Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Calvin Complete Commentary - Romans 9:3 - 9:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3.For I could wish, etc. He could not have expressed a greater ardour of love than by what he testifies here; for that is surely perfect love which refuses not to die for the salvation of a friend. But there is another word added, anathema which proves that he speaks not only of temporal but of eternal death; and he explains its meaning when he says, from Christ, for it signifies a separation. And what is to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the hope of salvation? It was then a proof of the most ardent love, that Paul hesitated not to wish for himself that condemnation which he saw impending over the Jews, in order that he might deliver them. It is no objection that he knew that his salvation was based on the election of God, which could by no means fail; for as those ardent feelings hurry us on impetuously, so they see and regard nothing but the object in view. So Paul did not connect God’ election with his wish, but the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the salvation of the Jews.
Many indeed doubt whether this was a lawful desire; but this doubt may be thus removed: the settled boundary of love is, that it proceeds as far as conscience permits; (285) if then we love in God and not without God’ authority, our love can never be too much. And such was the love of Paul; for seeing his own nation endued with so many of God’ benefits, he loved God’ gifts in them, and them on account of God’ gifts; and he deemed it a great evil that those gifts should perish, hence it was that his mind being overwhelmed, he burst forth into this extreme wish. (286)
Thus I consent not to the opinion of those who think that Paul spoke these words from regard to God only, and not to men; nor do I agree with others, who say, that without any thought of God, he was influenced only by love to men: but I connect the love of men with a zeal for God’ glory.
I have not, however, as yet explained that which is the chief thing, — that the Jews are here regarded as they were adorned with those singular tokens, by which they were distinguished from the rest of mankind. For God had by his covenant so highly exalted them, that by their fall, the faithfulness and truth of God himself seemed also to fail in the world: for that covenant would have thus become void, the stability of which was promised to be perpetual, as long as the sun and moon should shine in heaven. (Psa_72:7.) So that the abolition of this would have been more strange, than the sad and ruinous confusion of the whole world. It was not therefore a simple and exclusive regard for men: for though it is better that one member should perish than the whole body; it was yet for this reason that Paul had such a high regard for the Jews, because he viewed them as bearing the character, and, as they commonly say, the quality of an elect people; and this will appear more evident, as we shall soon see, from what follows.
The words, my kinsmen according to the flesh, though they contain nothing new, do yet serve much for amplification. For first, lest any one should think that he willingly, or of his own accord, sought cause of quarrel with the Jews, he intimates, that he had not put off the feeling of kindred, so as not to be affected with the destruction of his own flesh. And secondly, since it was necessary that the gospel, of which he was the preacher, should go forth from Sion, he does not in vain pronounce an eulogy in so many words on his own kindred. For the qualifying expression, according to the flesh, is not in my view added for the sake of extenuation, as in other places, but, on the contrary, for the sake of expressing his faith: for though the Jews had disowned Paul, he yet concealed not the fact, that he had sprung from that nation, the election of whom was still strong in the root, though the branches had withered. What Budoeus says of the word anathema is inconsistent with the opinion of [Chrysostom ] who makes ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα to be the same.
(285) “Ut ad aras usque procedat.” [Ainsworth ] gives a similar phrase and explains its reason, “Usque ad aras amicus — As far as conscience permits,” Gell.because in swearing they held the horns of the altar. — Ed.
(286) Most of those who take this view of the passage express the implied condition more distinctly than is done here. They have regarded the wish in this sense, “ could wish were it right or lawful.” So thought [Chrysostom ] [Photius ] [Theophlylact ] [Luther ] [Parcus ], [Beza ] [Estius ] [Lightfoot ] [Witsius ] [Mode ] [Whitby ] and others. The words of [Photius ] are given by [Wolfius ] “ says not, I wish to be separated, but I could wish, that is, were it possible — ἠυχόμην ἂν τουτ ἐστιν εἰ δυνατὸν ἦν ” [Stuart ] and [Hodge ] adopt the same view. “ was a conditional wish,” says [Pareus ] “ that of Christ in Mat_26:39. Christ knew and Paul knew that it could not be granted, and yet both expressed their strong desire.” See Exo_32:32
Almost all critics agree that the Vulgate is wrong in rendering the verb optabam — “ did wish,” as though the Apostle referred to the time, as [Ambrose ] supposed, when he was a Pharisee; but this is wholly inconsistent with the tenor of the passage. [Erasmus ] [Grotius ] [Beza ] and most others regard the verb as having an optative meaning ; ἂν being understood after it, as the case is with ἐβουλόμην in Act_25:22, and ἤθελον in Gal_4:20
There are two other opinions which deserve notice. The first is, that “anathema “ here means excommunication, and that “ Christ” signifies from his Church, Christ the head being taken for his body the Church, as in 1Co_12:12, and in Gal_3:27, according to the manner of the Hebrews, as [Grotius ] says, who called the wife by the name of the husband, Isa_4:1. This is the view taken by [Hammond ] [Grotius ] and some of the Lutheran divines. But the word “anathema “ has not in Scripture this meaning, though in after-ages it had attained it both in the Church and among the Rabbins. In the New Testament it occurs only here and in Act_23:14; 1Co_12:3; and Gal_1:8; and the verb ἀναθεματίζω is found in Mar_14:71; Act_23:12; and with κατὰ prefixed in Mat_26:74. The corresponding word in Hebrew, הרם, rendered “ anathema “ by the Septuagint, means two things: what is separated for a holy purpose and wholly devoted to God, incapable of being redeemed, Lev_27:28; and what is set apart and devoted to death or destruction, Jos_6:17; Ezr_10:8. It never means excommunication, but cutting off by death. Compare Exo_22:20, and Deu_13:1. It has hence been applied to designate a man that is execrable and accursed, deserving death. So the Apostle uses it in 1Co_16:22, and Gal_1:8
The other view is more in accordance with the meaning of the term. It is thought that “anathema “ means an ignominious death, and that of one apparently separated from Christ; or that he wished to be made “ anathema” by Christ, or for the sake of Christ, or after Christ, that is, his example. The words ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ create all the difficulty in this case. This is the explanation given by [Jerome ] [Locke ] [Limborch ] [Doddridge ] and [Scott ] The first meaning, however, as materially given by [Calvin ] is the most obvious and natural.
Both [Haldane ] and [Chalmers ] follow the Vulgate, and put the clause in a parenthesis, as expressing the Apostle’ wish when unconverted; but there is altogether an incongruity in the terms he employs to express this wish; he surely would not have said that he wished to be separated from Christ as an accursed thing, for that is the meaning of anathema; for while he was a Pharisee he deemed it a privilege and an honour even to persecute Christ. And we cannot suppose that the Apostle would now describe his former wish in terms unsuitable to what it really was, but as he now regarded it. — Ed.