Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 9:1 - 9:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE APOSTLE’S SORROW OVER ISRAEL’S UNBELIEF
9:1-5. The thought of this magnificent prospect fills me with sorrow for those who seem to be excluded from it—my own countrymen for whom I would willingly sacrifice my dearest hopes—excluded too in spite of all their special privileges and their high destiny.
1How glorious the prospect of the life in Christ! How mournful the thought of those who are cut off from it! There is no shadow of falsehood in the statement I am about to make. As one who has his life in Christ I affirm a solemn truth; and my conscience, speaking under the direct influence of God’s Holy Spirit, bears witness to my sincerity. 2 There is one grief that I cannot shake off, one distressing weight that lies for ever at my heart. 3 Like Moses when he came down from the mount, the prayer has been in my mind: Could I by the personal sacrifice of my own salvation for them, even by being cut off from all communion with Christ, in any way save my own countrymen? Are they not my own brethren, my kinsmen as far as earthly relationship is concerned? 4 Are they not God’s own privileged people? They bear the sacred name of Israel with all that it implies; it is they whom He declared to be His ‘son,’ His ‘firstborn’ (Exo_4:22); their temple has been illuminated by the glory of the Divine presence; they are bound to Him by a series of covenants repeatedly renewed; to them He gave a system of law on Mount Sinai; year after year they have offered up the solemn worship of the temple; they have been the depositories of the Divine promises; 5 their ancestors are the patriarchs, who were accounted righteous before God; from them in these last days has come the Messiah as regards his natural descent—that Messiah who although sprung from a human parent is supreme over all things, none other than God, the eternal object of human praise!
9-11. St. Paul has now finished his main argument. He has expounded his conception of the Gospel. But there still remains a difficulty which could not help suggesting itself to every thoughtful reader, and which was continually being raised by one class of Christians at the time when he wrote. How is this new scheme of righteousness and salvation apart from law consistent with the privileged position of the Jews? They had been the chosen race (we find St. Paul enumerating their privileges), through them the Messiah had come, and yet it appeared they would be rejected if they would not accept this new righteousness by faith. How is this consistent with the justice of God?
The question has been continually in the Apostle’s mind. It has led him to emphasize more than once the fact that the new εαγλο if for both Jew and Greek, is yet for the Jew first (1:16; 2:9). It has led him to lay great stress on the fact that the Jews especially had sinned (2:17). Once indeed he has begun to discuss it directly (3:1); ‘What advantage then is there in being a Jew?’ but he postponed it for a time, feeling that it was necessary first to complete his main argument. He has dwelt on the fact that the new way of salvation can be proved from the Old Testament (chap. 4). Now he is at liberty to discuss in full the question How is this conception of Christ’s work consistent with the fact of the rejection of the Jews which it seems to imply?
The answer to this question occupies the remainder of the dogmatic portion of the Epistle, chaps. 9-11, generally considered to be the third of its principal divisions. The whole section may be subdivided as follows: in 9:6-29 the faithfulness and justice of God are vindicated; in 9:30-10:21 the guilt of Israel is proved; in chap. 11 St. Paul shows the divine purpose which is being fulfilled and looks forward prophetically to a future time when Israel will be restored, concluding the section with a description of the Wisdom of God as far exceeding all human speculation.
Marcion seems to have omitted the whole of this chapter with the possible exception of vv. 1-3. Tert. who passes from 8:11 to 10:2 says salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae (Adv. Marc. v. 14). See Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons p. 518.
1. We notice that there is no grammatical connexion with the preceding chapter. A new point is introduced and the sequence of thought is gradually made apparent as the argument proceeds. Perhaps there has been a pause in writing the Epistle, the amanuensis has for a time suspended his labours. We notice also that St. Paul does not here follow his general habit of stating the subject he is going to discuss (as he does for example at the beginning of chap. 3), but allows it gradually to become evident. He naturally shrinks from mentioning too definitely a fact which is to him so full of sadness. It will be only too apparent to what he refers; and tact and delicacy both forbid him to define it more exactly.
ἀήεα λγ ἐ Χιτ: ‘I speak the truth in Christ, as one united with Christ’; cf. 2Co_2:17 ἀλ ὡ ἐ ελκιεα, ἀλ ὡ ἐ Θο, κτννιΘο ἐ Χιτ λλῦν 12:19. St. Paul has just described that union with Christ which will make any form of sin impossible; cf. 8:1, 10; and the reference to this union gives solemnity to an assertion for which it will be difficult to obtain full credence.
ο ψύοα. A Pauline expression. 1Ti_2:7 ἀήεα λγ, ο ψύοα: 2Co_11:31; Gal_1:20.
