Romans 9:4

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, Gen 32:28.

The adoption; adoption is not here to be understood as before, in Rom 8:15, or as in Eph 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 Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Jer 31:9,20; Mt 15:26.

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

The covenants; some understand by covenants, the tables of the law: see Heb 9:4. Others rather understand the covenant made with Abraham, Gen 15:8; 17:2,7; and with the Jewish nation, Exo 24:7,8; Exo 34:27, &c. Circumcision also may be intended, for that is called God’s covenant, Gen 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, Act 2:39; Eph 2:12, till God at last cut off the entail.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Rom_9:4-5

Who are Israelites.

The literal and the true Israelites

I. The literal enjoyed the adoption as Gods people among whom God revealed Himself gloriously--the true enjoy the adoption of sons and the glorious indwelling of the Spirit.

II. The literal were privileged with the patriarchal covenants and the giving of the law--the true are privileged with the New Testament covenant, and the dispensation of the Spirit.

III. The literal rejoiced in the Levitical service, and the promises of better things to come--the true worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in the hope of eternal life.

IV. The literal could boast of the fathers and anticipate the Messiah--the true have their apostles, martyrs, and confessors, and look for the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The Israelites and their privileges

The name Israelites was a most honourable one, and dear to them all. The relationship which it signalised was fitted to remind them that by the condescension of the Omnipotent One, there was something princely within their reach (Gen_32:28; Hos_12:3).

I. The adoption. Under the Old Testament the Divine adoption realised itself specifically in the collective theocratic people as a people (Exo_4:22; cf. Jer_31:9; Hos_11:1). The collective people were for great theocratic purposes adopted into a relation of Divine sonship, and thus into a relation of peculiar Divine privilege; not, however, because of a feeling of partiality in the heart of God toward a section of His human family, but because His benignant Messianic purposes, widespreading to the ends of the earth, required some arrangement of the kind. Such was the Divine plan in Old Testament ages. The Israelites were Gods son, daughter, or daughter of His people. At times the representation tended anticipatively toward the grander principle of personal individuality; as when it is said, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me. But it was reserved for the New Testament age to give emphasis to the idea of personal individualism in relation to the Divine adoption (Joh_1:12; Gal_3:26; 1Jn_3:1).

II. The glory. The reference is to that peculiar symbol of the Divine presence which guided the Israelites out of Egypt and through the wilderness, overshadowing them by day and illuminating them by night (Exo_13:21-22; Exo_14:19). This was in some external respects Gods glory par excellence (Exo_24:16). It was a magnificent symbol of Divine guidance and protection, and was denominated the Shekinah. Wherever it was to be found, there God was to be found; not indeed as in His palace-home, the house not made by hands, but as in His temporary tent beside His tented people in the period of their pilgrimage--a very present Helper and Defence.

III. The covenants. These were engagements on the part of God to confer distinguishing privileges on the patriarchs and the Israelites in general, on condition of responsive appreciation on their part, and the observance, in all the affairs of life, of His regulative will (Gen_15:1-6; Gen_17:1-8; Gen_17:15-19; Exo_19:1-9). But these engagements, while thus involving, as is suggested by the Hebrew term Berith, a certain ineradicable conditionality, were at the same time in accordance with the Greek suntheke, spontaneous and unencumbered dispositions of goods and distributions of benefits, just as if they had been actually willed to them by testamentary deed. God disposed of certain portions of His means and goods for the benefit of His national son, though it was impossible that He could alienate the goods from Himself, or alienate Himself from both His present usufruct and His perpetual right of property.

IV. The giving of the Law, i.e., the Divine legislative enactments published from Sinai, and constituting in their sum the code which is known as the moral law. It is incomparably the best of all bases for the innumerable details of practical jurisprudence. It goes back, indeed, in its form to that primitive era when duty was, to a most preponderating extent, identified with moral self-restraint. Hence its injunctions are wisely set forth in negations. But when the detailed expanse of the decalogue is condensed into the summation of the duologue, the phase of representation is become affirmative; and nothing can excel the duological enactments in comprehensiveness, completeness, simplicity, and direct authority over the reason and the conscience.

V. The service, i.e., the temple service--a grand ritual, here regarded as a Divine appointment or grant of grace. Being in its many and varied details instinct with practical significance, it was fitted to recall to the minds of the worshippers what was due to God on the one hand, and how much was graciously provided by Him on the other.

VI. The promises--announcements of coming favours--avant-couriers of the favours themselves, and sent forth to stimulate expectation and support the heart. All the Old Testament dispensations were replete with Messianic promises. His coming was the promise--the one running promise made to the fathers (Act_13:32), and involved all other Messianic blessings, such as the atonement, the kingdom of heaven, the reign to be continued as long as the sun, the new earth, the inheritance of the world (Rom_4:13-14). It involved peace, joy, hope, all of them unspeakable and full of glory (Rom_5:1-11).

VII. The fathers--the patriarch fathers, the band of whom Abraham was the leader and typical representative. They were far indeed from being men without blemish. But perhaps most of the sinister bars in their escutcheon were parcels of the heritage which they had received from their ancestors. But notwithstanding their blemishes they were at once childlike in faith and reverential in spirit. Their thoughts rose up on high. They sought a heavenly country and looked for a city whose builder and architect was God (Heb_11:10-14). It was no little advantage to be descended from such sires.

VIII. The Christ. The Messiah emerged from among the Hebrews, and thus salvation was of the Jews. It was their crowning prerogative. Jesus was a Jew. But His own people knew not their privilege, and they perceived not that it was the time of tide in the day of their merciful visitation (Joh_1:11; cf. Mat_21:39). When the apostle said so far as His human nature was concerned, his mind was already mounting the infinite height which rose beyond. Who is over all, God, to be blessed for ever. (J. Morison, D.D.)

Israelites and their privileges

To no nation under the sun does there belong so proud, so magnificent a heraldry. No minstrel of a countrys fame was ever furnished so richly with topics; and the heart and fancy of our apostle seem to kindle at the enumeration of them. They were first Israelites, or descendants of a venerable patriarch--then, selected from among all the families of the earth, they were the adopted children of God, and to them belonged the glory of this high and heavenly relationship; and with their ancestors were those covenants made which enveloped the great spiritual destinies of the human race; and the dispensation of the Law from that mountain which smoked at the touch of the Divinity was theirs; and that solemn temple service where alone the true worship of the Eternal was kept up for ages was theirs; and as their history was noble from its commencement by the fathers from whom they sprung, so at its close did it gather upon it a nobility more wondrous still by the mighty and mysterious descendant in whom it may be said to have terminated--even Him who at once is the root and the offspring of David, and with the mention of whose name our apostle finishes this stately climax of their honours--of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen. They are far the most illustrious people on the face of the world. There shines upon them a transcendental glory from on high; and all that the history whether of classical or heroic ages hath enrolled of other nations are but as the lesser lights of the firmament before it. (T. Chalmers, D.D.)

The covenants.

I. The term itself bears a special Messianic meaning, as always having in view the fidelity of God to the design of human redemption through the sacrifice of His Son. The Hebrew Berith almost always translated in the LXX. by diatheke, signifies, not a compact as between man and man, but the disposition or arrangement assumed by the one supreme purpose of grace. Unlike human compacts it is invariably connected with sacrifice. The Hebrew contains an allusion to the custom of cutting and passing between the parts of a divided animal on the ratification of a covenant. The first express revelation of the covenant to Abraham (Gen_15:18) gives the key to all its history. There all is based on a free Divine promise. The animals divided denoted the two parties to the great transaction; and the flame passing through was God, in His future Son, the Shekinah, uniting the parties alone, and thus ratifying His own covenant. The New Testament term diatheke does not preserve the original allusion; but it is never disconnected from the idea. The one covenant of grace has been ratified by an eternal sacrifice; which is at the same time the death of the Testator, who disposes the promise of eternal inheritance according to the counsel of His own will.

II. The covenant of redemption, or of grace, has always been connected with Christ, its unrevealed Mediator. As its Mediator He is the medium through whom, or rather in whom, all its blessings are conveyed: that grace which is the one name and blessing of the covenant, the free bestowment of favour on sinful man, or the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Co_13:14). Therefore the term, which has a wider meaning than its relation to a compact, may be applied to Christ as the yet unknown Redeemer who was at once the ground of the covenant, and its promise, and its virtual administrator. After He came and was revealed, it is the term surety that more precisely expresses His mediatorship in the order of grace: in His Divine-human atoning personality, He is the Pledge to man of the bestowment by God of all blessings procured through His atoning work, and the Pledge to God on behalf of mankind of compliance with all the conditions of the covenant. In the Old Testament the future Redeemer is not termed either the Mediator or the Surety; though He was in the profoundest sense both as the Angel or Messenger of the covenant (Mal_3:1), and Himself the embodied Covenant reserved for the future (Isa_49:8). What was thus given to Him by promise becomes the heritage of His people through faith, who as Christs are heirs according to the promise (Gal_3:18-19; Gal_3:29).

III. This one covenant has taken three forms in the history of revelation.

1. As entered into with mankind, represented by Adam, its revelation began with the Fall, was ratified for the world with Noah, and was con- firmed to Abraham as the representative of all believers to the end of time.

2. But the covenant with Abraham for the world in all ages also introduced the special compact with his descendants after the flesh. The latter was established through Moses, its mediator; and blended the covenant of grace with a covenant of works. The law was given by Moses; and as an appended form or condition of the original institute of grace, perpetually convicted the people of their sin and impotence, drove them to take refuge in the hope of a future grace, the ground of which was kept before them in the institute of sacrifice.

3. Finally the new covenant, established on better promises (Heb_8:6), was ratified in the death of Christ. It was at once the abrogation of the Mosaic, or later old covenant, so far as concerns its national relation and its legal condition, and the renewal unto perfection of the more ancient covenant, always in force and never superseded, with mankind. (W. B. Pope, D.D.)

The giving of the law.--

1. The act as described (Exo_20:18; Deu_4:32, etc.).

2. The law itself. System of laws given (Deu_4:5-8; Psa_147:19-20). A distinction exalting Israel above every other nation, served--

(1) For instruction.

(2) For restraint.

(3) For conviction.

Prepared the way for the promised Saviour (Gal_3:21). Its observance brought national blessings in its train. (T. Robinson, D.D.)

The service of God.--A technical term for Divine worship. The apostle is detailing the privileges which constituted Israel a peculiar people. This was one of the most conspicuous. For the service of Jehovah was distinguished from all heathen cults:--

I. In its origin. This was Divine. God Himself arranged the whole Hebrew ritual down to its minutest details. Man was not left to his own blind instincts as to the manner in which his Maker was to be approached. No doubt all worship was Divine in its origin, and were we able to thread the labyrinths of heathen devotion we should arrive ultimately at a primitive revelation. But this is impossible; and the great mass of heathen worship is the offspring of irrational superstition when it was not the device of a fraudulent priesthood.

II. In its nature.

1. It was spiritual. The forms were materialistic as all forms must necessarily be; but it was not mere form as heathen worship was. Time after time it was carefully explained that the sacrifices, etc., were symbolic, and that without the corresponding spiritual reality they were an abomination to Deity. To what an extent this was realised by the best spirits of the nation, the Psalms and prophets abundantly testify.

2. It was intelligent. The heathen worshipped they knew not what. To worship all the objects presented to their devotion was an impossibility, and had it been possible, ineffectual, for prayers offered to one God would have been neutralised by those offered to another. And the intelligent heathen, while he conformed to the superstitions of his fellow-country-men, knew the host of Olympus to be a myth. The Hebrews knew whom they worshipped. The Shekinah glory was a standing evidence of the Divine existence and presence, and the revelations of His character from time to time exhibited Him as worthy of the homage of rational beings.

