The Unbelief of the Jews: Paul’s Grief for His Kinsmen (Romans 9:2–4)

Rom. 9:2. I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

“The structure of this utterance is incomplete; it ought to be completed: I have unceasing anguish on account of the rejection or unbelief of the Jews; but observing caution, the Apostle did not use these words, though the sense is made clear from what follows” (Blessed Theodoret). “The Apostle grieves in soul for his people according to the flesh for the reason that by their unbelief they have deprived themselves of eternal salvation in Christ Jesus” (Ambrosiaster). “I have great sorrow”—this alone expresses much; but when he added “anguish,” ὀδύνη—a word used chiefly to denote the pain of childbirth—how much has he intensified this expression? And calling this pain unceasing and tormenting his heart, he revealed in himself what a rare soul can bear and endure. Holy Paul grieved even for the salvation of all men. “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?” (2 Cor. 11:29), he said—and this amid countless needs, deprivations, evils, and afflictions. But surely he could not help but grieve more for his own people, because here nature joined with grace. Holy Chrysostom, having depicted in the preceding homily at the end of the commentary on Chapter 8 the love of holy Paul in general, begins the present homily at the beginning of the commentary on Chapter 9 thus: “Did not what I said about Pauline love in the preceding homily seem to you great, even superhuman? Truly, all of this is in itself great and beyond all speech! But what is said now (at the beginning of Chapter 9) surpasses what went before as much as that surpasses all we can say about ourselves. I myself did not think that anything could be higher than what was said in the preceding homily; but it turns out that what we read today is far more brilliant than all that went before. Paul himself felt and declared at the very beginning that he intended to touch on something even more important, which many will not believe.”

Rom. 9:3. I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my people, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

“What are you saying, Paul? From the beloved Christ, from whom neither Kingdom nor Gehenna, neither what is visible nor what is understood by mind, nor anything like these could separate you, from this Christ do you now wish to be ‘separated’? What has happened to you? Have you not changed, have you not departed from love? Not at all; have no fear of that; I have only strengthened this love in myself, answers Paul. Then why do you wish to be separated? Why do you seek estrangement and such a break, after which another one is impossible? Because I love him so greatly, answers Paul. How is this? In what way? Explain to us, for your words seem like a riddle” (Holy Chrysostom).

“To be accursed,” ἀνάθεμα εἶναι—to be anathema. “The word ‘anathema’ has a twofold meaning. For both what is dedicated to God is called anathema, and what is alien to this bears the same name. And the first meaning teaches us the common custom, because what is brought to God we call ἀναθήματα. And the second the divine Apostle taught in the Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘If anyone does not love our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed’ (ἀνάθεμα) (1 Cor. 16:22) (Blessed Theodoret). That is, let ties be broken with him and let him become alien to all. Just as no one dares to touch without necessity or approach with hands a gift dedicated to God, so the one cut off from the Church, being severed from all and as it were distanced as much as possible, the Apostle in the opposite sense calls by the name of a dedicate or offering (ἀνάθημα), and thereby forewarns everyone to flee in fear and get away from such a person. No one dared approach a gift out of respect; with the one cut off, they broke ties from the opposite emotion. In both cases ties are broken equally, and the object becomes alien to men. But the manner of breaking ties is not the same; on the contrary, one is opposite to the other. One is guarded against because it is dedicated to God, while the other because it is alienated from God, cut off from the Church. In this latter sense Paul spoke: ‘I could wish to be cut off from Christ’” (Holy Chrysostom).

