Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:4
Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God,] and the promises;
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 (Judus,) 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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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 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] . 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 Gods 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. Who are IsraelitesSeeRom 11:1; 2Co 11:22;Phi 3:5.
to whom pertaineth“whoseis”
the adoptionIt is truethat, compared with the new economy, the old was a state of minorityand pupilage, and so far that of a bond-servant (Ga4:1-3); yet, compared with the state of the surrounding heathen,the choice of Abraham and his seed was a real separation of them tobe a Family of God (Exo 4:22;Deu 32:6; Isa 1:2;Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1;Mal 1:6).
and the glorythat”glory of the Lord,” or “visible token of the DivinePresence in the midst of them,” which rested on the ark andfilled 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 wasdemolished, and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. Thiswas what the Jews called the “Shekinah.”
and the covenants“thecovenants of promise” to which the Gentiles before Christ were”strangers” (Eph 2:12);meaning the one covenant with Abraham in its successiverenewals (see Gal 3:16;Gal 3:17).
and the giving of thelawfrom Mount Sinai, and the possession of it thereafter,which the Jews justly deemed their peculiar honor (Deu 26:18;Deu 26:19; Psa 147:19;Psa 147:20; Rom 2:17).
and the service of Godor,of the sanctuary, meaning the whole divinely instituted religiousservice, in the celebration of which they were brought so nigh untoGod.
and the promisesthegreat Abrahamic promises, successively unfolded, and which had theirfulfilment only in Christ; (see Heb 7:6;Gal 3:16; Gal 3:21;Act 26:6; Act 26:7).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Who are Israelites,…. Which were their national name, as descended from Jacob, whose name was Israel; and it was accounted a very honourable one; see Php 3:5; and the very name they bore gave the apostle some concern that they should be cut off; and then he proceeds to enumerate the several distinguishing favours and privileges they had been partakers of:
to whom pertaineth the adoption; not that special adoption, which springs from eternal predestination, is a blessing of the covenant of grace, comes through the redemption of Christ, and is received and enjoyed only by believers in him; for all that were Israelites, were not in this sense the children of God; but national adoption is here meant, by which the whole body of the people, as nation, were the sons of God, his firstborn:
and the glory; either the ark of the covenant, which is so called in
Ps 63:2, according to Kimchi; or the clouds in the tabernacle and temple, which were called the glory of the Lord, and were symbols of his presence, the same with the Shekinah; and so Aben Ezra interprets power, the ark, and glory, the Shekinah, Ps 63:2,
and the covenants; not the two Testaments, Old and New, but the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham their father, and the covenant at Sinai they entered into with the Lord; some copies, and the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, read, “the covenant”:
and the giving, of the law: , a way of speaking the x Jews make use of when they take notice of this privilege; for it was peculiarly given to them with great solemnity by God himself, through the disposition of angels into the hands of Moses the mediator, and by him to them; and on account of this, they reckoned themselves more beloved of God than the rest of mankind y
and the service of God; or “the service”, as in the Greek text. So the Jews z are used to call it , “the service”; and false worship is called by them , “strange service”, which is the title of one of their Misnic tracts; and here it signifies the whole worship of God, in the whole compass of it, sacrifices, prayer, praise, c. daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly:
and the promises both temporal and spiritual, especially such as related to the Messiah, and which now had their accomplishment.
x T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 116. 1. Zohar in Lev. fol. 5. 2, 3. y Tzeror Hammor, fol. 103. 2. z Vid. Pirke Abot, c. 1. sect. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Who (). The very ones who, inasmuch as they.
Israelites (). Covenant name of the chosen people.
Whose (). Predicate genitive of the relative, used also again with . For “the adoption” ( ) see 8:15.
The glory ( ). The Shekinah Glory of God (3:23) and used of Jesus in Jas 2:1.
The covenants ( ). Plural because renewed often (Gen 6:18; Gen 9:9; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:2; Gen 17:7; Gen 17:9; Exod 2:24).
The giving of the law ( ). Old word, here only in N.T., from and .
The service ( ). The temple service (Heb 9:1; Heb 9:6).
The fathers ( ). The patriarchs (Acts 3:13; Acts 7:32).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Who [] . 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 [ ] . 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 [ ] . The act of giving, with a secondary reference to the substance of the law; legislation.