III. In its effects. These were--

1. Humbling. The whole system was calculated to reveal the Divine greatness and holiness on the one hand and human insignificance and sinfulness on the other, and thus was discouraging to pride and self-confidence. It was not the fault of the system if men thanked God that they were not as other men were. Heathen worship encouraged no such notions of God or man, and hence humility was never a heathen virtue.

2. Joyful. God was served with gladness; and the joy of the Lord was the peoples strength for services. The great festivals are proofs of this. Heathenism had plenty of hilarity, but little joy. How could it have had when their worship brought no manifestation of the Divine presence and no consciousness of the Divine favour?

3. Moral. Holiness unto the Lord was the legitimate and only issue of the Mosaic system: whereas we know that many heathen gods were served with obscene rites, and that the whole tendency of idolatry was degrading to intellect, heart and life. Conclusion: The comparative value of heathen and Hebrew worship may be seen in their devotional manuals. To estimate this let the Book of Psalms be read side by side with the Vedas, Shasters, etc. (J. W. Burn.)

The promises.--

1. Of blessings in general (Lev_26:43; Deu_28:1-14).

2. Of the Messiah in particular. Given various times and in various ways (Heb_1:1; Rom_1:2). Some already fulfilled in Christs first coming (Act_3:18; Act_3:22-26). Others yet to be fulfilled in Israels experience (Eze_37:1-28; Isa_66:1-24.). All the promises of God, yea and amen in Christ (2Co_1:20). Gentiles by faith made fellow-heirs of the promises (Eph_3:6; Gal_3:29). Promises all fulfilled at Christs second appearing (chap. 11:26; Act_1:6; Act_3:19-21). Mentioned last as the transition to Christ Himself. (T. Robinson, D.D.)

Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.--

The fact of facts in human history

Here is--

I. The crowning fact in Jewish history. Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. In the preceding verses the apostle points to the most illustrious facts in the history, facts in which the Jews passionately gloried. They were Israelites. No national appellation in their estimation was so distinguished as this; Greek and Roman were contemptible by its side. Theirs was the adoption. To them pertained the glory. They had the covenants. The covenants with Abraham, with Jacob, and with Moses, were with them. To them pertained the giving of the law. The best commentary on these words is to be found by Moses himself (Deu_4:32-36). To them also pertained the service of God. He mentions these in order to prepare the way for the announcement of a fact before whose splendour all others pale their lustre, and that is this: Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came. This was the crowning fact of their history. He does not disparage the other facts; on the contrary, he is patriotically proud of them. When will the Jew come to see that Jesus of Nazareth is the glory of Israelitish history? Here is--

II. The greatest fact in human history.

1. There are many great facts in the history of the world.

(1) Physical, such as deluges, earthquakes, wars, pestilences, etc.

(2) Political, such as the rise and fall of empires.

(3) Social, such as discoveries in science, inventions in art, reformations in customs and manners.

(4) Religious, such as the birth, growth, and decay of theological systems and ceremonial observances.

2. But of all facts there is not one approaching the great one in the text, viz., that Christ Jesus came into the world.

(1) No fact is better attested.

(2) No fact is so central in the worlds history as this.

(3) No fact involves such vital influence to the world as this. (D. Thomas, D.D.)

Christ is

I. God

1. Supreme.

2. Infinite.

3. Eternal.

II. Over all.

1. Nature.

2. The world.

3. Heaven.

III. Ever blessed.

1. Self-sufficient.

2. Holy.

3. Good; hence--

4. Happy.

IV. Acknowledged.

1. Conscience.

2. Gratitude.

3. Hope--say, Amen. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Christ over all

I. In the sublimity of His origin. All others came into existence in the natural order of generation, received a bias to wrong from their parents, and never in the case of the best quite lost their earthliness. On the contrary, Christ came down from the pure heavens of God. He had a pre-incarnate existence (Pro_8:1-36.; Joh_1:1-2). He was in the bosom of the Father, and while there was morally over all.

II. In the character of His doctrines. These were--

1. Realities of which He Himself was conscious. They were not matters of speculation. All the forms and voices of eternal truth were matters of consciousness to Him.

2. Moral in their influence. They are so congruous with mans sense of right, consciousness of need, feeling of God, desire for immortality, that the believing soul sees them as Divine reality.

3. Pre-eminently Divine. They concerned God Himself, His words, thoughts, feelings, purposes. Christ does not teach what men call sciences; but God Himself, the root, centre and circumference of all truth.

III. In the affection of the father.

1. No one shared the Divine love so much as He. God loves all. He is love. But Christ is His well-beloved, and as such He loves Him with infinite complacency.

2. None ever deserved it as Christ did. He never offended the Father in His conduct, or misrepresented Him in His teaching. He always did those things which pleased Him.

3. None ever had such demonstrations of it. All power is given unto Me.

IV. In the extent of his endowment. God giveth not His Spirit by measure unto Him. It pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell.

V. In the necessity of His mission. Faith in Him is essential to mans eternal well-being. (D. Thomas, D.D.)

Christ over all, God blessed for ever

Let us in imagination pass the angel guardians of those gates where no error enters, and, entering that upper sanctuary which no discord divides, no heresy disturbs, let us find out who worship and who are worshipped there. The law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, extends to heaven as well as to earth; so that if our Lord is only the highest of all creatures, we shall find Him on His knees--not the worshipped, but a worshipper; and from His lofty pinnacle, and lonely, and to other creatures unapproachable pinnacle, looking up to God, as does the highest of the snow-crowned Alps to the sun, that, shining above it, bathes its head in light. We have sought Him, I shall suppose, in that group where His mother sits with the other Marys, sought Him among the twelve apostles, or where the chief of the apostles reasons with angels over things profound, or where David, royal leader of the heavenly choir, strikes his harp, or where the beggar, enjoying the repose of Abrahams bosom, forgets his wrongs, or where martyrs and confessors and they which have come out of great tribulation, with robes of white and crowns of glory, swell the song of salvation to our God which sitteth on the throne. He is not there. Rising upwards, we seek Him where angels hover on wings of light, or, with feet and faces veiled, bend before a throne of dazzling glory. Nor is He there. He does not belong to their company. Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels. Eighteen hundred years ago Mary is rushing through the streets of Jerusalem, speed in her steps, wild anxiety in her look, one question to all on her eager lips, Have you seen my Son? Eighteen hundred years ago on those same streets, some Greeks accosted a Galilean fisherman, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Now, were we bent, like His mother on finding Him, like those Greeks on seeing Him, to stay a passing angel, and accost him in the words, Sir, we would see Jesus, what would he do? How would his arm rise, and his finger point upward to the throne as he fell down to worship, and worshipping to swell that flood of song which in this one full stream mingles the name of the Father, and of the Son--Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever. Such a glorious vision, such worship, the voices that sounded on Johns ear as the voice of many waters, the distant roar of the ocean, are in perfect harmony with the exalted honour and Divine dignity which Paul assigns to Him who is over all, God blessed for ever. (T. Guthrie, D.D.)

Christs supremacy

I. Over spirits (Mat_8:16).

II. Over nature (verse 26; 17:27).

III. Over man (Joh_2:14-16; Joh_18:6). (T. Robinson, D.D.)

Christs supremacy

I. Over what. Over--

1. The sublimest created intelligences (Heb_1:1-14.).

2. The greatest human potentates (Rev_19:16; Psa_110:1. cf. Mat_22:43; Mat_11:42).

3. The most glorious of material edifices (Mat_12:46).

4. The universe of matter as its Creator (Joh_1:3).

5. The universe of mind as its Ruler and Judge (Mat_28:18; Joh_5:22; Joh_5:25).

6. His Church as its Redeemer, Legislator, Sovereign (Col_1:18-19).

7. In a word--all things (Col_1:16-17; 1Co_15:27).

II. Why? Can there be any other answer but that in the text?--because He is God. (J. W. Burn.)

The Divine supremacy of Christ

Various constructions have been put on these words in order to set aside so clear an assertion of the Godhead of Jesus; but most of the highest authorities agree in regarding the present construction as most true to the original: and, if so, a more full and unmistakable declaration of Christs Divinity it is almost impossible to conceive. Were it our intention to argue the point of our Redeemers Godhead, we would look upon the question--

1. In the light of general history, and develop three facts.

(1) That the system of Jesus has become one of the most mighty powers in the human world, and is evidently tending to universal dominion. The Anglo-Saxon race is, in its literature, laws, customs, institutions and spirit, mightily influenced by it, and that race is rapidly advancing to the throne of the world.

(2) That there was a period in the history of the world when this mighty creed had no existence. When Homer sang, and Socrates reasoned; when Alexander fought his campaigns, and Demosthenes hurled his fulminations over Greece, Christianity was not.

(3) There was everything in the external history of the Founder of Christianity, as well as in the spiritual purity of its doctrines and precepts, to have led one antecedently to suppose that it would never make any way in the world. Christ was born of a despised people; lived in the most obscure part of their country; and came of humble parents; and so thoroughly did His doctrines clash with the feelings, and prejudices, and habits of the people, that the proclamation of them ended in His being executed as a malefactor. These facts show that the power which Christianity has gained in the world is a phenomenon which cannot be explained on the hypothesis of His being nothing more than a mere man; and that gives a strong presumption in favour of His Divinity.

2. In the light of Divine revelation, we would also state three facts.

(1) That whoever created the universe is our God, by whatever name you call the great originating agent. We cannot form an idea of a higher being than a Creator.

(2) That the Bible unquestionably refers the work of creation to Christ (Joh_1:3; Col_1:16).

(3) As a necessary conclusion, that unless the Bible is false, Christ is God. But our object is to offer a few remarks concerning Christs Divine supremacy, which is--

I. co-extensive with the universe. Over all. How much is included in this all! The visible and invisible, the proximate and remote, the minute and vast, the material and the spiritual. The subjects of His dominion may be divided into four classes. Those which He governs--

1. Without a will; all inanimate matter and vegetable life. Plants germinate, grow, and die; oceans ebb and flow; stars and systems revolve by His will entirely. They have no will.

2. With their will. All irrational existences have volition. By this they move. They cannot move contrary to their instinct. Whether they roam in the forest, wing the air, or sport in mighty oceans, they move with their will, and He controls them thus.

3. By their will. Holy intelligences He governs thus. He gives them laws, and supplies them with motive, and leaves them free. They move by their will, yet He governs them.

4. Against their will. These are wicked men and devils. He makes their wrath to praise Him. He is over all these.

II. Exercised with perfect happiness. Blessed for ever. He is the blessed and only Potentate. Christ is happy on the throne. If so, we infer--

1. That He can have no doubt of His capacity to meet every conceivable emergency. The sovereign who doubts his power can never be happy. How many monarchs, like Herod, are miserable from fear? Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. Christ has all power. He is not afraid of insurrections or rebellions.

2. That He can have no misgivings as to the rectitude of His position. The monarch who has got power by fraud or violence, by treading on the rights of others if he has conscience, can never be happy on his throne. But Christ has a consciousness that He has a right to the power He wields. His subjects are His creatures, His property, etc.

3. That He must be ever under the sway of benevolent affections. Envy, anger, revenge, ambition, are all the fruits of selfishness, and are elements of misery; and they cannot co-exist with benevolence.

4. That happiness is the law of the universe. He that is happy ever seeks to make others so. Misery is an accident; happiness is a necessity; for Christs being is a necessity. Misery had a beginning; happiness is eternal. Misery is local; happiness is universal. The misery of the universe, as compared with the happiness, is only as one blighted leaf in an immeasurable forest.

III. Heartily acquiesced in by the good. Amen; i.e., So be it--I would have it so.

1. Conscience says amen to Christs supremacy.

2. Gratitude. What has He done for us! Recount His victories--His mercies.

3. Hope. What higher security can we have, either for the future well-being of our race or selves than this? (D. Thomas, D.D.)

