Van ptete
PP taty
vn
Pay)
Cotas
Di Sean ty
ren
aseng ity
*atiay tees Pint
Seber tabs 1
; 1
WES pets ay tes
aN oth ede yeas y
tay,
MAMSa TG IT Hey
ae
abit
raster tags
rey,
ay
Lees
Se Nite
vier
LEARNT PLY)
‘ sonete eed
AMG t, :
HE eet eed
Caytad
when ey tere t gee
Parganas
weary
Pan RiP
tae
A
'
ek eta)
mcs yi
yey
SIM een ae
q preraryes
Perera
wild ervey.
“nade yee
been tated
Pate tay
feats
we
Py tad pty
a8
Werbowy
sh otee gen
EM iat ageory®
‘ ins
t ung
eesti aeg ternal
larson,
sea
eters
Cia hah
14 f8AdE OME IG Ho rye
Myte staat tatadary
Pitas ye,
Shey MOF eta,
aTyregeady aes
tpt as;
Pres
een as
ware
TE Ligh
tpg ey
ny N04 thee
,
ynae
rh aey 4
eB” nda tgtacy
wean
ror
os
WPriaas
sate
tyays
fests, pa,
2 59 4H y cay,
PPG Orsay yer yee
cM rer Try
ed V Ge. Hy Ie sy
yi? Care
a
’
a
Ata rsh ot
0a tg Rely oan te
is ay
H PREM EELS al
fire
+097 ie
ean Pn
iy
i ytsiay
UNE ye gl oe ate
Ns t@ 9) Mn ya a settzegeye?
4»
=
the Theologicay
ys a ae
PRINCETON, N. J.
Divisione. hlaheD
Section, A Bie’ re coil
AVEIRO EP ee ease eae | |
SEP 22 2006
4
Heo ogient sew
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009
https://archive.org/details/epistletoromansi00turn
nate, i a ;
a/v ean ee )
a en
ae
7
Wir
AMAA Y.
: << ?
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the vear 1858, a
: By Sawver H. Tunyer, che an
; In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
} =
7 : P wl
; ae
" ; "% a
SO VAAY WO TH foo. a
ye? | ow ; ie a)
* MS oS 132 a
=
-——8
shy
bend
i]
C2
2
~-
ceed
‘
a
TO THE MEMORY OF
The Right Rev. William Cehite, B.A.
LATE BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND PRESIDENT
OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY;
TO WHOSE EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE,
SOUND AND DISCRIMINATING
JUDGMENT,
AND WISE COUNSELS,
OUR CHURCH IN THIS COUNTRY
OWES A DEBT OF GRATITUDE WHICH CAN
NEVER BE REPAID; WHOSE UNAFFECTED PIETY, BENEVOLENCE
AND URBANITY SECURED THE PROFOUND RESPECT OF ALL GOOD MEN}
WHOSE DEVOTION TO THE CAUSE OF OUR ZION WAS SHOWN BY
A LONG AND CONSTANT ATTENTION TO HER UNITY AND
PROSPERITY; WHO, IN DRAWING UP A COURSE OF
THEOLOGICAL READING FOR STUDENTS OF
DIVINITY, PLACED THE SACRED SCRIP-
YURES IN THE MOST PROMINENT
POSITION, AS THE ONLY
SOLID FOUNDATION
OF DIVINE
TRUTH :
TO THAT
CLARUM ET VENERABILE NOMEN,
WHICH MUST EVER LIVE IN THE
GRATEFUL MEMORY OF
THE INDEBTED
AUTHOR ;
THE FOLLOWING PAGES,
AS A WELL MEANT ENDEAVOUR
TO ELUCIDATE A PORTION OF GOD’S MOST
HOLY WORD, ARE RESPECTFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED.
THEOLOGIOAL SEMINARY,
August 1, 1853,
vor ones ah "i
a fan
a
id singe enveenad-ye ‘vgs are He Sh kh
Sy SOedar teen het eteeeeiaee aioe peta oow al cee
tere nv ene ae haters actors ade, anlunes* ert
a oo bs ¥rom +4 we we Yi are ? digk OP viurevag, ela 4°
: eee
” a] ane epee se oF ere obivens ‘> ath Re, fg +9 7
) f - ° - ¢ i ‘ o we is
ve ‘us WF nico ke ¢ aad Ke OH {LEME 6 ete
ie | : & Ae wees En, ‘h0lae” Lentnnsione ie
. . qa ge ai aay
| As Hen Cagney ‘Feehan
k ss ae te Rg al \ oo
. oe ‘ iM
7 IVR V0 S siete eae ; 2m he :
ami * ee | A *»,
Aud a ay (¢ 4 ' ye ert 4 ee p ° a ? seed il
‘ t pa
7 ack 4 ’
y: cyrnirs
( )
Jn - Val
» " 2 5 : -
7 ts ‘ vir}* Seer ww ae Ts = S » bs co uae lr The eine sse8 s
“i : « VEAL GEE (24 Teas) ee : ye Oe?
J
ce? < CAM CALC 2 “4 ;
: Qivnin Yih = o
P : “=
any OF * yr.
‘ : ‘ . iu on = var
Fos othe a ashame) von & > . a+ ae | re an
' (0° 07 ie
' iy ; : P = / "7 4% 4 :
UPSTASUPA TPES CIR A TK -
* ig ) s*h2-4 > af ‘ Fy
ni SPADA Cows hy i aren Ce a
a4 7 z cy
A’ : PASTURE
. ) wh ‘ : 4 Laud : x
2 ore! 2h cetone on
smelt 5 are, . a
f .
5 ‘
.
: i Wis Dg te Ae wy a oo OA ee
a] |
!
4 ‘
; ; in
i
me ae
‘ wk) i W
a Al ies r
C.O NRE WS.
ees
PRUROUUCTION, 214, .T KOLEDM AY an se:
SOC LEST SIS. 3) MNOS enn te RRC ERE SN ie a cat ieee Raa
SECTION I,
Chap. I. 1-15.
INTRODUCTION, . ° . : : d - ; : ° ° F
SEC TIONAIE.
Chap. I. 16-32.
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE PORTION OF THE EPISTLE
STATED, WITH A VIEW OF THE MORAL CONDITION OF THE HEATHEN
WORLD, Q P - A 2 . : “ - .
SECTION III.
Chap. II.
THE INCONSISTENCY OF JEWS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF GENTILES, AND
THEIR FOLLY IN TRUSTING TO. EXTERNAL PRIVILEGES, . ° ° .
SECTION IV.
Chap. III.
JEWISH OBJECTIONS MET AND SINFULNESS PROVED. GENERAL CONCLUSION
DRAWN, . : ‘ .
SHGTLION V,.
Chap. IY.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVED AND APPLIED BY THE INSTANCE OF
ABRAHAM, . Phe :
SECTION VI.
Chap. V. 1-11.
THE HAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF A STATE OF JUSTIFICATION,
19
24
30
43
59
71
‘3 ; > ;
PHO LON: ae.
Chaps. XIL-XYVI.
THE PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE, . . . . . .
“viii CONTENTS. ©
SECTION Vii.
Chap. V. 12-21. pags
COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF ADAM’S FALL WITH THOSE OF CHRIST'S
REDEMPTION, . ‘ : ; : 5 eM ° . -
SECTION VIII.
Chap. VIL
THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND SALVATION BY DIVINE
FAVOUR, AFFORD NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN, BUT RATHER PRESENT
THE STRONGEST MOTIVES TO HOLINESS, : . E . - on tee.
SECTION IX.
Chap. VII.-VIIL 17.
THE LAW CAN NEITHER JUSTIFY NOR SANCTIFY. IT IS THE GOSPEL WHICH
ALONE CAN MEET, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE WANTS OF MAN’S WEAK
AND SINFUL CONDITION, ‘ : * 4 “ ° ° ° - 105
SECTION X.
Chap. VIII. 18-89.
THE TRIALS OF LIFE AND THE BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL BOTH HERE AND
HEREAFTER COMPARED. GOD'S PURPOSE TO CONFER ALL THESE BLESSINGS
ON HIS REDEEMED. CONSEQUENT EXULTATION AND TRIUMPH, F - 184
Ve O 0 LON « Kd,
Chaps. IX. X. XI.
UNBELIEVING JEWS ARE REJECTED AND BELIEVING GENTILES ADMITTED IN
THEIR PLACE, YET THE REJECTION OF THE JEWISH NATION IS NOT
ABSOLUTELY FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE. ON THEIR REPENTANCE AND
FAITH THEY SHALL BE RESTORED, 5 = : : A “ . 158
212
INTRODUCTION.
Sr. Paut, a descendant of respectable Hebrew ancestry, (Phil.
ii. 5,) was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, a city celebrated for its
cultivation of literature and science, in which respect it has been
placed on a level with Athens and Alexandria. If, in this position,
he had not become thoroughly embued with Greek learning, he
must, nevertheless, have obtained a sufficient acquaintance with
it to give a tone to his intellectual character. In early life, the
young student left his native for the holy city. There he pursued
his Jewish studies under the direction of the learned and judicious
Gamaliel: Acts xxii. 8. Emulous of distinction, he took the palm
in Jewish literature and Pharisaism from all his competitors: Gal.
1.14. Sincerely attached to the religion of his nation, zealous for all
the traditions of the elders, a devotee of his discernment and ardour
could not have resided in the capital, and frequented the temple,
all the time that the prophet of Nazareth spent in the same places
or their vicinity, without having had his attention drawn to the
character of this remarkable personage, to the claims which he had
openly set up, to the doctrines which he had promulgated, and to
the extraordinary facts by which he had proved their truth and
divine authority, facts which his bitterest enemies did not venture
to contradict. On such a mind these things must have made a
strong impression. He was well acquainted with the origin and
history of the novel sect, and knew that its principles tended to
overthrow the dominant system of religion. With that supercili-
ousness which marked the distinguished ecclesiastics of the nation,
he regarded the Nazarenes with unmeasured contempt, and the
degraded ‘people who knew not the law as accursed :” John vii. 49
The impulse which had been given to the faith of Jesus after the
descent of the Holy Spirit only increased his infatuated rage
against the Christians.
INTRODUCTION.
The mental constitution of the Apostle and his religious views
and habits were formed, therefore, under the combined influence
of Grecian philosophy and that Jewish theology which was char-
acterised by Pharisaic strictness and superstition. Thus was he
subjected to a train of discipline which gradually prepared him to
enter, by the powerful influence of the animating and enlightening
Spirit of God, upon the sphere of action for which divine Proyi-
dence had long before marked him out: Gal. i. 15.
It has been supposed by some writers that previously to that
persecuting journey to Damascus which resulted in the Apostle’s
conversion, he had been brought by reflection and experience to
feel the inadequacy of Judaism’ to meet the wants of man’s moral
nature. Olshausen makes the following representation. ‘The
energy and determination of his will made him carry out his prin-
ciples as a Pharisee to a fanatical extreme against the Christians ;
and it was not till he had done this that he was possessed by that
deep longing which this system of life could not satisfy, and which
led him to perceive'the state into which he had fallen.”* Neander
also gives a still stronger representation of “‘internal impressions
made in opposition to his will” on his Pharisaic mind, raising
thoughts favourable to the new religion, and “ producing an inward
struggle repelled as Satanic suggestions.” I am unable to per-
ceive any sufficient evidence to support these views. There is no
proof that such deep longing or agitating impressions influenced
his mind in the manner stated by these writers. The account in
the Acts of the Apostles contains no intimation to this effect. A
persecuting spirit, “breathing out threatenings and slaughter,”
characterises the agent of the Synagogue up to the very moment
of his miraculous conversion. We have no evidence that any
change took place in his mind favourable to sacred truth until that
period, and this change is to be attributed wholly to divine influ-
ence. Olshausen allows that ‘the miraculous vision, and the
startling nature of the announcement that he who was still the
raging opposer of the crucified was henceforth to be his messenger
to the Gentiles, are of course to be considered as the decisive causes
of the sudden change in his spiritual state.” This is certainly true.
But he adds: “ At the same time, we cannot doubt, that his sin-
cere striving after righteousness by the mere works of the law had
* General Introduction to the Epistles of St. Paul, p. 3.
+ Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c. History of the Planting of the Christian Church by the Apostles,
Hamburgh, 1832, Vol. I. p. 73.
i]
INTRODUCTION. xi
already, though perhaps without his own consciousness, awakened
in the depth of his soul the conviction, that his own strength could
not attain to the+fulfilment of righteousness, and this conviction
brought with it the longing after something higher.” A partial
preparation of mind, therefore, for the miraculous call seems to be
presumed; and it is consistent with this supposition, that Tholuck
on John xii. 28, 29, adduces the instance of St. Paul alone hearing
the internal voice, (Acts xxii. 9,) in illustration of his theory, that
this voice can only be heard when the mind is in a susceptible
spiritual condition. The writers above quoted draw an inference
from what they assume to be the state of mind of the zealous
Hebrew, and then state this inference as a fact. Whereas, neither
the condition of mind nor the inference therefrom can be proved to
have existed, although it may be granted, that it would have been
very reasonable to have felt the one and deduced the other. This
state of mind, which they regard as preceding the miraculous call
of the Apostle, ought to be placed immediately after it; and was
probably effective during his state of blindness preceding the visit
of Ananias.
The origin of the church at Rome is a point involved in great
obscurity, owing to the want of very early and definite data.
Certain statements contained in some of the early fathers* have
been thought to prove that the Apostles Peter and Paul or one of
them planted Christianity in the imperial capital. But they merely
show that the Christian body was established and settled in that
city by their exertions. This may be entirely true, even if it had
been formed there long before the time of their visit. When St.
Paul wrote his Epistle the Roman church was in a very flourishing
condition, and had excited general attention, (i. 8;) which shows
that it must have been founded a considerable time before. The
language of the leading Jews at Rome with whom he had an inter-
view three days after his arrival there, (Acts xxviii, 22,) has been
alleged to prove, that they either were or affected to be unac-
quainted with the existence of a Christian community in that city.
But such an inference is unfounded. They merely request to hear
the visitor’s sentiments, remarking that the Nazarene “sect was
everywhere spoken against.” It is very conceivable, too, that so
populous a city as Rome may have contained very many Christians,
although they may have excited but little attention among Jews,
* See Ireneus, Ady. Her. Lib. iii. Cap. 1, p 199, Edit. Grabe, Oxon. 1702; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles,
Lib. ii. Cap. 14, 15, 25, iii. 1, vi. 14.
xii INTRODUCTION.
eS
some of whom were prejudiced and others indifferent; and indeed,
that these may have thought it expedient, in their interview with
St. Paul, to conceal what knowledge they possessed. The idea of
the Roman church consisting of two parties, Christians chiefly of
Jewish extraction who adhered to the law, and Gentile converts
who were free from any such attachment, has been very prevalent.
It has even been supposed that the two parties were in a state
of direct opposition; and the theory has been advanced that St.
Peter was regarded as the head of one and St. Paul of the other,
and thus the discrepancies respecting the early episcopal Roman
succession have been attempted to be reconciled. See Cave’s
Life of St. Clemens, Bishop of Rome, Sect. 4, pp. 188-190, Philadel-
phia, 1810. If such views were well founded, the Christian com-
munity at Rome must indeed have made itself known, but in a
very different manner from that stated by the Apostle. But the
theory is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Certain parts of the
Epistle evince the existence of differences of opinion and practice
in matters indifferent, but not of open collision between the parties,
a result which the wise directions of the author are well adapted
and were doubtless intended to prevent. It is very probable that
_those Hellenistic Jews from Rome who witnessed the effects of the
miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
(Acts ii. 10,) obtained some acquaintance with the Gospel, and per-
haps were converted to it, before they left Jerusalem, and that, on
their return, they informed their brethren of “the wonderful works
of God” which they had seen, and announced to them the glad
tidings of salvation. Hither these or some other very early con-
verts must have originally planted the church of Rome. The little
community thus formed appears to have grown rapidly.
In the time of the emperor Claudius, the Jews were exiled
from Rome. Suetonius, in his Life of Claudius, Cap. xxv., states
as the cause, that the Jews had been engaged in-a tumult, im-
pulsore Chresto. Hence it is not improbable, that either a real
attempt of some imperfectly converted Jews to raise an insurrec-
tion, or a calumnious charge of this natnre, had given occasion to
the edict of banishment. It is reasonable to think that many
Christians were confounded with the Jews and shared their exile;
and thus we find Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, whither they
had arrived from Rome, and where they became known to St.
Paul: Acts xviii. 2, 8,26. Their acquaintance with him must
have ripened into a close intimacy, as Aquila remained a con-
INTRODUCTION. xiii
siderable time with him at Corinth and Ephesus, and they both
followed the same occupation. It is easy to perceive that thus
the Apostle might become familiar with a considerable number
of Roman Christians, and that gradually his knowledge of the
state of their church and the interest which he felt in its welfare
would have greatly increased.
That the Roman church contained very many Jewish converts
is in itself altogether probable. This was the case with most of
the early churches, and the general scope of the Epistle refers to
a Jewish doctrinal element as influential, against which the
Apostle found it necessary to guard his readers, and to which
Gentile converts would have been exposed. Still it would seem
that a large moiety of the Christians at Rome must have been of
Gentile extraction. This is the only supposition which seems to
harmonize with certain declarations in the Epistle. The writer
refers to his commission to make known the Gospel among “ all
the Gentiles,” and adds, ‘among whom are ye also the called of
Jesus Christ :” i. 5, 6. He speaks of those at Rome to whom he
is “ready to preach the Gospel,” as a portion of the Gentiles:
vs. 138-15. So also in xi. 13, “I speak to you Gentiles;” and in
xy. 16, he represents himself as a priest of Jesus Christ “ offering
up the Gentiles,” and this in close connection with the boldness
he had used in addressing the Roman Christians. That the word
which he employs cannot be understood in the general sense
of people so as to comprehend the Jews, is evident from the
manner in which the Apostle employs it to mark the distinction
between them and the Gentiles. Comp. ii. 14, 24, i. 29, ix. 24,
30, xi. 13, 25, xv. 9-12, 16, 18, 27, xvi. 4, 26.
The Christian body at Rome consisted then of both classes of
converts. Each had doubtless its own habits of thinking and
feeling in reference to the general topics of Christianity, and un-
questionably differences of views and practices prevailed among
them to some extent, as must have been the case in a greater or
less degree in every Christian community. But there is no
sufficient reason to think that the Epistle was composed in order
to reconcile such diversity of views or to conciliate the differing
parties. Neither internal nor external evidence sufficiently clear
and decisive can be adduced to sustain this theory, which at some
periods and with not a few commentators has been the prevailing
one. As the Apostle had become greatly interested in the pros-
perity of the Christians at Rome, and an opportunity of preaching
XIV INTRODUCTION,
the Gospel there had never been afforded him; he embraces the
occasion presented by the intended visit of Phebe, to give them
in writing a general view of its most important doctrines, namely,
those of redemption by Christ, of justification through faith, of
sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and of its design to promote the
salvation of all men. The Epistle may be conveniently divided
into two parts; the doctrinal, comprehending the first eleven
chapters, and the hortatory, contained in the remaining five. The
leading topics of the former portion are justification by faith in
opposition to works either moral or ceremonial, and the compre-
hensiveness of the Christian scheme of salvation, which extends
its blessings indiscriminately to all mankind. Other most import-
ant matters are interwoven with the development and discussion
of these two fundamental and leading principles, of which the
author, notwithstanding the diversified character of his instructions,
never loses sight. As the ensuing work contains a somewhat
minute Analysis of this whole portion, divided into separate
sections, it would be superfluous to enter into any particulars in
this Introduction.
It is unnecessary to say anything in defence of the genuineness
of the Epistle to the Romans, which has scarcely ever been con-
troverted. It appears to have been known by Clement of Rome
and the venerable Polycarp, both of whom quote from it. The
former in his Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 35, cites the words
of i. 80, 82: “For they that do these things are odious to God;
and not only they that do them, but also all such as approve of
those that do them.” The latter in his Epistle to the Philippians,
chap. 6, extracts from xii. 17, “ Providing what is good both in
the sight of God and man.”
Although the inseription appended to the Epistle is not a
genuine portion of it, the statements which it contains are never-
theless correct. ‘“ Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent
by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.” A comparison of
various texts shows that the letter was written at the time of St.
Paul's “ three months’ ” residence in Greece which is mentioned in
Acts xx. 8. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4, where he speaks of his inten-
tion to send a collection to Jerusalem and perhaps to go himself,
with Rom. xv. 25, where, after having nearly finished his letter,
he mentions the same design of going to Jerusalem. Compare
also 1 Cor. xvi. 19 with Rom. xvi. 8, from which it seems that
Aquila and Priscilla had left Corinth and gone to Rome.. A com-
INTRODUCTION. XV
parison of Acts xix. 21 with Rom. xv. 28, shows the same purpose
of visiting Rome after having been at Jerusalem. In xvi. 23,
Gaius with whom the Apostle was staying sends his salutations
to the Roman Christians. But from 1 Cor. 1.14 it appears that
Gaius was a resident of Corinth. So also was Erastus, who in the
same verse is mentioned as “chamberlain of the city:” Comp. 2
Tim. iv. 20. Phebe, who most probably was the bearer of the
letter, was an assistant, and perhaps a deaconess of ‘the church at
Cenchrea:” Rom. xvi. 1. There can hardly be a doubt, therefore,
that the inscription is entirely correct. To determine the precise
time of the composition would require a settlement of the chro-
nology of St. Paul’s life; and this involves several points of
difficulty, the data of which are by no means certain. The periods
adopted by different critics vary from A. D. 52 to 59.
In preparing the following Analysis and Commentary, my
chief object has been to present the reader with the interpretation
which, on careful investigation, appeared to convey the author’s
meaning. I have availed myself of such assistance as was within
my reach, although I did not think it necessary to examine in
detail several comparatively late productions of the prolific
German press. Wherever it was possible, I have endeavoured to
substantiate the views given, by Scriptural analogy in addition to
legitimate usage of language. In employing parallel places, it
has also been my object collaterally to throw light on the texts
referred to when they involved any difficulty. That the results
arrived at will be generally satisfactory is perhaps rather to be
hoped for than expected, as the topics which must come under
consideration in such an exegetical work comprehend several
much controverted points of theology. I can say conscientiously,
however, that it has been my sincere prayer and most earnest
effort to be guided by a love of truth; and under the influence
of this principle, I have laboured to ascertain and express the
mind of the Apostle.
As in my previous volume on the Hebrews, I have employed
the Greek text of Hahn, with a few changes in the punctuation.
The work of Koppe, which is occasionally referred to, to which
Ammon added some notes and Excursus, is contained in the 4th
volume of his Novum Testamentum Greece, perpetua adnotatione
illustratum, Gottingze, 1806; the Edition of Stuart’s Commentary
is the second, Andover, 1835; Hodge’s, that of Philadelphia,
1835. I have availed myself of the translation of Olshausen’s
xvi INTRODUCTION.
Commentary contained in the 13th volume of Clark’s Foreign
Theological Library, Edinburgh, 1849. The English translation of
Tholuck having been made from his early edition, I have used
his German work, published at Halle in 1842, entitled Kommentar
zum Briefe Pauli an die Roemer, which is a much more valuable
production than the former. If Mr. Robert Haldane had not
adhered to the English translation of an edition long ago super-
seded, he might have spared both himself and his readers not a
few of the censures which he so freely bestows on the able German
scholar, whose subsequent investigations led him to omit many of
the statements objected to. The strong theological bias of the
Scotch polemical writer shows itself in many of his doctrinal
expositions, and influences his exegetical inquiries. His “ Expo-
sition of the Romans” was published, from the fifth Edinburgh
Edition, by Carter, New York, in 1847, and contains 746 pages.
The Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti of Morus. in two vol-
umes, Leipsic, 1802, to which I have once or twice referred, is a
work of great value for the Biblical student. He must, however,
be on his guard against the neological tendencies of Hichstzdt,
' his annotator and editor.
ANALYSIS
OF THE
EPISThE TO THe ROMANS:
SECTION I.
. Cap. I, 1-15.
INTRODUCTION.
Tue author announces himself as an Apostle of the promised Messiah,
who, although descended from David, was God’s glorified Son in his exalted
condition, which commenced with his resurrection: 1-5. He salutes all
the members of the Church of Rome, which was celebrated for its primitive
faith, and expresses kis earnest wish to visit them for mutual benefit,
although as yet he had not been able to accomplish his purpose: 6-13.
A deep sense of the divine favours which he had received prompts his
ardent desire to benefit all men, and to proclaim the Gospel even at Rome,
notwithstanding the probability of its rejection by many, and also of his
persecution: 14, 15.
SwCLrone ii:
Cuap. I. 16-32.
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE PORTION OF THE EPISTLE,
WITH A STATEMENT OF THE MORAL DELINQUENCIES AND TRANSGRESSIONS
OF THE HEATHEN WORLD.
As a reason for glorying in the Gospel, it is stated to be divinely efficacious
to salvation, the condition being faith, and the benefit being intended for
all who comply therewith. It contains God’s scheme of justification,
which is wholly of a living and growing faith, and reveals his anger against
sin: 16-18. Even the works of creation have, from the very beginning,
made the being and attributes of God sufficiently known to become a rule
2 ANALYSIS OF THE
to men with reason and conscience. But the Heathen disregarded this
source of religious knowledge, and dishonoured God, falling into gross
idolatry, in consequence of which they were abandoned by: God, and
allowed to perpetrate the most abominable immoralities. A description of
Heathen wickedness cleses the Section, and with it the evidence that the
Gentiles could advance no claim to justification on the ground of moral
obedience : 19-82,
SECTION III
Cuap. II.
THE INCONSISTENCY OF JEWS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF GENTILES, AND
THEIR FOLLY IN TRUSTING TO EXTERNAL PRIVILEGES,
Tue Apostle here censures the Jews for their wicked inconsistency, in
practising the same vices for which they unscrupulously condemned the
Gentiles. He tells them that God’s judgment is irrespective of persons,
and. governed by principles of equity. Consequently they cannot escape
merited punishment hereafter, when all, both Jews and Gentiles, shall be
alike rewarded according to their respective characters: 1-11. The pun
ishment of those who, without the advantage of a direct revelation, have
nevertheless subjected themselves to the divine wrath, shall be proportion-
ate to the degree of their religious knowledge, while that of Jews shall be
awarded according to their superior religious advantages. To become
acceptable to God, it is by no means sufficient to know and hear his law;
it must be sincerely and conscientiously obeyed. And if individuals among
the Heathen, living without the advantages of a direct revelation, do in
this their natural condition endeavour to live agreeably to the divine law,
their own reason and conscience being their governing principle, they show
that this law is really their inward guide, though imperfect and conse
quently leaving them in a state of indecision, their reflections alternately
accusing or apologising: 12-16. The Jew, with all his real and his boasted
privileges, with all his knowledge and confidence in his own ability, with
the divine delineation of religious knowledge and truth which he possesses,
while he does the very things which he denounces, is not only absurdly in-
consistent, but has become thereby the occasion of dishonour to God;
17-24. Then the author repeats more particularly what he had before said.
Judaism is indeed beneficial to those who sincerely obey the law of God ;
but disobedient Jews are no more acceptable to him than disobedient
Gentiles. And Gentiles who sincerely obey the law of nature which God
has implanted within them, are as acceptable to him as they would be if
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 3
they had been Jews; and, moreover, such Gentiles shall condemn those
Jews, who, notwithstanding the great privileges which they enjoy from the
Scriptures and their covenant relation to God, do nevertheless break the
divine law. For the true Jew, he who deserves the honourable name of
the ancestor whose brethren were to praise him,* is in his heart what his
covenant profession indicates, and however he may be disesteemed by
men, shall be praised and honoured by his God: 25-29.
SECTION IV.
Cuap. III.
JEWISH OBJECTION MET AND SINFULNESS PROVED. GENERAL CONCLUSION
DRAWN.
Tur representation made in the former chapter-being so directly opposed
to the Jew’s prejudice and long cherished self-esteem, very naturally raises
in his vain and carnal mind feelings of opposition and hostility. These he
vents in the objection, What, then, is the advantage of being a Jew? The
answer is, Much in various respects, but chiefly in the divine revelation, of
which the Hebrew Scriptures are the depository. The faithlessness of a
part of the nation can have no influence prejudicial to God’s fidelity.
He is essentially true, as the Psalmist represents him: 1-4. But, resumes
the Jew, if, as you maintain, our iniquity, leading to a rejection of the
gospel, does in reality establish and tend to disseminate its scheme of
justification among the Gentiles;—Well, rejoins the Apostle, shall we
then absurdly accuse God of injustice in punishing you? Impossible, for
he is the righteous judge of the world. The Jew renews the objection.
If my false and wicked conduct contribute to the extending of God’s truth
and glory, am I nevertheless, through whom God is thus honoured, to be
condemned and punished asa sinner? The answer is, Certainly, unless
the mischievous principle be maintained, that the end sanctifies the means,
the advocates of which are justly condemned: 5-8.
The Apostle then reverts to the subject of justification. He puts the
question: Are Jews, in this respect, in a better condition than Gentiles?
This he answers in the negative, and proceeds to prove that they, as well
as the Gentiles, are delinquent, being represented by their own sacred
*The author undoubtedly alludes to the meaning of the word Jew as a descendant of Judah.
Thus in Gen. xlix. 8, the Hebrew words for Judah and praise are of the same root. Observe also the
language of Leah in xxix. 35: ‘ Now will I praise the Lord, and she called his name Juduh.” On the
former passage, Aben Ezra remarks: “Thou art Judah; according to thy name, and so (it follows,)
thy brethren shall praise thee.”
4 ANALYSIS OF THE
writers as grievous sinners, the descriptions being certainly intended of
them: 10-12. All mankind are proved then to be guilty, and conse-
quently it follows that justification is unattainable by obedience to the
moral law, which was not promulgated with the intent of procuring this
blessing, but in order to give men a proper consciousness of sin: 19, 20.
But now, the gospel being established, justification, irrespective of law, is
made known, the truth and reality of which were attested by the whole
tenour of the former dispensation; that justification which is extended to
all sinners who believe in Christ, and which is founded on the redemption
effected by his atonement. Him God hath publicly exhibited to the world
as a proper sacrifice, in this way declaring his sense of justice to his
violated law, and at the same time securing a sufficient ground whereon
he may justify the believer. Such a system excludes all self-confidence
and boast in human merit: 21-27. The general conclusion, in reference
to the whole argument in the three chapters, is then drawn,—namely, that
man’s justification is by faith, Thus God appears as the universal parent
of men, accepting both Jews and Gentiles on the very same condition. In
conclusion, the Apostle guards against the supposition that this doctrine
makes the law nugatory, affirming that, in a very comprehensive sense, it
establishes its usefulness and necessity: 28-31.
SECTION V.
Cuar. IV.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVED AND APPLIED BY THE INSTANCE OF ABRAHAM,
Tuvs far the Apostle has conducted his argument with a view to the unde-
niable fact that both Gentiles and Jews have flagrantly broken God’s
moral law, and consequently that justification on the ground of obedience
thereto is precluded. And it is the moral Jaw to which generally in the
argumentative part of the Epistle he refers. But this is not invariably
the case. The Jews attached an undue estimate to their ceremonial and
ritual law, and especially to the initiatory rite of circumcision. And as
this institution originated in the person of Abraham, their great ancestor,
and from him had been perpetuated in his descendants through Isaac and
Jacob to their own times, their connection by this covenant rite with the
distinguished patriarch had become the occasion of extraordinary self-
confidence. This ecclesiastical and national pride had been rebuked by
John the Baptist ;* but weakness and vanity, often inseparable associates,
* Matt. iii. 9.
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 5
are not readily dislodged from their position, as they cannot easily be made
to feel the weight of reason and argument. The same confidence was
fondly cherished, and it gives occasion to the Apostle’s remarks. He,
begins by an inquiry: Shall it be said that our great ancestor found the
blessing of acceptance with God by means of anything ritual and external ?
It cannot be. For if Abraham were justified by works, whether moral or
ceremonial or both, he would have had somewhat to boast of or exult in.
But the Scripture puts his justification upon a ground wholly different,
namely, his faith ; which faith of his was graciously regarded by God as
its accepted condition. Now it is a principle universally conceded, that
the labourer claims his reward or stipulated payment as his right. It is a
debt which his employer owes him, and it is received as such and not as a
gratuity. But, for the benefit of the true believer, whose good works are
not done in order thereby to claim this result, God regards his faith as
available for his justification: 1-5, This divine method of accepting sinners
was well known to David, for in describing the blessed condition of the
justified man, he speaks simply of the pardon of his sins; which, of course,
implies that his acceptance took place, not on the ground of his moral
obedience, by which he had failed to secure any claifh to favour: 6-8. Is
this blessed condition exclusively that of the Jews? In order to answer
this question, it must be kept in mind that the Scripture most expressly
declares, that Abraham’s faith was the condition on which he was justified.
Now under what circumstances of Abraham was this condition made avail-
able? Was it before he had received the external sign of the covenant or
after ? Before, most certainly, that sign being an attestation of his previous
justification through the fuith which he had cherished before he received
the sign. And, in accordance with the divine intention, this was the case
in order that the great patriarch might become the spiritual father of all
believers, so that even those of them who have not received the sign may
nevertheless be justified; and the father also of his lineal descendants
through Jacob, not simply to all who are so descended, but to those of
them who imitate that faith of Abraham which he had before his circum-
cision. For the grand promise of being lord of the world, which was made
to him with a particular view to the Messiah as his most distinguished
spiritual descendant, was not given through or in consequence of the law,
but of that justification which comes through faith: 9-18. For faith and
the promise attached to it would be useless, if the blessings came through
a reliance on the law. But this cannot be the case, because the law is
broken, and its breach is followed by punishment. The promise is there-
fore graciously of faith, and thus is secured to all the spiritual progeny of
Abraham, who is spoken of as the father of them all in the view of the
Almighty One. Against all seeming probability he believed in the promise
of God, that he and his aged wife should become the parents of a son,
6 ANALYSIS OF THE
being well assured of the divine ability and willingness to verify the
promise, This faith of his, which, by its persevering steadfastness, notwith-
standing long continued discouragements, showed itself to be a living prin-
ciple, was accepted as justifying: 14-22. That it was so accepted is not
~ecorded simply to eulogize the patriarch; but for our instruction and
comfort, who shall also be accepted, if we believe in Christ, who died and
rose again in order to secure to us this inestimable benefit : 23-25.
SECTION VI.
Cuap, V. 1-11.
THE HAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF A STATE OF JUSTIFICATION,
Jusrirication is followed by peace of conscience and amity with God,
procured through Christ, by whom, on the condition of faith, we are
introduced into that favourable state of the gospel in which we are, and
therefore can rejoice in a well founded hope of happiness, the fruition of
which is partly here and partly hereafter: 1,2. And not only so, but,
under the influence of such hope, we can rejoice even in afflictions, knowing
that their tendency is to produce patience ; and that, a well tried character ;
and that again increases and confirms our hope ; and that hope never makes
us ashamed by failing us in any exigency; for God’s love to us is com-
municated abundantly to our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he hath
bestowed on us: 3-5. For when we were in a condition of spiritual
weakness, Christ, in suitable time, died on our account and in our place,
although we were ungodly and sinful persons ; thus showing the greatness
of divine love. For, in the place of a religious man, scarcely any one
would be willing to die; or, the more vividly to illustrate the representa-
tion, it may be made somewhat differently, thus: For, in place of the good,
the religious and benevolent man, whose life is spent in benefiting his
fellow-creatures, some one perhaps might even venture to give up his life.
This is the utmost limit to which human love may ever be expected to
extend. But the peculiar love of God is shown in this, that he gave Christ
to die for us while we were grievous sinners, and, of course, enemies to his
law: 6-8, If, therefore, we have now been justified by his atoning
sufferings and death, much rather may we reasonably expect deliverance
by him from future punishment. or, to repeat the same general truth
somewhat differently, if, while we were opposed to him in character and
conduct, we nevertheless became reconciled to God through the atonement
made by the death of his Son, much rather, after having been so recon-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 7
ciled, may we confidently look: for salvation through him, who lives eter-
nally in heaven as our glorified and immortal intercessor: 9,10. We
rejoice, therefore, not only in our Christian hope, not only in the trials of
life which tend to our best interests, but also in God through Christ, who
hath now reconciled us, and given us a pledge of everlasting and unbounded
happiness: 9-11.
SECTION «VET,
Cuap. V. 12-21.
THE UNHAPPY EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF ADAM ARE MORE THAN COUNTER-
BALANCED BY THE BLESSINGS OBTAINED THROUGH CHRIST.
Iv accordance with what has already been said, the Apostle proceeds as
follows: In the course of his remarks he shows that we have, at the very
least, gained through Christ what we lost through Adam. As sin was
introduced into the world by our first parent, and followed by misery and
ruin, and in this way misery and ruin pervaded the whole human race,
inasmuch as all became partakers of a sinful nature, and in accordance
therewith committed actual sin :—For, although during the period of man’s
existence that preceded the Mosaic Jaw sin existed, yet, as sin is not
accounted where there is no law, and there was none which made mortality
and the evils necessarily connected, therewith the penalty of its infraction,
and nevertheless mortality universally prevailed, its origin and dominion
must be ascribed to some other cause; and that is the one just stated,
namely, the sin of Adam entailing on all his posterity a sinful nature,
which produces in all conscious agents sinful acts: 12-14. There is a
correspondence between Adam and Christ as regards their relation to the
human family. But this correspondence is not in all respects analogous.
If, in the one case, misery and ruin follow, much rather may we expect
abundance of grace and benefit as the bountiful gift of God, in the other.
And if the sentence pronounced on one offence condemned, much rather is
it to be expected that the forgiveness should be extended to many offenees.
If, on the one hand, death was allowed to reign, much rather, on the other,
may we look for the ultimate triumph of those who receive the plenitude
ef God’s gracious gifts through Christ. As, therefore, one offence occa-
sioned the condemnation of all, so also does one course of righteous
obedience and submission afford the means to all of that justification
which brings along with it everlasting life. For, to express in other terms
what has already been said, as Adam’s offence became the occasion of the
sinfilness of his descendants, so did Christ’s obedience to his Father’s will
8 ANALYSIS OF THE
become the ground of their justification and eternal salvation, which shall
be received and enjoyed on the condition of faith and obedience: 15-19,
The Jaw was introduced not to justify, but to show the nature of sin, and
thus it became the occasion of exciting sinful nature in opposition to its
demands, and in these circumstances grace abounds still more, God’s favour
extending even to life eternal ; 20, 21.
SECTION VIII.
Cuar. VI,
THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND SALVATION BY DIVINE
FAVOUR, AFFORD NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN, BUT RATHER PRESENT THE
STRONGEST MOTIVES TO HOLINESS,
Do the doctrines stated sanction the inference, that we may indulge in sin
in order to afford full scope for the exercise of divine favour? Most cer-
tainly not. This would be at variance with our condition as baptized into
Christ, by which baptism we became spiritually dead, buried, and risen,
through divine power; and moreover, avow our obligations to abandon sin
and live a life of holiness. The moral-resurrection thus implied, and
further inculeated, implies also a belief in a future glorious resurrection,
which, according to the divine intention, as shown by the scheme of the
gospel, is a result of the moral: 1-9. As Christ died once on account
of sin, and now liveth in heaven to the glory of God, so should we regard
ourselves as dead to sin and alive to righteousness. We must not, there-
fore, permit sin to rule us, but rather submit to the holy law of God. And
this we are enabled to do, inasmuch as we live not under the inefficient
system of law, but under the gospel, which imparts divine strength. It
were preposterous, then, and grossly inconsistent, to practise sin: 10-16.
It is a cause of thankfulness that you have abandoned your former sinful
courses, and have accepted the gospel. You have shaken off the yoke of
your former master, sin, and assumed that of another, God and righteous-
ness. As, in the one state, you derived no advantage from such a service,
but the contrary ; so now, in the other, you have present benefit in a holy
and religious character, and the future reward of everlasting life in prospect.
For the due desert of sin is ruin; but the gracious gift which God imparts
through Christ is everlasting felicity : 17-23.
The two leading thoughts in the Chapter are these: that continuing in
sin is to the fully baptized Christian both impossible and inconsistent ; and
that, as we live under the gracious system of the Gospel, sin must not be
permitted to rule us.
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 9
SHC TLON Ex,
Cuar. VII—VIII. 17.
THE LAW CAN NEITHER JUSTIFY NOR SANCTIFY. IT IS THE GOSPEL WHICH
ALONE CAN MEET, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE WANTS OF MAN’S WEAK AND
SINFUL CONDITION. ¥
Ir is the prerogative of law to rule the man during his life. In the case
of the marriage relation, the death of either party dissolves the obligation
on the other. And this analogy may be applied to the connection of the
Jews with the law. You have become figuratively dead to it, that is, your
union with it is dissolved; and this, in order that’ you may be spiritually
connected with Christ, the risen bridegroom, and thus produce the genuine
fruits of holiness. Formerly, indeed, our sinful passions roused into vig-
orous action by occasion of the law, showed their really ruinous character.
But now, we are delivered from the incidental consequences of law, and,
through the Gospel, placed in a condition to serve God spiritually : 1-6.
Shall we therefore charge the moral law with sinfulness? This were a
gross perversion of the truth. On the contrary, this law shows fully and
clearly what sin is. It displays its deadly nature. This mischievous prin-
ciple avails itself of the moral law to incite my natural evil passions.
Formerly I lived without a consciousness of the obligation of God’s law ;
but when the perception of this obligation came home to my conscience,
my sinful principle displayed its vital energy, and moral and spiritual ruin
was shown to be the inevitable consequence. Thus God’s holy law, the
intention and natural bearings of which are to advance spiritual life and
happiness, was made the occasion of transgression and destruction, through
the deceitful influence of sin. We see, then, that God’s moral law is in
the highest degree excellent, and that it is human sinfulness which has be-
come the cause of all our unhappiness, thus displaying itself in its true
colours: 7-13. We know indeed the spirituality of God’s law; but, in
my natural condition, destitute of the grace of the Gospel and under the
uncontrolled influence of sin, am compelled by this tyrant to do what the
better part of my nature, reason and conscience, so far enlightened as to
see the excellence of God’s law but destitute of spiritual energy, revolts
from. So that it is not properly I, not my reason and conscience, but my
degraded nature that commits the sin. I know and feel, alas, that in this
sinful nature of mine there is no spiritual good. I can, indeed, indulge
the vain wish, but I have no power to obey, and therefore it is that I act in
opposition to conscience and reason, thus showing that my character and
10 ANALYSIS OF THE
conduct are shaped by my degraded moral condition. I feel that when I
would do God’s will, the predominating influence in me is contrary thereto.
For, although my reason and conscience are indeed pleased with the law,
yet this unrestrained natural principle opposes their dictates, and subjects me
to a state of absolute thraldom. Miserable man do I feel myself to be!
Flow can I obtain deliverance; 14-24, I thank God that he hath pro-
vided means through Jesus Christ. And thus, in my Christian condition of
deliverance, although indeed my natural depravity still yields to the de-
mands of sin, yet my+reason and conscience and now delivered spiritual
being, not only approve of, not only are pleased with, the law of God, but
actually and practically serve it, which before was impossible. In this
state, then, I am no longer under condemnation, having been delivered by
the Gospel of Christ; which effects what the law could not do, making a
satisfactory atonement, and procuring divine assistance, whereby the Chris-
tian is enabled to live a life, not in accordance with fleshly impulses, but
with those of the Holy Spirit of God: 25-viii. 4. Devotion to the carnal
principle, which is opposed to God’s law, produces utter ruin; while sub-
mission to the spiritual, brings, along with it the truest happiness. If you
have God’s spirit, you are not so devoted. And if you have, and are
therefore truly Christ’s, although indeed the frail body must succumb to
the natural effects of sin, yet the soul has already a principle of divine
life ; and, in the end, God will raise to life even your present corruptible
bodies, on account of the Spirit, whom he hath given you as a pledge of
this result. We are therefore under the strongest obligation to live ac-
cording to the promptings and aids of the Spirit, and thus to be God’s sons.
The possession of this Spirit is incompatible with a condition of servitude to
sin, and of consequent apprehension. The results of his action and influ-
ence are directly opposite. He makes us the adopted children of God and
enables us most affectionately to recognise the privilege. He attests the
blessed relation whence flow the consequences, fellowship with -Christ, te
gether with suffering and glorification along with him: 5-17, ;
EPISTLE T0 THE ROMANS. i]
a TT
SECTION X.
Cuap. VIII. 18-89.
THE TRIALS OF LIFE AND THE BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL BOTH HERE AND
HEREAFTER COMPARED. GOD’S PURPOSE TO CONFER ALL THESE BLESSINGS
ON HIS REDEEMED. CONSEQUENT EXULTATION AND TRIUMPH.