The service [ ] . 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.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Who are Israelites,” (oitines eisin Israelitai) ‘Who are (exist a s) Israelites,” in flesh-identity and law-conformity, so-called from Israel, the prevailer; Jacob found the Lord at Bethel and found prevailing power and his name change to Israel on the bank of the Jabbok river, Gen 28:12; Gen 28:19; Gen 32:28; Hos 12:2-5.
2) “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,” (hon he huiothesia kai he doksa kai hai diathekai) “To whom are related the heirsetting (adoption), and the glory, and the covenants,” made to Israel in Old Testament promise and times; Paul here enumerates six things that were delivered to natural Israel in their administration of a program of divine worship and service, Exo 4:22; Jer 31:9; Rom 8:15; Rom 8:23;
1) the adoption, 2) The glory, and 3) the covenants-
a) Shekinah glory, Lev 16:2; 1Ki 8:11
b) Covenants, Gen 17:1-2; Exo 31:16-17; Eph 1:5.
3) “And the giving of the Law,” (kai he nomothesia) “and the setting forth (of) law,” Exo 20:1-12; Exo 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 12, 13; Joh 1:17.
4) “And the service of God,” (kai he latreia) “and the divine order of service (to God),” the service accompanying sacrifices, ceremonial observances, and public worship, 1Co 9:13-14; Heb 9:1-10.
5) “And the promises,” (kai hai epangeltai) “and the promises pertaining or relating thereto;” Through the covenant of Abraham, Gen 17:1-2; and the Mosaic (Law) covenant, Exo 31:16-17; Act 3:25; Heb 8:8-10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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. (Exo 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. (Gen 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 Rom 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 Exo 4:22, —
“
My first-begotten son is Israel; let my son go, that he may serve me.”
In Jer 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.” (1Sa 4:22.) (287)
As he has distinguished here between covenants (288) 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 Deu 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.
(287) Vitriaga thinks that “the glory” was the pillar of fire and the cloud in the wilderness: but [ Beza ] , [ Grotius ] , and [ Hammond ] agree with [ Calvin ] , that the ark is meant. See Psa 78:61. It seems to refer to those manifestations made in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple, by peculiar brightness or splendour. See Exo 40:34. This splendour or glory signified God’s presence, a privilege peculiar to the Israelites. — Ed.
(288) Why he mentions “covenants,” αἱ διαθὢκαι , in the plural number, has been variously accounted for, — “there were various things included — the land of Canaan, prosperity, and the priesthood, — there were three laws — the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, — there were several repetitions of the covenant made to the patriarchs;” but if we read Gal 3:17, we shall see the true reason, for the Apostle there makes a distinct difference between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenant; but both these belonged to the Jews. See also Eph 2:12. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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 Gods 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption as sons, 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 of whom is the Messiah (the Christ) as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’
Paul now emphasises the huge benefits that had been the privilege of the Jews (compare Rom 2:17-20). Firstly that they were ‘Israelites’. Thus they belonged to the nation chosen and redeemed by God (Exo 20:2) to whom God had revealed Himself in history. And furthermore God had given them many advantages of which he will now describe a few.
What follows his statement that they are Israelites now divides up into three sections by the use of ‘whose’ referring back to ‘who are Israelites’. Thus:
1) Whose is the adoption as a son, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises.
2) Whose are the fathers (the Patriarchs).
3) Of whom is the Messiah concerning the flesh.
The first lists all the privileges of being Israelites which were given at the beginning when Israel were first redeemed from Egypt, although later also supplemented; the second looks back to the source from whom the Israelites came, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, descent from whom was seen by Israelites as of great importance; the third concentrates on their having among them the Messiah Who is over all, the great Hope of Israel, Whose coming from among them was seen as of equal, if not more, importance, than all the others (the order would appear to be from the least to the greatest). Paul has already made clear that the Messiah has come, in Christ (Rom 9:1). Now he declares that He had come from among the Jews. It is significant that Paul does not say, ‘whose is the Messiah’, paralleling the other two phrases, for as a result of their having mainly rejected Him Paul could not see Him as belonging to them. Nevertheless His coming from among them is seen as of great significance, as indeed is the fact that He has come. And it leaves them without excuse, because the reason that they rejected Him was because He did not offer them what they wanted.
This list is especially significant because in what follows Paul will look in depth at the second and third statements. Does their leaning on the fathers necessarily mean that all Israel will be saved? This is answered as a ‘no’ in Rom 9:6-29. What would be required for them in order to be reconciled to their Messiah? This is answered in Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:21 in terms of responding in faith to Him as the Messiah.
