈΛΗΘῆ ΛΈΓΕΙ.

ΣΥΜΜΑΡΤ. ΜΟΙ Τῆς ΣΥΝΕΙΔ. ΜΟΥ] ground assigned for the Οὐ ΨΕΎΔ.: since with me (agreeing with my express assurance) my conscience gives testimony. Compare Romans 2:15, Romans 8:16.

ἐν πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ] is by no means to be connected with Τῆς ΣΥΝΕΙΔ. ΜΟΥ (Grotius and several others, Semler, Ammon, Vater: “conscientia a Spiritu sancto gubernata”), because otherwise Τῆς would not be wanting; but either with Οὐ ΨΕΎΔΟΜΑΙ (Cramer, Morus, Nösselt, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Winzer, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche; of whom, however, only Winzer and Fritzsche take it not as an oath, but as equivalent to Ὡς ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ ἉΓΊῼ ὬΝ), or—which is the nearest and simplest—with ΣΥΜΜΑΡΤ. (Beza, Böhme, Tholuck, Rückert, de Wette, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel, Hofmann, and others). Compare Matthew 22:43; Luke 2:27; Mark 12:36; 1 Corinthians 12:3. The testimony of his conscience, Paul knows, is not apart from the πνεῦμα that fills him, but “Spiritu sancto duce et moderatore” (Beza), in that πνεῦμα. And thus the negative Οὐ ΨΕΎΔ. receives its sacred guarantee through a concurrent testimony of the conscience ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ ἉΓΊῼ, as the positive ἈΛΉΘ· ΛΈΓΩ had received it through ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ. This very appropriate symmetry dissuades us from joining ΣΥΜΜΑΡΤ. ΜΟΙ Κ.Τ.Λ to ἈΛΉΘ. ΛΈΓΩ, so that Οὐ ΨΕΎΔ. would be only “thrown in between” (Hofmann).

ὅτι λύπη κ.τ.λ.] that, etc. A comma only preceding. Over what is this sorrow? Over the exclusion of a great part of the Jews from the Messianic salvation. With tender forbearance Paul does not express this, but leaves it to be gathered by the reader from what follows, in which he immediately, by γάρ, assigns the ground for the greatness and continuance of his sorrow.

ηὐχόμην] I would wish, namely, if the purport of the wish could be realized to the advantage of the Israelites. Comp. on Galatians 4:20, where also no ἄν is annexed. But van Hengel takes it of a wish which had actually arisen in the mind of Paul amidst his continual sorrowfulness. So also Hofmann: the wish had entered his mind, though but momentarily. But a thing so incapable of being fulfilled he can scarce have actually wished; he would only wish it, if it were capable of being fulfilled; this is expressed by ηὐχόμην, and that without ἌΝ, as a definite assurance; comp. on Acts 25:22; Galatians 4:20; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 187; Kühner, II. 1, p. 178. On the wish itself, comp. Exodus 32:32.

ἀνάθεμα] or, in the Attic form, ἈΝΆΘΗΜΑ (Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 249, 445, and Paralip. p. 391 ff.), in Greek writers (also Luke 21:5; 2Ma 2:13, et al.) a votive offering, corresponds frequently in the LXX. to the Hebrew חֶרֶם, and means something devoted to God without redemption (Leviticus 27:28); then—in so far as such a thing was devoted to the divine wrath, and destined to destruction (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 101 ff.)—something abandoned to destruction; a curse-offering. So in the N. T. See Galatians 1:8-9, 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22, which passages at the same time prove that the (later) special sense of חרם, as denoting the Jewish curse of excommunication, is not to be here introduced. The destruction, to which Paul would fain yield himself on behalf of his brethren, is not to be understood of a violent death (Jerome, Limborch, Elsner, and others, also Michaelis, Nösselt, Flatt), but, as ἈΠῸ Τ. Χ. renders necessary, of the everlasting ἀπώλεια. It has been objected that the wish must thus be irrational (Michaelis: “a frantic prayer”); but the standard of selfish reflection is not suited to the emotion of unmeasured devotedness and love out of which the apostle speaks. Groundlessly, and contrary to Paul’s usage elsewhere, Hofmann weakens the positive notion of the expression into the negative one of the being excluded from Christ. This element is implied in ἀπὸ τοῦ Χ. as the specific accompanying relation of the ἈΝΆΘΕΜΑ. Bengel well remarks that the modulus ratiocinationum nostrarum as little comprehends the love of the apostle, as does a little boy the animos heroum bellicorum.