I recarp all the sufferings of the present life, however afflictive they may
be, as not at all comparable to the glory of that state of happiness which the
gospel secures to its recipients. God’s creatures have long been waiting
for some such improved and blessed condition, And such expectation is
quite reasonable.’ For they have been subjected to the present unsatisfac-
tory and miserable condition, on account of God’s glory, and in order to
advance his purpose of leading men to ultimate happiness, of which
they cherish the hope. For there shall be a glorious deliverance. And, as
it is true that mankind in general have been in a state of distress and
anguish until the present time; so it is also true that we, the favoured recip-
ients of the divine blessing, do also deeply lament our degraded condition,
and wait for the fulness of Christian blessedness, when our adoption as
God’s children shall be publicly recognised and also completed by the
deliverance of our bodies from corruptibility, in the glorious resurrection
at the last day: 18-23. We are saved indeed, but still we are in a state
in which hope must be continually exercised, and “ patience have her perfect
work.” And, as hope assists us, so also does the Spirit of God, who
prompts in us most earnest and deeply felt though not to be fully uttered
intercessions, which are in entire accordance with the will of God: 24-27.
We know also that all the events of life promote the good of those who
love God, and are partakers of the gospel which his benevolent mind hath
planned. Them from eternity he regarded with affection; he predeter-
mined them to be like his Son in moral character, in suffering, and in
happiness ; so that of this vast band of united brothers he should be the
head. And, in harmony with this affectionate regard, he hath so called
them that they received his gospel ; and he justified and glorified them.
28-30. Who now can venture, with any prospect of success, to oppose
those whom God sustains? What will or power can stand in opposition
to God’s?. What blessing can be too vast for our Christian expectations ?
He who gave up his Son cannot be supposed to withhold any good thing.
Nothing further is to be thought of or wished for. Who will dare to
accuse those whom God selects and regards as his choice ones? Will God,
who justifies them? Who condemns? Does Christ, who died, who
12 ANALYSIS OF THE
rose, who sits at God’s right hand, ever more to intercede? Who or
what shall sever us from Christ’s love? Shall all the trials of life,
however hard, lead us to withdraw from him, and thus destroy our
connection? No, most assuredly. We triumph over all through his grace
who hath so loved us. I express my feeling in the firmest persuasion that
no created being whatever can effect such a severance: 31-39.
SECTION XI.
Cravs. (UX: xX Xi.
UNBELIEVING JEWS ARE REJECTED AND BELIEVING GENTILES ADMITTED IN
THEIR PLACE, YET THE REJECTION OF THE JEWISH NATION IS NOT AB-
SOLUTELY FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE, ON THEIR REPENTANCE AND FAITH
THEY SHALL BE RESTORED,
Arter representing the absolute necessity of an efficient plan of salvation,
and the sufficiency and grandeur of that of the gospel, it was natural that
such a mind as that of the Apostle, in view of the melancholy fact that
the mass of his nation rejected it, should be overwhelmed with the deepest
grief. He gives vent to his feelings, assuring his unhappy brethren by
the strongest asseverations, that he suffers habitual distress on their ac-
count, and that, in order to secure their ultimate happiness, he could even
forego the blessings of a connection with Christ, and subject himself to the
greatest possible evil, if such a devotion were allowable and right. He
displays at large the glorious privileges of his nation, ending with what is
indeed the very chief, namely, that from them, sprang the Messiah in his
human nature, that wonderful being, who, in his divine, is supreme God,
and to be eternally adored: ix. 1-5,
But, notwithstanding this unhappy condition of the Jews, although as a
nation they have rejected the promised Messiah and consequently have
themselves been rejected by God, it is not to be assumed that God’s prom-
ises to their forefathers have failed of accomplishment. Some, and not a
few, have chosen the better part. It is to be considered that the Israelite
who is really worthy of the name is inwardly religious. It is not merely
a connection with the people of Israel by lineal descent from the patriarchs,
which constitutes the true Israelite in the spiritual sense, nor is it such a
descent from the great founder of the race, which makes persons the spirit-
ual children of Abraham, This is followed by an illustration of the doc-
trine drawn from a history of the patriarchs, and tending to show that the
Jews need not be surprised at the statement, for God had always acted with
their ancestors according to his own purposes, in bestowing particular priv:
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 18
ileges on the descendants of one to the exclusion of those of another. This
is demonstrated in the case of Isaac, who was born, not according to the
ordinary course of nature, but in consequence of God’s particular promise
miraculously verified. The same preference appears also in the selection
of Jacob’s posterity rather than Esau’s, previously even to the birth of the
ancestors, which proves that such preference was not founded on their indi-
vidual character, but on God’s own purpose. The Jews, therefore, had no
reason to be surprised, or to complain of the divine arrangement, because
the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom were limited to a part only of their
nation. Such a procedure accords with the analogy of God’s former course
of conduct : 6-13.
Shall God on this account be charged with unrighteous partiality 2 By
no means. Yet it is undeniable that, in the distribution of his favours, and
in the infliction of his punishments, he acts according to his own pleasure.
And this truth is illustrated in what was said both to Moses and to Pharaoh.
In the former case, we are told that his own benevolent will prompts and
imparts the kindness; and this shows that his favours do not depend on
human inclinations and efforts, but on divine goodness. In the latter, the
Egyptian monarch is represented as sustained by his providence for the
full display of his glory. And thus we see that he extends mercy to, and
suffers to continue impenitent, whomsoever he will: 14-18.
Will you object that his will is resistless, and therefore he has no right
to find fault with any who may become the occasion of carrying it into
effect? Will you say ‘If God is governed by a regard to his own plans
which human efforts cannot alter, and if he makes even human wickedness
and our rejection of the Gospel subserve those plans, why does he find fault
with us? If he show favour to some, and suffer us to continue obstinate,
why does he blame us, since such is his will ?”—The first part of the Apos-
tle’s reply is to this effect. ‘ Admitting that God rejects the greater part of
your nation, well may it rather be asked, what right has a weak man to
find fault with the All-Wise and Almighty One, for exercising his just and
natural prerogative? Has he not, as Creator, the right to place his crea-
tures in whatever condition he chooses? As well might the thing made
complain of its maker for not having formed it something else. God has
plainly a right to put the being which his power hath produced, in any rank
among his various creatures, and to bestow upon it as many or as few ad-
vantages as he pleases. You would have had no reason to complain, if he
had never granted you the benefits of his covenant; and, therefore, cannot
reasonably object, if, for sufficient reasons and in order to promote most
important purposes, he withdraws them from you as a nation.’—But this is
only a general answer to the Jewish objection. The Apostle now proceeds
to reply more particularly, showing that the Jews have no reason to com-
plain of their rejection, since God had treated them with the greatest indul-
14 ANALYSIS OF THE -
gence, ‘He hath borne long with your sinful conduct and persevering”
obduracy ; and now, that you have filled up the measure of your sins and
are fitted for destruction, he hath abandoned you; and he makes your rejec-
tion the oceasion of extending his Gospel to Gentiles, uniting those who
embrace it with the faithful Israelites, both of whom he hath prepared for
the blessings of his kingdom, and both of whom he hath called to the enjoy-
ment thereof:’ 19-24.
The Apostle now illustrates what he had said, by applying passages from
Hosea, in which the prophet speaks of the reception of the ten tribes into
favour after their long abandonment by God; and also from Isaiah, who an-
nounces the divine promise, that all the various and repeated excisions to which
the Jews might be subjected, should not be utter and complete, but, on the
contrary, that a portion should be preserved to perpetuate the nation. These
divine promises he explains as verified in part, by the preservation as God’s
people of that portion who had embraced the Messiah: 25-29.—He then
sums up the general conclusion, namely, that Gentiles have through faith
obtained acceptance with God, which Israel as a body has failed to secure.
The reason of the failure is, that they proceeded on a wrong principle. They
sought to be justified by works, and rejected the Gospel scheme of faith, and
thus, as had been predicted, refused, through their incorrigible prejudice, to
admit the only Messiah: 30-33.
Cuap. x. The Apostle continues the same subject in this chapter. He
expresses his earnest desire for the salvation of Israel, acknowledging their
zeal, directed unhappily to establish their own method of justification in
opposition to God’s, which is faith in Christ. He is the great and ultimate
object which the Jaw uniformly held in view, and having come and estab-
lished a sufficient scheme of justification, he hath forever abolished the law
which cannot possibly be instrumental to this effect: 1-4. Legal justifica-
tion might be expressed by doing perfectly the demands of the law, and,
as a rightful consequence, living in God’s favour as a state to be legitimately
claimed. But God’s justification, which is by faith, speaks of no such impos-
sibility. It does not demand as its condition something particularly diffi-
cult. On the contrary, it offers an expedient within the reach of every sin-
cere and resolute seeker after truth, namely, the Gospel system received
by faith, and publicly professed by the true convert: 5-10. This most
impartial and righteous system knows no difference among men. It pre-
sents its blessings indiscriminately to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who
acknowledge Christ as their divine Master and Lord: 11-18. But, in order
to enjoy these blessings, they must truly believe on him; therefore they
must hear of him; therefore he must be preached to them; and the
preacher, in order to preach effectively, must be sent. This is done prin-
cipally by the Holy Spirit, moulding the minds of those intended for his
truly Apostolic Ministry, in assimilation to the practical truths of his Gos-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 15
pel, thus preparing them, by their own experience, as “ scribes instructed
for the kingdom of heaven,” to make known to men the glad tidings which
they themselves have duly appreciated; and then, through the institution
of God’s visible church, publicly admitting them into the honourable
body: 14-15.
And what if some have rejected this Gospel? This was predicted and
might, of course, have been expected. Still, the Gospel has been univer-
sally disseminated, fully made known both to Jews and Gentiles: 16-18.
And did not the Israelites know that the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom
were to be extended to the Gentiles? Certainly they did. For an appeal to
their great legislator, and equally great evangelical prophet, determines
the question. Both speak of the rejection of impenitent Jews, and of the
admission among God’s people, of sincere and faithful Gentiles : 19-21.
Cuap. xi. Does this admission of the Gentiles in the place of unbelieving
Jews imply the irrevocable rejection of God’s ancient covenant people ?
Certainly not. The thought is abhorrent to the Apostle’s feelings, for he
claims the honour of being an Israelite himself, and a descendant of the
peculiarly honoured tribe of Benjamin. No, God hath not so rejected his
people whom he originally most kindly regarded. Consider what is said
of the state of Israel in the time of Elijah. Although the prophet repre-
sented himself as alone adhering to the true God, in contradistinction to
the whole nation, whom he supposed to have apostatised to idolatry, yet
he is divinely informed, that God had reserved for himself seven thousand
sincere worshippers. These were the holy germ of the nation, the very
life principle of its being. Had ten righteous persons been found in Sodom,
it would not have been destroyed. The spiritual leaven would so far
have leavened the whole lump as to have preserved it from utter corrup-
tion. Thus did the seven thousand in the degenerate time of the prophet,
and thus does now the holy remnant who have accepted Jesus as the
true Messiah, the choice ones whom God has graciously chosen with the
view of their becoming partakers of his favours, this gracious choice
springing entirely from his own benevolence: 1-6. It appears, then, that
Israel as a nation has not secured what it aimed at, but only that portion
of the nation which accepted the Gospel. The remainder are unhappily
given over, in accordance with representations occurring in the Old Tes-
tament, to judicial blindness, and its deplorable consequences: 7-10.
Shall we say now that the Jews have been permitted to refuse the
Gospel, in order to effect their irrevocable rejection and utter ruin? Cer-
tainly not. The refusal has resulted in the reception of the Gospel by
Gentiles, and this divine course of eliciting good from evil is kindly pur-
sued by God in order to incite them to emulate the Gentiles and embrace
the same faith. And were this to be the result, how vast would be the
benefit to mankind, since their, rejection by God has been made the
16 ANALYSIS OF THE
occasion of so much good to the world in general. If his wisdom causes
even the unbelief of the Jews to advance his plans by extending a know-
ledge of the truth, much rather will the same wisdom make their submission
to the Gospel illustrate its divine origin, and promote the best interests
of mankind, In hoping for and anticipating the conversion of the Jews,
I honour my office as an apostle to the Gentiles, whose full and complete
conversion would be thereby promoted. I therefore so speak as to endea-
vour to rouse up the dearly beloved brethren of my nation to accept the
Gospel, that they also may partake of its blessings. The first Jewish
converts, and the ancient patriarchs from whom the nation is descended,
are holy in the estimation of God; and so, in a limited sense, is the whole
body. Let the Gentile converts remember, that the Hebrews were first
the people of God, with the believing portion of whom they have but
lately become incorporated; and let them learn to retain the advantages
of this their spiritual position by humility and faith. Let them not boast
themselves against that unhappy people, lest they also fall away and be
rejected: 11-21. The divine dispensation towards both parties exhibits
both goodness and severity. Ifthe Gentile convert on whom God hath
bestowed his bounty disregard it, he also shall be rejected; and the unbe-
lieving Jew, if he turn to God in faith, shall again be admitted to fayour.
This ts not only very possible, but it may reasonably be expected from
God’s benevolence, and may be regarded as a procedure altogether
natural: 22-25. It is important, in order to repress anything like arro-
gance in Gentile Christians, that they should know and consider what may
seem obscure in the divine procedure, namely, that the Israelites in part
are permitted to be in a condition of spiritual blindness until the conver-
sion of vast numbers from other nations. And this result shall be succeeded
by their national conversion, as predicted in the Old Testament. For it
must not be overlooked that, while, as respects the Gospel they are hostile
to God and considered by him as enemies, and this condition of theirs has
been overruled to promote the spiritual benefit of Gentiles; yet, as
respects God’s original choice of the nation to be his peculiar people, they
are still regarded with affection on account of the beloved ancestors, For
God does not alter his plans of merey and kindness towards those whom
he has blessed with their privileges. As Gentile believers were formerly
in a condition of unbelief, but now have obtained the mercy of God in the
Gospel through occasion of the Jews’ refusing it; so now the rejected Jews
are in a state of unbelief, that the goodness shown to Gentiles may become
the occasion of their future conversion and admission to the divine favour.
Thus God’s plans evince his intention of extending mercy to all: 25-382.
The Apostle then bursts out in an exclamation respecting God’s un-
‘bounded wisdom and knowledge, and concludes with an ascription of
glory. 33-36.
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 17
oa C PEG x TE.
Cuar. XII.-XVI.
THE PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE.
Sr. Pau now proceeds with practical and hortatory directions. He urges
his readers to devote themselves to God, to renounce the world, and to
cultivate the various graces of the Christian life: xii. He inculcates
obedience to the civil powers, xiii. 1-7, impresses the duty of love and
conformity to Christ, reminding them that time is rapidly passing away,
and eternity at hand: 8-14. He gives directions respecting usages and
observances in themselves indifferent, and counsels those of various views
and habits to regard each other kindly, and to yield the claim of judgment
to God, to whom it rightfully belongs: xiv. 1-12. He warns against
using one’s own liberty of conscience in such a way as may occasion sin
in another, inculcating such a course of conduct as tends to harmony and
kindness ; declaring that inward religion, and the peace and joy that accom-
pany it, constitute the essential characteristic of the Gospel dispensation :
13-23. He presents the example of Christ as a motive to seek the general
good, and to bear with each other’s weaknesses: xv. 1-7. Christ was sent
by God in confirmation of divine promises made to the early Hebrews,
and also that the Gentiles might become the people of God amd glorify
him. He speaks of his own commission, and of its successful prosecution
among people who had not heard the Gospel before: 8-21. He states
his intention to visit the Romans on his way to Spain; also his present
purpose to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions which he had collected
for the poor Christians there. He requests their prayers, and solicits for
them the divine blessing: 22-383.
Cuar. xvi. The Apostle now brings his letter to a close, by recommend-
ing to the care of the Roman church a Christian sister, and by various kind
salutations, cautioning against persons who promote dissensions in the
church. He concludes, invoking for the Roman Christians the favour of
Christ, and through him ascribing glory to God.
2
Ea d Peek ae Cae
e a % hy — nh dine by ale Ruth
oeyri alt
1 tani anil 3 FALUN DAS
gi AG Anataw Us nec afiaginis Cha | vi
priat PW its 5 met a Oe Pare Sh) the doy Bing ce ais
Wisi ‘Al obo Oe Bee Epi ght, 2 nits! OF
A ine OE vit edie ha i pselt meee Ug y
1 HN baad NTI Bad
rN | MR a bh ne
CLA.
one
‘
;
fe ak
; 1a copay uy ay « ap i a f i. Ms , aes + oe Soke
‘a ry Bey; tie ete: ard iy yi if ' ? seh Ct RE ea? wir ie fed ce a De
ZR asR 5 Uh pips cxiaherbnl “Ain! ep toe cenrnde then oc a
a geo ea © ver): Wa oe aiittet #18 dele Gyaend ed Sk bins ee
y ’ 4 4° P¥G rigs is? . { ora Fak “aOR a!
a. Pa St a
hi fi is% } “wintibes'al 2 AR et
Ce ‘ . =
Ze ee ae &3 340i
as " al a ’
J * é af ‘he 4 fo Sigh r i]
A Aree | tie
+, al ¥ 5 “
: k ie +e wf ‘ Pd F
2 a sar
, tat Og AG . fc gqs . ‘ i" ds Gl. pepe . a, iF
< a 4 .
: ..
Yl
. eine, , Ky) apy t ; Bia At free viet? oe
4 f a eT oe veils bead salshohecsvinld frac deed ; q
tL ae oy wks Rien eget j Shy Bh Dy
5 Blow. ii pir TY Baek Rik ie ae
oe tt a , 4 Pest! a “i>
ulti. bie L eae saa ened
ihe itto wis
’ os Dt .
P y <4
- *
-
COMMENTARY
ON THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
SECTION I.
Cuap. I. 1-15.
INTRODUCTION.
I. IavaAoc, dovAog Inoov Xpiorov, PAUL, a servant of Jesus Christ, I.
KAnTOG atr60TOA0C, ddwptouévog called to be an apostle, separated
2 ei¢ evayyédtov Yeov, 6 mpoe- unto the gospel of God, which 2
myyeiAato Ola THY TpopnT@yv he had promised afore by his pro-
Cuap. i. 1. “Separated:” As this is the meaning of the word, Pharisee,
which is derived from 22, some writers have supposed that the Apostle
alludes here to his former devotion to the Jewish law, while he expresses
the thought that now he is separated for and devoted to the Gospel. This
is not improbable, although quite uncertain, Olshausen rejects this
“explanation as a mere play upon words.” He distinguishes between the
calling and the separation of St. Paul, making the former refer to his
appointment by Christ to the apostolic office, and the latter to the confir-
mation of his original call “by the choice of the church at Antioch,” an
account of which is given in Acts xiii. 2. The body “from which he was
separated” is therefore, he says, not “to be regarded as the world, but as
the Christian church itself to which he already belonged.” In the passage
referred to the same word is indeed employed in reference to the appoint-
ment of Paul and Barnabas, whom the Holy Ghost directs to be separated
for him, But the particular work for which they were to be set apart is
that which is narrated in detail in the remainder of the chapter and the
following one, as is evident from xiv. 26, where they are said to have
returned on accomplishing it. St. Paul’s divine call and appointment by
Christ to the office of an Apostle required no external ecclesiastical sane-
COMMENTARY
ON THE
phets in the holy scriptures, con-
cerning his Son Jesus Christ our
¢ ~ ~ LZ 4
abtod év ypadpaic dyiatc, trepi
Tov viod abrov, Tod yevouévov
[Secr. I.
3
Lord; which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh,
4 and declared ¢o be the Son of God
with power, according to the spirit
éx oréppatoc Aavid kata odpka, 4
Tov dpradévroc viod Beow ev dv-
vader KaTa TrEvtpa dywwovvnc
é& dvaordoewc vexpov, *Iyoov
tion, any more than those of the original twelve. The several accounts of his
conversion and call in the Acts,* fully prove what he says in Gal. i. 1, that
he was “an Apostle not of men neither by man.” God’s purpose to set
him apart to his service is expressed in the 15th verse of the same chapter,
by the word here used; and this reference is much more directly to the
point than that alleged by Olshausen.
3, 4. “Concerning” may be connected with “Gospel” in ver. 1, or,
which is perhaps better, with “promised” in ver. 2. In either case it is
unnecessary to include, as some editors do, the second verse in a paren.
thesis.—‘“ According to the flesh:” This expression relates to Christ’s
human nature as subsisting during his earthly condition until his resurrec-
tion, and consequently implies his state of humiliation, asin John i. 14.—
“Declared :’’ Either, decreed, determined, destined (to be); or marked
out, in the words of Chrysostom, shown, professed, manifested.t In the
original edition of King James’ translation, the marginal reading is
“determined.” But that of the text seems preferable.—It is not asserted
that Christ became the Son of God in consequence of his resurrection, but
only that his sonship was publicly announced by that event. Comp. Ps. ii.
7, Acts xiii. 38.—*In power” may be used adverbially for powerfully, in
reference to that almighty energy which effected the resurrection. But
most probably the connection is with the immediately preceding words,
“The Son of God in power” will then stand in contradistinction to “the
Son of David according to the flesh.” This is the Rheims translation.
Wiclif has “Sone of God in vertu,” the word being employed in the Latin
sense. Compare the phrase “the sign (or proof) of the Son of Man in
heaven,” in Matt. xxiv. 30.
“Spirit of holiness.” Two leading interpretations of this phrase have
been defended. First, it has been explained in the sense of the Holy
Spirit, that is, in the ordinary meaning of the words, the third person of the
Trinity. Adopting this view, Ammon in his Excursus appended to Koppe,
p. 845, gives this as the sense: ‘ according to the predictions of the Holy
Spirit in the Old Testament,’ regarding it as equivalent to, “according to the
Scriptures” in 1 Cor. xv.3,4. Others, retaining the same meaning ofthe phrase,
* For these accounts and allusions to them, see Acts ix. 5, 6, 15, 17, 20, xx, 24, xxii. 14, 15, xxvi,
16, 19, 20, Gal. i. 1, 12, 16, fi. 6, 7, 9, 1 Tim. 1. 12.
+ Hom. I. on Rom., Opera, Edit. Bened. Venet. 1741, Tom, ix. p. 482.
Cu, I. 8-5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 21
5 Xptorovd Tov Kvptov juay, dv od of holiness, by the resurrection
EAdBouev yaplv Kai dtooToAjy from the dead; by whom we have 5
elc trakony Thotewo év Taot received grace and apostleship, for
toic E9veowy bTrEp TOU dvouatoc obedience to the faith among all
understand kar@ in the sense of dtd, by, and explain thus: ‘by the Holy
Spirit in his miraculous operations after Christ’s resurrection.’ With
this exposition, compare John xvi. 14, and Acts ii. 33. Thus Rosenmueller
in his Scholia, and more fully in a dissertation published in the Commen-
tationes Theologice, vol. i. pp. 315 et seq.* But this interpretation,
although it makes a clear and good meaning, is without any support from
New Testament usage. The phrase “ spirit of holiness” is indeed a literal
translation of the Hebrew for Holy Spirit, but it is never once used in this
sense in the New Testament, the expression always being mvetvja dytov
with or without the article; and no reason can be assigned why St. Paul
should in this passage depart from the invariable usage. Besides, it loses
sight of the evident antithesis between “according to the flesh” and
“according to the spirit of holiness.”
The second leading interpretation considers the two words as expres-
sive of dignity, majesty, glory. Spirit and spiritual are often employed
to denote what is excellent, perfect, holy, extraordinary and divine, (see 1
Cor. x. 3, 4, xv. 44-46, Gal. iv. 29,) and holiness, d@ytwobv7, occurs in the
Septuagint as the translation of the Hebrew for majesty, splendour, glory.
See Ps. exliv., Sept. (cxlv., Heb.) 5, xev. (xevi.) 6. In Heb. ix. 14, where
see the note, pp. 125, 124, spirit appears to be used in the same sense as
in this place, and to denote Christ’s divine condition as glorified Messiah,
his elevated state in the exercise of his original divine attributes, and as
man, of lordship over the universe. So perhaps in 1 Tim. iii. 16: “ Was
manifest in the flesh,” that is, in human nature, “justified in the spirit,”
shown to be approved of and honoured by God in his gloriously exalted
and divine condition. Comp. John xvii. 5, Matt. xxviii. 18, and Heb. ii. 9.
’Eé is used in the sense of from, after. See Matt. xix. 20, and 2 Pet. ii. 8.
The Greek is elliptical, and the preposition €* must be supplied before
vexe@v as before pov in Actsi.5. The meaning of the whole may be
thus expressed : ‘a descendant of David, as to his condition of humiliation
while in human nature on earth, (but) proclaimed the Son of God in power,
as to his divine nature in connection with his glorified humanity, from the
time of his resurrection.’ .
5. “Grace and Apostleship :” These words may express the two ideas
* This is a valuable collection of Dissertations exegetical and theological, edited by Velthusen,
Kuinoel and Ruperti. It comprises six octavo volumes, and was published at Leipsic in 1794-1799.
A Supplement by Pott and Ruperti appeared at Helmstadt, entitled Sylloge Commentationum Theo-
logicarum, in eight volumes, in 1800-1807. Horne’s Introduction, yol, ii. part ii, Appendix, p. 286,
sixth edition, Lond. 1828,
22 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. 1.
6 nations, for his name, among avrov, év olc gore Kai vyeig 6
whom are ye also the called of «Anrol Inoov Xpiorov, taotToig 7
7 Jesus Christ: to all that be in ovdow év 'P&yn dyarntoic Jeod,
Rome, beloved of God, called to be KAnrotc dyiowe* xapic vuiv Kal
saints; grace to you, and peace, elpfvy dxd Yeod maTpdc 7uav
from God our father, and the Lord kai xupiov ’Inaod Xprorov.
8 Jesus Christ. First, I thank my IIp@rov pév ebyapioTo TO 8
God through Jesus Christ for you eq prov did "Inaod Xprorov brép
all, that your faith is spoken of mévtwv tjpuov, drt 4) miotUG buov
9 throughout the whole world. For KxatayyéAAerat év dAw7@ Koop.
Mdprve yap pov gotiv 6 Bebc, 9
© Aatpebw ev TO TvEedpati pov
év T@ evayyediw Tov viod adrod,
O¢ ddtaheint oc velav DUGV TOL-
ovwar, mdvrote ent TOY Tpod- 10
evyOv pov dedmevoc, eimw¢ 70n
God is my witness, whom I serve
with my spirit in the gospel of his
Son, that without ceasing I make
mention of you always in my
10 prayers; making request, if by any
means now at length I might have
-
of the Gospel favour in general and that of the Apostolate in particular, or
they may be a hendiadys, meaning, the favour of the Apostleship. Compare
the word grace in Gal. ii. 9.—“* Obedience to the faith :” literally, ‘ obedience
of faith.’ The latter word may be understood either objectively or subject-
ively, and the meaning be, ‘ obedience to the faith, that is, the Gospel, or,
‘ obedience which springs from faith ;’ or it may be taken adjectively, and
the translation be, ‘ faithful obedience.’—“ For his name :” meaning ‘ on
account of his honour.’
6. “The Called :” The word is used to denote those who have been
invited to receive the benefits of the Gospel, and also those who have
accepted them. Here and frequently elsewhere it means the latter. See
1 Cor. i, 24; also vii. 17, 18, 21, where the verb also expresses the same
It is God who is uniformly represented as calling men to
meaning.
the Gospel. See the texts referred to in the latter part of the note on
Heb. iii. 1. “The called of Jesus Christ” are they who, by embracing
his religion, belong to him as their Lord and benefactor.
7. The latter clause of the verse might be translated, ‘ father of us and
of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ But this would not be in harmony with other
passages. The meaning is, “from God our father, and (from) the Lord
Jesus Christ ;” and this remark applies to St. Paul’s epistles generally.
See particularly the introductions to second Timothy, where the 7ju@v is
omitted, and to Titus, where its position is different, and compare also all
those texts which speak of the peace or grace of Christ. The author evi-
dently represents grace as coming both from God and from Christ.
9. “ With my spirit:” That is, with my whole heart, sincerely and
ardently. See Eph. vi. 6.
10. “If,” &c.: ‘that by God’s goodness I may at length be so highly
Cu. I. 6-15.)
more evodwdjoowat &v TH VEAr-
wate Tod BEod Avery TPOG bpas.
11 ’Exurod@ yao idetv bude, iva Te
perade xapiopa bpiv TVEUpG-
tuKov ele TO oTNpLXYI Val buac,
12 rovro dé ort, ovuTrapakAndzvat
év buiv Oa Tig &v dAAHAOC Ti-
13 orewc, buoy Te Kat éuod. OV
VEAw dé bude dyvosiv, ddeApol,
Ore TOAAGKIC TpoEdEUNY EADETY
mpoc tuac, Kat EKWACSHY aypt
Tov devpo, iva TIVd KapTOY OKO
kal év tiv, Kada¢g Kat év ToIC
14 Aouroic E9veowv. “EAAgoti Te Kal
BapBdpotc, codoic Te Kat avor-
15 toe derdétncg elui> obtw TO
kat’ éué Tpodvuoy Kal buty ToLC
év ‘POun evayyedioacdat.
favoured as to visit you.’
meaning.
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 23
a prosperous journey by the will of
God to come unto you. For I long 11
to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end
ye may be established: that is, 12
that I may be comforted together
with you by the mutual faith both
of youand me. Now I would not 13
have you ignorant, brethren, that
oftentimes I purposed to come unto
you, (but was let hitherto,) that I
might have some fruit among you
also, even as among other Gentiles.
IT am debtor both to the Greeks and 14
to the Barbarians, both to the wise
and to the unwise. So, as muchas 15
in me is, I am ready to preach the
gospel to you that are at Rome also.
In 2 Mac. x. 7, the Greek word has the same
11. Xdpiowa means any spiritual gift, whether ondinaty or miraculous.
See 1 Cor. vii. 7, Rom. xii. 6 et seq., 1 Cor. xii. 4,9,
12, 18. “That is:” This is equivalent to, Tne The Apostle does,
as it were, correct what he had said.
Instead: of Alwelling on the thought
of obliging the Roman Christians by imparting: ‘to them some benefit, he
speaks as if his visit would become the occasion through their mutual
faith of comforting and strengthening each other. And so in the next
verse he represents his connection with them and other converts as the
means of benefit to himself: “That I may, kave some fruit;” that is, de-
This is the proper meaning of kaptrov Every. See vi. 21,
The sentiment also said
rive advantage.
and compare puodov éyete in Matt. v. 46, vi. 1.
the modesty of St. Paul’s character, and is entirely in harmony with that
in the following verse.
14, 15. Strictly speaking, the Apostle was indebted to God, and hence
he feels and expresses his obligation to benefit God’s creatures ; and ob, so,
under the influence of this consciousness, he is ready, to the utmost of his
power, to preach the Gospel even in Rome where he would, most proba-
bly, be subjected to the severest persecution. The Greek may be pointed
with a comma after ovtw, and another after éué, according to Griesbach
and other editors, and the meaning be as just given; or both commas
may be omitted, as in Hahn, and the whole clause expressed thus, ‘if is
my earnest desire.’ In both cases éort will be understood.
24 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. 11
SECTION II.
Cuap. I, 16-82.
THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE PORTION OF THE EPISTLE
STATED, WITH A VIEW OF THE MORAL CONDITION OF THE HEATHEN
WORLD,
16 For I am not ashamed of the Ov yao éra:oybvomuat 70 ebay- 16
gospel of Christ: for itis the power yéAov: dbvamuc yap Yeov éotw
of God unto salvation, to everyone &l¢ owrnpiay TavtTi TO TLOTED-
that believeth ; to the Jew first, and ov7t, “lovdaiw te mpOtov Kal
16. Here St. Paul enters on the argument of his Epistle, introducing
it with this declaration. The full meaning of the words “I am not ashamed
of” is contained in the parallel phrase of Gal. vi. 14, “ God forbid that
I should glory save in.” The reasons follow. The Gospel is God’s mighty
instrument; it is intended to effect man’s salvation; it grants this blessing
on the condition of faith which is readily attainable; and its offers are
unlimited, extending to all the human family.—* Power of God,” like
“salvation” for Saviour in Luke ii. 30, is the abstract for the concrete,
meaning God’s efficient means, Comp. 1 Cor. i, 24. “Every one that
believeth” implies the necessary condition, faith in contradistinction to
works whether moral or ritual, and also the comprehensiveness of the offer ;
although, according to the divine scheme, it was first made to the Jews,
and their rejection of it became the occasion of its being extended to the
Gentiles. The word Greek, both here and in several other places, is used
in this enlarged meaning.
17. The reader who desires to see the various meanings which have
been given to the phrase “righteousness of God” here, must consult the
commentators. It evidently does not mean his justice, nor probably his
kindness or any other attribute. The general sense of the word in this
Epistle when connected with the author’s argument or statements allied
therewith, is justification, that is, pardoning, acquitting ; or, state or method
of justification. The last agrees best with the context in this place. It
has been said to be a “ comparatively unusual meaning,” and not to “suit
the opposition between ‘our own righteousness’ and ‘ the righteousness of
God’ as the former of these phrases cannot well mean ‘our own method
of justification.’ It is opposed also to the explanation of the Apostle fur-
nished by the expression, ‘the righteousness which is of God, by faith,’
Cu. I. 16, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 28
17 “EAAnve. Atkatoobyvn yde Yeov also to the Greek. For therein isthe 17
év abt@ adrokaddntetat ék Ti- righteousness of God revealed from
arews sig TioTwv, KaddG yéypa- faith to faith; as it is written,
mrat* 6 0& dikatocg Ex Tiotewo The just shall live by faith.
Cfoerae.
Phil. iii. 9, which cannot, in that passage, mean ‘ God’s method of justifica-
tion.’”’** To these remarks, which are unaccompanied by any evidence, I
can only say that they appear to me incapable of proof. Justification,
which is a proper meaning of the word, is probably used for the method of
justification, and this idea will be conveyed by a literal translation: ‘God’s
justification is revealed in it,’ naturally suggests the thought, that his method
of justification is made known in the Gospel; and this is the fact. “De ~
modo et ratione explicandum esse videtur, quibus venia impetrari queat.”
Ammon in Koppe, p. 16. “ Ratio favoris divint consequendi per metonym.”
Wahl, Clavis Novi Testamenti sub voce, 5.
“From faith to faith.” I must again refer the reader, who wishes to
see the various views which have been given of this phrase, to the com-
mentators. I will state one or two, and then what seems to me the best
exposition. Some connect “from faith” with the clause just explained,
and read, ‘the righteousness of God from (or by) faith.’ Comp. iii. 30.
The next two words are understood either in the sense of ‘to produce
faith,’ or faith is supposed to be put for ‘the faithful ;’ that is, the abstract
for the concrete, as in Heb. x. 39 in the Greek. The meaning thus
obtained is as follows: ‘ The righteousness of God by faith is revealed in
the Gospel in order to produce faith ;’ or, ‘in reference to and for the bene-
fit of the faithful.’ Macknight says of the former “translation,” that it
“results from construing the words properly,” and that it “affords a clear
sense of a passage which, in the common translation, is absolutely unintel-
ligible.” It is sufficient to remark that such is his opinion. But, in respect
to the last view, it may be said to be wholly improbable that the same
word, in so very intimate a connection, should be used in such different
senses; and, in respect to both, that the separation of the former half of
the clause from the latter and the connecting of it with the first phrase of
the verse, is most unnatural. Professor Stuart endeavors to show the con-
trary ; but, I think, without success. Every candid reader must feel, that
“from faith to faith” is a phrase which cannot be divided. But the Pro-
fessor asks, “ What can the meaning be of revealed from faith ?” The in-
sertion of the common ellipsis of ¢o be after the verb affords a very ready
answer. “From faith to faith” means ‘from a faith which continues to
influence its possessor, and which, being in itself a vital principle, grows
* Hodge, p. 41.
26 COMMENTARY ON THE (Szer. I,
18 For the wrath of God is revealed *"AroKxaAirrerar yap dpy? 18
from heaven against all ungodliness, Yeo0v dz’ obpavod éxi nacav doé-
and unrighteousness of men, who etav kai ddixiay dvdporwyr,
hold the truth in unrighteousness; T@v T/)v dAjdevav év ddicia Kat-
and increases.’ The same respected author, in considering what has been
adduced as an analogous phrase, “ to iniquity unto iniquity,” Rom. vi. 19,
remarks, that “in all such cases, the accusative denotes the end or object
to which the thing that had just been named tends,” and quotes as proof
2 Cor. ii. 16: “Savour of death unto death, of life unto life.” But the re-
mark is not applicable to other similar phrases, such as, “from glory to
glory—from strength to strength,” 2 Cor. iii. 18, Ps. Ixxxiv. 7, which evi-
dently expresses the idea of increase. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 17, in the Greek,
whith is but inadequately rendered in our Bibles “a far more exceeding.”
The Apostle’s meaning of the clause under consideration appears to be
this: ‘In the Gospel God’s method of justification is revealed (to be) from
a living faith which perpetuates itself and increases by virtue of its essen-
tial character.’ And I think that the sense of the quotation which follows
confirms this interpretation. It is from Hab. ii. 4, and is cited also in
Heb, x. 38. The prophet is speaking of the truly religious man’s steady
faith in God under apprehended calamity. He lives in a calm and happy
state of acceptance and favour with God by the uniform exercise of a reli-
gious confidence. Thus his faith is the same as that which the Apostle
represents as justifying.
18. “ For:” This may be illative of the implied thought, that some such
scheme of justification as the Gospel reveals is necessary for all men; or,
the full development which the Gospel makes of God’s anger against sin
may be stated as another reason for the author’s glorying in it. Comp.
Acts xvii. 30.—* From heaven” probably qualifies “revealed,” to which
it appears to be added as indicating the divine source of the revelation.—
“Who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” The truth here intended cannot
be that which is peculiar to Christianity, as is evident from the following
verses, It means religious truth in general, such as mankind possessed in
an early period, the influence of which they weakened, and much of which
they lost, by inconsistent and wicked lives. The word rendered “hold”
often means to suppress, restrain, and many commentators so understand
it here. Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva translation, all have
withold ; the Rheims “deteine.” But the other sense agrees better with
the subsequent context, which speaks of the divine attributes as being
“known,” and of the Heathen world as “knowing God” and yet dis-
honouring him. Still, it must be granted that this meaning is quite defen-
sible, as the general religious truth held by the Heathen was perverted and
darkened by their sinful conduct.
Cn. I. 18-21.]
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
27
19 eyévtTwv: di6Tt TO yvwordy Tov
Seod davepov eoriv év advroic*
6 Sede yao adroic éhavépwoe.
20 Ta yde dépata adrTov ano KTi-
GEWC KOOMOV TOILE TOLHWACL VOOU-
preva Kadoparat, 7] TE aidvog av-
Tov dbvapuc Kai Yevdryc, Eig TO
21 eivat adtov¢ dvaToAoyhrove: Ot-
6tt yvovtes TOV Yedv oby oC
Sedov &ddsacav 7} nvyapiornsar,
GAN Euatawdnoav Ev Toi¢ dta-
because that which may be known 19
of God is manifest in them; for
God hath shewed ¢¢ unto them. For 20
the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eter-
nal power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse. Because 21
that, when they knew God, they
glorified him not as God, neither
were thankful, but became vain in
their imaginations, and their fool-
Aoytopot¢g avTwv, Kat EsxoTiody
22 1) dobverog avt@v Kapdia. d-
19. “That which may be known :” The original is one word, with its
article, and equivalent to ‘the knowledge.’ Similar forms may be found
in the Greek of ii. 4, viii. 3, 1 Cor. i. 25, where the English translation has
“ goodness—which (the law) could not do—the foolishness and weakness.” —
“God hath showed :” either by an original revelation, or by the works of
creation influencing the rational and religious faculties.
20. “The invisible things of him :” That is, his attributes and nature, as
the latter part of the verse declares.—* From the creation of the world :”
Either, by means of the created objects; or, most probably, from the very
time the world was made. The Greek bears either sense, but the former
makes the phrase, “ the things that are made,” a useless repetition. The
general meaning of the verse is, that the works of creation have always
been to such a rational and moral creature as man a sufficiently practical
exponent of God’s nature and attributes. ‘wo particulars, however, ought
to be considered in relation to this subject: first, that the Apostle is not
speaking of a full degree of religious knowledge ; and, secondly, that the
influence on the human mind of man’s original condition as stated in the
book of Genesis and of any primitive revelation of which he may have been
the subject, must be allowed their due weight. What such a creature as
man, in his present state, might be able to ascertain by the exercise simply
of his own reasoning on the works of nature, had he no other direct or indi-
rect sources of information, is a very different question, and one which the
Apostle’s language does not take into consideration. A spurious philoso-
phy assumes a certain conceivable condition of primitive human nature;
but all well ascertained facts support the faith which maintains such assump-
tions to be groundless,
21. “ When they knew:” That is, having enjoyed abundant means of
Compare “seeing and hearing” in Matt. xiii. 13.—“ Heart,”
This word is often used by the Hebrews to denote the mind;
knowing.
kapoia.
28
22 ish heart was darkened. Profess-
ing themselves to be wise, they
23 became fools, and changed the
glory of the uncorruptible God
into an image made like to corrup-
tible man, and to birds, and four-
footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up
to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their
own bodies between themselves :
25 who changed the truth of God in-
toa lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever: Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up
unto vile affections: for even their
women did change their natural
use into that which is against
27 nature; and likewise also the
men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust
one toward another, men with men
working that which is unseemly,
and receiving in themselves that
but often also, as here, with a direct reference to the affections.
COMMENTARY
ON THE (Seer. II.
oKovTec elvat oopol éuwpavdn-
oav, kai 7jAAagav Tijv ddgav TOD 23
ddddprov Yeod év bpuowpare
elxdvog @8aptod dvdparov Kai
TeTeLv@v Kal TeTpaTtédwy Kal
épmeTav. Ato Kai mapédwnev 24
avrov¢c 6 Bedc ev taic émudv-
piatc TOV Kapdiav adt@y el¢
dxadapotay, Tow Utydseodat Ta
oopata abtav év éavtoic. Ol- 25
Tevec peTnAAagav tiv dAgpdevav
Tov Yeod vy TO wedder Kai éoe-
BdoSnoav Kai éAdrpevoav TH
Ktiogt Tapa TOV KTioavTa, O¢
éotiv evAoynroc el¢ Tove aldvag °
dujv. Ata rovto rapédwxev 26
avrove 6 Yede ei¢ TAYN atiuiag:
ai re yao Sider avTo@v peTiA-
Aakav tijv pvowciy xpjow ele
THY Tapa dobow: dwoiwe Te Kai 27
ot dppevec adévrec tiv pvorKiy
xpro Tie YnAeiac &exadvdnoav
év TH dpéser aba ele dAAtAove,
dpoevec év dpoeot Tijv doynuo-
obvnv Katepyasouevor Kai TIV
Thus we
read; “ With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” or rather, justifi-
cation, Rom. x. 10; that is, justifying faith must be cordial, and have its
due influence both on the understanding and on the affections.
22, 23. “They became fools: This may comprehend a declarative
meaning; they both showed and increased their folly.
The absurd and
ridiculous idolatry into which they were permitted to fall abundantly veri-
fies the statement in both respects.
24-31. The Apostle now proceeds to describe the moral condition
of the Heathen world. The corrupt and debasing vices into which men
were allowed to fall, were in part a judicial punishment, and in part a
natural consequence, of the degrading idolatry. The correctness of this
description of the abandoned and wicked state of the Heathen, has been
confirmed by various writers. Whitby and Leland, in their respective
works on the advantages and necessity of a divine revelation, abound with
evidence and illustration ; and Paganism asit now exists verifies the inspired
statement, and shows that such results are the invariable concomitants of
stupid ignorance and idolatry. It is to be observed, however, that this
Cu. I. 22-31.)
3 4 hay ” ~ 4
advruucdiav, nv &det, THC TWAGY
eh 2 PoC TT
avtav év éavtoic¢ drodapa-
28 vovtec. Kat xadoc ov edoxi-
pacav Tov Sedv eyerv ev Extyvo-
cet, Tapédwxev adtodv¢o 6 Sedc
ele ddbKIjLOVv VOdY, TOLELY TA [L7)
29 kgdjKovra, TeTANDWLeVOvE Ta-
on adikia, Topveta, Tovnpta, TAE-
4 4 ‘ 7
ovegia, Kakia, eatovc Pddvov,
4 . 4 oa 4
dovov, Eptdoc, ddAov, Kaxonetac,
30 yuduptotdc, KataAdidovc, Beo-
orvyeic, bBpotde, drepnpavove,
adAacovac, épevpeTae KAKOY, yo-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
29
recompence of their error which was
meet. And even as they did not 28
like to retain God in their know-
ledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not convenient; being 29
filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetous-
ness, maliciousness; full of envy,
murder, debate, deceit, malignity ;
whisperers, backbiters, haters of 30
God, despiteful, proud, boasters, in-
ventors of evil things, disobedient
~ 3 ~ > 7 3
31 vevowv atevSeic, dovVvETOUC, dOVV-
Sétove, dotépyovc, daozébvdove,
to parents, without understand- 31
ing, covenant-breakers, without
description of the heathen is intended to apply to them as a body, and not
to every individual. The same remark applies to the subsequent descrip-
tion of the state of the Jews, in the second and third chapters. This is in
harmony with the general course of representation which pervades the
argumentative parts of this Epistle.
