Romans 9:4,5

Vv. 4 and 5 are intended to justify the wish expressed in Romans 9:3, by declaring the glorious prerogatives which are fitted to render this people supremely precious to a truly Israelitish heart.

Vv. 4. “ Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the service, and the promises. ”

The pronoun οἵτινες, who, characterizes them in the context as persons for whom it would be worth while to accept even damnation.

The name Israelites is the name of honor belonging to the people; it is a title resting on the glorious fact related Genesis 32:28. It contains all the prerogatives which follow.

These prerogatives are enumerated in Romans 9:4, to the number of six, all connected by καί, and, a form expressing rising exaltation of feeling. Υἱοθεσία, the adoption: Israel is always represented as the Lord's son or first-born among all peoples, Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 11:1. Δόξα, the glory: this term does not at all express, as Reuss thinks, the final glory of the kingdom of God; for this glory belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. The term is here taken in the special sense which it often has in the O. T.: the visible, luminous appearance of the Lord's presence, Exodus 24:16; Exodus 29:43; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezekiel 1:28. The Rabbins had invented a particular term to denote this glorious appearance, the name shekinah, from schakan, to dwell. Διαθῆκαι, the covenants: this word denotes the numerous covenants concluded by God with the patriarchs. The reading of some MSS.: the covenant, is a faulty correction. What led to it was the term: the old covenant. Νομοθεσία, the giving of the law: this term embraces along with the gift of the law itself, the solemn promulgation of it on Mount Sinai; comp. the saying of the psalmist, Psalms 147:20: “He hath not dealt so with any nation.” Λατρεία, the service (cultus), this is the sum-total of the Levitical services instituted by the law. ·Επαγγελίαι, the promises: this term carries our view from past benefits to the still greater blessings to come, which God promised to His people. The reading: the promise, in the Greco-Latin, is also an erroneous correction.

Vv. 5. “ Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever, amen. ”

To blessings of an impersonal nature Paul adds, as crowning them, the gifts which consist in living persons, and which either preceded the above or followed them; such are the patriarchs, from whom the people sprang, and who are as it were its root; and the Messiah, who sprang from the people, and who is as it were its flower.

The first proposition literally signifies: “whose (Israelites') are the fathers,” that is to say, to whom the fathers belong as national property. The heroes of a people are regarded by it as its most precious treasure.

But the apostle is careful not to apply the same form to the Messiah, which would signify that the Christ is the property of the Jews. He says here ἑξ ὧν, from the midst of whom. He proceeds from them as to origin, but He does not belong to them exclusively as to His destination. The antithesis between the two forms ὧν, whose, and ἐξ ὧν, from among whom, is certainly intentional.

But while fully recognizing that the Christ comes from the Jews, the apostle is well aware that this mode of origin refers only to the human and phenomenal side of His person; and hence he immediately adds: as to the flesh. This expression should evidently be taken in the same sense as in Romans 9:3; for here as there the matter in question is a relation of filiation or origin. The term flesh therefore embraces the human nature in its totality; and it is a mistake to seek here the contrast between the flesh and the spirit, σάρξ and πνεῦμα. We find this same meaning of the word flesh again in Romans 9:8, where the human sonship is opposed to the divine (by faith in the promise). It is also in the same sense that John says (Romans 1:14): “The Word was made flesh.” The antithesis to the word flesh in all these cases is not spirit, but God; comp. Galatians 1:16: “I conferred not with flesh and blood” (men in contrast to God); Matthew 24:22; Romans 3:20; 1 Corinthians 1:29, etc. The contrast is not, therefore, altogether the same in this passage as in Romans 1:3-4. There, the point was the antithesis between the flesh and the spirit in the person of Jesus Himself; here, it is the contrast between His divine origin (which was implied already in Romans 8:3) and His human, and more especially His Israelitish origin.

