Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Romans 9:1 - 9:33
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
First Section.—The dark problem of God’s judgment on Israel, and its solution
Rom_9:1-33
A
Jacob have [omit have] I loved,
But Esau have [omit have] I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will [omit will] have mercy,16and I will have compassion on whom I will [omit will] have compassion. So then it is not of him that [who] willeth, nor of him that [who] runneth, but ofGod that [who] sheweth mercy. 17For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same [very] purpose have I raised [did I raise] thee up, that I might shew my power in thee [in thee my power], and that my name might bedeclared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy [Therefore on whom he will he hath mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why [then] doth he yet find fault? Forwho hath resisted [resisteth] his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed [or, moulded, ðëÜóìá ] say to him21that formed it, Why h‘ thou made [didst thou make] me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour,22and another unto dishonour? What [But what] if God, [although] willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known [make known his power], endured with much long-suffering the [omit the] vessels of wrath fitted to [for]23destruction: And [Also, i. e., he endured for this purpose also] that he might make known the riches of his glory on the [omit the] vessels of mercy, which he hadafore prepared unto [before prepared for] glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called [As such, i. e., vessels of mercy, he also, besides preparing, called us] not of [from among the Gentiles ?
25As he saith also in Osee [Hosea],
I will call them my people, which [who] were not my people;
And her beloved, which [who] was not beloved. [;]
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children [called sons] of27the living God. Esaias also [And Isaiah] also crieth concerning Israel,
Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
A [The] remnant shall be saved:
28For he will finish the work [is finishing the word], and cut [cutting] it short in righteousness:
Because a short work [word] will the Lord make upon the earth.
29And as Esaias said before [And, as Isaiah hath said],
Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We had been [become] as Sodoma [Sodom],
And been made like unto Gomorrah.
30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not [who were not following] after righteousness, have [omit have] attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed [following] after the law of righteousness, hath not attained [attained not] to the law 32of righteousness [omit of righteousness]. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law [or, as by works]. Forthey stumbled at that stumbling-stone [stone of stumbling]; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone [Zion a stone of stumbling] and [a] rock of offence: and whosoever believeth [he who believeth] on him shall not be ashamed [put to shame].
[Preliminary Note on the whole chapter, and its connection with the rest of the Epistle.—In order to understand this chapter, which is in many respects the most difficult section of the whole Epistle, its connection with the preceding context, but especially with chaps. 10 and 11, must not be overlooked. Before passing from the doctrinal part, which reached its culmination in the song of triumph at the close of chap. 8, to the practical exhortations (chaps. 12 ff.), the Apostle institutes (in chaps. 9–11) a profound inquiry into the historical course of development of the kingdom of God, seeking especially to enlighten and satisfy his readers respecting the enigmatical phenomenon, that the greater part of the people of Israel rejected salvation in Christ. The thought might readily arise, that the promises given to the covenant-people had to come to nought, or that Jesus was not the Messiah, who had been promised principally to the Jews. After expressing his sorrow at the exclusion of so many of his people from the Christian salvation, he shows:
1. That God’s promise was not thereby rendered void; for (a.) it refers, not to all of Abraham’s descendants, but to those chosen by God of free grace, as Isaac and Jacob (Rom_9:6-13). (b.) God is not unjust in this election, for He is the Sovereign over His creatures, who can make no rightful demands of Him (Rom_9:14-29).
2. The ground of the exclusion lies in the unbelief of the Jews themselves, who despised the true way of salvation through the righteousness of faith, and substituted their own righteousness; while the gospel announced to them, as indeed the Old Testament frequently indicated, that salvation could be attained only through faith (Rom_9:30 to Rom_10:21).
3. God had not, however, cast off His people; for (a.) there is a remnant elected of grace, though most are hardened (Rom_11:1-10); (b.) the unbelief and fall of Israel, in the wisdom and mercy of God, turns out for the salvation and reviving of the Gentiles, who should not, however, boast themselves (Rom_11:11-24); (c.) finally, the rejection is only temporary, since, after the conversion of all the Gentiles, grace will come to the whole of Israel (Rom_11:25-32). In conclusion, the Apostle breaks forth into a doxology to the grace and wisdom of God, who in such a manner will solve the enigma of the world’s history, and lead all things to the glory of His name and the best interest of His kingdom (Rom_11:33-36).—P. S.]