“Truth of God :” Equivalent to, the true God. Compare the phrase,
“slory of God,” in verse 23, and also in Ps. evi. 20, which the Apostle
evidently has in view. “ Lie,” which is antithetic to “the truth,” is the
abstract for the concrete, and put for an idol, implying the vain and deceit-
ful character of idolatry. Tholuck very appositely quotes similar language
from Philo, who, referring to the idolatrous calf made by the Hebrews in
the desert, says that “ Moses was amazed at their substituting so great a
lie, weddoc, in the place of so great a truth, dAn8etac.”
’Ad6kuwov, towards the end of the 28th verse, refers to édoxiwacay, at
the beginning : ‘ As they did not think fit, approve of, God abandoned them
to a state of mind not to be approved of, to be condemned, reprobate.’—
"Eye év émvyvocet, for émvy.vockery, is literally, to have in knowledge,
and means, to recognise and properly regard.” "Eyevy, with the noun and
preposition, is often used in this way for the verb. See 1 Tim. iii. 4. The same
is true of yivomas.
equivalent to transgressed.—OeoorTvyetc¢ in verse 30, may be rendered
either ‘ hateful to God,’ or “haters of God.” Wiclif has the former, and
the Rheims “ odible to God,” the word being borrowed from the Vulgate,
Deo odibiles. Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and King James’ transla-
tions, have the latter. As all the other epithets relate to the character
and properties of the persons described, the latter rendering is preferable.
The natural “ enmity” referred to is explained in viii. 7, to be a hostility
to the law of God.—'YBprorde: insolent and injurious persons.—“ Inventors
See 1 Tim. ii. 14, where “was in the transgression” is
80 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. 11.
natural affection, implacable, un- dveAefuovac: oltiveg 70 dtKai- 32
32 merciful: who, knowing the pa Tov Yeod émvyvévtec, drt ob
judgment of God, that they which 7d Tovatira mpdooovrec agsvot Ba-
commit such things are worthy of vdrov eloiv, od pévov adtd Tot-
death, not only do the same, but ovovv, dAAd Kai ovvevdoKovat
have pleasure in themthatdo them. Tol¢ mpdocovot.
of evil things :”” In 2 Mae, vii. 31, Antiochus is called “the author, or dis-
coverer, or inventor, evperfe, of all mischief against the Hebrews.” Vir-
gil calls Ulysses, scelerum inventor. En. ii. 164.
32. Wiclif and the Rheims translator, following the Vulgate and a few
Greek authorities, introduce the negative, “undirstoden not” or “ did
not understand,” immediately after the word “God.” Locke sanctions
the same interpolation. But the external suppors of such a reading is not
of much weight, and the sense resulting is at variance with the scope of
the Apostle.’ He evidently appeals to the natural moral sense of mankind,
as enabling them to recognise God’s law in a degree sufficient to become
to them a rule of action. Comp. verse 19-21.—The last clause of this verse
is a climax. It describes the evil habit of the mind. The persons described
not only commit iniquities, but enjoy a malignant satisfaction in so doing,
and in associating with their wicked companions,
SECTION ITI.
Cuapr, II.
THE INCONSISTENCY OF JEWS IN THEIR CONDEMNATION OF GENTILES, AND
THEIR FOLLY IN TRUSTING TO EXTERNAL PRIVILEGES.
Aa ”
II. Therefore, thou art inexcus- Awd dvatoAbynto¢ el, © av- II.
able, O man, whosoever thou art Opwr7e tac 6 kpivwv: év © yao
that judgest: for wherein thou «piveic tov Erepov, ceavTdv Ka-
judgest another, thou condemnest Taxpiverc: td yde adbTd mpao-
Cuap. ii. 1-11. “Therefore:” This is not a mere particle of transition. St.
Paul has convicted the Heathen of gross immorality, and consequently has
proved that, on the ground of moral obedience, they can have no claim to
God’s favour, and must look for acceptance or justification to some other
dependence. He is now about to prove that the situation of the Jews
does not in this respect differ at all from that of the Gentiles. This is the
ultimate design of his argument. Inasmuch, however, as the Jew, although
Cu. I. 82.—II. 6.] EPISTLE TO‘ THE ROMANS. 81
2 oeic 6 Kpivov. Oldapyev dé, drt thyself; for thou that judgest,
Td. Kpiwa Tov Yeod éott Kata doest the same things. But we are 2
dAnvseray ext Tove Ta ToOLlavTa sure that the judgment of God is
8 medooovrac. Aoyity dé TodTO, according to truth, against them
© avdpwre 6 Kpivwv tod¢ Ta which commit such things. And 38
TolavTa Tpdooovtac Kal Tol@Y thinkest thou this, O man, that
avtd, Ott od éxpedén TO Kptwa judgest them which do such things,
4 tov Yeov ; “H Tov rAodTov Tij¢ and doest the same, that thou shalt
xpnotéTnto¢g avTov Kai TIC avo- escape the judgment of God? Or 4
Ig Kat THC waKpoSvptac KaTa- despisest thou the riches of his
dpoveic, dyvowv, drt TO YpyoTOY goodness and forbearance and long-
tov Yeov ele petadvoldy oe dyet; suffering, not knowing that the
5 Kara d& tiv oxAnpétntd cov goodness of God leadeth thee to
kat dueravontoy Kapdiav Snoav- repentance? But, after thy hard- 5
pigere ceavTt® dpyiy év ijpépa
épyi¢g Kat droKadiwews dtKato-
Kptotacg Tov Yeov, b¢ drrodwcet
éxdoTw KaTa Ta épya avTov:
ness and impenitent heart, treasur-
est up unto thyself wrath, against
the day of wrath and revelation
of the righteous judgment of God;
who will render to every man ac- 6
committing similar offences, did not scruple to criminate the Gentile, the
immediate object of the Apostle here is to show him the inconsistency and
culpability of his conduct, Thus we see the proper illative force of “ there-
fore.” It applies, as other similar illative particles occasionally do, to the
latter part of the verse. Compare “ therefore” in John vii. 22, and 2 Tim. ii.
10, which most probably qualifies the words that follow. The author’s idea
may be expressed thus: ‘Since those who commit such crimes are worthy
of punishment, thou, O Jew, art therefore inexcusable, because thou art
guilty of the very same things as those Gentiles, whom thou art continually
condemning.’ The antithesis lies between “them that do them,” in i. 32,
and “doest the same,” here. This is confirmed by the words in the next
verse, “against them that commit such things,” and those in the following,
“and doest the same.” Undoubtedly the censorious disposition and con-
duct of the Jews are meant to be denounced, but the chief point of the
remark is, the gross inconsistency of judging and condemning Gentiles for
the same sort of practices and vices in which Jews themselves indulged.
No doubt the remark is of general application to all inconsistent men ;
but it is clear, from the context and the subsequent part of the chapter,
that the Jews are particularly referred to.
“Judge” is here used in the sense of censuring, condemning, as in
Matt. vii. 1, 2, and John vii. 51.—“ We know:” It must be admitted by
all.— According to truth:” that is, equitable and right. Comp. Acts x.
34.— Riches of his goodness :” Equivalent to his ‘abundant goodness.’
See ix. 23 and Eph. i. '7, ‘his abundant and excellent glory’ or ‘grace,’
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. III.
7 cording to Ins deeds: to them
who by patient continuance in well
doing, seek for glory and honour
8 and immortality, eternal life; but
unto them that are contentious, and
do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, indignation and
9 wrath, tribulation and anguish,
upon every soul of man that doeth
evil, of the Jew first, and also of
10 the Gentile; but glory, honour,
and peace, to every man that work-
eth good, to the Jew first, and also
Toic pev Kad’ dbronoviy epyov 7
dyadov dégav Kal tyjv Kal
dpdapoiav ¢nrovar Cwijv ald-
viov: toic dé && épideiac nal 8
dmewovor pev Ti dAndeia, Tet-
Sowévore dé TH ddiKiay dpy? Kal
Supoc VAirue Kat orevoywpia 9
énl Taoav pvyjv dvdparov Tov
katepyacouévov 70 Kakév, *Iov-
daiov te mp@Tov Kal "EAAnvoc *
ddga dé Kat ty Kai elphvn 10
Travri T@ épyagouéva TO ayador,
lovdaiw te mp@Tov Kai "EAA.
Ov ydo ort TpoowroAn pia Tapa 11
TH) VEO. "“Ooot ydo dvopuwe 12
qwaptov, advouwe Kai axodovv-
Tat* Kal doo év vouw FpapTor,
did vbuov Kpidjoovrat, (ob yap 13
oi dkpoatai Tov vouov dikatot
11 to the Gentile: for there is no
12 respect of persons with God. For
as many as have sinned without
law, shall also perish without law ;
and as many as have sinned in the
law, shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are
and compare “ multitude of thy mercy” in Ps. v. 7.—Ayvo@v: either,
“not knowing,” and then the ignorance will be voluntary arising from
sinful neglect and consequently criminal ; or, not considering. The latter
seems to be a legitimate meaning, as verbs expressive of knowledge are
also employed to denote attention. Compare the use of ovvévto¢ in
Matt. xiii. 19, of qdevv in Acts xxiii. 5, of obvec¢ in Ps. v. 2, and of éyve
in Hos, ii. 8, Sept. See also Srey in the Iliad, i. 273. The same remark
applies to the verb to hear, which often means to attend to, understand.
See Matt. x. 14 and 1 Cor. xiv. 2.— Leadeth :” that is, such are its cha-
racter and tendency.— Treasureth up :” The original idea of a treasure is
here entirely lost, and the word means nothing more than heap up or
prepare abundantly.—* Contentious :” literally, ‘of contention,’ like, “they
that are of faith” in Gal. iii. 7, for ‘the faithful.—‘ Peace” in ver. 10 is
used in the Hebrew sense of blessing.
12-16. “For :” As usual this particle is illative. It sustains the imme-
diately preceding remark. ‘There is no respect of persons with God, for
he judges and punishes men according to the degree of their respective
privileges and opportunities of religious improvement.’ The cases of
Gentile and of Jewish sinners, who subject themselves to condemnation,
shall each be decided on this consideration. Comp. Luke xii. 47,48. In
the final decision, the obligation of the Israelites to obey the law under
which they lived shall have its due influence, as shall also that of the
Heathen to obey the law of nature suggested by conscience and reason or
Cu. Il. 7-14.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 83
Tapa TH VEO, GAA’ of ronTal TOU just before God, but the doers of
14 vouov dikawdjoovra. “Otay the law shall be justified. For 14
yao &vn Ta fu) vouov éyovta when the Gentiles, which have not
traditionary revelation. In a word, the state of each man shall be deter-
mined with reference to his situation and advantages. The word “ sinned”
is here used emphatically. In the language of Ernesti, there is “ an acces-
sion of meaning to its ordinary signification.” It means so sinned as to
subject themselves to condemnation, sinned without repenting, or persisted
in sinning. The phrase “him that worketh not” in iv. 5 means, ‘who doth
not work with a view to obtain justification thereby.’ Such emphatic
senses are readily perceived by a due attention to the context. The
meaning of “ without law,” and “in the law,” may be ascertained by
referring to 1 Cor. ix. 20,21. They express the condition of Gentile and
Jew.
\Y The Apostle has just said that a neglect to live religiously according to
the condition in which we are placed, will subject us to merited punishment.
What follows is intended to confirm this statement, and therefore is intro-
duced by the illative, “for.”’ This isa clew to the meaning of the next
verses, which do not refer to the ground of justification, but simply assert
the inefficacy of hearing and knowing God’s law, and the necessity of sin-
cere obedience to secure acceptance. It is not justification properly speaking
but sanctification which is the subject of the’verse, the whole idea of which
is contained in Hebrews xii. 14, “ without holiness no man shall see the
Lord.” St. James has the same thought, which he expresses partly in the
same terms, i. 22-25. It is a great mistake to suppose that the Apostle
is speaking here of justification. He does not mean to assert that any one
can be justified by doing the law, for the whole scope of the Epistle and
of Scripture in general is against this error. He means that the privilege
of hearing the law, which the Jews overvalued, was useless unless they
endeavoured to keep it. This endeavour, being a test of their sincerity
and a proof of their faith, was also an evidence of their justification, but
certainly not the cause of it.
Professor Stuart, in his translation of a part of Ernesti’s Elements of
Interpretation, remarks, that “Rom. ii. 13 states the rule of legal justifica-
tion.”* If the meaning were, that the words of the Apostle would fitly
express such rule, the remark would be admissible. No doubt St. Paul
might properly have stated this rule in the very terms here used, but the
context shows that such was not his intention. He does not merely intro-
duce “a supposed case,” as the same author affirms in his commentary on
verses 14 and 27. Professor Hodge also makes the same remark on verse
26. “Paul does not say that any Heathen does fully answer the
* Andover, 1822, p. 92, note on Sect, 181.
"| We / Ye /; M0
3
*
34 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. II,
the law, do by nature the things 608 Ta Tov véuov Tory, obroL
contained in the law, these, having véuov pu) byovte¢ éavToi¢ elat
demands of the law, the case is merely stated hypothetically.” So also on
verse 27: “As pointed and understood by our translators, this verse
expresses more than the preceding one.* The obedient Gentile would not
only be accepted” &c. If the obedience is hypothetical, as it must be to
harmonize with the Professor’s statements elsewhere, the acceptance can
be no more than ideal. The same hypothetical view is given by Barnes on
verse 26. “The Apostle does not expressly affirm that this” (keeping the
moral law,) “was ever done; but he supposes the case.” Waldane, in his
peculiarly polemic Exposition of the Romans, pursues the same idea of
hypothetical statement and argument.t But the very next verses to that
under consideration, and also the 26th and 27th, afford palpable evidence that
St. Paul is not speaking hypothetically. “ When Gentiles do the works of
the law,” and “the uncircumcision that keeps the law shall judge” or con-
demn the Jewish transgressor, is evidently not the language of hypothesis.
Much of the confusion of thought occasioned by this part of the Epistle has
arisen from translating the original verb in verse 13 “shall be justified,”
while it should rather be rendered, ‘shall be approved of, accepted.’ The re-
marks of Morus on this point are very judicious. “The terms justification,
salvation, new man, faith, are used in various senses, and therefore are not
always to be explained in the same way. Attention to this will remove ap-
* The Professor has made no objection to such pointing and meaning; and, if he had, it would not
affect my remark,
+ Not to embarrass the reader, I prefer throwing a few quotations from this writer, accompanied
by a remark or two, in a note. On the words “to every man that worketh good” in yer. 10, he says:
“‘He who had performed his duty, if any such could be found, should enjoy rest and satisfaction.”
Is the verse hypothetical ? and can it be believed that the Apostle here makes a promise which he knew
was practically worthless ?—On ver. 12: ‘* Without lave, that is, a written law, for none are without
law. The Gentiles had not received the written law ; they had, however, sinned, and they shall perish,
that is to say, be condemned without that law. The Jews had received the written law; they had also
sinned, they will be judged, that is to say, condemned by that law; for, in the next verse, St. Paul de-
clares that only the doers of the law shall be justified; and consequently, as condemnation stands
opposed to justification, they who are not doers of it will be condemned.” According to this state-
ment the Apostle affirms the condemnation of all Jews and Gentiles. The expositor’s error results
from not recognising the emphatic character of the word “sinned,” and othersin the same connection,
as above stated, and also the true meaning of “shall be justified.”—On ver. 13: “ The doers of the law
shall be justified —By this we must understand an exact obedience to the law to be intended.”—On
ver. 25: “ When, therefore, the Apostle says,—if thou keep the law, he supposes a case, not implying
that it was ever verified; but if it should exist, the result would be what is stated.” And on the
next verse: “He supposes a case in regard to the Gentiles. This hypothetical mode of reasoning is
common with Paul, of which we have an example in the same chapter, where he says, that the doers
of the law shall be justified; of whom, however, in the conclusion of his argument, Chap. iii. 19, he
affirms that none can be found.” The exposition of the first text is erroneous, and assumed without
proof; andin the latter the subject is different—On ver. 27; “The fulfilling of the law and its trans-
gression are here to be taken in their fullest import, namely, for an entire and complete fulfilment, and
for the slightest transgression of the law.” The reader will be gratified to learn, that after so much of
what has been called hypothetical, (which, however inapplicable he may regard the epithet in reference
to the Epistle, he will probably allow is strictly appropriate to the expositions,) “ the Apostle, in va
28, 29, passes to what is reality, not supposition.” So Mr. Haldane allows.
Cu. I. 14, 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 35
15 vouoc, ofteveg évdetxvvvtat TO not the law, are a law unto them-
épyov Tov vouov ypantov év selves: which show the work of 15
parent opposition. And many objections to Christianity would never have
been urged, if duxacovy had not been invariably translated to justify, toya
works, and so in other similar instances, Whenever the phrase ¢o become jus-
tified is uttered, the hearer immediately attaches to it the idea of obtaining
remission of sins; whereas this is not always its meaning. In Ron. ii. 13,
dixatwSijoovrat signifies, will be approved of by God, will be rewarded by
him. The discourse has nothing to do with remission of sins.”* A striking
instance of the use of this word in the same sense occurs in Matt. xii. 37:
“By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned ;” that is, the language, as indicative of the character, will con-
stitute a ground of divine approbation or condemnation. So also in Matt.
xi. 19: “ Wisdom is justified of her children;” which means, that the
really wise will recognise the excellence of God’s religious dispensations and
heartily approve them.
The verses immediately following must be explained, if the context be
properly regarded, of Gentiles not acquainted with a divine revelation.
“By nature” is an erroneous translation, which might lead to the supposi-
tion of fallen man’s having a natural ability to keep the divine law. It
ought to be rendered, ‘in nature,’ meaning in their natural condition with-
out a direct revelation. Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva translation,
have “of nature;” Wiclif “kyndle,” that is, “naturally,” as the Rheims
has plainly expressed the meaning of the Saxon word. It is equivalent to
“without law” in ver. 12. The sense is as follows: ‘For when Gentiles
who have no directly revealed law, do in this situation live conformably
to the general directions of revelation, although they have no such revealed
law as the Jews have, yet the general principles of duty taught and
inculeated by conscience and reason, are to become their law and to govern
them. And these principles always coincide with those of revelation, and
are shown in the lives of such.’
It has been supposed, that to speak of Gentiles living agreeably to moral
law would be contradictory to the representation given of their religious and
moral condition in the preceding chapter. But it ought to be considered
that the Apostle is there representing the state of the Heathen as a mass;
while here he speaks of some individuals. And besides, the obedience he
has in view, can be nothing more than a general endeavour to live in accord-
ance with that degree of religious knowledge which the sincere Gentile
may have. There is therefore no inconsistency. Yet the supposition has
given rise to an attempt to explain this passage differently, by changing the
usual punctuation, and understanding by “Gentiles” those who had been con-
* Hermeneutica Sacra Nov. Test. vol. ii. p. 18, Lips. 1802.
36 COMMENTARY ON THE {Sxer. III,
the law written in their hearts, their Tai¢ kapdiace abtOv, ovjipap-
conscience also bearing witness,and Tupotong advt@v Tij¢g ovvetdh-
verted to Christianity. The sense thus elicited is as follows: “When
the Gentiles, who by nature have not the law, do the things originally
intended by and virtually contained in the Jaw; when they renounce
their idols, and no longer worship the host of heaven, but turn to the
service of the living God; when they accept of that salvation that is
now made known unto them, and submit to the righteousness of God
that is now manifested in their sight; these, though they have not the
law, are a law unto themselves, their faith in Christ and his doctrine does
more than supply the place of the law of Moses; and by their submission
to that promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth Were to be
blessed, and who is the very end of the law itself for righteousness to every
one that believeth, they evidently show the great work of the law written
in their hearts.” It seems strange that a man should be able to persuade
himself that such can be the Apostle’s meaning. The statement is evidently
irreconcilable with the whole scope of the context, and indeed with the very
last words rightly understood. The Apostle is not contrasting Jews and
converted Gentiles, but endeavouring to make the irreligious Jew feel his
delinquency by comparing him with the sincere Gentile. Certainly men
who had “faith in Christ” and had embraced his “ doctrine,” could with
no propriety be said not to have the law, and to be a law unto themselves.
Yet so satisfied is the author of this exposition with the truth of it as to
affirm, that “the context plainly shows, and the sense of the whole Scripture
proves, that the words not only fairly may but necessarily ought to be so
translated.”*
“ Work of the law :” This has been supposed by some to be equivalent
to the common expression, ‘ works of the law.’ But in such case the word
is always plural. Besides, such works are open to general observation, and
the phrase expresses a holy course of living; whereas what is here spoken
of is “written in the heart.”—The phrase has also been regarded as pleo-
nastic for law simply. Such pleonasms are not uncommon, and illustrations
may be found in most commentators and lexicographers. But it is unne-
cessary to introduce such a principle here. The Hebrew word correspond-
ing to “work,” iy, and the word denoting substance, reality, nature,
bry, are used by ‘Hebrew writers, as the term “work” is in this pas-
sage, for reality, efficiency. Thus Maimonides: “The work, reality, 53%)
of that element (or principle,) will be seen.” Foundations of the law, in
Bernard’s Selections from the Iad, chap. iv. sect. 7, p. 11.4 And in the
* See the Religion of nature proved to bea mere idol, by Charles Willats, M. A.; an article published
in the Scholar armed, vol. i. p. 207, 210, Lond. 1795.
+ This work is a small octavo volume, which will be found very useful in facilitating the acquisition
of Rabbinical Hebrew. It was published at Cambridge in 1832.
Ca, II. 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ~ 387
cewe Kat petadd dAAHAwY TOV their thoughts the mean while
Aoytouav KaTtnyopobyTwy 7} Kat accusing, or else excusing, one an-
precepts on repentance, chap. i. sect. 6, bY» occurs in the same sense: ‘and
the reality (nature) of the day of atonement,’ &c. The expression of St.
Paul is probably of the same sort, and “the work of the law” is its
reality, and efficiency, that which God hath engraven on the heart or
moral nature of man. The sincere though imperfect endeavour of some
Gentiles, to do what is right, shows that there is a moral law which the
God that made them has stamped upon their nature. ‘The conscience of
such men bears concurrent witness with this law of which it is the index,
and their thoughts and reasonings interchangeably condemn or apologise for
them;’ that is, sometimes do the one and sometimes the other.—The
preposition oy in composition with the participle here used, is considered
by many as adding nothing to the sense. I prefer, as above, giving its pro-
per meaning, because it makes a good sense, and corresponds with the
author’s ordinary usage, as will hereafter be seen.—Metagd dAAqiwv is
rendered in our translation, “the mean while—one another.” Each of the
two words certainly bears the meaning here given, but not in such a con-
struction as this. Besides, “one another” cannot refer to the persons
under consideration, for the Apostle is not speaking of some of them accus-
ing or defending others; but rather of the actings of the mind on its own
character and condition. “One another” relates to the thoughts, and the
two Greek words mean interchangeably, alternately. The idea is that the
thoughts and reasonings of the individual sometimes accuse and sometimes
apologise for him.
The connection of the 16th verse has been the subject of considerable
discussion. Bengel connects it with the word show in the beginning of
ver. 15, which, although in the present tense, he regards as having a future
meaning. Thus he elicits this sense: ‘ character will then be manifested.’
Still the remainder of that verse will mark the condition of such Gentile
mind in the present state of being. His meaning may be thus expressed ;
‘And they will show that God’s law is really written on their hearts,
(their conscience, &¢.) in the day’ &c, Olshausen favours this arrange-
ment. Such may be the construction, but all the clauses of the 15th verse
appear to be so closely connected as to make any separation of one from
another quite improbable; and moreover, it would seem that the verb
should certainly have been in the future. The construction most usually
adopted places vs. 13, 14, 15, in a parenthesis, connecting vs. 16 and 12.
Professor Stuart rather prefers making the 12th also parenthetical. Tholuck
objects to so long a parenthesis. But this is not unnatural in such a
writer as St. Paul. It were idle to swell this note with illustrations taken
from Hebrew and other ancient writers; but I think we need search no
88 COMMENTARY ON THE {Sxer. III.
16 other;) in the day when God shall d7o0Aoyoupévwr), év auépa dre 16
judge the secrets of men, by Jesus xpivel 6 Bede Ta KOUTTa TOV
17 Christ, according to my gospel. Be- dvdpairwv kata 70 ebayyédbv
hold, thou art called a Jew, and pov dtd "Inood Xpiorov. Wi dé 17
restest in the law, and makest thy od "lovdaio¢ érovoudgy Kai érra-
farther for parentheses in the Bible, though they may not be marked either
in printed editions or in manuscripts, than the Book of Deuteronomy and
Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple; and in the classics, than
the Odes of Horace, and the A&neid of Virgil. A diction springing from a
glowing imagination is very likely to abound with parentheses. A writer
of such a temperament, striking on a certain thought allied to another just
expressed, would naturally dwell on it for a time; and, under the influence
of such feeling, might indeed be drawn off entirely from his main topic,
provided his temperament should get the better of his reason and judgment.
But this is never the case with St. Paul, whose logical faculty and ardent
feeling are always in happy harmony, the thoughtful element in his
character counterbalancing the sensitive. If, on any occasion, he diverges
from the most direct course, it is only, like some experienced and judicious
fellow-traveller, to show you more fully the beauty and richness of the
prospect, and to impress you properly with the sublimity of the scene.
He always brings you back again to the original point of view. I can see
no valid objection, therefore, in regarding the 16th verse as connected with
the 12th, although perhaps not to the exclusion of a connection also with
the 15th. A similar construction, most probably, appears in the 5th
chapter, where the latter half of the 18th verse, though closely allied both
in thought and language with the former, seems also to make the conclu-
sion of a sentence, the first part of which consists of ver. 12th.
“My Gospel:” That is, the Gospel which I preach. Thus ‘my trust,’
in 2 Tim. i. 12, means, the Gospel with the preaching of which I have been
intrusted. Our paraphrastic translation, “that which I have committed
unto him,” does not give the right meaning, which would rather be para-
phrastically expressed by, ‘that which has been committed unto me.’
This will be evident to any one who will carefully compare in the Greek
1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 20, and 2 Tim. i. 14. The silly exposition which would
make “My Gospel” equivalent to the Gospel of St. Luke, supposed to be
written under the Apostle’s superintendence, is unworthy of notice.
17-24. “Behold:” Instead of ide many ancient authorities read é dé
but if; and thus the Vulgate, si autem, which is followed by Wiclif and the
Rheims, In this case the first part of the sentence, technically called the
protasis, will extend to the end of the 20th verse, and the 2lst will
begin the latter part or the apodosis. The best critics prefer this reading,
which is supported by most respectable external testimony, as may be
Cu. IT. 16-24.]
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 39
varaty TO vou Kal Kavydoat
18 év Ye@ Kal yevoonere TH VEANWA
kat doKyager¢ Ta SLadéporta,
KaTnyoomevog ék TOD VOmOV,
19 rérowWdc Te ceavTov ddnyov
7 ~ ~ ~ ’ va
eivat TVPAOY, POC TOV EV OKO-
20 tev, madevTijy ddpdvwr, diddo-
Kadov variwv, éyovta Tv pOp-
Pwo TIE yudcEews Kat TIC dAN-
21 Veiac év TO VOW: 6 Odv diddo-
if XN ’ 4
Kkov Erepov oeavtTov ov d.ddo-
Ketc; 6 KNPLOGWY jun) KAETTELY
22 KAémreic; 6 Aéywv jun jroryeverv
ed t oa XN
poryeverc; O& BdeAvoobuEVvog Ta
23 eldwAa lepoovdeic; d¢ év vouw
kavyaoa, dia THe TapaBdoews
TOD Vvouov TOV Yedv aTUwdcetc ;
boast of God, and knowest his 18
will, and approvest the things that
are more excellent, being instructed
out of the law; and art confident 19
that thou thyself art a guide of the
blind, a light of them which are in
darkness, an instructor of the 20
foolish, a teacher of babes, which
hast the form of knowledge and of
the truth in the law. Thou there- 21
fore which teachest another, teach-
est thou not thyself? thou that
preachest a man should not steal,
dost thou steal? thou that sayest 22
a man should not commit adultery,
dost thou commit adultery? thou
that abhorrest idols, dost thou com-
24 Td yap dvoua Tov Yeov dv bude mit sacrilege? thou that makest 23
thy boast of the law, through
seen in Griesbach, and in other critical editions. The general sense in
either case remains the same. In the one the reader’s attention is called to
the fact which in the other is hypothetically stated. ‘Behold, thou are
called a Jew, &c.; art thou therefore practically inconsistent? Or: ‘If
thou art named a Jew and hast so many claims, and advantages, dost thou
then that teachest another not teach also thyself, &¢.2?—Kavydaoat is the
second person present passive, an unusual contracted form of kavydecat put
for the regular kavydy or Kavya. It occurs also in ver. 28, and is similar to
édvvacat in Luke xvi. 25. The best grammarians regard it as a form of the
later common dialect.*—“ Knowest his will:’” The article in the Greek
supplies the place of the pronoun and therefore there is no occasion for the
use of italics. See Middleton on the use of the article, Chap. v. Sect. i. $3,
pp. 69, 70.—* Approvest the things that are more excellent :” The Greek
admits another rendering, thus: ‘distinguishest the things that differ:’ and
the translation of Tyndale agrees with this view: “hast experience of good
and bad, in that thou arte informed by the lawe.” Both have able advo-
cates, who have appealed alike to Phil. i. 10, where the same expression
occurs. Either meaning suits the context here and would well apply to
the character described. But the former is better adapted to the context
in Philippians, as a prayer for the approbation of what is best is more in
character with the Apostle, than one for any degree of mental discrimina-
tion would be. The Vulgate has here probas utiliora, and in the other
place ut probetis potiora— A light of them that are in darkness :”
* See Robinson's translation of Buttman’s Greek Grammar, Sect. 103, iii. 1, note t.
40
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. II.
breaking the law dishonourest thou
24 God? For the name of God is
blasphemed among the Gentiles
25 through you, as it is written. For
circumcision yerily profiteth, if thou
keep the law; but if thou be a
BAaodnueiras év roic &9vect, Ka-
Vag yéypantat. Tleperoua pév 25
yap Oderei, dv viuov mpdaage -
dv d& rapaBdrne vomov qe, 7 Te-
plTous cov dxpoBvaria yéyovev.
"Edy obv 1) dxpoBvoria ta dixat- 26
breaker of the law, thy circumci-
Figurative for ‘a teacher of the ignorant and sinful.’ Comp. John viii. 12,
i. 5. Matt. iv. 16.—“The form:” The Greek word expresses a mere
appearance, a semblance, in opposition to the reality; or, a delineation,
correct impression. In the former sense it occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 5, “a form
of godliness,” in contradistinction to its “ power ;” that is, a show, pretence,
without the reality. But here it describes some supposed advantage and
superiority, and therefore must have the latter meaning.—Ver. 21 et seq.
The interrogative construction is generally preferred in this and the fol-
lowing verses, and the particle “therefore” seems to be in favour of it.
Olshausen prefers the direct address. Passages similar to these in senti-
ment may be found in Jewish writers. Koppe gives a few illustrations.—
“Dost thou commit sacrilege?’ Namely, by robbing God of his just
rights and service. Comp. Mal. i. 7,8, 12-14, iii. 8,9. This is a much
more probable meaning than that of plundering heathen temples, which
has no historical support, and would hardly be introduced in such a con-
nection.—Verse 24, refers to what is stated in several places of the Old
Testament. See, among others, Isa, lii.5, and Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23.
25-29. These verses contain the same general thought as that in 12-16;
and in this respect, may be compared with Heb. x. 26-31 and vi.4—8. “ For”
is probably illative of the general thought before expressed and illustrated,
namely, that the external advantages of the Mosaic law were of little or no
worth, unless accompanied by an internal religious character.—Circum-
cision is put, by a synecdoche, for the whole Jewish system, or denotes a
Jewish condition; and uncircumcision expresses a Gentile state or Gentiles
themselves. An attentive reader will immediately perceive these different
shades of meaning, and be at no loss rightly to attach them to the words.—
The first three verses of this portion are regarded by the writers before
mentioned as expressing merely supposable cases. I must repeat the
remark before made, that on this theory the statements seem to me to be
mere trifling. Nothing appears plainer than the meaning of the 26th
verse: ‘If the Gentiles sincerely obey the law of God so far as it is known
to them, they are just as acceptable to God as if they were Jews.’ And
that a real, sincere, though imperfect, obedience is what is meant, and not
a hypothetical perfect one, “which has never actually existed,” is proved
by the next verse. For preposterous would it be to speak of Gentiles
Cx, II. 25-27.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 41
Gata Tov vouov dvAdooy, ovyt sion is made uncireumcision. There- 26
7) dxpoBvotia avtovd ei¢ TeptTo- fore, if the uncircumcision keep the
27 unv Aoysodjoerat, Kal Kptvet 7) righteousness of the law, shall not
&k pioews dxpoBvotia Tov v6uoyv his uncircumcision be counted for
Tehovoa o& TOV did ypdtysaTo¢ circumcision? And shall not un- 27
kal TEptTouAc TapaBaTHY Vouwov; circumcision which is by nature, if
hypothetically keeping the law, and yet really condemning Jews for their
transgressions. Or is the condemnation hypothetical too? This would
seem necessary in order to preserve consistency, but would involve too
great an absurdity to be maintained. Its meaning is made luminous by
our Lord’s language in Matt. xii. 41, 42, “The men of Nineveh, the queen
of the South, shall condemn this generation.” Here the original for
“condemn” is the same word compounded with a preposition as that here
translated “judge,” and the preposition is often omitted without any
diminution of the proper meaning of the compound word. It follows
therefore that the keeping of the law in verse 25, is not an absolutely per-
fect obedience, but only a sincere one, although imperfect.
In verse 26, the word “ uncircumcision” as first used, is the abstract for
the concrete, and equivalent to ‘the uncircumcised man,’ and the pronoun
“his,” which follows the second instance of the word, has this intended con-
crete for its antecedent. “ The uncircumcision that is by nature :” This may
mean, the Gentile who is naturally uncireumcised. It must be granted that,
in this case the words “by nature” are unnecessary ; still such adjuncts
are not uncommon. Nevertheless there is undoubtedly force in Olshausen’s
remark, that the whole phrase is in evident contrast with the last clause of
the verse, “ by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.” He
connects the words dy or rather, of nature, éx @boewe, with the clause ‘the
uncircumcision that fulfilleth the law.’ The whole idea will therefore be
expressed thus: ‘Gentiles, who of their natural condition, that is, without
any direct revelation, live in accordance with the law of reason and con-
science.’—“ By the letter and circumcision :” Macknight remarks that “the
common translation,” which connects this phrase with the next, “ makes no
sense.” He prefixes the words, “though a Jew,” regarding “letter and cir-
cumcision” as a hendiadys, thus: “ Judge thee, a transgressor of law, though
a Jew by the literal circumcision ;” that is, outwardly. But the meaning
thus obtained is less forcible than one might expect in such a connection
and from such a writer; and it requires the insertion of an expression, the
omission of which is improbable. Acd, with a genitive, by, through, some-
times denotes circumstance, state, and may be expressed by, along with.
Thus in 2 Cor. ii. 4, “ with,dcd@, many tears ;” v. 10, “done in his body,” dcd,
in his bodily condition. Also in Heb. ix. 12, “not with the blood, but
with his own blood,” where did is used twice. Closely allied to this is
42
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Sxor. 111. IV.
it fulfil the law, judge thee, who
by the letter and circumcision dost
28 transgress the law? For he is not
a Jew, which is one outwardly,
neither its that circumcision which
29 is outward in the flesh; but he és
a Jew, which is one inwardly, and
Od ydp 6 év 7H pavepd, "lov- 28
daibc éotw, oddé 1) ev TH ha-
vep@, EV oapki, TepLToUH, GAA’ 6 29
év TO KpuTT@ "lovdaioc, kat Tre-
piroun Kapdiac, év mvebuart, ob
ypdyuare* ov 6 trarvoc ovk &&
dvdporwv, GA’ Ex Tod Yeov,
circumcision ¢s that of the heart, in
the spirit, and not in the letter,
whose praise is not of men, but of
God.
the signification, notwithstanding, which it seems to have in Rom. xiv. 20,
“who eateth with offence,” dvd, notwithstanding such result, Thus we
speak of persisting through difficulty, that is, notwithstanding it; and this last
meaning seems most appropriate here. “The letter” is best explained by
‘the written law.’ It is the law considered as “ written and engraven,” and
the word is thus used in 2 Cor, iii. 6. The sense of the whole phrase may
be expressed thus: ‘notwithstanding the advantages of the written law and
the Mosaic system.’
The general meaning of the three verses appears to be as follows: ‘ Juda-
ism is indeed advantageous, if you live a religious life, in conformity with
its moral precepts and spirit ; otherwise your condition as a Jew is no more
acceptable than that of a Gentile would be. If therefore the Gentile yield
a sincere obedience according to his knowledge and opportunities, surely
his Gentile condition will be regarded as favourably as if he had been a
Jew. Yes, and this Gentile, if, with no other advantages than those of his
natural condition, he lives a sincerely religious life, will rise up in the judg-
ment and condemn you, who, notwithstanding the advantages of scripture
and the Jewish religion, do nevertheless transgress the law of God.’
28, 29. “Spirit and letter” evidently denote what is internal and
what is merely outward, somewhat similar to 2 Cor. iii. 6, where the same
words occur for Law and Gospel: ‘Circumcision does not consist merely
in the outward rite, but chiefly in the inward character.’ The spirit of the
Jewish system promotes internal sanctification, of which the outward cireum.
cision wasasymbol, Comp, Jer. ix. 26. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6. In Rom. ix. 6,
the word Israel is once used to denote those of the lineal descendants of
Jacob who were spiritual in character. Such are the genuine Israelites,
(comp. John i. 47,) as here the true Jew is the inwardly religious man.
The general thought in these verses may be thus expressed : ‘ It isnot a seru-
pulous attention to outward rites, but an inward principle of holiness, which
makes a man acceptable to God.’
Cu. II. 28—IIT. 2.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 43
SECTION IV.
Caap. III.
JEWISH OBJECTIONS MET AND SINFULNESS PROVED. GENERAL CONCLUSION
DRAWN.
Ill. Té obv +6 meptoodv tov Tov- What advantage then hath the III.
daiov ; 7} Tig 7h WpédELa THC TEpt- Jew? or what profit zs there of cir-
2 trounce; IloAd xara mdévta T06- cumcision? Much every way; 2
Tov: me@Tov wéev yao, Ort ért- chiefly, because that unto them
orev0qoav Ta AGyLa TOU Yeov. were committed the oracles of God.
Cuap. iii. There is a very close connection between this chapter and the
preceding. There the Jewsas well as the Gentiles are said to have broken
God’s law, sincere obedience to which is insisted on as a condition of
his favour. In this the charge against the Jews is renewed, and proved by
reference to the Old Testament ; and in this way the author returns to his
main topic, and comes to the conclusion that neither Jew nor Gentile can
expect justification by moral obedience.
Vs. 1, 2. After such a course of remark as pervades the previous chap-
ter, distasteful as it must have been to prejudice, ignorance and vanity, it
is quite natural for the Apostle to introduce a querulous objector starting
the inquiries. Still, the form of the expression may be nothing more than
his interrogative style. Comp. iv. 1, vi. 1-3, 15, 16, viii. 31-35, ix. 19-21,
xi. 1,2,4,11. In either case the general sense will be the same.—‘‘ Every
way :” that is, in reference to religion and morals.—“ Chiefly because
that :” literally, ‘for indeed chiefly because.’ or may well be illative,
as the general thought is, ‘ they have much, for indeed it consists chiefly
in this, that,’ &c—In the following clause the word “ oracles” is accusa-
tive, and the correct translation thus: ‘they were entrusted with.’ Wher-
ever the original word occurs in the sense of committing or entrusting, the
person is in the nominative, except in one case where the verb isin the in-
finitive ; and even here it follows another verb the nominative to which is
personal. See 1 Cor. ix. 17, Gal. ii. 7, 1 Thess, ii. 4, 1 Tim. i. 11, Tit. i. 3.
The term “ oracles” is used in Acts vii. 38, for the divine law as received
by Moses. It may here comprehend the whole revelation as contained in
the Old Testament. The possession of this sacred treasure principally dis-
tinguished the Hebrews from all other people, and gave them spiritual
advantages which could in no other way be secured.
3-8. The question before put is: What is the advantage of Judaism ?
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Secr. IV,
For what ! if some did not believe, Ti ydp; el qrlornody Tevec, i 8
shall their unbelief make the faith 1) dmuoria abt@yv Tijv miotL Tod
of God without effect? God for- WYeot Katapyfaet; M7) yévowro: 4
bid: yea, let God be true, but every
man a liar; as it is written, That
thou mightest be justified in thy
sayings, and mightest overcome
yevéadw dé 6 Bede dAndic, Ta¢
d& dvdpworo¢e webornc, Kadac
yéypanrat: érwc dv dikawdqe
év Tol¢ Adyote Gov Kai viKhonS
to which an answer has just been given. The question results very natu-
rally from the representation before made of the moral condition of the
Jews; consequently it stands in close connection with it. The author says,
“some” Jews. He might have said many, but his delicacy of feeling leads
him to spare his much loved nation. Comp. xi. 14. ‘ What if some, influ-
enced by neglect and irreligion, or devoted to an external system merely,
and regardless of the inward spirit of their law, have been faithless to God,
and have rejected the true Messiah; shall their want of faith destroy God’s
fidelity, that trustworthiness of his in which the fullest confidence should
be placed?’ The word iotu¢, which is generally rendered “ faith,” is often
used to denote confidence, fidelity, trust, as shown by the connection in
which it occurs. The sense of the verse, which is expressed in the Apos-
tle’s interrogative and forcible manner, is simply this; ‘the irreligious un- ~
belief of some Jews cannot, in the least degree, make yoid or diminish the
fidelity of God which gives him a perfect claim to our faith and submis-
sion. —The reader of the Greek will not fail to remark the paronomasia
in the words émortet3noav, ijriotnoay, dmotia, and ziortv. This is a
favourite figure with Hebrew writers.—“ God forbid :” literally, ‘let it not
be.’ The phrase is expressive of aversion, and is used in the Septuagint
for the Hebrew word which is rendered in our English translation as
above. Comp. in the Hebrew, Septuagint and English, Gen. xliv. 7, 17.—
The following words may be construed thus: ‘ but let it be, God is true and
every man a liar.’ In this case, however, the Greek would most probably
be, 7) yévoiro: yévoiro dé, &c. The usual construction can hardly be im-
proved. The verb is declarative, ‘let God appear to be,’ as in 2 Cor. iv. 7,
“the excellency of the power may be of God,” that is, ‘may evidently ap-
pear to be divine.’ The sentiment of the verse is plain: ‘the fidelity of
God must be maintained, whatever may be the consequence as respects
every individual of mankind.’ His truth is essential, and of course can
never waver; but man, weak, sinful, unstable, is always prone to error
and falsity. The quotation is from Ps. li. (Sept. 1.) 6, and corresponds
with the words of the Septuagint. Kpiveodat may be either middle or pas-
sive. If the former, the translation will be, ‘when thou judgest ;’ and if the
latter, as in our English Bible, “ when thou art judged,” that is, when weak and
arrogant man assumes to question the correctness of thy procedure. The
Cu. III. 8-7.]
5
év T@ Kpiveodat oe. El 0& 7
adicia joy Yeow dixaoobvyny
ovviornat, Ti spodvpev ; [17 ddLKOG
6 Sede 6 émipépwv THY doyhr ;
M?)
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
when thou art judged. But if our
unrighteousness commend the right-
eousness of God, what shall we say?
Is God unrighteous, who taketh
vengeance ? (I speak as a man:)
6 (Kata dvdpwrov Aéyw")
yévoito* érel THC KpivEet 6 YEdc
7 tOv Kdowov; Ei yde 7 dAjdea
God forbid; for then how shall 6
God judge the world? Forif the 7
latter exposition agrees very well with the connection here, but would not
suit that in the Psalm, the literal translation of which is, ‘that thou mayest
be justified in thy speaking, (and) be pure in thy judging ;’ and the paral-
lelism requires the latter phrase to be equivalent to, ‘thy passing sentence.’