‘Who are Israelites.’ This links the Jews squarely with the Israelites whose history is made plain in the Old Testament. It was because they were ‘Israelites’ that the other privileges applied to them. It was a term which gave the Jews great pride. It indicated that they belonged to the people whom God had redeemed from Egypt and to whom He had given His covenant. And they (falsely) saw it as indicating that they were descended from Abraham and Jacob. But that was a myth perpetuated by their history. Even from the beginning large numbers of Israelites had had no direct connection with Abraham (and Jacob) by descent. They had been descended from servants in the ‘households’ of the Patriarchs (Abraham could call on 318 fighting men ‘born in his house’ – Gen 14:14, and the Patriarchs went down to Egypt with their ‘households’ – Exo 1:1. Thus many of the earliest Israelites were born from these household servants.). And after the Exodus the ‘mixed multitude’ (Exo 12:38), which consisted of other races, probably including Egyptians, had been incorporated into Israel at Sinai, as had other groups like the Kenites (Jdg 1:16), whilst even later there were those who voluntarily entered the covenant by submission to God (Exo 12:48; Deu 23:1-8). All became absorbed as ‘sons of Abraham’. Thus Israel was a conglomerate nation.
Their ‘descent’ from the Patriarchs was therefore by adoption. In fact in the days of Jesus those who could prove direct descent from Abraham were relatively few (Jesus’ father was one because he was a son of David), and those who could so prove their descent, often tended to see themselves as unique and to despise other Jews, intermarrying among themselves in order to preserve their purity. Thus even the Jews acknowledged that few Jews could be shown to be genuinely descended from Abraham. Nevertheless the Jews happily accepted their position as those who had been adopted by Abraham so that they could call God their Father, a privilege which was not permitted to late proselytes (which was a little hypocritical because large numbers of Jews could have traced their descent to Gentiles incorporated among the Jews). What they also tended to overlook when they claimed to be Israelites was that the majority of Israelites in the past had been unfaithful to the covenant and had regularly been brought under the judgment of God, and had therefore been cast off in God’s eyes, even though they themselves had not seen it in that way. To be an Israelite was thus not a guarantee of acceptance by God.
Part of the reason for Paul’s distress would also appear to have been that it must have appeared to onlookers, from their rejection of their Messiah by the majority of the Jews, that the promises of God were not being fulfilled in their case, (they were being fulfilled with regard to the elect), for he lists all the privileges that the Jews should have been enjoying but were now missing out on as a result of their rejection of the Messiah:
They were Israelites, the people with whom God had established His covenant.
They had been adopted by God as ‘His son’ (Exo 4:22) and could thus be seen as His children and as His sons and daughters (Deu 14:1; Isa 43:6; Hos 11:1).
They had experienced ‘the glory’, the manifestation of the glory of God, when God had descended on the Tabernacle and the Temple ( Exo 40:34 ; 1Ki 8:10 ff.), a glory which they still believed was among them, concealed in the Holiest Place of All in the Temple. Thus they considered that they had to a certain degree had God dwelling among them.
They had been invited to partake in the covenants that God had made through the ages from the beginning, including those given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and at Sinai, all of which were recorded in the Scriptures.
They had received the Law at Sinai, a revelation of the mind of God (see Rom 2:17-19), and an indicator of their special position as God’s people.
‘And the service.’ On their behalf God had established a priesthood to serve Him, and a sacrificial system, through which all Israel benefited.
They had through their forefathers received ‘the promises’ given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the promises concerning the Messiah.
They looked back to the Patriarchs as their fathers.
And above all, as far as His humanity was concerned, they had produced the Messiah, the One Who is overall, God, blessed for ever.
Thus their privileges were great. But in spite of them they were still in unbelief, as Paul had made clear in Rom 2:1 to Rom 3:10, and were therefore still under the judgment of God.
The adoption by God of Israel as ‘His son’ (Exo 4:22) must not be seen as comparable with the adoption through the Spirit of true believers as sons of God (Rom 8:15-17). Firstly because Israel’s sonship was primarily a ‘corporate sonship’ (‘Israel is My son, My firstborn’). Secondly because the Old Testament makes quite clear that large numbers of the Israelites had not lived up to this sonship. It is true that they had been put in a position of special privilege, but it was equally true that on the whole they had forfeited that privilege by their behaviour. That was what the teaching of the prophets was all about. It was only the comparatively few who had truly become children of God (as Paul will soon make plain). We may certainly see the term ‘son’ as indicating that God had not totally finished with Israel, He would still show them favour as a nation (Rom 11:28), but as Paul will shortly indicate, it would only be a remnant who would be saved, a remnant who responded to the Messiah. God’s adoption of Israel was no indicator that Israelites would automatically be saved. It was rather a privilege which had given them a greater opportunity than most to find the truth, a privilege that most of them had failed to take advantage of. They were like the son who said to his father ‘I will go, sir’, but who did not do so (Mat 21:30).