De Wette on chaps. 9–11: A supplement (!) to the foregoing discussion: lament, explanation, and comfort concerning the exclusion of the greater portion of the Jews from Christian salvation. Meyer, likewise: A supplement on the foregoing nonparticipation of the greater part of the Jews in the Christian institution of salvation, containing: a. The lament on it (Rom_9:1-5). b. The theodicy accounting for it (Rom_9:6-29). c. The guilt of it,which rests upon the Jews themselves (Rom_9:30-33, and Rom_10:1-21). d. The consolation arising from it (Rom_11:1-32), with praise offered to God (Rom_11:33-36). While De Wette regards the section of chaps. 9–11 as only a supplement, Baur considers it the real centre and kernel of the Epistle. If this be so, the kernel would indeed have a very massive shell.
[Forbes (following Olshausen) finds a parallel between Rom_1:18 to Rom_3:20, and these three chapters. “We have here an instance of the Epanodos, the object of which is to bring the main subject into prominence by placing it first and last. In both sections the subject is the relation of Israel, and of the Gentiles, to the new way of salvation. But in Rom_1:18 to Rom_3:20 it is regarded more on the side of the Law—as condemning Israel equally with the Gentiles, and necessitating them equally to have recourse to the gospel. In chaps. 9–11 it is regarded more on the side of Grace (on the part of God, as possessing a right to prescribe His own terms of acceptance), and of Faith (on the part of man, as the one only condition for attaining salvation, and which is demanded equally of Israel as of the Gentiles). Another point of resemblance between the two sections consists in the striking parallelism between the three objections of the Jew in Rom_3:1-8, and those in Rom_9:1-23.”—Jowett: “The Apostle himself seems for a time in doubt between contending feelings, in which he first prays for the restoration of Israel, and then reasons for their rejection, and then finally shows that, in a more extended view of the purposes of God, their salvation is included. He hears the echo of many voices in the Old Testament, by which the Spirit spoke to the Fathers, and in all of them there is a kind of unity, though but half expressed, which is not less the unity of his own inmost feelings toward his kinsmen according to the flesh. As himself an Israelite and a believer in Christ, he is full of sorrow first, afterwards of hope, both finally giving way to a clearer insight into the purposes of God toward His people.” As respects the relation of these chapters to the preceding part of the Epistle, in an experimental view, Luther well says: “Who hath not known passion, cross, and travail of death, cannot treat of foreknowledge (election of grace), without injury and inward enmity toward God. Wherefore take heed that thou drink not wine, while thou art yet a sucking babe. Each several doctrine hath its own season, and measure, and age.”—R.]
Tholuck gives, on pp. 466, 467, a copious catalogue of the literature on Romans 9. See also Meyer, p. 347. We may here call attention to a more recent monograph: Beck, Versuch einer pneumatisch-hermeneutischen Erklärung des 9te Kap., &c., 1838. To this we add the following: C. W. Krummacher, Das Dogma von der Gnadenwahl, nebst Auslegung des 9te, 10te, und 11te Kap. im Briefe an die Römer, Duisburg, 1856; Lamping, Pauli Apostoli de prœdestinatione decreta, Lenwarden, 1858; Delitzsch, Zur Einl. in den Brief an die Römer. Zeitschrift für die luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1849, No. 4; Van Hengel mentions (2, 323) Wysuis, Leerredenen over Romeinen, ix., x., xi., tom. i. [Philip Schaff, Das neunte Kapitel des Römerbriefs übersetzt und erklärt, in the author’s Kirchenfreund, Mercersburgh, Pa., 1852, pp. 378–389, 414–422, largely used in the exposition of this chapter in the present volume.—R.]
Summary.—A. The painful contrast between the misery of the Jews and the described salvation of the Christians, most of whom had been Gentiles. The Apostle’s sorrow over the apparently frustrated destiny of his people (Rom_9:1-5).
B. The exultation of the Apostle in the thought that God’s promise to Israel would nevertheless remain in force (Rom_9:6-33). Proof: 1. Differences in the election: they are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom_9:6-13). 2. Antitheses in the ordination (predestination): God is not unrighteous in showing mercy and in hardening, and in His manner of connecting judgment and compassion (Rom_9:14-18). 3. God’s freedom in the actual call of salvation (Rom_9:19-29): a. Proof from the existing fact (Rom_9:19-24); b. Proof from the witnesses of the Old Testament (Rom_9:25-29). 4. The correspondence of God’s freedom in His administration, and the freedom of men in their faith or unbelief. The firmness of the fact that the Gentiles believe, and the greater part of Israel do not believe (Rom_9:30-33).
After the Apostle has portrayed the glory of believers in the New Testament, he must return to the surprising phenomenon, that it is just the majority of the people of the Old Testament who are absent from this feast of salvation—from the Supper of the Lord in the New Testament. The Jews, however, have already come into view (Rom_8:33) as among the accusers and persecutors, and thus the way has been prepared for this transition. In a systematic reference, the Apostle turns from the consideration of the consummated salvation, to the most extreme contrast—sin in its third potency, the judgment of hardening.