σματρύη: cf. 2:15; 8:16. The conscience is personified so as to give the idea of a second and a separate witness. Cf. Oecumenius ad loc. μγ θλιεπῖ, δὸποδπιῖτ πσεθνι τεςἐιεόεο μρυα, τνΧιτν τἍινΠεμ, κὶτνἑυο σνίηι.
ἐ Πεμτ Ἁί with σματρύη. St. Paul adds further solemnity to his assertion by referring to that union of his spirit with the Divine Spirit of which he had spoken in the previous chapter. Cf. 8:16 ατ τ Πεμ σματρῖτ πεμτ ἡῶ.
St. Paul begins with a strong assertion of the truth of his statement as a man does who is about to say something of the truth of which he is firmly convinced himself, although facts and the public opinion of his countrymen might seem to be against him. Cf. Chrys. ad loc. πόεο δ δαεαοτιπρ ὦ μλε λγι·ὅε πλοςἔο πιῖ ὅα μλωίτ λγι πρ τῖ πλοςἀιτύεο κὶὑὲ ο σόρ ἑυοςεσ ππιόε.
2. ὅι ‘that,’ introducing the subordinate sentence dependent on the idea of assertion in the previous sentence. St. Paul does not mention directly the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred from the next verse.
λπ (which is opposed to χρ Joh_16:20) appears to mean grief as a state of mind; it is rational or emotional: ὀύηon the other hand never quite loses its physical associations; it implies the anguish or smart of the heart (hence it is closely connected with τ κρί) which is the result of λπ.
With the grief of St. Paul for his countrymen, we may compare the grief of a Jew writing after the fall of Jerusalem, who feels both the misfortune and the sin of his people, and who like St. Paul emphasizes his sorrow by enumerating their close relationship to God and their ancestral pride: 4 Ezr_8:15-18 et nunc dicens dicam, de omni homine tu magis scis, de populo autem tuo, ob quem doleo, et de haereditate tua, propter quam lugeo, et propter Israë propter quem tristis sum, et de semine Iacob, propter quod conturbor. Ibid. 10:6-8 non vides luctum nostrum et quae nobis contigerunt? quoniam Sion mater nostra omnium in tristitia contristatur, et humilitate humiliata est, et luget validissime …21-22 vides enim quoniam sanctificatio nostra deserta effecta est, et altare nostrum demolitum est, et templum nostrum destructum est, et psalterium nostrum humiliatum est, et hymnus noster conticuit, et exsultatio nostra dissoluta est, et lumen candelabri nostri extinctum est, et arca testamenti nostri direpta est. Apoc. Baruch. xxxv. 3 quomodo enim ingemiscam super Sione, et quomodo lugebo super Ierusalem? quia in loco isto ubi prostratus sum nunc, olim summus sacerdos offerebat oblationes sanctas.
3. This verse which is introduced by γρdoes not give the reason of his grief but the proof of his sincerity.
ηχμν ‘the wish was in my mind’ or perhaps ‘the prayer was in my heart.’ St. Paul merely states the fact of the wish without regard to the conditions which made it impossible. Cf. Lft. on Gal_4:20 ‘The thing is spoken of in itself, prior to and independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility.’ See also Act_25:22, and Burton, M. and T. §33.
ἀάεα ‘accursed,’ ‘devoted to destruction.’ The word was originally used with the same meaning as ἀάηα(of which it was a dialectic variation, see below), ‘that which is offered or consecrated to God.’ But the translators of the Old Testament required an expression to denote that which is devoted to God for destruction, and adopted ἀάεαas a translation of the Hebrew חרם see Lev_27:28, Lev_27:29 πνδ ἀάεαὃἐνἀαῇἄθωο τ Κρῳ…οκἀοώεα οδ λτώεα …κὶπνὃἐνἀαεῇἀὸτνἀθώω ο λτωήεα, ἀλ θντ θντθστι Deu_7:26; Jos_6:17 κὶἔτιἡπλςἀάεα ατ κὶπναὅαἐτνἐ ατ, Κρῳσβώ. And with this meaning it is always used in the New Testament: Gal_1:8, Gal_1:9; 1Co_16:22. The attempt to explain the word to mean ‘excommunication’ from the society—a later use of the Hebrew in Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical—arose from a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish.