ΑὐΤῸς ἘΓΏ] belonging to ΕἾΝΑΙ by attraction (Kühner, II. 2, p. 596): I myself, I, as far as my own person is concerned. Comp. on Romans 7:25. Paul sees those who belong to the fellowship of his people advancing to ruin through their unbelief; therefore he would fain wish that he himself were a curse-offering, if by means of this sacrifice of his own self he could only save the beloved brethren. The contrast, with reference to which ΑὐΤῸς ἘΓΏ is here conceived, lies therefore in ὙΠῈΡ ΤῶΝ ἈΔΕΛΦ. ΜΟΥ, whose unhappy state appears already in Romans 9:1-2 so sad in the eyes of the apostle; not in the duty of the apostle’s calling (Th. Schott); and least of all in a “nescio quis alius” (Fritzsche). Theodoret and Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom) refer back to Romans 8:39 (I myself, whom nevertheless nothing can separate, etc.); but this lies too far off. Van Hengel (after Krehl): “Ipse ego, qui me in Christi communione esse dixi.” But ἘΝ Χ. in the previous instance was merely an accessory definition.

ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ Χ.] away from Christ, separated from Him. Comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Galatians 5:4; 2 Corinthians 5:6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Leviticus 27:29; and see generally, Nägelsbach on Ilias, p. 188, ed. 3; Ameis on Hom. Od. Anh. ξ, 525; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 277. Christ is not conceived as author of the ἀνάθ. (Nösselt, Morus, Flatt, and others); for ἀπὸ (comp. Leviticus 27:29) does not stand for ὑπό, which latter D E G actually read in consequence of this erroneous view.

ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφ. μοῦ] ὑπέρ is here also not instead of (Rückert, Tholuck, Olshausen, and many others), but for the advantage of, for their deliverance. Grotius aptly paraphrases: “Si ea ratione illos ad justitiam veram et ad aeternam salutem possem perducere.”

κατὰ ς.] subjoined, without the connective of the article, as a familiar accessory definition, which blends with the principal word into a single notion. Comp. 1 Corinthians 10:18; Ephesians 2:11; Ephesians 6:5. Moreover, there lies in the addition τ. συγγ. μ. κ. ς. already something conveying with it the wish of love, and that from the natural side; the theocratic grounds for it follow, Romans 9:4 ff.

Romans 9:4. Οἵτινες κ.τ.λ.] quippe qui, who indeed; a description—assigning the motive for what is said in Romans 9:3—of the ἀδελφῶν κατὰ … σάρκα according to their theocratic privileges, and first of all by significant designation according to their ancient and hallowed (Genesis 32:28; Genesis 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:21 f.; Php 3:5; John 1:48) national name Ἰσραηλῖται. To the latter are then attached the relative definitions, which are threefold (ὧν … ὧν … ἐξ ὧν); the first of them embraces six particulars connected by καί,—purely sacred-historical divine benefactions.

ἡ υἱοθεσία] the adoption. They are those adopted by God into the place of children, which must of course be understood, not in the Christian (chap. 8) but in the old theocratic sense, of their adoption, in contradistinction to all Gentile peoples, to be the people of God, whose Father is God. Comp. Exodus 4:22 ff; Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:6; Hosea 11:1, et al. In the υἱοθεσία of the N. T. (see on Romans 8:15), the specific essence of which is the reconciliation obtained for Christ’s sake, there has appeared the antitype and the completion of that of the O. T.

καὶ ἡ δόξα] The fivefold καί lends an emphatic weight to the enumeration, ἡ δόξα is the glory κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. כְּבוֹד יְהֹוָה (Exodus 24:16; Exodus 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:10-11; Ezekiel 1:28; Hebrews 9:5), the symbolically visible essential communion of God, as it was manifested in the wilderness as a pillar of cloud and fire, and over the ark of the covenant; the same as שְׁכִינָה, of which the Rabbins maintained (erroneously, according to Leviticus 16:2) that it had hovered as a cloud of light continually over the ark of the covenant. See Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 311. But ἡ δόξα is not the ark of the covenant itself (Beza, Piscator, Hammond, Grotius), for in 1 Samuel 4:22 the ark of the covenant is not called “the glory of Israel,” but this is only predicated of it. Others understand the whole glory of the Jewish people in general (de Dieu, Calovius, Estius, Semler, Morus, Böhme, Benecke, Köllner, Glöckler, Fritzsche, Beck). Incorrectly, since it is merely individual privileges that are set forth.

αἱ διαθῆκαι] not the tables of the law (Beza, Piscator, Pareus, Toletus, Balduin, Grotius, Semler, Rosenmüller), which it cannot denote either in itself or on account of the following νομοθ.; nor yet the O. and N. T. (Augustine, Jerome, Calovius, and Wolf, in accordance with Galatians 4:24), which would be entirely unsuitable in respect of the N. T.; but the covenants concluded by God with the patriarchs since Abraham. Compare Wis 18:22; Sir 44:11; 2Ma 8:15; Ephesians 2:12.