The Deity of Christ

In defence of the received version of our text, we have to urge--

I. That it is in strict conformity with every principle of just interpretation. It violates no rule of construction; it infringes on no idiom of the Greek language; it deviates from no general usage of the sacred writers. There is no rude disjointure of the passage; no referring of the terms who is to a person afterwards to be named, instead of the person named before; no mutilation of the passage; no addition; but--so far as the English language will admit of it--the very order is preserved in which the passage stands in the original.

II. The qualification of the statement, that the Messiah was of the Israelites only according to the flesh, strongly countenances, not to say renders necessary, this reading; involving, as it does, the supposition that there was something else, according to which He was not of them; and at least justifying the conclusion that if anything else be named before the final closing of the sentence by which the contrast can be completed, and according to which the Messiah was not of the Jews, it was intended to be so taken and applied. Now, in our text that something else is clearly pointed out--namely, His Deity. According to the flesh, He is of the Israelites; according to another, and a Divine nature, He is over all, God blessed for ever. Thus the contrast is complete; both parts of the antithesis are supplied, and our Emmanuel is seen to be precisely as St. John represented Him--truly man, and truly God.

III. That this is the proper rendering of the text we argue from the existing ancient versions of this epistle. The most ancient of the versions of the New Testament, and that which stands highest in critical authority, is the Old Syriac, made, some suppose, before the death of the apostle John, but certainly at the close of the first century, or the beginning of the second. This ancient version thus renders the passage:--And from them was manifested Messiah in the flesh, who is God that is over all; whose are praises and blessings to the ages of ages. Amen. Nothing can be more clear than this; nothing more express. The version which stands next to the Syriac, and which may be said almost to rival it, is the Old Latin, denominated the Italic. This was executed, as is supposed, at the beginning of the second century, and is of no small importance in Biblical criticism. It renders our text thus;--From whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen. The Ethiopic, translated in the fourth century, omits the words over all, and reads--Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed for ever. Amen. And the Armenian, translated at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, reads--Of whom the Christ came according to the flesh; who is also over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.

IV. All the ancient Christian writers who have either professedly cited or translated the passage, or who have referred to the apostles design in writing it, have given the construction for which we are contending. Irenaeus, who flourished in the second century, and who was the disciple of Polycarp, who had been personally acquainted with the apostle John, speaking of the generation of Jesus Christ, says--He is called God with us, lest by any means one should conceive that He was only a man; for the Word was made flesh, not by the will of man, but by the will of God; nor should we, indeed, surmise Jesus to have been another, but know Him to be one and the same God. This very thing St. Paul has interpreted. Writing to the Romans, he said--Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Tertullian, about the year 211, writes thus:--I will follow the apostle; so that if I have occasion to mention the Father and the Son together, I will use the appellations God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord. But when I am speaking of Christ alone, I will call Him God; as the apostle says, of whom is Christ, who is, saith he, God over all things, blessed for ever. And in another passage Tertullian states:--Paul also hath called Christ very God: Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever Cyprian, who wrote about the year 240, thus cites the passage, in a work written to prove that Christ is God:--Of whom are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Novatian, about the year 251, thus expostulated with the opposers of the Saviours Godhead:--But if, when it belongs to God alone to know the secrets of the heart, Christ looks into the secrets of the heart; but if, when it belongs to God alone to forgive sins, Christ forgives sins; but if, when it is not the possible act of any man to come down from heaven, Christ in His advent descended from heaven; but if, when no man can utter this sentence, I and my Father are one, Christ alone, from a consciousness of His Divinity, declared, I, etc.; but if the apostle Paul, too, in his writings says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever, it follows that Christ is God. Athanasius, about the year 326, states:--Paul thus writes in his Epistle to the Romans: Of whom are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God. Here, by not adding the doxology, blessed for ever, Athanasius has incontrovertibly proved that he understood the words as applying to Christ. Theodoret, Epiphanius, and Gregory of Nyssa have quoted them in the same manner. Hilary, who wrote A.D. 324, has left the following testimony:--Paul was not ignorant that Christ is God, saying, Of whom are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all things, God. And, now, what shall we say to this? If the consent of the whole professing Christian world--with the exception of a few individuals within the last three centuries--be not sufficient to prove the proper construction of a passage like this, on what authority are we to depend? But if it be sufficient, then an inspired apostle has assuredly written that Christ is over all, God blessed for ever. (Thos. Allin.)

Blending of the human and Divine in Christ

The picture produced in the stereopticon is fuller, rounder, and more natural than the same picture seen without the use of that instrument. But to produce the stereoscopic picture there must be two pictures blended into one by the use of the stereopticon, and both the eyes of the observer are brought into requisition at the same time, looking each through a separate lens. Thus Christ is only seen in His true and proper light when the record of His human nature and the statement of His Divine are blended. It is a flat, unfinished Christ with either left out. But it is as seen in the Word, with the moral and mental powers of our being both engaged in the consideration, and thus only, that we get the full and true result.

Pre-eminence of Christ:--We have seen in mountain lands one majestic peak soaring above all the rest of the hills which cut the azure of the horizon with their noble outline, burning with hues of richest gold in the light of the morning sun; and so should the doctrine of Christ incarnate, crucified, risen, and reigning, be pre-eminent above the whole chain of fact, doctrine, and sentiment which make up the sublime landscape--the magnificent panorama--which the Christian preacher (or teacher) unfolds, and makes to pass in clear form and brilliant colour before the eyes of his peoples faith. (Evangelical Magazine.)

Christs Divine human personality

I. Christs humanity.

1. Real flesh.

2. Of the seed of Abraham.

3. Compassed about with infirmities.

II. Christs divinity.

1. Supreme.

2. Eternal.

3. Blessed for ever. Amen. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 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, 1Sa 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, Psa 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, Gen 15:8; Gen 17:2; Gen 17:7; and that with the Jewish nation by the ministry of Moses, Exo 24:7-8; Exo 34:27; including the seals of these covenants, namely, circumcision, the seal of the former, Gen 17:10; and the sprinkling of blood the seal of the latter, Exo 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:4 Up to this point in Romans, Paul has called the Jewish people Jews. His shift to people of Israel, here and throughout most of chs 9–11, is significant. Jew connotes national identity, but Israel emphasizes the covenant relationship of the people with God. • chosen to be God’s adopted children: The Old Testament called Israel God’s son or child to emphasize that God had selected Israel to be his own people (e.g., Exod 4:22; Jer 3:19; 31:9; Hos 11:1). Israel’s adopted status meant that they received God’s blessing and promises, not that they were necessarily saved. • covenants: The Old Testament includes several covenants between God and the people of Israel: one with Abraham (Gen 17), one with the nation through Moses at Mount Sinai (Exod 19–24), and one with David (2 Sam 7:8-16; 23:5).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 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. Eph 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, Deu 4:7; Deu 4:33-34; Psa 106:20, (Psa 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 Rev 21:7; comp. Rom 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, Gen 31:42; Gen 31:54.—καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι, καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία, and the covenants and the giving of the law) comp. Heb 8:6. The reason why the covenants are put before the giving of the law, is evident from Gal 3:17. Διαθῆκαι is plural, because the testament, or covenant, both was frequently repeated, Lev 26:42; Lev 26:45; Eph 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], Heb 1:1; and because there were two administrations of it, Gal 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) Act 26:6-7; Eph 1:13; Heb 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, Gal 3:14.—V. g.]

[108] See Appendix.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:4. Οἵτινες κ.τ.λ.] quippe qui, who indeed; a descriptionassigning the motive for what is said in Rom_9:3of the ἀδελφῶν κατὰ … σάρκα according to their theocratic privileges, and first of all by significant designation according to their ancient and hallowed (Gen_32:28; Gen_11:1; 2Co_11:21 f.; Php_3:5; Joh_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. Exo_4:22 ff; Exo_19:5; Deu_14:1; Deu_32:6; Hos_11:1, et al. In the υἱοθεσία of the N. T. (see on Rom_8:15), the specific essence of which is the reconciliation obtained for Christs 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 (Exo_24:16; Exo_40:34-35; 1Ki_8:10-11; Eze_1:28; Heb_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 Lev_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 1Sa_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 Gal_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; Eph_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. Heb_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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 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. 2Co 11:22 , Gal 6:16 . ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία : this is not the Christian sonship, but that which is referred to in such passages as Exo 4:22 , Hos 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 Deu 14:1 , Hos 2:1 (Rom 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 Act 7:2 , Heb 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 2Co 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. Rom 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 Eph 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 Rom 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 2Ti 4:18 , 2Pe 3:18 , Heb 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 2Co 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 (Rom 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 (Rom 11:13-16 ; Rom 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 (Rom 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 (Rom 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 4 and 5 are intended to justify the wish expressed in Rom 9:3, by declaring the glorious prerogatives which are fitted to render this people supremely precious to a truly Israelitish heart.

Vv. 4. “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the service, and the promises.”

The pronoun οἵτινες, who, characterizes them in the context as persons for whom it would be worth while to accept even damnation.

The name Israelites is the name of honor belonging to the people; it is a title resting on the glorious fact related Gen 32:28. It contains all the prerogatives which follow.

These prerogatives are enumerated in Rom 9:4, to the number of six, all connected by καί, and, a form expressing rising exaltation of feeling.—Υἱοθεσία, the adoption: Israel is always represented as the Lord’s son or first-born among all peoples, Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Hos 11:1.—Δόξα, the glory: this term does not at all express, as Reuss thinks, the final glory of the kingdom of God; for this glory belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. The term is here taken in the special sense which it often has in the O. T.: the visible, luminous appearance of the Lord’s presence, Exo 24:16; Exo 29:43; 1Ki 8:11; Eze 1:28. The Rabbins had invented a particular term to denote this glorious appearance, the name shekinah, from schakan, to dwell.—Διαθῆκαι, the covenants: this word denotes the numerous covenants concluded by God with the patriarchs. The reading of some MSS.: the covenant, is a faulty correction. What led to it was the term: the old covenant.—Νομοθεσία, the giving of the law: this term embraces along with the gift of the law itself, the solemn promulgation of it on Mount Sinai; comp. the saying of the psalmist, Psa 147:20: “He hath not dealt so with any nation.”—Λατρεία, the service (cultus), this is the sum-total of the Levitical services instituted by the law.—·Επαγγελίαι, the promises: this term carries our view from past benefits to the still greater blessings to come, which God promised to His people. The reading: the promise, in the Greco-Latin, is also an erroneous correction.

Vv. 5. “Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever, amen.”

To blessings of an impersonal nature Paul adds, as crowning them, the gifts which consist in living persons, and which either preceded the above or followed them; such are the patriarchs, from whom the people sprang, and who are as it were its root; and the Messiah, who sprang from the people, and who is as it were its flower.

The first proposition literally signifies: “whose (Israelites’) are the fathers,” that is to say, to whom the fathers belong as national property. The heroes of a people are regarded by it as its most precious treasure.

But the apostle is careful not to apply the same form to the Messiah, which would signify that the Christ is the property of the Jews. He says here ἑξ ὧν, from the midst of whom. He proceeds from them as to origin, but He does not belong to them exclusively as to His destination. The antithesis between the two forms ὧν, whose, and ἐξ ὧν, from among whom, is certainly intentional.

But while fully recognizing that the Christ comes from the Jews, the apostle is well aware that this mode of origin refers only to the human and phenomenal side of His person; and hence he immediately adds: as to the flesh. This expression should evidently be taken in the same sense as in Rom 9:3; for here as there the matter in question is a relation of filiation or origin. The term flesh therefore embraces the human nature in its totality; and it is a mistake to seek here the contrast between the flesh and the spirit, σάρξ and πνεῦμα. We find this same meaning of the word flesh again in Rom 9:8, where the human sonship is opposed to the divine (by faith in the promise). It is also in the same sense that John says (Rom 1:14): “The Word was made flesh.” The antithesis to the word flesh in all these cases is not spirit, but God; comp. Gal 1:16 : “I conferred not with flesh and blood” (men in contrast to God); Mat 24:22; Rom 3:20; 1Co 1:29, etc. The contrast is not, therefore, altogether the same in this passage as in Rom 1:3-4. There, the point was the antithesis between the flesh and the spirit in the person of Jesus Himself; here, it is the contrast between His divine origin (which was implied already in Rom 8:3) and His human, and more especially His Israelitish origin.