There is some doubt and has been a good deal of discussion as to the distinction in meaning between ἀάεαand ἀάηα It was originally dialectic, ἀάηαbeing the Attic form (ἀάηαἀτκς ἀάεαἑλνκςMoeris, p. 28) and ἀάεαbeing found as a substitute in non-Attic works (Anth. P. 6. 162, C.I.G. 2693 d and other instances are quoted by the Dictionaries). The Hellenistic form was the one naturally used by the writers of the LXX, and it gradually became confined to the new meaning attached to the word, but the distinction seems never to have become certain and MSS. and later writers often confuse the two words. In the LXX (although Hatch and Redpath make no distinction) our present texts seem to preserve the difference of the two words. The only doubtful passage Isa_2 Macc. 2:13; here A reads ἀάεαwhere we should expect ἀάηα but V (the only other MS. quoted by Swete) and the authorities in Holmes and Parsons have ἀάηα In the N.T. ἀάηαoccurs once, Luk_21:5, and then correctly (but the MSS. vary, ἀάηαB L, ἀάεαאA D). The Fathers often miss the distinction and explain the two words as identical: so Ps.-Just. Quaest. et Resp. 121; Theod. on Rom_9:3, and Suidas; they are distinguished in Chrys. on Rom_9:3 as quoted by Suidas, but not in Field’s ed. No certain instance is quoted of ἀάηαfor ἀάεα but ἀάεαcould be and was used dialectically for ἀάηα On the word generally see esp. Trench Syn. i. §5; Lft. Gal_1:8; Fri. on Rom_9:3.
ατςἐώ The emphasis and position of these words emphasizes the willingness for personal sacrifice; and they have still more force when we remember that St. Paul has just declared that nothing in heaven or earth can separate him from the love of Christ. Chrys. ad loc. τ λγι, ὦΠῦε ἀὸτῦΧιτῦτῦπθυέο, ο μτ βσλί μτ γεν ἐώιε μτ τ νομν, μτ ἄλ τσῦα ἀὸτύο νςεχ ἀάεαενι
ἀὸτῦΧιτῦ ‘separated from the Christ,’ a pregnant use of the preposition. The translation of the words as if they were ὑὸτ Χ arises from a desire to soften the expression.
κτ σρα cf. 4:1 as far as earthly relations are concerned’; spiritually St. Paul was a member of the spiritual Israel, and his kinsmen were the ἀεφίof the Christian society.
The prayer of St. Paul is similar to that of Moses: Exo_32:32 ‘Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.’ On this Clem.-Rom. liii. 5 comments as follows: ὢμγλςἀάη, ὢτλιττςἀυεβήο, πρηιζτιθρπνπὸ Κρο, ατῖα ἄει τ πήε ἢκὶἑνὸ ἐαεφῆα μτ ατνἀιῖ In answer to those who have found difficulties in the passage it is enough to say with Prof. Jowett that they arise from ‘the error of explaining the language of feeling as though it were that of reasoning and reflection.’
There are one or two slight variations of reading in ver. 3, ατςἐώwas placed before ἀά. εν by C K L, Vulg., and later authorities with T. R., and ὑό(D E G) substituted for ἀό(אA B C &c.). Both variations arise from a desire to modify the passage.
4. οτνςεσν ‘inasmuch as they are.’ St. Paul’s grief for Israel arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine economy.
Ἰρηῖα: used of the chosen people in special reference to the fact that, as descendants of him who received from God the name of Israel, they are partakers of those promises of which it was a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race; cf. Eph_2:12 ἀηλτιμνιτςπλτίςτῦἸρὴ κὶξνιτνδαηῶ τςἐαγλα: and as such it could be used metaphorically of the Christians (ὁἸρὴ τῦΘο Gal_6:16; cf. ver. 6 inf.); a use which would of course be impossible for the merely national designation Ἰυαο.
‘Israel’ is the title used in contemporary literature to express the special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Sol. 14:3 ὅιἡμρςκὶἡκηοοί τῦΘο ἐτνὁἸρή: Ecclus. 17:15 μρςΚρο Ἰρὴ ἐτν Jubilees 33:18 ‘For Israel is a nation holy unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of priesthood and royalty and a possession.’ Thus the word seems to have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The Messianic times are ‘the day of gladness of Israel’ (Ps. Sol. 10:7), the blessing of Israel, the day of God’s mercy towards Israel (ib. 17:50, 51 μκρο ο γνμνιἐ τῖ ἡέαςἐενι ἰεντ ἀαὰἸρὴ ἐ σνγγ φλν ἂπισιὁΘό. τχνιὁΘὸ ἐὶἸρὴ τ ἔεςατῦ When therefore St. Paul uses this name he reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the privileges of his kingdom.
υοεί: ‘the adoption,’ ‘status of an adopted son’: on the origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see above, Rom_8:15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to God described in Exo_4:22 τδ λγιΚρο Υὸ πωόοό μυἸρή: Deu_14:1; Deu_32:6; Jer_31:9; Hos_11:1. So Jubilees 1:21 ‘I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and in righteousness and that I love them.’
ἡδξ:‘ the visible presence of God among His people’ (see on 3:23). δξ is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew כְודיחָ, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (שְִנה the bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth; cf. Exo_16:10, &c. Hence τ κλο τςδξςατῦPs. Son_2:5, ἀὸθόο δξςib. ver. 20, Wisd. 9:10, imply more than the mere beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Act_7:2, speaks of ὁΘὸ τςδξςhis words would remind his hearers of the visible presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah see Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 179.