ἡ νομοθεσία] The (Sinaitic) giving of the law. This is “una et semel habita per Mosen;” but the “testamenta frequenter statuta sunt,” Origen. There is no ground for taking it, with others (including Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche), not of the act, but of the contents, like νόμος (why should not Paul have written this?). Certainly, he who has the νομοθεσία has also the νόμος; but on that account the two significations are to be kept distinct even in places like 2Ma 6:23. The giving of the law was a work (comp. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 751 B: μεγάλου τῆς νομοθεσίας ἔργου ὄντος), by which God, who Himself was the νομοθέτης, had distinguished the Israelites over all other peoples.

ἡ λατρεία] the cultus κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the service of Jehovah in the temple. Comp. Hebrews 9:1. It corresponds to the νομοθ., in consequence of which the λατρεία came into existence; just as the following αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι (κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the collective Messianic promises) is correlative to the αἱ διαθῆκαι, on which the ἐπαγγ. were founded. The chiasmus in this order of sequence (comp. Bengel) is not accidental; but αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι is intentionally put at the end, in order that now, after mention of the fathers, to whom in the first instance the promises were given, the Promised One Himself may follow.

Romans 9:5. Now, after that first relative sentence with its six theocratic distinctions, two other relative clauses introduce the mutually correlative persons, on whom the sacred-historical calling of Israel was based and was to reach its accomplishment.

οἱ πατέρες] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are per excellentiam the patriarchs, Exodus 3:13; Exodus 3:15; Exodus 4:5; Acts 3:13; Acts 7:32.

καὶ ἐξ ὧν κ.τ.λ.] The last and highest distinction of the Israelites: and from whom Christ descends, namely, according to the human phenomenal nature, as a human phenomenon, apart from the spiritually-divine side of His personality, according to which He is not from the Jews, but (as υἱὸς Θεοῦ κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, Romans 1:4) is ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Regarded in the light of His supernatural generation, He would be also κατὰ σάρκα of God. Comp. Clem. Cor. Romans 1:32 : ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. On the article τὸ κ. ς., see Heind. ad Gorg. p. 228; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 84. The καὶ before ἐξ ὧν forbids the reference of the latter to οἱ πατέρες.