Many commentators close the sentence with the words: according to the flesh (Seml., Fritzs., Ew., van Heng., Meyer, Baur, Tischendorf, 8th edition). In that case it only remains to take the following words as an exclamation of thanksgiving to the praise of the God who has so highly privileged Israel; so Oltramare translates: “Let Him who is over all things, God, be therefore blessed forever! Amen.” The epithet: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, who is above all things, or above all, would require to be regarded as paraphrasing the term παντοκράτωρ, the universal sovereign, by which the LXX. often render Schaddaï, the All-powerful; comp. 2Co 6:18; Rev 1:8; Rev 4:8. This thanksgiving in the context would apply either to the sovereign freedom with which God distributes His gifts to whom He pleases, or to His providence, which, always extending to all, favors one people only, with the view of bringing to Himself all the rest. On the other hand, it is impossible not to be surprised at a conclusion so abrupt and negative in form, at least as to sense, of an enumeration so magnificent as the preceding; for there is evidently a limitation and, so to speak, a negation in the words: as concerning the flesh. They signify: “At least as concerning the flesh.” This restriction goes in the teeth of the feeling which has inspired the whole passage thus far. It is a descent which, after the gradual ascent of the preceding lines, closes it with startling abruptness. Still more, the burst of gratitude which on this explanation would inspire this doxology, would be out of all harmony with the impression of profound grief which forms the basis of the whole passage. In fact, the privileges enumerated have been heaped up thus only to justify this painful impression; and here is the apostle all at once breaking out into a song of praise because of those advantages which Israel have rendered unavailing by their unbelief! (comp. Gess). If, besides, the participle ὁ ὤν, who is, referred to a subject not mentioned in the previous proposition (God), this transition from one subject to another would require to be indicated in some way, either by the addition of a δέ, now, as in Rom 16:25, Jude Rom 9:24, etc., or by giving a turn to the sentence such as this: τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεῷ, τῷ εὐλογημένῳ...δόξα, “to God ever blessed be glory!” comp. Rom 11:36; or simply: εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός, as in 2Co 1:3; Eph 1:3. In his truly classical dissertation on this passage, Hermann Schultz vigorously develops the argument often alleged against the interpretation which we are examining, that the participle εὐλογημένος, blessed, would require to be placed not after, but before the substantive Θεός, God. The usage is, that in forms of thanksgiving the first word proceeding from the heart of the grateful worshipper is the term blessed, and that this word precedes the name of God; comp. in the LXX. Gen 9:26; Gen 14:20; Psa 18:46; Psa 28:6; Psa 31:21; Psa 41:13; Psa 66:20; Psa 68:35; Psa 72:18-19; Psa 89:52, etc.; and in the N. T. Mat 23:39; Mar 11:9; Luk 1:68; Luk 13:35; Luk 19:38; 2Co 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1Pe 1:3. The only exception which can be quoted would be Psa 68:19, if the text of the LXX. were not probably corrupted in this passage, and if especially the verb to be understood were not the indicative ἐστί, is, instead of the imperative ἔστω, let Him be; comp. Psa 68:34. Finally, it is difficult to understand in our passage the object of the participle ὤν (who is, who is really) applied to God; the form ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός(without ὤν) would have been perfectly clear; and Paul could not have any reason for insisting in speaking of God on the reality of the divine sovereignty. For he was not concerned to combat idolatry, as in chap. 1 for example.

Erasmus, who first proposed to end the period after σάρκα (flesh), had likewise put the question whether the sentence might not close with the word πάντων (all things, or all): “of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things; God be blessed forever and ever!” Is this construction better than the preceding? Meyer thinks not. It seems to me that in the matter of improbability they are on a par. Yet the latter at least gives a more or less suitable conclusion to the proposition relative to the Christ. These last words: “who is over all,” applied to Christ, contain up to a certain point the antithesis which we were led to expect from the restriction: as concerning the flesh; and by proclaiming the supreme dignity of the Christ, they bring out, as the context demands, the exceptional prerogative granted to the people of which He is a member. It would also be somewhat easier to explain the form of ὁ ὤν, who is, than on the previous construction. For the application to Christ of the idea of universal sovereignty might require this word ὤν, who is really. But independently of several difficulties which attach to the preceding explanation, and which remain in this one, there are new difficulties which belong to it, and which render it, if possible, still more inadmissible. The words: who is over all things, are not the natural antithesis of these: as concerning the flesh. The latter referred to origin; the former point only to position. Then, as Meyer observes, the doxology comes on us with intolerable abruptness: “God be blessed forever and ever!” And more than all, the sole reason which would make it possible to explain to a certain extent the position of the participle εὐλογημένος (blessed) after Θεός (God), contrary to the uniform usage of the sacred writers, is wholly lost; for this displacement can only arise (see Meyer) from the forcible description of God in the words: who is over all things.

The entire primitive church seems to have had no hesitation as to the meaning to be given to our passage; comp. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret; later, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Tholuck, Usteri, Olshausen, Philippi, Gess, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss, Delitzsch, Schultz. In fact, in writing the restriction: τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, as concerning the flesh, Paul had evidently in view this peculiarity: that the Christ was something else and more than a Jew, and it is with this unparalleled fact that he rightly concludes the enumeration of Israel’s prerogatives. No doubt the words: who is over all things, express in a certain measure the naturally expected idea of the supreme greatness of the Christ; but they are not enough for the apostle’s object. For, if they connect themselves with the ἐξ ὧν, from the midst of whom, contrasting the universal supremacy of the Christ with His national origin, they bear no relation whatever to the still narrower restriction: as concerning the flesh. Now this latter leads us also to expect its antithesis, which appears only in the title God. This word is therefore the legitimate conclusion of the whole passage, as it forms its culminating point. Scripture frequently contrasts, as we have seen, flesh (human nature in its weakness) with God; comp. Isa 31:3. And if it is certain that Paul recognizes in the divine being who appeared in Jesus the creator of all things (1Co 8:6; Col 1:16-17), the Jehovah of the O. T. who led the people in the cloud (1Co 10:4), who before coming on the earth was in the form of God (Php 2:6 et seq.), is it strange that he should have sometimes given the name of God to such a being, and that he should have done so especially in such a passage as this, where he is feeling in all its bitterness the contrast between the transcendent greatness of the gifts bestowed on Israel and the sad result in which they have terminated? It seems to us difficult to avoid seeing in the benediction which follows the words: “who is God over all things,” an expression of homage rendered to this God-Christ, and intended to wipe out the dishonor cast on Him by Jewish unbelief, as in chap. 1 the form of adoration, pronounced in Rom 9:25, was a way of protesting against the outrage inflicted on the true God by Gentile idolatry.

But it is precisely because of this word God that objections are raised to the application of such utterances to the person of Christ. It is objected that nowhere else does Paul designate Jesus in this way (Meyer), and that even in 1Co 8:6, Christ, as only Lord, is expressly distinguished from the Father, as the one God (Reuss). It is added, that by the words: over all things, Christ would seem to be placed above God Himself, or at least made equal to the supreme God.

Suppose this passage were really the only one in which Jesus receives the name of God from Paul, is it not the same with John, in whose writings this name is not given to Christ confessedly more than once or twice (Joh 1:1, Joh 20:28)? As to the general question, I am unwilling to give judgment from the various passages which are alleged by many commentators with the view of proving that Paul has given Jesus the name of God, Θεός, more than once. I have carefully weighed the reasons of those who deny the fact; and yet, after reading and re-reading Eph 5:5 and Tit 2:13, I always come back to the first conviction which the Greek construction produces, viz. that Paul in these passages really meant to designate the Christ as Θεός. But this discussion would be out of place here, and could not in any case lead to an absolutely conclusive result.

As to the doxologies of the N. T. besides those of Revelation, which are addressed to the Lamb as well as to God, there is that of 2Ti 4:13, which indisputably applies to Christ, and which must be assigned to St. Paul unless we deny to him the whole Epistle.

Let us add, that it would be wholly false to depend here on the rule (the correctness of which I do not examine), that when in the N. T. Christ is called Θεός, God, it is in every case without the article, and that the designation ὁ Θεός is reserved for the one God and Father. This rule does not apply to the case before us, for the article ὁ belongs not to the word Θεός, but to the participle ὤν. If Paul had meant here to use the form ὁ Θεός in application to God, he would have required to write: ὁ ὢν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός. We have therefore the form Θεός without the article, as in Joh 1:1, that is to say, as a simple grammatical predicate.

Against our explanation Reuss with great assurance opposes 1Co 8:6. The reasoning of this critic may be valid against those who refuse to admit the subordination of the Son to the Father. But for those who prefer the true thought of Scripture to a theological formula, ancient, no doubt, but yet human, this argument does not affect them. The distinction between the God and Father and the God-Christ is in their eyes a perfectly established fact. And if there is nothing to hinder God the Father from frequently receiving the name Κύριος, Lord, neither is there anything to prevent the Lord Christ from receiving in certain cases the name Θεός, God (see Hofmann on this point).

The most singular objection is that which is taken from the words: over all things (or over all). Meyer says: “To all this there is added the insurmountable difficulty that Christ would not be simply called God, but God over all; which would designate Him the Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ, the sovereign God, and would contradict the general view maintained in the N. T. of the dependence of the Son in relation to the Father.” Meyer argues as if ἐπὶ πάντων, over all things, was descriptive of the word Θεός, God, and here denoted the being called God as the supreme God. But what does he say himself two pages farther on: “ἐπί, over, denotes government over all things.” The over all things, according to Meyer himself, is not at all a determination of the word Θεός. We must not, as his objection assumed, connect ἐπὶ πάντων with Θεός, but with the participle ὤν, a word which otherwise would be unmeaning there: “He who is exalted over all things, as God blessed forever.” Comp. Mat 18:28. It is understood, of course, that to this πάντων, all things, the exception applies which is stated 1Co 15:27: “He is excepted which did put all things under Him.” How could God be included in the πάντα, all things?

Gess, while holding with us that the conclusion of the verse applies to Christ, divides it into three clauses, placing a first comma after πάντων, and a second after Θεός, “who is above all things, (is) God, (is) blessed”...; so that Paul is taken to affirm three things of Christ: first, that He is appointed universal sovereign; next, that He is God; finally—as follows from the two previous terms—that He is forever adored and blessed. I cannot agree with this explanation. The epithet blessed is too directly connected with the term God to be thus separated from it; and the expression: God blessed, seems, as well as the ἐπὶ πάντων, to be the attribute of the participle ὤν, and intended to form with this latter the complete antithesis to the restriction: as to the flesh. Besides, this breaking up of the proposition into three parallel clauses seems to me contrary to the gush of feeling which dictates this whole conclusion. Nearly the same reasons may be urged against the punctuation proposed by Hofmann (a comma after πάντων): “who is over all things, (who is) God blessed forever.”

Schultz, after demonstrating with the tone of a master the necessity of applying this whole conclusion (from the word flesh) to Jesus Christ, insists notwithstanding on this point: that according to Paul’s view this affirmation of Christ’s divinity applies only to Jesus glorified (from the date of His exaltation at the close of His earthly life). Christ would thus be called God only in an inferior sense, as man raised to universal sovereignty. Three reasons render this explanation inadmissible—1. Paul requires to complete the idea of the Israelitish origin of Jesus by that of a higher origin. The matter in question, therefore, is not His exaltation, but His divine pre-existence. 2. The passages of the Epistles to the Corinthians, to the Colossians, and to the Philippians, which explain this name Θεός, God, relate to Christ before His incarnation, and not to Christ glorified by His ascension. 3. From the standpoint of biblical monotheism to become God, without being so by nature, is a monstrosity.