One cut off from Christ no longer has a share with Christ, is deprived of his inheritance—the Kingdom of Heaven—and his part is with the condemned. Consequently, the Apostle is willing to offer for his brethren such a sacrifice than which none is greater: according to the greatness of the desire, great is the sacrifice. Here is combined all that holy Paul could offer on his part. What love! A similar expression of love was shown by the prophet Moses when he besought God to forgive the Jews their sin in making the calf, saying: “I prayed, O Lord: this people have sinned a great sin. And now if you will forgive their sin, forgive it; but if not, blot me out from the book that you have written, from which you have written me” (Ex. 32:31–32). To be cut off from Christ is equivalent to being blotted out from the book of life. Holy Chrysostom says: “Some think that Paul is speaking here in the words ‘I could wish to be cut off from Christ’ about temporary death. To such I say that they understand Paul no better—or far worse—than the blind understand a sunbeam. He who died every day, was subjected to clouds of calamities, and said: ‘Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation, or distress, or hunger, or persecution?’ Who, not satisfied with what he had enumerated, surpassed heaven and heaven of heavens, outran angels and archangels and all the celestial powers; who gathered together all—the present and future, the visible and thinkable, the sorrowful and the good, what partakes of both—left nothing unnoticed and was not satisfied, but imagined another similar creation that does not yet exist: would such a man mention temporal death as something important? No, no! To think this of Paul is unseemly. If he had spoken of this, why would he wish to be cut off from Christ? Temporal death more closely unites with the face of Christ and grants a taste of future glory. Therefore, leaving idle tales and empty words, which like baby prattle are not worthy of refutation, and returning to the Apostle’s own words, let us enjoy the sea of his love; let us imagine in our minds this unspeakable flame, of which, no matter what you say, nothing can be said worthy of it. For Paul’s love was wider than the sea, stronger than any fire. And no word can depict it worthily. Only Paul himself grasped it as one who fully possessed it” (at Holy Chrysostom this stands under verse 6).

But is the proposed sacrifice possible and is what is desired possible in consequence of this sacrifice? Is it possible to separate from one who burned with such love for his brethren in love for the Lord? Externally it might be possible to distance. But how can a living bond of love be broken, constituting the very life of the Apostle’s soul? And how can one be distanced from the Omnipresent, who cannot but favor those who love him? The favor of the love of the beloved Lord and love breathing the beloved Lord—this is paradise. The one who loves the Lord and is loved by him will be in paradise everywhere, even if placed in hell; just as conversely, the one not loved by the Lord and not loving him will be in hell everywhere, even if placed in paradise. This is why Blessed Theophylact interprets that the Apostle wishes to be cut off not from love, but from the glory of Christ. “Do you see that from flaming love for God he wishes, if possible, to be separated from the assembly of those eternally alive with Christ, not from his love, but from his glory and enjoyment of it. I, reasons the Apostle, who have accomplished an unnumbered multitude of labors, loving God immeasurably, wish for God’s glory to be deprived of Christ’s glory. But this does not mean to be deprived, but rather to be enriched.” On the other hand, what does the Apostle wish for his brethren? That they too become partakers of the Kingdom of Christ—gracious and glorious. But this is conditioned on faith and devotion to the Lord, which without the will of the soul, how can they be planted? An external gift can be given apart from the will; but how can an internal change be wrought without its participation? And the Lord does not wish to compel the will. He does all to call it forth, but never compels. All this has already been done by him for the Jews as well; but they resist all the more and refuse even to hear of Christ the Saviour. Thus the Apostle desired something impossible.

The Apostle himself knew that both were impossible; but he spoke thus to express his exceedingly strong love for the Jewish people. If such a sacrifice could secure the salvation of my brethren, then I am ready for it. “He says: ‘I could wish,’ optabam—not ‘I wish,’ opto. For he knows it is impossible that such a glorious member, without any fault, should be cut off from the body of Christ. He shows by this only his great love and devotion to his people” (Ambrosiaster). And yet these were not mere words, but a sincere desire proceeding from the depths of the soul—a desire irreversible. Had what he desired been possible, he would truly have been ready for the proposed sacrifice. “He does not simply say ‘I could wish,’ but expresses an intense desire: ‘I could wish,’ eukhomên—ηύχόμην—in prayer, springing from the heart and encompassing his entire being” (Holy Chrysostom).