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογ. εἰς τ. αἰῶνας] This passage, which has become of dogmatic importance, has received two different leading interpretations, by the side of which yet a third way, namely, by taking to pieces the relative sentence, came to be suggested. (1) The words are referred (placing a comma after σάρκα) to Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. So, substantially, Irenaeus (Haer. iii. 16. 3), Tertullian (adv. Prax. § 13, p. 2101, ed. Seml.), Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, and later Fathers; Luther, Erasmus, Paraphr., Flacius, Calvin, Beza, and most of the older expositors; and of the later, Michaelis, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Klee, Usteri, Benecke, Olshausen, Nielsen, Reithmayr, Maier, Beck, Philippi, Bisping, Gess, Krummacher, Jatho, Hahn, Thomasius, Ebrard, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 306, Delitzsch, and others; in a peculiar fashion also, Herm. Schultz (see below); de Wette is undecided. (2) The words are regarded (placing a period after σάρκα, as do Lachm. and Tisch.) as a doxology to God, isolated from the foregoing: “Blessed for ever be the God who is over all.” So none of the Fathers (as to those erroneously adduced by Wetstein, see Fritzsche, p. 262 ff.), at least not expressly; but Erasmus in his Annot., Wetstein, Semler, Stolz, and several others, and recently Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Glöckler, Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, van Hengel, and, though not fully decided, Rückert. See also Baur, II. p. 231; Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 51; Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 26 f.; Beyschlag, Christol. p. 210. Now the decision, which of the two leading interpretations fits the meaning of the apostle, cannot be arrived at from the language used, since, so far as the words go, both may be equally correct; nor yet from the immediate connection, since with equal reason Paul might (by no means: must, against which is the analogy of Romans 9:3; and the divine in Christ did not belong here, as in Romans 1:3, necessarily to the connection) feel himself induced to set over-against the human side of the being of Jesus its divine side (as in Romans 1:3), or might be determined by the recital of the distinctions of his nation to devote a doxology to God, the Author of these privileges, who therefore was not responsible for the deeply-lamented unbelief of the Jews; just as he elsewhere, in peculiar excited states of piety, introduces a giving glory to God (Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; comp. 1 Timothy 1:17). Observe, rather, with a view to a decision, the following considerations: Although our passage, referred to Christ, would term Him not ὁ Θεός, but (who is God over all) only Θεός predicatively (without the article), and although Paul, by virtue of his essential agreement in substance with the Christology of John, might have affirmed, just as appropriately as the latter (Romans 1:1), the predicative Θεός (of divine essence) of Christ, because Christ is also in Paul’s view the Son of God in a metaphysical sense, the image of God, of like essence with the Father, the agent in creation and preservation, the partaker in the divine government of the world, the judge of all, the object of prayerful invocation, the possessor of divine glory and fulness of grace (Romans 1:4, Romans 10:12; Php 2:6; Colossians 1:15 ff; Colossians 2:9; Ephesians 1:20 ff.; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 8:9); yet Paul has never used the express Θεός of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the Alexandrian form of conceiving and setting forth the divine essence of Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic terminology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of Christ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ; see, in opposition to such obscure and erroneous intermingling of ideas, Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 149 ff. John himself calls the divine nature of Christ Θεός only in the introduction of his Gospel, and only in the closest connection with the Logos-speculation. And thus there runs through the whole N. T. a delicate line of separation between the Father and the Son; so that, although the divine essence and glory of the latter is glorified with the loftiest predicates in manifold ways, nevertheless it is only the Father, to whom the Son is throughout subordinated, and never Christ, who is actually called God by the apostles (with the exception of John 1:1, and the exclamation of Thomas, John 20:28)—not even in 1 John 5:20. Paul, particularly, even where he accumulates and strains to the utmost expressions concerning the Godlike nature of the exalted Christ (as Php 2:6 ff.; Colossians 1:15 ff; Colossians 2:9), does not call Him Θεός, but sharply and clearly distinguishes Him as the ΚΎΡΙΟς from ΘΕΌς, even in Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3 (in opposition to Ritschl, Altkath. K. p. 79 f.). The post-apostolical period (and not at all 2 Peter 1:1, see Huther) first obliterated this fine line of separation, and often denominated Christ Θεός, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, and the like. So, e.g., already several of the Ignatian epistles in the shorter recension (not those ad Magnes., ad Philadelph., ad Trall., not even chap. 7) and the so-called second epistle—not the first—of Clement, nor the epistle of Polycarp. In the closest internal connection herewith stands the fact, that in the properly apostolical writings (2 Peter 3:18 does not belong to them, nor does Hebrews 13:21) we never meet with a doxology to Christ in the form which is usual with doxologies to God (not even in 1 Peter 4:11); therefore, in this respect also, the present passage would stand to the apostolic type in the relation of a complete anomaly. Besides, the insuperable difficulty would be introduced, that here Christ would be called not merely and simply Θεός, but even God over all, and consequently would be designated as Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ, which is absolutely incompatible with the entire view of the N. T. as to the dependence of the Son on the Father (see Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 157 ff.; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 457 ff.), and especially with passages like Romans 8:34 (ἐντυγχάνει), 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 4:5-6, and notably 1 Corinthians 15:28. Accordingly, the doxology of our passage cannot be referred to Christ, but must be referred to God; although Philippi continues of opinion that the former reference has all in its favour and nothing against it. On the other hand, Tholuck (see also Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 540, ed. 2) does more justice to the objections against the old ecclesiastical interpretation, which Messner also, Lehre d. Ap. p. 236 f., prefers, but only with a certain diffidence; whilst Herm. Schultz (comp. Socinus, in Calovius, p. 153) comes ultimately to a lower acceptation of the notion of Θεός, which is meant not metaphysically, but only designates the fulness of power committed to Christ for behoof of His work, and excludes neither dependence and coming into being, nor beginning and end. Against the latter suggestion it may be decisively urged, that thus characteristics are attached to the notion Θεός, which, compared with the current Pauline mode of expression, directly annul it, and make it interchangeable with κύριος, as Paul uses it of Christ (Ephesians 4:5-6; Php 2:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6, and many other passages). See, in opposition to it, also Grimm. If we suppose the quite singular case here to occur, that Paul names Christ God, yea God over all, we need not shrink from recognising, with the orthodox interpreters, an expression of the fact that Christ is not nuncupative, but naturaliter God (Flacius, Clav. II. p. 187). (3) Another way, that of taking to pieces the relative clause, was suggested by Erasmus, who proposed to place the point (as in Cod. 71) after πάντων (in which Locke, Clarke, Justi, Ammon, Stolz, Grimm, l.c., and in de Johann. Christol. indole Paulinae compar. p. 75 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 200 ff., and Märcker follow him), so that qui est super omnia (or omnes) refers to Christ (comp. Acts 10:36), and then the doxology to God follows. But how intolerably abrupt is this!—not merely the brief description given of Christ, but also the doxology itself, which with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων loses its natural connection with the preceding. Again, with this separation would disappear the motive for Paul’s not having put εὐλογ. in the first place, as usually (comp. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; also the doxologies in the LXX.). This motive is, namely, the emphasis which Θεός obtains by the characteristic description ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (the God who is over all). Still more disjointed and halting the language becomes through the punctuation of Morus (who, however, concurs in referring the whole to Christ): ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς, εὐλογ. εἰς τ. αἰ. Why Reiche, whom Krehl and van Hengel have followed, although rightly referring the whole to God, has adopted this punctuation (He who is over all, God, be praised for ever), we cannot perceive; ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, taken independently, forms in fact, according to a quite customary manner of expression, one phrase, so that Θεός is not without the article. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:7; Kühner, II. § 464, 8, c. Finally, Grotius (not also Schoettgen, as Schultz states) would consider Θεός as not genuine, and would refer ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ π. εὐλ. to Christ, to whom “laus et honor debetur supra omnes, i. e. etiam supra Abrah., Isaac. et Jacob.” But that Θεός is not wanting in the Peschito, as Grotius maintains, is decisively settled (see Koppe), and the witnesses who actually omit it (edd. of Cyprian, and Hilary, Leo once, Ephraem) are much too weak and doubtful; see Bengel, Appar. crit. in loc. Quite arbitrary is the conjecture of Sam. Crell (Artemonius): ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ κ.τ.λ.

