John Calvin Commentary Romans 9

In this chapter, he begins to remove the obstacles that might have turned people's minds away from Christ. For the Jews, for whom Christ was appointed according to the covenant of the law, not only rejected him but also held him in contempt and, for the most part, hated him.

Therefore, one of two things seemed to follow: either that there was no truth in the divine promise, or that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was not the Lord's Anointed, who had been especially promised to the Jews. Paul fully unties this twofold problem in what follows.

However, he handles this subject in such a way as to abstain from all bitterness against the Jews, so that he might not exasperate their minds. Yet he concedes nothing to them that would harm the gospel, for he allows them their privileges in such a way as not to detract anything from Christ.

But he moves, as it were, abruptly to mention this subject, so that there appears to be no connection in his discourse. However, he enters on this new subject as though he had referred to it before.

This came about as follows: after finishing the doctrine he discussed, he turned his attention to the Jews. Astonished at their unbelief as at something monstrous, he burst out with this sudden declaration, just as if it were a subject he had previously handled. For there was no one to whom this thought would not immediately occur: "If this is the doctrine of the law and the Prophets, why do the Jews so obstinately reject it?"

Furthermore, it was widely known that everything he had said until then about the law of Moses and the grace of Christ was more disliked by the Jews than they were willing for the faith of the Gentiles to be assisted by their consent. It was therefore necessary to remove this obstacle, lest it should hinder the course of the gospel.

Regarding the words I say the truth in Christ, etc.: Since it was an opinion held by most that Paul was, as it were, a sworn enemy to his own nation, and as it was somewhat suspected even by the household of faith that he had taught them to forsake Moses, he uses a preface to prepare his readers' minds before he proceeds to his subject. In this preface, he frees himself from the false suspicion of ill will towards the Jews.

And since the matter was not unworthy of an oath, and since he perceived that his affirmation would hardly be believed otherwise against an already existing prejudice, he declares by an oath that he speaks the truth.

By this example and similar ones (as I reminded you in the first chapter), we should learn that oaths are lawful—that is, when they make believable a truth that needs to be known and would not otherwise be believed.

The expression in Christ, means "according to Christ." By adding I lie not, he signifies that he speaks without fiction or disguise. Regarding the words My conscience testifying to me, etc. By these words he calls his own conscience before the tribunal of God, for he brings in the Spirit as a witness to his inner conviction.

He brought forward the Spirit for this purpose, so that he might more fully testify that he was free and pure from an evil disposition, and that he pleaded the cause of Christ under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of God.

It often happens that a person, blinded by the passions of the flesh (though not intending to deceive), knowingly and willfully obscures the light of truth.

But to swear by the name of God, properly speaking, is to call Him as a witness to confirm what is doubtful, and at the same time to submit ourselves to His judgment if we speak falsely.

That I have great sorrow, etc. He skillfully manages to cut his sentence short, without yet expressing what he was going to say, for it was not yet the right time to openly mention the destruction of the Jewish nation. It may be added that he thereby suggests a greater measure of sorrow, as incomplete sentences are usually full of pathos. But he will soon express the cause of his sorrow, after more fully testifying to his sincerity.

But the perdition of the Jews caused Paul very great anguish, even though he knew it happened according to God's will and providence. From this, we learn that the obedience we render to God’s providence does not prevent us from grieving at the destruction of lost people, even though we know that they are doomed in this way by the just judgment of God.

For the same mind can be influenced by these two feelings: when it looks to God, it can willingly bear the ruin of those whom He has decreed to destroy; and when it turns its thoughts to people, it sympathizes with their afflictions. Therefore, those who say that godly people ought to have apathy and insensibility (ἀπάθειαν καὶ ἀναλγησίαν), for fear that they might resist the decree of God, are greatly mistaken.

For I could wish, etc. He could not have expressed a greater ardor of love than by what he testifies here, for that is surely perfect love which does not refuse to die for the salvation of a friend. But there is another word added, anathema, which proves that he is not speaking only of temporal but of eternal death; and he explains its meaning when he says, from Christ, for it signifies a separation.

And what is it to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the hope of salvation? It was then a proof of the most ardent love that Paul did not hesitate to wish for himself that condemnation which he saw impending over the Jews, so that he might deliver them.

