Whose are the fathers - here probably the three great fathers of the covenant-Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-by whom God condescended to name Himself (Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:13; Luke 20:37).
And (most exalted privilege of all, and as such, reserved to the last) of whom as concerning the flesh (see the note at Romans 1:3), Christ [came] , [ ex oon ho Christos ] - or 'of whom is Christ, as concerning the flesh.'
Who is over all, God (rather, 'God over all,') blesses forever. Amen [ ho oon epi pantoon Theos eulogeetos eis tous aioonas ]. To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted.
(1) Erasmus suggested that a period might be placed after 'of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh;' in which case what follows is a doxology to the Father for such a gift-`He who is over all, God, be blessed forever. This suggestion was approved by the Polish (Socinian) commentator, Enjedin, and it has been followed by Wetstein, Fritzsche, Reiche, Meyer, Jowett. But there are two objections to this: First, That everywhere in Scripture (both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and in the Greek of the New) the word blessed precedes the name of God, on whom the blessing is pronounced-thus, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel" (Psalms 72:18, and Luke 1:68), "Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 1:3, and Ephesians 1:3). Even Socinus admitted this to be a valid objection and it seems to us fatal. But further, when the apostle here says of Christ that He came of the Israelites "as concerning the flesh," we naturally expect, according to his usual style of thought, that the next clause will make some reference to His higher nature. This accordingly he does sublimely, according to the received punctuation of this verse, and the almost universal way of translating and understanding it; but if we adopt the above suggestion of Erasmus-putting a period after 'of whom is Christ according to the flesh'-the statement ends with an abruptness and the thought is broken in a way not usual, certainly, with the apostle. Fritzche and Meyer see no force in this, thinking that a statement of Christ's fleshly descent did not require to be followed up by any allusion to a higher nature. But DeWette admits the force of it. It is further argued (by Stuart, Alford, and others) that the supposed doxology would be out of place, the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ's Incarnation. But this need not be pressed. Unhappily, both Lachmann and Tischendorf lend their countenance to this interpretation, by placing a period in their texts after the word "flesh" [ sarka ] - the latter giving as his reason that Christian antiquity did not connect the words "God over all" with Christ, but with the Father. But the passages quoted by him (after Wetstein) to prove this were merely intended to maintain the supremacy of the Father in the one Godhead (against those who confounded the Persons); and the best proof that they were not meant in the sense they are (against those who confounded the Persons); and the best proof that they were not meant in the sense they are quoted for is, that some of those same fathers build an argument for the divinity of Christ on this very passage.
(2) Another expedient, also suggested by Erasmus, was to place a period after the words "over all" (of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is "over all"). In this case these words are indeed made to refer to Christ, but only in this sense, that Christ is "over all" that came before him; and what follows is a doxology, as before, to God the Father-`God be blessed forever.' This was adopted by Locke, and has been followed by DeWette in his translation. But though this does yield a sort of contrast in Christ to His descent from Israel "according to the flesh," it is surely a poor one; the doxology which it yields is (as Meyer truly says) miserably abrupt; and it has the same fatal objection as the former-the wrong placing of the word "blessed." It is a valid objection also to this punctuation, that in that case the word "God" would have required the article [ ho Theos ]. See Middleton's note on this verse.
(3) Failing these two expedients, a conjectural change of the text has been resorted to. Schlicting, another of the Polish (Socinian) commentators, suggested that the Greek words [ ho oon ] should be transposed, and both the accent and breathing of the latter word changed [into oon ho ], making the sense to be 'whose is the Supreme God'-that is, not only does Christ, as concerning the flesh, belong to the Israelites, but theirs also is the God over all. This desperate shift was approved by Crellius (an acute critic of the same Polish school), by Whiston and Taylor of Norwich (well-known Arians of last century), and by Whitby (who sank into Arianism in his later days). But besides the worthlessness of the conjecture itself, conjectural emendations of the text-in the face of all manuscript authority-are now justly banished from the domain of sound criticism.
It remains, then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact-that while Christ is "of" the Israelite nation, "as concerning the flesh," He is in another respect "God over all, blessed for ever." (In 2 Corinthians 11:31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered "who is," is used in the same sense; and cf. Romans 1:25, Gr.) In this view of the passage-as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ-besides all the orthodox fathers, all the ablest modern critics, with the exception of those above named, concur. 'I, for my part,' says Michaelis (quoted by Middleton) - a critic not overscrupulous in such matters-`sincerely believe that Paul here delivers the same doctrine of the divinity of Christ which is elsewhere unquestionably maintained in the New Testament.' (See also Bengel's and Philippi's unusually long notes on this passage.)
Though Israel after the Flesh has Fallen, the Elect Israel Has Not Failed (Romans 9:6-13)
Lest his readers should conclude, from the melancholy strain of the preceding verses, that that Israel which he had represented as so dear to God, and the object of many promises, had quite failed, the apostle now proceeds to open up an entirely new feature of his subject, which, though implied in all he had written and indirectly hinted at once and again, had not before been formally expounded-the distinction between the nominal and the real, the carnal and the spiritual Israel.