Charles Ellicott Commentary Romans 9

I say the truth in Christ.—The meaning of this expression seems to be, “From the bottom of my soul, in the most sacred part of my being, as a Christian man united to Christ, I make this solemn asseveration.”

My conscience.—Here, as in Romans 2:15, very much in the modern sense of the word, the introspective faculty which sits in judgment upon actions, and assigns to them their moral qualities of praise or blame. “This conscience of mine being also overshadowed with the Holy Spirit, and therefore incapable of falsehood or self-deception.”

On verses 1-5:

My heart bleeds for Israel, my country, that highly-privileged people. I could gladly have changed places with them, and been myself cut off from Christ, if only they might have been saved.

I could wish . . .—Rather, I could have wished. The wish, of course, related to what was really impossible. Still, it is a nobly generous impulse, at which some weak minds have been shocked, and from which others have made sentimental capital. Let us leave it as it is.

Accursed from Christ.—Separated from Christ, and devoted to destruction. Does not the intensity of this expression help us to realize one aspect of the Atonement—being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13)? (The Greek word for “curse” is different, but becomes nearly equivalent.)

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. (Compare to Hosea 11:1, I called my son out of Egypt; Exodus 4:22, Israel is my son, even my firstborn; and others.)

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

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

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

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

The fathers.—The patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever.—These words are a well-known subject for controversy. Trinitarian and English interpreters, as a rule, take them with the punctuation of the Authorized Version, as referring to Christ. Socinian interpreters, with some of the most eminent among the Germans, put a full stop after “came” and make the remainder of the verse a doxology addressed to God: “Blessed for ever be God, who is over all.” Both ways are possible.

The question is, which is the most natural and probable? This is to be considered, putting entirely aside preconceptions of every kind.

We are not to read meaning into Scripture, but to elicit meaning from it.

The balance of the argument stands thus:

1. The order of the words is somewhat in favor of the application to Christ. If the clause had really been a formal doxology, the ascription of blessing would more naturally have come at the beginning in Greek, as in English: “Blessed be God,” etc.
2. The context is also somewhat in favor of this application. The break in the form of the sentence becomes rather abrupt on the other hypothesis and is not to be quite paralleled. Intrusive doxologies, caused by a sudden surge of pious feeling, are not uncommon in the writings of St. Paul, but they are either worked into the regular order of the sentence (Galatians 1:5) or else they are formally introduced (as in 2 Corinthians 11:31; 1 Timothy 1:17).
3. But on the other hand, a factor that argues somewhat decidedly against this application is that the words used by the Apostle, “Who is over all,” and the ascription of blessing, in all other places where they occur, are referred not to Christ, but to God (2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 4:6). There is, indeed, a doxology addressed to Christ in 2 Timothy 4:18; it should, however, be remembered that the Pauline origin of that Epistle has been doubted by some, though it is also right to add that these doubts do not appear to have any real validity. The title “God” does not appear to be elsewhere applied to our Lord by St. Paul, though all the attributes of Godhead are ascribed to Him: e.g., in Philippians 2:6 and following, Colossians 1:15 and following. In 1 Timothy 3:16, which would be an apparent exception, the true reading is “Who was manifested,” and not “God was manifested.” On the other hand, St. John certainly makes use of this title, not only in John 1:1 and John 20:28, but also in the reading, adopted by many, of John 1:18, “God only begotten” for “Only begotten Son.”

Weighing all the arguments against each other, the data do not seem sufficient to warrant a positive and dogmatic conclusion either way.

The application to our Lord appears perhaps a little more probable of the two. More than this cannot be said. Nor is a stronger affirmation warranted by any considerations resting on the division of authorities.

Not as though.—The scholar will observe that there appears to be a mixture of two constructions here: “the case is not such that,” and “I do not mean to say that” (or “I do not intend to say that the case is such as that”).

Taken none effect.—“Fallen through,” or “failed to be accomplished.”

Of Israel—i.e., descended from Jacob. (Compare Genesis 32:28.) The promise of God was indeed given to Israel, but that did not simply mean all who could claim descent from Jacob without further limitation.

On verses 6-13:

Now follows a vindication of God’s dealings in rejecting Israel. And this is divided into three parts. Part 1 extends to the end of Romans 9:13, and its object is to clear the way by defining the true limits of the promise. It was not really to all Israel that the promise was given, but only to a particular section of Israel.