658
f Ch. xii. 1. g Ch. xv. 8; Gal. iti.16, 21; Heb
vi.1z. hCh. xi. 28.
But the supreme distinction of Israel has yet to be mentioned. ἐξ ὧν 6 Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, 6 dy ἐπὶ πάντων beds εὐλογητὸς εἲς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ᾽Αμήν. The only point in the interpretation of this verse, in which it can be said that inter- preters are wholly at one, is the state- ment that of Israel the Messiah came, according to the flesh. The words τὸ κατὰ σάρκα define the extent to which the Messiah can be explained by His descent from Israel; for anything going beyond σάρξ, or ordinary humanity, the explanation must be sought elsewhere. | The limitation suggests an antithesis, and one in which the spiritual or Divine side of the Messiah’s nature should find expression, this being the natural coun- terpart of σάρξ: and such an antithesis has been sought and found in the words which follow. He who, according to the flesh, is of Israel, is at the same time * over all, God blessed for ever, This in- terpretation, which refers the whole of the words after ἐξ ὧν to 6 Χριστὸς, is adopted by many of the best scholars: Gifford, Sanday, Westcott (see N.T., vol. Π., app., p. 110), Weiss, etc., and has much in its favour. (1) It does supply the complementary antithesis which τὸ κατὰ σάρκα suggests. (2) Grammatic- ally it is simple, for 6 ὢν naturally ap- plies to what precedes: the person who is over all is naturally the person just mentioned, unless there is decisive reason to the contrary. (3) If we adopt another punctuation, and make the words 6 ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς eis τοὺς αἰῶ- vas a doxology—‘‘God Who is over all be blessed for ever ’’—there are gram- matical objections. These are (a) the use of ὤν, which is at least abnormal. ‘‘ God Who is over all” would naturally be expressed by 0 ἐπὶ πάντων Beds with- out @v: the ὢν suggests the reference to Christ. (b) The position of εὐλογητὸς is unparalleled in a doxology; it ought, as in Eph. i. 3 and the LXX., to stand first ia the sentence. But these reasons are not decisive. As for (1), though a com- plementary antithesis to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is suggested, it is not imperatively de- manded here, as in i. 3 f. The great- ness reflected upon Israel by the origin of the person in question is sufficiently conveyed by 6 Χριστός, without any expansion. As for (2), it is true to say that 6 &y naturally refers to what precedes: the only question is, whether