It seems to us, therefore, beyond doubt that Paul here points, as the crown of all the prerogatives granted to Israel, to their having produced for the world the Christ, who now, exalted above all things, is God blessed forever. It only remains to say a word about the term πάντων. Some translate: all, and understand either all men, or all the servants of God, under the O. T.; others understand by the term all things, and apply it either to all the prerogatives bestowed on Israel, or to the universe in its entirety. This last meaning seems to us the most natural and the most agreeable to the context. What can form a people’s supreme title to honor, if not the fact of having given to the world the universal monarch?

And yet such prerogatives did not exempt the Israelitish nation from the possibility of a rejection. In the very history of this people so peculiarly blessed there were antecedents fitted to put them on their guard against this terrible danger. This is the point the apostle brings out in the following passage, Rom 9:6-13, borrowing from Israelitish history two facts which prove that from the beginnings of this people God has proceeded by way of exclusion in regard to an entire portion of the elect race. Thus, when Isaac alone received the character of the chosen seed, to the exclusion of Ishmael, son of Abraham though he also was, Rom 9:6-9; and again, when of Isaac’s two sons Jacob was preferred, and his eldest rejected, Rom 9:10-13.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_9:4

The object of the apostle in the introduction to this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the Jews of his love and of his respect for their peculiar privileges. The declaration of his love he had just made; his respect for their advantages is expressed in the enumeration of them contained in this verse. Who are Israelites, i.e., the peculiar people of God. This includes all the privileges which are afterwards mentioned. The word Israel means one who contends with God, or a prince with God. Hos_12:3, He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God. As it was given to Jacob as an expression of Gods peculiar favor, Gen_32:28, its application to his descendants implied that they too were the favorites of God. To whom pertaineth the adoption. As Paul is speaking here of the external or natural Israel, the adoption or sonship which pertained to them, as such, must be external also, and is very different from that which he had spoken of in the preceding chapter. They were the sons of God, i.e., the objects of his peculiar favor, selected from the nations of the earth to be the recipients of peculiar blessings, and to stand in a peculiar relation to God. Exo_4:22, Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son, even my first-born; Deu_14:1, Ye are the children of the Lord your God; Jer_31:9, I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born. As the whole Old Testament economy was a type and shadow of the blessings of the New, so the sonship of the Israelites was an adumbration of the sonship of believes. That of the former was in itself, and as common to all the Jews, only the peculiar relation which they sustained to God as partakers of the blessings of the theocracy. The latter, common to all the true children of God under any dispensation, is that relation in which we stand to God in virtue of regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the household of God.

And the glory. These words are variously explained. They may be connected with the preceding, as explanatory of the adoption, or as qualifying it, and the two words be equivalent to glorious adoption. But as every other specification in this verse is to be taken separately, so should this be. Others understand it, of the dignity and distinction of the theoretical people. It was their glory to be the people of God. In the Old Testament, however, that symbolical manifestation of the divine presence which filled the tabernacle and rested over the ark, is called the glory of the Lord. Exo_40:34, A cloud covered the tent of the congregation; and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle; Exo_29:43, There will I meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. Lev_16:2, I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat; 1Ki_8:11, The glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord; 2Ch_5:14; Hag_2:7; Rev_15:8. By the Jews this symbol was called the Shekinah, i.e., the presence of God. Besides this, the manifestation of Gods presence in general is called his glory; Isa_6:3, The whole earth is full of his Glory, etc. It is probable, therefore, that Paul intended by this word to refer to the fact that God dwelt in a peculiar manner among the Jews, and in various ways manifested his presence, as one of their peculiar privileges.

The covenants. The plural is used because God at various times entered into covenant with the Jews and their forefathers; by which he secured to them innumerable blessings and privileges; see Gal_3:16, Gal_3:17; Eph_2:12. The giving of the law, (ἡ νομοθεσία) the legislation. The word is sometimes used for the law itself (see the Lexicons); it may here he taken strictly, that giving of the law, i.e., the solemn and glorious annunciation of the divine will from Mount Sinai. The former is the most probable; because the possession of the law was the grand distinction for the Jews, and one on which they peculiarly relied; see Rom_2:17. The service means the whole ritual, the pompous and impressive religious service of the tabernacle and temple. The promises relate, no doubt, specially to the promises of Christ and his kingdom. This was the great inheritance of the nation. This was the constant subject of granulation and object of hope. See Gal_3:16, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; Rom_9:21, Is the law against the promises of God? So in other places the word promises is used specially for the predictions in reference to the great redemption, Act_26:6.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of the judicial Law.

The ark of the covenant, which was a token of God’s presence.

The tables of the covenant: and this is spoken by the figure Metonymy.

The ceremonial Law.

Which were made to Abraham and to his posterity.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Who are Israelites--See Rom 11:1; Co2 11:22; Phi 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 (Gal 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 (Exo 4:22; Deu 32:6; Isa 1:2; Jer 31:9; Hos 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 Gal 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 (Deu 26:18-19; Psa 147:19-20; Rom 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; Gal 3:16, Gal 3:21; Act 26:6-7).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 4. Who are Israelites] Descendants of Jacob, a man so highly favoured of God, and from whom he received his name Israel-a prince of God, Ge 32:28; from which name his descendants were called Israelites, and separated unto God for his glory and praise. Their very name of Israelites implied their very high dignity; they were a royal nation; princes of the most high God.

The adoption] The Israelites were all taken into the family of God, and were called his sons and first-born, Ex 4:22; De 14:1; Jer 31:9; Ho 11:1; and this adoption took place when God made the covenant with them at Horeb.

The glory] The manifestation of God among them; principally by the cloud and pillar, and the Shekinah, or Divine presence, appearing between the cherubim over the mercy-seat. These were peculiar to the Jews; no other nation was ever thus favoured.

The covenants] The covenants made with Abraham, both that which relates to the spiritual seed, and that which was peculiar to his natural descendants, Ga 3:16, Ga 3:17; which covenants were afterwards renewed by Moses, De 29:1. Some suppose that the singular is here put for the plural, and that by covenants we are to understand the decalogue, which is termed ברית berith, or covenant, De 4:13. But it is more likely that the apostle alludes to the great covenant made with Abraham, and to its various renewals and extensions at different times afterwards, as well as to its twofold design-the grant of the land of Canaan, and the rest that remains for the people of God.

The giving of the law] The revelation of God by God himself, containing a system of moral and political precepts. This was also peculiar to the Jews; for to no other nation had he ever given a revelation of his will.

The service] λατρεια. The particular ordinances, rites, and ceremonies of their religious worship, and especially the sacrificial system, so expressive of the sinfulness of sin and the holiness of God.

The promises] The land of Canaan, and the blessings of the Messiah and his kingdom; which promises had been made and often repeated to the patriarchs and to the prophets.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Who are Israelites, etc. Here the reason is now more plainly given, why the destruction of that people caused him so much anguish, that he was prepared to redeem them by his own death, namely because they were Israelites; for the relative pronoun is put here instead of a causative adverb. In like manner this anxiety took hold on Moses, when he desired that he should be blotted out of the book of life, rather than that the holy and chosen race of Abraham should be reduced to nothing. (Exodus 32:32.) Then in addition to his kind feeling, he mentions also other reasons, and those of a higher kind, which made him to favor the Jews, even because the Lord had, as it were, by a kind of privilege, so raised them, that they were separated from the common order of men: and these titles of dignity were testimonies of love; for we are not wont to speak thus favorably, but of those whom we love. And though by their ingratitude they rendered themselves unworthy to be esteemed on account of these gifts of God, yet Paul continued justly to respect them, that he might teach us that the ungodly cannot so contaminate the good endowments of God, but that they always deserve to be praised and admired: at the same time, those who abuse them acquire thereby nothing but a greater obloquy. But as we are not to act in such a manner as to contemn, through a detestation of the ungodly, the gifts of God in them; so, on the other hand, we must use prudence, lest by our kind esteem and regard for them we make them proud, and especially lest our praises bear the appearance of flattery. But let us imitate Paul, who conceded to the Jews their privileges in such a manner, that he afterwards declared that they were all of no worth without Christ. But it was not in vain that he mentioned this as one of their praises, — that they were Israelites; for Jacob prayed for this as a great favor, that they should be called by his name. (Genesis 48:16.)

Whose are the adoption, etc. The whole drift of Paul’s discourse is to this purpose, — that though the Jews by their defection had produced an ungodly divorce between God and themselves, yet the light of God’s favor was not wholly extinguished, according to what he had also said in Romans 3:3. They had indeed become unbelievers and had broken his covenant; but still their perfidy had not rendered void the faithfulness of God; for he had not only reserved for himself some remnant seed from the whole multitude, but had as yet continued, according to their hereditary right, the mime of a Church among them.

But though they had already stripped themselves of these ornaments, so that it availed them nothing to be called the children of Abraham, yet as there was a danger, lest through their fault the majesty of the gospel should be depreciated among the Gentiles, Paul does not regard what they deserved, but covers their baseness and disgraceful conduct by throwing vails over them, until the Gentiles were fully persuaded, that the gospel had flowed to them from the celestial fountain, from the sanctuary of God, from an elect nation. For the Lord, passing by other nations, had selected them as a people peculiar to himself, and had adopted them as his children, as he often testifies by Moses and the prophets; and not content simply to give them the name of children, he calls them sometimes his first-begotten, and sometimes his beloved. So the Lord says in Exodus 4:22, —

“My first-begotten son is Israel; let my son go, that he may serve me.”

In Jeremiah 31:9, it is said,

“I am become a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-begotten:”

and again, “Is not my son Ephraim precious to me? Is he not a delightful child? Hence troubled for him are my bowels, and I will yet pity him.” By these words he means, not only to set forth his kindness towards the people of Israel, but rather to exhibit the efficacy of adoption, through which the promise of the celestial inheritance is conveyed.

Glory means the excellency into which the Lord had raised up that people above all other nations, and that in many and various ways, and especially by dwelling in the midst of them; for besides many other tokens of his presence, he exhibited a singular proof of it in the ark, where he gave responses, and also heard his people, that he might show forth his power in helping them: and for this reason it was called “the glory of God.” (1 Samuel 4:22.)

As he has distinguished here between covenants and promises, we may observe this difference, — that a covenant is that which is expressed in distinct and accustomed words, and contains a mutual stipulation, as that which was made with Abraham; but promises are what we meet with everywhere in Scripture; for when God had once made a covenant with his ancient people, he continued to offer, often by new promises, his favor to them. It hence follows, that promises are to be traced up to the covenant as to their true source; in the same manner as the special helps of God, by which he testifies his love towards the faithful, may be said to flow from the true fountain of election. And as the law was nothing more than a renewal of the covenant, and more fully sanctioned the remembrance of it, legislation, or the giving of the law, seems to be here peculiarly applied to the things which the law decreed: for it was no common honor conferred on the Jewish people, that they had God as their lawgiver. For if some gloried in their Solons and Lycurguses, how much more reason was there to glory in the Lord? of this you have an account in Deuteronomy 4:32. By worship he understands that part of the law in which the legitimate manner of worshipping God is prescribed, such as rites and ceremonies. These ought to have been deemed lawful on account of God’s appointment; without which, whatever men devise is nothing but a profanation of religion.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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. Hos_11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt;” Exo_4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn;” et al.)

The glory.—The Shechinah, or visible symbol of God’s presence. (Comp. Exo_16:10; Exo_24:16; Exo_40:34-35; 1Sa_4:22; 1Ki_8:10-11; Eze_1:28; Heb_9:5.)