To the expression of strong love must be referred the words: “I myself”—that is, I myself, who before testified that nothing can separate me from Christ, now myself wish to be separated from him, provided only that my brethren be saved. Blessed Theodoret writes: “Most fittingly the Apostle inserted also this: ‘I myself,’ recalling what had been already said about love for Christ and speaking as it were: I, whom neither life nor death, neither the present nor the future, nor any other creature can separate from God’s love which is in Christ Jesus, would very gladly have been separated from Christ for the salvation of the Jews.”

Yet in saying that he is ready to be cut off from Christ “for the sake of my brethren and my kinsmen according to the flesh,” does not the Apostle suggest the thought that he loves his race more than Christ and prefers it to the Lord? It is true that “by the words: ‘for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh’—the Apostle points to the most tender and ardent love he has for the Jews” (Blessed Theophylact). But this very love in what spirit and by what power does he have? In the Spirit of Christ, in the power of love for Christ, in the desire to sacrifice all for the glory of His name. “Thus the cause of this again is that beloved Jesus” (Holy Chrysostom). “It is evident therefore that the Apostle did not prefer the Jews to the Saviour, but only expressing his love and attachment to them, said this, wishing to see that all would submit and willingly receive the saving proclamation” (Blessed Theodoret). “As Moses seemingly interceded for the Jews, but did all for the glory of God and spoke: remove Your wrath, lest it be said that You could not save and ‘You brought them out to destroy them in the wilderness’ (Deut. 9:28); so Paul says: I would wish to be cut off only that it might not be said that God’s promise remained unfulfilled, that God did not stand by His covenant and did not bring His word into effect” (Holy Chrysostom).

Photius in Oecumenius sets forth this place in greater detail. We present his words, not wishing to deprive our readers of the pleasure of hearing this wise teacher. “He whom nothing can separate from God’s love—neither death nor life, neither the hereafter nor here, nothing that anyone could conceive—for he mentioned also angels and powers, depth and height—whom nothing can separate, how does he voluntarily fall away? And this for kinsmen according to the flesh? And he does not simply fall away by his own will, but strongly wishes, seeks, and prays to be cut off from Christ’s love? What is this? How can we reconcile what seems irreconcilable? First, we say that what is stated is not contradictory one to another. For it is not contradictory to love Christ so that by reason neither of torments nor of offered blessings would one depart from love for him, and to love one’s neighbor so as to regard his salvation as equal to one’s own salvation, and even greater. This is not contradictory, but very harmonious. For he who loves his brother loves the Lord, and vice versa (1 Jn. 4:20–21). ‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another’ (Jn. 13:35), the Lord says. And Paul himself writes in another place: ‘Love is the fulfilling of the law’ (Rom. 13:10). And again the Lord speaks of love for God and neighbor: ‘On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets’ (Matt. 22:40), showing that love is the head and source of all deeds of love—both toward God and toward neighbor—together. This is so, someone will say; but here he prefers love for his neighbor to love for God and prays to be cut off from him to gain them. But Christ says: ‘He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me’ (Matt. 10:37). But what the Apostle says does not mean that he loves his neighbors more than Christ. For what does his love for them desire? That he gain them for Christ. Where then is the love for them greater than love for Christ, when he also zealously seeks to draw others to love Christ and submission to him? No; here he shows that he had preeminent love for Christ, because he also zealously sought to bring others to him. It would be so, you say, if he did not separate himself from Christ. But he did not separate; for he did not actually desire this, but, burning with flaming love for Christ, he zealously sought to graft all, especially the Jews, to him. And wishing to present this, he says that if it were possible for my destruction to glorify Christ more and the Jews to be saved, then I would not refuse such a sacrifice: ‘I could wish,’—if this were fitting, if my offer were accepted, if anyone yielded to my choice. What would you wish (he hears, as it were): to be cut off from Christ so that all the Jewish people might unite with him, and thereby Christ be more glorified and the promises of the Father fulfilled—or to remain in union with him while the Jewish people remained in alienation from him and opposition to him—and on account of this Christ be reviled? If this, he says, had been proposed to me, then I would prefer Christ’s glory and the salvation of many to my own salvation. Do you see the superabundance of love for Christ? Since he has already shown his love for Christ by all that exists, now he presents proof of it from what does not exist, from what is mentally supposed: for Christ’s glory and the conversion of the Jews I would hypothetically cast down even my own salvation. But separated from Christ, both for Christ’s glory and for the union of the Jews with him, Paul would again unite and cleave to him, like an infant to its mother, by being separated from the womb, and in this way he would again save himself, Christ would be most glorified, the Jewish people would be saved, and the promises to him and covenants with him would come to fulfillment. What more? Even separating himself for this purpose, he would not be separated, but rather united.”