‘And of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ And their greatest privilege was that coming from Israel as far as the flesh was concerned was ‘the Christ (Messiah)’. ‘As concerning the flesh’ may simply signify that while His humanity owed its origin to Israel, His spirit and influence were more exerted elsewhere so that He is not to be seen as an Israelite figure but a world figure. But it is far more likely that ‘concerning the flesh’ indicates that, while humanly speaking He came from Israel, He Himself in His essential being came from another source, a spiritual source, that is, from Heaven, which would agree with Rom 1:3-4. This can be seen as confirmed by the statement that He is ‘over all’. So a contrasting description is found by recognising that what Paul is saying is that while in the flesh the Christ is a Jew, in His true being He is ‘God over all, blessed for ever’. This can again be paralleled with what was said in Rom 1:3-4, of the One Who was ‘of the seed of David according to the flesh’ but was then declared to be in Himself the Son of God with power. If this be so then we have here a clear statement of Christ’s Godhood, parallel to that in Tit 2:13. See also Php 2:9-11, and compare 2Pe 1:1 which is the same construction as 2Pe 1:11 and therefore refers to Jesus as ‘our God and Saviour’. But it should be noticed that Paul’s constant reference to Jesus as ‘the LORD’ in parallel with speaking of God, equally demonstrates His Godhood. Thus Paul had no doubt about his own position. Not that our belief that Jesus is God requires these statements. He Himself made it quite clear in Joh 5:17-29 and Joh 14:7-9.
In further support of this interpretation of the latter part of Rom 9:5 is the phrase ‘the One Who is’ which would naturally be seen as modifying something previously said, thus indicating that what follows is not just a doxology. Furthermore the placing of ‘God’ before ‘blessed’ would have been almost unique in Jewish doxologies (they said ‘blessed be God’), something of which Paul would have been well aware, it must therefore be seen as deliberately intended so as to connect blessed with the previous context and to prevent this being seen as simply an appended doxology. This being so Paul is here making clear that Jesus the Messiah is not only of Jewish descent, but is also God over all, to be blessed for ever.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 9:4. Who are Israelites The Apostle with great address enumerates these privileges of the Jews, both that he might shew 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. In the word adoption he alludes to the Horeb covenant, whereby the Israelites became the peculiar people of God, and he their supreme ruler and protector. See Exo 4:22. Deu 14:1. Jer 31:9. Hos 11:1. The glory means the Schechinah, which resided visibly among them on the mercy-seat. Hence the ark was called the glory. Compare Psa 78:61. 1Sa 4:21-22. Eze 10:4; Eze 43:2; Eze 43:27. For the covenants, sees Gen 17:14. Exo 34:27; Exo 34:35. Whether the giving of the law, , signifies the extraordinary giving of the law by God himself, or the exact constitution of their government, in the moral and judicial part of it, (for the next word , the service, seems to comprehend the religious worship,) this is certain, that in either of these senses it was the peculiar privilege of the Jews, and what no other nation could pretend to. See Locke, and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 9:4 . . . .] quippe qui, who indeed ; a description assigning the motive for what is said in Rom 9:3 of the 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.; Phi 3:5 ; Joh 1:48 ) national name . To the latter are then attached the relative definitions, which are threefold ( ); the first of them embraces six particulars connected by , purely sacred-historical divine benefactions.
] 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 of the N. T. (see on Rom 8:15 ), the specific essence of which is the reconciliation obtained for Christ’s sake, there has appeared the antitype and the completion of that of the O. T.
] The fivefold lends an emphatic weight to the enumeration, is the glory , i.e . (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 , 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 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, Bhme, Benecke, Kllner, Glckler, Fritzsche, Beck). Incorrectly, since it is merely individual privileges that are set forth.
] not the tables of the law (Beza, Piscator, Pareus, Toletus, Balduin, Grotius, Semler, Rosenmller), which it cannot denote either in itself or on account of the following .; 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 .
] 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 (why should not Paul have written this?). Certainly, he who has the has also the ; 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: ), by which God, who Himself was the , had distinguished the Israelites over all other peoples.
