Study of ROMANS 9:1-5

THIS chapter opens, in some degree, a new train of thought and argumentation. Its main design probably was to meet objections which would be alleged against the positions advanced and defended in the previous parts of the epistle. In the previous chapters, Paul had defended the position, that the barrier between the Jews and Gentiles had been removed; that the Jews could not be saved by any external advantages which they possessed; that all were alike guilty before God; and that there was but one way for Jews and Gentiles of salvation--by faith in Jesus Christ, chapters 1-3. He had stated the benefits of this plan, (chap. 5.,) and showed its bearing in accomplishing what the law of Moses could not effect in overcoming sin, chap. 6,7. In chap. 8. he had stated also on what principles this was clone; that it was according to the purpose of God--the principle of electing mercy applied indiscriminately to the mass of guilty Jews and Gentiles. To this statement two objections might arise: first, that it was unjust; and second, that the whole argument involved a departure from the promises made to the Jewish nation. It might further be supposed that the apostle had ceased to feel an interest in his countrymen, and had become the exclusive advocate of the Gentiles. To meet these objections and feelings seems to have been the design of this chapter. He shows them,

(1.) his unabated love for his countrymen, and regard for their welfare, (Romans 9:1-5)

(2.) He shows them, from their own writings, that the principle of election had existed in former times--in the case of Isaac, (Romans 9:7-13) in the writings of Moses, (Romans 9:15) in the case of Pharaoh, (Romans 9:17) and in the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah, (Romans 9:25-29.)

(3.) He takes occasion, throughout the chapter, to vindicate this principle of the Divine administration; to answer objections; and to show that, on the acknowledged principles of the Old Testament, a part of the Jewish nation might be rejected; and that it was the purpose of God to call others to the privileges of the people of God, Romans 9:16,19-23,25,26,29-33. The chapter, therefore, has not reference to national election, or to choice to external privileges, but has direct reference to the doctrine of the election to salvation which had been stated in chap. 8. To suppose that it refers merely to external privileges, and national distinctions, makes the whole discussion unconnected, unmeaning, and unnecessary.

Verse 1. I say the truth. In what I am about to affirm respecting my attachment to the nation and people.

In Christ. Most interpreters regard this as a form of an oath, as equivalent to calling Christ to witness. It is certainly to be regarded, in its obvious sense, as an appeal to Christ as the searcher of the heart, and as the judge of falsehood. Thus the word translated "in" (\~en\~) is used in the form of an oath in Matthew 5:34-36; Revelation 10:6, Greek. We are to remember that the apostle was addressing those who had been Jews; and the expression has all the force of an oath by the Messiah. This shows that it is right, on great and solemn occasions, and in a solemn manner, AND THUS ONLY, to appeal to Christ for the sincerity of our motives, and for the truth of what we say. And it shows, further, that it is right to regard the Lord Jesus Christ as present with us, as searching the heart, as capable of detecting insincerity, hypocrisy, and perjury, and as therefore Divine.

My conscience. Conscience is that act of judgment of the mind by which we decide on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our actions, and by which we instantly approve or condemn them. It exists in every man, and is a strong witness to our integrity or to our guilt.

Bearing me witness. Testifying to the truth of what I say.

In the Holy Ghost. He does not say that he speaks the truth by or in the Holy Ghost, as he had said of Christ; but that the conscience pronounced its concurring testimony by the Holy Ghost; that is, conscience as enlightened and influenced by the Holy Ghost. It was not simply natural conscience, but it was conscience under the full influence of the Enlightener of the mind and Sanctifier of the heart. The reasons of this solemn asseveration are probably the following:

(1.) His conduct and his doctrines had led some to believe that he was an apostate, and had lost his love for his countrymen. He had forsaken their institutions, and devoted himself to the salvation of the Gentiles. He here shows them that it was from no want of love to them.

(2.) The doctrines which he was about to state and defend were of a similar character; he was about to maintain that no small part of his own countrymen, notwithstanding their privileges, would be rejected and lost. In this solemn manner, therefore, he assures them that this doctrine had not been embraced because: he did not love them, but because it was solemn, though most painful-truth. He proceeds to enumerate their privileges as a people, and to show to them the strength and tenderness of his love.

Verse 2. Great heaviness. Great grief.

Continual sorrow. The word rendered continual here must be taken in a popular sense. Not that he was literally all the time pressed down with this sorrow, but that whenever he thought on this subject he had great grief; as we say of a painful subject, it is a source of constant pain. The cause of this grief, Paul does not expressly mention, though it is implied in what he immediately says. It was the fact that so large a part of the nation would be rejected and cast off.

Verse 3. For I could wish, etc. This passage has been greatly controverted. Some have proposed to translate it, "I did wish," as referring to a former state, when he renounced Christ, and sought to advance the interests of the nation by opposing and defying him. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1.) The object of the apostle is not to state his former feelings, but his present attachment to his countrymen, and willingness to suffer for them.

(2.) The proper grammatical construction of the word used here is not I did wish, but I could desire; that is, if the thing were possible. It is not I do wish, or did wish, but I could desire, (\~hucomhn\~) implying that he was willing now to endure it; that his present love for them was so strong, that he would, if practicable, save them from the threatened ruin and apostasy.