Rom_9:1. I say the truth in Christ [ ἀëÞèåéáí ëÝãù ἐí ×ñéóôῶ . Dr. Lange retains the article, as is done in the E. V., and in most revisions (except Noyes’). It seems required by the genius of both the German and English languages.—R.] The Apostle strengthens his subsequent declaration in a threefold way: I say the truth in Christ; I lie not; my conscience bears me witness. The energetic battle which the Apostle waged against the Jews’ righteousness of their works, and their claim to prerogatives in God’s kingdom, made him odious to the Jews and an object of opposition and suspicion to many prejudiced ones among the Jewish Christians; while biased Gentile Christians might be tempted to regard him as one of their partisans. He meets all this by the solemn asseveration of his pain.
[Alford: “The subject on which he is about to enter, so unwelcome to Jews in general, coupled with their hostility to himself, causes him to begin with a deprecation, bespeaking credit for simplicity and earnestness in the assertion which is to follow. This deprecation and assertion of sympathy he puts in the forefront of the section, to take at once the ground from those who might charge him, in the conduct of his argument, with hostility to his own alienated people.”—R.]
But the Apostle treats also of a further great progress in the glorification of Divine grace, which, in its third potency, glorifies as compassion that gloomy judgment of hardening which the Apostle can only disclose by an expression of the greatest pain. The Apostle is doubly assured of the sincerity of his declaration. First, he expresses his feeling in the consciousness of the fellowship of Christ (Eph_4:17; 1Th_4:1), while he, so to speak, transfers himself into the feeling of Christ (Luk_19:41). Second, he proves and tests the truth of his feeling by his conscience, and by the strong and clear light of the Holy Spirit. Now, is this declaration an oath, according to most of the earlier and many of the later expositors (Reiche, Köllner, and others); or is it not, according to the exposition of Tholuck, De Wette, and Meyer? This much is clear, that the Apostle’s asseveration is not a formal taking of an oath, and not in the form of an oath. [The form of an oath would be ðñüò with the accusative.—R.] It will be remembered, in favor of this view, that the ὀìíýåéí (Mat_5:34) is here wanting; and that the Apostle does not swear by Christ, nor by the Holy Ghost. Neither does he swear in a legal sense in general; we may only ask, whether he does not here give a solemn assurance in God’s presence, and whether such an assurance is not an ideal oath?
I lie not [ ïὐ øåýäïìáé ]. (1Ti_2:7.) White lies being very much in vogue at the time, this addition surely meant that he was perfectly conscious of his responsibility for his declarations, since he called on Christ as a witness.
My conscience also bearing me witness [ óõìáñôõñïýóçò ìïé ôῆò óõíåéäÞóåþò ]. Meyer: Since my conscience bears me witness. But Paul’s conscience could not bear witness to the Romans apart from Paul himself. The distinction between his own declaration and that of his conscience, means that he has proved his feelings in regard to his people by the light of conscience and of the Spirit of God. [Alford: The óýí in composition, denoting accordance with the fact, not joint testimony.—R.]
In the Holy Ghost [ ἐí ðíåýìáôé ἁãßù ]. This is not an addition to óõíåßäçóéò itself (a conscience governed by the Holy Ghost; Grotius), and still less to ïὐ øåýäïìáé (although this is favored by many: þò ἐí ðíåýìáôé ἁãßù ὤí ), but to óõììáñô . ìïé (Tholuck, Meyer, and others). [Meyer: “Paul knows that the witness of his conscience is not outside the Spirit which fills him, but spirito sancto duce et moderatore (Beza) in it.”—R.]
Rom_9:2. That I have great grief and continual sorrow in my heart [ ὅôé ëýðç ìïßἐóôéí ìåãÜëç êáὶ ἀäéÜëåéðïò ὀäýíç ôῆêáñäßá ìïõ . The position of the words is solemnly emphatic.—R.] The Apostle does not immediately and directly mention the subject or occasion of his grief. Why not? Meyer: “From tender compassion. Tholuck: “In lively emotion.” But the object is indicated by the ὑðὲñ ô . ἀä ìïé (Rom_9:3), and it is the ἀðþëåéá threatened them (Rom_9:22). But the great pain relates not only to the great fall of his glorious people, which had already occurred, but to the Apostle’s tragical position toward his brethren according to the flesh, and to the hard prophetic call now to disclose publicly the whole judgment of hardening pronounced on Israel, with its incalculably sad consequences. Christ also wept as He prophesied Jerusalem’s fate. Comp. Isaiah 6 [How noble the Apostle appears here, with this holy patriotism and hearty love to those who, from the day of his conversion, had persecuted him with relentless hatred; who, soon after the composition of this Epistle, occasioned him a long imprisonment, and who were the immediate cause of his martyrdom!—P. S.]
