Romans 9:4-5 - Exposition

Who ( οἵτινες , with its usual sense of quippe qui ) are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Here "the adoption" ( ὑιοθεσία ) means the selection of Israel to be God's peculiar people (cf. Exodus 4:22 , "Israel is my son, even my firstborn;" Deuteronomy 14:1 , "Ye are the children of the Lord your God;" Hosea 11:1 , "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt;" also Exodus 19:5 . Cf. also τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ in Exodus 19:8 below). It is, of course, a different idea from that of the spiritual υἱοθεσία of believers (at present as in Romans 8:15 , or to come as in Romans 8:23 ), though it might be typical of it. "The glory" ( ἡ δόξα ) seems best explained by reference to 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 , where the visible glory, said to have rested on the mercy-seat and to have illuminated for a time the face of Moses, is regarded as expressing the glory, in a higher sense, of the old dispensation, which, however, was destined to fade away in the greater glory of the revelation of God in Christ. The word may be thus taken to denote, not simply the Shechinah, or the glory on Mount Sinai, but rather what was signified by these manifestations. It was probably a recognized term in use with reference to the giving of the Law. "The covenants" ( αἱ διαθῆκαι ) , and "the promises" ( αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι ) , both in the plural, include those made with and given to Abraham and the other patriarchs, as well as the Mosaic ones. The former word is wrongly taken by some as denoting the tables of the covenant. ἡ λατρεία is obviously the divinely appointed ceremonial worship, the typical significance of which is explained at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the same word is used. "The fathers" ( οἱ πατέρες ) are the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the original recipients of the promises, descent from whom was made such account of by the Jews, as being the foundation of their privileges (cf. Matthew 3:1-17 . 9; Luke 3:8 ; Luke 13:28 ; John 8:39 ; and, for the use of πατέρες in this sense, cf. Acts 3:22 ; Acts 13:32 ; Romans 15:8 ; Hebrews 1:1 ). The last and crowning distinction of the Jewish race is mentioned last, viz. the fleshly descent therefrom of Christ, even of him who in his higher nature is "over all, God blessed for ever." This is certainly the most obvious meaning of the conclusion of 2 Corinthians 3:5 , as far as the language is concerned, and the one understood by all ancient commentators. Some moderns, however, as is well known, have raised objections to this interpretation of the clause, based solely on the supposed improbability that St. Paul would have so designated Christ. Some would, therefore, get over this imagined difficulty by putting a full stop after κατὰ σάρκα , and taking what follows as a doxology to God the Father, thus: "God, who is over all, be blessed for ever." The apostle is supposed, according to this interpretation, to have been moved to this parenthetical utterance by his contemplation of the Divine favours to Israel, which he had been recounting. Some have suggested the full stop being put after πάντων , so as to refer ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων to Christ, and take only what follows as a doxology, or, as some would have it, as a statement. But, in either case, the idea of so unlikely a breaking up of the sentence may be dismissed as untenable. Others, without thus breaking up the sentence, take the whole of it, beginning with ὁ ὢν , to be, not a doxology, but a statement, thus at- tempting to meet the objection to its being a doxology (to be noticed presently), arising from the collocation of the words. But a mere assertion that God is blessed for ever would seem peculiarly uncalled for and purposeless here. Meyer, being a critic of deserved repute, and an upholder of the modern interpretation of the clause, taking the whole of it together as a doxology to the Father, it may suffice to state his arguments.

Now, to these arguments it may be replied as follows: To (1) that, though it may be true that St. Paul in no other passage expressly calls Christ θεὸς , yet his doctrine with respect to his Divine nature is in accordance with the expression; for surely the term θεὸς is applicable to him who is spoken of, as e.g. in Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15 , etc.; that his usual distinction between the supreme God and Christ as Mediator by no means precludes his declaring in express terms Christ's essential Deity in a passage where such a declaration is suitable and called for; that even St. John, who is acknowledged by all to have peculiarly set forth the Divine essence of Christ, only once uses the expression, θεὸς ἧν ὁ λόγος , or any exactly equivalent to it. To argument (2) it may be replied that the language used does not identify Christ with the Father as ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς , especially if we suppose a comma after πάντων , so that the meaning would he, "Christ who is over all, God blessed for ever." That Christ is "over all" is what is distinctly declared elsewhere by St. Paul, and θεὸς , etc., may be appended predicatively to denote his Divine essence. As to argument (3), it is necessary to exclude not only 2 Peter and Hebrews, but also 2 Timothy from the list of apostolical writings in order to give it any force. But even so it would be irrelevant; for the sentence before us is not a doxology, but an assertion: it is, according to the ancient interpretation, not "Blessed be Christ as God for ever;" but" Christ, who is God blessed for ever." The positive reasons for retaining the ancient interpretations may be stated as follows: