Romans 9:4

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(4) The adoption.—They are the theocratic people, the people whom God had, as it were, adopted to Himself, and taken into the special filial relation. (Comp. Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt;” Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn;” et al.)

The glory.—The Shechinah, or visible symbol of God’s presence. (Comp. Exodus 16:10; Exodus 24:16; Exodus 40:34-35; 1Samuel 4:22; 1Kings 8:10-11; Ezekiel 1:28; Hebrews 9:5.)

The covenants.—Not the two tables of stone, but the several compacts made by God with Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:14-17; Genesis 15:1-21; Genesis 17:1-22; Genesis 22:15-18; Genesis 26:2-5; Genesis 26:34; Genesis 28:13-15; Genesis 35:9-12; Genesis 46:3-4).

The service of God.—The temple service and ritual.

The promises.—Especially the Messianic promises, a term correlative to the “covenants” above.

Benson Commentary

Romans 9:4. Who are Israelites — The seed of Jacob, that eminent patriarch, who, as a prince, had power with God and prevailed. The apostle, with great address, enumerates these privileges of the Jews, both that he might show how honourably he thought of them, and that he might awaken their solicitude, not to sacrifice that divine favour, by which they had been so eminently and so long distinguished. To whom pertaineth the adoption — That is whom God hath taken into a special covenant with himself, whereby he stands engaged ever to act the part of a God and Father to them, and to own them for his children. It is true, this adoption of the Jews was but a shadow of the heavenly adoption of believers in Christ; yet was it, simply considered, a prerogative of a very sacred import. And the glory — The visible symbol of the divine presence which rested above the ark, was called the glory, 1 Samuel 4:21, and the glory of the Lord. Hence the introduction of the ark into the temple, is called the entrance of the King of glory, Psalm 24:7; and upon the carrying away of the ark by the Philistines, the wife of Phineas, now at the point of death, said, The glory is departed from Israel. But God himself was the glory of his people Israel, and by many visible testimonies of his presence with them, shed a glory upon them, and caused their brightness to shine throughout the world. So Isaiah, The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. These two last-mentioned particulars are relative to each other: Israel is the firstborn son of God, and the God of glory is his God. And the covenants — That with Abraham, Genesis 15:8; Genesis 17:2; Genesis 17:7; and that with the Jewish nation by the ministry of Moses, Exodus 24:7-8; Exodus 34:27; including the seals of these covenants, namely, circumcision, the seal of the former, Genesis 17:10; and the sprinkling of blood the seal of the latter, Exodus 24:8. He says covenants, in the plural, also, because God’s covenant with his people was often and variously repeated. And the giving of the law — The glorious promulgation of the moral law by God himself, by the mediation of his angels upon mount Horeb; not excluding the more private delivery of the various judicial and political laws appointed for the government of that commonwealth. The covenant, in the first dispensation of it, was given long before the law. And the worship of God — The way of worshipping God according to his will, prescribed in the ceremonial law for the people, till Christ should come in the flesh: and the promises — Of the Messiah, and of spiritual and eternal blessings by him.

By enumerating these privileges of the Jews, the apostle, as above observed, not only meant to show them that he respected them on account of these advantages, but to make them sensible of the loss they were about to sustain by God’s casting them off. “They were to be excluded from the better privileges of the gospel church, of which their ancient privileges were but the types. For their relation to God as his people, signified by the name Israelites, prefigured the more honourable relation which believers, the true Israel, stand in to God. Their adoption as the sons of God, and the privileges they were entitled to thereby, were types of believers being made partakers of the divine nature by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and of their title to the inheritance of heaven. The residence of the glory, first in the tabernacle and then in the temple, was a figure of the residence of God, by his Spirit, in the Christian Church, his temple on earth, and of his eternal residence in that church, brought to its perfect form in heaven. The covenant with Abraham was the new, or gospel covenant, the blessings of which were typified by the temporal blessings promised to him and to his natural seed: and the covenant of Sinai, whereby the Israelites, as the worshippers of the true God, were separated from the idolatrous nations, was an emblem of the final separation of the righteous from the wicked for ever. In the giving of the law, and the formation of the Israelites into a nation, or community, the formation of the city of the living God, and of the general assembly and church of the firstborn, was represented. Lastly, the heavenly country, the habitation of the righteous, was typified by Canaan, a country given to the Israelites by God’s promise.” — Macknight.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

9:1-5 Being about to discuss the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, and to show that the whole agrees with the sovereign electing love of God, the apostle expresses strongly his affection for his people. He solemnly appeals to Christ; and his conscience, enlightened and directed by the Holy Spirit, bore witness to his sincerity. He would submit to be treated as accursed, to be disgraced, crucified; and even for a time be in the deepest horror and distress; if he could rescue his nation from the destruction about to come upon them for their obstinate unbelief. To be insensible to the eternal condition of our fellow-creatures, is contrary both to the love required by the law, and the mercy of the gospel. They had long been professed worshippers of Jehovah. The law, and the national covenant which was grounded thereon, belonged to them. The temple worship was typical of salvation by the Messiah, and the means of communion with God. All the promises concerning Christ and his salvation were given to them. He is not only over all, as Mediator, but he is God blessed for ever.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Who are Israelites - Descended from Israel, or Jacob; honored by having such an ancestor, and by bearing a name so distinguished as that of his descendants. It was formerly the honorable appellation of the people of God.

To whom pertaineth - To whom it belongs. It was their elevated external privilege.

The adoption - Of the nation into the family of God, or to be regarded as His special people; Deuteronomy 7:6.

And the glory - The symbol of the divine presence that attended them from Egypt, and that finally rested over the ark in the first temple - "the Shechinah;" Exodus 13:21-22; Exodus 25:22.

And the covenants - The various compacts or promises which had been made from time to time with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and with the nation; the pledges of the divine protection.

The giving of the law - On Mount Sinai; Exodus 20; compare Psalm 147:19.

And the service of God - The temple service; regarded by them as the pride and ornament of their nation.

And the promises - Of the Messiah; and of the spread of the true religion from them as a nation.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

4. Who are Israelites—See Ro 11:1; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5.

to whom pertaineth—"whose is"

the adoption—It is true that, compared with the new economy, the old was a state of minority and pupilage, and so far that of a bond-servant (Ga 4:1-3); yet, compared with the state of the surrounding heathen, the choice of Abraham and his seed was a real separation of them to be a Family of God (Ex 4:22; De 32:6; Isa 1:2; Jer 31:9; Ho 11:1; Mal 1:6).

and the glory—that "glory of the Lord," or "visible token of the Divine Presence in the midst of them," which rested on the ark and filled the tabernacle during all their wanderings in the wilderness; which in Jerusalem continued to be seen in the tabernacle and temple, and only disappeared when, at the Captivity, the temple was demolished, and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. This was what the Jews called the "Shekinah."

and the covenants—"the covenants of promise" to which the Gentiles before Christ were "strangers" (Eph 2:12); meaning the one covenant with Abraham in its successive renewals (see Ga 3:16, 17).

and the giving of the law—from Mount Sinai, and the possession of it thereafter, which the Jews justly deemed their peculiar honor (De 26:18, 19; Ps 147:19, 20; Ro 2:17).

and the service of God—or, of the sanctuary, meaning the whole divinely instituted religious service, in the celebration of which they were brought so nigh unto God.

and the promises—the great Abrahamic promises, successively unfolded, and which had their fulfilment only in Christ; (see Heb 7:6; Ga 3:16, 21; Ac 26:6, 7).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

In this and the following verse, he rehearseth the privileges and advantages the Jews had from God, above all other nations of the earth; and this he doth to show, that he had good reason to make such a wish, as in the foregoing verse; as also, that what he should declare concerning the Jews, and their ejection, did not proceed from any disrespect or disesteem of them.

Israelites; i.e. the offspring of that holy patriarch Israel: this was the Jews’ first title of honour, that they descended from him, who by God himself was surnamed Israel, or a prince that had power with God, and prevailed, Genesis 32:28.

The adoption; adoption is not here to be understood as before, in Romans 8:15, or as in Ephesians 1:5, and elsewhere. But thereby we must understand the peculiar privilege of the seed of Jacob; that they, of all the nations of the earth, were pitched upon to be nearly related to God, to be his children (as they are called) and his firstborn: see Exodus 4:22 Deu 14:1 Jeremiah 31:9,20 Mt 15:26.

The glory; the ark and the temple; so called, because in them God did manifest his glorious presence, 1 Samuel 4:21,22 Psa 26:8 78:61.

The covenants; some understand by covenants, the tables of the law: see Hebrews 9:4. Others rather understand the covenant made with Abraham, Genesis 15:8 17:2,7; and with the Jewish nation, Exodus 24:7,8 Exo 34:27, &c. Circumcision also may be intended, for that is called God’s covenant, Genesis 17:10.

The giving of the law; the judicial, ceremonial, but especially the moral law. This is spoken of as a great privilege, Deu 4:8,32. It may refer both to the law itself, and to the circumstances, also, with which the law was given.

The service of God; the true manner of worshipping God, which was a great privilege. Other nations knew there was a God, and that he must be worshipped, but they knew not how; and so they ran into superstition and idolatry.

The promises; of this life, and that to come; particularly of the Messiah, and of the benefits and blessings by him. These are found in Moses and the prophets, and were entailed upon the Jews and their children, Acts 2:39 Ephesians 2:12, till God at last cut off the entail.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Who are Israelites,.... Which were their national name, as descended from Jacob, whose name was Israel; and it was accounted a very honourable one; see Philippians 3:5; and the very name they bore gave the apostle some concern that they should be cut off; and then he proceeds to enumerate the several distinguishing favours and privileges they had been partakers of:

to whom pertaineth the adoption; not that special adoption, which springs from eternal predestination, is a blessing of the covenant of grace, comes through the redemption of Christ, and is received and enjoyed only by believers in him; for all that were Israelites, were not in this sense the children of God; but national adoption is here meant, by which the whole body of the people, as nation, were the sons of God, his firstborn:

and the glory; either the ark of the covenant, which is so called in Psalm 63:2, according to Kimchi; or the clouds in the tabernacle and temple, which were called the glory of the Lord, and were symbols of his presence, the same with the Shekinah; and so Aben Ezra interprets power, the ark, and glory, the Shekinah, Psalm 63:2,

and the covenants; not the two Testaments, Old and New, but the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham their father, and the covenant at Sinai they entered into with the Lord; some copies, and the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, read, "the covenant":

and the giving, of the law: , a way of speaking the (x) Jews make use of when they take notice of this privilege; for it was peculiarly given to them with great solemnity by God himself, through the disposition of angels into the hands of Moses the mediator, and by him to them; and on account of this, they reckoned themselves more beloved of God than the rest of mankind (y).

and the service of God; or "the service", as in the Greek text. So the Jews (z) are used to call it "the service"; and false worship is called by them , "strange service", which is the title of one of their Misnic tracts; and here it signifies the whole worship of God, in the whole compass of it, sacrifices, prayer, praise, &c. daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly:

and the promises; both temporal and spiritual, especially such as related to the Messiah, and which now had their accomplishment.

(x) T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 116. 1. Zohar in Lev. fol. 5. 2, 3.((y) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 103. 2.((z) Vid. Pirke Abot, c. 1. sect. 2.

Geneva Study Bible

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the {c} glory, and the {d} covenants, and the giving of the {e} law, and the {f} service of God, and the {g} promises;

(c) The ark of the covenant, which was a token of God's presence.

(d) The tables of the covenant, and this is spoken by the figure of speech metonymy.

(e) Of the judicial law.

(f) The ceremonial law.

(g) Which were made to Abraham and to his posterity.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Romans 9:4. Οἵτινες κ.τ.λ.] quippe qui, who indeed; a description—assigning the motive for what is said in Romans 9:3—of the ἀδελφῶν κατὰ … σάρκα according to their theocratic privileges, and first of all by significant designation according to their ancient and hallowed (Genesis 32:28; Genesis 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:21 f.; Php 3:5; John 1:48) national name Ἰσραηλῖται. To the latter are then attached the relative definitions, which are threefold (ὧν … ὧν … ἐξ ὧν); the first of them embraces six particulars connected by καί,—purely sacred-historical divine benefactions.

ἡ υἱοθεσία] the adoption. They are those adopted by God into the place of children, which must of course be understood, not in the Christian (chap. 8) but in the old theocratic sense, of their adoption, in contradistinction to all Gentile peoples, to be the people of God, whose Father is God. Comp. Exodus 4:22 ff; Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:6; Hosea 11:1, et al. In the υἱοθεσία of the N. T. (see on Romans 8:15), the specific essence of which is the reconciliation obtained for Christ’s sake, there has appeared the antitype and the completion of that of the O. T.

καὶ ἡ δόξα] The fivefold καί lends an emphatic weight to the enumeration, ἡ δόξα is the glory κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. כְּבוֹד יְהֹוָה (Exodus 24:16; Exodus 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:10-11; Ezekiel 1:28; Hebrews 9:5), the symbolically visible essential communion of God, as it was manifested in the wilderness as a pillar of cloud and fire, and over the ark of the covenant; the same as שְׁכִינָה, of which the Rabbins maintained (erroneously, according to Leviticus 16:2) that it had hovered as a cloud of light continually over the ark of the covenant. See Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 311. But ἡ δόξα is not the ark of the covenant itself (Beza, Piscator, Hammond, Grotius), for in 1 Samuel 4:22 the ark of the covenant is not called “the glory of Israel,” but this is only predicated of it. Others understand the whole glory of the Jewish people in general (de Dieu, Calovius, Estius, Semler, Morus, Böhme, Benecke, Köllner, Glöckler, Fritzsche, Beck). Incorrectly, since it is merely individual privileges that are set forth.

αἱ διαθῆκαι] not the tables of the law (Beza, Piscator, Pareus, Toletus, Balduin, Grotius, Semler, Rosenmüller), which it cannot denote either in itself or on account of the following νομοθ.; nor yet the O. and N. T. (Augustine, Jerome, Calovius, and Wolf, in accordance with Galatians 4:24), which would be entirely unsuitable in respect of the N. T.; but the covenants concluded by God with the patriarchs since Abraham. Compare Wis 18:22; Sir 44:11; 2Ma 8:15; Ephesians 2:12.

ἡ νομοθεσία] The (Sinaitic) giving of the law. This is “una et semel habita per Mosen;” but the “testamenta frequenter statuta sunt,” Origen. There is no ground for taking it, with others (including Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche), not of the act, but of the contents, like νόμος (why should not Paul have written this?). Certainly, he who has the νομοθεσία has also the νόμος; but on that account the two significations are to be kept distinct even in places like 2Ma 6:23. The giving of the law was a work (comp. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 751 B: μεγάλου τῆς νομοθεσίας ἔργου ὄντος), by which God, who Himself was the νομοθέτης, had distinguished the Israelites over all other peoples.

ἡ λατρεία] the cultus κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the service of Jehovah in the temple. Comp. Hebrews 9:1. It corresponds to the νομοθ., in consequence of which the λατρεία came into existence; just as the following αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι (κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the collective Messianic promises) is correlative to the αἱ διαθῆκαι, on which the ἐπαγγ. were founded. The chiasmus in this order of sequence (comp. Bengel) is not accidental; but αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι is intentionally put at the end, in order that now, after mention of the fathers, to whom in the first instance the promises were given, the Promised One Himself may follow.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Romans 9:4 f. The intensity of Paul’s distress, and of his longing for the salvation of his countrymen, is partly explained in this verse. It is the greatness of his people, their unique place of privilege in God’s providence, the splendour of the inheritance and of the hopes which they forfeit by unbelief, that make their unbelief at once so painful, and so perplexing. οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται: being, as they are, Israelites. Israelites is not the national but the theocratic name; it expresses the spiritual prerogative of the nation, cf. 2 Corinthians 11:22, Galatians 6:16. ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία: this is not the Christian sonship, but that which is referred to in such passages as Exodus 4:22, Hosea 11:1. Yet it may be wrong to speak of it as if it were merely national; it seems to be distributed and applied to the individual members of the nation in Deuteronomy 14:1, Hosea 2:1 (Romans 2:1 Heb.). ἡ δόξα: the glory must refer to something definite, like the pillar of cloud and fire, the כְּבוֹד יהוה of the O.T., the שׁכִינָה of later Jewish theology; there is probably reference to it in Acts 7:2, Hebrews 9:5. αἱ διαθῆκαι: in other places Paul speaks of the O.T. religion as one covenant, one (legal) administration of the relations between God and man (e.g. in 2 Corinthians 3): here, where αἱ διαθῆκαι is expressly distinguished from ἡ νομοθεσία (the great Sinaitic legislation: 2Ma 6:23), the various covenants God made with the patriarchs must be meant. Cf. Wis 18:22, Sir 44:11, 2Ma 8:15. ἡ λατρεία is the cultus of the tabernacle and the temple, the only legitimate cultus in the world. αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι are the Messianic promises: in the Israelitish religion “the best was yet to be,” as all the highest minds knew. Romans 9:5. ὧν οἱ πατέρες: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The greatness of its ancestry ennobled Israel, and made its position in Paul’s time harder to understand and to endure. Who could think without the keenest pain of the sons of such fathers forfeiting everything for which the fathers had been called? But the supreme distinction of Israel has yet to be mentioned. ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. The only point in the interpretation of this verse, in which it can be said that interpreters are wholly at one, is the statement that of Israel the Messiah came, according to the flesh. The words τὸ κατὰ σάρκα define the extent to which the Messiah can be explained by His descent from Israel; for anything going beyond σάρξ, or ordinary humanity, the explanation must be sought elsewhere. The limitation suggests an antithesis, and one in which the spiritual or Divine side of the Messiah’s nature should find expression, this being the natural counterpart of σάρξ: and such an antithesis has been sought and found in the words which follow. He who, according to the flesh, is of Israel, is at the same time over all, God blessed for ever. This interpretation, which refers the whole of the words after ἐξ ὧν to ὁ Χριστὸς, is adopted by many of the best scholars: Gifford, Sanday, Westcott (see N.T., vol. ii., app., p. 110), Weiss, etc., and has much in its favour. (1) It does supply the complementary antithesis which τὸ κατὰ σάρκα suggests. (2) Grammatically it is simple, for ὁ ὢν naturally applies to what precedes: the person who is over all is naturally the person just mentioned, unless there is decisive reason to the contrary. (3) If we adopt another punctuation, and make the words ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας a doxology—“God Who is over all be blessed for ever”—there are grammatical objections. These are (a) the use of ὤν, which is at least abnormal. “God Who is over all” would naturally be expressed by ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς without ὤν: the ὢν suggests the reference to Christ. (b) The position of εὐλογητὸς is unparalleled in a doxology; it ought, as in Ephesians 1:3 and the LXX., to stand first in the sentence. But these reasons are not decisive. As for (1), though a complementary antithesis to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is suggested, it is not imperatively demanded here, as in Romans 1:3 f. The greatness reflected upon Israel by the origin of the person in question is sufficiently conveyed by ὁ Χριστός, without any expansion. As for (2), it is true to say that ὁ ὢν naturally refers to what precedes: the only question is, whether the natural reference may not in any given case be precluded. Many scholars think it is precluded here. Meyer, for instance, argues that “Paul has never used the express θεὸς of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the Alexandrian form of conceiving and setting forth the Divine essence of Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic terminology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of Christ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ”. To this he adds the more dubious reasons that in the genuine apostolic writings (he excludes 2 Timothy 4:18, 2 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 13:21, and Rev.) there is no doxology to Christ in the form usual in doxologies referring to God, and that by ἐπὶ πάντων the Son’s subordination is denied. To these last arguments it may be answered that if the words in question do apply to Christ they are not a doxology at all (Gifford), but a declaration of deity, like 2 Corinthians 11:31, and that Christ’s subordination is not affected by His being described as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων any more than by His own claim to have all authority in heaven and on earth. But the first of Meyer’s arguments has a weight which it is impossible not to feel, and it becomes the more decisive the more we realise Paul’s whole habit of thought and speech. To say with Dr. Gifford, “When we review the history of the interpretation it cannot but be regarded as a remarkable fact that every objection urged against the ancient interpretation rests ultimately on dogmatic presuppositions,” hardly covers such a position as Meyer represents. For the “dogmatic presuppositions” are not arbitrary, but merely sum up the whole impression made. on the mind by the study of Paul’s writings, an impression by which we cannot but be influenced, especially in deciding delicate and dubious questions like this. If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, would express his sense of Christ’s greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to me almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an assertion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle’s writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at σάρκα, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father. This is the punctuation given in the margin by W. and H., and “alone seems adequate to account for the whole of the language employed, more especially when considered in relation to the context” (Hort, N.T., vol. ii., app., p. 110). The doxology is, indeed, somewhat hard to comprehend; it seems at the first glance without a motive, and no psychological explanation of it yet offered is very satisfying. It is as if Paul, having carried the privileges of Israel to a climax by mentioning the origin of the Messiah as far as regards His humanity, suddenly felt himself face to face with the problem of the time, how to reconcile these extraordinary privileges with the rejection of the Jews; and before addressing himself to any study or solution of it expressed in this way his devout and adoring faith, even under the pressure of such a perplexity, in the sovereign providence of God. The use of ὢν, which is in itself unnecessary, emphasises ἐπὶ πάντων; and this emphasis is “fully justified if St. Paul’s purpose is to suggest that the tragic apostasy of the Jews (Romans 9:2-3) is itself part of the dispensations of Him Who is God over all, over Jew and Gentile alike, over past, present and future alike; so that the ascription of blessing to Him is a homage to His Divine purpose and power of bringing good out of evil in the course of the ages (Romans 11:13-16; Romans 11:25-36)”: W. and H., ii., app., p. 110. Full discussions of the passage are given in Meyer, S. and H., and Gifford; also by Dr. Ezra Abbot in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Exegesis, 1883. With this preface Paul proceeds to justify the ways of God to men: see the introductory remarks above. The first section of his argument (Romans 9:6-29) is in the narrower sense a theodicy—a vindication of God’s right in dealing as He has dealt with Israel. In the first part of this (Romans 9:6-13) he shows that the rejection of the mass of Israel from the Messianic Kingdom involves no breach or failure of the Divine promise. The promise is not given to all the natural descendants of Abraham, but only to a chosen seed, the Israel of God.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

4. Israelites] “The absolute name, that which expressed the whole dignity and glory of a member of the theocratic nation, of the people in peculiar covenant with God, was Israelite.” (Abp Trench, New Testament Synonyms.) It was thus distinguished from both Hebrew and Jew (Judœus,) of which (1) relates rather to language, and (2) to the national (rather than theocratic) difference between the People and the Gentiles.

the adoption] See Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1; also Deuteronomy 14:1; Isaiah 63:16. Israel, as a nation, was taken into a relationship with God altogether peculiar, as to nearness and affection. See Hosea 11:8 for some wonderful utterances of the Divine Paternity. This son-ship was indeed (unlike that in ch. 8) of the mass rather than of individuals. But it was a grant of high privilege and mercy.

the glory] In the special sense of the Shechinah, the mysteriously visible manifestation of the Divine Presence “between the Cherubim” on the mercy-seat. See Exodus 25:22; Leviticus 16:2; Psalm 80:1; Psalm 99:1; Isaiah 37:16.—It does not appear that this Light was perpetual; but anywise it was a pledge of sacred privilege and a means of communication entirely unique on earth. This Shechinah is, in the Targums, often used as a paraphrase for the Holy Name, and in Isaiah 6:1 the LXX have the phrase “glory of God” where the Hebrew has the Holy Name.—This special reference of the word “glory” is more in keeping with the enumeration here than any wider reference.

the covenants] With Abraham, Moses, Levi, David. See Genesis 17:4; Genesis 17:11; Genesis 17:19; Exodus 31:16; Exodus 34:28; Malachi 2:4-5; Psalm 89:28; Psalm 89:34. The reference here is of course not (as in Galatians 4:24) to the Old and New Covenants of Works and Grace respectively.

the giving of the law] the Legislation. The privilege of the possession of a Divine Code is dwelt on, Deuteronomy 4:8; Nehemiah 9:13-14.

the service] The Gr. specially signifies the Temple-worship. Cp. Hebrews 9:1. The solemn round of ordinances, all “mysteriously meant,” under the Old Covenant is specially remarkable in contrast to the comparative absence of detailed directions for worship under the New.—The words “of God” are an explanatory addition in E. V.

the promises] Of the Land, and of the Messiah. The latter promise was a possession of Israel in the sense that it was to be fulfilled exclusively through, though not exclusively for, Israel. See John 4:22. In Him who is “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” (Matthew 1:1,) the great Fulfilment remains for ever a special glory of the ancient People.—Here, as everywhere, St Paul looks to the Prophecies as a preeminent reality in the dealings of God with Man. To him they were no “national aspirations,” but voices from eternity.

Bengel's Gnomen

Romans 9:4. οἵτινες, inasmuch as being those who) He now explains the cause of his sorrow and grief: viz. the fact that Israel does not enjoy so great benefits. He uses great ‘euphemia’ [softening of an unwelcome truth. Append.] in words.—ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία—ἐπαγγελίαι, whose is the adoption of [as] sons—the promises) Six privileges are enumerated by three pairs of correlatives; and in the first pair, regard is had to God the Father; in the second, to Christ; in the third, to the Holy Spirit: with which comp. Ephesians 3:6, note.—ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα, the adoption of sons and the glory) i.e. that Israel is the first-born son of God, and the God of glory is their God, Deuteronomy 4:7; Deuteronomy 4:33-34; Psalm 106:20, (Psalm 47:5); but by the force of the correlatives, God is at the same time the Father of Israel, and Israel is the people of God. In like manner this relation is expressed in abbreviated form (the two respective correlatives being left to be supplied. end. on locutio concisa) in Revelation 21:7; comp. Romans 8:18-19. Some understand δόξαν, the glory, of the ark of the covenant; but Paul is not speaking here of anything corporeal. God Himself is called the Glory of His people Israel, by the same metonymy, as He is called the Fear, instead of the God [the Object of fear], of Isaac, Genesis 31:42; Genesis 31:54.—καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι, καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία, and the covenants and the giving of the law) comp. Hebrews 8:6. The reason why the covenants are put before the giving of the law, is evident from Galatians 3:17. Διαθῆκαι is plural, because the testament, or covenant, both was frequently repeated, Leviticus 26:42; Leviticus 26:45; Ephesians 2:12; and was given in various modes [πολυτρόπως], dispositions [one, the law received by the disposition of angels, the other the Gospel covenant under Jesus], Hebrews 1:1; and because there were two administrations of it, Galatians 4:24, the one promising, the other promised [the subject of the promise].—καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, and the service of God and the promises) Acts 26:6-7; Ephesians 1:13; Hebrews 8:5-6. Here the giving of the law and the service of God, the covenants and the promises correspond by chiasmus.[108] For the promises flow from the covenants; and the service of God was instituted by the giving of the law. [It was the promises that procured (gained) for the service of God its peculiar dignity. Moreover, the Holy Spirit was promised, Galatians 3:14.—V. g.]

[108] See Appendix.

Pulpit Commentary

Verses 4, 5. - Who (οἵτινες, with its usual sense of quippe qui) are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Here "the adoption" (ὑιοθεσία) means the selection of Israel to be God's peculiar people (cf. Exodus 4:22, "Israel is my son, even my firstborn;" Deuteronomy 14:1, "Ye are the children of the Lord your God;" Hosea 11:1, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt;" also Exodus 19:5. Cf. also τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 8 below). It is, of course, a different idea from that of the spiritual υἱοθεσία of believers (at present as in Romans 8:15, or to come as in Romans 8:23), though it might be typical of it. "The glory" (ἡ δόξα) seems best explained by reference to 2 Corinthians 3:7-18, where the visible glory, said to have rested on the mercy-seat and to have illuminated for a time the face of Moses, is regarded as expressing the glory, in a higher sense, of the old dispensation, which, however, was destined to fade away in the greater glory of the revelation of God in Christ. The word may be thus taken to denote, not simply the Sheehinab, or the glory on Mount Sinai, but rather what was signified by these manifestations. It was probably a recognized term in use with reference to the giving of the Law. "The covenants" (αἱ διαθῆκαι), and "the promises" (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι), both in the plural, include those made with and given to Abraham and the other patriarchs, as well as the Mosaic ones. The former word is wrongly taken by some as denoting the tables of the covenant. Ἡ λατρεία is obviously the divinely appointed ceremonial worship, the typical significance of which is explained at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the same word is used. "The fathers" (οἱ πατέρες) are the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the original recipients of the promises, descent from whom was made such account of by the Jews, as being the foundation of their privileges (cf. Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; Luke 13:28; John 8:39; and, for the use of πατέρες in this sense, cf. Acts 3:22; Acts 13:32; Romans 15:8; Hebrews 1:1). The last and crowning distinction of the Jewish race is mentioned last, viz. the fleshly descent therefrom of Christ, even of him who in his higher nature is "over all, God blessed for ever." This is certainly the most obvious meaning of the conclusion of ver. 5, as far as the language is concerned, and the one understood by all ancient commentators. Some moderns, however, as is well known, have raised objections to this interpretation of the clause, based solely on the supposed improbability that St. Paul would have so designated Christ. Some would, therefore, get over this imagined difficulty by putting a full stop after κατὰ σάρκα, and taking what follows as a doxology to God the Father, thus: "God, who is over all, be blessed for ever." The apostle is supposed, according to this interpretation, to have been moved to this parenthetical utterance by his contemplation of the Divine favours to Israel, which he had been recounting. Some have suggested the full stop being put after πάντων, so as to refer ὁ ω}ν ἐπὶ πάντων to Christ, and take only what follows as a doxology, or, as some would have it, as a statement. But, in either case, the idea of so unlikely a breaking up of the sentence may be dismissed as untenable. Others, without thus breaking up the sentence, take the whole of it, beginning with ὁ ω}ν, to be, not a doxology, but a statement, thus at- tempting to meet the objection to its being a doxology (to be noticed presently), arising from the collocation of the words. But a mere assertion that God is blessed for ever would seem peculiarly uncalled for and purposeless here. Meyer, being a critic of deserved repute, and an upholder of the modern interpretation of the clause, taking the whole of it together as a doxology to the Father, it may suffice to state his arguments.

(1) That St. Paul, though regarding the Son of God as the image of God, of the essence of God, the agent in creation and preservation, the judge of all, the object of prayer, and the possessor of Divine glory and fulness of grace (Romans 1:4; Romans 10:12; Philippians it. 6; Colossians 1:15, etc.; Colossians 2:9; Ephesians 1:20, etc.; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 8:9), never expressly calls him Θεὸς, but always clearly distinguishes him as the Κύριος from Θεὸς; and that the passages in which Θεὸς has been supposed by some to apply to him (as in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, Κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ιησοῦ Ξριστοῦ; and Ephesians 5:5; Titus 1:4) are wrongly so understood; ὅς, not Θεὸς, being also undoubtedly the original reading in 1 Timothy 3:16. (Of St. Paul's usual distinction between Θεὸς and Κύριος, when he is referring to the economy of redemption, other instances are found in 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians 12:4, 5, 6; Ephesians 4:4, 5, 6. That he does usually so distinguish is undoubted.)

(2) That, according to the old ecclesiastical interpretation, "Christ would be called here, not only God, but even God over all, and consequently would be designated as Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ, which is absolutely incompatible with the entire view of the New Testament as to the dependence of the Son on the Father."

(3) That "in the properly apostolical writings (2 Peter 3:18 does not belong to them, nor does Hebrews 13:21) we never meet with a doxology to Christ in the form which is usual in doxologies to God." Meyer adds in a note, "2 Timothy 4:18 certainly refers to Christ; but this is just one of the traces of post-apostolic composition. Now, to these arguments it may be replied as follows: To (1) that, though it may be true that St. Paul in no other passage expressly calls Christ Θεὸς, yet his doctrine with respect to his Divine nature is in accordance with the expression; for surely the term Θεὸς is applicable to him who is spoken of, as e.g. in Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15, etc.; that his usual distinction between the supreme God and Christ as Mediator by no means precludes his declaring in express terms Christ's essential Deity in a passage where such a declaration is suitable and called for; that even St. John, who is acknowledged by all to have peculiarly set forth the Divine essence of Christ, only once uses the expression, Θεὸς ῆν ὁ Λόγος, or any exactly equivalent to it. To argument (2) it may be replied that the language used does not identify Christ with the Father as ὁ παντοκράτωρ Θεὸς, especially if we suppose a comma after πάντων, so that the meaning would he, "Christ who is over all, God blessed for ever." That Christ is "over all" is what is distinctly declared elsewhere by St. Paul, and Θεὸς, etc., may be appended predicatively to denote his Divine essence. As to argument (3), it is necessary to exclude not only 2 Peter and Hebrews, but also 2 Timothy from the list of apostolical writings in order to give it any force. But even so it would be irrelevant; for the sentence before us is not a doxology, but an assertion: it is, according to the ancient interpretation, not "Blessed be Christ as God for ever;" but" Christ, who is God blessed for ever." The positive reasons for retaining the ancient interpretations may be stated as follows:

(1) Not one of the Greek or other Fathers, or any interpreter before Erasmus, is known to have understood it otherwise.

(2) It gives the most obvious sense of the words themselves. It may well be contended that no other would have been thought of, but for the supposed discrepance with the apostle's usual way of speaking of Christ.

(3) Whereas a doxology to God the Father does not seem called for here, or to have any very obvious bearing on the writer's train of thought, some assertion of the Divine greatness of Christ seems wanted to complete the representation of the final and crowning privilege of the race of Israel. Ὁ ω}ν ἐπὶ πάντων would indeed suffice for this purpose, if it could be dissevered from what follows. But, as has been said above, it is not allowable so to break up the sentence. Cf also Romans 1:4, where the statement that Christ had been born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, is followed by an assertion also of his Divine Sonship.

(4) If the sentence had been intended as a doxology, εὐλογητὸς ought properly to have preceded Θεὸς (cf. Luke 1:68, Αὐλογητὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ; Ephesians 1:3, Αὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ, etc.; 1 Peter 1:3, where the same expression occurs); whereas in every other passage where εὐλογητὸς follows the subject of the sentence, it is an assertion, and not a doxology (cf. Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31).

(5) The whole objection to the ancient interpretation rests solely on the views of modern critics as to what they think St. Paul was likely to mean - not on what his language most obviously intimates that he did mean - a very unsafe principle of interpretation. Our safe conclusion seems to be that modern criticism has not made out a sufficient case for departing from the unanimous ancient interpretation of this passage. Romans 9:4

Vincent's Word Studies

Who (οἵτινες)

The double relative characterizes the Israelites with their call and privileges as such that for them he could even wish himself accursed.

Israelites

See on Acts 3:12.

Adoption

See on Romans 8:15. Israel is always represented as the Lord's son or first-born among all peoples. Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Hosea 11:1.

The glory

The visible, luminous appearance of the divine presence was called by the Israelites the glory of Jahveh, or, in rabbinical phrase, the Shekinah. See Exodus 24:16; Exodus 40:34, Exodus 40:35; Ezekiel 1:28; Hebrews 9:5. Not the final glory of God's kingdom; for this belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.

The covenants (αἱ διαθῆκαι)

See on Matthew 26:28. Those concluded with the patriarchs since Abraham. See Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:17; Ephesians 2:12. The plural never occurs in the Old Testament. See on Hebrews 9:16.

The giving of the law (ἡ νομοθεσία)

The act of giving, with a secondary reference to the substance of the law; legislation.

The service (ἡ λατρεία)

See on John 16:2; see on Luke 1:74; see on Revelation 22:3; see on Philippians 3:3. Here the sum total of the Levitical services instituted by the law.

continued...