Romans Commentary Project, chapter 9

As we enter this most contentious section of the letter I take for granted that Paul is working out the faithfulness of the covenant of God through his Messiah Jesus despite the apparent failure of ethnic Israel. The real question for our purposes is the meaning of 11:25-27, which I will present as the logical outworking of chs. 5-8 in general and chs. 9-11 specifically.

1 I am speaking the truth in the Messiah, I do not lie, by the co-witness of my conscience in the Holy Spirit

Following the conclusion of ch. 8, Paul prefaces his new argument with a solemn oath regarding his own conscience toward his subject matter—the faithfulness of God despite the ‘failure’ of ethnic Israel.

2 Since it is great sorrow to me and constant pain in my heart.

Paul answers in advance any possible interpretation of vengeful anti-Semitism from his Gentile Roman audience.

3 For I pray myself to be anathema from the Messiah for the sake of my brothers, my kinfolk according to the flesh

Kinsfolk are sungenon, sometimes “cousins” or “relations.” Anathema.

4 Which are the Israelites, of whom the sonship and the glory and the covenants, and the law-giving and the worship and the promises

Note that Paul is listing the privileges of Israel which have now, as was demonstrated earlier, been transferred to the Messiah-people. Of particular interest are the law-giving (following my argument about ch. 7) and the worship (latreia), which highlights the often overlooked transference of temple rights to the new Messiah-people.

5 Of whom the patriarchs and from whom the Messiah, according to the flesh, he being upon all blessed of God unto the ages, amen

Patriarchs or “fathers.” (pateres) An interesting alternate translation for this verse is to read Theos eulogetos as the subject instead of predicate—[The Messiah] being the blessed God upon all unto the ages—but the textual evidence is spotty.

6 And this is not that the word of God has failed, for not all those from Israel are of Israel

Ho logos tou theou here does not mean “the Christian Bible.” As in v. 28, logos means more “plan” “purpose” or “action.” (As, especially considering its LXX context, would the Hebrew davar) The sense is: YHWH didn’t mess this up—this was the plan all along. Paul again, as in v. 5, will put forth his theological argument by the characteristic Jewish mode of retelling the Israel story. His purpose here: Exactly because “Israel” does not have to mean “ethnic Jews,” YHWH has been faithful to his promises. (This is very important, obviously, to 11:25-27) I’ll take for granted the following points in the course of this argument 1) Israel’s vocation as the covenant people was always the means of rescuing the whole world. 2) The vocation was distorted by ethnic privilege, but made clear in the Messiah 3) The divine intention (or ho logos tou theou) was always to deal with evil (Sin in ch. 7) in one place (execution and judgment) 4) That place was always to be the Messiah. We must read this section as the defense to the question that Paul answers “no” in v. 14—there is no injustice on God’s part in his actions through Israel.

7 Nor is it that the descendants of Abraham are all his children, but “in Isaac descendants to you will be named”

Throughout descendants are sperma (sometimes seed) and children are tekna. In other words, “not all who can claim Abraham as their forefather are biologically related.” (See ch. 4) Explanation for the second half below.

8 This is, not these which are the children of the flesh, but those children of the promise will be reckoned unto descendants

Instead of succession through the “flesh”—which Paul has likened to the illegitimate Hagar/Ishmael relation—Paul declares that the son of the promise (epangelias) is the legitimate heir.

9 For this is the word of the promise “In this time I will come and a son shall be to Sarah”

epangelias gar o logos. Paul connects the promise to Isaac through the birth of Jacob to Sarah…but the promise had to wait.

10 And not this alone, but also Rebekah had from one husband, from our father Isaac

One husband is koiten “bedfellow.” The implication is “and something like this happened again when Rebekah had her child.” It could become a mare’s nest if not read in the context of v. 12—the similarity comes from the dispute of legitimate succession between two sons.

11 For they not yet having been born nor doing anything good or bad, that the forepurposed election of God might continue,

eklogen prothesis tou theou mene. This was not an after-the fact judgment on God’s part, but his elevation of Isaac was according to his just purpose.

12 Not from works but from the call, It was told to her that “The older will serve the younger”

And that the promise in v. 7 might be fulfilled

13 Even as it is written “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”

The younger son, the son to whom is promise given over the natural birthright or the birth according to the flesh, is preferred.

14 What then will we say? Surely there is not injustice on God’s part? May it not be!

Another me genoito. Paul defends YHWH’s purposes by virtue of who YHWH is as the sovereign God.

15 For he said to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Eleeso and oiktireso. Quote is from Ex. 33:19.

16 Therefore it is not then of will nor of exertion but of God’s mercy

What is not of will or exertion? (trechontos) The privilege of sonship (and all the other privileges of 9:4-5) which are claimed via biological succession.

17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh that “Unto this one thing I have raised you up, that I should demonstrate in you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

As YHWH has done before, he will elevate to one place a means of executing his just judgment.

18 Therefore he then has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens he whom he wills.

And as God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so to demonstrate his power, so might he harden Israel to demonstrate his long-promised rescue.

19 You will then say to me: Why them does he yet find fault? For who is able to stand against his will?

The following is one of the hardest passages in Paul to read. He offers no comfort about God’s goodness and kindness…he simply takes away our prerogative to question. Will (boulemati) might make better sense as “choice” throughout.

20 O man, on the contrary, who are you to be answering back to God? Surely that which is molded does not say to the molder “Why have you made me in this way?”

We are, first of all, created beings. The creator is not subject to the created.

21 Or doesn’t the potter have authority over the clay to make form his own lump one vessel of honor and another of dishonor?

Echoes much of the O.T. language about YHWH as the potter and Israel as the clay/vessel. Some translations have atimian as “ordinary use.” (Honor is timen.) One is too harsh, the other too soft, neither quite captures the original verbal effect.

22 And if God willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power carried in much long-suffering the objects of wrath which are supplied unto destruction

Longsuffering is makrothumia. Israel was given plenty of time, but ultimately will function as the means by which God’s judgment is carried out…and that unto apoleian.

23 Even in order that the wealth of his glory might be made known upon the objects of his mercy which he prepared beforehand unto glory

And yet in that same act those which YHWH chose for legitimacy will be given unto glory

24 Which he also called us not alone from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (?)

Not sure whether 24 and 25 are supposed to be 2 clauses (w/a question mark) or one.

25 That even as he says in Hosea “I will call those not my people ‘my people,’ and those not beloved ‘beloved.’

Therefore the call (24) is extended to those “not his people.”

26 And it shall be in the place where it was said to them ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God.”

And sonship is extended.

27 And Isaiah cried concerning Israel: “If the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, a remnant will be saved.”

Is. 10:22-23

28 For completely and decisively the Lord will make his word upon the earth.”

Word is logos.

29 And even as Isaiah forespoke: “If the Lord of hosts had not left descendants to us, as Sodom we would have become, and even as to Gomorrah would we be likened.”

Stopping here for now, because the last 3 verses in ch. 9, I think, belong to the next stage of the argument.