The covenants.—Not the two tables of stone, but the several compacts made by God with Abraham and his descendants (Gen_12:1-3; Gen_12:7; Gen_13:14-17; Gen_15:1-21; Gen_17:1-22; Gen_22:15-18; Gen_26:2-5; Gen_26:34; Gen_28:13-15; Gen_35:9-12; Gen_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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Exo_4:22; Hos_11:1; also Deu_14:1; Isa_63:16. Israel, as a nation, was taken into a relationship with God altogether peculiar, as to nearness and affection. See Hos_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 Exo_25:22; Lev_16:2; Psa_80:1; Psa_99:1; Isa_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 Isa_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 Gen_17:4; Gen_17:11; Gen_17:19; Exo_31:16; Exo_34:28; Mal_2:4-5; Psa_89:28; Psa_89:34. The reference here is of course not (as in Gal_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, Deu_4:8; Neh_9:13-14.

the service] The Gr. specially signifies the Temple-worship. Cp. Heb_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 Joh_4:22. In Him who is “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” (Mat_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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whose are the fathers,.... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for, according to the (a) Jewish writers,

"they call none in Israel "fathers", but three, and they are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and they call none "mothers" but four, and they are, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah:''

their descent from these fathers was a privilege, though they valued themselves too highly upon it; but what was the crown and glory of all, and which they took the least, though the apostle took the most notice of, is,

and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; that is, either of the fathers, or of the Israelites, from whom Christ, according to his human nature, sprung; being a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of David, and the son of Mary; hence the Messiah is called , "the Messiah or Christ of Israel" (b):

who is described as

over all, angels and men, being the creator, upholder, and governor of them; and as having another nature, a divine one, being

God, truly and properly God,

blessed for evermore; in himself, and to be blessed and praised by all creatures. The apostle alludes to that well known periphrastic name of God so much used by the Jews, , "the holy, blessed God"; to which, by way of assent and confirmation, the apostle puts his

Amen. Now all these particular privileges are mentioned by him, as what heightened his concern for these people; it filled him with heaviness and sorrow of heart, when he considered, that persons who had been partakers of such favours, and especially the last, that the Messiah should spring from them, be born of them, and among them, and yet that they should be given up to ruin and destruction.

(a) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 16. 2. & Gloss. in ib. (b) Targum in Isa. xvi. 1, 5. Mic. iv. 8.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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;

Ver. 4. The adoption] For Israel was God’s firstborn, and so "higher than the kings of the earth," Psa 89:27.

And the glory] The ark of the covenant, 1Sa 4:21, whence Judea is called "the glorious land," Dan 11:41. As for the ark, it is elsewhere called God’s face, Psa 105:4. Yea, God himself, Psa 132:5.

The covenants] The moral law in two tables.

The giving of the law] The judicial law.

The service] The ceremonial law.

The promises] Of the gospel made to Abraham, and his seed for ever. These promises are a precious book, every leaf whereof drops myrrh and mercy.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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; Deu 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;” Exo 13:21-22; Exo 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; Exo. 20; compare Psa 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

To whom belongeth the adoption of children. Literally, whose is the adoption. He mentions the favours which God had done to his people, the Jews. As, 1. That God had adopted them for his elect people. 2. That he had glorified them with so many miracles. 3. That he had made a particular covenant and alliance with them. 4. Given them a written law. 5. Prescribed the manner they should worship him. 6. Promises of divers blessings. 7. Who are from the Fathers. Literally, whose are the Fathers; i.e. who descended from the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. 8. Of whose race, i.e. of the family of David, Jesus Christ, as man, was born. --- Who is over all things God,[2] blessed for ever. Amen. Though the apostles did not often, in express words, call Jesus Christ, the God, lest the heathens, when they were not sufficiently instructed, should imagine that there were many gods, (as divers of the fathers take notice) yet here, and in several places, they clearly delivered the divinity of our Saviour, Christ. The Socinians might here observe, that the apostle calls him the God blessed for ever, and with the Greek article. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

4. Israelites—Their loftier title, derived not from Jacob, the supplanter, nor, like Jews, from a single remnant tribe (Judah) alone; but derived from their great founder, and from his name given as wrestler and overcomer with God.

Paul in these two verses enumerates the glories of Israel in the true enthusiasm of an Israelite, to show how he sympathized in Israelite greatness. The passage is parallel with Rom_3:2; Rom_2:17-20, where see notes.

The adoption—By which Abraham and his race were called from among the nations to be the sons of God. (See note on Mat_2:15.)

The glory—The Shekinah, upon the mercy seat between the cherubim and at other times. (See note on Act_7:2.)

Covenants—Formed with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at different times, (Gen_15:9-21; Gen_17:4; Gen_17:7; Gen_17:10; Gen_26:24; Gen_28:13,) and with all Israel at Sinai, (Gen_24:2; Gen_24:8, etc.)

Giving of the law—The law-giving, the legislation, of which the centre was the two tables of the decalogue, and then the entire pentateuchal system.

The service—The full and formal worship by which Israel, freed from idolatry, worshipped the true Jehovah.

Promises—Of the Messiah and the salvation through him. Sad if Israel, to whom these promises were given, should himself fail of their fruition! (See note on Rom_9:6.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 4, 5. Who (oitinev , 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" (uioyesia) means the selection of Israel to be God"s peculiar people. (cf. Exo_4:22, "Israel is my son, even my firstborn;" Deu_14:1, "Ye are the children of the Lord your God;" Hos_11:1, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt;" also Exo_19:5. Cf. also tekna tou Yeou in ver. 8 below) It is, of course, a different idea from that of the spiritual uioyesia of believers, (at present as in Rom_8:15, or to come as in Rom_8:23) though it might be typical of it. "The glory" (hh doxa) seems best explained by reference to 2Co_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" (ai diayhkai), and "the promises" (ai epaggeliai), 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. H latreia 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" (oi paterev) 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. Mat_3:9 Luk_3:8 Luk_13:28 Joh_8:39; and, for the use of paterev in this sense, cf. Act_3:22 Act_13:32; Romans Heb_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 kata sarka , 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 pantwn , so as to refer o wn epi pantwn 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 o wn , 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, (Rom_1:4 Rom_10:12 Php_2:9 4:6 Col_1:15, etc.; Eph_1:20, etc.; 1Co_8:6 2Co_4:4 2Co_8:9) never expressly calls him Yeov , but always clearly distinguishes him as the Kuriov from Yeov ; and that the passages in which Yeov has been supposed by some to apply to him (as in 2Th_1:12, Kata thrin tou Yeou hmwn kai Kuriou Ihsou Cristou ; and Eph_5:5 Tit_1:4) are wrongly so understood; ov , not Yeov , being also undoubtedly the original reading in 1Ti_3:16. (Of St. Paul"s usual distinction between Yeov and Kuriov , when he is referring to the economy of redemption, other instances are found in 1Co_8:6 1Co_12:4, 1Co_12:5, 6 Eph_4:4, Eph_4:5, Eph_4:6. 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 Yeotwr , 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 (2Pe_3:18 does not belong to them, nor does Heb_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, "2Ti_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 Yeov , yet his doctrine with respect to his Divine nature is in accordance with the expression; for surely the term Yeo is applicable to him who is spoken of, as e.g. in Php_2:6 and Col_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, Yeogov , 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 o pantokratwr Yeov , especially if we suppose a comma after pantwn , 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 Yeov , 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 discrepancy 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. O wn epi pantwn 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 Rom_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, euloghtov ought properly to have preceded Yeov (cf. Luk_1:68, Euloghtoriov o Yeo ; Eph_1:3, Euloghto Pathr , 1Pe_1:3, etc. where the same expression occurs); whereas in every other passage where euloghtov follows the subject of the sentence, it is an assertion, and not a doxology. (cf. Rom_1:25 2Co_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.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE Ver. 4. The right use of privileges.

The apostle turned from his rapt meditation on the present and future glory of the Christian dispensation, to think of the race of Israel excluding themselves from participation in its benefits, and he felt his soul charged with heaviness on their behalf. They hated him as overturning venerable customs, and as lowering their dignity by admitting the Gentiles to the blessing of the covenant on such easy terms. But in reply he vehemently asserted his still subsisting love for his "kinsmen," and for those whom in the past God had so signally honoured. None can look without emotion on the face and form of a Jew, who consider his history and destiny.

I THE SUPREME DISTINCTIONS OF LIFE ARE THOSE WHICH CONCERN OUR RELATIONSHIP TO GOD. All the items particularized are connected with the Divine manifestations granted to Israel. The apostle cares little for the story of military prowess, or even of skill in literature; but all that appertained to the knowledge and worship of God, this was worth dwelling upon. It becomes a speedy test of judgment when we know the things on which a man prides himself. Does he point with chief delight to his acquisition of lands or goods, or to his rank in society, or to his fame in science or. art circles? or does he account his position in the family of the Most High, and the revelation vouchsafed of Divine mercy and grace, as his possession of greatest worth? Which in our hearts do we deem the most highly favoured nation Greece, or Rome, or Israel? The true wealth and place of a modern empire should be reckoned, not according to its material resources and fighting strength, but rather by its widespread distribution of moral and religious truth. This means real refinement and enduring prosperity. Many opportunities occur to all of us to exhibit our, genuine opinion in the lives we lead, the money and time devoted to the highest pursuits, the notions cherished in the family, the books read, and the amusements indulged in. Missionary enthusiasm rests on a sure basis when the value is perceived of an acquaintance with the things of God. Such a knowledge is the best legacy that can be bequeathed to children.

II THE HIGHEST RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES WILL NOT PROFIT UNLESS USED ARIGHT. In spite of their advantages, the Jews were found wanting, and, like unfruitful branches, were broken off. Before the exile they fell into idolatry, and sought to nullify their glory by equalling the abominations of the heathen. Could a stronger proof be furnished of the seductiveness of sinful practices and the blindness of man? And the coming of Christ was a further testing season. Their "zeal of God" was shown to be unintelligent, depending upon external rather than spiritual views of religious grandeur and service. It behoves us not only to enjoy but to improve our privileges. Attendance at the sanctuary, the public prayers and reading, unless they exert a living influence upon us, increase our condemnation, as the presence and works of Christ multiplied woes upon the cities of the sea. The tendency is strong that would lull our souls into comfortable dreams of security, from which there could only be a terrible awakening. The religious pride of the Jews hardened into fossilism an unreceptive soil for new truth. Instead of guiding their steps by the Law, they looked at it till they were dazzled by its glare, and could not recognize the coming of the "Light of the world.

III THE ADVANTAGES ENJOYED BY NATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT CONFERRED FOR THEIR OWN EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT. The Israelites were stewards of the mysteries for the world around and the times to follow. Very important functions they discharged, keeping the lamp of truth alight, preventing the world from lapsing into barbaric atheism. Especially in relation to Christianity do we discern these advantages as preparatory. The "sacrifices" had respect to the offering of Christ, and in part explain its meaning. The "Law" acted as a pedagogue to bring us to the school of Christ. The temple "service" illustrates the obedience of the Christian priests, and the promises fulfilled confirm our faith. Israel was a nursery where choicest plants were reared with which to stock the wilderness till it should blossom as the rose. And the same principle holds good of every advantage the goodness of our God bestows. The Christian Church is to be as a city set on a hill; its members are lights in the world, pilgrim-soldiers, ambassadors for Christ. It is ours to guard the gift entrusted, to transmit to others the revelation received, the spiritual heirlooms of liberty and intelligence, lest we fail to deliver up a proper account of our stewardship. S.R.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whose is the adoption, &c. - He enumerates six prerogatives, of which the first pair respect God the Father, the second Christ, the third the Holy Ghost. The adoption and the glory - That is, Israel is the first-born child of God, and the God of glory is their God, Deut. iv, 7; Psalm cvi, 20. These are relative to each other. At once God is the Father of Israel, and Israel are the people of God. He speaks not here of the ark, or any corporeal thing. God himself is "the glory of his people Israel." And the covenants, and the giving of the law - The covenant was given long before the law. It is termed covenants, in the plural, because it was so often and so variously repeated, and because there were two dispositions of it, Gal. iv, 24, frequently called two covenants; the one promising, the other exhibiting the promise. And the worship, and the promises - The true way of worshipping God; and all the promises made to the fathers.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Our apostle, to vindicate himself for bearing such a passionate affection to the Jews, and for being so highly concerned for their eternal welfare, doth in these two verses recount and sum up the high privileges and prerogatives belonging to the Jews above any other nation under heaven: namely these, They were Israelites, that is, the seed and posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

To whom pertaineth the adoption; that is, national adoption, not personal; God adopting the nation of the Jews to be an holy people to himself, and Jews to be an holy people to himself, and calling them his sons and his first-born.