Rom_9:3. For I could wish. [Lange: Denn ich that ja das Gelübde, for I made the vow]. See the discussions on this difficult passage, quoted by Tholuck. For an elaborate account of the earlier expositions, see Wolf’s Curœ, iii. p. 164. Explanations of the çὐêüìçí :
1. I have wished, namely, formerly (Vulgate: optabam; Luther: I have wished). This explanation divides, again, into two:
a. When I was a Jew, I wished to keep the Jews far from Christ; yea, to be myself the personal, medium of the alienation; ἀíÜèåìá = ÷ùñéóìüò (Pelagius, Abelard, and others). In this case he appeals to his former blind zeal for Israel against Christ, in order to prove that he loves his people, and, in his love, that he now sorrows for their fate.
b. In my pain I have gone so far, as a Christian, that I wished, &c. (Significat, se aliquando hoc orasse, nimirum cum dolor iste singulariter invaluisset) Bucer. Meyer, and others, suggest, to the contrary, that there is here no ðïôÝ , or any other word of similar import. Philippi adds: it must then mean çὐîÜìçí ðïôÝ .
2. I wished, namely, even now.
a. Tholuck: Dum modo fieri posset, si liceret.
b. Meyer: I would wish, if the import of my wish could contribute to the good of the Israelites.
c. Philippi: But çὐ÷üìçí is also not identical with çὐ÷üìçí ἄí ; that is, I would wish, if the wish were possible; but since it is not possible, I do not wish. But it is = I wished, namely, if the wish could be realized, and therefore really wish on this supposition.
The difference between the explanations is this: a. If the wish were possible (Tholuck); b. If the thing wished for were possible (Philippi); c. If the thing wished for, and also the wish itself, were possible (Meyer). There has, perhaps, not been enough regard to analogies in Paul’s method of expression. Paul says çὔîáßìçí ἄí (Act_26:29), for I wished, in the sense of I would wish, and why not here, too? Luke relates, on the contrary, Act_27:29, in the imperfect: çὔ÷ïíôï , they wished (at that time); and why should not the imperfect be used here in the same sense? If, indeed, the word should mean here, I have wished, or even, I have prayed (Theodoret, and others), the presence of ðïôå might be insisted upon. But if the Apostle wishes to say, I made a vow—i. e., if he speaks of a definite fact—the ðïôÝ lies already in the emphasis of the çὐ÷üìçí itself, especially as joined with the added áὐôὸòἐãþ . It is very probable that he made some pledge, when he (according to Act_9:2) received from the high priest authority to persecute the Christians; for a hierarch of exalted station does not confide in a young man without some such pledges. His present perception of the fearful import of that engagement is immediately expressed in ἀíÜèåìá , ê . ô . ë ..
If we disregard such an acceptation, the exegetical difficulty will really begin with ἀíÜèåìá . [Dr. Lange prefers, yet does not commit himself to, this view of the imperfect. It is far-fetched; and were there no other grounds to influence the interpretation than those of grammar, as Alford hints, any school-boy could tell that the imperfect does not refer to a definite past act, but represents “the act unfinished, an obstacle intervening.” In support of the grammatical correctness of this view, see Buttman, N. T. Gramm., p. 187; Kühner, ii, § 438, 3; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 373; Kruger, § 54, 10; Winer, p. 266. It seems perilous to give up the obvious meaning, I could wish, for one barely allowable. The aorist was at hand, if Paul wished to refer to a past vow. If there be a difficulty in the passage, it is met most fairly by Meyer’s view, that the verb implies an impossibility, or at least an insurmountable obstacle, both as to the wish and the thing wished for. We can then take ἀíÜèåíá in its obvious sense, without putting it also on the rack to extort another meaning. See the final Exeg. Note on this verse.—R.]
That I myself were accursed from Christ [ ἀíÜèåìá åἶáé áὐôὸò ἐãὼ ἀðὸ ôïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ ]. ἈíÜèåìá , Attic ἈíÜèåìá , dedicated to God; hence, also, dedicated to the Divine judgment, and consequently to ruin; in the latter sense = çֵøֶí (Gal_1:8-9; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22). Though the later sense of çøí “must not be construed as the Jewish curse of excommunication” (Meyer), yet the theocratic idea: to excommunicate from the Church of God, and to dedicate to ruin, cannot be separated. In the Christian sphere the ἀíÜèåìá is, indeed, in the ecclesiastical form, a temporally qualified exclusion: “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved” (1Co_5:5).