It is no objection that he knew his salvation was based on the election of God, which could in no way fail; for as those ardent feelings carry us away impetuously, they see and regard nothing but the object in view. So Paul did not connect God’s election with his wish, but with the remembrance of that set aside, he was completely focused on the salvation of the Jews.

Many indeed doubt whether this was a lawful desire, but this doubt can be resolved as follows: the settled boundary of love is that it extends as far as conscience allows. If then we love in God and not without God’s authority, our love can never be too much. And such was the love of Paul; for seeing his own nation endowed with so many of God’s benefits, he loved God’s gifts in them, and them on account of God’s gifts. He deemed it a great evil that those gifts should perish; consequently, with his mind overwhelmed, he burst forth into this extreme wish.

Thus I do not agree with the opinion of those who think that Paul spoke these words out of regard for God only, and not for men; nor do I agree with others who say that, without any thought of God, he was influenced only by love for men. Instead, I connect the love of men with a zeal for God’s glory.

I have not, however, yet explained the main point—that the Jews are here regarded as they were adorned with those unique tokens that distinguished them from the rest of humankind. For God had by His covenant so highly exalted them that by their fall, the faithfulness and truth of God Himself also seemed to fail in the world. For that covenant would have therefore become void, the stability of which was promised to be perpetual, as long as the sun and moon should shine in heaven (Psalms 72:7).

So the abolition of this covenant would have been stranger than the sad and ruinous confusion of the whole world. It was not, therefore, a simple and exclusive regard for men. For though it is better that one member should perish than the whole body, it was for this reason that Paul had such a high regard for the Jews: because he viewed them as bearing the character and, as is commonly said, the quality of an elect people. This will become more evident, as we will soon see, from what follows.

The words, my kinsmen according to the flesh, though they contain nothing new, still serve greatly for amplification. First, so that no one would think that he willingly, or of his own accord, sought a reason to quarrel with the Jews, he indicates that he had not cast off the feeling of kindred, so as not to be affected by the destruction of his own flesh. Secondly, since it was necessary for the gospel, of which he was the preacher, to go forth from Zion, he does not pronounce an eulogy in vain in so many words on his own kindred.

For the qualifying expression, according to the flesh, is not in my view added for the sake of diminishing it, as in other places, but, on the contrary, for the sake of expressing his faith. For though the Jews had disowned Paul, he still did not conceal the fact that he had sprung from that nation, whose election was still strong in the root, though the branches had withered.

What Budoeus says of the word anathema, is inconsistent with the opinion of Chrysostom, who makes ἀνάθεμα and ἀνάθημα to be the same.

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 used here instead of a causative adverb.

Similarly, this anxiety took hold of Moses when he desired that he himself be blotted out of the book of life, rather than that the holy and chosen race of Abraham should be reduced to nothing (Exodus 32:32). Then, in addition to his kind feeling, he also mentions other reasons, and those of a higher kind, which led him to favor the Jews: namely, because the Lord had, as it were, by a kind of privilege, so exalted them that they were separated from the common order of humanity. And these titles of dignity were testimonies of love, for we do not usually speak so favorably except about those we love.

And though by their ingratitude they made themselves unworthy to be esteemed on account of these gifts of God, yet Paul continued justly to respect them, so that he might teach us that the ungodly cannot contaminate God's good endowments to such a degree that these endowments cease to deserve praise and admiration. At the same time, those who abuse them acquire by this nothing but greater reproach.

But just as we should not act in such a way as to despise, out of detestation for the ungodly, the gifts of God in them, so, on the other hand, we must use prudence, lest our kind esteem and regard for them make them proud, and especially lest our praises take on the appearance of flattery. Let us imitate Paul, who acknowledged the privileges of the Jews in such a way that he later declared that they were all of no value without Christ. But it was not without reason that he mentioned this as one of their praises: that they were Israelites; for Jacob prayed for this as a great favor, that they should be called by his name (Genesis 48:16).

Whose are the adoption, etc. The main point of Paul’s discourse is this: that though the Jews by their falling away had produced an ungodly divorce between God and themselves, yet the light of God’s favor was not wholly extinguished, according to what he had also said in Romans 3:3. They had indeed become unbelievers and had broken His covenant; but still their faithlessness had not made void the faithfulness of God. For He had not only reserved for Himself some remnant seed from the whole multitude, but had still continued, according to their hereditary right, the semblance of a Church among them.