And the glory; that is, the covenant made with Abraham and Moses, the old and new covenant, And the giving of the law Jer 31:32 : it was the prerogative of this people, that all their laws, ceremonial, judicial, and moral were composed and delivered to them by God himself.

And the service of God: that is, they only had the true worship of God amongst them, and no other nation could have the like, but by being a debtor to them for it.

And the promise; that is, in general, all the blessings promised to them in the land of Canaan; and in particular, the promise of the Messiah, or God’s gracious purpose and intention to send his Son into he world to accomplish its redemption.

Whose are the fathers; that is, the beloved fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were their ancestors, and they their offspring.

Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, that is, of which Israelites Chrsit came; the promsied Messias, according to the flesh or human nature, was their offspring even he who, according to his divine nature, was over all, God blessed for evermore.

Note here, 1. How the apostle reserves the greatest privilege for the last: Christ’s being born one of their nation, and according to the flesh descended from the Jewish stock, this was the topping privilege.

Note, 2. That this restrictive clause, according to the flesh, plainly supposeth another nature in Christ, according to which he came not from the Israelites, which can be no other but the Divine Nature of Godhead, which in the following words is attributed to him: Who is over all, God blessed for evermore.

Which glorious title given to Christ as it highly exalts the prerogative of the Jews as being a people of whom so blessed and great a Person descended, so on the other hand it aggravates their sin and condemnation, in rejecting a person of such infinite worth and dignity, notwithstanding he descended from them.

Now from the whole, learn, 1. That a fullness or richness of instituted means of grace, for the true knowledge and worship of God, is matter of high dignation and gracious condescension from God to man: here the glory, the covenants, the service of God, &c. are numbered amongst the great and gracious respects vouchsafed by God to the Jews.

Learn, 2. That the highest privileges and vouchsafements from God may be conferred upon a people who are neither pleasing ot God, nor accepted with him. Such were the Jews, to whom the fore-mentioned privileges did belong: a people rejected by God for their obduracy and unbelief.

Learn, 3. That it is no small honour to be of the race of kindred of such as have been holy saints and faithful servants of the most high and holy God. The Jews here were very honourable, as they were the seed of Abraham; but much more so, had they trod in the steps, and done the works, of their father Abraham.

Learn, 4. That Jesus Christ, who was the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, was yet, according to his divine nature, Lord over all, God blessed for evermore; he is over all, that is, over all things, and over all persons; and he is blessed for evermore, which is the constant title given to him that is God, and to none but him.

The Socinians, to avoid the force of this text, which fully proves the divinity of Chrsit, turn the words into a thanksgiving for Christ, and read them thus: Of whom Christ was according to the flesh; God, who is over all, be blessed forever.

A manifest perversion of the sense of the apostle’s words, which was to show that according to the flesh he descended from Abraham: but that he had another nature, which was not derived from Abraham, even a Divine nature, according to which he was over all, God blessed for evermore.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4-10. He here recapitulates the signal and extraordinary blessings which God conferred on the Jews, and bewails their apostasy, at the same time observing that the true Israel were in harmony with Christ, representing the seed of Abraham.

ELECTION OF THE MESSIANIC PROGENITORSHIP IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE ELECTION OF GRACE

If you do not recognize and keep before you this distinction, you get much tangled in both Testaments. While the election of grace determinative of heaven or hell is optionary with man, that of the progenitorship was utterly independent of human volition, absolute and unchangeable in this sense. The Jews were elected and the Gentiles reprobated; Isaac elected and Ishmael reprobated, and Jacob elected and Esau reprobated.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

who are Israelites [The first distinction of the chosen people was their descent from and right to the name "Israel": a name won by Jacob when, wrestling, he so prevailed with God that he was called Israel, or prince of God ( Gen_32:28 ), and also won for himself the unique honor of having all his descendants bear his name, and be accepted as God's covenant people]; whose is the adoption [i. e., the Sonship. Israel is always represented as the Lord's son or first-born, in contradistinction to the Gentiles, who are his creatures-- Exo_4:22-23 ; Exo_19:5 ; Deu_7:6 ; Deu_14:1 ; Isa_1:2 ; Jer_31:9 ; Hos_11:1 ; Mal_1:6 ], and the glory [The glory of having God manifested visibly as their friend and protector. This glory was called the Shekinah and appeared in the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night ( Exo_13:21-22 ), and rested on Mt. Sinai ( Exo_24:16 ) and on the tabernacle ( Exo_29:43 ), and in the tabernacle ( Exo_40:34-38 ; Lev_9:23-24 ), and enlightened the face Moses ( Exo_34:29-35 ; 2Co_3:7-18 ), and filled Solomon's temple ( 1Ki_8:10-11 ), and is thought to have abode between the cherubim, over the mercy-seat of the ark of the covenant ( Exo_25:22 ; Exo_29:43 ; Heb_9:5 ), whence it is also thought that the ark itself is once called "the glory of Israel"-- 1Sa_4:21 ], and the covenants [Especially the Messianic and promised-land covenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to which may be added the covenants with Aaron ( Exo_29:9 ) and Phinehas ( Num_25:10-13 ), and those made with Israel on the plains of Moab ( Deu_29-30 ) and at Shechem ( Jos_24:25 ), and the throne covenant with David-- 2Sa_7:12-17 ], and the giving of the law [It was given at Mt. Sinai directly from the person of God himself, and its retention in Israel was a notable mark of distinction between them and all other people, for it placed them under the divine government, as the peculiar heritage of Jehovah], and the service of God [The order of praise and worship in tabernacle and temple under charge of Levites and priests and explained at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews. "The grandest ritual," says Plumer, "ever known on earth, with its priests, altars, sacrifices, feasts, and splendid temple"], and the promises [The term "promise" is about the same as "covenant" ( Act_2:39 ; Rom_15:8 ; Gal_3:16 ; Eph_2:12 ; Heb_11:17 ). If there is any distinction to be drawn between the two words, covenant is the larger, including threatenings as well as assurances of grace. In the promises the threatenings are omitted, and the details of the good are enlarged];

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Who are Israelites. He now enumerates some of the glories of the Jewish race. Jacob, their ancestor, had been called Israel (Gen. 32:28) by the angel. This means a Prince with God, and this proud title was borne by his descendants. Whose is the adoption. Six high privileges of the chosen people are named in the 4th and 5th verses. They were adopted as the chosen people (Deut. 7:6). And the glory. The presence of the ark of God and the glory of the Divine Presence (1 Sam. 4:21). The covenants. The covenants made with Abraham and at Sinai. The giving of the law. The law of Moses given to the children of Israel. And the service of God. The worship of the tabernacle and temple. And the promises. Especially the blessed promise of Christ.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

4. οἵτινες. This form of the relative marks the characteristic which is the occasion of his feeling; cf. Moulton, p. 91 f.; Blass, 172; Hort, 1Pe 2:1 f. ‘Never absolutely convertible with δς,’ M., ‘seeing that they are.’

εἰσιν, they still are in spite of what has happened.

Ἰσραηλεῖται, the name which marks the religious privilege of the nation; cf. Joh 1:48; below Rom 11:1; 2Co 11:22: and for Ἰσραὴλ cf. below 6; 1Co 10:18; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:12; closely connected with the expectation of the Messiah and His kingdom, Act 1:6. The following enumeration gives the details which are all involved in this name, and emphasises the paradox of the rejection of the Gospel by a people so prepared.

ἡ υἱοθεσία. Not LXX[176] or class, but common in inscriptions; cf. Deissmann, B. S. II. p. 66. In N.T. Rom., Gal. (1), Eph. (1) only. This is the only place in which it refers to the sonship of Israel. Was it current among the Jews? cf. Exo 4:22; Hart, Ecclus. p. 302 f.

[176] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

η δόξα. Cf. Luk 2:32; 2Co 3:7 f. The reference is to the Shechinah, the visible sign of the presence of GOD among His people.

αἱ διαθῆκαι. The plural marks the successive repetitions and ratifications of the covenant from Abraham to Moses; cf. Act 3:25; Luk 1:72; for the plural Eph 2:12.

ἡ νομοθεσία, the legislation—the positive revelation of GOD’S will which distinguished Israel from all other nations. Only here in N.T. and LXX[177] canon: 2Ma 6:23; 4Ma 5:35.

[177] LXX. the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

ἡ λατρεία, the ordered services of the Temple; cf. Heb 9:1; Heb 9:6.

αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, primarily of the promises made to Abraham; of. Gal 3:16, Heb 7:6, but including the whole prophetic revelation as touching the Messiah, cf. 2Co 1:20; Act 13:32: Hart, Ecclus. p. 306.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4.] Not only on their relationship to himself does he ground this sorrow and this self-devotion: but on the recollection of their ancient privileges and glories.

Who are Israelites (a name of honour, see Joh 1:48; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5); whose (is) the adoption (see Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Deu 32:6; Isa 1:2 al.), and the glory (perhaps their general preference and exaltation, consequent on the υἱοθεσία,—but far more probably, as all the other substantives refer to separate matters of fact,—the Shechinah or visible manifestation of the divine Presence on the mercy-seat between the cherubims: see reff.), and the covenants (not, the two tablet of the law,—as Beza, Grot., al.,—which formed but one covenant, and are included in νομοθεσία; nor, the Old and New Testament Covenants,—as , , Galov., Wolf,—see Gal 4:24 ff.: but the several renewals of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally with the whole people at Sinai:—see Gen 15:9-21; Gen 17:4, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:10; Gen 26:24; Gen 28:13; Exo 24:7, Exo 24:8 al.), and the law-giving (‘si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur, quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Domino!’ Calv. νομοθ. is both the act of giving the Law, and the Law thus given), and the service (ordinances of worship: see ref. Heb.), and the promises (probably only those to the patriarchs, of a Redeemer to come, are here thought of, as the next two clauses place the patriarchs and Christ together without any mention of the prophets. So Abraham is described, Heb 7:6, as τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελίας),—whose are the fathers (probably to be limited to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:—so De W., but Stephen gives οἱ πατ. a much wider meaning in Act 7:11, Act 7:12, Act 7:19, Act 7:39, Act 7:44, and so apparently Paul himself, Act 13:17. In all those places, however, except Act 7:19, ἡμῶν follows, whereas here the word is absolute: so that the above limitation may be true),—and of whom is Christ, as far as regards the flesh (τό,—acc., as also in ch. 12:18,—implies that He was not entirely sprung from them, but had another nature: q. d. ‘on his human side,’—‘duntaxat quod attinet ad corpus humanum,’ as Erasmus), who is God Over all (prob. neuter; for τὰ πάντα, not οἱ πάντες, is the equivalent nominative in such sentences: see ch. 11:36) blessed for ever. Amen.

