Albert Barnes Commentary Romans 9

Romans Chapter 9 Introduction

This chapter opens, to some degree, a new line of thought and argumentation. Its main design was probably to address objections that would be raised against the positions advanced and defended in the previous parts of the epistle.

In the previous chapters (Romans 1-3), Paul had defended the position that the barrier between Jews and Gentiles had been removed. He argued that Jews could not be saved by any external advantages they possessed, that all were equally guilty before God, and that there was only one way of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles: by faith in Jesus Christ.

He had stated the benefits of this plan (Romans 5) and showed its effectiveness in accomplishing what the Law of Moses could not achieve in overcoming sin (Romans 6-7). In Romans 8, he had also stated on what principles this was done: that it was according to the purpose of God—the principle of electing mercy applied indiscriminately to the mass of guilty Jews and Gentiles.

To this statement, two objections might arise: first, that it was unjust; and second, that the whole argument involved a departure from the promises made to the Jewish nation. It might further be supposed that the apostle had ceased to feel an interest in his countrymen and had become the exclusive advocate of the Gentiles. To meet these objections and feelings seems to have been the design of this chapter. He shows them:

1. His unabated love for his countrymen and regard for their welfare (Romans 9:1–5).
2. That, according to their own writings, the principle of election had existed in former times—illustrated in the case of Isaac (Romans 9:7–13), in the writings of Moses (Romans 9:15), in the case of Pharaoh (Romans 9:17), and in the prophecies of Hosea and Isaiah (Romans 9:25–29).
3. How, throughout the chapter, he vindicates this principle of the Divine administration, answers objections, and shows that, based on the acknowledged principles of the Old Testament, a part of the Jewish nation might be rejected, and that it was God’s purpose to call others to the privileges of His people (Romans 9:16, 19-23, 25-26, 29-33).

The chapter, therefore, does not refer to national election or to a choice for external privileges. Instead, it directly addresses the doctrine of election to salvation, which had been stated in Romans 8.

To suppose that it refers merely to external privileges and national distinctions makes the whole discussion disconnected, meaningless, and unnecessary.

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

In Christ. Most interpreters regard this as a form of an oath, equivalent to calling Christ to witness. It is certainly to be regarded, in its obvious sense, as an appeal to Christ as the searcher of hearts and the judge of falsehood.

Thus, the word translated "in" (en) is used in the form of an oath in Matthew 5:34-36 and Revelation 10:6 (Greek). We must remember that the apostle was addressing those who had been Jews, and the expression has all the force of an oath by the Messiah.

This shows that it is right, on great and solemn occasions, and in a solemn manner—AND THUS ONLY—to appeal to Christ for the sincerity of our motives and for the truth of what we say. Furthermore, it shows that it is right to regard the Lord Jesus Christ as present with us, searching our hearts, capable of detecting insincerity, hypocrisy, and perjury, and therefore as Divine.

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

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

In the Holy Spirit. He does not say that he speaks the truth by or in the Holy Spirit, as he had said of Christ. Instead, he states that the conscience pronounced its concurring testimony by the Holy Spirit; that is, conscience as enlightened and influenced by the Holy Spirit.

It was not simply natural conscience, but conscience under the full influence of the Enlightener of the mind and Sanctifier of the heart. The reasons for this solemn assertion are probably the following:

1. His conduct and doctrines had led some to believe that he was an apostate and had lost his love for his countrymen. He had forsaken their institutions and devoted himself to the salvation of the Gentiles. He here shows them that this was from no lack of love for them.
2. The doctrines he was about to state and defend were of a similar character; he was about to maintain that a significant part of his own countrymen, despite their privileges, would be rejected and lost. Therefore, in this solemn manner, he assures them that this doctrine had not been embraced because he did not love them, but because it was a solemn, though most painful, truth. He proceeds to enumerate their privileges as a people and to show them the strength and tenderness of his love.

Great heaviness. Great grief.

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

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

1. The apostle's object is not to state his former feelings, but his present attachment to his countrymen and willingness to suffer for them.