] the cultus , the service of Jehovah in the temple. Comp. Heb 9:1 . It corresponds to the ., in consequence of which the came into existence; just as the following ( , the collective Messianic promises) is correlative to the , on which the . were founded. The chiasmus in this order of sequence (comp. Bengel) is not accidental; but 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.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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 , 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 ; nor, the Old and New Testament Covenants , as Aug [67] , Jer [68] , 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 24:7-8 al.), and the law-giving (‘si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur, quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Domino!’ Calv. . 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 ), whose are the fathers (probably to be limited to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: so De W., but Stephen gives . a much wider meaning in Act 7:11-12 ; 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 , 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 ( , acc., as also in ch. Rom 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 , not , is the equivalent nominative in such sentences: see ch. Rom 11:36 ) blessed for ever. Amen .
[67] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
[68] Jerome , fl. 378 420
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 Iren [69] , Tert [70] , Orig [71] h. 1., Athan., Epiph [72] , Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., c [73] Wetstein has, it is true, collected passages from the fathers to shew that they applied the words 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 4:5-6 , , and . , , are plainly distinguished. That our Lord is not, in the strict exclusive sense, , every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father: but that He is , none of the passages goes to deny. Had our text stood . , , it would have appeared to countenance the above error, which as it now stands it cannot do.
[69] Irenus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 (Iren-int as represented by his interpreter; Iren-gr, when his own words are preserved)
[70] Tertullian , 200
[71] Origen, b. 185, d. 254
[72] Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, 368 403
[73] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Cent y . XI.?
The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the emperor Julia [74] (Cyril, p. 321. Wetst.) , , . The next is in the punctuation of two cursive mss. of the twelfth century (5 and 47), which place a period after , thus insulating . , and regarding it as a doxology to God over all, blessed for ever. This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Semler, Reiche, Kllner, 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 ( ) precedes the name of God. (In the one place, Ps. 67:19 LXX, . . , . , which seems to be an exception, the first . 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 Rom 10:9 ; 2Ch 9:8 ; Job 1:21 ; Psa 112:2 , are no exceptions, as in all of them the verb or 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 , 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 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 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. Rom 1:25 , , . , and 2Co 11:31 , . . . , , : whereas he twice uses the phrase as an ascription of praise, without joining . (5) That in the latter of the above-cited passages ( 2Co 11:31 ), not only the same phrase as here, but the same construction, , occurs, and that there the whole refers to the subject of the sentence.
[74] Julian, Emperor, 331 363
I do not reckon among the objections the want of any contrast to , 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 and refer to Christ, understanding by all the preceding glorious things, or the 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 .
Variety of reading there is none worth notice: the very fathers [Ephr [75] Cypr-ed. Hil-ed. Le [76] ] generally cited as omitting , having it in the best manuscripts and editions.
[75] Ephrem Syrus, b. 299, d. 378
[76] Leo, Bp. of Rome , 440 461
Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol. p. 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is followed by Whiston, Whitby, and Taylor) to transpose into ; but besides the objection to the sense thus arising, 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.
implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty; compare ch. Rom 1:25 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
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. : 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 . : 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.). : the glory must refer to something definite, like the pillar of cloud and fire, the of the O.T., the of later Jewish theology; there is probably reference to it in Act 7:2 , Heb 9:5 . : 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 is expressly distinguished from (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 . is the cultus of the tabernacle and the temple, the only legitimate cultus in the world. are the Messianic promises: in the Israelitish religion “the best was yet to be,” as all the highest minds knew. Rom 9:5 . : 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. , . . 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 define the extent to which the Messiah can be explained by His descent from Israel; for anything going beyond , 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 : 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 to , 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 suggests. (2) Grammatically it is simple, for 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 a doxology “God Who is over all be blessed for ever” there are grammatical objections. These are ( a ) the use of , which is at least abnormal. “God Who is over all” would naturally be expressed by without : the suggests the reference to Christ. ( b ) The position of 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 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 , without any expansion. As for (2), it is true to say that 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 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 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 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 , 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 , which is in itself unnecessary, emphasises ; 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
to whom, &c. = whose are.
adoption. See Rom 8:15.
glory. See p. 1511.
covenants. See Mat 26:28.
giving, &c. Greek. nomothesia. Only here.
service. App-190.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
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 ,-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 ; nor, the Old and New Testament Covenants,-as Aug[67], Jer[68], 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 24:7-8 al.), and the law-giving (si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur, quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Domino! Calv. . 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 ),-whose are the fathers (probably to be limited to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:-so De W., but Stephen gives . a much wider meaning in Act 7:11-12; 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, 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 (,-acc., as also in ch. Rom 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 , not , is the equivalent nominative in such sentences: see ch. Rom 11:36) blessed for ever. Amen.