Rom. 9:4. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service, and the promises;

Not natural love for his people alone moved the Apostle to propose such a sacrifice for its salvation, but rather the providential dispensations toward them, the mercies and benefactions poured out on them by God. He grieved that all this would come to nothing, bearing no corresponding fruit, if the Jews did not turn to Christ; therefore he was ready for the ultimate sacrifice, only to avert this ruin, and not only that, but also—that the name of God might not be blasphemed on account of the estrangement of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. Holy Chrysostom says: “The Apostle did not speak these words without reason; but because, accusing God, they said that those were being driven out and deprived of honor who had been deemed worthy to be called sons of God, had received the law, had known God before all other peoples, enjoyed a special glory, served God when no one else was serving him, had received promises—and, what is most important, became the patriarchs of Christ himself; for this is what the words ‘from whom is Christ according to the flesh’ mean; and that instead of them men from the Gentiles were introduced, who had never known God. Since those who spoke thus blasphemed God, Paul, hearing this, was torn, grieved for God’s glory, and wished to be separated, if that were possible, only so that the Jews might be saved, blasphemy might cease, and no one remain in the thought that God deceived their patriarchs, to whom he had promised gifts. Paul wished to be separated so that you might know how much the thought tormented him—a thought that could settle in many, as if God’s promise remained unfulfilled.”

By thus purifying his sorrow and anguish of heart from natural impulses and sanctifying them by the workings of providential dispensations on its origin, the Apostle no less had in view to stir up in the hearts of the Jews regret for the loss of so many privileges and to draw them to faith in Christ, without which it is impossible to preserve them. He, as if not speaking, speaks to them: so many privileges! And all this is being lost by your mere unwillingness to believe in the Lord. Have mercy on yourselves and come to the Lord Saviour! Ambrosiaster writes: “The Apostle enumerates such lofty privileges of the Jews and glorious promises to them in order to awaken in all of them painful regret for this. For by not accepting Christ, they were losing the privileges of the fathers and being deprived of the promises, thus becoming worse than the Gentiles, whom they had before despised as those without God. For it is more bitter to lose dignity than not to have it.”

“They are Israelites.” “For this name also was honorable; for it was given by God to the patriarch and passed to his descendants as an inheritance” (Blessed Theodoret). The name was given to Jacob after he had remained wrestling with him who appeared to him until morning, and he consequently said to him: “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, for you have striven with God and with humans and have prevailed” (Gen. 32:28). The name means one who sees God, standing under God’s protection and mighty with his blessings among men. This is why the name was honorable to all. The Lord, seeing Nathanael, honored him with this name, saying: “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile” (Jn. 1:47). Saint Paul, needing to show that he too was not inferior to others, says: “Are they Israelites? So am I” (Phil. 3:5). Later, when Judaism came into decline, Christians gloried in this name, calling themselves the new Israel.