In ver. 5, the same objection is again resumed, although in a different
form. The Apostle may intend to speak of man’s wickedness in general
as being made to establish and recommend to a thoughtful creature the
divine excellence. But, inasmuch as the language is put into the mouth of
a querulous Jew, it may have arisen from statements of the Apostle him-
self, since he has asserted what such a one might represent as the ground
of his fallacy. I allude to what the author elsewhere says, namely, that
the rejection of the Gospel by the mass of the Jews became, in the provi-
dence of God, the occasion of offering it to the Gentiles. See ix. 23, and
note there. The objector seems to have in view a charge of iniquity
brought against the Jews on account of their unbelief. “God’s righteous-
ness” is to be understood as before in i 17. Professor Stuart indeed
objects to this, that as “the Apostle (or the objector) is speaking of that
attribute of God which is concerned with the judging and punishing of
offenders, the retributive justice of God rust be understood by” the
phrase. But this does not follow, since God’s character as righteous judge
would be equally impugned, whether the words express his attribute of
justice or his plan of justification. Opposition to the one or rejection
of the other must alike be followed by divine punishment. Still it is
not improbable that both meanings may be merged into one, and the
phrase express God’s righteousness as shown in his offering justification and
salvation, through the Gospel scheme, alike to Jew and Gentile. There
appears to be a sudden suppression of the sense, an aposiopesis, as the
rhetoricians call the figure. The objection is commenced and suddenly in-
terrupted by the Apostle thus: ‘If our irreligion and iniquity tend, as
you say, to recommend and establish God’s method of justifying men
through the Gospel—well, in this case, what shall we say? what is the
right conclusion? that God cannot justly punish you for this faithless-
ness ’—“Taketh vengeance ;” literally, bringeth wrath upon, equiva-
lent to, inflicteth punishment. Comp. i. 18. He expresses his abhorrence
of such a conclusion, since God is the righteous judge of the world-—“I
COMMENTARY ON THE
truth of God hath more abounded
through my lie unto his glory, why
yet am I also judged as a sinner?
And not rather, as we be slander-
ously reported, and as some affirm
that we say, Let us do evil, that
good may come ? whose damnation
Tov Yeod év TO euO Webopare
érrepiocevoev ele tijv dbzav ad-
Tov, Ti tte KdyO Oc duapTwro¢
Kpivowar; Kai jh, KaIOG BAaG-
dnuobpeda Kai KavGC hast TLvEC
jude Aéyerv Ste Tovjowpev Ta
Kakd, iva tA9g Ta dyadd; wv
[Seer. IV.
speak as a man:;” that is, as men are accustomed to speak. This phrase is
generally employed to mark what is weak, frail, erroneous, sinful, though
occasionally it means, in accordance with sound reason, as a rational being.
It is used in connection with conduct or character. Thus in 1 Cor. iii. 3.
* Walk according to man,” (marginal reading, and Greek,) that is, as weak
and sinful men feel and act; Gal. i. 11, “the Gospel is not after (according
to,) man,” in character with human weakness and imperfection; 1 Pet. iy. 6,
“according to men,” that is, most probably, according to their erroneous
and sinful prejudices. It is also associated with some remark or argument.
Thus in 1 Cor. ix. 8, “Say I these things asa man?” Are they my own
weak and fallible statements, drawn solely from human observation and
experience, and therefore but inadequately supported? And in Gal. iii. 15,
“JT speak after the manner of men: Here the Apostle does not mean, as
some have imagined, ‘I argue with you weakly and in a way adapted to
your imperfect understanding ;’ but, ‘I appeal to you as one reasonable
man may properly appeal to another.’
The careful reader will have observed that the inspired author has not
yet fully met the infidel Jewish objector. He has merely stopped his
mouth, by asserting the unwavering truthfulness and fidelity of God in
opposition to all human falsehood and faithlessness. He has merely said
that the great judge of the world cannot possibly do anything but what is
right. All this the Jew might grant, and yet renew his objection. And
this he is made to do in the next verse. “The truth of God” is evidently
identical with his faithfulness and righteousness before spoken of; and
“my lie” is but a stronger mode of expressing Jewish impiety and wicked
infidelity. The objection therefore does but repeat what had been before
said: ‘If the perfect and true character of God become the better known
by means of what you are pleased to represent as my false and wicked
behaviour, why should I, who have become the occasion of advancing God’s
glory, be considered and punished as a sinner, since it is admitted that
through me God’s honour is augmented? The complete answer immedi-
ately follows. The principle on which the objection rests is that detesta-
ble one which justly condemns its advocates, that the end sanctifies the
means: ‘We may do what is wrong in order to advance what is right.’
The Apostle speaks of this principle as one which was calumniously charged
~
Cu, III. 8-11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 47
TO Kpina évdindv éott. Ti ovv; is just. What then? are we better * 9
9 mpoeyoueda ; od TaVTWCO* TpOY- than they? No, in no wise: for
TLagdpeda ya, lovdaiovg te kat we have before proved both Jews
“EAAnvacg ravtac vd’ awaptiay and Gentiles, that they are all under
10 elvat, Kadac yéypantac: drt sin; as it is written, There is 10
ov« tare dixatoc ovdé sig: ovK none righteous, no, not one; there 11
11 gorwy 6 ovvimy, ove tor 6 is none that understandeth, there is
by some false witnesses against Christians. Various ways of analysing
the Greek text have been proposed by the commentators. Some have
suggested to supply té before and AéSwpev after v7, which gives this sense:
‘and why may we not say, as we are slanderously reported to assert;’ or,
supplying té before jj, and reading in connection with 67 rovjowper, the
intermediate words being in a parenthesis, thus: ‘and why may we not do
evil to promote good.’ The simplest construction seems to be as follows.
After jw understand éori and read the clause interrogatively, thus:
‘And is it that, &c.? does it involve this conclusion?’ Or, supply the
imperative oTw, and make the sentence affirmative and imprecative, thus:
‘And let it not be, (as we are calumniously charged to affirm,) that we
may do’ &c. The reader may find a similar method of bringing out a full
reply to an objection in ix. 20-23.
9-18. IpoeyéueSa. If this be passive the natural translation would
be, ‘are we excelled?’ which would not suit the context. In the middle
voice the verb means to hold before one’s self. It may also be used in
the sense of, to offer a pretext. In this case, if it be connected with the
preceding words thus, ‘what pretext then do we offer? the following
would be a very unsuitable reply, for which we should rather expect the
words, ‘none at all.’ Ifit be disconnected with what precedes, the trans-
lation will be, ‘what then? do we allege any pretext? According to
either this or the former construction, it will not be easy to determine
what the pretext referred to is. Probably, therefore, it is best to give the
middle verb an active meaning, thus: ‘ What then? have we superiority ?
are we in a better condition” Thus Theodoret, although he connects all
the words so as to form one clause, “ what advantage then do we pos-
sess?’* It is remarkable, however, that he has nothing corresponding
with, “in no wise.” Perhaps he felt that this reply would not suit the
connection which he had adopted. But if we retain that which is generally
received, the meaning which he gives to the verb is most appropriate.
The Apostle has returned to the subject of justification, and his question is
equivalent to this: ‘What then? have we Jews any advantage over the
Gentiles in pleading exemption from sin, and consequently in expecting to
obtain justification by obedience
* On the Romans in loc., Opera, Paris. 1643, tom. iii. p. 30.
48
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Szer. IV.
12 none that seeketh after God. They
are all gone out of the way, they
are together become unprofitable ;
there is none that doeth good, no,
13 not one. Their throat 7s an open
sepulchre ; with their tongues they
have used deceit; the poison of
éx{nt@v tov Yebv: mdvtec 12
éséxdwvay, dua 1xpevwdnoay *
ovk tore Tov ypnotoTyTa, ovK
torw twe évic. Tapog dvewy- 13
pévog 6 Adpvyg avtov: Tai¢
yAdooatc abtdv edodArovaav « log
doridwyv ind Ta YEeiAn adT@v*
“Proved:” The marginal translation, “ charged,” is preferable. This
is certainly the usual meaning of the Greek. Even if the other is admis-
sible, it does not agree so well with the fact. The sinful condition of the
Gentiles has indeed been fully exhibited in the first chapter, and as the
author’s statements can be substantiated by abundant testimony, they may
be regarded as proved. But he has not yet presented the same evidence
of the delinquency of the Jews. He has accused them of practising the
same vices for which they condemned the Gentiles, and the accusation was
susceptible of undoubted proof; but he has not yet drawn out the evidence
of their criminality. This he now proceeds to do. Thus he either sustains
the charge before made, or, according to the other view of the word, con-
firms the evidence of guilt before implied, and it may be said, in a degree
proved.—* Under sin :” that is, subjected to its domination, sin being pro-
bably personified, and regarded as an imperious despot. Comp. vii. 14.
The Apostle now proceeds to prove Jewish sinfulness by referring to
statements made respecting the people in their own scriptures. The 10th
verse in substance, and the following verses to the 19th even in language,
are found in the Alexandrine copy of the Septuagint of Psalm 13, with this
exception that i776 in verse 13 is added, and that St. Paul has put the sen-
timent of verse 11 in the form of an express negation, which in the Psalm
is only plainly implied, the second verse of which contains precisely the
same sentiment. It is possible that the words “there is none righteous, no,
not one,” may be the Apostle’s own remark drawn from the passages
immediately afterwards cited. On the third verse of the Psalm Jerome
observes as follows: “ From this verse on to that where it is said, there is
no fear of God before their eyes, the Hebrew contains nothing to corre-
spond. It is inquired, therefore, how the Apostle uses this testimony in his
Epistle to the Romans. I reply that the testimony which he adduces con-
sists of passages interwoven together from Deuteronomy, the Psalter, and
other places of Scripture.”* He then proceeds to comment on the Psalm
as it isin the Greek. Breitinger, in his edition of the Septuagint, after
giving the passages at the bottom of the page, adds, “ the scholiast remarks
that all these are wanting in the Hebrew.” The probability is that they
were appended to the Alexandrine copies of the Septuagint, in order to
make them coincide with the Epistle, not that they have been lost from
* Opera, Edit. Mart. Paris. 1699, Tom. ii. Appendix, Col. 146.
Cu. III. 12-18. ]
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
49
14 bv 76 oTéua dpaic Kal TKpiac
15 yéuet. Odei¢ of réde¢ adTov
16 éxyéat aiwa* ovtpyuya Kat Ta-
Aaitwpia &v tai¢ ddoi¢g avTov:
17 kat dddv elphvac ovK &yvwoar:
18 ov« gate POBo¢o Yeov admévartt
asps ts under their lips: whose 14
mouth is full of cursing and bitter-
Their feet are swift to shed 15
blood ; destruction and misery are 16
in their ways; and the way of 17
peace have they not known. There 18
ness.
the Hebrew. They are taken from various places of the Old Testament ;
verse 10 is from Ps, xiv. (Sept. xiii.) 1 in the general thought; 11 from 2;
12 from 3; 15 from vy. 9, and exl.3; 14 from x.7; 15-17 from Isa. lix.7, 8,
and Prov. i. 16; 18 from Ps. xxxvi.1. See Erasmus in loc., and compare
the note on verse 3 of the Psalm in Bible de Vence,* Tom. vii. p. 390.
This view suits the Apostle’s argument better than that which supposes
that they were all taken from one Psalm. For, by proving that sinfulness
has in various ages been affirmed of the people or of great masses of them
by their own prophets, he shows that it need not surprise them, if the
charge is now renewed. It is too evident to require proof, that the specific
charges here made are not intended of every individual. This is plain
from the context of the original passages, and also from the fact that there
are many to whom they would not apply. See particularly Ps. xiv. 4,
where God’s people are mentioned in contradistinction to those who in the
former verses are spoken of as fools, corrupt, without understanding, having
become filthy, ignorant and careless workers of iniquity. Immediately
afterwards, too, these people of God are called the generation of the
righteous and the poor whose refuge is the Lord. “ Who will venture,”
says Morus,t in reference to such passages from the Psalms, “to under-
stand them as of universal application?’ The Apostle’s description, like
that which he gives of the Gentiles in the first chapter, is evidently
only of general application. It ought, however, to be considered, that
although St. Paul conducts his argument with reference to the people
as a body, which was sufficient for his purpose, yet the inference which
he deduces is certainly true of every individual of mankind, on all
of whom sin may justly be charged, though not all the particular sins
here specified.
The word “understandeth” in ver. 11, is like “knowing” in ii. 4,
where see the note on p. 81.—“ Open sepulchre:” This is a figure for a
source of corruption, venting itself in filthy or injurious language and
calumny.—“ Way of peace :” that is, a religious course of life which brings
along with it peace with God and one’s conscience, and happiness both here
and hereafter.
* This is a valuable Bible in Latin and French, with critical and historical notes, prefaces and
dissertations, drawn from the works of Calmet, De Vence, and other distinguished French critica,
The second edition was published at Paris, 1767-1773 in seventeen 4to volumes.
+ Herm. Sac. tom. i. p. 257.
4
50 COMMENTARY ON THE |Sxcr. IV.
is no fear of God before their eyes. TOV dG9aAuav abtGv. Oidayev 19
19 Now we know, that what things so- 6é, drt doa 6 véjoc Aéyet, ToI¢
ever the law saith, it saith to them = év 7@ vépup Aarei, iva Trav oTOpa
who are under the law; that every payq Kal brédiKo¢ yévyTae TAC
mouth may be stopped, and all the
19. The word “aw” in this verse is first used for the Scriptures of the Old
Testament. Comp. John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25, and 1 Cor, xiv. 21. Immedi-
ately afterwards it means the system of religion, or the dispensation embod-
ied and delineated therein. The transition from the one meaning to the other
is natural, and accords with analogy. The statement in the former half of
the verse is evidently this, that the descriptions contained in the places
quoted are intended of Jews. The quotations were certainly made in order
to describe their general condition at different periods of their history ; and,
as there is no evidence to show that the author intended any farther applica-
tion, we have no right to assume any other. The Apostle’s remark may
seem superfluous, as the citations are so palpably descriptive of the irreligion
and wickedness of Hebrews. But national vanity and conceit would lead
them to appropriate such statements to the despised Gentiles, as unworthy
of the honourable descendants of Abraham. Some illustrations of the per-
version of the plain meaning of Scripture may be seen in Jewish commen-
tary on Isa. lii. 13—liii., of which I will cite one instance. Presuming the
prophet’s representation of vicarious suffering to be unworthy both of
himself and his people, the divine declarations to this effect are most
unwarrantably, and in opposition to the whole context, supposed to be
uttered by ignorant Heathens. Thus David Kimchi on ver. 4: “This is what
the nations will say : truly he hath borne our grief and such like, and is their
own language.” And on ver. 11, he remarks: “Thus far, the words of the
nations; hereafter the words of God.” To the same effect, Jarchi and
Aben Ezra, although they do not express their meaning so definitely.*
“That :” or, so that. The particle introduces an inference from what
has been before stated. If the latter half of this verse is applied exclu-
sively to Jews, the language “every mouth” and “all the world” must
be limited to them. And general expressions of this sort do occur in a
restricted meaning, and this is always indicated by the context or nature
of the case. But, in this instance, there is not sufficient reason for such a
limitation. Although the words are intimately connected with the imme-
diately preceding quotations, from which they ate undoubtedly an infer-
ence; yet, they are probably intended to express also the result of all the
preceding discussion ; namely, that man in general, both Gentiles and Jews,
are proved to be guilty, and can offer no plea to arrest the divine judg-
* See my Jewish Rabbies, Commentary on Isa, lii. 13—liii: pp. bot., 112, 123, 142.
Cu. IIT. 19-21.]
20 6 Kéapoc TO Se@. AvoTe && Ep-
yov vounov od dtKkatwdjoerat
aoa odpf évartov adtov: did
yao vouov ériyvwotcg dapriac.
21 Novi dé ywpi¢ vouov dtiKxato-
obvn Beod Tepavépwrat, japtv-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 51
world may beeome guilty before
God. Therefore by the deeds of 20
the law there shall no flesh be jus-
tified in his sight: for by the law
ts the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God 21
without the law is manifested, being
ment.—“ Become guilty :” This must be understood declaratively, meaning
‘appear and be acknowledged to be guilty.’ Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 7.
20. “Therefore :” The conclusion is here drawn from the previous course
of argument, and represented as one which is legitimate and incontroverti-
ble: ‘by moral obedience no human being is justified.’ The connection
makes it certain, that moral law is what is meant, not ceremonial, of which
not a word has yet been said. Man is denoted by the term “ flesh,” be-
cause it expresses him as he appears to be, and perhaps intimates also his
frailty. It is here and often elsewhere employed to designate his whole
being.— For by the law is the knowledge of sin:” Koppe, who under-
stands the word law here in the same sense in which it is first used in verse
19, explains this clause thus: ‘We know, on the contrary, that the sacred
books themselves testify that all men are sinners.’ But the word law must
have the same meaning as that in which it was just used, namely the
perfect rule of man’s moral action, by virtue of obedience to which no man
can claim justification in the sight of God. The connection between the
former and latter clauses of this verse is too intimate, to allow us to go
back, for the meaning of the term, to the first clause of verse 19. The
Apostle here states with great brevity what he subsequently develops at
large in the 7th chapter. The law awakens man to a proper knowledge
of moral obligation, and to a suitable consciousness of his sinfulness. This
is its legitimate province; to prepare the mind for a proper reception of
the Gospel, rousing the man to a perception of his sins. It never was
intended to become the ground or instrument of his justification.
21-26. “But now:” This is evidently a designation of time, and not
merely a form of transition. It refers to the accomplishment of God’s
purpose by Christ, and corresponds with “this time” in verse 26, while
it is set in contrast with the period of “the law and the prophets.”—
“ Law” is used here in the samie sense, and “‘ God’s righteousness” also, as
before. “The law and the prophets” is a phrase equivalent ‘to the whole
religious dispensation of the Hebrews as embodied in the Pentateuch and
the prophetical books.’ See Luke xvi. 16, with which comp. Matt. xi. 13. See
also Matt. xxii. 40.—“ Witnessed :” Here, as elsewhere, the word implies
favourable attestation. Comp. Luke iv. 22, Heb. xi. 2, 39.—The meaning
of the whole verse is as follows: ‘ But now, in the Gospel, God’s method
52 COMMENTARY ON THE [Szor. IV.
witnessed by the law and the pro- povpévy b7d TOU vowov Kal TOY
22 phets; even the righteousness of m™podyTa@v, Sikacooivy dé Yeov 22
God, which is by faith of Jesus did miotewe "Inoov Xpiorod, ei¢
Christ, unto all and upon all them 7édvtac Kal émi mdvtag TovS
of justification without regard to law and not dependent on it, is clearly
manifested, and the Mosaic dispensation does itself bear ample testimony
to its truth and importance.’
The nature of this method is now more particularly stated. It is ‘God’s
method of justification by faith in Jesus Christ.’ The word faith is some-
times used fur the Gospel system, this being its distinguishing characteris-
tic, and very frequently for the principle in the mind of the believer. In
the former sense it occurs in Gal. i. 23, iii. 23, 25, 1 Tim. v. 8; and in the
latter too often to need reference. In this, also, it is very commonly used
with the genitive of the object. See, among a multitude of instances,
Mark xi. 22, “faith in God,” Oeod ; Eph, iii. 12, “ through faith in him,”
adrov ; James ii. 1, “ faith of (én) our Lord, tod Kupiov jyev.” Comp. the
use of the word in the same chapter of James, vs. 5, 14 et seq. The idiom
is the same as the Hebrew, and it occurs in Isa. liii. 11, “his knowledge,”
meaning ‘a proper knowledge of him, and frequently in other places.
The former may possibly be its meaning here, and then the idea will be
‘God’s justificdtion by means of the Gospel system.’ But this is very
improbable, as the author immediately speaks of believers, and both before
and after of faith as the principle in the mind and heart of such.
“Unto all and upon all:” The three last words are omitted in several
manuscripts and versions, while in many other authorities they are retained,
As they seem to embarrass the sense, they were probably removed from
the text by some ancient transcribers, who could not satisfactorily explain
them. Thus it is easy to account for the omission, while for the same
reason it would be difficult to explain the introduction of them; and con-
sequently, the probability is in favour of their genuineness. Stuart con-
siders the clause “upon all them that believe, as a kind of parenthesis,
thrown in to guard against the idea that the actual bestowment of justifica-
tion is as universal as the offers of it.” But it is very improbable that the
word believers, so necessarily associated with the leading thought, should be
placed in any but a prominent position; and if this word is not parentheti-
cal the others cannot be. It has been said that the Apostle varies his pre-
positions, without attaching to them a different meaning. This may some-
times be the case. But Gal. i. 1, which has been referred to as proof, is
not at all in point, as there is the strongest probability that each of the
prepositions there used has its own distinet and appropriate signification,
Here unto may refer to the offer of justification to all, and upon to the
actual gift of it to believers; or, as is more probable, the two prepositions
Cn. TIT. 22-24] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. , 53
23 meoretovrac. Ov yde éore dia- that believe: for there is no differ-
OTOAH* TaVTEG yao TuapTov Kat ence; forall have sinned, and come 23
dorepovvTat TIC JdEne TOU Yeod, short of the glory of God; being 24
24 dixacotvuevor Swpedv TH advTov justified freely by his grace,
and adjectives may be qualified by the word believers, and the meaning be,
‘offered and given to all who possess the qualification of faith.’
Now, in accordance with one general thought which pervades the Epistle,
namely, that the blessings of justification by faith are through the Gospel
intended for all, the author remarks, that no difference is made between
Jew and Gentile, for all are in the same condition, that of sinners. He
does not mean that all are equally guilty; it is enough for his purpose that
all must be classed in the same category, that of sinners, and consequently
such as have no natural claim to the divine favour, which they have failed
to deserve and obtain.—* The glory of God :” That is, his approbation, and
the happiness both here and hereafter which shall be bestowed on those who
secure it. This corresponds with the meaning of the word in various
places. See John v. 44, xii. 43; also Rom. vy. 2, viii. 18.—“ Being justi-
fied :” With the Greek participle, we may understand of eiot, who are, and
translate both as a verb, or we may retain the participial construction. In
the latter case, the most natural connection will be with the preceding
verse, ‘all fail, or come short of God’s glory, being justified freely’ &c. In
the former, the connection will be with ver. 22, the intermediate portion be-
ginning with, “ for there is no difference,” being parenthetical, thus : ‘all be-
ievers (who are) justified freely’ &c. This is the more probable arrangement.
\ “ Redemption,” which is sometimes limited in its meaning, is here and
elsewhere employed in its most extensive signification, comprehending
complete ultimate liberation from sin and all its consequences. It occurs
in the following places: Luke xxi. 28, here, Rom. viii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 30,
Eph. i. 7, 14, iv. 30, Col. i. 14, Heb. ix. 15, xi. 35: In the last it is ren-
dered in our translation “ deliverance.” —“ Freely :” Locke has a note on
this verse which ought not to be passed over unnoticed. “ Redemption by
Jesus Christ does not import (that) there was any compensation made to
God by paying what was of equal value, in consideration whereof they
(were) delivered; for that is inconsistent with what St. Paul expressly
says here, viz. that sinners are justified by God gratis and of his free
bounty.” It is true that sinners are so justified by God, but then it is also
true, that this respects the payment of any compensation or equivalent
by them ; and, moreover, whatever God chooses to accept may well be
called an equivalent, and on this ground and also on that of its own suffi
ciency to effect the end in view, Christ’s sacrifice was eminently so, See an
excellent note of Whitby on Heb. x. 14. Mr. Locke proceeds: “ What this
redemption is St. Paul tells us, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14. ‘even the forgiveness
BA COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. IV.
through the redemption that isin ydpite did tig droAvTpHoEwC
25 Christ Jesus: whom God hath set Tij¢ év Xpiote "Inood, dv mpoé- 25
forth to bea propitiation through Vero 6 Yedc iAaoripiov did Ti¢
faith in his blood, to declare his tiotewce év TO adrovd aipart, ei¢
of sins.” That redeeming, in the sacred Scripture language, signifies not
precisely paying an equivalent, is so clear that nothing can be more. I
shall refer my reader to three or four places amongst a great number,
Ex. vi. 6, Deut. vii. 8, xv. 15, and xxiv. 18.” With respect to the passages
in the epistles, it is sufficient to say, that the effect is evidently put for the
cause. As to the texts of the Old Testament, they all relate to the same
fact, the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and prove no more than
this, that the word redeem is sometimes used in the sense of deliver merely,
without any regard to its etymological force. With respect to the conclud-
ing remark in the note under review, “that if we will strictly adhere to the
metaphor, the price paid must be to those from whom we are redeemed,
viz. sin and Satan; (Tit. ii. 14, ‘redeem us from all iniquity ;’) and that the
price could not be paid to God in strictness of justice, unless the same per-
son ought to have the thing redeemed, (Rev. v. 9, ‘hast redeemed to
God,’) and the price paid ;” I consider the following as a sufficient answer.
In Titus iniquity is plainly put for its effects, and these being under God’s con-
trol, coming on the sinner through God’s permission and as a just punish-
ment, and removeable by means which God alone could adopt and carry
out, the redemption-price (to use a figurative term which ought to be em-
ployed with suitable discretion,) may well be said to have been paid to
God; and, inasmuch as God accepted it, may also be well said to have
been satisfactory.* |
“Set forth:” Wiclif has “ordeyned,’ and the marginal reading is
“fore-ordained.” The sense of purposed is given by several commenta-
tors, according to the meaning of the Greek noun in viii, 28, and the verb
in Eph. i. 9. But the connection here, which speaks of God’s declaring,
showing his righteousness, rather favours the idea of publicity, as given in
our translation.—* A propitiation:” The original iAaorjpiov is properly
an adjective agreeing with either éxi9eua or Ydua, cover or sacrifice, under-
stood. In the former construction it is used for the golden cover of the
ark on which the propitiatory blood was sprinkled by the high-priest on
the day of atonement, whence its name, the Hebrew implying the idea of
* Wahl, in his Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica, published at Leipsic, 1822, (from which Dr.
Robinson prepared the first edition of his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, Ando-
ver, 1825,) seems to have bad in view some such objection as that of Locke, when under the word
redemption, dzroAvtTpworc, he speaks of Christ, by laying down his life, paying as it were a ransom,
and adds in brackets, Deo ne an diabolo? characterising the question and not inappropriately by the
term inepte, It certainly is not in character with that wisdom which is often associated with the
name of Locke,
Cn. TIT. 25, 26.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 55
evderéiv tig Stkatoobvng aitov, righteousness for the remission of
dua tiv Tdpeoty THY Tpoyeyo- sins that are past, through the for-
26 voTwY duaptnudT@r év TH dvox7} bearance of God; to declare, Tsay, 26
Tod Veod, Tpog évdersry THC dt- at this time, his righteousness;
covering over and of propitiating both. See Levit. xvi. 18-15, in Heb.
and Sept. In Exod. xxv. 17, évi¥ewa is added to tAaorfpiov. Our Eng-
lish translation uses the term “mercy-seat.” This may be regarded as a
symbol of Christ, and he as our propitiation be denoted by the word. It
has been objected that this exposition involves a confusion of figure, Christ
being spoken of as the propitiatory or mercy-seat itself, and also in other
places as the victim whose blood was sprinkled on it. To this it may be
replied, that as the mercy-seat and the sprinkled blood were both typical
of Christ, he may properly be described by either, as he is elsewhere
represented as both priest and sacrifice. Still, it is well to avoid any such
confusion of figure where it is unnecessary, and therefore 9%ya should be
supplied, as is done by the best critics. The expiatory sacrifice of Christ
will then be what the Apostle intends.
“Through faith in his blood.” The blood of Christ is put for his suffer-
ings and death, as in v. 9, and various other places, all of which become
frigid on any other principle than that of the atonement. It conveys more
than the simple idea of death. It is death undergone as expiation, in
accordance with Heb. ix. 22, “without shedding of blood there is no
remission,” and therefore almost always used to express his death as
atoning. The attempt of Taylor of Norwich to identify the meaning of
“the blood of Christ” with his “ perfect obedience and goodness,” certainly
needs no refutation. The reader may see what this writer says in defence
of his view by consulting his Key to the Apostolic Writings, sections 120,
121, 122, prefixed to his Paraphrase with Notes on the Romans, 4to. Lon-
don, 1745. A construction which would connect this phrase with the word
propitiation is too harsh to be admitted without very strong reasons, which
in the present case do not appear. The atoning death of Christ is the
object of the faith here mentioned. I have before remarked on ver, 22, p.
52, that the object of faith is frequently expressed in the genitive. This
may be denoted as the first form, But others also occur. Secondly, the
simple dative. See Matt. xxi. 25, 32, Rom. iv. 3, x. 16, Gal. iii. 6, 2 Tim.
i. 12, Tit. iii. 8, James ii. 25, 1 John iii. 23,v. 10. Thirdly, the dative, with
év. See Mark i. 15, Gal. iii. 26, Eph. i. 15, 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15.
These agree with the passage before us. I do not refer to 2 Pet. i. 1, as it is
at least exceedingly doubtful whether “ righteousness” is there the object of
faith. Fourthly, the dative with émi. See Luke xxiv. 25, Rom. ix. 33, x. 11,
1 Tim. i. 16, 1 Pet. ii. 6. Fifthly, the accusative simply. See John xi. 26,
tovro and 1 Cor, xiii. 7. Sixthly, the accusative with elc. See Matt.
56 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. IV.
that he might be just, and the jus- Kalooivnc abtov év TO viv Kapa,
tifier of him which believeth in ele 70 elvae adtov dixatov Kai
27 Jesus. Where is boasting then? dtxacodvta Tov éx Tiotewe "In-
xviii. 6, Mark ix. 42, John vi. 29, 35, 40, 47, Acts xx. 21, xxiv. 24, xxvi.
18, Gal. ii. 16, Col. ii. 5. Seventhly, the accusative with émZ. See Acts
xvi. 31, Rom. iv.5. And lastly, 76¢ with an accusative. See 1 Thess. i. 8.
These are all the forms that appear in the New Testament. Kuinoel con-
siders ded in Acts iii. 16 as connected with avrod him as the object of faith.
But this is a mistake. Avdé means by and indicates Jesus as the author of
the lame man’s faith. Its object is implied merely, not expressed.
“To declare his righteousness:” literally, for the showing of it. Com-
mentators differ respecting the meaning of righteousness in this verse. As
the Greek word is sometimes used in the Septuagint for kindness, as in
Gen. xx. 13, some have given it that signification here, ‘for the manifesta-
tion of his benignity.’ And it has even been affirmed that, while strict
justice and even severity is the prominent thought intended in ver. 25,
kindness and favour are designated in the next. See Olshausen in loc.
But this is an arbitrary distinction, and ought not to be assumed of the
same term in so close a connection and introduced in so similar a way.
In the New Testament the word is never used merely in this sense. The
idea of kindness is sometimes implied, but some other properties necessary
to constitute a sincerely religious character are always comprehended.
And as the adjective “just” in ver. 26 has an evident reference to it, and is
also as evidently antithetic to “justify,” the same general meaning must
be conveyed by the noun, This may be identical with that in i. 17, iii. 21,
God's method of justification. This method is manifested by the propiti-
atory sacrifice of Christ through which sins are pardoned. But the most
probable meaning is God’s justice, which is so strikingly displayed to the
world in the atoning sufferings and death of Christ in honour of the divine
law violated by human transgression. His sense of justice in respect to
that law is shown, in his requiring satisfaction in order that he might remit
punishment. Thus he is able to be just, and yet to justify, that is, to par-
don and acquit the believer. “That he may be,” may mean, ‘that he
may continue to be;’ or, probably, it is another instance of the declarative
sense. Compare the conclusion of the note on ver. 19.—“ For,” or ‘on
account of,’ “the remission of sins that are past.” The marginal reading,
“passing over,’ is more literal, but it implies what the other directly
affirms. ‘Past sins” are, no doubt, those of former times, whether com-
mitted by Jews or Gentiles. Comp. Acts xvii. 30 and particularly Heb,
ix. 15. “ For the remission” &¢, may be connected with the clatse “ faith in
his blood,” the intermediate phrase being thrown in parenthetically. Then
the idea will be, that God hath set forth Christ as a propitiation, by faith
Cn. III. 27-29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 57
27 cod. lod ody 7 Kabynowg ; It is excluded. By what law? of
éLexAeiadn* dia roiov vouov; works? Nay; but bythe law of faith.
tov épywv; ovyi, adAAd dtd Therefore we conclude that a man 28
28 vouov tiotewe* AoyGoue9a ydp, is justified by faith without the
dixatovodat tiotet dv3pwrov deeds of the law. Js he the God 29
29 ywpic Epywv vouov. “H ’Iov- of the Jews only? is he not also
in whose atoning sacrifice past sins, through the divine forbearance have
been passed over, and consequently remitted. The idea in the parenthesis,
being prominent in the author’s mind, is therefore immediately expressed,
and afterwards repeated as the engrossing thought, God’s justice having
now, through the Gospel plan, been conspicuously displayed, while at the
same time he can, consistently with his moral character, justify the
offender who believes.
Tov &x tiotewe is equivalent to Tov moTeborTa, the believer. It is like
ot é& épudeiac ii. 8, the contentious, of éx vouov, iv. 14, they that are of
(meaning depend on) the law.—IIpd¢ #vdevécy in ver. 26 is evidently a re-
sumption of ei¢ évderécy in the preceding one, and both are properly
rendered in our English translation by the same phrase. In the former
verse God’s righteousness is said to be manifested in reference to the for
giveness of past sins through Christ’s atonement; in the latter, by showing
that now in the Gospel dispensation, he can be just and yet justify the be-
liever. But the two prepositions may well be regarded as exactly synony-
mous, and the Apostle may vary his expressions without intending any
change of meaning. We have an instance of this in the case of éx and dé
in ver. 30. .
27-30. St. Paul, having shown that justification, or a state of acceptable-
ness with God, is naturally unattainable by either Gentile or Jew, because
of the sinfulness of both, and therefore, if attainable at all, can be so only
through God’s unmerited kindness, here declares what is now self-evident,
namely, that human boasting or glorying is shown by the Gospel scheme
of salvation to be wholly out of place. The word is probably chosen in al-
lusion to the vain boastings of Jews in their superior advantages. See ii.
17, iv. 2; and compare v. 2, 8, 11, which appear to be in designed contrast
to such objects of boast or rejoicing —“ Law” is equivalent to a system of
doctrine. Compare Isa. ii. 8, “ out of Zion shall go forth the law.” In
analogy with this meaning, “judgment ” is used in Isa. xlii, 1,8, quoted in
Matthew xii. 18, 20, for the religious system of the Gospel. It is this which,
by setting aside man’s justification on the ground of moral obedience and pla-
cing it solely on the ground of faith in Christ, removes all possible occasion
of self-confidence.—In ver. 28 several authorities read obv, and others prob-
ably of more weight yao. If the former reading be adopted, the meaning
will be, ‘ we conclude therefore ;’ if the latter, ‘for we argue,’ or ‘ are per-
58
COMMENTARY ON THE
[Secr. IV. V.
of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gen-
30 tiles also: seeing it is one God,
which shall justify the circum-
cision by faith, and uncircumei-
31 sion through faith. Do we then
make void the law through faith ?
God forbid: yea, we establish” the
law.
daiwy 6 8edc povoy; obdyi Kal
é0vdv ; val kal 29vdv. *Exei- 30
mep tic 6 Bebe, b¢ SiKatHoet Te-
pirouay &x miotews Kal dKxpoBv-
oriav did Tij¢ Tiatewe. Nopov 31
ovv Katapyoupev did Tig Tio-
TEWC ; 2) yévoitto* GAAd vowov
iordvopev.
suaded, think,’ expressive of the result of reasoning. The latter is prefera-
ble.—In ver. 30, “ circumcision” and “ uncircumcision” are abstracts for
concretes, meaning Jews and Gentiles, as in ii. 26, and iv. 12. The prep-
ositions é« and dé seem to be employed in the same sense and for the sake
of variety. They are both used in reference to the same topic, justification.
See v. 1, Gal. iii. 24, and ii. 16. In the latter text both occur. As the
first preposition is used in connection with the Jews, the phrase é« tiotewe
may stand in contradistinction to é« tepitopij¢e or éx vouov. See iv. 12,
14, and especially 16. The article connected with the latter tiotewe indi-
cates that the faith which justifies the Gentiles is the same as that which
justifies the Jews.
31. “Law” may here mean the Scriptures of the Old Testament, as
the word is used in ver. 19. Then the sense will be this: ‘Does this doc-
trine of justification by faith oppose the representations of the Scriptures ?
On the contrary, it isin unison with and supported by them.’ And thus we
shall have a very suitable introduction to the discussion in the next chap-
ter, which shows that this doctrine was taught by David and exemplified in
the person and history of Abraham, Stuart thinks “this exegesis quite
plain.” Still the Apostle may employ the term in the sense of the moral
law, and affirm that his doctrine of justification, so far from subverting, does
in reality sustain it. It does so, by showing its spirituality, and the neces-
sity of vindicating its character in demanding a reparation of its violated
honour ; by making a knowledge of it requisite to convince a man of his
sinfulness, and to bring him to receive the Gospel scheme by a living
faith ; and as this very faith recognises the moral excellencies of the law,
it constantly regards it as the rule of life, and consequently establishes its
obligation. These thoughts the Apostle afterwards more fully develops.
See v. 20, vii. 7 et seq., Gal. iii. 24. Whether the author’s doctrine can
properly be said to establish God’s law or not, depends upon the sense in
which its establishment is to be understood.
Cu. III. 30-IV. 2.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 59
SECTION V.
Cuar. IV.
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVED AND APPLIED BY THE INSTANCE OF ABRAHAM,
IV. Ti ovv épotpev; “ABpadu tov What shall we say then? that IV.
Tatépa mua evpnxévat kata Abraham our father, as pertaining
2 odpxa; Ei yae’ABpadu é épywv to the flesh, hath found? Forif 2
Cuap. iv. 1. This verse is susceptible of different shades of meaning,
according to the punctuation adopted. It may be read continuously, as in
our authorised version, which follows Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva and
Rheims translations. Or the first two words may be separated from the
remainder, thus: ‘What then? shall we say’ &c. And, with both these
punctuations, 7é may be rendered either what or how, But it is more in
accordance with the style of the Epistle to put the interrogation point after
Epovjev, thus: ‘ What shall we say then? See iii. 5, vi. 1, vii. 7, viii. 31,
ix. 14,30. And Wiclif seems to have intended this division, if I may
judge from Bagster’s reprint in his English Hexapla: “ What thanne schuln
we seie: that abraham oure fadir aftir the fleisch foonde:” Grotius and
Le Clere adopt this punctuation. And it appears quite natural and proba-
ble, particularly as the Rabbinical formula, =7a775 N5"s “ya, what is here to
say, (or to be said,) accords exactly with the Apostle’s words. See Suren-
husius, or Buxtorf’s Hebrew Abbreviations under &1a, p. 126, Basil. 16380,
and Lexicon Chal. Talmud. et Rabbin., Basil. 1630, col. 81, top.—It having
been proved that the Jew cannot claim justification on the ground of moral
obedience, the Apostle very naturally inquires, what then is to be said or
done? Is connection with Abraham to be claimed and appealed to? Did
he find acceptance with God kata odoexa, according to the flesh ?
The connection and meaning of these last words have also been the sub-
ject of no little discussion. They are often associated with Abraham, thus:
“our father according to the flesh,” that is, in the course of nature. But
their position in the sentence will not allow this, and some old transcribers
of manuscripts, feeling this difficulty, have unwarrantably altered the
arrangement of the Greek. In addition to this objection, it may also be
urged, that, on this exposition, the words are unnecessary, and add nothing
to the sense; and, moreover, that, although they are often used of lineal
descent, they never occur in reference to ancestry. It is not to be supposed
that the Apostle would have used them merely to round off a sentence.
60 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. V.
Abraham were justified by works, ¢@dcxaridn, byer Kabynua, a22’
he hath whereof to glory; but not od mpd¢ Tov Yedv. Ti ydp H 3
They, most probably, designate something external, some supposed out-
ward advantage, especially such a one as circumcision was thought to be.
In this sense, the word “flesh” is not unfrequently used, as in Phil. iii. 4,
where “confidence in the flesh” is illustrated by various external particu-
lars of superiority which the author might claim over those possessed by
many others, The prominent thought here is certainly that of Abraham’s
covenant relation to God sealed by the rite of circumcision. It may be
allowed that, “in the immediate context, the Apostle is showing, not the
inefficacy of circumcision to secure the patriarch’s acceptance with God,
but the inefficacy of his works in general.”* This is undoubtedly true;
and the quotation from the Psalm immediately afterwards made shows
that it is the moral law which he there refers to, the breach of which re-
quired forgiveness. But although this is true of the immediate context,
it is no less true, as appears from the subsequent verses, that the cireum-
cision of Abraham is the point which he has in mind, and which he brings
forward very prominently. I conclude, therefore, that the most probable
meaning of the verse may be expressed as follows: ‘Since all reason-
able expectation of justification by moral obedience is cut off as well
from the Jew.as the Gentile, what shall we say? Shall we appeal to Abra-
ham, our illustrious progenitor, and say that he found acceptance with
God by any thing external, especially his circumcision? Shall we thus
attempt to support a claim to the divine favour ?
2,3. No direct reply to the question is given, but the negative is
plainly implied. ‘Certainly not, for if Abraham were justified by works
he had what he might well boast of or rejoice in.’ For the meaning of
kabvynua see the note on Heb, iii.6. The connection and bearing of the
next words are somewhat uncertain The meaning has been given by
some thus, ‘still his boast or rejoicing would only be before men. With
God he would have no such right, as even then he would have done no
more than his duty.’ But it is not probable that such a case would be
presumed, which in the present fallen state of human nature is not to be
expected. If a fallen man could be supposed to claim acceptance on the
ground of perfect obedience, it might well be a question whether he had
not done more than his duty in his fallen condition, and consequently
whether he had not a legitimate cause of rejoicing and self-gratulation.
But such speculations are useless, and wholly inconsistent with the simpli-
city and practical character of St. Paul’s mode of thinking and writing.
Abraham, of course, had a right to challenge the honour of men; but in
the point of his justification, he, like others, failed in that perfect obedience
* Tholuck, as translated from his early edition,
Cx. IV. 8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 61
ypap Aéyer; eriorevoe OE before God. For what saith the 3
"ABpadu TO VEG, kat EAoyioSn Scripture? Abraham believed God,
which alone could give a claim with God. This meaning coincides with
what immediately follows: ‘the Scripture ascribes his justification to his
faith.” See Gen. xv. 6. “It was counted unto him for righteousness :”
that is, ‘his faith was regarded as available to his justification.” Nothing
but one’s faith is ever said to be thus “counted” or reckoned. or does
not mean znséead of, implying that faith was substituted in the place of
righteousness. It may be explained by as: ‘his faith was regarded as
justifying.” The Hebrew in Genesis has nothing to correspond; it is
simply, “he counted it to him righteousness.” In Ps. evi. 31, we have a
similar expression. There for is the translation of the Hebrew Zamed,
which every tyro in the language knows is an idiomatic form of expression,
and the omission of which would not alter the sense.
In his remarks on the subject of justification, the Apostle uses the follow-
ing language, the meaning of which ought to be very clearly understood.
He speaks of faith being counted or reckoned or imputed for righteousness,
of God’s imputing righteousness, and of righteousness being imputed. See
vs. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24. The word righteousness in this connection
is often explained of Christ’s perfect religiousness, his holy and practical
obedience to the divine law; and this is said to be imputed to the believer,
that is, made over to him and regarded as his, by which imputation he is
considered as having rendered a perfect obedience, although in reality it was
rendered by Christ. Thus he is justified, the works of Christ being accounted
ashis. This is supposed to be what is meant by “God’s imputing right-
eousness—that righteousness might be imputed ;” that is, that Christ’s
moral obedience might be accounted as the obedience of the justified man
in consequence of his faith. A careful examination of all the texts con-
nected with this subject has compelled me to abandon this view, which for
many years in early life I regarded as true and scriptural. There is no
passage in this chapter where the word righteousness, dtkatoobyy, occurs in
this sense. It always means justification, Dr. Robinson says that “ the
righteousness of faith so reckoned to believers, is according to Paul the
ground or occasion of their justification ‘ before God.’” Lex. under duxat-
oovvn, 2, b) B) (2), p. 184. I would rather say, it is their justification
itself. Justification is one prominent topic of the Epistle, and particularly
in this chapter. In the Greek the verb justify and the noun righteousness
are radically the same, and the connection of both would have been better
preserved, if the noun had been translated justification. Then we should
have had in vs. 2, 3, justified and justification ; so also in ver. 5, and justi-
jication in vs. 6, 9, 11 twice, 138 and 22. The word rendered impute
means, to account or reckon to, to place to one’s account, to regard as be-
62 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. V.
oo
and it was counted unto him for a@v7@ el¢ dixacocivnv. Te dé 4
4 righteousness. Now to him that épyagouévm 6 jwadd¢ ob Aoyi-
worketh is the reward not reckoned eTat kata ydpiv, dAdd Kara
5 of grace, but of debt. But tohim dpetAnua: 7@ dé j7) Epyagouévw, 5
that worketh not, but believeth on muorebovte d& éni tov dtKat-
him that justifieth the ungodly, his odvta tov doe3i, AoyiseTat 7}
longing to. A due attention to the meaning of the two words, will, I think,
determine that of every passage in the chapter wherein they occur. Thus,
in vs. 3, 5, 9, 22, 23, 24, ‘his faith was reckoned to him as justification.’