(3.) It is not true that Paul ever did wish before his conversion to be accursed by Christ, i.e. by the Messiah. He opposed Jesus of Nazareth; but he did not believe that he was the Messiah. At no time would he have wished to be devoted to destruction by the Messiah, or by Christ. Nothing would have been more terrible to a Jew; and Saul of Tarsus never doubted that he was the friend of the promised Messiah, and was advancing the true interests of his cause, and defending the hopes of his nation against an impostor. The word, therefore, expresses a feeling which the apostle had, when writing this epistle, in regard to the condition and prospects of the nation.

Were accursed from Christ. Might be anathema by Christ (\~anayema einai apo tou cristou\~). This passage has been much controverted. The word rendered accursed (anathema) properly means,

(1.) anything that was set up, or set apart, or consecrated to the gods in the temples, as spoils of war, images, statues, etc. This is its classical Greek meaning. It has a similar meaning among the Hebrews. It denoted that which was set apart or consecrated to the service of God, as sacrifices or offerings of any kind. In this respect it is used to express the sense of the Hebrew word \^HEBREW\^, anything devoted to Jehovah, without the possibility of redemption, Leviticus 27:21,28,29 Numbers 18:14; Deuteronomy 7:26; Joshua 6:17,18; 7:1; 1 Samuel 15:21; Ezekiel 44:29.

(2.) As that which was thus dedicated to Jehovah was alienated from the use of him who devoted it, and was either burnt or slain, and devoted to destruction as an offering, the word came to signify a devotion of anything to destruction, or to complete ruin. And as whatever is devoted to destruction may be said to be subject to a curse, or to be accursed, the word comes to have this signification, 1 Kings 20:42; Isaiah 34:5. But in none of these cases does it denote eternal death. The idea, therefore, in these places is simply, "I could be willing to be destroyed, or devoted to death, for the sake of my countrymen." And the apostle evidently means to say that he would be willing to suffer the bitterest evils, to forego all pleasure, to endure any privation and toil, nay, to offer his life, so that he might be wholly devoted to sufferings, as an offering, if he might be the means of benefiting and saving the nation. For a similar case, see Exodus 32:32. This does not mean that Paul would be willing to be damned for ever. For,

(1.) the words do not imply that, and will not bear it.

(2.) Such a destruction could in no conceivable way benefit the Jews.

(3.) Such a willingness is not and cannot be required. And,

(4.) it would be impious and absurd. No man has a right to be willing to be the eternal enemy of God; and no man ever yet was, or could be, willing to endure everlasting torments.

From Christ. By Christ. Grotius thinks it means from the church of Christ. Others think it means "after the example of Christ;" and others, from Christ for ever. But it evidently means that he was willing to be devoted by Christ; i.e. to be regarded by him, and appointed by him, to suffering and death, if by that means he could save his countrymen. It was thus the highest expression of true patriotism and benevolence. It was an example for all Christians and Christian ministers. They should be willing to be devoted to pain, privation, toil, and death, if by that they could save others from ruin.

My kinsmen, etc. My countrymen; all of whom he regarded as his kinsmen, or relations, as descended from the same ancestors.

According to the flesh. By birth. They were of the same blood and parentage, though not now of the same religious belief.

{w} "could wish" Exodus 32:32
{1} "accursed" or, "separated"

Verse 4. Who are Israelites. Descended from Israel, or Jacob; honoured by having such an ancestor, and by bearing a name so distinguished as that of his descendants. It was formerly the honourable 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 peculiar 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 Shekinah, Exodus 13:21,22; 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 20:1. Comp. Psalms 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.

{x} "adoption" Deuteronomy 7:6
{y} "glory" Psalms 90:16; Isaiah 60:19
{1} "covenants" or, "testaments"
{z} "covenants" Genesis 17:2; Deuteronomy 29:14; Jeremiah 31:33
{a} "law" Psalms 147:19; Romans 3:2
{b} "service of God" Exodus 12:25
{c} "promises" Ephesians 2:12

Verse 5. Whose are the fathers. Who have been honoured with so illustrious an ancestry. Who are descended from Abraham, Isaac, etc. On this they highly valued themselves, and, in a certain sense, not unjustly. Comp. Mt 3:9.

Of whom. Of whose nation. This is placed as the crowning and most exalted privilege, that their nation had given birth to the long-expected Messiah, the hope of the world.

As concerning the flesh. So far as his human nature was concerned. The use of this language supposes that there was a higher nature, in respect to which he was not of their nation. See Barnes "Romans 1:3".

Christ came. He had already come; and it was their high honour that he was one of their nation.

Who is over all. This is an appellation that belongs only to the true God. It implies supreme Divinity; and is full proof that the Messiah is Divine. Much effort has been made to show that this is not the true rendering, but without success. There are no various readings in the Greek MSS. of any consequence; and the connexion here evidently requires us to understand this of a nature that is not "according to the flesh," i.e., as the apostle here shows, of the Divine nature.

God blessed for ever. This is evidently applied to the Lord Jesus; and it proves that he is Divine. If the translation is fairly made,--and it has never been proved to be erroneous,--it demonstrates that he is God as well as man. The doxology "blessed for ever" was usually added by the Jewish writers after the mention of the name God, as an expression of reverence. (See the various interpretations that have been proposed on this passage examined in Prof Stuart's Notes on this verse.)