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

3. It is not true that Paul ever did wish before his conversion to be accursed by Christ, that is, by the Messiah. He opposed Jesus of Nazareth, but he did not believe that he was the Messiah. At no time would he have wished to be devoted to destruction by the Messiah, or by Christ. Nothing would have been more terrible to a Jew.

   Saul of Tarsus never doubted that he was the friend of the promised Messiah and was advancing the true interests of his cause, defending the hopes of his nation against an impostor. The word, therefore, expresses a feeling which the apostle had when writing this epistle, regarding the condition and prospects of the nation.

Were accursed from Christ. This might be rendered "anathema by Christ" (anayema einai apo tou cristou). This passage has been much disputed. The word translated accursed (anathema) properly means:

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

2. As that which was thus dedicated to Jehovah was alienated from the use of the one who devoted it, and was either burned or slain and devoted to destruction as an offering, the word came to signify a devotion of anything to destruction or to complete ruin.

   And as whatever is devoted to destruction may be said to be subject to a curse, or to be accursed, the word comes to have this signification (1 Kings 20:42; Isaiah 34:5).

But in none of these cases does it denote eternal death. The idea, therefore, in these places is simply, "I could be willing to be destroyed, or devoted to death, for the sake of my countrymen." And the apostle evidently means to say that he would be willing to suffer the bitterest evils, to forgo all pleasure, to endure any privation and toil, indeed, to offer his life, so that he might be wholly devoted to sufferings, as an offering, if he could thereby be the means of benefiting and saving the nation (for a similar case, see Exodus 32:32).

This does not mean that Paul would be willing to be damned forever. For:

1. The words do not imply that and do not support it.

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

3. Such a willingness is not and cannot be required.

4. It would be impious and absurd. No one has a right to be willing to be the eternal enemy of God, and no one has ever yet been, or could be, willing to endure everlasting torments.

From Christ. By Christ. Grotius thinks it means from the church of Christ. Others think it means "after the example of Christ," and others, from Christ forever. But it evidently means that he was willing to be devoted by Christ; that is, to be regarded by him and appointed by him to suffering and death, if by that means he could save his countrymen.

This was thus the highest expression of true patriotism and benevolence. It was an example for all Christians and Christian ministers. They should be willing to be devoted to pain, privation, toil, and death, if by that they could save others from ruin.

My kinsmen, etc. This refers to his countrymen, all of whom he regarded as his kinsmen, or relatives, being descended from the same ancestors.

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

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 it pertains. To whom it belongs. It was their elevated external privilege.

The adoption. Of the nation into the family of God, or to be regarded as his peculiar people (Deuteronomy 7:6).

And the glory. The symbol of the Divine presence that attended them from Egypt, and that finally rested over the ark in the first temple—the Shekinah (Exodus 13:21–22; Exodus 25:22).

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

The giving of the law. On Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1; Romans 3:2). .

And the service of God. The temple service; regarded by them as the pride and ornament of their nation (Exodus 12:25).

And the promises. Of the Messiah; and of the spread of the true religion from them as a nation (Ephesians 2:12).

Whose are the fathers. They have been honored with such an illustrious ancestry, being descended from Abraham, Isaac, and so on. On this, they highly valued themselves, and, in a certain sense, not unjustly.

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

As concerning the flesh. This means, so far as His human nature was concerned. The use of this language implies that there was a higher nature, in respect to which He was not of their nation. (See the notes on Romans 1:3).

Christ came. He had already come, and it was their high honor that He was one of their nation.

Who is over all. This is a title that belongs only to the true God. It implies supreme Divinity; and is full proof that the Messiah is Divine.

Much effort has been made to show that this is not the true rendering, but without success. There are no various readings in the Greek manuscripts of any consequence, and the connection here evidently requires us to understand this of a nature that is not "according to the flesh"—that is, as the apostle here shows, of the Divine nature.

God blessed for ever. This is evidently applied to the Lord Jesus; and it proves that He is Divine. If the translation is fairly made—and it has never been proved to be erroneous—it demonstrates that He is God as well as man.

The doxology "blessed for ever" was usually added by Jewish writers after mentioning the name God, as an expression of reverence. (See the various interpretations that have been proposed on this passage, examined in Professor Stuart's notes on this verse.)