α δαῆα: ‘the covenants,’ see Hatch Essays on Biblical Greek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to the two covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed (Gen_6:18; Gen_9:9; Gen_15:18; Gen_17:2, Gen_17:7, Gen_17:9; Exo_2:24). Comp. Ecclus. 44:11 μτ τῦσέμτςατνδαεε ἀαὴκηοοί, ἔγν ατιἐ τῖ δαήας Wisdom 18:22 λγ τνκλζναὑέαε, ὅκυ πτρνκὶδαήα ὑονσς According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 11 (ed. Harvey) there were four covenants: κὶδὰτῦοτσαε ἐόηα κθλκὶδαῆα τ ἀθωόηι μαμντῦκτκυμῦτῦΝε ἐὶτῦτξυδυέαδ τῦἈρά, ἐὶτῦσμίυτςπρτμς τίηδ ἡνμθσαἐὶτῦΜνσω·ττρηδ ἡτῦΕαγλο, δὰτῦΚρο ἡῶ ἸσῦΧιτῦ
The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and its practical bearing on Jewish life see Schü Geschichte, ii. p. 388.
ἡνμθσα a classical word, occurring also in Philo. ‘The giving of the law.’ ‘The dignity and glory of having a law communicated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full of awe and splendour.’ Vaughan.
The current Jewish estimation of the Law (ὁνμςὁὑάχνεςτναῶαBaruch 4:1) it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the point in the mention of it here is brought out more clearly if we remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the reward of those who kept the Law. So Ps. Sol. 14:1 πσὸ Κρο τῖ ἀαῶι ατνἐ ἀηεᾳ…τῖ πρυμνι ἐ δκισν ποτγάω ατῦ ἐ νμ ὡ ἐεελτ ἡῖ εςζὴ ἡῶ. It was one of the paradoxes of the situation that it was just those who neglected the Law who would, according to St. Paul’s teaching, inherit the promises.
ἡλτεα ‘the temple service.’ Heb_9:1, Heb_9:6; Heb_1 Macc. 2:19, 22. As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be quoted PirqêAboth, 1:2 (Taylor, p. 26) ‘Shimeon ha-Ç was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.’ According to the Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be a revival of the temple services. (Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 359.)
α ἐαγλα. ‘the promises made in the O. T. with special reference to the coming of the Messiah.’ These promises were of course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly to them. While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises (cf. Ps. Sol. 12:8); and in Jewish estimation sinners were the gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be discussed. See note on 1:2, and the note of Ryle and James on Ps. Sol. loc. cit.; cf. also Heb_6:12; Heb_11:13; Gal_3:19; Gal_1 Clem 10:2.
α δαῆα אC L, Vulg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into ἡδαήηB D F G, Vulg. codd. pauc.; also ἐαγλα into ἐαγλαD E F G, Boh. Both variations are probably due to fancied difficulties.
5. ο πτρς ‘the patriarchs.’ Act_3:13, Act_7:32. On the ‘merits’ of the patriarchs and their importance in Jewish theology see the note on p. 330.
ἐ ὦ ὁΧιτςτ κτ σρα Cf. 1 Clem. xxxii. 2 ἐ ατῦὁΚρο Ἰσῦ τ κτ σρα ὁΧ. is not a personal name, but must be translated ‘the Messiah.’ Not only have the Jews been united to God by so many ties, but the purpose for which they have been selected has been fulfilled. The Messiah has come forth from them, and yet they have been rejected.
ὁῶ ἐὶπνω Θό, κτλ with Χιτς(see below), ‘who is over all, God blessed for ever.’ πνω is probably neuter, cf. 11:36. This description of the supreme dignity of Him who was on His human side of Jewish stock serves to intensify the conception of the privileged character of the Jewish race.
The Privileges of Israel
By this enumeration of the privileges of Israel St. Paul fulfils two purposes in his argument. He gives firstly the facts which intensify his sorrow. Like the writer of 4 Ezra his grief is heightened by the remembrance of the position which his countrymen have held in the Divine economy. Every word in the long list calls to mind some link which had united them, the Chosen People, with God; every word reminds us of the glory of their past history; and it is because of the great contrast suggested between the destiny of Israel and their actual condition that his grief is so profound.