“And to them belong the adoption as sons.” “For they also received this name; it is said: ‘Israel is my firstborn son’ (Ex. 4:22)” (Blessed Theodoret). Thus the Lord God called the people of Israel in threatening Pharaoh, and when he took the firstborn of Pharaoh and all the Egyptians in retaliation for the oppression of this people as the firstborn. A son is dear, and a firstborn is all the more so. The Israelites were honored with this name for the reason that God chose them from all peoples and took them for himself, so that they constituted, as it were, his house. This is why Moses says in Deuteronomy: “You are children of the Lord your God… You are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you out of all the peoples on the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). Having chosen them, God had special care for them, as his own, as for children. “For the Lord’s portion is his people… He found him in the desert land, in the howling waste of the wilderness; he shielded him and cared for him; he guarded him as the apple of his eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them aloft” (Deut. 32:9–11). This is why, when the Israelites proved unfaithful before God, God rebuked them thus: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me” (Is. 1:2). But this adoption—outward—was a prefiguration of that true and essential sonship which Christians attain, being born of God by the Holy Spirit and clothed in Christ, the Son of God, who was pleased to become our brother through the incarnation. “And the glory.” “For they became glorious through miracles” (Blessed Theodoret). Since glory is here listed among the special privileges of the Israeli people, it should mean something particular. This is the visible sign of God’s presence among this people. The first of these was the pillar of cloud that led them by day and shone like fire by night (Ex. 13:21), throughout all the time of their wandering in the desert; the second was the glory of God that descended upon Mount Sinai and covered it (Ex. 24:16); the third was the cloud that covered the tabernacle of the covenant at the moment of its dedication, when the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord (Ex. 40:34). This was repeated at the dedication of the temple built by Solomon, to show that the replacement of the tabernacle by the temple did not change God’s presence among them (1 Kings 8:11). The permanent sign of God’s presence among the Israelites was the ark of the covenant, overshadowed by angels, from whose midst God gave his answers (Ex. 25:22). This is why, when the ark of the covenant was taken by the Philistines, the people cried out in weeping: “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of the Lord has been captured” (1 Sam. 4:21). The ark was returned, and with it the glory of God; and holy Prophet David, when speaking of the tabernacle, called it “the place of the dwelling of God’s glory” because of the ark present in it. “Lord, I love the beauty of your house, and the place where your glory dwells” (Ps. 25:8). And when he came into the temple he said: “I have looked upon you in the sanctuary, beholding your power and your glory” (Ps. 62:3).

“And the covenants.” “For God promised to give them not only the Old Covenant but also the New Covenant; it is said: ‘I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel… not like the covenant that I made with their fathers’” (Jer. 31:31–32); “but they themselves were unwilling to receive the latter covenant” (Blessed Theodoret). But though they did not receive it when the time came for it to take effect, they did receive it in promise and looked for its coming. This is why the New Covenant is also their covenant. Non-acceptance of it is equivalent to violations of the covenant accepted and, like these, makes them guilty before God. However, those who wish may understand by covenants the one Old Covenant, repeatedly renewed: given to Abraham, repeated to Isaac and Jacob, solemnly proclaimed to all the people, and thereafter repeatedly restored because of the people’s frequent violations.

“And the law.” “For the law of Moses was given to them” (Blessed Theodoret). The law was a great benefit to the people. It defined in detail both family life and civic life, and relations to other nations, and, chiefly, uniting all the people together, proclaimed God as king for them, who, when necessary, revealed his will from between the mercy seat above the ark and in the hour of need protected his people with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.

“And the worship.” “For, preferring them to other nations, he taught them the lawful sacred service” (Blessed Theodoret). The orders of worship to God are contained in the law. There all deeds and laws were laid down and received as a service to God. The Apostle separated it from the general law and mentioned it specially because civic and other worldly and governmental orders took a different form from the time of the establishment of kings, and the service of God remained chiefly as worship. Especially toward the end, it alone served as the distinguishing mark of the Israelite people from other nations. If we keep in view the Apostle’s aim—to draw all in every way to Christ the Lord—then we may suppose that he mentioned worship specially because all its orders were a shadow of the body of Christ.

“And the promises.” “And those given by God to the fathers and proclaimed by the Prophets” (Blessed Theodoret). To the fathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and to all the prophets, beginning with Moses and ending with Malachi. The subject of the promises was the Messiah and his Kingdom. All that pertains to this is defined in detail in prophetic utterances. And only the blindness and turning aside to worldly aims of those who governed the people prevented them from recognizing in the revealed Saviour the promised one.