Stuart indeed says on ver, 6, that this “makes no tolerable sense.” But
it makes a very clear and good sense. We may either regard the noun as
the abstract for the concrete, justification for that which justifies ; or as used
for its instrument or condition, according to the terms of the Gospel. Then
the language will be similar to that of 1 John v, 4, “ this is the victory that
overcometh the world, our faith,” which evidently means that faith is the
principle whereby the victory is gained: thus faith would have a similar
relation to justification. In ver. 6, we may read, ‘unto whom God reckon-
eth justification,’ maketh it over to his account; that is, whom he regards
as justified. In ver. 11, “the righteousness of the faith” is equivalent to
‘the justification which is from faith ;’ and, “that righteousness might be
imputed unto them also” conveys this thought, ‘ that justification might be
accounted to them,’ or regarded as theirs. In ver. 13, the promise is said
to be ‘through the justification which is of faith.’ Hence it follows that,
whether faith is said to be reckoned unto a man for justification or justifiea-
tion is said to be reckoned unto him, the idea is the same in each case ; in
the one, his faith is represented as availing to his justification ; in the other,
justification is represented as made over to him on the condition of his faith,
But in no ease is the obedience of another said to become his by imputa-
tion. The reader will do well to examine Whitby’s discourse subjoined
to 1st Corinthians. Commentary, fifth edition, Lond. 1727, fol. vol. JI. pp.
217 et seq.*
4,5, Verse four lays down a general principle, which would apply in this
case were its application possible. In the next,—‘ him that worketh not”
is emphatic. It implies that he doth not work with the view of securing
his justification thereby ; to obtain this he believes. In the language of the
Homily on Salvation, “ faith excludeth good works, so that we may not do
them ¢o this intent, to be made just by doing of them.” So in ver. 14,
“they who are of the law” does not denote Jews merely, but Jews who
depend on the law as the means of attaining the blessing referred to.—The
* I am aware that Mr. Haldane on iii, 21, affirms that “the word translated righteousness does not
signify justification.” But the statements of this dogmatical writer arc not always to be relied on,
or his censures to be regarded.
Cx. IV. 4-7.]
miotic avtov ele dtkacoobyny,
Kaddrep Kat Aavid Aéyet Tov
pakapltouov Tod dvdpdrov, @ 6
Bede Aoyigerat Sikaocbyyny yw-
pig épywv: juaxdpior, ov adé-
Syoav ai dvopiat Kal Ov éreKka-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the
blessedness of the man unto whom
God imputeth righteousness with-
out works, saying, Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven,
phrase “him that justifieth the ungodly” is not merely a periphrasis for
God. It refers to him as the sinner’s justifier, and the faith implied must
act upon him in this character, and thus it becomes available to the be-
liever’s justification. So in ver. 24, “ belief on him that raised up Jesus”
comprehends faith in his resurrection, and consequently in all the important
doctrines connected with it.
6-8. See Ps. xxxii. 1,2. ‘“ Describeth the blessedness :” properly, pro-
nounces or declares to be happy. Compare Gal. iv. 15, ‘the felicitating
of yourselves.’ It implies a condition of happiness. This blessed condi-
tion is that of forgiveness of sins, which are not reckoned to the transgressor.
David is said to describe the happy state of the justified man, and the
quotation makes it consist in his having been pardoned. Hence two con-
clusions are evidently deducible; first, that this state of acceptance with
God, which the Psalmist so highly eulogizes, is not the consequence of a
perfect obedience, for it is the state of a pardoned sinner; and secondly,
that justification and forgiveness of sins mean the same thing. In confir-
mation of the last remark, the reader is referred to the language of St.
Paul in the synagogue of Pisidia. “ ‘Through this man is preached unto you
the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all
things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Acts
xiii. 38, 39. What is the meaning of being justified from things, but ab-
solved from charges? The idea that justification, in the Apostle’s view of
it, is something over and above a state of forgiveness which comprehends,
of course, what upon Gospel principles and promises belongs to such a
state, is unfounded. The pardoned is also a justified man, cleared and
acquitted of all charges which may at any time have been brought against
him.
In order to illustrate the consistency of this view of justification with that
of our own church, I annex the following quotations from the Homily on the
Salvation of Mankind. “Every man of necessity is constrained to seek for
another righteousness of justification to be received at God’s own hands, that
is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath
offended.—They which in act or deed do sin after their baptism, when they
turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from
their sins in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be im-
’ puted to their damnation. This is that justification of righteousness which St.
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Secr. V.
and whosesins are covered; blessed AbpYnoav ai duaptiar- paKkd- 8
is the man to whom the Lord will pto¢ dvie, © od pur) Aoyionrat
not impute sin. Cometh this bless- Képtog duapriav. ‘O pana- 9
edness then upon the circumcision
only, or upon the uncircumcision
also? for we say that faith was
piono¢ obv obtoc éxi tiv TeEpt-
Tounv, 7) Kal éxi tiv dKpoBv-
atiav; Aéyouev yde, bru etho-
Paul speaketh of when he saith, no man is justified by the works of the
law, &c.; and again, we be justified freely, &e.—The sum of all Paul’s dis-
putation is this; that if justice come of works, &c. And, as St. Peter saith,
of Christ all the prophets do witness that through his name all they that
believe in him shall receive the remission of sins. And after this wise to be
justified” &c.—And, after quoting from St. Ambrose the words “ without
works, by faith only, freely we receive remission of our sins,” the Homily
adds: “ These and other like sentences, that we be justified by faith only,
we do read oft times in the best and most antient writers.”—Afterwards
we meet with this language: “In this matter of forgiving of sin—by
Christ we have remission of our sins or justification.” And in the third
part of the sermon we have the following language: ‘ Our own works do
not justify us; to speak properly of our justification ; that is to say, our
works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins, and make us of unjust
just before God; but God of his own mercy through the only merits and
deservings of his son Jesus Christ doth justify us. Nevertheless because
faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by
faith given us of God we embrace the promise of God’s mercy and of the
remission of our sins, therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith with-
out works doth justify.”—It is undeniable that the Homily represents for-
giveness of sins and justification as identical ; and the Homily expresses
the doctrine of the Church of England.
9-12. In this portion of the chapter, the author shows that the happy
state of justification of which the Psalmist speaks, and which Abraham had
secured, is attainable by both Jew and Gentile on the same one condition
of faith. “ Circumcision” and “ uncircumcision” are abstracts for concretes,
meaning, as before iii. 30, Jews and Gentiles.—* For we say :” For is illa-
tive, and the language elliptical. ‘Is this blessed state peculiar to Jews,
or may it be attained also by Gentiles? Then the idea implied is, ‘ by
Gentiles also, as I now proceed to show; for I say,’ &c. This introduces
the argument, and is a formula common with the Rabbies. See Suren-
husius, ubi sup. p.12. -Abraham’s faith was available to his justification
before his circumcision, and he received this rite as a sign and seal, (that
is, as the words mean, an external attestation both to himself and all oth-
ers who should know of its reception,) of his justification by the faith which
he had before his circumcision. For this sense of seal, see 1 Cor. ix. 2,
Cn. IV. 8-11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 65
yiodn TO ’ABpadu 7 Tiott¢ el¢ veckoned to Abraham for 1éghteous- 10
10 dexatooévnv. dc ovv éAoyi- ness. How was it then reckoned ?
adn; &v mepitouy dvtt, 7} év when he was in circumcision, or
axpoBvotia; ovK év TeptTouaA, in uncircumcision ? Not in circum-
11 GAW év dxpoBvotia. Kat on7- cision, but in uncircumcision. And 11
petov EAaBe tTrepitouic, ofpa- he received the sign of circumcision,
yida tig dtKatoobync tij¢ Tio- aseal of the righteousness of the
Tews TIS Ev TH akpoBvoria, ei¢ faith which he had yet being un-
TO elvat adtov ratépa mdvTwY circumcised; that he might be the
TOY mTLoTEvovTwy dv’ daKpoBv- father of all them that believe,
otiac, (ei¢ TO Aoyso87jvat Kat though they be not circumcised ;
and John vi. 27. This is so plainly the Apostle’s meaning, that it would
be superfluous to add one word of exposition. Instead of the genitive “ of
circumcision” in ver. 11, several ancient authorities read the accusative.
But this is doubtless a gloss introduced by some transcriber who did not
understand the idiom. The genitive is exegetical. ‘‘ The sign of circum-
cision” is equivalent to ‘the sign, that is circumcision,’ just as, in 2 Cor. v.
5, “the earnest of the Spirit” probably means, ‘the Spirit who is the ear-
nest.’—“ The righteousness (justification) of the faith which :” The English
and the Greek both are here ambiguous, Which may refer either to jus-
tification or to faith, and in either case the meaning be in accordance with
the context. Professor Stuart thinks “that it should be referred to the
compound idea designated by” both the words. The collocation of the ar-
ticle in the Greek favours the construction, ‘ which faith he had ;’ and its
correctness is sustained by the concluding words of ver. 12, “ that faith
which he had,” —“ That he might be :” The original might be rendered, ‘ so
that he might be.’ But the common translation is preferable, as it gives
a reason for this divine arrangement. Abraham’s faith and consequent
justification preceded his circumcision; and one reason for this was, that
he might be the spiritual parent of all believers, even those who had not
been circumcised. Avd, through, here has the meaning of notwithstand-
ing, as in ii. 27.—In ver. 12, Koppe puts a colon after “ father of circum-
cision.” He considers all the rest of the verse as referring to the Gentiles.
He is induced to adopt this view by ver. 16. But this makes a mere rep-
etition of what had been said in the latter part of the preceding verse, where
the Gentiles are plainly spoken of. It is better to regard this portion as
referring to Jews, and as stating the condition without which not even they
ean claim spiritual connection with Abraham; namely, the imitation of
that faith which governed the life and conduct of the patriarch. Jewish
writers frequently speak of circumcision as a seal and sign, and of Abraham
as the father of the faithful. See Tholuck in loc. The dative tozc imme-
diately following the genitive ep:tou7¢ is an instance of that looseness of
5
66 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. V.
that righteousness might be im- adrole tiv dikacooivny,) Kai 12
12 puted unto them also: and the matépa mepiTopijc, Toig ovK be
father of circumcision, to them who TepiTouij¢ wovov, dAAd Kal Tot¢
are not of the circumcision only, oTotyovou Toic lyveot THg &v
but who also walk in the steps of dxpoBvotia riatewe Tov TaTpd¢
that faith of our father Abraham, 7ju@v ’ABpadu. Ov yap dud 13
which he had, being yet uncircum-
construction which isnot unusual in Hellenistic Greek. Either case would
grammatically connect with mavépa.
13. As the idea conveyed in this connection by the expressions law, cir-
cumcision, according to the flesh or what is merely external, is in general the
same, the Apostle continues his argument in reference to Abraham by the
illative particle “for,” which, in this view, refers to what immediately pre-
eedes. Or it may be logically connected with ver. 10, thus: ‘as the pro-
mise was made to Abraham before he was circumcised, it was not by law,
but by justification through faith.’
The first point of inquiry is the meaning and application of the word
“seed” in this verse. Its usual meaning is progeny, descendants, subject
however to such modifications and restrictions as the context in which it
occurs may require. That here it does not embrace all Abraham’s
descendants is self-evident; and the nature of the discussion shows that it
does not even comprehend all his descendants through Israel. _ It must be
limited to his spiritual progeny, the faithful. But in what sense can it be
said, that to these a promise was made of being heir or lord or possessor
(for this is the import of the Greek,) of the world? Some have attempted
to limit the meaning of the word to the land of Canaan. Thus Schleusner
under kéopuoc, No. 5, and Wahl. 2, b) (8). But it never has this limited
signification, and the texts referred to by these lexicographers as proof are
wholly unsatisfactory.—Others consider the language as expressive merely
of the vast number of Abraham’s offspring.—Others, of the dissemination
and general extension of true religion, all believers being regarded as
Abraham’s children. Macknight to this objects that “the inheritance was
promised to Abraham’s seed” as well as to himself. If then by the world
is meant the whole body of believers, they will be identified with the seed,
which consequently becomes lord of itself. To this it may be replied, that
the prophets often speak of the earlier spiritual descendants of Abraham,
the former Israel, inheriting the Gentiles, that is incorporating them into
Messiah’s kingdom along with themselves. See Isa. liv. 8, and Amos ix.
12, where the words “ inherit” and “ possess,” are translations of the same
Hebrew term. ‘Thus they are represented as taking possession of the con-
verts to Christ, and in proportion as his kingdom extends in the world,
Abraham’s spiritual progeny become lord of it. In this way the vast
Cu. IV. 12, 13.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 67
vojov h erayyeAia TO ’ABpadu ised. For the promise that he 13
TO orrépuate avtov, TO KAnpo- should be the heir of the world,
vouov avrov elvat K6ou0v, GAA was not to Abraham, or to his seed,
through the law, but through the
number of this seed of the patriarch will be a prominent thought of the
Apostle, which in ys. 15-17 he explicitly states—Others again have re-
garded the expression as an amplification of the promises contained in
Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 15, xv. 7, xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18, and xxvi. 4; or rather
a development of their full meaning, as springing from the typical rela-
tion of the possession of the promised land to the enjoyment of the
heavenly inheritance. See Heb. iii. 11, and note, pp. 57, 58. Accord-
ing to this view, it will relate to that universal empire, which was
promised by the prophets to Abraham’s posterity through the Messiah.
Compare the texts just referred to in Isaiah, Amos, and also other simi-
lar places. In whatever light this empire was regarded by the Jews,
it was no doubt spiritual in its nature, and involves the universal ex-
tension of the true church of God in its real moral and spiritual char
acter.
But, in order to form a right judgment of the extent of meaning com
prehended within the promise, it is necessary, as a second principal point
of inquiry to examine carefully the parallel place in Gal. iii. 16, so far as
relates to the same word “seed” as there employed. The Apostle de
clares that it is not used of “many but of one which is Christ.” And yet
most undoubtedly he does not mean to limit its signification to Christ
personally and individually considered, but comprehends under the term
all who are spiritually united to him, and thus constitute his ‘ fulness.”
See Eph. 1.23. This is plain both from the discussion in Galatians, and
from the last verses of the chapter: “Ye are all one (man, eé¢,) in Christ
Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs
according to the promise.” His meaning is evident. The one seed or
progeny of Abraham in contradistinction to the many, is Christ regarded
as the head of his truly faithful members and therefore comprehending
them, in contradistinction to the various races and classes of persons that
sprang from the patriarch as their natural progenitor. This view of the
subject is in harmony with the representation, which pervades the New
Testament, of the intimate union of Christ and his true church. There is
then no occasion to limit the natural comprehensive meaning of the words
“heir (or lord) of the world.” In reference to Christ they imply universal
supremacy ; in reference to Abraham or any individual member of the
mystical body, they must be restricted to such blessings here and hereafter
as belong to the individual by virtue of such connection—When the
Apostle says, that the promise was made through or by or in consequence
14 righteousness of faith. For if they
which are of the law be heirs, faith
is made void, and the promise made
15 of none effect: because the law
worketh wrath; for where no law
16 is, there zs no transgression. There-
68 COMMENTARY ON THE
[Secr. V.
bua Sikatocbyng miotewc. Ei 14
yde of &« vomov KAnpovdmot,
kexévorat 7) ThoTic Kal KaThp-
ynrat i emayyedia’ 6 yap vomog 15
dpyjv Katepydgerar: ob yde
ov« Lote vomoc, obdE TapadBaatc.
of the justification which comes by faith, the language shows that his mind
rests on the blessings intended for Abraham and his spiritual progeny in
general. In reference to Christ it would be inappropriate.—Expressions
like that here used by Paul are employed by Jewish writers respecting
Abraham. See Wetstein, Tholuck, Koppe, in loc.
14, 15. “They that are of the law:” This phrase is interpreted by some
of “those who enjoy the privilege of living under the law.” So Stuart in
loc. But, if this be the meaning, it must be modified by introducing, as
the Professor does, the qualifying terms “only” and “ without walking in
the steps of Abraham as to faith.” It cannot mean simply Jews, all the
pious and believing of whom were undoubtedly heirs. Most probably it
describes those who were connected with and depended on the law; as in
Gal. iii. 7, 9, “ they that are of faith,” is equivalent to true believers, and
in v. 24, ‘they that are of Christ,” to such as are really and spiritually
united to him. Thus the Apostle’s remark is true and important. ‘If they
who look for justification through the law whether ceremonial or moral,
become thereby heirs of the heavenly inheritance, faith is superseded and
useless, and the promise becomes good for nothing.’ This is a necessary
conclusion, for the inheritance was originally “given by promise,” as the
author expressly asserts in Gal. iii, 18. In the next verse he proceeds to
state that this happy result of justification and heirship cannot come
through law, which inflicts punishment on its transgressor. He then adds
as a general principle, that transgression implies law and cannot exist
without it; a principle which the Apostle elsewhere lays down in other
terms, (see. v. 13 and vii. 8,) and which is true in its most unlimited extent,
although he may not always intend an unlimited application.
16, 17. “Therefore:” This may mean, either consequent upon or
consistently with what has been said. The benefit referred to comes by
faith, and thus is according to favour. The Zva is most likely ecbatic and
not telic; in other words, it rather expresses the fact than the direct inten-
tion. With kata ydptv compare ver. 4. Now follows the reason why the
benefit comes by faith, namely, that the promise, meaning the blessing
promised, might be secured to the whole seed, that is, the whole body of
Abraham’s spiritual progeny, the faithful, whether they be Jews or Gen-
tiles. The word only plainly implies, that the portion of “the seed which
is of the law” is regarded by the Apostle as secure of the accomplishment
Cx. IV. 14-17] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 69
16 Arad rovTo &x Tiotewe, iva KaTa fore tt is of faith, that it might be
xapy, ei¢ TO elvat BeBaiav tv dy grace; to the end the promise
énayyediav Tavtt T@ onépuatt, might be sure to all the seed; not
od TO Ek TOV VOWoV pdvoV, dAAG to that only which is of the law,
kat T@ €k Tiotewe ’ABpadu, 6¢ but to that also which is of the
17 gore nario TavTwY jusy,(KaI@¢ faith of Abraham, who is the father
of the promise ; and therefore the phrase “ of the law” cannot have exactly
the same meaning here as in ver. 14, but must denote Jewish believers.
These are a part of the patriarch’s spiritual progeny, and are here placed
in contradistinction to the Gentile believers, expressed by the next clause,
“but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham.” The word also
marks something additional to what had just been said, and therefore the
clause containing it must be understood with such limitation; otherwise it
might be regarded as expressive of Jewish and Gentile believers. All
these are comprehended within the terms of both the clauses, and Abra-
ham is represented as the spiritual father of all the faithful. The meaning
may be expressed thus: ‘To the entire holy progeny, not to that portion
of it only who are Jews, participating in the benefits of the law, but to
those also who, although they have not the law, possess the same principle
of faith which Abraham had.’ As applicable to this last statement, the
Apostle quotes from Gen. xvii.5: “I have made thee a father of many
nations.” It is true that this was a promise of numerous posterity, who
should establish themselves as various nations in the earth. But there is
no reason to limit the promise to this meaning. It does not preclude a
reference to the patriarch’s numerous spiritual progeny, and in this latter
sense does St. Paul apply it. The first part of the 17th verse, including
the quotation, should be placed in a parenthesis, and the words that follow
read in connection with the last clause of the 16th, thus: ‘ Who is the
father of us all before God in whom he believed.” This makes a clear
and intelligible sense: however Abraham may be regarded by the Jews
or by men in general, in the view of God he is the spiritual father of all
believers, Gentiles as well as Jews. “Kartévayte ov ériotevoe Seov, by
attraction for kat. Yeod © ériotevoe.” Robinson under the first word. The
description now given of God as he who quickeneth, &c., may refer to the
extraordinary birth of Isaac in the extreme old age of his parents,
(see ver. 19,) and also to the state in which the Gentiles are said to have
been before their conversion to the Gospel contrasted with their subse-
quent condition. See 1 Pet. ii. 10. But undoubtedly it is also a
description of God’s majesty, drawn from his power as exercised in crea-
tion and resurrection. ‘Qe évta may be equivalent to el¢ 76 elvat, so as
to be, and then the meaning will be, who commands what does not exist to
come into being. But as the language is antithetic, things that are not
70
17 of us all, (as it is written, I have
made thee a father of many nations,)
before him whom he believed, even
God, who quickeneth the dead, and
calleth those things which be not
18 as though they were. Who against
hope believed in hope, that he
might become the father of many
nations, according to that which
was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he
considered not his own body now
dead, when he was about a hun-
dred years old, neither yet the
20 deadness of Sarah’s womb; he
staggered not at the promise of
God through unbelief; but was
strong in faith, giving glory to God,
21 and being fully persuaded that
what he had promised, he was
22 able also to perform. And there-
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. V. VL
yéypanrar* bre matépa TOAAGY
édvov tédenKd oe,) Katévavtt
ov éniatrevoe Yeov, Tow Cworrot-
ovvTog Tove veKpod¢ Kal Ka-
Aovvro¢g Ta pe) bvTa we dvTa.
"Oc map’ eamida em’ éaridt 18
értorevoey, ele TO yevéodat av-
Tov Tatépa TOAAOY ESVOV, KaTa
TO elpnuévov: ottw¢e tora TO
orépa cov: Kal jn) dadevijoac 19
TH Tiore: od Katevonoe TO éav-
TOV Opa 7}6n veveKpwpéevor, éKa-
Tovraétne Tov DTapYwr, Kal TIV
véKpwotv THe uATpac Ladppac, ei¢ 20
d& tiv énayyediav tov VYeovd
od dtexpidn tH admoTia, GAd
évedvvapadn tH Tote, dove
ddfav TH Yeo, Kal tANpomopn- 21
Veic, Ott 6 éxhyyeAtat, dvvatog
éott kal Totjoat. Awd Kai édo- 22
yiodn atta ei¢g Sikaocbyny.
and things that are most probably denote also what is comparatively of
no worth and importance, and what is most valuable and distinguished.
18-21, “ Against hope:” that is, against all human and ordinary pro-
bability, in view of the advanced age of himself and his wife, and their
heretofore childless condition.—‘“So shall thy seed be:” Gen. xv. 5,
This is an imperfect quotation, a method of citing the Old Testament very
usual with Jewish writers. See Surenhusius, p. 49, and Aben Ezra in
Jewish Rabbies, p. 139 with note §. The comparison is with the stars, which,
as well as the sand, were used to express vast multitudes. Ov katevdnoe,
“he considered not:” Two very important manuscripts, the Syriac and
Coptic versions, and some other authorities omit the negative particle.
Olshausen defends the omission, which he says gives to dé in ver. 20 its
proper meaning. In this case, the Apostle’s representation will be that
Abraham with full consideration of the natural difficulties attendant on the
fulfilment of the divine promise, nevertheless did not in the least distrust it.
If the negative be retained, the patriarch will be represented as disregard-
ing all the difficulties though fully seen and appreciated, in consequence of
the living character of his faith Staggered not:” did not hesitate at
or waver respecting.—* Able :” God’s willingness is, of course, implied as
an object of Abraham’s faith.
23-25. That Abraham’s faith became available to his justification was
not recorded in Scripture merely to eulogize the patriarch, but to give us
Cu. IV. 18-V. 2.]
23 Ovn eypddn dé dv adrov pévor,
24 dre éhoyiodn av7T@, GAA Kai JV
Hudc, ol¢ wéAAE Aoyicer9at, ToI¢
matevovow emt TOV éyeipayvTa
"Inoovy Tov Kbplov judy &K ve-
25 Kp@v~ b¢ raped63n dia Ta Tapa-
TTOMaTa uav Kat ayépdH did
TAY OLKALWOLY NOY.
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
71
fore it was imputed to him for
righteousness. Now it was not 23
written for his sake alone, that it
was imputed to him; but for us 24
also, to whom it shall be imputed,
if we believe on him that raised up
Jesus our Lord from the dead; who 25
was delivered for our offences, and
was raised again for our justifica-
tion.
believers in all future ages comfort and encouragement. Thus in Bereshith
Rabba,* it is said: “ What is written for Abraham is written also for his
children.” So also Philo. The faith which is referred to in ver, 24, im-
plies belief in the resurrection of Christ and all the doctrines necessarily
connected with it, his death as an atonement for our sins, and his liberation
from the grave as securing our acceptance with God and its consequent
blessings.
Se ORT ON vr.
Cuap. V. 1-11.
THE HAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF A STATE OF JUSTIFICATION.
V. AtkatwSévtec obv éx TriaTEwe,
eiphvnv éxouev mpdc TOV Sedov
Ota TOU Kuptov Huey "Inoov Xpto-
2 tov, dv’ od Kal TY Tpocaywyny
eoynkapev TH Tote ei¢ TV
ydpiy TabTyny, ev Wy EoThKaper,
Therefore being justified by V.
faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ: by 2
whom also we have access by faith
into this grace wherein we stand,
and rejoice in hope of the glory of
Crap. v. The Apostle has shown that mankind being all sinners, cannot ex-
pect justification by obedience, and must obtain it only through faith, which
secures this blessing to Gentiles as well as to Jews: Chaps. i. ii. iii. He
has proved also that this doctrine was not at all novel, as it is recognised
in the language of David, and also in the history of Abraham, from which
it is evident that his justification was by faith, and previously to his circum-
cision: iv. He now proceeds to trace the effects flowing from justification
by faith.
1-5. “Being justified :” More accurately, ‘ having been justified,’ imply-
* That is, the great Bereshith, an old Rabbinical Commentary on Genesis.
Rod
Fite
COMMENTARY ON THE
God. And not only so, but we
glory in tribulations also: knowing
that tribulation worketh patience ;
and patience, experience ; and ex-
perience, hope; and hope maketh
not ashamed ; because the love of
God is shed abroad in our hearts
by the Holy Ghost, which is given
kal Kavyopeda em’ éAridt Tie
d6En¢g Tod Veov. Ov pévov dé,
GAAG Kai Kavyoueda ev raic
VAineoty, eldérec, btt BATYpue
vromovijy Katepydcera, 1) dé
brromov? doKiyuAy, 7 dé SoKuen
éArida, 1) 0& éAmic od Katatoyi-
vets Ott h dyarn Tov Yeow Exxé-
(Secr. VI.
ing also a continuance in this condition—The words “ by faith,” in ver. 2.
are wanting in some ancient authorities, although the evidence is decidedly
in their favour. They were probably omitted by certain transcribers who
thought them tautological. But the desire of the Apostle to make faith as
prominent as possible, would prompt him to introduce it here.—* This
grace :” In other words, this gracious condition of acceptance.—* Rejoice :”
So the same original word should have been translated in vs. 3, 11, where
our English version has “glory” and “ joy,” according to its frequent usage
of employing a variety of expressions where the original is the same. See
note on Heb. xii. 28, p. 177, 178.
The first part of ver. 2 may be parenthetical. If so, the last, “and re-
joice in hope of the glory of God,” will express the second happy result of
justification. Or, access through Christ by faith may be the second, and
rejoicing the third. Some prefer the former, thinking it to agree better
with the position of the copulative. The noun is used in Heb, iii. 6, where
see the note. As the Jew rejoiced in his connection with Abraham, in his
circumcision and covenant relation to God, the Apostle represents the
Christian as rejoicing in his hope of future glory, and in those means and
instrumentalities which are intended to facilitate his attainment thereof.—
Aoxif in ver. 4, is rendered in our translation, “experience ;” and so
by Tyndale, Cranmer, and Luther, and in the Geneva version. Wiclif has
“provynge” and the Rheims “ probation.” The word means trial, proof,
and here most probably implies the result of trial, a character firm and
consistent, well tried and proved. See Phil. ii. 22.
“Hope maketh not ashamed :” The meaning is, it does not disappoint
those who cherish it, or put them to shame as if they had indulged in a
vain expectation. Comp. ix. 33, x. 11, which are cited from the Septuagint
of Isa. xxviii. 16.—“ The love of God:” That is, according to the general
signification of the phrase, God’s love to us. See on viii. 35. Here it is
used as a metonomy of the cause for the effect, meaning the result of God’s
pe he effusion of the Holy Spirit here spoken of refers chiefly to his
ordinary influences abundantly dispensed to believers, although it may
comprehend also the miraculous powers imparted by him. The language,
“in our hearts,” shows that the Apostle’s mind dwells principally on the
Cu, V. 8-8.} EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 73
xvrae év raic Kapdiarg joy did unto us. For when we were yet 6
mveipatog wyiov tov dodévtog without strength, in due time
6 juiv. “Ete yap Xpiorog dvtwy Christ died for the ungodly. For 7
HOV dodevav kata Kaipov bree scarcely for a righteous man will
7 dosBav anédave. Méduc yde one die; yet peradventure for a
bree dikaiov tig aro8aveitat* good man some would even dare to
bre yao TOV dyadov Tdéya Tic die. But Godcommendeth his love 8
8 Kat ToAUa drodavetv. Svviornot towards us, in that, while we were
O€ TV EavToOv adydrny Eig Tae
6 Yedc, Te ETL duapTwAGY bv-
general distributions of grace. The word éxyéw would be quite suitable in
either case. See Acts ii. 17, 18, 33, x. 45, and Tit. iii. 6.
6. "Ere at the commencement of the verse is no doubt the true reading.
Some ancient authorities have eye, some ei ydo, and some eic ti. The
adoption of any one of these readings may have led to the introduction of
the étv after doSev@v which Griesbach has admitted into the text with the
mark of good authority.* It must be acknowledged that it embarrasses
the meaning, and Knapp, Hahn and Olshausen reject it. Tholuck suggests
various ways of explaining it, all of which are somewhat harsh, and is in
clined to regard it as a gloss. If admitted, it seems best to consider it as
a repetition of the first ét¢ introduced to make the statement of our natural
feeble condition the more emphatic. ‘“ Weak” evidently means, destitute
of spiritual strength.— In due time” qualifies the words that follow. See
Gal. iv. 4, 5, “ when the fulness of the time was come,” &c.
7,8. These verses express the marked difference between the highest
degree of love shown by any man to his fellow, and that of God and Christ
to us. There is some difficulty in determining the right connection of the
two clauses in ver. 7, and also in settling the true meaning of the words
‘ righteous and good. The connection adopted by our translators makes the
latter clause somewhat parenthetical, though it serves to heighten the force
of the former. The sense is clear, but the Greek will hardly bear such a
translation, as the second yd@ cannot be expressed by “ yet.” The difficulty
arising from this particle is probably the cause of its having been in a few
unimportant manuscripts entirely omitted, as it is also in the translations of
Tyndale and Cranmer. Wiclif has:+ “ vnnethis (scarcely) dieth ony man
for the just man, and zit for a good man: perauenture summe man dare
die;” the Geneva has: “ but for a good man,” &c. The Rheims is more
accurate than either, translating ydé@ for in both cases, which is most proba-
bly correct. Each clause is in contradistinction to what follows, and either
* The reader will find an explanation of Griesbach’s most important critical marks in my brief ana-
lysis of his Prolegomena, contained in the Translation of Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philology
end Interpretation, pp. 254-257.
+ 1 quote from Bagster’s English Hexapla,
\ ’ nrg
74
yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justi-
fied by his blood, we shall be saved
10 from wrath through him. For, if
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer, VI. VII.
ei. ~ \ esa (=~
TwY juw@v Xpiotog VTEP TOV
dnédave. IloAA@ obv pardAov 9
Sikarwdévteg viv ev TO alpare
; ~ ¢ , . ~
avtod awinaipeda dt’ avTov
azo tie épyijc. El yde éy8poi 10
dvrec KaTnAAdynuev TH Veg dua
Tov Yavdtrov tov viov avrov,
TOAA®@ paddov KaTaAAayévTEs
when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of
his Son, much more, being re-
conciled, we shall be saved by his
would make a sufficient antithesis independently of the other. Raphel
remarks* that the Greek writers make a distinction between diKato¢g and
dyaéc, understanding by the former an upright man, one who obeys the
laws, gives to every one his due, and does no injury; and by the latter,
one who does not confine his action and deportment within the literal re-
quisition of the law, but with the feeling of habitual benevolence, does all
the good in his power to his fellow creatures. Vorstt considers dikatoc as
equivalent to the Hebrew word Pp 7x generally translated in our English
just or righteous, meaning a religious and good man, and aya¥éc, which
immediately follows,as synonymous and explanatory. But it is not at all
probable, that St. Paul would inadvertently introduce two such clauses
without attaching a definite meaning to each, or that he would intentionally
use both as precisely equivalent; and therefore the meaning of the two
words cannot be regarded as identical. In the latter there is a climax.
The one denotes a righteous man, a person really good and religious, con-
ducting himself uprightly towards man and humbly towards God; the
other describes the same character, marked also by a benevolent, self-
sacrificing disposition, which inclines him to acts of benevolence and
kindness, by which he becomes distinguished. In this sense the word is
used in Matt. xx. 15: “Is thine eye evil (envious) because I am good,”
not merely just, but benevolent and liberal? The Apostle seems to have
begun his antithesis with the first character in his mind; then suddenly to
have stopped short, and by a beautiful correction, as I may say, or amplifi-
cation of his meaning, to have introduced the second, thus: ‘ For scarcely
for a righteous man will any one die :—for for the good man, whose heart,
filled with divine love, prompts him to benefit his fellow creatures by con-
stantly doing good, some one perhaps will even venture to die; but God
establisheth and recommendeth his own love to us, in giving Christ to die
for us while we were yet sinners unworthy of his kindness.’ Comp.
John iii. 16.
9-11. ‘ Much rather, therefore, having now been justified by his blood :’
That is, having been pardoned and accepted by God through his atoning
* Annotationes Philologice in Novum Testamentum ex Xenophonte, et cet., 8vo, tom, ii, p. 252,
+ De Hebraismis Noy. Test., Svo. Edit. Fischer; Lips. 1778, pp. 55, 56.
-“
Cn. V. 9-11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 75
owdnobueda ev TH Swy avTov. life. And not only so, but we also 11
11 Od poévoy dé, dAAa Kat Kavyo- joy in God, through our Lord Jesus
evo Ev TO VE@ Sta Tov Kvpiov Christ, by whom we have now re-
juav Incod Xprorod, dv ov viv ceived the atonement.
THY KaTaAdayny éEAgBomer.
sufferings and death. See iii. 25, iv. 6-8, and notes, pp. 55, 63, 64.—
“ Enemies :” See viii.'7, which shows that the enmity referred to develops
itself in hostility to God’s law.—* Through his life :” meaning doubtless,
his glorious life in heaven, where he acts as our permanent intercessor.
See John xiv. 19, and note on Heb. vii. 25, pp. 98, 99.—* Not only :”
This refers to what had been before said in vs. 2, 3, and is sufficiently ex-
plained in the analysis.—‘‘ Received the atonement :” Rather, as it is in
the margin of our English Bibles, “reconciliation :” In other words, have
been reconciled. See Robinson’s Lexicon under AayBdvw, 1. f) and 2. e).
SECTION VII.
Cuarp. V. 12-21.
COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF ADAM’S FALL WITH THOSE OF CHRIST'S
REDEMPTION.
Yunis section has been the occasion of much critical and theological discus-
sion. To examine it thoroughly, investigating the various theories both
exegetical and dogmatic which have been applied to or supposed to be
founded on it, would require a volume. The reader of this commentary
must not therefore be disappointed, if he finds nothing more than a brief
notice of the prominent exegetical and theological points necessary to be
kept in view in attempting to elicit the Apostle’s meaning. I have endeavy-
oured to state the purport of this as well as the other parts of the Epistle,
independently of any doctrinal bias arising merely from education or asso-
ciation. It seems to be the design of St. Paul to show that, as the
lamentable effects of the fall extended more or less to all mankind, so do
the benefits of the atonement, from the blessed results of which Gentiles
were no more excluded than Jews. As he had never had an opportunity
of orally instructing the Roman Christians, he avails himself of occasions
which his subject suggested, to enlarge on the more prominent points of
the Gospel. The idea of our being reconciled to God through Jesus Christ
expressed in the former part of the chapter, may have suggested to him an
76 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VII.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin Aid rovTo Gorep du’ évdc dv- 12
amplification of the statement, and have led him to draw a parallel be-
tween the benefits which we may thus receive and the injury which we
sustained by the fall of Adam. It is undoubtedly true that condemnation
through the one and justification through the other is a prominent part of
the comparison. The statement of Professor Hodge may well be admitted,
“We are condemned on account of what Adam did, we are justified on
account of what Christ did.” But this is not the whole scope. The lan-
guage is more comprehensive. It is evidently designed to set in contrast
the general evils sustained by all men in consequence of their connection
with Adam, with the general benefits procured for all men by virtue of
their connection in a greater or less degree with Christ. In this view, the
contents of the section harmonize with the scope of the whole Epistle. They
tend to place in a clear light these two points ; that justification is not of
human obedience but of God’s favour through Christ, and that this blessing
with the happiness attendant upon it is designed for all.
12. “Therefore :” Some commentators connect this word with the pre-
ceding verse. Among them is Macknight, who paraphrases thus: “ Our
Lord Jesus Christ: by whom we have received the reconciliation, for this
reason, as through one man sin entered,” &c. He adds in support of this
arrangement: “ For the Apostle is giving a reason why all have received
reconciliation through Jesus Christ.” But, not to urge that such a connec-
tion of “ therefore,” did tovro, is very unusual, it is evident that if this had
been the Apostle’s intention, he would have introduced the word al/ in the
11th verse, in order to show that he meant his statement there to have a
general application. Whereas it is certain from the whole preceding part
of the chapter, that he is speaking exclusively of justified Christians, It is
best to retain the usual punctuation. The formula, “therefore,” may be
explained in reference to what follows, namely, the statement that the
blessings derived from Christ counterbalance at least the evils entailed
from Adam. As observation and experience assure us of the one, there-
fore has God graciously provided us with the other. Thus the same
expression in John vii. 22, though standing at the beginning of the sentence,
has most probably its logical connection with the remark that circumcision
was performed on the Sabbath day, which is made at the end of it. Or
else the phrase may have a retrospective reference to the whole preceding
discussion, thus: According to what has been already stated and consistently
with the views before given. Thus it occurs in Matt. xiii. 52, immediately
after and in close connection with certain very instructive parables and
their interpretation: “ Therefore, every scribe,” &c.
“By one man:” that is, Adam. The first father of the human family
is mentioned rather than the mother, because she may be regarded as asso
Cu. V. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (if
Ypdrov 7) duapria cig TOV KOoWov entered into the world, and death
ciated with him; and also on account of the parallel intended to be drawn
between him and Christ, as is done also in 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45-49.
“Sin entered into the world.” The word sin in the Bible generally
expresses the act or habit of sinning, as every reader must have observed ;
but it is also employed in the sense of sinfudness, that is, the tendency,
disposition, quality or element in fallen man, which of its own nature pro-
duces in our present imperfect condition those acts or habits. Thus we
find it used in vii. 8, 9, 11: “Sin wrought in me concupiscence—sin was
dead—sin revived—sin deceived me and slew me.” And so also in ys. 13,
14,17, 20. It would be quite preposterous to understand sin in these
places as the act of sinning. And so 1 Johniii. 4, simply means that sin is
what is at variance with law: 7 duaptia éotiv 7 dvouia, It may be pre-
dicated of a tendency or quality in a responsible agent as well as of any
overt act. Therefore the word in the text under consideration is plainly
susceptible of the same signification, which seems also to be best adapted
to the context. On this supposition then, the Apostle’s first proposition
will run thus: By one man, Adam, sinfulness, moral depravity, entered
into the world. This must of course embrace the necessary results of such
depravity, appearing in responsible agents under the form of positive sins,
It seems best, therefore, to give to the word here the most extended mean-
ing, comprehending both sinful tendency and action.
The next proposition states the direct consequence of this depravity, so
acting, namely, death. Weare so in the habit of associating the idea of death
with that of the separation of soul and body, the meaning which in com-
mon parlance is attached to the word, that unconsciously we identify the
one with the other. And there can be no reasonable doubt, that the idea
of this physical death, and all the evils producing and connected with it, is
prominent in the Apostle’s mind. The language of the original sentence,
“dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,” which is explanatory, at
least in part, of the threat “thou shalt surely die,”* would seem to deter-
mine this point. And the evident appeal which he makes in ver. 14, to
what every one knew to be the fact, namely, that “death had reigned
from Adam to Moses,” settles it most conclusively. Still, this will not
prove that the meaning is to be limited to the mere separation of the soul
from the body. Nothing is more certain, than that the Scriptures employ
the word in a much more extended signification. It denotes the miseries
of a state of condemnation, comprehending banishment from the enjoy-
ment of God’s presence, and positive punishment inflicted; and thus it is
set in contradistinction to life and blessedness with God. In connection
with this idea more or less clearly developed, it is used to express misery
* Gen. iii. 19, ii. 17.
7
78 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VII.
by sin; and so death passed upon eloyAde, nai did TH dpaptiac
and wretchedness in general, and the corresponding word life to denote
happiness. Thus in Deut. xxx. 19, “I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing ;” in Prov. xii. 28, “in the way of righteousness is
life, and in the pathway thereof there is no death :” and in 1 John iii. 14,
“we have passed from death unto life.” See also Prov. xi. 19, John viii.
21, 24,51. And this general idea of misery is most probably the true
meaning of the word in this text. It certainly cannot be limited to phy-
sical death, for from this the Christian is not liberated; nor can it exclude
this with its necessary adjuncts, for the reasons before assigned. Neither
is it expedient to endeavour to determine the degree of the misery and
punishment denoted. It is sufficient that sin and death are naturally
and necessarily connected. The one follows the other as its attendant
shadow, dark and malignant. This then is the tenour of the second pro-
position; through moral depravity, developing itself in actual sins and
entailed on human nature by the fall of Adam, came human misery,
physical and spiritual.
The latter half of the verse repeats the two propositions in a somewhat
different manner, with some amplification also of the meaning. “And so”
or thus: That is, in this way, namely, by the sinfulness with its actual
manifestations, induced through the one man, ‘misery passed through or
pervaded to all men.’ The original is dc7A8ev el¢. This is rendered by
Luther, “ penetrated, ist durchgedrungen ;” by Tyndale, Cranmer and the
Genevan, “ went over ;” and by Wiclif, “passed forth in to.” The asser-
tion is, that this death took effect on mankind thoroughly and universally.—
“ For (or in) that all have sinned.” The various expositions which have been
given of this clause and the doctrines supposed to be sanctioned thereby,
make it expedient to examine it with particular attention.
“For (or in) that,” éf’ 6 To the same purpose, Tyndale, Cranmer
and the Genevan, “in so much.” Wiclif has, “in which man,” and the
marginal reading in our Bibles is, “in whom.” This translation has been
given by many commentators. The meaning will then be that all men
sinned in Adam. This statement will be made, either on the ground of the
identity of the human nature possessed by him with that possessed also by
all his descendants, or on that of his being their representative, his acts in
either case being attributable to them. As it does not comport with the
design of these notes to enter into metaphysical disquisitions, I shall merely
say with respect to such theories, that they are not in harmony with the
practical character of St. Paul’s writings, and that a man of plain good
sense, not under the influence of some religious or philosophical system,
will not easily believe that a voluntary offence of one can justly be charged
on any other, not either participating therein or even at the time existing as
Cu. V. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 79
6 Bavaroc: Kal obdtwe sic mdv- all men, for that all have sinned:
a moral or responsible or even personal being. If it should be said that
the Scripture speaks of one man acting in or through another, it may be
sufficient to reply, that it never charges the guilt of one on another, but on
the contrary directly repudiates the idea. See Ezek. xviii., and particularly
vs. 19, 20. Heb. vii. 10, which has often been appealed to in support of
this view, is inapposite. The case there put is of a descendant paying tithes
in his ancestor some hundreds of years before birth, and this involves noth-
ing of a moral nature. It is adduced also by the sacred writer with an in-
troductory formula which greatly qualifies its application. See the note
there, p. 93, and Whitby. And further, the Greek preposition is different
from that here employed, the one being é7é and the other év. The right
translation is, ‘for (or in) that, inasmuch as.’ Thus the same phrase is used
in 2 Cor. v. 4: “not for that we would be unclothed,” 颒 6, for which some
copies read éevd7. Koppe, in his note on Romans, explains it in the same
way, quoting from Thomas Magister,* éf’ @ dvti Tod dtézt, that is, instead
of because ; and from Phavorinus, 颒 @ t7jv KAoT7v eipydow, inasmuch as
thou hast committed the theft ; and from Theophilus to Autolychus, 颒 é
ov« loyvoe YavatGoat avtotc, because he was unable to put them to
death. See also Stuart in loc. and Robinson under é7i 11. 3. f).
“ Have sinned,” japrov. The following are the principal expositions
of this expression.
1. ‘ Have, as conscious voluntary agents, transgressed God’s known law ;’
in other words, have committed actual sins. According to this view it
would seem, that the Apostle predicates such sinning of all mankind, infants
and idiots not excepted. But with respect to the latter class, this is evi-
dently incredible, as they are not responsible agents; and it is possible
that, on account of their comparative paucity, they are not taken into con-
sideration. As to the former, it may be said that we do not know at how
early an age moral consciousness commences. ‘This is true, and there is
good reason to believe that in different minds it begins at different ages.