[Excursus on Anathema.—The proper understanding of this passage may be furthered by discussing at this point the precise meaning of the word ἀíÜèåìá . The following dissertation is from Wieseler, Commentary on Galatians (1:8, 9, pp. 39 ff.). The fact that it is founded upon another passage, adds to its weight in determining the meaning here, since the discussion of Gal_1:8 is not beset with the prejudices which arise here.
“ ἈíÜèåìá is the Hellenistic form for the Attic ἀíÜèçìá (comp. åὕñçìá and åὕñåìá , ðñüóèçìá , and ðñüèåìá , Lobeck, Ad Phrynich, p. 249, and Paralip, pp. 391 ff.), and, like the latter form, denotes in general ‘something dedicated to God, a votive offering;’ but in the Bible it is usually the translation of the Hebrew çֵøֶí , as ἀíáèåìáôßæåéí is of äֶçְֶøִéí , and then denotes something dedicated to God in a bad sense, as we shall presently see more particularly; comp. the Latin sacer. When any thing consecrated in a general sense is to be denoted, however, the form ἀíÜèçìá , in the Scriptures and their dependent literature, is wont to prevail; in the other case, the form ἀíÜèåìá , although the genuine reading, on account of the divergence of manuscripts, is often very difficult to determine. ἈíÜèçìá as translation of çֵøֶí is found, e. g., in the LXX., Lev_27:28-29, where, however, the reading ἀíÜèåìá also appears. At all events, this use of ἀíÜèçìá is the exception throughout, as appears also from the fact that ἀíáèç ìáôßæåéí is nowhere used, but ἀíáè å ìáôßæåéí . We are more apt to find ἀíÜèåìá also in the sense of a customary votive offering; e. g., 2Ma_2:13, and Jdt_16:19, Codex Alex. Luke uses ἀíÜèçìá , Luk_21:5 (yet Cod. A. and D. [so à .], and also Lachmann, read ἀíÜèåìá ) of a customary votive offering, and Act_23:14, ἀíÜèåìá , of a consecration in a bad sense. Suidas therefore says, with essential correctness: ἀíÜèåìá êáὶ ôὸ ἀíáôéèÝìåíïí ôῷ èåῷ ÷áé ôὸ åἰò ἀöáíéóìὸí ἐóüìåíïí ἀìöüôåñá óçìáßíåé · ëÝãåôáé äÝ êáὶ ἀíáèçìáôὸ ôῷ èåῷ ἀíáôåèåéìÝíïí . [ ἀíÜèåìá signifies both that which is hung up as an offering to God, and that which is destined to destruction; but that which is hung up as an offering to God is called also ἀíÜèçìá .] So Theodoret, respecting the usage of his time on Rom_9:3 : ôὸ ἀíÜèåìá äéðëῆíἕ÷åé ôὴí äéÜíïéáí · êáὶ ãὰñ ôü ἀöéåþìåíïí ôῷèåῷ ἀíÜèçìá ὀíïìÜæåôáé , êáὶ ôὸ ôïýôïõ ἀëëüôüôñéïí ôὴí áὐôὴí ἔ÷åé ðñïóçãïñßáí . [The word ἀíÜèåìá has a twofold sense: for both that which is consecrated to God is named ἀíÜèçìá , and the contrary of this has the same appellation.] So much respecting the distinction between ἀíáèåìá and ἀíÜèçìá .”
“The ἀíÜèåìá in the passage before us has been understood principally (1) of excommunication. So Grotius, Semler, Burger (waveringly), Rosenmüller, Flatt; the rationalismus vulgaris in the well-known Bremen controversy occasioned by F. W. Krummacher’s Gastpredigt, upon this passage, represented by Paniel, Weber, and Paulus (comp. Gildemeister, passim, and also Baumgarten-Crusius). Either an actual excommunication was understood, as by Rosenmüller (excludatur he cœtu vestro), which Flatt thinks possible with regard to a teacher, or it was even explained as by Grotius (cum eo nihil vobis sit commerch, non magis, quam eum iis quos Synagoga aut Ecclesia penitus abscidit) and by Semler (fugite, abhorrete talem doctorem); in which case we should at least have expected ὥóðåñ ἀíÜèåìá ( ὥóðåñ ὁ ἀíáèåìáôéóìἑíïò ) ἔóôù ὑìῖí ; comp. Mat_18:17.”
“In particular in recent times, it is explained (2) almost universally and also correctly: ‘to have become obnoxious to the wrath or curse of God;’ Winer, Schott, Rückert, De Wette, Usteri, Meyer, Gildemeister; so that, therefore, Luther, with his: ‘der sei verflucht,’ according to Krummacher’s interpretation, is justified. Luther would be right also in the main matter, according to Olshausen’s assertion, which he presents without proof, and which stands midway between Nos. 1 and 2, that in this formula (3) we are not merely to understand ecclesiastical excommunication, but that this is only so far included in the signification as it presupposes Divine reprobation.”