[67] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
[68] Jerome, fl. 378-420
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 Iren[69], Tert[70], Orig[71] h. 1., Athan., Epiph[72], Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., c[73] Wetstein has, it is true, collected passages from the fathers to shew that they applied the words 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 4:5-6, , and . , , are plainly distinguished. That our Lord is not, in the strict exclusive sense, , every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father: but that He is , none of the passages goes to deny. Had our text stood . , , it would have appeared to countenance the above error, which as it now stands it cannot do.
[69] Irenus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 (Iren-int as represented by his interpreter; Iren-gr, when his own words are preserved)
[70] Tertullian, 200
[71] Origen, b. 185, d. 254
[72] Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, 368-403
[73] cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, Centy. XI.?
The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the emperor Julia[74] (Cyril, p. 321. Wetst.) , , . The next is in the punctuation of two cursive mss. of the twelfth century (5 and 47), which place a period after , thus insulating . , and regarding it as a doxology to God over all, blessed for ever. This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Semler, Reiche, Kllner, 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 () precedes the name of God. (In the one place, Ps. 67:19 LXX, . . , . , which seems to be an exception, the first . has no corresponding word in the Heb. and perhaps may be interpolated. So Stuart, and even Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. T. p. 320. In Yatess vindication of Unitarianism, p. 180, this is the only instance cited. Such cases as 3 Kings Rom 10:9; 2Ch 9:8; Job 1:21; Psa 112:2, are no exceptions, as in all of them the verb or 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 , 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 Apostles 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 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 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. Rom 1:25, , . ,-and 2Co 11:31, . . . , , : whereas he twice uses the phrase as an ascription of praise, without joining . (5) That in the latter of the above-cited passages (2Co 11:31), not only the same phrase as here, but the same construction, , occurs, and that there the whole refers to the subject of the sentence.
[74] Julian, Emperor, 331-363
I do not reckon among the objections the want of any contrast to , 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 and refer to Christ, understanding by all the preceding glorious things, or the 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 .
Variety of reading there is none worth notice: the very fathers [Ephr[75] Cypr-ed. Hil-ed. Le[76]] generally cited as omitting , having it in the best manuscripts and editions.
[75] Ephrem Syrus, b. 299, d. 378
[76] Leo, Bp. of Rome, 440-461
Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol. p. 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is followed by Whiston, Whitby, and Taylor) to transpose into ;-but besides the objection to the sense thus arising, 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.
implies no optative ascription of praise, but is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty; compare ch. Rom 1:25.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 9:4. , 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.- -, 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.- , 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 , 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.- , , 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. 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 [], 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].- , 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 9:4
Rom 9:4
who are Israelites;-They were the children of Israel and heirs of the promises made to him. The name “Israelite was for the Jew his especial badge and title of honor. To be descendants of Abraham, this honor they must share with the Ishmaelites (Gen 16:15); of Abraham and Isaac, with the Edomites (Gen 25:26); but none except themselves were the seed of Jacob, such as in this name of Israelite they were declared to be. Nor was this all, but, more gloriously still, their descent was herein traced up to him, not as he was Jacob, but as he was Israel, who, as a Prince, had power with God and with men, and prevailed (Gen 32:28). That this title was accounted the noblest we have ample proof. When Paul uses this name, he reminds his readers that it is just those for whose salvation above all the Messiah was to come, who, when he has come, are apparently cut off from all share in the privileges of his kingdom.
whose is the adoption,-They had been adopted as children of God. [Out of all nations God chose Israel to stand in a special relation to him as his children. Of this adoption the deliverance from Egypt was the immediate result. Jehovah said to Moses: And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus said Jehovah, Israel is my son, my firstborn: and I have said unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. (Exo 4:22-23). Sonship with an Israelite was purely national, not individual, and, therefore, no guarantee of salvation. Its mark was in the flesh, not in the spirit; and though a peculiar distinction within itself, and implying much, it is entitled to no honor under Christ. To his hereditary sonship an Israelite had still to add sonship in Christ, as really as the humblest Gentile; otherwise he was lost.]