Still it will hardly be denied that multitudes of infants die, before such a
conscious moral character can possibly exist. It is inexpedient to go into
detail on such a point, but it may not be amiss to remind hypercritical po-
lemics, that infants sometimes die immediately after birth, not to speak of
those who die before; and to affirm conscious transgression of such were
more than ridiculous. Even the inquirers, “ Who did sin, this man or
his parents, that he was born blind?’ cannot be proved to have carried
* This writer, who was a learned monk and grammarian, probably of the 14th century, made a se-
lection of Attic expressions, with illustrations of their meaning from ‘Greek writers. The treatise,
which is contained in a small 12mo volume, was published by Nicolas Blancard, at Franeker in 1690.
The author quotes passages from Sunesius and Thucydides in support of the meaning above given to
tbe phrase.
80 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sger. VIT.
their extravagance so far as this ; their question rather assuming a previous
state of the soul’s existence, according to the Wisdom of Solomon viii. 20.
If it should be said that the Apostle does not comprehend either infants or
idiots, but speaks only of such descendants of Adam as have arrived at an
age of consciousness and have become transgressors of God’s moral law;
the reply is, that then his argument is defective. However various may be
the opinions respecting certain parts of this discussion, most divines and
commentators agree in this one point, that the author’s general design is,
to compare the evils resulting from the fall with the benefits accruing from
the redemption, and to show that the latter are at least equivalent to the
former; and moreover, that in so doing he predicates the evils of all
mankind. But, since infants, dying before consciousness can with any
probability be affirmed of them, constitute a very large proportion of the
race, they cannot be excluded or overlooked in the argument. The result
therefore appears evident, namely, that as infants and idiots do not die
either physically or spiritually in consequence of their own personal trans-
gressions, this interpretation of the words “ have sinned ” is inadmissible.
2. Another class of interpreters explain the language thus: ‘have been
regarded and treated as sinners.’ The statement will then be to this effect:
‘Inasmuch as all men have been subjected to the consequences of sin.’ To
what degree this subjection extended would still be a question for exami-
nation, although it is plain that physical death is a prominent part, as was
before shown on p. 77. The seuse thus elicited corresponds with that of
ver. 19, “ by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted
sinners.” Such exposition of language is also sanctioned by analogy. Thus
in Genesis xliii. 9, Judah pledges himself to his father Jacob for the safe
return of Benjamin in these words, according to our English translation,
“Jet me bear the blame,” but in the Hebrew, ‘I shall have sinned ;’ and
so also in xliv. 82. In both these places the Septuagint has translated lit
erally juaptnKkac &oowat; but the Vulgate explains, ero peccati reus, The
meaning is, I am willing to be regarded asa sinner and subjected to the
necessary consequences. And in 1 Kings i. 21, what our translation very
properly renders, “I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders,” is
literally in the Hebrew, ‘shall be sinners” and is so expressed in the Sep-
tuagint and Vulgate. Stuart’s objection to the application of these two
places is of no weight. Of the former, he says “ the meaning is, I will con-
sent to be regarded as a sinner ‘by my father;’” and of the latter, we
“shall be sinners in the view of the reigning prince.” It is difficult to see
how the signification of the word can be affected by Judah’s consenting to
be so regarded, which certainly Bathsheba and Solomon did not; or by the
party so regarding them being in the one case the father and in the other
the reigning prince. Christ is said to be made for us “sin and a curse,”
that is, (the abstracts being used for the concretes,) a sinner and a cursed
On. V.12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 81
or devoted object, he having consented to be regarded and treated as such
by his God and father. See 2 Cor. v. 21, Gal. iii. 138. It is certain that
the Scripture often speaks of a thing as being what it is represented to be
and treated as if it were. Thus in Acts x. 15, “what God hath cleansed,”
that is, regards as clean, ‘make not thou common,’ xoévoz ; or, as our trans-
lation very correctly renders it, “call not thou common.” And in 1 John
vy. 10, “hath made him a liar,” can mean nothing else but, ‘hath represented
and treated him as such.’
3. But there is yet another view which is certainly preferable to the
first, and perhaps also to the second of the two just given. “In that all
have sinned,” may be explained thus: ‘inasmuch as all have become sin-
ful.’ It may comprehend also the idea of actual sin, predicable of all con-
scious and responsible human agents as a universal consequence in such ;
as in the first clause of the verse, the word sin is equally comprehensive.
Thus the degree and extent of the death or misery which is the necessary
result of sinfulness, may be modified according to the degree of meaning
affixed to the word. “The subject of the Apostle is the entrance of sin
into the world and its spread. The whole dominion of sin is intended.’’*
The extent of that dominion in conscious and unconscious human beings, in
infants, for instance, and adult sinners, and the penal consequences resulting
therefrom, may vary, and the death alluded to may, in the one case, extend
practically no farther than physical and temporal evils, while in the other,
it may involve spiritual and everlasting.t The connection of the condition
of the race with the act of their progenitor—the idea which beyond any
doubt pervades the whole representation—is shown by the fact that in this
way, by his act of disobedience, all became sinful. It follows, of course,
that as conscious beings they actually sinned. But it does not follow, that
the expression is to be limited to such sinning. Even in iii. 23, where it
also occurs, no such limitation is necessary, because, as Olshausen says,
* where no actual sins have been committed, as in the case of unconscious
children, the power of redemption is still needed.”
Professor Hodge rejects this interpretation of the clause. A review of
his objections will afford an opportunity of sustaining it more fully.
1. “It assigns a very unusual, if not an unexampled, sense to the word.”
—But on the other hand, first the context favours such a sense. This expla-
nation of the verb jjuaptov agrees with the meaning above proved to be
allowable, and given to the noun dyaptia, namely, sinfulness, moral
depravity. Thus the two clauses of the latter half of the verse will corre-
spond with the two clauses of the former; “by sin death,” misery, ruin,
* Translation of Tholuck’s early edition,
+ Here I would remind the reader that the Apostle is speaking of death as inflicted on the human
race. Hesays nothing about theinferior animals. The geologist, therefore, may maintain that mon
sters of various genera and species lived and died, many ages before the creation of man, without in-
volving in any difficulty the statements made either here or elsewhere in the Bible.
82 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. VII.
being parallel with, “thus death passed through;” and, “by one man sin
(or sinfulness) entered,” with, “in that all have sinned” or become sinful,
Moreover, secondly, analogy justifies this sense. According to it, qaprov,
‘have sinned,’ will be employed very much as d7édavovr, ‘ have died,’ is in
ver. 15, where undoubtedly it signifies ‘ become subject to death, in a dying
condition.’ Thus also the language in Gen. ii. 17, “in the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” to which there is evidently an allusion,
expresses rather the mortal condition of the culprit to take place from the
very moment of transgression, than the result thereof in the very fact of
dying; and this, whatever view may be taken of the nature of the death
threatened. In Rom. vii. 9, “I died” signifies, ‘1 became in,’ or was con-
scious of being in, ‘a dead or dying séate ;’ and, the phrase in 2 Cor. vy. 14,
“all were dead,” manifestly affirms the condition of all. The Greek word
is thus correctly rendered in our translation, although it is the same as that
just before used to express the fact of Christ’s dying for us: “one died
for all.”
2. “It destroys the analogy between Christ and Adam. The point of
the comparison is not, as Adam was the source of corruption, so is Christ
of holiness; but, as Adam was the cause of our condemnation, so is Christ
of our justification.”—The comparison is not limited either to the one or
the other. The Professor assumes this point of his argument. On a former
page he remarks: “ All that the Apostle says tends to the illustration of
his declaration, as we are condemned on account of what Adam did, we
are justified on account of what Christ did.” It may all tend to illustrate
this, but all is not confined to this particular. The Apostle’s representation
is the same as that which is briefly expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 22, “As in
Adam all] die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” There the life
promised to those “that are Christ’s,” ver. 23, is that condition of glory
which is consequent upon the resurrection of the just; who, as they “have
borne the image of the first man, the earthy, shall also bear the image of
the second man, the heavenly :” vs. 48, 49. It is evident that not only does
the antithesis lie between condemnation and justification, but that sin,
death and ruin are contrasted with pardon, free gift, abounding grace, and
reigning in life eternal. The objection that some of these statements are
parenthetical is of very little importance. Others are not; and what may
be allowed to be a parenthesis, on account of ‘a difficulty in the construc-
tion, which shall presently be noted, is nevertheless essential to a full
exhibition of the meaning. As all our woes flow from that state of con-
demnation into which human nature was brought by the fall of Adam, and
all our blessings from that state of justification or acceptance with God
which was procured by the atonement of Christ; a statement of the causes
would most naturally be accompanied by a representation of the effects.
And such is precisely the fact.
Cu. V. 12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 838
What has been said implies also a sufficient answer to the Professor’s
other objections. His remark, that “the analogy is destroyed, if anything
in us be assumed as the ground of the infliction of the penal evils of which
the Apostle is here speaking,” needs one qualifying circumstance to make
it correct. It should be stated thus: ‘simply as the original ground; or:
‘anything in us independently of the sin of Adam.’ .
The Apostle’s general statement is probably to this effect: ‘Thus,
through the fall of Adam, death, physical and spiritual misery, took effect
on all men, inasmuch as all men have thereby become sinful, and, when
conscious agents, sin.” The moral depravity brought into human nature
by the sin of Adam will be represented as the cause of its wretchedness,
Every assertion in the verse harmonizes with the whole statement.
Theodoret, on verse 12, speaks of ‘ God’s creating Adam under a law in
order to exercise his reasoning faculty, and of his transgressing it; by
consequence he became obnoxious to death, and in this condition became
the father of Cain and Seth and others ; and thus all, inasmuch as they are
produced of such, have a mortal nature, subject to various wants, by which
the passions are often immoderately excited, which want of moderation
produces sin.’ He then proceeds thus: “Therefore the Apostle says that
Adam haying sinned, and by sin having become mortal, both (sin and
mortality) penetrated into the race. For death passed through to all men
in that all have sinned.” He then immediately adds: “For each one re-
ceives the sentence of death, not on account of his forefather’s sin, but on
account of his own.” If we regard the concluding sentence as affirming
death to be the consequence and punishment of the sins of the individual,
we make the author inconsistent with what he had just before stated, and
also with what soon after follows. On ver. 16, he says: “one having
sinned, the whole race received punishment ;”-and on.18, “he having trans-
gressed, the whole race received the sentence of death.”* May he not
mean, therefore, in the former passage, that the changed moral condition of
man, in other words, the sinfulness introduced into his nature in conse-
quence of the fall, is the cause of his death? This does not proceed as a
direct result from the sin of Adam, but directly from his own sinfulness,
which however, was thus derived. If so, what the Greek father loses in
accuracy of language is more than counterbalanced by consistency of state-
ment.—Chrysostom, in his oratorical manner, comments thus: “ How
then did death enter and exercise power? By the sin of the one. And
what means ‘in that all have sinned? He having fallen, all they also who
had not eaten of the tree became from him mortal.’ +
On the construction of the verse commentators are also very much
divided in opinion. The sentence is generally regarded asimperfect. This,
* On Romans. Opera, Tom. iii. pp. 41-43, Edit. Paris. 1642.
t+ Homily on Romans. Opera, Edit. Bened. Venet. 1741, Tom. ix. p. 519.
84. COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VII.
13 for until the law, sin was in the tac dvdparovc 6 Ydvatog dijA-
world; but sin isnot imputed when Vev, &@’ @ mavte¢ dpaptov.
14 there is no law: nevertheless, “Aypt ydp vouov duapria qv év 13
however, is questioned by some, who translate Kat obtwe¢, so also, instead
of and so, This method of making the sentence complete is adopted by
Le Clere. But it would require a transposition of the two particles as in
vs. 15, 18, 19, 21, xi. 31, where we find otrw kai, as the phrase occurs
also in 1 Cor, xii. 12, and many other places. The construction given by
Erasmus makes the second clause the apodosis or concluding part of the
sentence. In connection with kai he supplies a obtw¢, which he thinks is to
be understood, and this he illustrates by referring to Matt. vi. 10, “as in
heaven, kai, so also in earth.” The result may be expressed thus: ‘as by
one man sin entered into the world, so also by sin death.’ But this does
not harmonize with the author’s evident design to set Adam and Christ in
prominent contrast. Tholuck supposes the apodosis of the sentence to be
omitted. He thinks that, toward the end of the 14th verse, the thought
of the wider influence of Christ’s action than that of Adam presses on his
mind, and being unwilling to omit all mention of direct analogy, he in-
troduces it in a compressed form in the words: “ who is the figure of him
that was to come.” But this still leaves the difficulty of the construction
unexplained. Most commentators suppose the Apostle, in the warmth of
his feeling, to be hurried on by the train of thought which he had com-
menced to other closely connected thoughts, and not to return to complete
the sentence begun in the 12th verse until the middle of the 18th. Thus
the latter part of this verse will serve as the conclusion both of the former
half, and of the 12th, its form and language being adapted to what im-
mediately precedes it. The intermediate portion, although in some respects
parenthetical, is still to be regarded as essential to the full representation
of the Apostle’s comparison. So long a parenthesis is quite in character
with St. Paul’s style, and we have a remarkable illustration in Eph, iii.,
the first verse of which is connected with the 14th, the parenthetical por-
tion being, however, of great importance.
13, 14. The statements made in these two verses, exclusive of the last
clause, are the following: Sin existed in the world until the giving of the
Jaw; where no law exists sin is not so imputed as to condemn ; during the
whole period from Adam to Moses death reigned ; and its dominion extended
over those who had not sinned like Adam. In presenting the first statement,
Ihave given the usual meaning of dye, though Theodoret and some modern
annotators explain it so as to require the sense of during, and thus extend
the period to the establishment of the Gospel. But the phrase “from Adam
to Moses” is decisive in favour of the common signification. The Apostle
cannot intend these statements to stand as independent propositions, This
Cx. V. 18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 85
Kéouw* duaptia J& ov« &AdAo- death reigned from Adam to Moses,
14 yetrae 7) bvtog véuov GAA’ éBa- even over them that had not sinned
is certain from his character as a writer; and the use of the particles for,
but, nevertheless, sufficiently prove their logical dependence on each other.
The idea of Professor Stuart is, that St. Paul intends to meet an objection
taken from what he had before said in iv. 15, “ where no law is, there is no
transgression,” namely, “ how then were men sinners before the law was
given ?” and therefore states that men were sinners before the Mosaic law.
But it is hardly credible that any person who thought on such topics at all,
could imagine that rational beings like men were under no moral law until
the time of Moses. Neither is it to be supposed that the Apostle would
employ his time in refuting or denying so improbable an objection. The
Professor very truly says, that “ we are not to suppose that Paul had to do
only with candid and intelligent men ;” but to this it is sufficient to remark,
that neither are we to suppose that he argues with men of no sense or
reflection.
A due consideration of the meaning and bearing of the author’s propo-
sitions will show, that the statements of the 12th verse, ‘ that death took
place universally as a consequence of the sin of Adam,’ is what these
propositions are intended to prove. The statement that “ death reigned
from Adam to Moses,” is an appeal to what every one knew to be a fact.
It is connected with the assertion that “ sin was in the world until the law,”
and introduced by the particle “nevertheless.” This suggests to the
thoughtful reader an idea which, though not expressed, is most probably
implied, namely, that no law then existed making death the penalty of sin.
This ellipsis is all that is necessary to be supplied in order to make the
argument perfectly clear and conclusive. It will stand thus: ‘It is true
that sin existed before the Mosaic law. Now it is an undeniable principle
that sin is not regarded as sin if there be no law,* yet death lorded it over
all mankind from Adam to Moses, whilst no law with the sanction of death
existed.’ The Apostle may very well leave the reader to draw the conclu-
sion, which can be none other than this, that therefore mankind did not die
for any actual sin of their own; and the previous verse suggests the only
alternative, namely, that they died on account of the sin of Adam.
* Though the Apostle sometimes intends to apply this principle with such modification as the
subject under consideration would require, yet the principle itself is universally true. There can be
no such thing as sin, properly speaking, without law. Its very existence implies law of some kind.
Sin in the unconscious infant is that element of his fallen nature which is not in harmony with God's
law. An act of a conscious human being may be sinful, which in an irrational animal would not be so.
And the reason is found in the Apostle’s principle : the one is under moral law, the other not.
+ Whitby introduces the word *“‘ generally * in his Paraphrase, and regards the Antediluvians and
people of Sodom as exceptions to the application of the statement. He does not seem to have con-
sidered that the punishment inflicted on these was violent death, whereas St. Paul uses the word to
denote mortality, to which they were subject, in common with every descendant of Adam, in the
ordinary course of nature.
86 COMMENTARY ON THE (Sxcr. VIL.
after the similitude of Adam’strans- o/Aevoev 6 Ydvatog dnd ’Addp
péxpt Mwiiaéwe Kai én tod
The language of Chrysostom is entirely coincident with this view of St.
Paul’s reasoning. “Sin cannot subsist where there is no law. If there-
fore, says he, this sin from the transgression of the law brought forth
death, how did all they that were before the law die? For if death had its
root from sin, and there being no law sin is not reckoned, how did death
exercise force? Whence it is evident that it was not this sin which is of
the transgression of the law, but that which is of the disobedience of Adam
which destroyed all things. And what is the proof? For death reigned,
says he, from Adam,” &c.*
I freely admit that there is a difficulty which perhaps cannot be satisfac-
torily removed, namely, “the limitation of the period,” to use the language
of the Professor above cited, “from Adam to Moses. Why should the
Apostle stop within these narrow limits? Why confine his assertion”
thus? I would rather say, the designation of this period; for that he meant
thus to limit the operation of the death spoken of is an unfounded
assumption. It may not be easy to give a reason for this designation.
And yet it is very conceivable, that, writing to’a church consisting chiefly
of Jewish converts, he might choose to note the introduction of the Jaw by
Moses in contrast to the time of Adam’s fall, as representing a period
during which there was no law threatening mortality as the effect of trans-
gressing it, although it would have served his general purpose equally well
to have extended the period even to his own day. He might have said,
from the time of Adam to the present no such law has existed. The pro-
mulgation of the Mosaic law was a great epoch, especially with the
Hebrews, and therefore might very fitly stand in contrast with the original
transgression of God’s law by Adam. If the Zechariah of Matt. xxiii. 35,
be the prophet mentioned in 2 Chron, xxiv. 20-22, as is maintained by the
best commentators, the question may be asked, why does not our Lord
extend the period designated by him to his own day, from the time of the
first murder to that of the last? The striking character of the death of
Zechariah, and the impression it had made on the Jewish mind,} supply
the answer. So also does the application of the same principle in the
present instance. Such a difficulty is by no means sufficiently weighty to
set aside an exposition in accordance with the context and with analogy of
Scripture.
“ Even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s
* Ubi sup. p. 520.
+ In Lightfoot’s Hebrew and Talmndical Exercitations, the reader may find on the verse in Mat-
thew a Jewish legend quoted from the Talmud, the extravagant superstition of which is proof enough
of the remark,
Cn. V. 14, 15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 87
(2) Guapthoavtag ént Tq Omot- gression, who is the figure of him
uate THe TapaBdoewco ’Addu, that was to come. But not as the 15
b¢ éoTt TiTog¢ TOV péAAOYTOC. offence, so also is the free gift: for
15 AAW ody @¢ TO TapdtTwna,
oUTW Kal TO Ydploua*s el yao
transgression.” It is perhaps impossible to say what degree of likeness is
intended. If the author means in this clause of the verse to express some
additional idea to that in the former, then he may be supposed to compre-
hend infants and idiots, who are not conscious transgressors against any
known divine law. Both clauses, however, may relate to the same whole
body of Adam’s descendants, the latter merely stating that this body
had not sinned in the same way as their first father had. This is true
in more points than one. His condition was that of innocence; theirs, of
moral depravity. He broke a positive divine law, the transgression of
which involved the penalty of death; they were never subjected to such a
law. Other points of difference might be stated, but these are sufficient to
explain the author’s language. Professor Hodge objects to this view,
“that it destroys the distinction between the two classes of persons here
alluded to.” Certainly it does; but that there are two classes between
whom a distinction must be made, is the very point to be proved. “It
makes Paul, in effect, reason thus, ‘death reigned over those who had not
violated any positive law, even over those who had not violated any posi-
tive law.’” Thisisnotso. The exposition makes the first clause a merely
general statement, that death conquered all that body of Adam’s descend-
ants who lived before Moses, and the second a declaration that the nature of
their sin differed from his. “It is obvious that the first clause describes a
general class, and the second, distinguished by the word even, only a portion
of that class.”——But this inference is founded on the English translation
“even,’ and will be without support if the copulative be rendered and.
The first clause will affirm that death held general sway ; the second will
state a distinction between the sin of the parent and that of his children.
“The figure (literally, type) of him that was to come.” The original
participle tod péAdAovtoc, although used in the feminine to designate
Messiah’s kingdom, or the Gospel dispensation as regarded in contradis-
tinction to the Jewish, is equally applicable to Messiah himself, who is here
intended. The word usually employed is 6 épyéuevoc. Probably the
Apostle preferred the other from having in mind the contrast between the
blessings of Messiah’s kingdom as a whole, with their forfeiture in the
natural condition of fallen man.—The word type means an impression,
image or representation of something. It generally supposes points of
similarity in the two, as is illustrated in the case of the priesthoods
of Melchisedek and Christ. Sometimes, however, it is used to express
88 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. VII.
if through the offence of one many 74) Tod évd¢ TapaTtTGpart ol TOA-
be dead; much more the grace of Aol dréVavov, TOAAG padAov 7}
God, and the gift by grace, which ydpic ToD Yeow Kai 1 Swped ev
ts by one man, Jesus Christ, hath ydpite rH TOD évde dv¥parov
"Inaov Xptorod ele Tove TOAAOVE
contrast, as in the present instance, and most probably in that which occurs
in 1 Pet. iii. 21, where baptism seems to be contrasted with the flood.
Here Adam is introduced as the type of Christ, as he is also in 1 Cor. xv.
21, 22. In vs. 45, 47, he is spoken of as “the first man:” and the
Messiah as “the last” and “the second,” meaning, in his character as
contrasted with Adam, both standing in a relation to the human race some-
what similar.
15. Having stated the typical analogy of the two, the author now pro-
ceeds to note certain points of dissimilarity. These either show that the
restoration through Christ completely counterbalances the evils induced by
means of Adam’s transgression, or that it does in reality go beyond them,
making the advantage superior to the Joss. ‘ But the gracious benefit, 76
xdovoua, is not (in all respects) as the fall: for, if by the fall of the one
the many died; much rather hath the grace of God, and the gift through
the grace which is of the one man Jesus Christ, abounded to the many.’
The language is pleonastic, expressive of the greatness and the freeness of
the gratuity. The article 77 which qualifies ydpcrt, shows that the trans-
lation just given is the true one. Here we have the fall or offence or
transgression, contrasted with the divine favour; the misery and ruin
brought on the mass by this fall of Adam, with the gracious gift of the
Gospel procured through Christ for the same mass; and we have the
Apostle’s statement, that it is much rather to be expected that this great
benefit should abound to Adam’s posterity, than that the ruinous effects of
the fall should extend to them. The representation is an appeal to our
right estimate of the divine character, and especially its benevolence.
*Exepiocevoe implies that the benefit spoken of is completely extended.
It must be evident to any unbiassed reader, that the many, ol. moAAoil,
in both connections in this verse means the whole mass of mankind. In °
neither clause does it admit a limited signification. And this is true also
of the same word in ver. 19, which is certainly equivalent to the phrase
“all men” which immediately precedes it. This view of the universality
of the results both of Adam’s fall and of Christ’s atonement, is the only
one which corresponds with the scope of the section and the connec-
tion in which it stands with the writer’s argument. It illustrates his
main points, namely, that justification cannot be attained on the ground
of perfect obedience, and that the blessings of the Gospel are not at all
exclusive.
Cn. V. 15, 16.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 89
16 érepiccevoe. Kat ody @¢ de’ abounded unto many. And not as 16
évdcg duaprioavtog 76 O@pnua* it was by one that sinned, so is the
TO pév yao Kpiwa é évdc eic gift: for the judgment was by one
KardKkpyia, TO O& xYaptowa ék to condemnation; but the free gift
TOAA@Y TapanTw@pdTwr eic dt- is of many offences unto justifica-
16. “By one that sinned,” duaprjoavtoc. Some important manu-
scripts, the Syriac, Vulgate, and other versions, and several of the fathers,
read, duapthwatoc. But this reading arose most probably from an attempt
to make a more expressive contrast between &é TOAA@Y TapaTTMmdTwY
towards the close of the verse and the preceding é§ év6¢ with which
TapanTouatoc must be understood, by introducing a similar word in the
first clause. To this may have been added a desire to adapt the language
more closely to that employed in vs. 15, 17, where mapdrtTwpa repeatedly
oceurs. The received reading is no doubt genuine. The phraseology is
somewhat varied from that of the previous verse. Apna, is equivalent
to dwped or rather to ydéptowa which precedes it. The xpiua or sentence
against Adam sprang from his one offence and announced condemnation ;
the gracious benefaction procured by Christ proclaims liberation from the
consequence of many offences, so as to secure forgiveness, divine accept-
ance, and the blessings resulting.
The first clause of this verse is evidently elliptical. It may be com-
pleted by understanding sentence or condemnation or consequence or some
such expression, which may stand in contradistinction to “ gift,” thus imply-
ing the effect of the sin of the one man. The contrast is more particularly
drawn out immediately afterwards, both in the remainder of this verse and
in the next. ’Eé évéc is not equivalent to dv’ évéc, for this relates to Adam
and that to his one transgression, which is contrasted with the many trans-
gressions of his posterity. A few commentators have rendered && év6¢
(xapattéparoc,) by the offence of one, and the corresponding phrase é«
TOAA@Y TapanTwudtwv, by the offences of many. But this view is not
only entirely unnecessary, but quite improbable ; and moreover, according
to the author’s usage év6¢ ought to have the article. Comp. ver. 15, ‘ by the
fall of the one—the grace of the one ;’ also ver. 17, ‘ by the fall of the one
death reigned through #he one—shall reign in life through ¢he one ;’ also in
ver. 19, ‘disobedience of the one man—obedience of ¢he one.’ The arti-
cles are certainly intended to be emphatic, and ought not to be unnoticed
in the translation.
17. It is important to note that here the Apostle’s antithesis, while it con-
tains the same general idea as before stated, is also somewhat exegetical.
In contrasting the benefit of the redemption with the evil of the fall, he
speaks of those who receive the precious boon; implying thereby the co-
operation of the party benefitted with the gracious giver. The benefit is
90 COMMANTARY ON THE [Secr. VII.
17 tion. For if by one man’s offence Kaiwua. El yap 7 tov évd¢ 17
death reigned by one; much more TapatTwpate 6 Savatoc éBaot-
they which receive abundance of Aevae did Tod évic, TOAA@ pad-
grace and of the gift of righteous- Aov of Tijv meptoceiay Tic YapiTog
ness, shall reign in life by one, Kal Tij¢ dwped¢ Tic SiKaLoobvng
described in language expressive of abundance, and is like the phrase “ riches
of grace, riches of glory,” which also imply ‘ fulness and excellence.’ The
reigning in life predicated of the recipients of this abundance of grace, is
evidently in contrast with the reign of death attributable to the fall, and
describe the true Christian’s everlasting happiness,
It is thought by many distinguished commentators that in this contrast
between Adam and Christ, the Apostle intends to show that the amount of
benefit received is vastly greater than that of evil entailed. This has been
supposed to be implied in the phrase “ the abundance of grace,” T7jy 7repto-
oeiav Tie xdpitoc. Locke speaks of a “ surplusage of the gift” as “a justifi-
cation to life from a multitude of sins, whereas the loss came only for one
sin.” This he calls “ the excess of the favour, the inequality of the gift itself,
which exceeds as many exceeds one.” Stuart is decidedly of this opinion.
“The superabounding of Gospel grace which is insisted on so emphatically in
vs. 15-17 consists in the fact, that the death of Christ procures pardon for the
numerous offences which we commit, while the effects of Adam’s sin have
respect only to one offence. The remedy is far more powerful and effica-
cious than the corruption and misery.” He repeats this view several times
afterwards. Professor Hodge, in commenting on the 15th verse, allows
that “the design is not to show that the blessings procured by Christ are
greater than the evils caused by Adam ;” and this he says “ the attentive
reader will perceive constantly increasing evidence” of. He remarks very
truly, that “the force of the passage lies in the words much more.” But
nevertheless on ver 16, he maintains the same view of surplusage or supe-
riority. “The point of this verse is, that the sentence of condemnation
which passed on all men for the sake of Adam, was for one offence, whereas
we are justified by Christ from many offences. Christ does much more than
remove the fault and evils consequent on the sin of Adam.” ‘The same
substantially is stated afterwards more than once.
On reading the Apostle’s contrast, the first impression is, that he does
intend to teach some such superiority of benefit through Christ over evil
through Adam. Doubtless most readers feel a desire to make out such a
superiority ; and furthermore, various considerations, drawn from the in-
spired author’s phraseology and from the paternal and benevolent charac-
ter of God, make it highly probable that the grace of the Gospel does really
afford more than a mere counterbalance to the evils of the fall. The 20th
verse also does expressly state that “where sin doth abound grace hath
Cu. V. 17-18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 91
AauBdvovtes év Swi BaotAevd- Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the 18
sovat did TOU évd¢ "Inood Xpto- _ offence of one, judgment came upon
18 tov. “Apa ovv we dv’ évdc all men to condemnation; even so
eee TapanTawarog ble madvrac dv- by the-righteousness of one, the free
Sparove el¢ KaTadKpiywa, ovTH , gift came upon all men unto justi-
much more abounded,” izepetepiooevae. Still, our very imperfect knowl-
edge of what would have been the condition of Adam and of his posterity, (if
we may speak of them in such circumstances, ) had he not fallen, makes it ex-
ceedingly difficult if not impossible for us to obtain anything more than very
general ideas on such a topic. Where reason can teach nothing and divine
revelation withholds light, we must be content to be ignorant. And not to
affect a knowledge which we cannot have is our highest wisdom. I cannot
see the force of some of the statements just quoted. If the condemnation
in some degree of the whole race resulted from the offence of Adam, who
is allowed to have “ introduced sin and misery into the world, and in con-
sequence of this all are in a state in which they are greatly exposed to the
second death ;” if such be the results of this “ one offence,” it became neces-
sary in order to counterbalance them that Christ should “ procure pardon
for the numerous offences which we commit.” A liberation from the conse-
quences of these comprehends nothing beyond what our condition required
in order to remove the existing evil. It would seem, therefore, that a su-
periority of favour beyond what was necessary for this purpose, is not
clearly deduced from the expressions which have been supposed to justify
such a conclusion ; the language, as I have already said, being rather an
appeal to our right appreciation of God’s benevolence, as a sufficient ground
for expecting at the very least a prompt and willing remedy.
18, 19. “ By the offence of one—by the righteousness of one:” This
translation is sanctioned by several distinguished commentators, among
whom is Tholuck. Our marginal reading is, ‘by one offence—by one
righteousness.’ This corresponds best with the Greek, dv’ évd¢ taparr-
Topatoc—ov’ évd¢g StKaLdparog ; and it is probably the true version. For,
as [ have already remarked, where the other meaning is clearly intended, the
Apostle always employs the article. The one offence is the sin of Adam,
and the one righteousness the obedience of Christ. This. latter compre-
hends whatever was necessary to constitute his atonement and satisfaction
to divine justice, which the Scripture generally represents as his sufferings
and death, these being most especially prominent and essential. Thus, as
the contrast was before stated to be between the condemnation resulting
from Adam’s one offence and the deliverance procured by Christ from our
many offences ; so here it will be between his one sin and Christ’s succes
sive acts and whole habit of obedience both active and passive. Any
separation between these two kinds of obedience so as to give an importance
92 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. VII.
19 fication of life. Forasby one man’s Kal dv évdc¢ duxatcparog ele wdv-
disobedience many were made sin- Ta¢ dvdparove ele Otkaiwow
ners, so by the obedience of one wie. "“Qo7ep yde dia tI¢ Ta- 19
shall many be made righteous. pakojje Tov évdc dvdpaov dpuap-
TWAOL KaTeaTadnoav ol TOAAOi,
obTw Kal dia THE braKoTC TOD
évodc dikaror Katasradijoovrat
and superiority to the one over the other, is without scriptural warrant. In
the first clause of the text we must supply from the 16th verse the word
“sentence,” and in the second “ free-gift.” The whole passage as an infer-
ence from what had been before said and in accordance therewith, is intro-
duced by “therefore,” dpa oiv. In this respect it is similar to ver. 12,
with which it is probably connected. See the note there, p. 84.—The
following verse is to the same general effect. The disobedience of the one
man corresponds with ¢he one offence just stated; and the obedience of the
one with the one righteousness. It is unnecessary to say that, in both
clauses, the one and the many stand in contradistinction to each other; the
many being equivalent to the whole mass of mankind, as the same adjec-
tive is used also in ver. 15.—The word rendered “ were made,” kateord-
Snoav, means “to set down, settle, establish, bring into a certain state, to
make so and so, to cause to be, to render, to make.” See the Lexicon of
Liddell and Scott, also Robinson’s. Olshausen’s meaning, as given in the
translation, is, “‘to be set forth as somewhat, and by the setting forth to be
pronounced to be somewhat.” Whether in this verse it is to be understood
in the sense of regarding as sinners, or actually becoming sinners, is dis-
puted. That it may be taken in the former sense, is evident from the
general tenour of the context, and from the way in which such words are
often employed. The language in 1 John y. 10, “he that believeth not
God hath made him a liar,” may be regarded as parallel. Although the
Greek verb is 7ovéw, it will not be questioned that it is at least as strong
to express a real making of the character described as that here used. And
yet no one ever thinks of affixing to it such a signification, The other
sense, however, of actually becoming sinners, is certainly according to
common usage. It is probable that the Apostle means to convey the idea
with which he commenced his comparison in the 12th verse. As Adam’s
disobedience was the occasion of the sinfulness and positive transgressions
of his race, their condemnation in a greater or less degree being conse-
quently included, so also shall Christ’s obedience become the procuring
cause of the acquittal, acceptance and restoration of the same race, provi-
ded they embrace the Gospel. The limitation annexed to the latter state-
ment, is in accordance with the usage of Scripture, in making positive
statements and absolute promises when the necessary condition is presumed.
‘
On. V. 19-21.]
20 of moAAot. Nouoc dé Tapeto-
qaverv, va trAeovdon TO Ta-
pdztwpa* ob d& érAsbvacer 7
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 93
Moreover, the law entered, that the 20
offence might abound. But where
sin abounded, grace did much more
duaptia, wbmEepettepiocevoevy 17)
21 ydpic, iva dorep &Bacidevoer 7
abound: that as sin hath reigned 21
In illustration of this principle, it may be sufficient to refer to two passages.
In Num, xxv. 12, 13, an absolute promise of “an everlasting priesthood”
is made to Phineas and his posterity ; and yet, in the course of a few gen-
erations, this office passed into another family. Subsequently, indeed, it
reverted to the descendants of Phineas in the person of Zadok, in whose
line it continued. Thus the succession was broken, and this shows that the
original promise, though expressed absolutely, implied some condition
which had been violated. See the Commentators on the text in Numbers.
Again, in 1 Cor. iii. 15, it is said of the Christian minister whose efforts
will not stand the test of the great searching examination, “he shall pe
saved,” adding a figurative expression implying great difficulty. But no
one can suppose that the salvation of such a one is affirmed absolutely.
Undoubtedly, the condition of sincerity, at least, is implied. The limita-
tion before spoken of is also in accordance with the 14th and 17th verses,
where the reign of death over the whole race is contrasted with the glorious
reign in life of those who receive the rich abundance of the divine and
gracious gift.
20, 21. “ The law:” The Greek is without the article, and so probably
should the translation be. It is frequently explained simply of the law as
promulged by Moses. But although the moral law thus communicated
may have been prominent in the author’s mind, (compare “from Adam to
Moses” in ver. 14;) yet I can see no reason why he may not comprehend
the law as a moral rule under which man, as a conscious and responsible
See 1 Tim. i. 8-10, where, after stating the
excellence of moral law in general, he proceeds to speak of it evidently as
promulgated to the Hebrews.
“ Entered,” tapevo7Adev.
being, was originally placed.
Our translation disregards the preposition
tapd, and renders the compound verb, as it does the simple in ver. 12,
“sin entered,” to which the Apostle most probably alludes. Tyndale and
Cranmer translate, “in the meane tyme entred in.” The word may be
intended to convey this idea, that law took effect on the sinner unexpect-
edly, or that he came under it in some measure unawares. Compare the
use of the preposition in composition in Gal. ii. 4, 2 Pet. ii. 1, and Jude 4.
It is more probable, however, that the verb expresses the idea of entering
beside or along with. Then the meaning will be, that along with the
entrance of sin law, that is, a fuller consciousness and appreciation of it,
took effect on human nature,
94 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. VIL
unto death, even so might grace dpaptia év 76 Vavdtw, odTw
reign, through righteousness, unto Kal 7 ydptc Baotdevoy did StKat-
eternal life, by Jesus Christ our oobvng el¢ Cwijv aldmuov dia
Lord, *Inoov Xpiorod Tov Kupiov juar.
“That the offence might abound :” The author explains his meaning more
fully in vii. 5, 7-13, where he represents moral law both as showing the
sinner his guilt and condemnation, and becoming the occasion of exciting
his weak and sinful nature to transgression. Were the former result the
whole of the Apostle’s idea, fva might be ¢elic, that is, it might express the
end for which the law was given, and the translation be, in order that; as
it was certainly one part of the design of the law to bring the offender to
a proper sense of his sins, But, as it cannot be thus limited, and as the
law does actually become the occasion of sins abounding or increasing, it
is better to translate, ‘so that sin abounded.’ Thus what is said of the law
both here and in the 7th chapter, may be illustrated by Matt. x. 34, 35,
where the evils that sprang from hostility to the Gospel are represented as
if they were the direct result of the Saviour’s advent.
The remainder of these verses expresses the triumph of grace over
sin, in language which has already been explained. The translation of
dikaoobvnc, which is most in harmony with the whole section and also
with what precedes it, is justification. The expression efernal life, the full
meaning of which is made clear by the epithet, is placed in contrast with
the more general and less accurately defined one death.
On. V. 21-V]. 1.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 95
SHC TIO MV ETT.
Cuapr. VI.
THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH AND SALVATION BY DIVINE
FAVOUR, AFFORD NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO SIN, BUT RATHER PRESENT THE
STRONGEST MOTIVES TO HOLINESS,
VI. = Té oty épotpev; éripevodpev What shall we say then? Shall VI.
TH apaptia, iva » xadptc TAeo- we continue in sin, that grace may
Cuap. vi. The Apostle now proceeds to guard the doctrine advanced
from becoming the ground or occasion of sinful indulgence. The grace of
God through Christ, which the previous discussion has shown to abound
towards the human race, has in all ages been perverted by the corrupt
heart to antinomian recklessness of living. The question in ver. 1 may be
the language of a depraved objector, or it may be the author’s manner of
stating the mischievous inference drawn from the previous truth, What
follows contains two most important considerations in direct opposition to
the practical fallacy of such a conclusion. . The first develops the funda-
mental principle, that in the truly baptized person such a continuance in
sin is’simply impossible, because by real Christian baptism he has become
mystically united to Christ, therefore dead and buried with him to sin,
with a view to a moral resurrection, the precursor of a physical and spiritual
and glorious one at the last day. The other consideration, which is brought
forward in connection with this and made the ground of exhortation, is, that,
the profession of Christianity which we publicly make in baptism, binds us
to avoid sin and to cultivate holiness. Hence it follows that, as professing
Christians, we cannot consistently abuse the grace of the Gospel by prac-
tising sin, nor, as real Christians mystically united with Christ and receiy-
ing from him through this union a principle of divine and holy life, is such
practice possible. These two points will be more fully illustrated in what
follows.
Ver. 1. The received reading is émpevovuer, for which many, both
ancient and valuable authorities, have émiuévwuev. The reader who is
acquainted with the Greek forms will perceive that either reading affords a
clear meaning, and accords with the context: ‘shall’ or ‘may we continue ?
2. “Dead to sin:” Such figurative language is very common in the
New Testament. Thus in the next chapter, the Jews are said to be “dead
to the law,” ver. 4; and in Eph. ii. 1, men in their natural state are called
“dead in trespasses and sins.” It is unnecessary to multiply references.
96 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. VIII.
2 abound? God forbid. How shall vdéoy; M7) yévorto: oitiveg dme- 2
we, that are dead to sin, live any Vdvouev ty dyaptia, mO¢ ert
3 longer therein? Know ye not, ¢ijoouev év adty; “H dyvoeire, 3
As it is true of figurative language in general, so is it particularly true of
this, that the expositor should be cautious not to carry the comparison ex-
travagantly far; and any degree is extravagant, which becomes forced and
unnatural. There are points of resemblance, however, which must recom-
mend themselves to every reflecting mind.
1) The state of death implies a state of insensibility, and it is both the
duty and the privilege of Christians to become in a measure insensible to
and unaffected by the delusive charms of sin, so that the man who was
once all alive to its influence becomes indifferent to its most pressing soli-
citations.—2) And as the Christian is dead to sin, so also is sin in his
view as a dead object. The Apostle suggests this thought in ver. 6, where
he represents the “old man” as “crucified with” Christ, “that the body of
sin might be destroyed.” Compare Gal. vi. 14: “the world is crucified unto
me.” As the dead object cannot excite the pleasurable emotions and
desires to which when living it gave birth, so neither can sin in the mind
of the Christian. As, on the contrary, the dead object excites the opposite
sentiments or feelings, those namely of aversion and disgust; so does sin
in the soul of the true Christian. Other points of similarity might doubt-
less be traced, but these will sufficiently illustrate the Apostle’s figure.
The Christian is dead to sin, and sin is dead to him. Living any longer in
the practice of it is therefore impossible, because he is influenced by the
principle of a different, yea, an opposite life. ,
8. “So many of us” (rather: ‘we as many,’) “as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” What is it to be baptized into
Christ? or what does true Christian baptism mean? or 9413 may, by a Hebrew usage, stand for the substance or reality of
sin, which is figuratively represented as incarnated.—“ Is freed from sin :”
Literally, justified from it. Compare the similar phrase in Acts xiii. 39.
It means cleared from its imputation, and liberated from its controlling
power. See ver. 18.
100 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seor. VIII.
6 his resurrection: knowing this, that dvaotdcewe éodueda, TodTO yl- 6
our old man is crucified with him, v@oxovrec, dre 6 maAatog Tay
that the body of sin might be de- dvdpwrog ovvectavpwdn, iva
stroyed, that henceforth we should Katapyn37 70 oGya Tij¢ duap-
7 notserve sin. For he that isdead Tiac, rod penkéte dovAevery Tac
8 is freed from sin. Now if we be Tq duaptia. ‘O yap drodavav 7
dead with Christ, we believe that dedixaiwrat dad ti¢ dwapriac.
9 we shall also live with him: know- El dé dreddvouev adv XpioTd, 8
ing that Christ, being raised from TtoTevouev, dtt Kal ovdjoomev
the dead, dieth no more; death hath at7@, eidérec, drt Xptotoc éyep- 9
10 no more dominion over him. For
in that he died, he died unto sin
once; but in that he liveth, he
Veic EK vVEKP@Y OvKETL GTO-
YvioKker’ Ydvarocg adTov ovKETL
Kuptever. “O yao dnédave, TH 10
8, 9. The present moral death to sin, which implies also a life to
righteousness, brings along with it as its Christian consequence, future
everlasting and glorious life with Christ in heaven. The living with
Christ which is here spoken of cannot be limited to any moral or
spiritual condition in this life, because it is represented as an object of
faith: “ we believe that we shall also live with him.” Whatever of this
life the Christian obtains here is the mere germ and commencement of
what he expects to enjoy hereafter. The 9th verse gives the reason for
such a belief. Christ, having risen from the dead, is forever immortal.
The Apostle’s language is that of triumph: ‘death no more lords it over
him.’ “ He ever liveth to make intercession” for those who belong to him,
and therefore, according to his promise, ‘“ because he liveth they shall live
also.” Compare Heb. vii. 25, and John xiv. 19; and see the same senti-
ment in Rom. vy. 10.
10,"0 yde dréOave- 5 d€¢q° This might be translated thus: ‘ For
what he died—but what he liveth ;’ that is, the death that he died, the life
that he lives: See Tholuck. This would be equivalent to the common trans-
Jation, which is obtained by understanding kata before 6, which is a very
frequent ellipsis. Literally it would be, ‘according to what.’ The render-
ing of Macknight, “he who died—he who liveth,” is inadmissible. The
Greek usage would require either 6¢ with the verb, or 6 with the partici-
ple.—* He died unto sin:” Rather, ‘ with reference to, for.’ The thought
is more fully expressed elsewhere. He died both to exp%ate sin by making
a suitable atonement, and to destroy its power in us.—*Once:” The one
offering of Christ is forever satisfactory, and cannot be repeated. Compare
Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10, 12, 14. See also ix. 26, and the note there.—
“He liveth unto God :” That is, in order to advance the divine honour;
since the humiliation and subsequent exaltation of “the son of man” not
only “glorifies” himself, but also “ glorifies God with him .” John xiii. 31.