But the Apostle has another and more important thought to emphasize. He has to show the reality and the magnitude of the problem before him, and this list of the privileges of Israel just emphasizes it. It was so great as almost to be paradoxical. It was this. Israel was a chosen people, and was chosen for a certain purpose. According to the teaching of the Apostle it had attained this end: the Messiah, whose coming represented in a sense the consummation of its history, had appeared, and yet from any share in the glories of this epoch the Chosen People themselves were cut off. All the families of the earth were to be blessed in Israel: Israel itself was not to be blessed. They were in an especial sense the sons of God: but they were cut off from the inheritance. They were bound by special covenants to God: the covenant had been broken, and those outside shared in the advantages. The glories of the Messianic period might be looked upon as a recompense for the long years of suffering which a faithful adhesion to the Law and a loyal preservation of the temple service had entailed: the blessings were to come for those who had never kept the Law. The promises were given to and for Israel: Israel alone would not inherit them.
Such was the problem. The pious Jew, remembering the sufferings of his nation, pictured the Messianic time as one when these should all pass away; when all Israel—pure and without stain—should be once more united; when the ten tribes should be collected from among the nations; when Israel which had suffered much from the Gentiles should be at last triumphant over them. All this he expected. The Messiah had come: and Israel, the Messiah’s own people, seemed to be cut off and rejected from the blessings which it had itself prepared for the world. How was this problem to be solved? (Cf. 4 Ezra 13; Schü Geschichte, ii. 452 sq.)
The Punctuation of Rom_9:5
κὶἐ ὧ ὁΧιτςτ κτ σρα ὁὢ ἐὶπνω, Θὸ ελγτςεςτὺ αῶα·ἀή.
Special literature.
The interpretation of Rom_9:5 has probably been discussed at greater length than that of any other verse of the N. T. Besides long notes in various commentaries, the following special papers may be mentioned: Schultz, in Jahrbü fü deutsche Theologie, 1868, vol. xiii. pp. 462-506; Grimm, Zwth., 1869, pp. 311-322; Harmsen, ib. 1872, pp. 510, 521: but England and America have provided the fullest discussions—by Prof. Kennedy and Dr. Gifford, namely, The Divinity of Christ, a sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge, with an appendix on Rom_9:5 and Tit_2:13, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; Caesarem Appello, a letter to Dr. Kennedy, by Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D., Cambridge, 1883; and Pauline Christology, I. Examination of Rom_9:5, being a rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford’s reply, by Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge, 1883: by Prof. Dwight and Dr. Ezra Abbot, in J.B. Exeg. June and December, 1881, pp. 22-55, 87-154; and 1883, pp. 90-112. Of these the paper of Dr. Abbot is much the most exhaustive, while that of Dr. Gifford seems to us on the whole to show the most exegetical power.
Alternative interpretations.
Dismissing minor variations, there are four main interpretations (all of them referred to in the RV.) which have been suggested:
(a) Placing a comma after σραand referring the whole passage to Christ. So RV.
(b) Placing a full stop after σραand translating ‘He who is God over all be blessed for ever,’ or ‘is blessed for ever.’ So RV. marg.
(c) With the same punctuation translating ‘He who is over all is God blessed for ever.’ RV. marg.
(d) Placing a comma after σραand a full stop at πνω, ‘who is over all. God be (or is) blessed for ever.’ RV. marg.
The original MSS without punctuation.
It may be convenient to point out at once that the question is one of interpretation and not of criticism. The original MSS. of the Epistles were almost certainly destitute of any sort of punctuation. Of MSS. of the first century we have one containing a portion of Isocrates in which a few dots are used, but only to divide words, never to indicate pauses in the sense; in the MS. of the Πλτί of Aristotle, which dates from the end of the first or beginning of the second century, there is no punctuation whatever except that a slight space is left before a quotation: this latter probably is as close a representation as we can obtain in the present day of the original form of the books of the N. T. In carefully written MSS., the work of professional scribes, both before and during the first century, the more important pauses in the sense were often indicated but lesser pauses rarely or never; and, so far as our knowledge enables us to speak, in roughly written MSS. such as were no doubt those of the N.T., there is no punctuation at all until about the third century. Our present MSS. (which begin in the fourth century) do not therefore represent an early tradition. If there were any traditional punctuation we should have to seek it rather in early versions or in second and third century Fathers: the punctuation of the MSS. is interesting in the history of interpretation, but has no other value.
History of the interpretation.
(1) The Versions.
(2) The Fathers.
The history of the interpretation must be passed over somewhat cursorily. For our earliest evidence we should naturally turn to the older versions, but these seem to labour under the same obscurity as the original. It is however probably true that the traditional interpretation of all of them is to apply the doxology to Christ.