ἐπὶ πάντων] neuter. The limitation which takes it as masc. (Syr., Beza, Grotius, Socinus, Justi, Hofmann, and others), in which case it is by some held to apply to men generally, by others to the patriarchs, must have been presented by the context; but it is not at all suggested by anything, not even in the reference of the sense, which Fritzsche introduces: “qui omnibus hominibus prospicit Deus, ut male credas Judaeos ab eo destitutos esse, etc.”

ἐπὶ indicates the relation of the rule over all things; see Lobeck, ad Herodian. p. 474, ad Phryn. pp. 164, 174; Bähr, ad Plut. Alc. p. 162. God is the παντοκράτωρ, 2 Corinthians 6:18; often in the Apocalypse, ὁ μόνος δυνάστης ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων κ.τ.λ., 1 Timothy 6:15-16.

Romans 9:6. Having in Romans 9:4-5 adduced the great divine prerogatives of his people, and given honour to God for them, as his Israelitish sympathies impelled him to do, his thought now recurs to that utterance of grief in Romans 9:2-3, over-against which (δέ) he now proposes to justify the God of his people. Quite unnecessarily Lachmann has put Romans 9:3-5 in a parenthesis.

οὐχ οἷον δὲ, ὅτι] does not mean: but it is not possible that (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Homberg, Semler, Ch. Schmidt, Morus, Böhme, Rosenmüller, Benecke, Ewald); for in that case ὅτι would not be allowable, but the infinitive must follow (Matthiae, § 479; Krüger, § 55. 3. 1); moreover, as Calvin has rightly observed, ΟἿΌΝ ΤΕ would be found, at least according to the invariable usage (4Ma 4:7; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 3, vii. 7. 22; and Bornemann, in loc.; de Rep. Ath. ii. 2; Mem. iv. 6. 7; Thuc. vii. 42. 3; Soph. Phil. 913; O. C. 1420; Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 425), instead of which scarcely an uncertain example (as Gorgias, Proverbs Palam. in Wetstein) is forthcoming of the simple οἷον without τέ, whilst the masculine οἷός εἰμι (without ΤΈ) is frequent (see Schömann, ad Is. p. 465; Weber, Dem. Aristocr. p. 469; Kühner, II. 2, p. 702. 580). It is rather to be explained by the very current usage in later Greek (Lennep. ad Phalar. p. 258; Fritszche on our passage) of οὐχ. οἷον with a following finite tense; e.g. οὐχ οἷον ὀργίζομαι in Phryn. p. 372, and the passages from Polybius in Schweighäuser, p. 403). According to this usage, the attracted οἷον is not to be resolved, with Hermann, ad Viger. p. 790, into τοῖον οἷον, because the following verb does not suit this, but with Fritzsche into ΤΟῖΟΥΤΟΝ ὍΤΙ: the matter is not of such a nature, that. But since Paul has here expressed ὅτι, he cannot have conceived it as contained in οἷον: in reality he has fallen into a mixing up of two kindred modes of expression,—namely, of ΟὐΧ ΟἿΟΝ with a finite tense, and ΟὐΧ ὍΤΙ, i.e. οὐχ ἐρῶ ὅτι. See Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. Poet. p. 128; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153 f.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 800 f. Without this intermingling he would have written οὐχ οἷον δὲ ἐκπέπτωκεν; but consequent on this intermingling he wrote οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπ., which accordingly may be analyzed thus: Οὐ ΤΟῖΟΝ ΔῈ ΛΈΓΩ, ΟἿΟΝ ὍΤΙ, I do not speak of a thing of such kind, as (that is) that. So also substantially Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 319, and previously, by way of suggestion, Beza. The deviation from Greek usage into which Paul has fallen renders also necessary this solution, which deviates from the analysis of the Greek ΟὐΧ ΟἿΟΝ ΔῈ ἘΚΠΈΠΤ. (without ὍΤΙ); and we have here, amongst the many solecisms falsely ascribed to the apostle, a real one. Observe, moreover, the strength of the negation implied in οὐχ οἷον; for this affirms that the lament of the apostle was to be something quite other than a lament over the frustration of the divine word. According to Hofmann, ηὐχόμην is to be again supplied to ΟὐΧ ΟἿΟΝ, and ὍΤΙ to be taken as because, so that thus Paul would deny that he had for that wish the ground which is named in ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν κ.τ.λ. This is—independently of the arbitrariness of the insertion of ΗὐΧΌΜΗΝ—incorrect, just because the thought that this ΗὐΧΌΜΗΝ could have had that ground would be an absurd thought; for it would suppose a fact, which is inconceivable as a motive of the wish.

