Romans 9:1-11
Israel’s Rejection Considered
1 ▼▼sn Rom 9:1-11:36. These three chapters are among the most difficult and disputed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. One area of difficulty is the relationship between Israel and the church, especially concerning the nature and extent of Israel’s election. Many different models have been constructed to express this relationship. For a representative survey, see M. Barth, The People of God (JSNTSup), 22-27. The literary genre of these three chapters has been frequently identified as a diatribe, a philosophical discussion or conversation evolved by the Cynic and Stoic schools of philosophy as a means of popularizing their ideas (E. Käsemann, Romans, 261 and 267). But other recent scholars have challenged the idea that Rom 9-11 is characterized by diatribe. Scholars like R. Scroggs and E. E. Ellis have instead identified the material in question as midrash. For a summary and discussion of the rabbinic connections, see W. R. Stegner, “Romans 9.6-29—A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37-52.
I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me ▼▼tn Or “my conscience bears witness to me.”
in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ▼▼tn Grk “my sorrow is great and the anguish in my heart is unceasing.”
3For I could wish ▼▼tn Or “For I would pray.” The implied condition is “if this could save my fellow Jews.”
that I myself were accursed—cut off from Christ—for the sake of my people, ▼▼tn Grk “brothers.” See BDAG 18-19 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.b.
my fellow countrymen, ▼▼tn Grk “my kinsmen according to the flesh.”
4who are Israelites. To them belong ▼▼tn Grk “of whom.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
the adoption as sons, ▼▼tn The Greek term υἱοθεσία (huiothesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. BDAG 1024 s.v. notes, “a legal t.t. of ‘adoption’ of children, in our lit., i.e., in Paul, only in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component).” Although some modern translations remove the filial sense completely and render the term merely “adoption” (cf. NAB, ESV), the retention of this component of meaning was accomplished in the present translation by the phrase “as sons.”
the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, ▼▼tn Or “cultic service.”
and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, ▼▼tn Grk “of whom are the fathers.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
and from them, ▼▼tn Grk “from whom.” Here the relative pronoun has been replaced by a personal pronoun.
by human descent, ▼▼tn Grk “according to the flesh.”
came the Christ, ▼▼tn Or “Messiah.” (Both Greek “Christ” and Hebrew and Aramaic “Messiah” mean “one who has been anointed.”)
who is God over all, blessed forever! ▼▼tn Or “the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever,” or “the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever!” or “the Messiah who is over all. God be blessed forever!” The translational difficulty here is not text-critical in nature, but is a problem of punctuation. Since the genre of these opening verses of Romans 9 is a lament, it is probably best to take this as an affirmation of Christ’s deity (as the text renders it). Although the other renderings are possible, to see a note of praise to God at the end of this section seems strangely out of place. But for Paul to bring his lament to a crescendo (that is to say, his kinsmen had rejected God come in the flesh), thereby deepening his anguish, is wholly appropriate. This is also supported grammatically and stylistically: The phrase ὁ ὢν (ho ōn, “the one who is”) is most naturally taken as a phrase which modifies something in the preceding context, and Paul’s doxologies are always closely tied to the preceding context. For a detailed examination of this verse, see B. M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, 95-112; and M. J. Harris, Jesus as God, 144-72.
Amen. 6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, ▼▼tn Grk “For not all those who are from Israel are Israel.”
7nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants; rather “through Isaac will your descendants be counted.” ▼▼tn Grk “be called.” The emphasis here is upon God’s divine sovereignty in choosing Isaac as the child through whom Abraham’s lineage would be counted as opposed to Ishmael.
▼ 8This means ▼▼tn Grk “That is,” or “That is to say.”
it is not the children of the flesh ▼▼tn Because it forms the counterpoint to “the children of promise” the expression “children of the flesh” has been retained in the translation.
▼▼sn The expression the children of the flesh refers to the natural offspring.
who are the children of God; rather, the children of promise are counted as descendants. 9For this is what the promise declared: ▼▼tn Grk “For this is the word of promise.”
“About a year from now ▼▼tn Grk “About this time I will return.” Since this refers to the time when the promised child would be born, it would be approximately a year later.
I will return and Sarah will have a son.” ▼ 10Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, ▼▼tn Or possibly “by one act of sexual intercourse.” See D. Moo, Romans (NICNT), 579.
our ancestor Isaac— 11even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election ▼▼tn Grk “God’s purpose according to election.”
would stand, not by works but by ▼▼tn Or “not based on works but based on…”
his calling) ▼▼tn Grk “by the one who calls.”
▼▼sn The entire clause is something of a parenthetical remark.
—
Copyright information for
NET2full