About most of the Fathers however there is no doubt. An immense preponderance of the Christian writers of the first eight centuries refer the word to Christ. This is certainly the case with Irenaeus, Haer. III. xvii. 2, ed. Harvey; Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 13, 15; Hippolytus, Cont. Noct. 6 (cf. Gifford, op. cit. p. 60); Novatian, Trin. 13; Cyprian, Test. ii. 6, ed. Hartel; Syn. Ant. adv. Paul. Sam. in Routh, Rel. Sacrae, iii. 291, 292; Athanasius, Cont. Arian. I. iii. 10; Epiphanius, Haer. Lev_2:9, ed. Oehler; Basil, Adv. Eunom. iv. p. 282; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eunom. 11 ; Chrysostom, Hom. ad Rom. xvi. 3, &c.; Theodoret, Ad Rom. iv. p. 100; Augustine, De Trinitate, ii. 13 ; Hilarius, De Trinitate, viii. 37, 38; Ambrosius, De Spiritu Sancto, i. 3. 46 ; Hieronymus, Ep. CXXI. ad Algas. Qu. ix; Cyril Al., Cont. Iul. x. pp. 327, 328. It is true also of Origen (in Rom. vii. 13) if we may trust Rufinus’ Latin translation (the subject has been discussed at length by Gifford, op. cit. p. 31; Abbot, J. B. Exeg. 1883, p. 103; WH. ad loc.). Moreover there is no evidence that this conclusion was arrived at on dogmatic grounds. The passage is rarely cited in controversy, and the word Θό was given to our Lord by many sects who refused to ascribe to him full divine honours, as the Gnostics of the second century and the Arians of the fourth. On the other hand this was a useful text to one set of heretics, the Sabellians; and it is significant that Hippolytus, who has to explain that the words do not favour Sabellianism, never appears to think of taking them in any other way.
(3) The older MSS.
The strongest evidence against the reference to Christ is that of the leading uncial MSS. Of these אhas no punctuation, A undoubtedly puts a point after σρα and also leaves a slight space. The punctuation of this chapter is careful, and certainly by the original hand; but as there is a similar point and space between Χιτῦand ὑέ in ver. 3, a point between σραand οτνς and another between Ἰρηῖα and ὧ, there is no reason as far as punctuation is concerned why ὁὤ should not refer to Χιτςas much as οτνςdoes to ἀεφν B has a colon after σρα but leaves no space, while there is a space left at the end of the verse. The present colon is however certainly not by the first hand, and whether it covers an earlier stop or not cannot be ascertained. C has a stop after σρα The difference between the MSS. and the Fathers has not been accounted for and is certainly curious.
Against ascribing these words to Christ some patristic evidence has been found. Origen (Rufinus) ad loc. tells us there were certain persons who thought the ascription of the word Θό to Christ difficult, for St. Paul had already called him νὸ Θο. The long series of extracts made by Wetstein ad loc. stating that the words ὁἐὶπνω Θό cannot be used of the Son are not to the point, for the Son here is called not ὁἐὶπνω Θό, but ἐὶπνω Θό, and some of the writers he quotes expressly interpret the passage of the Christ elsewhere. Again, Cyril of Alexandria (Cont. Iul. x. p. 327) quotes the Emperor Julian to the effect that St. Paul never calls Christ Θό, but although this is certainly an interesting statement, this passage, which Cyril quotes against him, might easily have been overlooked. Two writers, and two only, Photius (Cont. Man. 3:14) and Diodorus (Cramer’s Catena, p. 162), definitely ascribe the words to the Father.
(4) Modern criticism.
The modern criticism of the passage began with Erasmus, who pointed out that there were certainly three alternative interpretations possible, and that as there was so much doubt about the verse it should never be used against heretics. He himself wavers in his opinion. In the Commentary he seems to refer the words to the Father, in the Paraphrase (a later but popular work) he certainly refers them to the Son. Socinus, it is interesting to note, was convinced by the position of ελγτς(see below) that the sentence must refer to Christ. From Erasmus’ time onwards opinions have varied, and have been influenced, as was natural, largely by the dogmatic opinions of the writer; and it seems hardly worth while to quote long lists of names on either side, when the question is one which must be decided not by authority or theological opinion but by considerations of language.
The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads:— (1) Grammar; (2) Sequence of thought; (3) Pauline usage.
The grammar of the passage.
(1) τ κὶὰκ.
The first words that attract our attention are τ κτ σρα and a parallel naturally suggests itself with Rom_1:3, Rom_1:4. As there St. Paul describes the human descent from David, but expressly limits it κτ σρα and then in contrast describes his Divine descent κτ πεμ ἁισνς so here the course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance the privileges of his fellow-countrymen, and put a culminating point to his argument. τ κτ σραleads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just what we should have expected in ὁὢ ἐὶπνω Θό.
Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper antithesis to σρ is πεμ. But this objection is invalid. Θό is in a considerable number of cases used in contrast to σρ (Luk_3:6; 1Co_1:29; Col_3:22; Phm_1:16; 2Ch_32:8; Psa_55 [56]. 5; Jer_17:5; Dan_2:11; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances).