Cn. VI. 6-18.]
duaptia dré8aver épdrat: 8 dé
11 CH, 6p TO VEO. OtTw Kal byeic
Aoyigea9e Eavtods vexpod¢ péev
TH duapria, Caivtac JE TO Yew
12 év Xptot@ "Inoov. M7) ovv Baot-
AevéTw 7 Guaptia év TO SvqnTo
Duav oopate cig TO braxovery
13 raic éredvpiacc adtov, unde Ta-
plordvete Ta pédn tuov brAa
adtkiac TH dwaptia: dAAd Tapa-
oThoate éavtove TO VEO we ek
VEKPOV C@VTAC, Kal TA WEAN DUGV
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
101
liveth unto God. Likewise reckon 11
ye also yourselves to be dead indeed
unto sin, but alive unto God through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin 12
therefore reign in your mortal
body, that ye should obey it in the
lusts thereof. Neither yield ye 18
your members as instruments of
unrighteousness unto sin ; but yield
yourselves unto God, as those that
are alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of right-
eousness unto God. For sin shall 14
14 érAa dikatocbyng TO Ved. ‘A-
11-13. Thus far the author has described chiefly the effect of a true
union with Christ in producing a principle of spiritual life incompatible with
a state of sinfulness. But, inasmuch as its actual developments and ope-
ration in the Christian’s holiness is, in the present state of being, always
imperfect and generally so to a very great degree, he now proceeds, in
view of the Christian profession made in baptism, to exhort to a consistent
character and conduct.
“So also you,” &c.: This is founded on our union with Christ before
spoken of. The exhortation does not lose sight of the truth that here sin
will exercise some influence, since “there is no man that sinneth not,” and
therefore the Apostle says, “let not sin re¢gn in your mortal body,” &c.
The epithet here employed describes the body in its present frail and dying
condition, in which it is made the organ of sin, in contradistinction to the
same body immortal and become the instrument of sanctity and happiness,
Such language gives no ground for the opinion, already adverted to, of the
body being the seat of sinful passions.—The concluding clause of the 12th
verse is variously read in ancient authorities. The reading in the received
Some
omit the whole clause, and their testimony is followed by Griesbach and
other editors. Hahn and some others retain the last three words and omit
the preceding two; and others omit the last four, and conclude the verse
with avr7. The general sense will be the same, as the obedience to sin is
shown in yielding to corporeal desires.
14, “ The law,” as such, conveys no power wherewith to resist sin.
But “ grace” or the Gospel does in the influence of the Holy Spirit. This
difference of the two states affords a sufficient reason for the assertion, that
sin shall not lord it over the Christian.
15. This verse, which is in striking analogy with the first, states the
utter incongruity, both with Christian character and profession, of practising
text after draxovtety is as follows: adtH év Tai¢ ervdvpiate adtov.
102
not have dominion over you; for
ye are not under the law, but under
15 grace. What then? Shall we sin,
because we are not under the law,
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. VIII.
papria yap buay od Kupteboet:
ov yd tore rd vouov, GAA’ dO
xdpv. Ti obv ; duaptioopev, bre 15
ovK eopnev bd vomov, dA’ bd
yap ; ur) yévoito. OvK oldare, 16
étt @ maptordvere éavtod¢ Job-
Aove ele braxony, dovA0t tore
@ bTaKoveTe, 7ToL duaptiac elc¢
Sdvaror, 7} brako7je el¢ diKato-
obvnv ; Xdpic d& TO eG, Jrt
Te SovAoL THE awaptiac, vrN-
but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye
yield yourselves servants to obey,
his servants ye are to whom ye
obey ? whether of sin unto death,
or of obedience unto righteousness ?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were
sin. The Apostle rejects with abhorrence the thought of thus abusing the
grace of the Gospel. In the next he illustrates what he had said, by refer-
ring to the human relation of master and servant. The last clause requires
a few illustrative remarks. The words “to death,” ele 8avarov, are omitted
in several weighty authorities, although the evidence preponderates in their
favour. If they were not an original part of the text, it woyld be difficult
to assign a good reason for their insertion, while the apparent want of an-
tithesis to “ righteousness” may have induced some transcribers to reject
them. It is not probable that dcxaootvn here means justification ; for then
the Apostle’s statements would conflict with the general scope of his argu-
ment throughout the Epistle. Professor Stuart indeed does contend for
this meaning, But he has not presented any considerations of weight to
sustain it; and towards the end of his note he substitutes “ eternal life” for
“justification.” His objection to explaining righteousness by religion, that
this is identical with obedience, may be answered by the remark, that suc-
cessive acts of obedience Jead to the formation of a righteous or religious
character, This is probably what the Apostle means, as in ver, 22, the
“fruit” of serving God is stated’to be “ holiness ;” to which it might be
objected with equal plausibility, that this service is itself holiness. But the
signification most probably is, that such holy service results in the advan-
tage of possessing a holy habit.—Neither ought the translation to be ‘hap-
piness,’ for this is not a legitimate meaning of dixacoobvn, although it is a
necessary result of what it does mean, namely, personal religion, or true
religiousness of character. In this sense it occurs in Matt. vi. 33, “ the
kingdom of God and his righteousness.” Thus the phrase corresponds with
“unto holiness,” el¢ dysaopév in ver. 22. As felicity is the unvarying
concomitant of such religion, the term affords a very sufficient antithesis
to death, which expresses the idea of misery.
17. “ Form of doctrine :’ Tézo¢ has been supposed by some to mean
a mould into which a substance is poured in order to give it proper shape.
But the word in this sense never occurs in the New Testament, and the
=
Cu. VI. 14-19. ]
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 103
kovoate d& &k Kapdiacg ei¢ dv
18 wapedé9nre Titov Sidayic* éAev-
Sepwdévres JE ATO THC djuapTtiac
19 dovAddnte TH Suxatoobvy.” ’Av-
Spdirivov Aéyw did THY dadé-
the servants of sin, but ye have
obeyed from the heart that form of’
doctrine which was delivered you.
Being then made free from sin, ye 18
became the servants of righteous-
vELav TIC sapKo¢ buwv* WoTeo ness. I speak after the manner of 19
\ ‘
terms generally used by Greek writers to express this sense are Aiydo¢
and yodv7. Besides, the verbs would not be in keeping with such a figure.
Form, sketch, outltne, conveys the Apostle’s idea, which he expresses
also in 2 Tim. i. 13 by the similar word drorbmwot¢.—tThe construction
of the latter part of the verse is doubtful. Tholuck understands i7n-
kovoate to be here, as it often is elsewhere, (see in Kypke examples from
Appian and Josephus,) construed with eic, and resolves the expression
into imyKovoaTEe ei¢ TiO diday7c d¢ Taped69n dyiv, in compliance with
the rule that verbs which in the active have the dative of the person, in
the passive change that into the nominative. So Castalio: paruistis ei
doctrinze rationi, quee vobis tradita est. Or English translation seems to
have been made in reference to the same principle: “ Ye have obeyed that
form of doctrine which was delivered you.” But the marginal reading,
which is in the original edition, is: ‘“‘ Whereto ye were delivered ;” and this
is also the reading, with slight varieties of verbal expression, in Wiclif,
Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and Rheims translations. These old
English versions followed another construction, which is perhaps to be pre-
ferted. Although the verb drakoveyv elsewhere in the New Testament
invariably governs the dative, yet it occurs in the Septuagint with the
accusative and also with the genitive. See, among other instances, Deut.
xxi. 18, xxvi. 14, 17. The construction may therefore be, im7Kobtcate
toTov diayie ei¢ dv. If we are influenced by the dative usage of the
New Testament, we may still regard the accusative of the noun as flowing
by attraction from that of the relative. Iapadidwue may be taken in the
sense of to teach, as it signifies in Luke i. 2, Acts vi. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 2. In
the last text, the verb and the noun both occur, and though the latter is
rendered in the text of our translation “ordinances” and in the margin
“traditions,” the true meaning is undoubtedly instructions delivered or
taught by St. Paul himself. Thus also the same word ought to be rendered
in 2 Thess. ii. 15: ‘hold fast the instructions which you have been taught ;’
and in iii, 6, ‘according to the znstruction received from us.’ Etymologi-
cally the word means directions or truths delivered. The best translation
therefore of the clause is probably this: ‘ Ye have obeyed from the heart
the form of doctrine in which ye were instructed.—The Apostle thanks
God for their obedience. Before “ye were,” although is to be supplied.
Comp. Matt. xi. 25: ‘although thou hast hidden’ &c.
104
men, because of the infirmity of
your flesh ; for as ye have yielded
your members servants to unclean-
ness, and to iniquity unto iniquity ;
even so now yield your members
servants to righteousness unto
20 holiness. For when ye were the
servants of sin, ye were free from
21 righteousness. What fruit had ye
then in those things whereof ye
are now ashamed? for the end of
22 those things is death. But now
being made free from sin, and be-
come servants to God, ye have your
fruit unto holiness, and the end,
23 everlasting life. For the wages of
sin is death ; but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. VIII. IX.
yap mapeorhoare Ta péAn bua
dpdAa TH dxadapoia Kai TH dvo-
pia ele tiv dvouiay, obtTw viv
Tapanrioate Ta péhn buoy dov-
Aa ry Sikatocbvy ele dytaopnor.
"Ore yde dovAot ire Tij¢ auap- 20
tiac, EAedVepor are TH dtKaLo-
obvy. Tiva obv xaprov elyete 21
tote &d’ ol¢ viv éxaoyivedde ;
TO yao TéAo¢ éxeivwv Ydvaroc.
Novi dé éhevdepwdévrec dd Tij¢ 22
duaptiac, dovAwdévtes d& TO
Ved, Myere TOV KapTOVv bua eic¢
dytaonov, 70 68 TéAOG Swijy aid-
viov, Tad yap opouvia ti¢ duap- 23
tiac Sdvatoc, TO bE ydpiopwa TOD
Seo Cw7 aldvioc év Xpioro
*Inood TO Kupiw Tov.
our Lord.
18-23. Sin and righteousness are here personified and represented as
masters of conflicting interests. The author remarks that he speaks in an
ordinary human way, taking his illustrations from common life; and this
in order the better to adapt himself to the weak condition of his readers.
But he does not refer to it so much intellectually as spiritually. And this
weak condition, be it observed, is not stated as peculiar to the Roman
Christians, but is predicable of Christians of all ages in a greater or less
degree. And hence it is that religious truth must ever be presented, not
in the very best conceivable form, but in that which is best adapted to the
condition of the party addressed. The weakness of our present sinful state is
what is intended.—“ To iniquity unto iniquity.” Comp. i. 17, “from faith
to faith.” Increase is the idea in both cases, In the real Christian, faith
ever grows; in the sinner, iniquity becomes stronger and stronger, verify-
ing the terrific announcement, “he that is filthy, let him be filthy still.”
Rev. xxi. 11. In the very truthful and striking language of Olshausen :
“ Sin continually brings forth sin, only she produces figures ever more
frightful from her teeming womb. Even so does righteousness produce
by degrees more gloriously, until she becomes holiness.”
On ver. 21, Griesbach and other critical editors place the interrogation
point after then: ‘What fruit therefore had ye then? The usual punctua-
tion, which appears in our Bibles, is, at least, as good. The reader can
hardly fail to remark the antithesis between dre, T6re, and viv, vuri dé,
the one denoting the former sinful condition, and the other the present
Christian state-—The word end is best understood in the sense of reward.
Cx. VI. 19-VIl.1.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 105
In ver. 23 wages and free gift are in evident contrast, the one expressing
due desert, and the other unmerited gratuity. Death and life are also
contrasted, the epithet of e¢ernal being applied to the latter, as is done also
in v. 21.
SE .OTIO Ne ds
Cuar. VII.-VIII. 17.
THE LAW CAN NEITHER JUSTIFY NOR SANCTIFY. IT IS THE GOSPEL WHICH
ALONE CAN MEET, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE WANTS OF MAN’S WEAK AND
SINFUL CONDITION,
VII. "“H dyvoeite, ddeAdgoi, (yivé- Know ye not, brethren, (for I VII.
Gkovot yae vowov AadG,) bre 6 speak to them that know the law,)
vomwog Kuplever Tov dv3pwrov, how that the law hath dominion
Cuap. vii. Christians are not connected with the law, either as a means of
acceptance with God or of their sanctification ; for it can neither place men
in such a state, nor give them grace to live a holy life. It can but show
clearly the nature of sin, excite its propensities, and condemn the sinner.
Freedom from the condemnation and dominion of sin, and acceptance with
God, together with power to live a holy life, are peculiar to the Gospel.
And hence results obligation on the part of the Christian to live in accord-
ance with its nature, and also with a view to obtain its ultimate blessings.
The connection of justification and sanctification is here, as elsewhere
in this Epistle, evidently implied and indeed avowed. The former is the
principle and germ of the latter. The grace of justification developed in
its practical efficacy necessarily produces sanctification. This fact of Chris-
tianity may account for the Apostle’s transition from the one to the other,
which thereby becomes perfectly natural.
Ver. 1. “I speak to them that know the law.” For the various mean-
ings which have been ascribed to the word law in this verse, 1 must refer
the reader to the commentators. The Mosaic law in general, the ceremo-
nial law in particular, the law of the marriage relation specially, have their
respective advocates. It cannot be the ceremonial law, for the whole tenor
of the chapter is opposed to such a supposition. Nor is there reason to
limit it to the law respecting marriage, for what is said of this is confined
to two or three verses, and is merely illustrative. The simplest and most
natural sense would seem to be, moral law in general, not merely as exist-
ing or even as first promulgated by Moses; but as the law under which
106
over aman as long as he liveth?
For the woman which hath a hus-
band is bound by the law to her
husband, so long as he liveth; but
COMMENTARY
ON THE
ép’ ba0v xpovov GH; ‘Hyde
bravdpog yuri) TO C@vre dvdpi
déderat vou: bdv dé droddvyg
6 dvie, Katipynta and Tow
(Seer. IX.
2
if the husband be dead, she is
loosed from the law of her husband.
vouov tod dvdpic. “Apa ovv 8
man as aresponsible creature of God always was and ever must be. The
Apostle addresses himself to those who have a general knowledge of the
application and bearing of moral law. The word is at first without the
article, which however is employed on a renewed mention of the subject in
the next clause. Comp. viii. 9, 11, where “ spirit” occurs first without and
then with the article, although expressive of precisely the same idea.
“ As long as he liveth :” From the time of Origen to the present day,
some interpreters have predicated this of the law, translating ‘as long as
it liveth, that is, remaineth in force, But this is certainly a very harsh
sense, and inadmissible, unless required by absolute necessity. To say that
the law rules the man as long as it has force is not, indeed, a mere truism,
but much nearer to one than can be allowed in such a writer as St. Paul.
The advocates of this view have appealed to the following verses, where
they suppose the man or husband to correspond with the law and the woman
or wife with the Jews or those under the law. But the correctness of such
correspondence cannot be proved, and of course any argument drawn from
it is uncertain, and may be erroneous. The usual meaning, which appears
in our common translation, is more in accordance with the language in
1 Cor. vii. 89, where the same phrase occurs with the additional words,
“her husband.” And in ver. 4, the persons addressed are said to be dead,
not the law; and so in ver. 6, according to the true reading dro¥avérrec,
‘we having died.’ The Apostle might undoubtedly have spoken of the law
as dead ; but he has chosen to express this condition as that of the persons,
And so also of himself in Gal. ii. 19, “I am dead to the law.” Perhaps
he preferred this phraseology on account of his having before spoken of
Christians as “ dead to sin,” vi. 2; and perhaps, also, from his reluctance
to represent God’s moral law as in any sense dead, since it cgntains within
itself a principle of perpetua! life.
2, 3. “ From the law of her husband :” That is, from the law which
binds her to her husband.—’Edv yévnrar—yevouévnv: become to, that is,
be married to. See Robinsen under yevowae I. 4, a) ad fin.—These two
verses seem to be introduced as illustration, and merely to convey the
thought that death dissolves the marriage obligation. It is neither neces-
sary nor expedient to draw out the analogy any farther. Its application
is made in the next verse. The general idea therefore appears to be this,
‘ As, in the marriage relation, the death of either party dissolves the obliga-
Cu. VII. 2-4.] - EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 107
COvroc Tod dvdpoc ovyadic ypn- So then, if, while Aer husband 3
parioet, av yévntat dvdpl Etépw’ liveth, she be married to another
éav d& droddvy 6 dvip, éAev- man, she shall be called an adulter-
Sépa gotiv dd TOV VowWov, TOU ess; but if her husband be dead,
fun elvat adtiy joryadioa, yevo- she is free from that law, so that
pévnv dvdpt étépw. “Qote, ddeA- she is no adulteress, though she be
pot pov, kat duetc E9avaTw@OynTe married to another man. Where- 4
TO VOU OLA TOV GapaToG TOV
Xptorov, sic TO yevéodar buaic
ETepW, TO EK VEKPOV EyEepdEYTL,
fore, my brethren, ye also are be-
come dead to the law by the body
of Christ; that ye should be mar-
tion entered into, so your (figurative) death to the law releases you from
any connection with it as the instrumentality of your acceptance with and
sanctification before God,’
The attempt to carry out the author’s analogy into particular detail has
given rise to a vast variety of theories. The reader who desires to become
acquainted with them may perhaps find sufficient to gratify his curiosity
in the notes of Tholuck and Olshausen, and the authors to whom they refer.
4. The Apostle now applies his comparison, and represents Christian
believers as “dead to the law.” He does not speak of it as a code of
morals, which, although no human effort can attain to its perfect excellence,
is notwithstanding to be perpetually set up as the divine standard (Matt.
y. 17, 18), but rather as a means of acceptance with God. This accords
with the general scope of the Epistle, and also with the particular one of
this chapter.—* The body of Christ :” This means most certainly his literal
personal body which was offered on the cross, and which thereby effected
the figurative death here spoken of. This death, like that of the one mar-
ried party which releases the other from previous obligation, prepares the
way for your becoming connected with another, him who hath been raised
from the dead. Stripped of all figure, the idea is, that Christ’s atonement
enables us to look for acceptance and sanctification to a vital union with
him, Thence (to resume again the figure,) proceeds the legitimate off-
spring of this spiritual alliance, namely, the fruits of good works tending
to advance God’s glory.
5, 6. These verses express two contrary states, one, that of fallen sin-
ful nature ; the other, that of Christian character elevated by the Gospel
to a new and spiritual service of God.—‘In the flesh:” This does not
mean under the law, in a legal condition merely ; as some have explained
it, referring to such places as Rom. iv. 1, Gal. iii. 8, Heb. ix. 10, and other
texts of the same kind where the law and its external ordinances are repre-
sented as fleshly. According to the common use of the phrase it means ‘his
sinful condition’ under the influence of carnal lusts. Thus in vii. 18, “in
me, that is, in my flesh ;” in viii. 8, 9, “they who are in the flesh—ye are
108 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. IX.
ried to another, even to him who is fra Kapropophowpev 7H eG.
raised from the dead, that we “Ore ydp quev év TH oapki, Ta 5
should bring forth fruit unto God. radiata TOY duapTiav, Ta dud
5 For when we were in the flesh, the Tov vémov, évypyeito év Toi¢
motions of sins, which were by the péAeow qudv ele TO Kaptodo-
not in the flesh ;” in Eph. ii. 11, “ Gentiles in the flesh.” No doubt the
persons spoken of were under the law; but the sinfulness of their character
while in such a condition, is the particular point which the phrase denotes.
“ The passions of sins ;” that is sinful passions.—“ Which were by the
law :” Locke and Macknight translate: ‘ under the law,’ which the Greek
unquestionably admits. But the common translation is nevertheless pre-
ferable. For the Apostle intending to display the law as exhibiting to
transgressors the nature of sin and its effects on the awakened conscience,
as his argument led him and as he does in vs. 7 et seq., here speaks of
sinful passions as developing themselves in action by the law, although he
means that the law made their sinfulness the more conspicuous, and became
the occasion of their being excited to their natural course of opposition.
Thus in Matt. x. 34, 35, the coming of Christ is said to do what it merely
gave occasion to sinful human passions to perpetrate. This view gives
point to the question in ver. '7, “is the law sin?’ Such an objection im-
plying the most thorough reductio ad absurdum, might very plausibly be
raised on the representation that sinful passions were by the law, but not
on account of their being said to exist wnder it. In this way too the
phrase retains uniformly the same sense, whereas Locke and Macknight
are obliged to translate it differently in different places. Thus in ver. 5 and
8, they translate dvd under or during, in ver. 7 through or by, and in ver. 11
where it occurs twice, they employ both words. Besides, according to
their interpretation, which explains the phrase “in the flesh” of “ the state of
the Jews under the law of Moses,” both phrases express exactly the same
thing.—* In our members.” This is equivalent to the more general ex-
pression, in our body; though it may be employed to mark the relation
between particular members and certain sins, in the commission of which
they become instrumental.—* To bring forth fruit unto death :” Such is
the result of a natural sinful condition, and it is here placed in evident con-
trast with the result of the Christian’s union with Christ, as expressed in
the previous verse under a figure drawn from the marriage relation.
In opposition to the sinful condition before described, the author pro-
ceeds to say as follows: ‘But now, we, having died, have become freed
from the law in (or by) which we were held.’ The common reading is
dro8avévtoc, which being in the genitive singular, refers, of course, to
vouov, This is followed by our English translation : “ the law, that being
dead.” But the marginal reading in the original edition has “ being dead to
Ca. VII. 5-7.]
6
pjroa 7 Yavdtw, Nvrvi dé
karnpynonuev amd Tov vépov,
d7vodavérrec, &y @ KaTeryoueda,
Led 4 e~ 7
ore dovAebery Hudc &v Katvo-
THTL TVvEvpaTog Kal ov Tadaté-
THTL Ypampwatoc.
EPISTLE TO, THE ROMANS.
109
law, did work in our members to
bring forth fruit unto death. But
now we are delivered from the law,
that being dead wherein we were
held ; that we should serve in new-
ness of spirit, and not 7m the oldness
7 Ti ovdv éporvpev; 6 vouoc duap- of the letter.
Tia ; aj yévoito’ GAAd THY awap- What shall we say then? Js the
that.” And so Tyndale and Cranmer: “ We are delivered from the law,
and deed from that (unto it: C.) whereunto we were in bondage.” Also
the Genevan: “ we are delivered from the lawe being dead unio yt.” As
usual, Wiclif and the Rheims agree with the Vulgate and other Latin
authorities, soluti sumus a lege mortis, the former having, “ we ben un-
bounden fro the lawe of deeth,” and the latter, “we are loosed from the
law of death.” The other English versions before cited follow the true
reading dzoSavéytec, which is supported by the best ancient manuscripts
and versions, also by the figurative language of the author in the immediate
context.—* Newness of spirit, oldness of letter.” These phrases denote
the new, spiritual dispensation of the Gospel, and the old one of the Law,
the merely outward and literal sense of which showed its imperfection.
The former is the development of the full spiritual meaning of the latter
and of what it adumbrated. In 2 Cor. iii. 6, the Apostle employs the
same language: “ Not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter killeth
but the spirit giveth life.” That is, the law condemns,and punishes, but
the Gospel acquits and favours with unmerited blessings.
7. “What shall we say then? is the law sin?’ The force of the
question results from the representation made in ver. 5, of the law becom-
ing the occasion of sin, which had been stated in the terms, ‘sinful passions
which were by the law.’ The imputation is promptly rejected. Yet sin is
made known by the law: and the tenth commandment is alleged as an
illustration of this: The law is not sin. No, certainly: but it gives a
fuller consciousness of sin, than otherwise I could have, and becomes the
occasion of my sinful propensity operating on me in opposition to law.
“Not only is the law not a teacher of sin, but it is sin’s accuser.” Theo-
doret, Opera, Tom. iii. p. 53.
As the Apostle now employs the first person, and continues to em-
ploy it until the third verse of the next chapter, this seems to be a proper
place to examine whether he speaks particularly of himself, or personifies
a character; and, if he does speak of himself, whether he describes his
Christian condition, or a state antecedent thereto.
That St. Paul cannot intend to limit to himself what he here says, is
most probable, inasmuch as he manifestly depicts the experience of a class;
1
110 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. IX.
law sin? God forbid. Nay, Thad not tiav ove tyvwr, el pa) bia v6-
known sin, but by thelaw: forlhad pov: tiv te yao éxvOupiay ovdK
not known lust, except the lawhad {Jdecv, el juz) 6 vouoc tLeyev > od
and, as his statement applies to himself as well as to all others of the class
described, and as he employs the first person, it would seem unreasonable
to exclude him from the class intended. It is of little consequence, as
regards the interpretation of the whole portion, whether he is speaking of
himself as an individual of a class, or whether he personifies such class.
But the other point of discussion has a direct bearing on the interpretation
of the portion, namely, whether it is the really Christian state of the party
spoken of, or an antecedent one, which is here intended; whether it be a
regenerate or ante-regenerate condition. Olshausen says, that all exposi-
tors agree that “7-15 applies to the state before regeneration, as the
Apostle indicates by the aorist that the state is gone by. But whether
14-24 is also to be so considered is uncertain, since in this section Paul
makes use of the present only, while viii. 2, &c. the aorist again appears.”
The argument from the change of tense does not seem to be of much force,
as the change naturally arises from the author’s method of representing his
subject. Divines, both of ancient and modern times, have differed respect-
ing the main point. Among the fathers, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
state the ante-regeneration view, while Augustin and others maintain the
opposite theory. Modern theologians, from the time of the Reformation,
have also differed in the same way. It is impossible to arrive at any satis-
factory conclusion on this particular, by settling the possible meaning of
some phrases which may occur in the latter portion. While it is certainly
susceptible of proof that the language, “ carnal—sold under sin,” and much
of the accompanying description, are strictly inapplicable to the inwardly
regenerate Christian; yet the Scriptures supply us with many instances of
most pious men, such, for instance, as Daniel, Job, and David, applying simi-
lar language to themselves as expressions of penitential confession ; and such
expressions of self-abasement have always characterized the holiest. Yet,
on the other hand, the fact that language of this kind is used by such men
in the way of penitent confession, will not authorise the inference, that it is
intended of them when it occurs in a logical train of argument. The scope
and general design of the author afford therefore the best clew to ascer-
tain his meaning; and this I have endeavoured to present in the analysis.
J shall now attempt to explain the portion in accordance with the view
there given.
The Apostle is speaking of the state of a person before he becomes a
Christian. He describes the conflict of such a one’s natural feelings and
passions with his reason, conscience, and imperfect knowledge of God’s
law. Still, as the same imperfect condition and sinful tendency exist,
Cu. VII. 8, 9.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. hid
8 éxidvunoec. "Adopurv d& Aa- said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, 8
Bovoa 1) duaptia dia tie EvToA7¢ taking occasion, by the command-
Kateipydoaro év éuol Taoav ért- ment wrought in me all manner of
Svuiav: ywpic yao vbuov duap- concupiscence. For without the law
9 tia vexpd. "Eye 6& &wv ywpic sin was dead. For I was alive 9
though in a modified degree, even in the truest Christian, it is very proba-
ble that the sacred author expresses himself in language drawn from his
own Christian experience at different times, and such language may well
be used of the regenerate, as suitably depicting their inward emotions.
All this may be allowed, while it may still be maintained, that the Apos-
tle’s argument compels us to give one definite exposition of his words, and
to maintain that they describe one clearly marked condition, The view of
Olshausen is worthy of attentive consideration. “The Apostle sets out,
vii. 9, from a state in which the man is living entirely without law, and
closes viii. 11, with the glorification of the bodily substance. The question
occurs here, how many stages of development are properly distinguished ?
Four clearly present themselves. F%rst, a life without law, in which sin is
(comparatively) dead; nex?, a life under the law, in which sin becomes
alive and has dominion; further, a state, in which by the power of Christ,
the spirit has dominion and sin is (in a great degree) mastered ; finally,
the state of the entire separation of sin by the glorification of the bodily,
substance.”
8. “Sin:” Not the overt act of sin, but the sinful principle, which is so
far personified as to be represented as an agent. “Taking occasion, by the
commandment wrought in me.” Most likely the phrase, “by the com-
mandment,” should be connected with the words that immediately follow.
Thus the sentiment will be, that sin, by means of the commandment
wrought, &c. And this certainly agrees best with the eleventh verse, which
connects “the commandment” with “wrought,” for it is there said, “ by the
commandment deceived me, and by it slew me.”—Sin is the agent that
works all émvdvpiar, that is, all illicit desire-— Without the law sin is
dead.” This is true absolutely. If there were no moral law at all, there
could be no living and active sin at all. And the same is true in all the
degrees in which sin can be conceived to exist. The sin is in proportion
to the moral law as known or capable of being known,
9,10. “I was alive :” Does this language express simply the fact that
the speaker was at one time living without a right appreciation of the
character and bearing of God’s moral law. Suchasupposition would agree
with the context, and give a correct exposition. The Apostle may intend
to say merely this, that antecedently to the time of which he is speaking,
he, or the party spoken of, was passing his existence without a right esti-
mate of the nature and purport of God’s law. Still, the antithesis with the
112 COMMENTARY ON THE [Seor. IX.
without the law once; but when véuov troté- &ADobong dé Tij¢
the commandment came, sin re- évToA7j¢ 7 duaptia dvégnoev,
10 vived, and I died. And the com- ¢@y@ dé dré¥avov- Kai eipédn 10
mandment, which was ordained to pot 1) évtoda) 7) ele Gwiv, abtn
language of the next verse, “I died,” does seem to demand a fuller sense.
“T died,” expresses, certainly, a consciousness of being condemned, and in
a state of moral and penal death. It would seem most reasonable, then, to
give to the antithetic phrase, “I was living,” a meaning somewhat analo-
gous, thus: ‘I was not properly conscious of sin, I did not experience the
influence of law as the occasion of its action, the influence of law either on
my perceptions of the character of sin, or in becoming the instrunientality
of rousing my sinful passions into life and energy.’
“But, when the commandment came ;” or, the commandment having
come. According to Tholuck on ver. 8, évroA# means the particular com-
mandment not to covet, and thus in Heb. vii. 18 the commandment has
been restricted to the law of the priesthood. See my note there, which is
intended to show that in both places it is better to take the word in its
most comprehensive sense as equivalent to véuoc, law. There is not suf-
ficient reason for the limitation. On the contrary, what is applicable to
law being predicated also of commandment, the probability is that both are
equally general in meaning. The coming of the commandment is not to
be explained in reference to the historical introduction of the Mosaic law
at Mount Sinai. The chief objection to this interpretation is not that it
involves an unnatural figure, as the Apostle would then represent his per-
sonified character as living before the time of the Mosaic law, through its
whole period, and into the Christian dispensation. If he personates human
nature in different states, such a representation will be allowable, although,
at first view, it may appear incongruous. But, as the different conditions
and states of mind here described existed, beyond all doubt, in a greater
or less degree, among individuals, whether living before or during or after
the Mosaic dispensation, it becomes necessary to take some view of the
phrase ‘which will accord with this fact. Doubtless the Apostle speaks of
the influence of Jaw on the awakening conscience, to which it comes home,
as we say with a natural depth of meaning founded in truth, enlightening,
impressing, and warning. To the same purpose, Gal. iii, 23, 25: “ Before
faith came, after that faith is come.” The idea here intended cannot be
limited to the historical coming of the Gospel. It expresses also the liber-
ating influence of faith on the believer’s mind,—‘Sin revived, but I died,
and the very commandment which was intended to produce happiness was
found to result in misery,’ “Sin” is the carnal principle in our fallen
nature, and the “I” is the better part of the man, his rational spiritual
principle under the influence, in a greater or less degree, of conscience and
Ox. VII. 10-13.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 113
11 elie Ydévarov. ‘H yde dpapria life, I found to be unto death. For 11
ddoppy AaBovoa dia tI¢ évTo- sin, taking occasion, by the com-
Ane &énrdrnoé we kat dv avrij¢ mandment deceived me, and by it
12 dréxrewev. “Qote 6 ev vouog slew me. Wherefore the law is 12
dywog, kal 7 évtoda wyia Kat holy; and the commandment holy,
13 dtxaia kat dyadh. TO ody dya- and just, and good. Was then 13
moral law, as impressed thereon.—The phrases, “sin revived,” or, became
active, dominant; and, “I died,” are manifestly antithetic. As the one
gains or exerts strength, the other feels its own weakness in a proportion-
ably increasing degree, and recognises also its ruined condition.
11, 12. “Sin,” in other words, the carnal principle. It “deceived me :”
The insidious character of sin is what is here intended. There may be an
allusion to the words of Eve in the Septuagint of Gen. iii. 13, “the serpent
beguiled me,” 7jmd7n0é we. This same carnal principle is also here repre-
sented as the source of that death of which in the former clause, the law is
said to have been the occasion. Here the language is, “sin slew me,”
dréxrevve; in 2 Cor. iii. 6, it is, “the letter (meaning the law,) killeth,”
arokreivet. In the one text, the law is said to do what, in the other, is
ascribed to the carnal principle or fallen nature. Language of this kind is
usual in common life, and abounds also in Holy Scripture. Thus we read
that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” that “Pharaoh hardened his heart,”
and “that the heart of Pharaoh was hardened ;” (Exod. vii. 13, viii. 32,
vii. 14;) the last phrase expressing the ostensible and undeniable fact, the
preceding one, the personal agency of the man himself, and the first the
divine permission. Perhaps the most striking instance of this kind of
language may be found in the scriptural account of David’s numbering the
people. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, it is said, that “the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go num-
ber Israel” &c.; while the same thing in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, is ascribed to the
Devil: “Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number
Israel.” The theory whereby such seemingly contradictory declarations
are reconciled, is the very simple one, of the agent speaking or acting as
the principal: qui facit per alium facit per se. Thus, in the case under
consideration, the law is the occasion, sinful passion the cause. “By the
commandment,” and “by it,” are evidently connected respectively with
the verb that follows; and, as was before said, determine the connection of
the phrase, “by the commandment,” in the 8th verse, to be with the sub-
sequent verb. Thus it is evident from the foregoing representation, that
the law is in all respects, excellent, and not at all the cause of sin, however
it may have been the occasion of developing and even of exciting it.
13. Nothing now could be more natural, than to repel the idea that
God’s moral law, which must be essentially good, could become the cause
8
114 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. IX.
that which is good made death unto dv éuol yéyove Ydvatoc; ji)
me? God forbid. But sin, thatit yévorro* dAAd 7 duaprias iva
might appear sin, working death gavq duapria, did Tod dyadovd
in me by that which is good; that roe Katepyagoutévyn Idvarov, iva
sin by the commandment might be- yévyjrac kaW’ brepBodrrv duap-
14 come exceeding sinful. For we twAdg 7 dwaptia did tie évTo-
know that the lawis spiritual; but Ajc. Oldawev ydo, dre 6 vopoc 14
mrevpaTiKoc Eat: bya dé aap-
of ruin. Such is the thought in the first clause of this verse. TO dyadé1-
Emphatically, the good thing, the very counterpart of him whom it de-
scribes and emanates from, and of whom alone, personally considered, it
cah in its fullest sense be affirmed, Comp. Matt. xix. 17.
'H duapria, like 76 dya6v, is the subject of a verb, which may be and
probably is yéyove. If so, the meaning will be: ‘not the good (law of God),
but sin became the cause of my ruin.’ Thus the punctuation may be (but
this is not necessary,) that which Griesbach has introduced, namely a colon
after 7) duaptia. In this case, the anarthrous dwapria which follows, may be
nominative to davy. Then davq and Katepyagouévn may be connected,
and the construction be thus: ‘that sin might appear working’ &c.; or,
without such connection, that sin, working death by means of the good
(law) might appear, that is, that its true nature might become known.—
But the verse admits another construction, which, as it preserves the ordi-
nary usage of the article with the subject and omits it with the predicate,
seems preferable. According to it, the thought runs thus: ‘ Was then the
good (law) the cause of my ruin? Certainly not; but sin, that it might
appear sin, (was) working my ruin by means of the good (law,) that (or so
that,) by means of the commandment, sin might appear (be seen to be,)
excessively sinful.’ According to this view 7jv is to be understood with the
participle katepyacouévy ; or this might be considered as expressive of the
present tense, as in Hebrew.—Still, there is another construction, which
is probably the best. According to it, 7) duapria, as I said before, becomes
the subject of yéyove, and the next line, closely connected with it, expresses
the development of sin and its ruinous effects. . The sense’ which results is
as follows: ‘ Was then the good (law) the cause of my ruin? Certainly
not; but sin (was the cause of it,) which “ that it might appear sin,” in other
words, to show (or showing) its character, wrought ruin by means of the good
(law), thus displaying its detestable nature.’ The concluding clause of the
verse from the second iva, is merely a fuller exhibition of the last idea.
14. The Apostle’s mind dwells on the absurd suggestion which he had
before in ver, 7, indignantly repelled, “is the law sin?” and which he had
just denied. The illative particle “for” here used implies the confutation
already made. On the contrary, we know God’s law to be spiritual. The
On. VIT. 14-18.]
KiKkdc elu, TeTpapévog bd Tay
15 duapriav. "O yao Katepydfowat
9 4 > ‘ “ 7
od ywedoKkw od yde 0 9érw
TOVTO Tpdaaw, GAA’ O [LLdG TOTO
16 ro®. Ei d& 6 od BéAw TodTO
TO, TLUPHUL TO VOW, OTL Ka-
17 Adc. Novi 68 odkéte &yo KaTep-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
116
I am carnal, sold under sin. For 15
that which I do I allow not: for
what I would, that do I not; but
what I hate, that doI. If then I 16
do that which I would not, I con-
sent unto the law that 7 ¢s good.
Now then it is no more I that doit, 17
yasouat abT6, GAA’ 7 oikovoa év put sin that dwelleth in me. ForI 18
18 guot dpaptia. Oida yde, dre
word denotes superiority, excellence in the highest degree, and the noun is
often employed in the same sense. See note on John vi. 63, in the Essay
on our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum, p. 101.—‘“ But I am carnal, sold
under sin.” This expresses our natural inability, subjection to fleshly
inclinations and sinful indulgence. In the Jast phrase, some have imagined
an allusion to the Roman usage of selling property sub hasta. But it is
much more probable that sin is personified and represented as a master to
whom the wretched man had become a slave, compelled to obey his
behests. This is in harmony with the language in the former chapter,
where righteousness and iniquity are represented under the same figure.
We have the phrase also in the Old Testament. Thus Ahab and others
are said to have “sold themselves to work wickedness in the sight of the
Lord,” 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25, 2 Kings xvii. 17; and the same is said of
wicked and abandoned men in 1 Mace. i. 15, “They were sold to do mis-
chief.” The figure denotes most undoubtedly a state of subserviency to sin
_ as to a despot lording it over the imbecile, subjugated wretch, and is there-
fore quite incompatible with the desirable condition of Christian freedom.
15-20. What follows is a vivid and graphical description of the percep-
tions and feelings which arise in the soul of the man who is just beginning
to experience the influence of God’s moral Jaw on his spiritual being. I
shall first note such particulars as seem to require elucidation, and then
state the result in a paraphrase.
Here Olshausen again calls the attention of the reader to the change of
the tense, from the past before employed, to the present, which follows to
the end of the chapter. Hence he concludes that the subsequent represent-
ation is of a more general nature than the preceding, and comprehends the
conflicts even of the regenerate mind, the man in his Christian state. I
have already remarked that the use of the present is quite natural. It
makes the exhibition the more graphical, and brings the personified condi-
tion directly before the mind. It seems also to arise spontaneously from
the statement made in the 14th verse, that “the law is spiritual,” which,
expressing a present as well as a past and also an immutable fact, is natu-
rally followed by a description of a present conflict in the carnal man. It
116 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. IX.
know that in me, that is, in my 00& olwet év éuol, TodT’ Eotw év
flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for 7% oapKi pov, dyadov~ 76 yd
to will is present with me, but éAev mapdxertai pot, TO dé
how to perform that which is good Katepydeodar 7d Kahdv ody
19 I find not. For the good that I evpioxw. Od ydp 6 JéAw, TOW 19
is not to be questioned that some passages may be applicable to a Christian
state, and perhaps the conflicts of this state which the author had experi-
enced, did suggest or modify the language; but it does not follow from any
part of the description, that the conflicts of the regenerate were intended to
be portrayed.
T'vwvéoxw may retain its usual meaning, to know, provided it be regarded
as emphatic, declaring a want of proper knowledge of the cause, full char-
acter, and results of what is done. But another meaning is also supported
by usage, fo regard kindly, to like, to approve of. This has been objected
to on the ground that it produces a tautology, as the same idea is expressed
by the word will. To this it might be replied that the particle for in the
latter half of the verse may, as well as that in the former, be illative of the
condition expressed in the verse preceding. Still this is unnecessary ; for
certainly one may give as a reason for not approving a course of action,
that it is opposed to his inclination,
Lipuonw literally, I speak along with; that is, 1 concur with—* But
now:” This is not so much a notation of time, as a formula introducing
what has a close and logical connection with what had preceded. See the
note on Heb. viii. 6.—“‘ No more:” This must not be regarded as imply-
ing that the speaker, the I, according to the Apostle’s phrase, had formerly
done himself what he now ascribes to indwelling sin. It rather intimates
that he is not at all to be regarded as the agent. The I is the better part
of the man, his reason and conscience. This better part is enslaved by the
sinfulness of fallen nature, and, in-despite of it, the tyrannical master carries
out his iniquitous opposition to the holy law.
“In me, that is, in my flesh:” The highly figurative representation
which pervades the whole portion compels the author to make an occa-
sional transition. Sometimes the pronoun designates the better, sometimes
the worse part of the personified man. Before it was the former; here it
is the latter, as he himself explains it—*Flesh:” That is, the carnal
nature, the sinful tendency; so called doubtless from its inferior, corrupt-
ing and degrading tendencies, and therefore often set in contradistinction to
spirit. Comp. John iii. 6, “ that which is born of the flesh-is flesh, and ‘that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit;” and Gal. v. 17, “the flesh lusteth
against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.” In this carnality of
nature there is no good; evil is its essential element, or rather its very sub-
stance. The Apostle, however, does not here speak entirely in the abstract;
Cx. VIT. 19-21.]
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 117
dyadév, dad’ 6 od 9éAw KaKdr,
20 todvTo mpdoow. Hi dé 6 od VéAW
&y6, TOTO TOLD, OVKETL EYO Ka-
Tepydfouat avTo, dA’ 1) oikovoa
would, I do not; but the evil which
I would not,that I do. Now if Ido 20
that I would not, it is no more I
that do it, but sin that dwelleth in
21 év éuot duaptia. Evpioxw dpa me. I find then a law, that when 21
for he proceeds to say, that, in the condition all along before spoken of, his
wish accords with the law, but he is incompetent to carry it out in holy
obedience.—* To will:” This word may express the bent of the whole
inner man, according to which the individual shall be influenced both in
character and conduct. Or it may denote merely the inefficient wish or
desire, not followed by any corresponding character or conduct. In this
latter sense it must be understood here and in the context, as the slightest
examination will evince.—At the commencement of the clause, the word
although should be supplied. Many very important authorities omit
ody evpioxw, and read simply od. The idea may then be thus expressed :
‘ Although the desire is present with me, the doing what is good is not.’—
This is followed by a repetition of what had been before said, with the view
probably of strengthening the impression, and perhaps also in order to in-
timate the painfulness of the condition by dwelling on the description.
The general sense of these verses seems to be as follows: ‘I do not ap-
prove of what I do; for I do not do the thing that I wish, on the contrary
I do that [hate. In the very act then of doing what I do not wish to do,
I acquiesce in the excellence of God’s law, which commands the contrary
to what I reluctantly do. This being so, it may well be said, that it is by
no means I that do it, my reason and conscience take no part in the action ;
this is attributable to the sinfulness of my nature, which ever clings to and
lords it over me. For, alas! in my natural condition, thus under the influ-
ence of sin, there is nothing spiritually good. The desire indeed exists, but
it is followed by no practical result in effecting anything good. Similar to this we have in Exod. xxxii. 32, “ yet now, if thou wilt
forgive their sins—; and if not,” &c. Some regard the sentence as elliptical,
and understand, what shall we say then? or, why doth he yet find fault ?
But, as Olshausen remarks, this is nothing but a repetition of the language
of ver. 19. It would be vastly better to supply from the preceding verse,
“hath he not power,” or ‘right,’ éovoiav ;—* Vessels of wrath, vessels of
mercy,” are figurative expressions, naturally arising from the image of the
potter before employed, and denoting those persons who may be the sub-
jects respectively of the divine benevolence or chastisement. That the one
class may become the other, is certainly true, although this consideration
has no bearing on the Apostle’s statement.—‘ Show his wrath:” Comp. i.
18, iii. 5.—“ His power,” dvvarév for dévauty, as in ver. 17. Comp. yywo-
Tov ini, 19.