ἐκπέπτωκεν] has fallen out of its position, i.e. fallen through, become unavailing, without result. See Plut. Tib. Gracch. 21; Ael. V. H. iv. 7; Kypke, II. p. 173 f. So διαπίπτειν, Joshua 21:45; Jdt 6:9; and ΠΊΠΤΕΙΝ, Joshua 23:14; both in use also among the Greeks; comp. ἘΚΒΑΛΛΕΣΘΑΙ, Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. xi. 30. The opposite is μένειν, Romans 9:11. Comp. also 1 Corinthians 13:8.

Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] namely, not the Dei edictum (Romans 9:28) as to the bestowal of blessing only on the election of the Israelites, as Fritzsche, anticipating, would have it, but generally the promise given by God to the Israelites, by which the assurance of the Messianic salvation is obviously intended. This sense the context yields generally, and especially by ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κ. ς., Romans 9:5, without our having exactly to think of Genesis 12:3, where the promise is to Abraham (Th. Schott).

οὐ γὰρ πάντες κ.τ.λ.] for not all who spring from Israel, not all υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ (Romans 9:27), are Israelites (Israel’s children, according to the divine idea), so as to be all destined to receive the salvation promised to the Israelites. Comp. Galatians 4:29; Galatians 6:16. The first Ἰσραήλ is the name of the patriarch; the second, instead of which the old reading Ἰσραηλῖται (D. Chrys.) contains a correct gloss, is the name of his people (Romans 11:2; Romans 11:7; Romans 11:26, al). Mistaking the subtle emphatic character of this mode of expression, Hofmann, in spite of the clear οἱ ἐξ, takes the first ἸΣΡ. also as a name of the people, so that the sense would be: the unity of the people is something other than the sum of its members. To οἱ ἐξ Ἰσρ. corresponds ΣΠΈΡΜΑ ἈΒΡ., Romans 9:7.

Romans 9:6-13. First part of the Theodicée: God’s promise, however, has not become untrue through the exclusion of a part of the Israelites; for it applies only to the true Israelites, who are such according to the promise, which is confirmed from Scripture.

Romans 9:7. Nor yet, because they are descendants of Abraham, are they all (his) children.

Before οὐδʼ a colon only is correct, because the discourse proceeds continuously, annexing denial to denial.

εἰσί] The subject is that of the previous clause, οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ. The τέκνα of Abraham, as significantly contrasted with the mere bodily descendants (σπέρμα), are those destined by God to receive the promised salvation. Comp. Matthew 3:9; John 8:33; John 8:39; Justin, c. Tryph. 44. That it is not God’s children that are to be understood (although they are such), as, after Theodoret and several others, Glöcker afresh takes it, is manifest from the foregoing parallel οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ, and from the fact that it is not till afterwards that τέκνα τ. Θεοῦ are spoken of.

Wrongly, but in consequence of his erroneous understanding of the ὅτι, Romans 9:6, Hofmann regards οὐδʼ ὅτι εἰσὶ σπ. Ἀβρ. as the negation of a second ground of the ηὐχόμην, so that then a new sentence begins with πάντες τέκνα. This view the obvious correlation of οὐδʼ … τέκνα with the preceding οὐ γὰρ πάντες κ.τ.λ. should have precluded.