Again it is argued that the expression τ κτ σραas opposed to κτ σραprecludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While κτ σραallows the expression of a contrast, τ κτ σραwould limit the idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is an expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the article (see Gifford, p. 39; he quotes Isocrates, p. 32 e; Demosth. cont. Eubul. p. 1299, l.14).
But although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that neither κτ σραnor τ κτ σραdemands an expressed antithesis (Rom_4:1; Clem. Rom_1:32). The expression τ κτ σραcannot therefore be quoted as decisive; but probably any one reading the passage for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast.
(2) ὁὤ
The next words concerning which there has been much discussion are ὁὤ. It is argued on the one hand that ὁὤ is naturally relatival in character and equivalent to ὅ ἐτ, and in support of this statement 2Co_11:31 is quoted: ὁΘὸ κὶπτρτῦΚρο Ἰσῦοδν ὁὢ ελγτςεςτὺ αῶα, ὅιο ψύοα—a passage which is in some respects an exact parallel. On the other hand passages are quoted in which the words do not refer to anything preceding, such as Joh_3:31 ὁἄωε ἐχμνςἐάωπνω ἐτν ὁὢ ἐ τςγςἐ τςγςἐτ, κὶἐ τςγςλλῖ and ο ὄτςin Rom_8:5, Rom_8:8. The question is a nice one. It is perfectly true that ὁὤ can be used in both ways; but it must be noticed that in the last instances the form of the sentence is such as to take away all ambiguity, and to compel a change of subject. In this case, as there is a noun immediately preceding to which the words would naturally refer, as there is no sign of a change of subject, and as there is no finite verb in the sentence following, an ordinary reader would consider that the words ὁὢ ἐὶπνω Θό refer to what precedes unless they suggest so great an antithesis to his mind that he could not refer them to Christ.
But further than this: no instance seems to occur, at any rate in the N.T., of the participle ὤ being used with a prepositional phrase and the noun which the prepositional phrase qualifies. If the noun is mentioned the substantive verb becomes unnecessary. Here ὁἐὶπνω Θό would be the correct expression, if Θό is the subject of the sentence; if ὢ is added Θό must become predicate. This excludes the translation (b.) ‘He who is God over all be (or is) blessed for ever.’ It still leaves it possible to translate as (c.) ‘He who is over all is God blessed for ever,’ but the reference to Χιτςremains the most natural interpretation, unless, as stated above, the word Θό suggests in itself too great a contrast.
(3) The position of ελγτς
It has thirdly been pointed out that if this passage be an ascription of blessing to the Father, the word ελγτςwould naturally come first, just as the word ‘Blessed’ would in English. An examination of LXX usage shows that except in cases in which the verb is expressed and thrown forward (as Psa_112 [123]. 2 εητ ὄοαΚρο ελγμνν this is almost invariably its position. But the rule is clearly only an empirical one, and in cases in which stress has to be laid on some special word, it may be and is broken (cf. Ps. Sol. 8:40, 41). As ὁὢ ἐὶπνω Θό if it does not refer to ὁΧιτςmust be in very marked contrast with it, there would be a special emphasis on the words, and the perversion of the natural order becomes possible. These considerations prevent the argument from the position of ελγτςbeing as decisive as some have thought it, but do not prevent the balance of evidence being against the interpretation as a doxology referring to the Father.
The result of an examination of the grammar of the passage makes it clear that if St. Paul had intended to insert an ascription of praise to the Father we should have expected him to write ελγτςεςτὺ αῶα ὁἐὶπνω Θό. If the translation (d.) suggested above, which leaves the stop at πνω, be accepted, two difficulties which have been urged are avoided, but the awkwardness and abruptness of the sudden Θὸ ελγτςεςτὺ αῶα make this interpretation impossible. We have seen that the position of ελγτςmakes a doxology (b.) improbable, and the insertion of the participle makes it very unnatural. The grammatical evidence is in favour of (a.). i.e. the reference of the words to ὁΧιτς unless the words ὁὢ ἐὶπνω Θό contain in themselves so marked a contrast that they could not possibly be so referred.
The connexion of thought.
We pass next to the connexion of thought. Probably not many will doubt that the interpretation which refers the passage to Christ (a.) admirably suits the context. St. Paul is enumerating the privileges of Israel, and as the highest and last privilege he reminds his readers that it was from this Jewish stock after all that Christ in His human nature had come, and then in order to emphasize this he dwells on the exalted character of Him who came according to the flesh as the Jewish Messiah. This gives a perfectly clear and intelligible interpretation of the passage. Can we say the same of any interpretation which applies the words to the Father?