The punctuation and application of this doxology have been much disputed. By the early Church it was generally rendered as above, and applied to Christ,—so , , h. 1., Athan., , Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Œ Wetstein has, it is true, collected passages from the fathers to shew that they applied the words ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός to the Father alone, and protested against their application to the Son; but these passages themselves protest only against the erroneous Noetian or Sabellian view of the identity of the Father and the Son, whereas in Eph 4:5, Eph 4:6, εἷς κύριος, and εἷς θεὸς κ. πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, are plainly distinguished. That our Lord is not, in the strict exclusive sense, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father: but that He is ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, none of the passages goes to deny. Had our text stood ἐξ ὧν ὁ χρ. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ὁ εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, it would have appeared to countenance the above error, which as it now stands it cannot do.

The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the emperor (Cyril, p. 321. Wetst.) τὸν γοῦν Ἰησοῦν οὔτε Παῦλος ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν θεόν, οὔτε Ματθαῖος οὔτε Μάρκος, ἀλλʼ ὁ χρηστὸς Ἰωάννης. The next is in the punctuation of two cursive mss. of the twelfth century (5 and 47), which place a period after σάρκα, thus insulating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων.… ἀμήν, and regarding it as a doxology to God over all, blessed for ever. This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Semler, Reiche, Köllner, Meyer, Fritzsche, Krehl, al. The objections to this rendering are, (1) ingenuously suggested by Socinus himself (Thol.), and never yet obviated,—that without one exception in Hebrew or Greek, wherever an ascription of blessing is found, the predicate εὐλογητός (בָּרוּךְ) precedes the name of God. (In the one place, Ps. 67:19 LXX, κύρ. ὁ θ. εὐλογητός, εὐλογητὸς κυρ. ἡμέραν καθʼ ἡμέραν, which seems to be an exception, the first εὐλ. has no corresponding word in the Heb. and perhaps may be interpolated. So Stuart, and even Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. T. p. 320. In Yates’s vindication of Unitarianism, p. 180, this is the only instance cited. Such cases as 3 Kings 10:9; 2Ch 9:8; Job 1:21; Psa 112:2, are no exceptions, as in all of them the verb εἴη or γένοιτο is expressed, requiring the substantive to follow it closely.) And this collocation of words depends, not upon the mere aim at perspicuity of arrangement (Yates, p. 180), but upon the circumstance that the stress is, in a peculiar manner, in such ascriptions of praise, on the predicate, which is used in a pregnant sense, the copula being omitted. (2) That the ὤν, on this rendering, would be superfluous altogether (see below). (3) That the doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme. It is not the habit of the Apostle to break out into irrelevant ascriptions of praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one. If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology,—surely such a view is most unnatural: for the sad subject of the Apostle’s sympathy, to which he immediately recurs again, is the apparent inanity of all these privileges in the exclusion from life of those who were dignified with them. If it be said that the incarnation of Christ is the exciting cause, the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα comes in most strangely, depreciating, as it would on that supposition, the greatness of the event, which then becomes a source of so lofty a thanksgiving. (4) That the expression εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας is twice besides used by Paul, and each time unquestionably not in an ascription of praise, but in an assertion regarding the subject of the sentence. The places are, ch. 1:25, ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν,—and 2Co 11:31, ὁ θεὸς κ. πατὴρ τ. κυρ. Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι: whereas he twice uses the phrase εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός as an ascription of praise, without joining εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. (5) That in the latter of the above-cited passages (2Co 11:31), not only the same phrase as here, but the same construction, ὁ ὤν, occurs, and that there the whole refers to the subject of the sentence.

I do not reckon among the objections the want of any contrast to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, because that might have well been left to the readers to supply. Another mode of punctuation has been suggested (Locke, Clarke, al.), and indeed is found in one ms. of the same date as above (71): to set a period after πάντων and refer ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων to Christ, understanding by πάντων all the preceding glorious things, or the πατέρες only, or even ‘all things.’ This lies open to all the above objections except (5), and to this in addition, that as Bp. Middleton observes, we must in that case read ὁ θεός.

Variety of reading there is none worth notice: the very fathers [ Cypr-ed. Hil-ed. ] generally cited as omitting θεός, having it in the best manuscripts and editions.

Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol. p. 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is followed by Whiston, Whitby, and Taylor) to transpose ὁ ὤν into ὧν ὁ;—but besides the objection to the sense thus arising, εὐλογητός would probably in that case (not necessarily, as Bp. Middleton in loc.) have the art.: not to mention that no conjecture arising from doctrinal difficulty is ever to be admitted in the face of the consensus of mss. and versions.

The rendering given above is then not only that most agreeable to the usage of the Apostle, but the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement. It also admirably suits the context: for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks far higher than all,—that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed for ever.

ἀμήν implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty; compare ch. 1:25.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. οἵτινές εἰσιν: ‘inasmuch as they are.’ St. Paul’s grief for Israel arises not only from his personal relationship and affection, but also from his remembrance of their privileged position in the Divine economy.

Ἰσραηλῖται: used of the chosen people in special reference to the fact that, as descendants of him who received from God the name of Israel, they are partakers of those promises of which it was a sign. The name therefore implies the privileges of the race; cf. Eph 2:12 ἀπηλλοτριωμενοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας: and as such it could be used metaphorically of the Christians (ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ Gal 6:16; cf. ver. 6 inf.); a use which would of course be impossible for the merely national designation Ἰουδαῖοι.

‘Israel’ is the title used in contemporary literature to express the special relations of the chosen people to God. Ps. Sol. 14:3 ὅτι ἡ μερὶς καὶ ἡ κληρονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ Ἰσραήλ: Ecclus. 17:15 μερὶς Κυρίου Ἰσραὴλ ἐστίν: Jubilees 33:18 ‘For Israel is a nation holy unto God, and a nation of inheritance for its God, and a nation of priesthood and royalty and a possession.’ Thus the word seems to have been especially connected with the Messianic hope. The Messianic times are ‘the day of gladness of Israel’ (Ps. Sol. 10:7), the blessing of Israel, the day of God’s mercy towards Israel (ib. 17:50, 51 μακάριοι οἱ γινόμενοι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαθὰ Ἰσραὴλ ἐν συναγωγῇ φυλῶν, ἂ ποιήσει ὁ Θεός. ταχύναι ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ Ἰσραὴλ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ). When therefore St. Paul uses this name he reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above all, according to every current idea, the Messiah was to come, who when he has come are apparently cut off from all share in the privileges of his kingdom.

υἱοθεσία: ‘the adoption,’ ‘status of an adopted son’: on the origin of the word and its use in relation to Christian privileges see above, Rom 8:15. Here it implies that relationship of Israel to God described in Exo 4:22 τάδε λέγει Κύριος Υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου Ἰσραήλ: Deu 14:1; Deu 32:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1. So Jubilees 1:21 ‘I will be a Father unto them, and they shall be My children, and they shall all be called children of the living God. And every angel and every spirit will know, yea they will know that these are My children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and in righteousness and that I love them.’

ἡ δόξα:‘ the visible presence of God among His people’ (see on 3:23). δόξα is in the LXX the translation of the Hebrew כְּבוֹד יְחוָח, called by the Rabbis the Shekinah (שְׁבִינָה), the bright cloud by which God made His presence known on earth; cf. Exo 16:10, &c. Hence τὸ κάλλος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ Ps. Son 2:5, ἀπὸ θρόνου δόξης ib. ver. 20, Wisd. 9:10, imply more than the mere beauty of the temple, and when St. Stephen, Act 7:2, speaks of ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης his words would remind his hearers of the visible presence of God which they claimed had sanctified Jerusalem and the temple. On late Rabbinical speculations concerning the Shekinah see Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 179.

αἱ διαθη1͂και: ‘the covenants,’ see Hatch Essays on Biblical Greek, p. 47. The plural is used not with reference to the two covenants the Jewish and the Christian, but because the original covenant of God with Israel was again and again renewed (Gen 6:18; Gen 9:9; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:2, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:9; Exo 2:24). Comp. Ecclus. 44:11 μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν διαμενεῖ ἀγαθὴ κληρονομία, ἔκγονα αὐτῶι ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις; Wisdom 18:22 λόγῳ τὸν κολάζοντα ὑπέταξεν, ὅρκους πατέρων καὶ διαθήκας ὑπομνήσας. According to Irenaeus, III. xi. 11 (ed. Harvey) there were four covenants: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες ἐδόθησαν καθολικαὶ διαθῆκαι τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι· μία μὲν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τοῦ Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόξου δευτέρα δὲ τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείου τῆς περιτομῆς· τρίτη δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μων̈σέως· τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου, διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ*.

The Jews believed that they were bound to God and that God was bound to them by a covenant which would guarantee to them His protection in the future. According to St. Paul it was just those who were not bound to Him by a covenant who would receive the Divine protection. On the idea of the Covenant and its practical bearing on Jewish life see Schürer Geschichte, ii. p. 388.

ἡ νομοθεσία: a classical word, occurring also in Philo. ‘The giving of the law.’ ‘The dignity and glory of having a law communicated by express revelation, and amidst circumstances so full of awe and splendour.’ Vaughan.

The current Jewish estimation of the Law (ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπάρχων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα Baruch 4:1) it is unnecessary to illustrate, but the point in the mention of it here is brought out more clearly if we remember that all the Messianic hopes were looked upon as the reward of those who kept the Law. So Ps. Sol. 14:1 πιστὸς Κύριος τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ … τοῖς πορευομένοις ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ προσταγμάτων αὐτοῦ, ἐν νόμῳ ὡς ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν εἰς ζωὴν ἡμῶν. It was one of the paradoxes of the situation that it was just those who neglected the Law who would, according to St. Paul’s teaching, inherit the promises.

ἡ λατρεία: ‘the temple service.’ Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6; Heb_1 Macc. 2:19, 22. As an illustration of Jewish opinion on the temple service may be quoted Pirqê Aboth, 1:2 (Taylor, p. 26) ‘Shimeon ha-Çaddiq was of the remnants of the great synagogue. He used to say, On three things the world is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of kindnesses.’ According to the Rabbis one of the characteristics of the Messianic age will be a revival of the temple services. (Weber Altsyn. Theol. p. 359.)

αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι. ‘the promises made in the O. T. with special reference to the coming of the Messiah.’ These promises were of course made to the Jews, and were always held to apply particularly to them. While sinners were to be destroyed before the face of the Lord, the saints of the Lord were to inherit the promises (cf. Ps. Sol. 12:8); and in Jewish estimation sinners were the gentiles and saints the chosen people. Again therefore the choice of terms emphasizes the character of the problem to be discussed. See note on 1:2, and the note of Ryle and James on Ps. Sol. loc. cit.; cf. also Heb 6:12; Heb 11:13; Gal 3:19; Gal_1 Clem 10:2.

αἱ διαθῆκαι א C L, Vulg. codd. Boh. &c. has been corrected into ἡ διαθήκη B D F G, Vulg. codd. pauc.; also ἐπαγγελίαι into ἐπαγγελία D E F G, Boh. Both variations are probably due to fancied difficulties.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who [οιτινες] . 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 Act 3:12.

Adoption. See on ch. Rom 8:15. Israel is always represented as the Lord 's son or first - born among all peoples. Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Hos 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 Exo 24:16; Exo 40:34, 35; Eze 1:28; Heb 9:5. Not the final glory of God 's kingdom; for this belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.

The covenants [αι διαθηκαι] . See on Mt 26:28. Those concluded with the patriarchs since Abraham. See Gal 3:16, 17; Eph 2:12. The plural never occurs in the Old Testament. See on Heb 9:16. The giving of the law [η νομοθεσια] . The act of giving, with a secondary reference to the substance of the law; legislation.

The service [η λατρεια] . See on Joh 16:2; Luk 1:74; Rev 22:3; Phi 3:3. Here the sum total of the Levitical services instituted by the law.

The promises. The collective messianic promises on which the covenants were based. The word originally means announcement. See on Act 1:4.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.