and the glory,-[The supernatural brightness in which God manifested his presence on Sinai. (Exo 24:16-17). This glory appeared to Moses, and communicated itself, in a measure, to him; so that when he came down from the mountain his face shone (Exo 34:29-35), and at times on the tent of meeting (Exo 29:43; Exo 40:34-35), and on the mercy seat of the ark (Lev 16:2). These were peculiar to the Israelites.]
and the covenants,-The covenants which God made with Abraham (Gen 15:18; Gen 17:2; Gen 17:4; Gen 17:7-11), and afterwards renewed to Isaac (Gen 26:24), to Jacob (Gen 28:13; Gen 28:15), and to the whole people of Israel (Exo 24:7-8). [These gracious covenants, expressing Gods purposes and plans, were renewed upon each successive occasion, with growing fullness and definiteness.]
and the giving of the law,-The law of Moses was given to them. [The reference here, no doubt, alludes not only to the contents of the law, but to the manner in which God gave it. Never before was the Supreme Being manifested with such outward signs of terror and majesty. Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? (Deu 4:33).]
and the service of God,-[It was an especial honor that God had bestowed upon them that he prescribed their service in the tabernacle and temple even to the minutest particulars. He showed Moses the pattern of the tabernacle, and he raised up men specially endowed by his Spirit with wisdom to carry out his directions. (Exo 35:30-35). He ordained the priests and the ministry, the sacrifices, the altar, and all the vessels of the service.]
and the promises;-They were the heirs of the promises made through Abraham for the salvation of the world. [The promise of the Messiah was a possession of Israel in the sense that it was to be fulfilled exclusively through, though not exclusively for, Israel.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
are Israelites: Rom 9:6, Gen 32:28, Exo 19:3-6, Deu 7:6, Psa 73:1, Isa 41:8, Isa 46:3, Joh 1:47
the adoption: Exo 4:22, Deu 14:1, Jer 31:9, Jer 31:20, Hos 11:1
and the glory: Num 7:89, 1Sa 4:21, 1Sa 4:22, 1Ki 8:11, Psa 63:2, Psa 78:61, Psa 90:16, Isa 60:19
covenants: or, testaments, Gen 15:18, Gen 17:2, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:10, Exo 24:7, Exo 24:8, Exo 34:27, Deu 29:1, Deu 31:16, Neh 13:29, Psa 89:3, Psa 89:34, Jer 31:33, Jer 33:20-25, Act 3:25, Heb 8:6-10
the giving: Rom 3:2, Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14, Psa 147:19, Eze 20:11, Eze 20:12, Joh 1:17
the service: Exo 12:25, Isa 5:2, Mat 21:33, Heb 9:3, Heb 9:10
promises: Luk 1:54, Luk 1:55, Luk 1:69-75, Act 2:39, Act 3:25, Act 3:26, Act 13:32, Act 13:33, Eph 2:12, Heb 6:13-17
Reciprocal: 1Ch 17:22 – thy people Ezr 4:3 – Ye have nothing Psa 105:6 – ye seed Isa 1:2 – I have Isa 22:1 – of vision Isa 45:11 – concerning my sons Isa 61:9 – their seed Isa 63:19 – are thine Mat 8:12 – the children Mat 15:26 – It is not Mar 12:1 – and set Luk 7:9 – not in Luk 15:31 – General Joh 4:22 – for Act 3:12 – Ye men Act 7:38 – lively Act 10:11 – and a Act 13:46 – It was Act 22:5 – the brethren Rom 2:17 – thou art Rom 2:23 – that makest Rom 15:8 – Jesus Gal 4:5 – that we Heb 7:6 – had 2Pe 1:4 – are given
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9:4
Romans 9:4. This is virtually the same as chapter 3:1, 2.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 9:4. Who are. The form of the original is almost equivalent to: seeing they are.
Israelites, belonging to Gods chosen people. In Rom 9:3 it is stated that they are Pauls people, but he loved them all the more because they were Gods people, descendants of one whom God himself had chosen and named. Since their advantages grew out of this relation, all the privileges named point toward the sovereignty of God, which comes into view in the subsequent discussion of the enigma presented by their rejection of Christ.
Whose is the adoption. Six privileges of the Jews are enumerated in the remainder of this verse: purely sacred, historical divine benefactions (Meyer). The first is adoption, not in the full New Testament sense (comp. Rom 9:6-7), but in the theocratic sense pointing forward to the close union between God and men formed by Christ the only begotten, through the Holy Ghost.
