Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadCambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges - Romans 9:5 - 9:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
5. οἱ πατέρες. Cf. Rom 11:28, Rom 15:8; 1Co 10:1; Heb 1:1; Heb 8:9 (qu.); Luk 11:47; Joh 6:49; Act 13:32. On the Jewish insistence on the merits of the fathers cf. S. H., p. 330. The term includes the whole ancestry of Israel, not merely the Patriarchs.
ἐξ ὧν, with τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ χρ. the Messiah. τὸ κ. ς.; as regards merely human origin, cf. Rom 1:3; Romans cf.1 Clem. xxxii. 2 (F. C. Burkitt, J. T. S., v. p. 455). On the constr. cf. Blass, p. 94, cf[178] Heb 2:17; below Rom 12:18, Rom 15:17 : “the accus. of reference has already become an adverbial accus.”
[178] confert
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, κ.τ.λ. I adopt the stopping of W. H. margin (σάρκα· ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ.). This clause is an ascription of blessing to GOD, in His character as supreme ruler of all things, the author and director of all the dispensations of His Providence, tr. ‘He who is over all, even GOD, is blessed for ever, Amen.’ See Add. Note, p. 219.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
F. Rom 9:5
ὁ ὣ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
The insertion of the participle throws emphasis on ὁ … ἐπὶ πάντων and shows that it must be taken as subject and θεὸς as in apposition. Otherwise we should expect ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός. ἐπὶ πάντων implies not mere superiority (which seems never to be indicated by ἐπὶ with gen.) but authority and government, = He who is supreme governor of all things, a periphrasis for κύριος. πάντων is probably neuter and refers to the whole process, in sum and in detail, of the ordered government and dispensations of the ages. The only other occurrence of ἐπὶ πάντων in N.T. is in Eph 4:6. The question, therefore, whether the phrase can be applied to ὁ χριστός depends not on any strict parallel, but on the analogy of the use of κύριος: for this cf. Rom 10:9 with 12; 1Co 12:3; Php 2:10-11; and esp. 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:5; and generally the application of κύριος, with its O.T. associations, to Christ; see Hort, 1 Pet. p. 30 f. It still remains open to question whether S. Paul would name, as an attribute of the Christ, the management of the dispensations; Heb 1:3 (φέρων κ.τ.λ.) is only partly paralleled by Col 1:17; and S. Paul himself seems to reserve this function of providential government to GOD as creator. The term κύριος seems to be applied to Christ rather as sovereign over the present dispensation, than as the director of all the dispensations, the Son being the agent of the operations of the Father: cf. Rom 16:25-26. It was probably some such consideration as this that led Hort to say (Appendix, ad loc[348]) that the separation of this clause from ὁ χρ. τ. κ. σ. “alone seems adequate to account for the whole of the language employed.” Neither S. H. nor Giff. elucidate this point. The question is not whether the term θεὸς as predicate or the verbal εὐλογητὸς would be used of Christ by S. Paul (there is strong evidence for an affirmative answer); but whether he would assign to Him this function of deity. It is to be observed that it is generally agreed that the form of the phrase ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων throws the stress exactly on this function. These considerations point to a separation of this clause from the preceding; cf. 1 Clem. xxxii. 2.
[348] ad loc. ad locum
Two questions remain: (1) is the insertion of the clause, if separated from the preceding, natural in the context? (2) does the run of the whole sentence allow of such separation?
As regards (1) the immediate context deals with GOD’s dispensation to and through Israel suggested by the strange paradox that the dispensation of the Gospel, expounded in the preceding chapters and in full climax in ch. 8, finds Israel alien. That the Gospel should have been prepared for in Israel, and that in spite of Israel’s opposition the Gospel should now be in full course in its comprehensive universality, are both the results of GOD’s government or management of the dispensations: it is not unnatural that when the climax of the description of Israel’s past has been reached, while the climax of ch. 8 is still in mind, S. Paul should turn to bless Him who directs and orders all, GOD worthy to be blessed for ever. The emphatic position and phrasing of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων suits the turn of thought exactly. Nor is this assumption out of place here, in view of the great sorrow spoken of in Rom 9:2 (as Giff.): that sorrow does not even for a moment suspend S. Paul’s trust in the just and merciful government of GOD.
(2) It is no doubt true that the change of subject is abrupt: but it is of the very nature of an interjectional ascription to be abrupt: and the formal abruptness is compensated by the naturalness of the interjection.
Two further points require to be noticed. (1) It is argued that in ascriptions of blessing εὐλογητὸς always comes first in the sentence. But no order of words is so fixed that it cannot be changed for emphasis’ sake: and the emphasis on ὁ ὢ ἐπὶ πάντων is amply sufficient to account for the order here; cf. Psalms 67 (68):2 LX[349]. (2) It is argued that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. requires the statement of the other side of the nature of the Christ. But this argument ignores the reason for the mention of the Christ here at all, namely, to complete the enumeration of the privileges of Israel.
[349] LXX the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament
On the whole I conclude that the most natural interpretation is to place the stronger stop after σάρκα and to translate ‘He that governs all, even GOD, be blessed for ever. Amen.’
It is perhaps necessary to observe that this comment is not influenced by the consideration that S. Paul was not likely to apply the term θεὸς predicatively to Christ. The possibility of his doing so ought not to be denied in view of 2Th 1:12, Php 2:6, 2Co 13:13, and other passages in which the Father and the Son are coordinated.
Prof. Burkitt (J. T. S. v. p. 451 ff.) argues that the ἀμὴν marks the clause as an ascription of blessing to GOD, not a description of nature. The ascription is here made, as an appeal for GOD’s witness to the truth and sincerity of his statement in 1–4; cf. Rom 1:25; 2Co 11:31. He takes ὁ ὢν (cf. Exo 3:14-15; Rev 1:4) as representing the ‘Name of the Holy One,’ the mere utterance of which with the necessarily accompanying benediction is an appeal to the final court of truth. So he connects “Rom 9:1; Rom 9:5 b, οὐ ψεύδομαι … ὁ ὤν, ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν: I lie not. The Eternal (Blessed is His Name!) I call Him to witness.” While this argument seems to me conclusive as to the main connexion and intention of the clause, and the reference in ὁ ὢν to Exodus seems very probable, I still feel that the context and the Greek order point to connecting ἐπὶ πάντων with ὁ ὢν, nor does this seem inconsistent with such a reference. If ἐπὶ πάντων had been meant as epithet to θεὸς, I should have expected the avoidance of ambiguity by a change of order—θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων.
A conjectural emendation of the text (ὧν ὁ for ὁ ὢν) has occurred to commentators from time to time. Jonas Schlicting in his commentary on the Romans (1656) mentions it, as likely to suggest itself, and points out the suitability of the climax, but rejects it as giving an unscriptural phrase. John Taylor (of Norwich, 1754) makes the same suggestion and justifies it as giving a proper climax. Wetstein refers to these and others, without comment. Bentley (Crit. Sacr. ed. Ellis, p. 30) mentions it, apparently with favour. John Weiss (op. cit[350] p. 238) adopts it, referring to Wrede, Lic. Disp., a work which I have not seen. Hart, J. T. S. xi. p. 36 n., suggests the same emendation.
[350] op. cit. opus citatum
Mr Hart supports the emendation, in a letter to me, as follows: “St Paul is writing here if anywhere as a Jew, and the relation of Israel to the GOD of Jacob forms the proper climax: Christian scribes altered the text because in their view that privilege was forfeited and had lapsed to the Church. I think this passage from Philo clinches the matter—de praemiis § 123 (M. ii. p. 428) (Lev 26:12) τούτου καλεῖται θεὸς ἰδίως ὁ τῶν συμπάντων θεὸς, καὶ λαὸς ἐξαιρετὸς πάλιν οὗτος οὐ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀρχόντων ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄρχοντος, ἁγίου ἅγιος.—So St Paul says ‘to whom belongs the supreme GOD, blessed be He for ever and ever, Amen.’ But his reporters did not sympathise and desiderated an antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα, having identified the (abstract) Messiah with our Lord.”
It will be seen that here again the justification of the conjecture depends on the propriety of the climax. The quotation from Philo does not, I think, carry us far. He is there emphasising the establishment of a personal relation between the GOD of all men and the individual saint, and he calls this single person a λαὸς ἐξαιρετός. Such language could of course be used by any Jew or Christian. We have a parallel in Heb 11:16 : οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται ὁ θεὸς θεὸς ἐπικαλεῖσθαι αὐτῶν, ἡτοίμασεν γὰρ αὐτοῖς πόλιν. But the point need not be laboured. Against this suggestion the following points may be urged:—(1) It ignores the effect of the ἀμήν in making the whole clause an ascription: see above. (2) The question is raised whether the idea embodied in the term ‘The GOD of Israel’ is naturally to be expected as the climax of the enumeration here made. It may be premised that that term is never used by S. Paul in his Epistles, or indeed in the N. T. except in Mat 15:31, Luk 16:18, Act 13:17. It does not occur, either explicitly or implicitly, in the other enumerations of the privileges of Israel (Rom 2:17; Rom 3:3, 2Co 11:22). Further, in this Epistle the whole argument has been based on the universal relation of GOD to man; and the very phrase ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα seems to exclude the divine relation of the Christ, and a fortiori the relation of man to GOD, from the list of the special privileges of Israel. Finally, the phrase ἐπὶ πάντων (see above), as referring directly to the governing and dispensing operations of GOD gives, almost necessarily, a wider range of reference than to the relations to Israel alone.