“All these explanations, notwithstanding their divergences, proceed from the correct assumption that this ἀíÜèåìá is the translation of the Hebrew äֵøֶí . The question is therefore this, what this çֵøֶí among the Jews was, and whether it denoted—i. e., in the time of Paul—the Jewish excommunication. If the latter were disproved, Nos. 1 and 3 would fall; but if this should really be the case, the question would be whether ἀíÜèåìá here is used of excommunication, or of what it is used. But, in the first place, it is clear that, in the whole Old Testament, çֵøֶí and çֶçְֶøִéí are never used of excommunication. Indeed, they are used with at least as frequent reference to the idolatrous apostasy of the heathen nations, especially of Canaanitish ones, as with reference to idolatry and impiety within Israel. çֵøֶí is used of every thing, person or thing, which, on account of its worthiness of death, founded in God’s Word—the thing usually in connection with, and on account of, its impious possessor—was, whether of free resolve, or at the express command of God, consecrated to Jehovah, without capability of being ransomed; Lev_27:21; Lev_27:28. The person who had become a çֵøֶí might not continue to live; Lev_27:29; and only the thing—to which class, according to ancient view, the slave also belonged—could, if a living creature, remain alive, falling then forever to Jehovah—that is, to the priests; Lev_27:28; Num_18:14; Eze_44:29. From this it arises, that äֶçְֶøִí , as to its sense, signifies simply ‘to destroy,’ and is not seldom connected with ìְôִé çֶøֶá (comp. the Hebrew ÷ָãַùׁ , which also originally signifies ‘to be holy;’ Exo_29:37; Exo_30:29; and çֵøֶí is rendered in the LXX. not simply by ἀíÜèåìá , or ἀöüñéóìá , Eze_44:29, but also by ἀöÜíéóìá , Deu_7:2; ἐîïëüèñåõìá , 1Sa_15:21; and ἀðþëåéá , Isa_34:5. From this it appears that, according to the Old Testament, äֶçְֵøִí neither literally nor by derived use can signify excommunication, as exclusion from the fellowship of the chosen people. Nay, the latter is expressly mentioned, Ezr_10:28; but the verb çָøַí is not used of the excommunicated persons, but, in contrast with it, the verb áָּøַì ; the former verb, on the other hand, is used in its true sense (see above) of their property, because this escheated forever to the sanctuary. Had the äָçְֶøִí been decreed against the persons in question on the part of the Jewish assembly, they would thereby not have been excommunicated, but destroyed in honor of the God whom they had outraged. On the other hand, in the Talmud, çֵøֶí is unquestionably used formally of excommunication. According to Elias Levita, the three grades of excommunication among the Jews have not seldom been assumed as (1) the ðִãּåּé , (2) the çֵøֶí , and (3) the ùַׁîַּçָּà . Paniel and Weber also assumed them, asserting that only the highest grade, as the Shammatha, was conjoined with those ‘fearful curses’ which we read in the Talmudists, but that Paul, with his ἀíÜèåìá , meant no other than the çֵøֶí . On the other hand, Gildemeister, passim, preceded by Selden, and others, has lately thoroughly demonstrated anew that the Talmud and the Jews, by those three names, do not designate three different grades of excommunication, but that the Shammatha is only another word (the Chaldaic translation) for Niddui; that, therefore, if the Apostle, by his ἀíÜèåìá , meant the Cherem as excommunication, the highest grade of excommunication—that accompanied with these ‘curses’—must have been meant.”
“The next question is, therefore, whether the Cherem, as excommunication, already existed among the Jews at the time when the Epistle to the Galatians was written. Although the primitive history of Jewish excommunication is veiled in great obscurity, we certainly shall not err if we ascribe to it, from its first documentarily attested appearance under Ezra (Ezr_10:8), up to the time of Paul, a certain course of development, and that a more extensive one than Gildemeister appears to do.”