After ἀλλʼ we are not to supply γέγραπται or οὕτως ἐῤῥέθη, which would be quite arbitrary; but the saying in Genesis 21:12, which is well known to the reader as a saying of God, is subjoined unaltered and immediately (comp. Galatians 3:11-12; 1 Corinthians 15:27) without a καθὼς γέγραπται (Romans 15:3; 1 Corinthians 1:31) or the like being introduced, or the second person being altered into the third; simply because it is taken for granted that the saying is one well known.

ἐν Ἰς. κληθ. σοι σπέρμα] closely after the LXX., which renders the original literally. In the original text we read בְּיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע: through Isaac posterity shall be named to thee, i.e. through Isaac it will come to pass to thee, that posterity of thine shall have the status and the name of the σπέρμα Ἀβρ. (comp. Hebrews 11:18); the descendants of Isaac (consequently not the Ishmaelites) shall be recognised as thy posterity (and therewith as the heirs of the divine promise). But the apostle has otherwise apprehended the sense of the passage according to its typical reference; for it is evident from the relation of Romans 9:9 to Romans 9:8, that he limited that saying to the person of Isaac himself, who (not Ishmael) was the promised child of Abraham, and thus represented in himself the character of the true posterity of Abraham accounted as such by God. Hence, in the sense of the apostle: “In the person of Isaac will a descendant be named to thee;” i.e. Isaac will be he, in whose person the notion “descendant of Abraham” shall be represented and recognised. Paul finds in this divine declaration the idea enunciated (Romans 9:8), that not on bodily descent (which was also the case with Ishmael), but on divine promise (which was the case with Isaac, Romans 9:9), the true sonship of Abraham is founded. Usually (not by Philippi and Ewald, who concur with our view) the passage is understood, conformably to the historical sense of the original, not of the person of Isaac, but of his posterity; which, because Isaac himself was the son of promise, represents the true descendants of Abraham according to the promise. But to this posterity all Israelites certainly belonged, and it would therefore be inappropriate to set them down, by virtue of their extraction from Isaac, as the type of the true sonship of Abraham, when the very claim to that sonship, resting upon bodily descent, is to be withdrawn from them. The person of Isaac himself, as contrasted with Ishmael, was this type, which was thereupon repeated in Jacob, as contrasted with Esau (in their persons), Romans 9:10-13. Chrysostom aptly indicates the reference to Isaac himself: διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο εἶπεν· ἐν Ἰς. κλ. ς. σπ., ἵνα μάθῃς, ὅτι οἱ τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ γεννώμενοι τῷ κατὰ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ, οὗτοι μάλιστά εἰσι τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ· πῶς οὖν ὁ Ἰσαὰκ ἐγεννήθη; οὐ κατὰ νὸμον φύσεως, οὐδὲ κατὰ δύναμιν σαρκὸς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ δύναμιν ἐπαγγελίας.

κληθήσεται] nominabitur. See Winer, p. 571 f. [E. T. 769]; Eur. Hec. 625, and Pflugk, in loc. The opinion of Reiche, that ΚΑΛ. denotes to call out of nothing (see on Romans 4:7), which it signifies also in Genesis 21:12, so that the sense would be: “In the person of Isaac a descendant will be imparted to thee,” is erroneous, because that saying of God was uttered after the birth of Isaac.

ΣΟΙ] Dative of ethical reference.

ΤΟῦΤʼ ἜΣΤΙΝ] This purports, thereby the idea is expressed. Rightly Grotius: “Haec vox est explicantis ὑπόνοιαν latentem, quod דרש dicitur Hebraeis.”

τέκνα τ. Θεοῦ] Paul characterizes the true descendants of Abraham, who are not so from bodily generation, as God’s children, that is, as such descendants of the ancestor, whose Abrahamic sonship is not different in the idea of God from that of sonship to Him, so that they are regarded and treated by God as His children.

ΤᾺ ΤΈΚΝΑ Τῆς ἘΠΑΓΓ.] might mean: the promised children (so van Hengel); for the promised child of Abraham was Isaac (Romans 9:9), whose birth was the realization of a promise (and so Hofmann takes it). But that Paul had the conception that Isaac was begotten by, virtue of the divine promise, is evident from Galatians 4:23 (see in loc.), and therefore the genitive (as also previously τῆς σαρκός) is to be taken causatively: the children of Abraham who originate from the divine promise, who are placed in this their relation of sonship to Abraham through the creative power of the divine promise, analogously to the begetting of Isaac; ἡ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἰσχὺς ἔτεκε τὸ παιδίον, Chrysostom.

λογίζεται] by God. Comp. Romans 4:3; Romans 4:5.

εἰς σπέρμα] that is, as an Abrahamic posterity. See Romans 9:7. To understand Gentiles also, is here foreign to the context (in opposition to Beyschlag); see. Romans 9:9-13. Abraham’s race is treated of, to which not all who descend from him are without distinction reckoned by God as belonging.

Romans 9:9. Proof of the foregoing ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. “The children of promise, I say, for a word of promise is that which follows: about this time, etc.” Hence, therefore, we see that not the bodily descent, but the divine promise, constitutes the relation of belonging to Abraham’s fatherhood. The quotation is freely put together from Genesis 18:10; Genesis 18:14, after the LXX.

To κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, at this time (namely, of the next year), corresponds כָּעֵת חַיָּה in the original (comp. 2 Kings 4:16-17; Genesis 17:21), which is to be explained: as the time revives, that is, when the time (which is now a thing of the past and dead) returns to life; not with Fritzsche: in the present time (of the next year), which suits the words of the LXX.,—where, by way of explanation, the classical εἰς ὥρας, over the year, is added,—but not the Hebrew. See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 470; Tuch and Knobel on Genesis 18:10. On the whole promise, comp. Hom. Od. xi. 248 f., 295.

Romans 9:10. A fresh and still more decisive proof (for it might be objected that, of Abraham’s children, Sarah’s son only was legitimate) that only the divine disposal constituted the succession to Abraham which was true and valid in the sight of God. Comp. Barnab. 13. The more definite notion of promise, which was retained in the preceding, is here expanded into the more general one of the appointment of the divine will as made known.

οὐ μόνον δέ] See generally on Romans 5:3. What is supplied must be something that is gathered from the preceding, that fits the nominative Ῥεβέκκα, and that answers as regards sense to the following ἐῤῥέθη αὐτῇ. Hence, because τῇ Σάῤῥᾳ precedes, and with ἀλλὰ καί another mother’s name is introduced, we must supply, as subject, not Abraham (Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Reithmayr, van Hengel; comp. also Hofmann, who however thinks any completing supplement useless), but Σάῤῥα; and moreover, not indeed the definite λόγον ἐπαγγελίας εἶχεν or ἐπηγγελμένη ἦν (Vatablus, Fritzsche, Winer, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius), but the more general λόγον or ῥῆμα Θεοῦ εἶχεν, which is suitable to the subsequent ἐῤῥέθη, as well as to the contents of the sayings adduced in Romans 9:12-13 : “But not only had Sarah a saying of God, but also Rebecca, etc.” We must therefore throw aside the manifold arbitrary supplements suggested, some of which are inconsistent with the construction, not suiting the nominative Ῥεβ., as e.g.: “non solum id, quod jam diximus, documentum est ejus, quod inferre volumus; Rebecca idem nos docet” (so Grotius, also Seb. Schmid, Semler, Ch. Schmid, Cramer, Rosenmüller, and several others; comp. Tholuck and Philippi); or: τοῦτο ἦν (Rückert, de Wette), so that the nominative Ῥεβ. forms an anacoluthon, and the period begun enters with Romans 9:11 upon quite another form (how forced, seeing that Romans 9:11-12 in themselves stand in perfectly regular construction!). It is only the semblance of an objection against our view, that not Sarah, but Abraham, received the word of promise, Romans 9:9; for Sarah was, by the nature of the case, and also according to the representation of Genesis, the co-recipient of the promise, and was mixed up in the conversation of God with Abraham in reference to it (Genesis 18:13-15); so that Paul, without incurring the charge of contradicting history, might have no scruple in stating the contrast as between the mothers, as he has done.

ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα] Who had cohabitation of one (man), the effect of which was the conception of the twin children. The contextual importance of this addition does not consist in its denying that there was a breach of conjugal fidelity, but in its making palpably apparent the invalidity—for the history of salvation—of bodily descent. She was pregnant by one man, and yet how different was the divine determination with respect to the two children!

ἐξ ἑνός] masculine, without anything being supplied; for Ἰς. τ. π. ἡμ. is in apposition. κοίτη, couch, bed, often marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4), is found seldom in the classical writers (Eur. Med. 151, Hippol. 154; not Anacr. 23, see Valck. Schol. II. p. 594), with whom εὐνή and λέχος often have the same sense, euphemistically used as equivalent to concubitus, but frequently in the LXX. See Schleusner, Thes. III. p. 347. Comp. Wis 3:13; Wis 3:16.

τοῦ πατρ. ἡμ.] from the Jewish consciousness; for the discourse has primarily to do with the Jews. Comp. Romans 4:1. If Isaac were to be designated as the father of Christians (Reiche, Fritzsche), the context must have necessarily and definitely indicated this, since believers are Abraham’s (spiritual) children. We may add that Ἰς. τοῦ πατρ. ἡμῶν is not without a significant bearing on the argument, inasmuch as it contributes to make us feel the independence of the determination of the divine will on the theocratic descent, however legitimate.