Many commentators close the sentence with the words: according to the flesh (Seml., Fritzs., Ew., van Heng., Meyer, Baur, Tischendorf, 8th edition). In that case it only remains to take the following words as an exclamation of thanksgiving to the praise of the God who has so highly privileged Israel; so Oltramare translates: “Let Him who is over all things, God, be therefore blessed forever! Amen.” The epithet: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, who is above all things, or above all, would require to be regarded as paraphrasing the term παντοκράτωρ, the universal sovereign, by which the LXX. often render Schaddaï, the All-powerful; comp. 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8. This thanksgiving in the context would apply either to the sovereign freedom with which God distributes His gifts to whom He pleases, or to His providence, which, always extending to all, favors one people only, with the view of bringing to Himself all the rest. On the other hand, it is impossible not to be surprised at a conclusion so abrupt and negative in form, at least as to sense, of an enumeration so magnificent as the preceding; for there is evidently a limitation and, so to speak, a negation in the words: as concerning the flesh. They signify: “ At least as concerning the flesh.” This restriction goes in the teeth of the feeling which has inspired the whole passage thus far. It is a descent which, after the gradual ascent of the preceding lines, closes it with startling abruptness. Still more, the burst of gratitude which on this explanation would inspire this doxology, would be out of all harmony with the impression of profound grief which forms the basis of the whole passage. In fact, the privileges enumerated have been heaped up thus only to justify this painful impression; and here is the apostle all at once breaking out into a song of praise because of those advantages which Israel have rendered unavailing by their unbelief! (comp. Gess). If, besides, the participle ὁ ὤν, who is, referred to a subject not mentioned in the previous proposition (God), this transition from one subject to another would require to be indicated in some way, either by the addition of a δέ, now, as in Romans 16:25, Jude Romans 9:24, etc., or by giving a turn to the sentence such as this: τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεῷ, τῷ εὐλογημένῳ... δόξα, “to God ever blessed be glory!” comp. Romans 11:36; or simply: εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός, as in 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3. In his truly classical dissertation on this passage, Hermann Schultz vigorously develops the argument often alleged against the interpretation which we are examining, that the participle εὐλογημένος, blessed, would require to be placed not after, but before the substantive Θεός, God. The usage is, that in forms of thanksgiving the first word proceeding from the heart of the grateful worshipper is the term blessed, and that this word precedes the name of God; comp. in the LXX. Genesis 9:26; Genesis 14:20; Psalms 18:46; Psalms 28:6; Psalms 31:21; Psalms 41:13; Psalms 66:20; Psalms 68:35; Psalms 72:18-19; Psalms 89:52, etc.; and in the N. T. Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 1:68; Luke 13:35; Luke 19:38; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. The only exception which can be quoted would be Psalms 68:19, if the text of the LXX. were not probably corrupted in this passage, and if especially the verb to be understood were not the indicative ἐστί, is, instead of the imperative ἔστω, let Him be; comp. Psalms 68:34. Finally, it is difficult to understand in our passage the object of the participle ὤν (who is, who is really) applied to God; the form ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός (without ὤν) would have been perfectly clear; and Paul could not have any reason for insisting in speaking of God on the reality of the divine sovereignty. For he was not concerned to combat idolatry, as in chap. 1 for example.

Erasmus, who first proposed to end the period after σάρκα (flesh), had likewise put the question whether the sentence might not close with the word πάντων (all things, or all): “of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things; God be blessed forever and ever!” Is this construction better than the preceding? Meyer thinks not. It seems to me that in the matter of improbability they are on a par. Yet the latter at least gives a more or less suitable conclusion to the proposition relative to the Christ. These last words: “who is over all,” applied to Christ, contain up to a certain point the antithesis which we were led to expect from the restriction: as concerning the flesh; and by proclaiming the supreme dignity of the Christ, they bring out, as the context demands, the exceptional prerogative granted to the people of which He is a member. It would also be somewhat easier to explain the form of ὁ ὤν, who is, than on the previous construction. For the application to Christ of the idea of universal sovereignty might require this word ὤν, who is really. But independently of several difficulties which attach to the preceding explanation, and which remain in this one, there are new difficulties which belong to it, and which render it, if possible, still more inadmissible. The words: who is over all things, are not the natural antithesis of these: as concerning the flesh. The latter referred to origin; the former point only to position. Then, as Meyer observes, the doxology comes on us with intolerable abruptness: “God be blessed forever and ever!” And more than all, the sole reason which would make it possible to explain to a certain extent the position of the participle εὐλογημένος (blessed) after Θεός (God), contrary to the uniform usage of the sacred writers, is wholly lost; for this displacement can only arise (see Meyer) from the forcible description of God in the words: who is over all things.