Those who adopt this latter interpretation have generally taken the words as a doxology, ‘He that is over all God be blessed for ever,’ or ‘He that is God over all be blessed for ever.’ A natural criticism that at once arises is, how awkward the sudden introduction of a doxology! how inconsistent with the tone of sadness which pervades the passage! Nor do the reasons alleged in support of this interpretation really avoid the difficulty. It is quite true of course that St. Paul was full of gratitude for the privileges of his race and especially for the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the thought in his mind. His feeling is one of sadness and of failure: it is necessary for him to argue that the promise of God has not failed. Nor again does a reference to Rom_1:25 support the interpretation. It is quite true that there we have a doxology in the midst of a passage of great sadness; but like 2Co_11:31 that is an instance of the ordinary Rabbinic and oriental usage of adding an ascription of praise when the name of God has been introduced. That would not apply in the present case where there is no previous mention of the name of God. It is impossible to say that a doxology could not stand here; it is certainly true that it would be unnatural and out of place.
Prof. Kennedy’s interpretation.
So strongly does Dr. Kennedy feel the difficulties both exegetical and grammatical of taking these words as a blessing addressed to the Father, that being unable to adopt the reference to Christ, he considers that they occur here as a strong assertion of the Divine unity introduced at this place in order to conciliate the Jews: ‘He who is over all is God blessed for ever.’ It is difficult to find anything in the context to support this opinion, St. Paul’s object is hardly to conciliate unbelieving Jews, but to solve the difficulties of believers, nor does anything occur in either the previous or the following verses which might be supposed to make an assertion of the unity of God either necessary or apposite. The interpretation fails by ascribing too great subtlety to the Apostle.
Pauline usage.
(1) Θό.
Unless then Pauline usage makes it absolutely impossible to refer the expressions Θό and ἐὶπνω to Christ, or to address to Him such a doxology and make use in this connexion of the decidedly strong word ελγτς the balance of probability is in favour of referring the passage to Him. What then is the usage of St. Paul? The question has been somewhat obscured on both sides by the attempt to prove that St. Paul could or could not have used these terms of Christ, i. e. by making the difficulty theological and not linguistic. St. Paul always looks upon Christ as being although subordinate to the Father at the head of all creation (1Co_11:3; 1Co_15:28; Php_2:5-11; Col_1:13-20), and this would quite justify the use of the expression ἐὶπνω of Him. So also if St. Paul can speak of Christ as εκντῦΘο (2Co_4:4; Col_1:15), as ἐ μρῇΘο ὑάχν and ἶαΘῷ(Php_2:6), he ascribes to Him no lesser dignity than would be implied by Θό as predicate. The question rather is this: was Θό so definitely used of the ‘Father’ as a proper name that it could not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to the Father as would the word πτρif it were substituted? The most significant passage referred to 1Co_12:4-6, where it is asserted that Θό is as much a proper name as κρο or πεμ and is used in marked distinction to κρο. But this passage surely suggests the answer. Κρο is clearly used as a proper name of the Son, but that does not prevent St. Paul elsewhere speaking of the Father as Κρο, certainly in quotations from the O.T. and probably elsewhere (1Co_3:5), nor of Χιτςas πεμ (2Co_3:16). The history of the word appears to be this. To one brought up as a Jew it would be natural to use it of the Father alone, and hence complete divine prerogatives would be ascribed to the Son somewhat earlier than the word itself was used. But where the honour was given the word used predicatively would soon follow. It was habitual at the beginning of the second century as in the Ignatian letters, it is undoubted in St. John where the Evangelist is writing in his own name, it probably occurs Act_20:28 and perhaps Tit_2:14. It must be admitted that we should not expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans; but there is no impossibility either in the word or the ideas expressed by the word occurring so early.
(2) Doxologies addressed to Christ.
So again with regard to doxologies and the use of the term ελγτς The distinction between ελγτςand ελγμνςwhich it is attempted to make cannot be sustained: and to ascribe a doxology to the Son would be a practical result of His admittedly divine nature which would gradually show itself in language. At first the early Jewish usage would be adhered to; gradually as the dignity of the Messiah became realized, a change would take place in the use of words. Hence we find doxologies appearing definitely in later books of the N. T., probably in 2Ti_4:18, certainly in Rev_5:13 and 2Pe_3:18. Again we can assert that we should not expect it in so early an Epistle as the Romans, but, as Dr. Liddon points out, 2Th_1:12 implies it as does also Php_2:5-8; and there is no reason why language should not at this time be beginning to adapt itself to theological ideas already formed.
Conclusion.
Throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite conclusive, but the result of our investigations into the grammar of the sentence and the drift of the argument is to incline us to the belief that the words would naturally refer to Christ, unless Θό is so definitely a proper name that it would imply a contrast in itself. We have seen that that is not so. Even if St. Paul did not elsewhere use the word of the Christ, yet it certainly was so used at a not much later period. St. Paul’s phraseology is never fixed; he had no dogmatic reason against so using it. In these circumstances with some slight, but only slight, hesitation we adopt the first alternative and translate ‘Of whom is the Christ as concerning the fles