“According to New Testament testimony there were, then, the two grades of excommunication: (1) The exclusion from the worship in the Temple and synagogue, Joh_9:22; Joh_12:42; Joh_16:2; and (2) what, as it was already practised under Ezra, can least surprise us, the expulsion from the congregation of the people, Luk_6:29 ( ἀöïñßæåéí ), which concluded with obliteration of the name in the äÝëôïéò äçìïóßïéò ( ἐêâÜëëåéí ôὸ ὄíïìá ὡò ðïíçñüí , l. c.); which latter circumstance is here expressly added, that the hearers may not understand the excommunicatio minor. Quite as certainly, however, is the Jewish excommunication at Paul’s time not yet designated as Cherem, which even antecedently is improbable, on account of the above developed Old Testament use of çֵøֶí , which could only gradually, and after a longer time, be so considerably modified. For in the Mishna, where excommunication is largely handled, Cherem is as yet never used of excommunication, but this is denoted by Niddui; it is in the Gemara that Cherem appears as excommunication, and that the sharpest form of the same—that joined with fearful ‘curses’ having reference to everlasting destruction, from whence also its name—is explained. With this alone agrees, moreover, the New Testament use of ἀíÜèåìá and ἀíáèåìáôßæåéí , Rom_9:3; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22; Gal_1:8-9; Act_23:12; Act_14:21; Mar_14:71, which in none of these passages signify excommunication, or to excommunicate. On the other hand, ἀíÜèåìá , in entire congruity with the Old Testament Cherem, is used of a person who is dedicated to God, subjected to the Divine curse for his death,not, however, to bodily, as in the more ancient formula—which reference, however, was not necessarily contained in the root, but resulted only from the historical relations of the Jews in ancient time—but to spiritual and eternal death. The ἀíÜèåìá , 1Co_16:22, cannot signify excommunication, since otherwise it would be denounced against a temper of mind, the ïὐ öéëåῖí ; nor yet 1Co_12:3, since no one could have wished to excommunicate Jesus, no longer dwelling on earth; nor Rom_9:3, as appears sufficiently from the defining ἀðὸ ôïῦ ÷ñéóôïῦ . In the case of the verb ἀíáèåìáôßæåéí , indeed, it has not yet come into any one’s head, in respect to the New Testament passages, that it signifies, to excommunicate; but ἀíáèåì . ὅôé , Mark, l. c., signifies, ‘under self-imprecations (by his soul’s salvation) to attest, that;’ ἀíáèåìáôßæåéí ἑáõôßí , Acts, l. c., ‘under self-imprecations to oblige himself.’ Quite as little can ἀíÜèåìá , Gal_1:8-9, be used of excommunication, on this account, if no other, because one cannot excommunicate an angel from heaven (Rom_9:8), but can very well call down God’s curse of damnation upon him, in the ἀíÜèåìá . Rom_9:9 must have been used in the same sense as in Rom_9:8. Independently of the subjective participation expressed by the imperative, ἀíÜèåìá ἔóôù expresses neither more nor less than Gal_5:10, where Paul denounces against the same false teachers the judgment of God at the end of days; comp. 2Th_1:9. In form, as in meaning, the Pauline ἀíÜèåìá ἔóôù (or ἤôù , 1Co_16:22) reminds us strongly of the àָøåּø , LXX.: ἐðéêáôÜñáôïò , Deu_27:15 ff.; only that not every àָøåּø in the Old Testament needs, like our ἀíÜèåìá , to be taken as invoking the highest and most intensive evil—eternal damnation—but may very well, according to the connection, be used of that; comp. Gal_3:13; Mat_25:41; it being, of course, understood that, by the ἀíáèåìá , the loss of eternal life and the blessed fellowship of God is meant to be invoked against the sinner, only so far and so long as he persists in his wickedness, or this in its nature is irremissible. As to the rest, when Rückert and Schott, in the case of the ἀíÜèåìá in this passage, will have it that it does not mean excommunication, for the additional reason that that age was not yet acquainted with this among the Christians, this assertion is unquestionably erroneous; 1Co_5:2 ff.; 1Ti_1:20; 3Jn_1:10; Jude 22; comp. Mat_18:17-18; 2Th_3:14; 2Jn_1:10; 2Jn_1:11. The Church fathers afterwards used the ἀíÜèåìá , doubtless deriving the use through the Pauline passages, of Christian excommunication, similarly as the Jews their çֵøֶí , but these commonly misunderstood the proper sense of this expression. Comp. the criticism of them in Fritzsche, l. c., tom. ii., p. 249, Note.”
With this well-established view of the meaning of our word, we can pass to the exegesis of this passage, remembering that the burden of proof now rests with those who, to avoid difficulties, assign any other meaning than that so ably defended by Wieseler.—R.]
Meyer: “The destruction to which Paul would commit himself for his brethren must not be understood as a violent death (Jerome, Limborsch, Flatt, and others), but as the eternal ἀðþëåéá , as is required by the ἀðὸ ô . X. It has often been objected that the wish of this ἀðþëåéá is unreasonable, and Michaelis even says that it would be a raving prayer. But the standard of selfish (!) reflection does not harmonize with the emotion of boundless self-denial and love in which Paul here speaks.” (Comp. Chrysostom and Bengel in loco.) Tholuck quotes Chrysostom’s expression on this point, and adds: “Thus interpret the vast majority of expositors of ancient and modern times, even the Socinians, with Socinus himself.” We nevertheless hold unhesitatingly that the explanation of Michaelis is more admissible than Meyer’s well-nigh unmeaning overstraining of the idea of self-denial.