The entire primitive church seems to have had no hesitation as to the meaning to be given to our passage; comp. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret; later, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Tholuck, Usteri, Olshausen, Philippi, Gess, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss, Delitzsch, Schultz. In fact, in writing the restriction: τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, as concerning the flesh, Paul had evidently in view this peculiarity: that the Christ was something else and more than a Jew, and it is with this unparalleled fact that he rightly concludes the enumeration of Israel's prerogatives. No doubt the words: who is over all things, express in a certain measure the naturally expected idea of the supreme greatness of the Christ; but they are not enough for the apostle's object. For, if they connect themselves with the ἐξ ὧν, from the midst of whom, contrasting the universal supremacy of the Christ with His national origin, they bear no relation whatever to the still narrower restriction: as concerning the flesh. Now this latter leads us also to expect its antithesis, which appears only in the title God. This word is therefore the legitimate conclusion of the whole passage, as it forms its culminating point. Scripture frequently contrasts, as we have seen, flesh (human nature in its weakness) with God; comp. Isaiah 31:3. And if it is certain that Paul recognizes in the divine being who appeared in Jesus the creator of all things (1 Corinthians 8:6; Col 1:16-17), the Jehovah of the O. T. who led the people in the cloud (1 Corinthians 10:4), who before coming on the earth was in the form of God (Php 2:6 et seq.), is it strange that he should have sometimes given the name of God to such a being, and that he should have done so especially in such a passage as this, where he is feeling in all its bitterness the contrast between the transcendent greatness of the gifts bestowed on Israel and the sad result in which they have terminated? It seems to us difficult to avoid seeing in the benediction which follows the words: “who is God over all things,” an expression of homage rendered to this God-Christ, and intended to wipe out the dishonor cast on Him by Jewish unbelief, as in chap. 1 the form of adoration, pronounced in Romans 9:25, was a way of protesting against the outrage inflicted on the true God by Gentile idolatry.

But it is precisely because of this word God that objections are raised to the application of such utterances to the person of Christ. It is objected that nowhere else does Paul designate Jesus in this way (Meyer), and that even in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Christ, as only Lord, is expressly distinguished from the Father, as the one God (Reuss). It is added, that by the words: over all things, Christ would seem to be placed above God Himself, or at least made equal to the supreme God.

Suppose this passage were really the only one in which Jesus receives the name of God from Paul, is it not the same with John, in whose writings this name is not given to Christ confessedly more than once or twice (John 1:1, John 20:28)? As to the general question, I am unwilling to give judgment from the various passages which are alleged by many commentators with the view of proving that Paul has given Jesus the name of God, Θεός, more than once. I have carefully weighed the reasons of those who deny the fact; and yet, after reading and re-reading Ephesians 5:5 and Titus 2:13, I always come back to the first conviction which the Greek construction produces, viz. that Paul in these passages really meant to designate the Christ as Θεός. But this discussion would be out of place here, and could not in any case lead to an absolutely conclusive result.

As to the doxologies of the N. T. besides those of Revelation, which are addressed to the Lamb as well as to God, there is that of 2 Timothy 4:13, which indisputably applies to Christ, and which must be assigned to St. Paul unless we deny to him the whole Epistle.

Let us add, that it would be wholly false to depend here on the rule (the correctness of which I do not examine), that when in the N. T. Christ is called Θεός, God, it is in every case without the article, and that the designation ὁ Θεός is reserved for the one God and Father. This rule does not apply to the case before us, for the article ὁ belongs not to the word Θεός, but to the participle ὤν. If Paul had meant here to use the form ὁ Θεός in application to God, he would have required to write: ὁ ὢν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός. We have therefore the form Θεός without the article, as in John 1:1, that is to say, as a simple grammatical predicate.

Against our explanation Reuss with great assurance opposes 1 Corinthians 8:6. The reasoning of this critic may be valid against those who refuse to admit the subordination of the Son to the Father. But for those who prefer the true thought of Scripture to a theological formula, ancient, no doubt, but yet human, this argument does not affect them. The distinction between the God and Father and the God-Christ is in their eyes a perfectly established fact. And if there is nothing to hinder God the Father from frequently receiving the name Κύριος, Lord, neither is there anything to prevent the Lord Christ from receiving in certain cases the name Θεός, God (see Hofmann on this point).

