Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Calvin Complete Commentary - Romans 9:5 - 9:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
5.Whose are the fathers, etc. It is indeed of some importance to be descended from saints and men beloved of God, since God promised to the godly fathers mercy with regard to their children, even to thousand generations, and especially in the words addressed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as we find in Gen_17:4, and in other passages. It matters not, that this by itself, when separated from the fear of God and holiness of life, is vain and useless: for we find the same to have been the case as to worship and glory, as it is evident everywhere in the prophets, especially in Isa_1:11; Isa_60:1; and also in Jer_7:4. But, as God dignified these things, when joined with attention to godliness, with some degree of honor, he justly enumerated them among the privileges of the Jews. They are indeed said to be the heirs of the promises for this very reason, — because they descended from the fathers. (Act_3:25.)
From whom, is Christ, etc. They who apply this to the fathers, as though Paul meant only to say that Christ had descended from the fathers, have no reason to allege: for his object was to close his account of the pre-eminence of the Jews by this encomium, — that Christ proceeded from them; for it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed, to have been united by a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world; for if he had honored the whole human race, in joining himself to us by a community of nature, much more did he honor them, with whom he had a closer bond of union. It must at the same time be always maintained, that when this favor of being allied by kindred is unconnected with godliness, it is so far from being an advantage, that on the contrary it leads to a greater condemnation.
But we have here a remarkable passage, — that in Christ two natures are in such a manner distinguished, that they are at the same time united in the very person of Christ: for by saying that Christ had descended from the Jews, he declared his real humanity. The words according to the flesh, which are added, imply that he had something superior to flesh; and here seems to be an evident distinction made between humanity and divinity. But he at last connects both together, where he says, that the Christ, who had descended from the Jew’ according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever.
We must further observe, that this ascription of praise belongs to none but only to the true and eternal God; for he declares in another place, (1Ti_1:17,) that it is the true God alone to whom honor and glory are due. They who break off this clause from the previous context, that they may take away from Christ so clear a testimony to his divinity, most presumptuously attempt, to introduce darkness in the midst of the clearest light; for the words most evidently mean this, — Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever (289) And I doubt not, but that Paul, who had to contend hard with a reproach urged against him, did designedly raise up his own mind to the contemplation of the eternal glory of Christ; nor did he do this so much for his own sake individually, as for the purpose of encouraging others by his example to raise up their thoughts.
(289) [Stuart ] has in a most convincing manner vindicated the true and obvious meaning of this clause. There is no reading of any authority, nor any early version, that affects the genuineness of the received text: and it is amazing what ingenuity has been exercised by various critics to evade the plain construction of the passage, — a remarkable instance of the debasing power of preconceived notions. It is somewhat singular too, that some who professed at least the doctrine of Christ’ divinity, such as [Erasmus ] [Whitby ] and [Locke ] have attempted to make changes in the text, and those for the most part conjectural, by which the obvious meaning is wholly altered.
It is very clearly shown by [Stuart ] that the very position of the words, and their connection with the context, will admit of no other construction than that which our version contains.
It is well known, that in Hebrew the word “” is always placed before “” or Jehovah, when it is an ascription of praise; and it appears that the Septuagint has in more than thirty instances followed the same order, and, indeed, in every instance except one, (Psa_68:19,) and that evidently a typographical mistake. The same is the case with all the examples in the New Testament. So that if the phrase here was a doxology, it must have been written εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός In the Welsh language, which in many of its idioms is identically the same with the Hebrew, the order of the words is the same: when it is a doxology, the word “” invariably precedes the word “;” and when otherwise it follows it.
The opinion of [Chrysostom ] on this sentence, to which [Erasmus ] attaches some importance, is of no value whatever, as he did not understand Hebrew; and Paul, for the most part, wrote as a Hebraist.
The participle ὢν being put for ἐστι is what is common in Hebrew and in the New Testament. See a remarkable instance of two participles and a verb in the middle, in Rev_1:4. It has been said, that “” unsuitably follows a declarative sentence; but see an instance in Rom_1:25
It is justly observed by [Stuart ] that the context requires the application of this sentence to Christ, as otherwise there would be no antithesis to the words “ to the flesh.” — Ed.