Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever^289 And I doubt not, but
that Paul, who had to contend hard with a reproach urged against him, did designedly raise up 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 raise up their
thoughts.
Romans 9:6-9
- Neque tamen, quasi exciderit verbum Dei:
non emro omnes qui sunt ex Israele sunt
Israelitae: - Not as though the word of God hath taken
none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are
of Israel: - Nec qui sunt semen Abrabae, ideo omnes
filii; sed in Isaac voca-bitur tibi semen: - Neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall
thy seed be called. - Hoc est, non qui sunt filii car-nis, ii filii
sunt Dei; sed qui sunt filii promissionis,
censebuntur in semen: - That is, They which are the children of the
flesh, these are not the children of God: but the
children of the promise are counted for the seed. - Promissionis enim verbum hoc est,
Secundum hoc tempus veniam, et erit Sarae filius. - For this is the word of promise, At this
time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
6.Not however, etc. Paul had been carried away by the ardour of his wish, as it were, into an
excess of feeling, (in ecstasin,) but now, returning to discharge his office as a teacher, he adds what
may be viewed as somewhat qualifying what he had said, as though he would restrain immoderate
grief. And inasmuch as by deploring the ruin of his own nation, this inconsistency seems to follow,
that the covenant made by God with the seed of Abraham had failed, (for the favor of God could
(^289) Stuart has in a most convincing manner vindicated the true and obvious meaning of this clause. There is no reading of any
authority, nor any early version, that affects the genuineness of the received text: and it is amazing what ingenuity has been
exercised by various critics to evade the plain construction of the passage, — a remarkable instance of the debasing power of
preconceived notions. It is somewhat singular too, that some who professed at least the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, such as
Erasmus, Whitby, and Locke, have attempted to make changes in the text, and those for the most part conjectural, by which the
obvious meaning is wholly altered.
It is very clearly shown by Stuart, that the very position of the words, and their connection with the context, will admit of
no other construction than that which our version contains.
It is well known, that in Hebrew the word “blessed” is always placed before “God,” or Jehovah, when it is an ascription
of praise; and it appears that the Septuagint has in more than thirty instances followed the same order, and, indeed, in every
instance except one, (Psalm 68:19,) and that evidently a typographical mistake. The same is the case with all the examples in
the New Testament. So that if the phrase here was a doxology, it must have been written. In the Welsh language,
which in many of its idioms is identically the same with the Hebrew, the order of the words is the same: when it is a doxology,
the word “blessed” invariably precedes the word “God;” and when otherwise it follows it.
The opinion of Chrysostom on this sentence, to which Erasmus attaches some importance, is of no value whatever, as he
did not understand Hebrew; and Paul, for the most part, wrote as a Hebraist.
The participle , being put for , is what is common in Hebrew and in the New Testament. See a remarkable instance of
two participles and a verb in the middle, in Revelation 1:4. It has been said, that “amen” unsuitably follows a declarative sentence;
but see an instance in Romans 1:25
It is justly observed by Stuart, that the context requires the application of this sentence to Christ, as otherwise there would
be no antithesis to the words “according to the flesh.” — Ed.