And the glory. This refers to the visible Shekinah, which attended the people of Israel through the wilderness. Those who insist upon a chronological order, find a reference to earlier manifestations of Jehovahs presence, especially as the Angel of the Lord, with which the later appearance is identified, however, in Exo 14:19.
And the covenants. The repeated covenants made with the patriarchs after the first covenant with Abraham, not the Old and New Testaments (covenants), nor the two tables of the law.
And the giving of the law. Not exactly the law itself, but the formal and distinctive act by which it became the possession of the Jews; a secondary reference to its substance may be implied.
And the service of the sanctuary, i.e., the Jewish (or, Mosaic) ritual service in the worship of God; in the tabernacle first, and then more fully established in the temple.
And the promises. This includes all the promises made to the chosen people, from the days of Abraham onward. This inclusive term prepares for the next clause.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods promise. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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 , 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 , and, a form expressing rising exaltation of feeling., 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., 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., 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., 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., the service (cultus), this is the sum-total of the Levitical services instituted by the law., 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 , 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 , whose, and , 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, and . 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: , who is above all things, or above all, would require to be regarded as paraphrasing the term , the universal sovereign, by which the LXX. often render Schadda, 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 , 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 , now, as in Rom 16:25, Jude Rom 9:24, etc., or by giving a turn to the sentence such as this: , …, to God ever blessed be glory! comp. Rom 11:36; or simply: , 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 , blessed, would require to be placed not after, but before the substantive , 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 , is, instead of the imperative , let Him be; comp. Psa 68:34. Finally, it is difficult to understand in our passage the object of the participle (who is, who is really) applied to God; the form (without ) 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 (flesh), had likewise put the question whether the sentence might not close with the word (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 , who is, than on the previous construction. For the application to Christ of the idea of universal sovereignty might require this word , 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 (blessed) after (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: , 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 , 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, , 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 . 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 , God, it is in every case without the article, and that the designation is reserved for the one God and Father. This rule does not apply to the case before us, for the article belongs not to the word , but to the participle . If Paul had meant here to use the form in application to God, he would have required to write: . We have therefore the form 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 , Lord, neither is there anything to prevent the Lord Christ from receiving in certain cases the name , 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 , 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 , over all things, was descriptive of the word , God, and here denoted the being called God as the supreme God. But what does he say himself two pages farther on: , over, denotes government over all things. The over all things, according to Meyer himself, is not at all a determination of the word . We must not, as his objection assumed, connect with , but with the participle , 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 , 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 , 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 , and a second after , 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; finallyas follows from the two previous termsthat 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 , to be the attribute of the participle , 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 ): 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 inadmissible1. 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 , 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 . 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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
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];
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
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.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 4
The adoption; adoption as the chosen people of God.–The glory; the visible manifestation of the divine presence over the ark. (Exodus 13:21,22,25:22.)–The covenants; those which God made with the patriarchs.–The service of God; the divinely-instituted rites of public worship.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the {c} glory, and the {d} covenants, and the giving of the {e} law, and the {f} service [of God], and the {g} promises;
(c) The ark of the covenant, which was a token of God’s presence.
(d) The tables of the covenant, and this is spoken by the figure of speech metonymy.
(e) Of the judicial law.
(f) The ceremonial law.
(g) Which were made to Abraham and to his posterity.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul shared much in common with his blood brothers. "Israelites" connotes the chosen people of God whereas "Jews" simply distinguishes them from Gentiles. [Note: See Cranfield, 2:460-61, for a summary of the way "Israel" was used in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Judaism.] Here the apostle pointed out further advantages of the Jews (cf. Rom 3:2). He named eight of their special blessings in Rom 9:4-5.
God graciously had adopted Israel, as He had Christians (cf. Rom 8:15; Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1-2). The Israelites had the glory of God’s presence among them, as Christians have the glory of God within us through His indwelling Spirit (Exo 40:34; 1Ki 8:11). God took the initiative in reaching out to Israel with covenants that bound Him and the nation together (i.e., the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants). He has reached out to us with the gospel and the New Covenant with the same result. The "giving" (NASB; not "receiving," NIV) of the Mosaic Law was a great privilege for Israel that corresponds to the teaching of Christ for Christians. The Jewish sacrificial system enabled Israel to have fellowship with God, now available through the high priestly work of Christ. The promises revealed to the patriarchs guaranteed God’s action for them, just as God’s promises to Christians guarantee His action for us (Rom 8:31).
"He also gave them His Law to govern their political, social, and religious life, and to guarantee His blessing if they obeyed." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:543.]