The most singular objection is that which is taken from the words: over all things (or over all). Meyer says: “To all this there is added the insurmountable difficulty that Christ would not be simply called God, but God over all; which would designate Him the Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ, the sovereign God, and would contradict the general view maintained in the N. T. of the dependence of the Son in relation to the Father.” Meyer argues as if ἐπὶ πάντων, over all things, was descriptive of the word Θεός, God, and here denoted the being called God as the supreme God. But what does he say himself two pages farther on: “ ἐπί, over, denotes government over all things. ” The over all things, according to Meyer himself, is not at all a determination of the word Θεός. We must not, as his objection assumed, connect ἐπὶ πάντων with Θεός, but with the participle ὤν, a word which otherwise would be unmeaning there: “He who is exalted over all things, as God blessed forever.” Comp. Matthew 18:28. It is understood, of course, that to this πάντων, all things, the exception applies which is stated 1 Corinthians 15:27: “He is excepted which did put all things under Him.” How could God be included in the πάντα, all things?

Gess, while holding with us that the conclusion of the verse applies to Christ, divides it into three clauses, placing a first comma after πάντων, and a second after Θεός, “who is above all things, (is) God, (is) blessed”...; so that Paul is taken to affirm three things of Christ: first, that He is appointed universal sovereign; next, that He is God; finally as follows from the two previous terms that He is forever adored and blessed. I cannot agree with this explanation. The epithet blessed is too directly connected with the term God to be thus separated from it; and the expression: God blessed, seems, as well as the ἐπὶ πάντων, to be the attribute of the participle ὤν, and intended to form with this latter the complete antithesis to the restriction: as to the flesh. Besides, this breaking up of the proposition into three parallel clauses seems to me contrary to the gush of feeling which dictates this whole conclusion. Nearly the same reasons may be urged against the punctuation proposed by Hofmann (a comma after πάντων): “who is over all things, (who is) God blessed forever.”

Schultz, after demonstrating with the tone of a master the necessity of applying this whole conclusion (from the word flesh) to Jesus Christ, insists notwithstanding on this point: that according to Paul's view this affirmation of Christ's divinity applies only to Jesus glorified (from the date of His exaltation at the close of His earthly life). Christ would thus be called God only in an inferior sense, as man raised to universal sovereignty. Three reasons render this explanation inadmissible 1. Paul requires to complete the idea of the Israelitish origin of Jesus by that of a higher origin. The matter in question, therefore, is not His exaltation, but His divine pre-existence. 2. The passages of the Epistles to the Corinthians, to the Colossians, and to the Philippians, which explain this name Θεός, God, relate to Christ before His incarnation, and not to Christ glorified by His ascension. 3. From the standpoint of biblical monotheism to become God, without being so by nature, is a monstrosity.

It seems to us, therefore, beyond doubt that Paul here points, as the crown of all the prerogatives granted to Israel, to their having produced for the world the Christ, who now, exalted above all things, is God blessed forever. It only remains to say a word about the term πάντων. Some translate: all, and understand either all men, or all the servants of God, under the O. T.; others understand by the term all things, and apply it either to all the prerogatives bestowed on Israel, or to the universe in its entirety. This last meaning seems to us the most natural and the most agreeable to the context. What can form a people's supreme title to honor, if not the fact of having given to the world the universal monarch?

And yet such prerogatives did not exempt the Israelitish nation from the possibility of a rejection. In the very history of this people so peculiarly blessed there were antecedents fitted to put them on their guard against this terrible danger. This is the point the apostle brings out in the following passage, Romans 9:6-13, borrowing from Israelitish history two facts which prove that from the beginnings of this people God has proceeded by way of exclusion in regard to an entire portion of the elect race. Thus, when Isaac alone received the character of the chosen seed, to the exclusion of Ishmael, son of Abraham though he also was, Romans 9:6-9; and again, when of Isaac's two sons Jacob was preferred, and his eldest rejected, Romans 9:10-13.