But though they had already stripped themselves of these ornaments, so that it was of no advantage to them to be called the children of Abraham, yet as there was a danger lest, through their fault, the majesty of the gospel should be devalued among the Gentiles, Paul does not consider what they deserved, but covers their baseness and disgraceful conduct by throwing veils 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 special to Himself and had adopted them as His children, as He often testifies through Moses and the prophets. And not content simply to give them the name of children, He sometimes calls them His firstborn, and sometimes His beloved. Thus, the Lord says in Exodus 4:22:

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

In Jeremiah 31:9, it is said:

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

And again, “Is not my son Ephraim precious to me? Is he not a delightful child? Hence troubled for him are my bowels, and I will yet pity him.” By these words God means not only to express 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 excellence to which the Lord had exalted that people above all other nations, and that in many and various ways, and especially by dwelling among them. For besides many other signs of His presence, He exhibited a unique proof of it in the ark, where He gave responses and also heard His people, that He might display His power in helping them; and for this reason it was called “the glory of God” (1 Samuel 4:22).

As he has distinguished here between covenants and promises, we may observe this difference: a covenant is that which is expressed in distinct and established words, and contains a mutual stipulation, like the one made with Abraham; but promises are what we encounter everywhere in Scripture. For when God had once made a covenant with His ancient people, He continued to offer His favor to them, often through new promises.

It therefore follows that promises are to be traced back to the covenant as their true source, in the same manner as the special acts of God's help, by which He testifies His love towards the faithful, can 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 specifically applied to the things which the law commanded. For it was no small 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? An account of this is found in Deuteronomy 4:32.

By worship he understands that part of the law in which the legitimate manner of worshipping God is prescribed, such as rites and ceremonies. These should have been considered lawful because of God’s appointment; without which, whatever men devise is nothing but a profanation of religion.

Whose are the fathers, etc. It is indeed of some importance to be descended from saints and men beloved of God, since God promised the godly fathers mercy toward their children, even to a thousand generations, and especially in the words addressed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as we find in Genesis 17:4, and in other passages. It does not matter that this by itself, when separated from the fear of God and holiness of life, is vain and useless; for we find the same to have been the case regarding worship and glory, as is evident everywhere in the prophets, especially in Isaiah 1:11, Isaiah 60:1, and also in Jeremiah 7:4. But, as God dignified these things with some degree of honor when joined with attention to godliness, he justly counted them among the privileges of the Jews. They are indeed said to be the heirs of the promises for this very reason—because they descended from the fathers (Acts 3:25).

From whom, is Christ, etc. Those who apply this to the fathers, as though Paul meant only to say that Christ had descended from the fathers, have no reason to allege: for his objective was to conclude his account of the preeminence of the Jews with this praise—that Christ proceeded from them. For it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed to have been united by a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world; if he had honored the whole human race by joining himself to us through a common nature, much more did he honor those with whom he had a closer bond of union. It must, at the same time, always be maintained that when this favor of being related by kinship is unconnected with godliness, it is so far from being an advantage that, on the contrary, it leads to a greater condemnation.

But we have here a remarkable passage—that in Christ two natures are distinguished in such a manner that they are at the same time united in the very person of Christ: for by saying that Christ had descended from the Jews, he declared his real humanity. The words according to the flesh, which are added, imply that he had something superior to flesh; and here an evident distinction seems to be made between humanity and divinity. But he finally connects both together, when he says that the Christ, who had descended from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed forever.

We must further observe that this ascription of praise belongs only to the true and eternal God; for he declares in another place (1 Timothy 1:17) that it is the true God alone to whom honor and glory are due. Those who break off this clause from the previous context, so that they may take away from Christ such a clear testimony to his divinity, most presumptuously attempt to introduce darkness in the midst of the clearest light.

For the words most evidently mean this: Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed forever. And I do not doubt that Paul, who had to contend fiercely with a reproach urged against him, deliberately raised his own mind to the contemplation of the eternal glory of Christ; nor did he do this so much for his own sake individually as for the purpose of encouraging others by his example to elevate their thoughts.