Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Who are Israelites ... х hoitines (G3748)] - that is, 'Inasmuch as they are.' So Romans 1:25; Romans 1:32; Romans 2:15; Romans 6:2. The connection is this: 'And well may I feel thus toward a people so illustrious for all that can ennoble a people-in their origin, their calling, the exalted trusts committed to them, and that Debt of all debts which the world shall forever owe them, the Birth of its Redeemer from them. "Who are Israelites" - the descendants of him who "had power with God and prevailed," and whose family name "Jacob" was changed into "Israel" (or 'Prince of God'), to hand down through all time this pre-eminent feature in his character (Genesis 32:28). What store the apostle set by this title, as one which he could and did clam, as well as any of those from whom he was now separated in faith, may be seen from Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5.
To whom pertaineth (more simply, 'whose is') the adoption. This is not to be confounded with the internal, spiritual, vital 'adoption' which flows from union to God's own Son, and which is the counterpart of regeneration. It was a purely external and theocratic, yet real, adoption, separating them by a sovereign act of grace from the surrounding paganism, and constituting them a Family of God. (See Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 1:2; Jeremiah 3:4; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1; Malachi 1:6.) The higher adoption in Christ Jesus is (as Meyer says) but the antitype and completion of this. To belong to the visible Church of God, and enjoy its high and holy distinctions, is of the sovereign mercy of God, and should be regarded with devout thankfulness; and yet the rich enumeration of these, as attaching to a nation at that very time excluding themselves by unbelief from the spiritual and eternal significance of them all, should warn us that the most sacred external distinctions and privileges will avail nothing to salvation without the heart's submission to the righteousness of God (Romans 9:31-33).
And the glory. This is not to be taken in the loose sense which many interpreters give it-the glorious height of privilege, etc., to which they were raised (so Origen, Chrysostom, Bengel, Fritzsche); nor yet (as Calvin, Beza, Grotius) 'the ark of the covenant,' whose capture by the Philistines was felt by the dying wife of Phineas to be "the departure of the glory" (1 Samuel 4:21). With the great majority of good interpreters, we take it to mean that 'glory of the Lord,' or 'visible token of the divine presence in the midst of them,' which rested on the ark and filled the tabernacle during all their wanderings in the wilderness; which in Jerusalem continued to be seen in the tabernacle and temple, and which only disappeared when, at the Captivity, the temple was demolished, and the sun of the ancient economy began to go down. The later Jews gave to this glory the now familiar name of the 'Shechinah' х Shªkanyaah (H7935), from shaakan (H7931), 'to let one's self down,' and hence, to 'dwell']. (See the note at John 1:14, Commentary, p. 348; also at Acts 7:1; 2 Corinthians 3:7, where "the glory of his (Moses') countenance" means the visible radiance which his nearness to God in the mount left upon his face; and Hebrews 9:5, where "the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat" are so called, to express the radiance which overspread the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat, symbolical of the mutual nearness of God and His people through the efficacy of an atoning sacrifice. It was the distinguishing honour of the Israelites that to them only was the whole method of Redemption, and the result of it in the Lord God dwelling among them (Psalms 68:18), disclosed in type; and thus to them pertained "the glory:"
And the covenants. The word is here used in the plural number, not to denote 'the old and the new covenants' (as Augustine, Jerome, and some of the older German divines), for all the things here enumerated belong to the ancient economy; nor 'the tables of the covenant' (as Beza, Grotius, etc.), for that would be to make it the same with the next particular, "the giving of the law;" but the one covenant with Abraham in its successive renewals, to which the Gentiles were "strangers," and which is called (also in the plural) "the covenants of promise" (Ephesians 2:12). See also Galatians 3:6; Galatians 3:17. [Lachmann adopts the singular form of this word ( hee (G3588) diakeekee (G1343)) on the rather weighty authority of B D E F G: the Vulgate (but not Codex Amiat.); and several of the Greek fathers. The Received Text is found in 'Aleph (') C K, and apparently all the cursives; several copies of the Old Latin, the best manuscript of the Vulgate (Amiatinus), both the Syriac and other versions, and the same Greek fathers as are relied on for the singular. And as it would be quite natural to write the word in the singular (though plural in the original), since the thing meant is singular-but certainly not the reverse-Tischendorf and Tregelles rightly here to the plural of the Received Text, as nearly all good critics do.]
And the giving of the law - from mount Sinai, and entrusting that precious treasure to their safe keeping, which the Jews justly regarded as their special honour (Romans 2:17; Deuteronomy 26:18-19; Psalms 147:19-20).
And the service [of God!] - rather, 'the service' [of the sanctuary'], or better, without any supplement, simply, 'the service' х hee (G3588) latreia (G2999)]; meaning the whole divinely instituted religious service, in the celebration of which they were brought so nigh to God.
And the promises - the great Abrahamic promises, successively unfolded, and which had their fulfillment only in Christ (see Hebrews 7:6; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:21; Acts 26:6-7).