The justifiable hesitation in accepting the explanation, that Paul wished to be eternally cast out from Christ—that is, given over to the devil, to be damned—has led to mitigations of the real meaning of the ἀíáèåìá . It has been interpreted:
1. As temporal death, as already mentioned. Analogies in 2Co_12:15 : the death of Christ as êáôÜñá (Jerome, Nösselt, and others). Tholuck, on the other hand: With temporal death as Cherem, there is connected the accursing, which is additionally comprised here in ἀðü ô . ÷ .
2. Banishment from church fellowship (Grotius, and others; apparently, Luther also).
On the controversies arising from a sermon by Fr. Krummacher on Gal_1:8, in regard to this explanation, comp. Tholuck, p. 471 ff. There is, now, no question that the supposition of an exclusion to injury is always connected with a true exclusion from church fellowship. But if we explain the Old Testament Cherem and the ecclesiastical ban according to the New Testament—that is, specifically according to the words quoted from 1Co_5:5—then it becomes evident that the Old Testament Cherem did not declare eternal condemnation when it declared extermination from the congregation of the people, and that devotion to eternal condemnation could never have been the meaning of an authorized ecclesiastical Christian ban. If the explanation, I wished to be accursed from Christ, were therefore correct, it would nevertheless not be the same as: I wished to be eternally damned; but: I would be willing to be cast into boundless misery for the brethren. From the overstrained interpretation of the accursed, it would follow, that the Apostle regarded the brethren in question as eternally damned. See, on the contrary, Romans 11—Tholuck refers to the Jewish and Arabic manner of speaking: May we be thy ransom; may my soul be the redemption of thine! Evidently, hyperboles of Oriental politeness. He cites the reference of Origen to the example of Moses (Exo_32:32 ): Paul has spoken like Moses, says Origen: devotione, non prœvaricatione. But Moses spoke thus at a moment of the deepest emotion, and just as Moses, in the Old Testament sense of the theocratic judgment of reprobation. Jerome takes the value of many souls against one into account; Cyril accepts a hyperbole; and Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between a separatio a damnatis per culpam and a separatio a fruitione gloriœ. Tholuck remarks, that Fenelonhas referred to this passage in order to defend the mystical idea of amour désinteressé, and that Bossuet replies, by saying, that fellowship with God cannot be separated from participation in saving blessings (salvation). Yet Tholuck returns at last to Fenelon’s distinction, after quoting many other theological explanations (Calvin: erupiio animi confusi; later moralists, especially Dannhauer, Spener, and Bengel: vertus heroica). Most expositors, by their reference to the hypothetical si fieri posset, return to the acceptance of a hyperbolical expression.
The áὐôὸò ἐãþ leads us back to the simplest rendering.
The current explanation is incorrect at the very outset. Meyer is nearest right: The antithesis is the brethren, the majority of whom are seen by Paul as ἀíÜèåìá ἀðὸ ×ñéóôïῦ going to the ἀíÜèåìá . In this case the ἐãþ would still be superfluous. Our present expression refers to the áὐôὸò ἐãþ (Rom_7:25). We have seen how the expression there designated the opposition of spiritual and carnal life in the identity of the same individuality. And thus it denotes here the antithesis of his earlier and of his present standpoint, in the identity of an individuality which, at that time, acted from a love for Israel. For I even pledged myself, I, the same Paul who must now pronounce the following judgment on Israel, &c.—His former wish to destroy the Christians by means of the Cherem, he now denominates in its true meaning: to be accursed, ἀðὸ ôïῦ X., away from Christ; as he is not aware of any other ban from the Church of God than banishment from Christ. Nösselt, and others, have understood by the expression, that Christ would be the author of the ban; which would increase the harshness of the expression. With our view, the ὑðÝñ ôῶí ἀäåëöῶí ìïõ can only mean this: for my brethren, as one zealous for their interests. Even with the opposite view, Meyer explains ὑðÝñ as for the good of; but Tholuck, on the contrary, says that the idea of substitution underlies the ὑðÝñ , at least indirectly. [Olshausen makes ὑðἑñ = ἀíôé .—R.] This would render the idea still more intolerable. Paul would not venture to utter the thought, that his ruin might still bring salvation to the people for whom even the death of Christ brought no salvation.
[The interpretations of this difficult passage may be clas