Karnpttouéva simply expresses their condition, “ fitted for.” Tow. or
by whom, or under what circumstances, must be learned from the context
and analogy of Scripture, both of which give the impression that this con-
dition was produced by their own course of conduct. Professor Stuart
Cn. IX. 21, 22. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 1738
EK TOD avTOV Hupduatoc TroLjoat over the clay, of the same lump to
6 pév ele Tysav oxevoc, d dé cig make one vessel unto honour, and
22 dtiyiav; Ei d& SéAwy 6 Yed¢ another unto dishonour? What if 22
thinks that the antithesis between this word and the phrase “ whom he had
before prepared,” proves that the condition of being. fitted is ascribed to
divine agency. There would be no difficulty in explaining the meaning
and showing its aceordance with other parts of Scripture, if it were certain
that such is the sense. But this is not proved by the antithesis. or the
Apostle may speak of God’s being the agent in preparing for glory, in order
to keep up in the reader’s mind the necessity of the divine influence for
good; while, at the same time, he may designedly employ an indefinite
term in describing the moral condition of obdurate sinners. Professor
Hodge judiciously observes, that “when speaking of the vessels of mercy,
the active voice is used, as if designedly to mark the difference between the
two cases.” To the same purpose Doddridge: “Every attentive reader
will, I doubt not, infer for himself the great difference of phrase in which
they who are vessels of wrath and they who are vessels of mercy are
spoken of; it being said simply of the former, that they were fitted for de-
struction, but of the latter that God prepared them for glory: a distinction
of so great importance that I heartily wish we may ever keep it in view.”
Olshausen is of the same opinion. “ Prepared before signifies God’s fore-
knowledge as well as his working and creation of the good, both in its
commencement, continuation and end. But of the evil, on the other hand,
Paul will not consent to say that God creates the evil in them, but only
the form which the evil assumes. Therefore he does not use prepared of
them; moreover instead of the active he uses the middle form, by which
the production of evil itself is transferred to the side of the creature. The
Apostle intended by this method to signify the different relation in which
God stands to the good and the evil.” To which he adds that the other
view is inconsistent with the expression, “ endured with much long suffer-
ing.” “There is something not only discordant but absolutely contradic-
tory in the idea that God thus endures what he has himself prepared.”
As cases somewhat similar, I will remark that in the last verses of the 5th
and 6th chapters, the Apostle adds to life the epithet eternal, although he
omits it in reference to the contrasted word death.
“And that he might make known.” Tholuck examines various ways
in which these words have been thought to be connected with the preced-
ing. According to Stuart, iva yvwpioy is dependent on YéAwy, and
equivalent to the infinitive yvwpioas as expressed in ver. 22. As this con-
struction presumes an ellipsis in ver. 23, he supplies it by introducing at
the end “showed mercy.” The meaning thus elicited is quite in harmony
with the context. Iam disposed to believe, however, that the Apostle has
174 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. XI.
—_--——- ~—
God, willing to show Ais wrath, and évdeiEaodat tiv dpyijy Kat yvw-
to make his power known, endured pioat TO dvvardv avbrovd ijveyKev
another thought in mind. “Iva may be ecbatic and the words be explained,
‘and thus does he make known.’ The following statement will assist the
reader in perceiving and judging of the proposed meaning.
It appears from historical statements in the New Testament, that, in
making known the Gospel to mankind, it was the divme purpose that it
should first be promulgated to the Jews. This accords with our Lord’s
own practice, who spent a considerable portion of the first year of his min-
istry in Jerusaiem and Judea; with his directions to his Apostles; and
with their practice pursuant thereto. See John ii, 13—iv. 3, 45, Luke xxiv.
47, Acts i. 4, and other similar places. Multitudes of Jews did indeed
receive the Gospel, but still the mass of the nation rejected it. It appears
from the evangelical history so fur as it is given in the Acts, that the
Apostles first made the offer of the Gospel to the Hebrews, and on their
rejection of it, proclaimed it freely to Gentiles; and, moreover, that its re-
jection by the former became the occasion of direct proclamation of it to
the latter. See particularly Acts xiii. 46 et seq. ‘It would seem that the
Jewish prejudice which limited the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom to their
own nation, (a prejudice which maintained influence on the mind of the
Apostle Peter even after the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
and until it was removed by the vision of the great sheet,) was in a great
degree dispelled by the fact that the Jews obstinately closed their eyes to
the truth, while Gentiles “gladly received the word.” Thus the rejection
of the Gospel by the former led, in the providence of God, to its becoming
known, appreciated, and obeyed by the latter: “To the Jew first and also
to the Greek.” Comp. Acts xi. 19-21. In Rom. xi. 11, 12, 15, 30, the
admission of Gentiles to the benefits of Christ’s religion, is represented as
having taken place in consequence of its rejection by the Jews. Is it im-
possible that the Apostle may have been influenced by the same thought,
when he wrote this passage? He does not indeed say in express terms
that the Jews had rejected the Gospel; but his course of remark implies,
and would suggest it to every reflecting reader. It seems to me probable,
therefore, that this is what he means. If so, the words, “that he might
make known” &c. will be connected with the idea so prominent in the
preceding context, namely, the rejection of the mass of unbelieving Jews.
The leading thought will then be as follows: God hath rejected the impen-
itent Jews, who by a long course of faithlessness had rendered themselves
utterly unworthy of his continued favour, and thus he has promulged the
abundance of his kindness to others. These indeed are represented as
consisting of Jews as well as Gentiles; but it is evident that the latter con-
stitute the predominant portion in the view of the Apostle.
OE
On. IX. 22.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 175
év TOAAH paxpoSvpta oxetn dp- with much long-suffering the ves-
Yi¢ Katnptiopéva sig dmMAeay, sels of wrath fitted to destruction ;
Grotius on xi. 11, suggests a reason for a predominance of Gentile over
Jewish converts being allowed to take place in the early Christian church.
He says that if the Jews had obtained the ascendancy, they would have
opposed the admission of the Gentiles into the church, unless they submit-
ted to circumcision and the Mosaic law, and that this is evident from the
feeling which prevailed so extensively on this subject among many influen-
tial Jewish converts. See Acts xv. 1 et seq. and xxi. 20 et seq. But since
they were much the smaller body, they were not in a condition to impose
laws on the others. And thus, he remarks, that God, by a wisdom truly
admirable, brought light out of darkness. But this representation is quite
uncertain. It is to be presumed that, if the Jewish converts had become
more numerous than the Gentile, the same divine grace which enabled
them to perceive and feel the truth of the Gospel, would also have imparted
to them such knowledge of its spirituality, and such practical wisdom and
charity towards all their converted brethren, as would have prevented such
aresult. Like Peter, the great body of them would have remitted their
attachment to the external law, and liberated themselves from a system
which he, who had been so long under complete subjection to it, declared
to be “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear:” Acts
xv. 10.—* Riches of his glory,” conveys the idea of the fulness and excel-
lence of the divine favour, as before explained. Comp. Eph. i. 7, 18, ii. 7,
Col. i. 27.
IIponrotwace. “ Afore prepared:” This, as Professor Hodge remarks,
is “the common and proper meaning of the word.” But what he adds in
connection with this can by no means be admitted. “ As fo prepare before-
hand and to predestine are very nearly related ideas, the word is also used
in this latter sense. Eph. ii. 10, ‘ which God had before ordained that we
should walk in them.’ This meaning is commonly adopted here,* ‘ which
God had fore-ordained unto glory ;’ see the parallel passage in Acts xiii. 48,
‘as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ The other significa-
tion of the word, however, gives a very good sense.”—Certainly it does.
It gives the only sense allowed by general usage. The word never occurs
in the New Testament, except here, and in the place in Ephesians. In
both it has the same meaning, and the correct translation of the latter is,
‘that we should walk in which God hath before prepared.’ Without the
preposition the word occurs 40 times, and always in the sense of preparing,
never of destining. Neither is it correct to say that “this meaning is
commonly adopted here.” Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan and
Rheims translations all give the idea of preparation. Wahl does indeed
*See Wahl’s Clavis on the word.
176 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxcr. XI.
23 and that he might make known the Kal iva yvwpioy Tov TAOdTOY 23
riches of his glory on the vessels of Ti¢ d6En¢ avrod ext oxebn EAéE-
give this sense, but he says nothing in defence of it. The place in
Acts is not parallel, inasmuch as the word is different, and the meaning
cannot be proved to be the same. Rosenmiiller, in his Scholia on the
New Testament, refers, for the same signification of predestinating, to Gen.
xxiv. 14, and Matt. xxv. 384. But the references are unsatisfactory. In
the first text, the English translation has, “ thou hast appointed,” and the
Septuagint 7jroyudoag. In the Hebrew the word is Hy25, which, according
to Jarchi, and the best Biblical scholars, means, thou hast proved or given
proof of ; that is, hast shown to be the damsel who is to become the wife
of Isaac. In the second, the ordinary meaning of “prepared for you” is
undoubtedly the true one, as in every other similar passage. And so it is
in the verse under consideration. ‘To “ prepare before for glory” those on
whom God intends to confer the full blessings of Messiah’s kingdom, is the
same thing as to make all necessary previous preparations for their future
happiness. It is identical with the idea in Ephesians: ‘God hath made all
previous preparations that we should walk in goed works.’ The Vulgate
in both places translates preparavit. Thus we read, that honours have
“been prepared by the father,” of a “kingdom prepared,” of Christ’s going
“to prepare a place,” of “things prepared for those who love God,” and of
his having “prepared for them a city.” See note on Heb. ix. 23, p. 132.
The inspired writers may speak of the preparation of the place or of the
persons or of the arrangements necessary to the accomplishment of the
divine scheme of salvation; yet the general thought is one and the same.
God hath done the whole; the preparation for glory, as well as the plan
whereby it becomes attainable, is all his own.
There is still another view which may be taken of this and similar pas-
sages; and probably it is best to comprehend it within that just stated.
It is simply this, that as God is said to do what he determines, so he may
here be represented as having prepared for salvation those whom he had
purposed to save. But this will not affect the meaning of the word, which
will still convey the idea of preparing those contemplated by the divine
purpose.
Here it may be well to give a brief view of the leading train of thought
from the 14th verse. ‘From what has been said, can God be charged
with injustice? Certainly not. But he acts according to his own pleasure,
as he says, ‘I will show favour and benignity to whomsoever I will.’ His
plans all originate from and are carried out in accordance with his own
will, so that their direction and arrangement do not at all depend upon
human inclination or effort, but solely on the divine wisdom and benevo-
tence, And, to give an instance of a bad man being made subservient to
Cu. IX. 23-26.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Vel
ove, & mpontoiwacev sic dav, mercy which he had afore prepared
24 ov¢ Kat éxddeoev Huac, o} ovov unto glory, even us, whom he hath 24
&&lovdaiwy, dAdd Kat & &9vGy, called not of the Jews only, but also
25 we Kal év TO ‘Qoné A€yer* Ka- of the Gentiles? As he saith alsoin 25
Aéow TOV ov Aadv ov Aady ov, Hosea, I will call them my people,
kat tiv ove ayarnuévnv aya- which were not my people ; and her
26 myuévyv? Kat gota év TO TOT, beloved, which. was not beloved.
ob éppidn avtoic: ov Aaédc ov And it shall come to pass, that in 26
the divine plans, it is said of Pharaoh, that God had allowed him to con.
tinue in order to display his power through the monarch’s obduracy, and
thus to spread his glory in the world. It is plain, therefore, that God so
disposes all things as to promote his own purposes, extending his benefits
to some, and suffering others to continue obdurate. Will you object that,
since God’s plans cannot be altered by man’s efforts, no blame ought to be
found with your conduct, because it subserves those plans? I reply, first,
that this is presumptuous and insolent in so uninformed a creature, and
that the maker of all things has unquestionably a right to dispose of his
favours as he pleases, granting to one portion of mankind a greater and to
another a less degree of benefit. And, secondly, to speak plainly in refer-
ence to the rejection of unbelieving Jews as God’s covenant people, if God
hath borne patiently with you although you have merited condemnation,
~ will you be querulous against what should excite your gratitude? In con-
sequence of your obstinate rejection of his son, he withdraws from you the
blessings of this covenant relation, and bestows them on the Gentiles with
a view to the ultimate salvation of all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who
may accept the proffered mercy, and for whose happiness he hath fully
provided,’
24-26. Here the Apostle plainly states whom he means by the figura-
tive phrase, “vessels of mercy ;” namely, Jewish and Gentile Christians,
applying the passages from Hosea to the latter class. The masculine od¢
refers to 7judc¢, us, which expresses the meaning of the neuter antecedent
oKebn, vessels, that is, the persons so designated. The quotations are from
i. 10, and ii, 23; or, according to the Hebrew notation, ii. 1, 25. The
prophet is certainly speaking of the restoration of the Israelites to divine
favour, and there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul either understood
or intended to expound his meaning otherwise. The prophecy relates to
the ten tribes, whose idolatry and wickedness are described under the
image of a faithless wife and abandoned children, who are disgraced and
punished by the indignant husband and father, but after a long period of
penal discipline, are at length readmitted to favour.*—The feminine, “ her
* The reader may find sn exposition of the first chapter of Hosea, as given in the Targum of Jon-
athan ben Uzziel, and in the Commentary of Dayid Kimchi, in my Jewish Rabbies, p. 165 et seq.
12
178 COMMENTARY ON TIE (Seer. XT.
the place where it was said unto tpeic, éxel KAndjoovrar viol
them, Ye are not my people; there eo C@vtoc. ‘Hoatac dé xpdser 27
shall they be called the children of t7é9 Tov "lopajA* édv @ 6
27 the living God. Esaias also crieth dptSud¢ TOV vid "lopandA Oc H
concerning Israel, Though the num- dupo¢ ti¢ YaAdoonc, 70 KaTa-
beloved,” refers to the fact, that the prophet describes the once rejected but
now restored people under the symbol of his daughter, named Lo-ruhamah,
that is, not ‘beloved In the place :” This does not mean ‘instead of;’ it
marks locality. This is proved from the adverb that follows, “there ;” and
thus we have the same language, both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, in
1 Kings xxi. 19: “ Zn the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there
shall dogs lick thy blood.” The prophet undoubtedly means, that in what-
ever countries the scattered Israelites may be dispersed, there shall they, on
their conversion, be recognised as God’s people.—The language of God to
the favoured Israelites by which the renewal of his love is expressed, is
here applied to the Gentiles, who had so long “ been alienated from the
life of God by wicked works,” (Eph. iy. 18, Col. i. 21,) but were now by
the Gospel brought into his family and blessed with his returned affection.
27-29. “Crieth:” That is proclaimeth openly. The same word is thus
used in John vii. 28, xii, 44.—'Y7réo has the meaning of 7repi, concerning,
as in 2 Cor. vii. 4, and elsewhere.—The prophet’s declaration, as cited in ver.
27, is evidently to this effect : ‘however numerous may be the body of the
Jewish people, yet the remnant (only) shall be saved.’ Td KkardAcuupa
is undoubtedly emphatic. It refers to the divine promise, repeatedly
alluded to by Isaiah, that, although the nation might be exposed to various
attacks and even excisions, yet their enemies should not entirely triumph ;
there should still be a reserved portion, a remnant of the people, in accord-
ance with the divine promise made to the prophet when called to his
mission among his countrymen. Notwithstanding the wasting, and the
desolation and the removal and the forsaking, “a tenth shall return, the
holy seed:” vi, 11-13. This promise is, as I have said, several times re-
ferred to, The very name of one of Isaiah’s sons, Shearjashub, that is, a
remnant shall return, was given him evidently in order to keep up in the
mind of the people this promise, and thus to strengthen their faith in it.
This accounts for the fact that the prophet is directed to take this son with
him when he goes “to meet Ahaz:” vii. 3. Now, although the preservation
of this remnant, and its restoration after temporal and political dangers,
are announced by Isaiah, it is by no means necessary to limit his prediction
to merely civil occurrences and immunity from national evils. The Apos.
tle applies the promise more generally. He shows that it comprehends a
reference to the faithful part of the Israelites, the deliverance or salvation
secured to them being spiritual and heavenly, and by the instrumentality
Cu. IX. 27, 28.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ‘179
28 Aeyupa owdShoerat. Adyov yde ber of the children of Israel be as
ovvTeA@v Kat ovyTévwv év dt- the sand of the sea, a remnant
Kaloobvy* dtt Adyov ovytetun- shall be saved. For he will finish 28
pévov Trorjoet Kiptoc ext THC y7¢. the work, and cut i¢ short in right-
eousness ; because a short work will
of true religious faith. And there is no occasion to suppose that he accom-
modates the language of the prophet to his own immediate purposes. He
does but develop its full meaning. That the politically saved remnant
was asymbol of those religiously saved, is a view which entirel y harmonizes
with the general analogy of prophecy, especially that of Isaiah; and it
seems to be intended by the words, “The remnant of Jacob shall return
unto the mighty God :” x.21. The last clause expresses a religious con-
version.
The quotation in ver. 29 from Isaiah i. 9, is explicable on the same
principle. The prophet, most probably, speaks of the preservation of Judah
from utter ruin, threatened by some very sanguinary attacks of their en-
emies. To what particular slaughter he refers, it is difficult to say. Bishop
Lowth inclines to the opinion that some invasions made by Resin and
Pekah “at the latter end of Jotham’s reign, are referred to in this pro-
phecy.” See his note on ys. 7-9. Rosenmiiller, on ver. 7, remarks, that
“some consider the language as descriptive of those miserable times during
the reign of Ahaz, when not only the Israelites under Pekah, but the Syrians
also from the north, the Edomites from the south, and the Philistines from
the west, invaded Judea, ruining the country, seizing the cities, and captur-
ing thousands. See 2 Chron. xxviii. 5-19.” He objects to this view,
however, on account of the order in which the prophecies are arranged, and
thinks that what is here said relates to the state of things under Uzziah,
after Amaziah had been conquered by Joash, King of Israel, his people
terribly slaughtered, his country and capital Jaid waste, and even the walls
of Jerusalem in a great measure destroyed. See 2 Kings xiv. 8-14, 2 Chron.
xxv. 14-24. The prophet may have his mind on these eruptions, and also
on the devastations which were caused by the Assyrian invasions, of which
we have so graphical and poetic a description in Isa. vii, 18-25, viii. 21, 22,
and x. 6. This representation of the wretched condition of the people, the
Apostle applies to the spiritual state of the Israelites, rejected by God with
the exception of the chosen and choice remnant.
This comprehensive view of Isaiah’s language accords with the appli-
eation of the prediction in Genesis relating to the vast number of
Abraham’s progeny, which is made by the Apostle in iy. 16; where see the
note, p. 69.
The 28th verse remains to be considered: “For he will finish the
work” &c, The word rendered “ work” is Aéyoy in both places, and there
180 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seor. XI.
the Lord make upon the earth. Kai xada¢ tpoeipnkev ‘Hoatac: 29
29 And as Esaias said before, Except él p17) Kiptocg oaBawd éyxarédurev
the Lord of Sabaoth had left usa div orépa,wc Lodoua dv éyev-
seed, we had been as Sodom, and 7jmev Kai we Topuoppa dv
been made like unto Gomorrah, @ovwdquer.
is no propriety in giving it this meaning, which is not sustained by Greek
usage. Neither is there any necessity for translating it hing, although this
would make a good sense. Its usual signification of declaration, expressed
determination, affords a very suitable meaning. Lvvtéuwywy, which properly
means “cutting together, contracting by cutting,”* is explained by some in
the sense of Jessening, shortening ; by others in that of decreeing, determin-
ing. Tholuck prefers the meaning of accelerating, hastening, according to
the idea, so common in the Old Testament, of God’s punishments quickly
overtaking the impenitent sinner. Thus the whole verse will convey the
thought that, in his righteous indignation, God is quickly completing his
announced detelmination, for he will make his determination (to be) quickly
executed in the earth (or, the land.)
The words in Isa, x. 22, latter half, and 23, here quoted, are explained
by the great mass of commentators, as referring to the overwhelming de-
structions which God had determined to bring upon the Jews and Israelites.
And certainly this view of them agrees with the former half of ver. 22,
“though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them
shall return,” and also with their apparent application by the Apostle.
Still, it would seem that the prophet has in view the immediate overthrow
of the Assyrian forces, and the very extraordinary destruction which swept
off multitudes of them in one night: See 2 Kings xix. 35, or Isa, xxxvyii. 36.
The section begins with the 5th verse. The prophet describes the infidel
insolence of this haughty power, that regards itself as independent, and
threatens excision to the people of Jehovah. He speaks of it as the feeble
and passive instrument, in the hand of the Almighty workman, and threatens
it with deserved punishment under the figure of the conflagration of a
forest: 5-19. Then follows the effect of this divine judgment on the
character of those of the Israelites who had escaped former attacks; they
‘shall turn from those human helps which, instead of benefiting, had injured
them, and shall trust in the only defence, their own true God. To him
they shall return by penitence and faith. Numerous though they may
have been and may even continue hereafter to be, yet the remnant only
shall return. While the prophet does indeed limit this promise to the
remnant, yet it is quite certain that a very prominent thought in his mind
is, that they shall most certainly return. It would therefore, be very natu-
ral for him to connect immediately with this promise a declaration, that
* Robinson's Lexicon.
Cn. IX. 29, 80.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 181
30 Ti ovv épodpev; dre BSN Ta What shall we say then? That 30
uu Sdkovta dikatoobynv Katé- the Gentiles, which followed not
God’s purpose to “consume” the hostile Assyrians should be completely
effected. And this is what he seems to say: 20-23. With this view of the
passage the verses that follow entirely coincide, and it removes all difficulty
in the word “therefore,” with which they begin. Some commentators
take no notice of this particle; others give it the meaning of nevertheless,
yet ; others again, retaining the usual sense therefore, suppose it to relate
to the 19th and previous verses. But, if “ the consumption” spoken of in
vs. 22, 23, refer to the Assyrian overthrow, the connection of the discourse
is self-evident, and the prophet’s language perfectly accurate. Having
threatened to consume the Assyrian forces, God calls upon his people not
to fear them. The chapter concludes by a graphical description of their
rapid march towards Jerusalem, and of their sudden and unexpected de-
struction. The mighty Oriental power is depicted under the figure of a noble
forest exposed to the axe of the destroyer: ‘Behold the Lord, Jehovah of
hosts, lops off the bough with a crash, and the lofty ones are cut down, and
the haughty shall be humbled. And he will cut down the thickets of the
forest, and that Lebanon shall fall :’ 24-34.
In confirmation of this view of the passage in Isaiah, it may further be
remarked that the words employed by the prophet seem to refer back to
what he had before said respecting the destruction of the Assyrians. “ The
consumption,” 7555, and “a consumption,” 755, in vs. 22, 23, are a repeti-
tion of what had been stated in ver. 18, “he shall consume,” 7525. This
shows the unity of subject throughout. ;
If this view be correct, the inquiry arises, how does the Apostle apply
the words of the prophet? ‘This question admits of two answers. It may
be said that, as his leading thought is the salvation of the remnant, that is,
the faithful Israelites, he introduces the words in ver. 28 merely on ac-
count of their connection in Isaiah with the main statement; or, that lan-
guage by which the prophet announces the destruction of the Assyrians the
Apostle applies to the spiritual overthrow of the unbelieving Israelites. —
In other words, he expresses his own thought in the prophet’s words. See
remarks on quotations in the Commentary on Hebrews, pp. 26 et seq.
30, 31. Olshausen seems to regard the whole of vs. 30, 31, as the ques-
tion, and to make the answer follow “ wherefore,” dcaté, in ver. 32. In
this case 67t would mean inasmuch as, since, as in John ii. 18 and ix. 17;
and the sense would be thus: ‘ What shall we say then, since Gentiles &c.,
but Israel &c.? Wherefore is it thus? The reason follows in ver 32:
‘Because’ &c. But the usual arrangement is preferable. What shall we
say then? what conclusion shall we come to? The answer which imme-
after righteousness, have attained
to righteousness, even the right-
31 eousness which is of faith. But
Israel, which followed after the law
of righteousness, hath not attained
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. XI.
AaBe dSikacoobvnv, Stkavoobvnv
d8 tiv éx mlatewe, lopanA*de dt- 31
OKwv vipov Sikaroobvng el¢ vOmu-
ov dtkaoobvyc ovk tpace. Ata
ti; drt odk éx miaTewc, GAN’ we 32
32 to the law of righteousness. Where-
diately follows states the only legitimate one. Therefore, no exposition of
the preceding portion of the chapter can possibly be the true one, which
does not accord with and make prominent the thought so clearly announced
by the Apostle, namely, that Gentiles have obtained what Israelites failed
to secure, that is, justification. Here the scope of the writer is ascertained
by his own express statement, and no rule of interpretation can possibly
be more certain.
In speaking of the Gentiles as not “ following after,” or aiming at, jus-
tification, the Apostle does not mean to represent them as negligent and
careless concerning acceptance with God, when this blessing was offered
them. Undoubtedly those among them who “ attained unto justification,”
had become interested in the Gospel ; and this is most expressly stated re-
specting those who are mentioned in Acts xiii. 46-48. St. Paul refers to
their former irreligious condition, when living without God in the world.
And in the same way he describes them in x. 20, as those who had neither
sought nor inquired after God. On the Gospel being made known to them,
they embraced its offers and secured its benefits. But this was not the
case with the Israelites. They followed véuov dixacoobyvne: literally, a law
of justification, but according to an idiom, very common in Hebrew and
also in other languages, a justifying law ; but they did not reach it. They
clung tenaciously to an ideal system of their own, and therefore failed to
secure the vainly hoped for benefit.* But such a system is chimerical, and
cannot possibly, in the present condition of fallen human nature, have any
real existence. In this way does St. Paul speak in Phil. iii. 9, of his “own
justification which is of the law ;” meaning a hypothetical or ideal one, a
justification which he once supposed himself to have secured,
32, 33. The ellipsis to be supplied, is suggested by the preceding verse :
‘they did not aim at it, seek it by.—‘Q¢: This particle, as employed here
and in John i. 14, is thought by many able critics to be equivalent to the
Hebrew caph, asseverating, or definitely marking out the thing or person
intended to be expressed. See Neh. vii. 2, where the particle caph in the
* After writing as above, I see that Tholuck has given, not only the same general view but even
the same word. The reader will perhaps allow that the coincidence favours the exposition. After
stating various views of earlier writers, (which I did not think it expedient to introduce,) such as a
hypallage of law of justification for justification by law, and others of the same sort; he prefers ex-
plaining law of justification “von einem idealem yorgostelltem Gesetz oder einer Norm, durch
welche man Gerechtigkeit erlangen kann.”
Cu. IX. 81-88.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 183
&& tpywv vomov* mposéxoiav ydp fore? Because they sought it not
33 TO AiI@ Tod TpOTKdpuaTOC, Ka- by faith, but as it were by the
Sao yéyparrat: dob, tinue év works of the law: for they stum-
bled at that stumbling-stone ; as it 33
Hebrew ni38 Wy, is omitted in our translation, “ he was a faithful man,”
whereas the true meaning is, ‘he was how faithful a man ;’ that is really
so, one whose fidelity was indubitable. Thus the meaning will be
equivalent to indeed, really. They sought it not of faith, but indeed of
the works of the law. John i. 14 is cited in confirmation of the same
meaning. In both cases, however, a slight ellipsis removes the difficulty,
while the particle retains its ordinary signification. In St. John the
meaning probably is, ‘such glory as belongs to the only begotten, and
might be expected to be manifested by him;’ and here, ‘but (as I may
well say,) by the deeds of the law.’ Comp. Phil. 14.
The quotation is principally from Isa. xxviii. 16, although the Apostle
introduces also certain words from other places, aliuding to Isa. viii. 14,
and perhaps to Ps. exviii. 22. By the stone laid in Zion he means the
Messiah ; and, while he thus figuratively represents him as the support of
his church and of every individual member thereof, he suggests that he
may become an occasion of injury and ruin to those who reject him. In
exactly the same way does Isaiah speak of “the Lord of hosts” being “a
sanctuary” for some, and “a stone of stumbling” &c. for others. Such a
combination of the words of one or more passages of the Old Testament is
not uncommon. See the remarks on quotations in the Commentary on
Hebrews, p. 21, and the work of Surenhusius, before mentioned, Lib. ii.
Thesis vii. pp.45-47. Although it be granted, which indeed is most prob-
able, that in Isa, viii, 18, 14, the divine Messiah is the object referred to ;
yet it will not follow that he is introduced as the speaker in vs. 16-18: a
theory which seems to have originated in an endeavour to reconcile the
language of the prophet with its application in Heb. ii. 18. In the 118th
Psalm the rejected stone is immediately David, but ultimately Christ, In
Isa. xxviii. 16, the “ foundation” is certainly the Messiah. This is allowed
by Jarchi and some other Jewish authorities, although Aben Ezra and
Dayid Kimchi explain it of Hezekiah. It is usual with the prophets to
introduce the Messiah or to describe the blessings of his government
and period in contrast with evils, political or moral or both, which pre-
vailed in their own times; and therefore such a view of this passage
harmonizes with their manner. In opposition to every deceitful pre-
tended refuge and support, God himself represents the Messiah whom he
is about to send as the true and solid foundation which shall never be
shaken. He sustains all who trust him. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6. In this
way the promise of Immanuel, the miraculously born Messiah, is made, in
184 COMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. XI.
is written, Behold, I layin Ziona wv Aidov mpookbupatog Kai
stumbling-stone and rock of offence; 7étpav oxavdddAov, Kai mac 6
and whosoever believeth on him ttoTejwv én’ ait@ ov KaTato-
shall not be ashamed. yvvdjoera.
X. Brethren, my heart’s desire and ’AdeApoi, 7 juev evdokia rig X.
prayer to God for Israel is, that éuij¢ Kapdiag kat 7) dénotc 7 ™po¢
direct contrast to the irreligious and infidel rejection of a divine attestation
by Ahaz.
“ Stumbling-stone and rock of offence :” That is a stone or rock over
or against which one may stumble, or dash himself. The expressions are
figurative, like “ gin, snare, trap,” for whatever or whosoever may become
the cause or occasion of injury.
“Shall not be ashamed :” In the Old Testament it is, “ shall not make
haste.” This is the usual meaning of the Hebrew word w-n, and the idea
conveyed by it seems to be this: ‘shall not hurry away,’ as one would
who had no confidence in the strength of his defence or what he had relied
on. Thus it expresses the idea of permanent and steady trust, in opposi-
tion to flight impelled by doubtfulness and fear. It is not surprising there-
fore that in the Arabic the same verb is used in the three senses of to
hasten, to fear, and to be ashamed, for in fact the ideas are naturally con-
nected. ‘The last, which is that of the Septuagint, is followed by St. Paul,
both here and in x. 11; the Chaldee and Syriac prefer the second; and the
first is adopted in our English translation of the prophet. The conjecture.
of Grotius, Hammond, and Bishop Lowth, that the Hebrew should be
altered to w-2%, like most other such conjectures, is both unsupported and
unnecessary.
x. 1. “Israel :” The better reading is ‘them,’ adt@v. As this verse is
the commencement of an ancient Jectionarium or Church lesson, the noun
was probably substituted for the pronoun for the information of the con-
gregation. We have a similar substitution in Acts iii. 11 of “the lame
man who was healed” instead of ‘he.’ Sometimes these lectionaria con-
tained introductory clauses preceding the words of Scripture, and perhaps
this may have given rise to the admission of such clauses occasionally in
the Gospel for the day in our Book of Common Prayer. See, for example,
the Gospels for the fourth Sunday after Easter, for the sixth and ninth
Sundays after Trinity, for St. Philip and St. James’ day, and that for All
Saints’ day. In all these cases the introduction is quite unnecessary, to
say the least, as no intelligent hearer can doubt that the speaker is Jesus.—
“That they might be saved:” Literally, ‘for salvation.’ The meaning is,
that they may be converted and enjoy the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom.
Comp. xi. 26.
2. “I bear them record :” The original word sometimes expresses sim-~
Cn. X. 1-3.]
EPISTLE TO
Tov Sedov b7é0 adTov [éoTLy] elc¢
THE ROMANS.
they might be saved. For I bear
2 owrnpiay, Maptup® yap adtoic, them record, that they have a zeal
re CijAov Yeod Eyovaty, dAX’ od of God, but not according to know-
3 Kat’ éxiyvwov. ’"Ayvoovvte¢yde ledge. For they, being ignorant of
a ~ ~ rs XN
THY Tov Yeov Jikatoobyny, Kat
thy ldiav dixatoobyny CntodvTec
God’s righteousness, and going
about to establish their own right-
185
ply the idea of attesting, and sometimes the additional meaning of in
opposition to, or in favour of. The last is here intended: ‘I willingly bear
testimony in their favour.’ Thus the word is used in Luke iv. 22, Heb. xi.
39, and often elsewhere.—“ Zeal of God :” Some regard this as a Hebraistic
superlative for very great zeal, like mountains or cedars of God, that is
very lofty ones. But the better meaning is ‘zeal fur God,’ as the genitive
is often used. Comp. John ii. 17, “zeal of (for) thine house.”
3. “Ignorant:” The ignorance of the Jews respecting the spiritual na-
ture of Messiah’s kingdom was certainly a guilty ignorance, as they might
and ought to have known better ; but still it is not to be doubted, that the
Apostle here uses the expression as somewhat apologetic. This is evident
from the connection. And thus St. Peter tells the Jews, that he knew they
had crucified the Messiah, without being aware of what they were doing:
Acts iii. 17. St. Paul also speaks of his own persecuting course of con-
duct as carried on in ignorance: 1 Tim. i. 13, Acts xxvi.9. The guilt of
such actions is not done away, although it is somewhat modified.—* God’s
righteousness :” That is, God’s plan of justification in opposition to a fan-
cied one of their own.
4, “For” is illative and logically connected with what precedes. It is
as if the Apostle had said, ‘ They are ignorant, for the law was not intended
to justify.’—* The end :”” Some explain the word thus: ‘ Christ is the com-
pletion, fulfilment of the law. In him it finds its full accomplishment. He
kept it perfectly in all respects.’ This is true; but it is not the natural
sense of the expressicn, nor is the meaning very well adapted to the con-
nection. To say that Christ fulfilled the law is too general a truth to be
here introduced. And to represent the Apostle as stating, that Christ’s
actual fulfilling of the moral law is imputed or made over to the believer
as the ground of his justification, is simply to assume a sense of the words
which cannot be proved. According to others the Apostle merely says,
that with Christ the law comes to its termination. He brings it to its end.
This also is true, but the sense is not so important as the context seems to
require. Besides, it may lead to a misapprehension of the true scriptural
view of the doctrine of justification; and this misapprehension does, I
think, appear in Koppe’s note. He gives the general idea of the verse
thus: ‘the law having been abolished through Christ, we are all justified
by faith; and refers to Gal. iii. 24. As the general scope of the Apostle’s
186
eousness, have not submitted them-
selves unto the righteousness of
God. For Christ¢s the end of the
law for righteousness to every one
that believeth. For Moses describ-
eth the righteousness which is of
the law, That the man which doeth
those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of
faith speaketh on this wise, Say not
in thine heart, Who shall ascend
into heaven? that is to bring
COMMENTARY
ON THE
oTioal, Ty SiKaLocbvy TOD Beov
ody wvmetdynoav. Téhoc ydp
vouwov Xptaroc el¢ Stkacoobvnv
mavTi TH TLoTEvOVTL. Mwivo7e
yap ypdder tiv Stxacocbyny THV
ék TOU vouovs bre 6 ToLhoac
abTa dvdpwroc Cicerar év adv-
toic. ‘H dé &é« miatewe diKato-
avvn ovTw Aéyer* ui) Eimmyg EV
Ti Kapdia cov: tic dvaBiae-
tat el¢ Tov ovpavdy; TovT’ éa-
Tt Xpiorov Katayayeiv* 7° Ti¢
(Seer. XI.
representation in this and the next verses, he states as follows: ‘ While the
authority of the Mosaic laws lasted, it was by a careful observance of them
that men obtained salvation; but now, since the abrogation of those laws
by Christ, the sole condition of salvation is this, to believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God sent from heaven to earth, and that he was raised
from the dead.’ This view, which presumes that different ways of justifica-
tion and acceptance with God have obtained under different dispensations
and at different times, is directly at variance with the general tenour of
Scripture, and particularly with the scope of this Epistle, which is intended
to show that faith, and not observance of Jaws, has in all ages been the
principle by which, to use the most expressive and appropriate language
of Clement of Rome, “ Almighty God has always justified man from the
beginning of the world.” Comp. iv. 3-8; also Heb. iv. 3, and the note
there.
There is still another view of the Apostle’s expression, which appears
preferable to either ; though it is possible that the idea of putting an end
to the law may also be comprehended. ‘Christ is the end or object or
scope towards which the law tended.’ The whole Mosaic institution,
ceremonial and moral, referred to him as the one and only source of justi-
fication. It was intended to lead to him, and to prepare for his coming.
See Gal. iii, 24. He has forever done away the law, so as to show that it
neither was nor could be the means of a sinner’s justification. This can be
obtained in no other way than by faith in Christ; and to him the law al-
ways had reference.
5. “The righteousness” or rather justification “which is of the law :”
That is, a conceivable but merely ideal justification, as in ver. 3 and ix. 31.
The quotation is from Levit. xviii. 5, St. Paul does not mean to say, that
Moses intended to describe this justification when he wrote the words here
quoted. They contain a promise of happiness to the sincere observer of
God’s laws. But, inasmuch as they fitly express the principle of justifica-
on. X. 4-10.]
kataBnoerat ele THY aBvocor ;
tour’ tote Xptotov ék vexpav
dvayayetv. "AAAd ti Aéyer;
éyyt¢ gov TO phd éotiv, év TO
oréuatt cov Kai év TH Kapdia
gov: Tov7’ éoTt TO prua TIC
miotewc, O Kyptooomev* drt,
éadv duodoyjoys év TO oTopmaTi
gov Kboptov *Inoovy, Kat TLoTEt-
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Christ down from above: or, Who
shall descend into the deep? that
is, to bring up Christ again from
the dead. But what saith it ? The
word is nigh thee, even in thy
mouth, and in thy heart: that is,
the word of faith which we preach;
that if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
187
believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved. For with the 10 ~
b] ~ 4 cg e MS
ong €v TH Kapdia cov, dtt 6 Seoc
avrov 7HyELpEV EK VEKPOV, OWI}.
10 Kapdia yao meotev_erat eic dtKat-
tion by law, the Apostle introduces his own thought in this most appro-
priate language of the Hebrew lawgiver. See the remarks on quotations
in the Commentary on Hebrews, p. 27.
6-9. The principle just stated in illustration of the quotation from Le-
viticus, applies also to those here made from Deut. xxx. 12-14, with which
St. Paul interweaves his own-illustrations. The justification of faith is
personified and made to speak in the words of the address of Moses to the
Israelites, when he endeavours to induce them to obey the law of God,
because, instead of being attended by any particular. difficulty, it is com-
paratively easy. As the descending into the deep, or abyss, is set in con-
trast to the ascending into heaven and explained by bringing up Christ
from the dead, it hardly admits of a reasonable doubt that the word abvacov
is here used to denote the place of the dead. In Deuteronomy the language
is “who shall go over the sea;”’ but St. Paul merely gives the general
thought in the Pentateuch without confining himself to the very words.
In Ps. evii. (Sept. evi.) 26, “ mounting up to the heaven” and “ going down
to the depths,” are expressions employed to describe poetically the vessel
rising on the lofty wave and sinking into the trough of the sea, and
the two extremes are marked in the Septuagint by the words odpavav
and d6toowyv, just as heaven and hades are contrasted in Matt. xi. 25 and
elsewhere.
“ That is,” vs. 6,7,8: lrefer the reader who may wish to see the va-
rious views of commentators on this phrase, and its supposed connection
both with the words of the Apostle and Moses, to Tholuck’s note. It
seems to be merely exegetical of the Apostle’s application of the words
quoted, and equivalent to, ‘as if Christ were to be brought down or up.’-—
The expressions here used, of going up to heaven, or down to the abyss,
or over the sea, all convey the same general idea, namely, that of extreme
difficulty. Thus in Prov. xxx. 3, 4, we read: “I neither learned wisdom,
nor have the knowledge, of the holy. Who hath ascended up into heaven
188 COMMENTARY ON THE [Secr. XI.
heart man believeth unto right- oobdvqv, ordmaTe dE Omodoyetrat
eousness; and with the mouthcon- el¢ owrtnpiav. ‘
madvtTa* avT@ 1 dda ei¢ Tov
aidvac. dun.
again? For of him, and through 36
him, and to him, are all things: to
whom be glory for ever. Amen.
33-36. Some ancient authorities omit the first kai. Among them is the
Vulgate which translates, O altitudo divitiarum sapientie et scientie Dei.
Commentators differ on this point: whether the three nouns which imme-
diately follow depth express three distinct ideas, or whether this word and
riches merely denote the profundity and vastness of what is comprehended
under the other two. According to the latter view, the Apostle will utter
his feeling of amazement at the immeasurable and incomprehensible great-
ness of God’s wisdom and knowledge, and the first xat will be rendered
both, The former view retains the usual meaning of the copulative, and
regards riches as equivalent to abundant favour or love. Although this
word is most frequently employed in immediate connection with some
other to which it adds force, as in Rom. ii. 4, ix. 23, 2 Cor. viii. 2, Eph. i.
7, 18, and many other places; yet it is also employed independently, as in
Eph. iii. 8 and Phil. iv.19. Thus St. Paul will burst out in admiration of
God’s profound love and wisdom and knowledge, as displayed in the Gospel
scheme of salvation. Either of these views harmonizes with other places,
and agrees with the meaning of the Greek. The one just stated, being the
fullest, is perhaps on that account to be preferred. But the argument in
favour of it which is drawn by Olshausen from the particular adaptation of
the phrases that follow to the three points respectively, and also from the
three prepositions in ver 36, does not appear to have much force.
The quotation in the next verses is from Isa. xl. 18, 14, with an allusion
to Job xli. 11, (Heb. 3.) The sentiment which they contain is evidently
this: The purposes of God are beyond the reach of finite intellect or influ-
ence. The idea in the last verse may be expressed as follows: From
God all things are produced, by him they subsist, and to his glory they
tend. The subject of the Apostle’s doxology is undoubtedly God, the Holy
Trinity, and the prepositions which he employs are entirely in harmony
with scriptural usage in distinct reference to the three persons, But, inas-
much as they are also employed in reference to God comprehensively con-
sidered, there is not sufficient reason to suppose a distinction of the persons
to be thereby particularly intended.
XII.
COMMENTARY
ON THE
SECTION XII.
Cuars. XII.-XVI.
THE PRACTICAL PART OF THE EPISTLE.
I beseech you, therefore, breth-
ren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacri-
fice, holy, acceptable unto God,
which is your reasonable service.
And be not conformed to this world ;
but be ye transformed by the re-
newing of your mind, that ye may
prove what is that good, and ac-
ceptable, and perfect will of God.
For I say, through the grace given
unto me, to every man that is among
you, not to think of himself more
highly than he ought to think;
but to think soberly, according as
God hath dealt to every man the
measure of faith. For as we have
many members in one body, and all
members have not the same office;
so we, being many, are one body in
Tlapakaa® ovv bac, ddeApoi, XII.
dud TOV olKTipu@v Tov Veov,
Tapacrioat Ta owpata DuU@Y
Svoiav GHoay, ayiav, ebdpecrov
TO YEO, THY AoytKiv AaTpEiav
~ Ss ~ 4
tuav: Kai pa) ovoynuarigedde
7 al@ve TobTwW, GAAd peTa-
poppovodse 7 dvakatvaoet TOV
voog tuav, ei¢ TO doKkimdcerv
e ~ ic > 4 ~ ~
tac, TL TO BEAnua Tov Veod,
TO dyadov Kai evdpeotov Kai
7 7 ‘ \ 4
téheiov, Aéyw ydo dia Tij¢
xapitoc THC SodEiang jor TavTi
TO Ovee év buiv, pq drEphpoveiv
mag’ 6 det dpovetv, GAAG ppovetv
ele TO owdpoveiv, ExdoTw oc 6
Sedo euépioe pétpov Tiorewe.
Kaddreo yae év évi obpate pédn
TOAAG Eyouev, TA OF WEAN TaVTA
od Tiyv avriy &yet TpAky, OVTWE
(Seer. XII.
As the leading topics of the Epistle are discussed at length in the preceding
chapters, and those which follow are chiefly confined to what is hortatory
and practical, the notes shall be few and in general brief.
Cuap. xii. 2. “That ye may prove:” Either, have proof of by experi-
ence, or, give proof of by example. Probably both are comprehended.
Comp. Eph. v. 10, Phil. i. 10.
3. “The grace given unto me:” That is, through the Apostolic gift and
authority with which he had been graciously entrusted. Comp. i. 5.—
“ Measure of faith:” In other words, the degree of faithful character. This
is, in every believer, the gift of God.
4,5. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 17, xii..12.—With 6 dé ra¥’ elc, and every one,
comp. 3 Mace. v. 34, 6 ka® eic d& TOV didwy, but every one of his friends ;
also Mark xiv. 19, John viii. 9, and Rey. xxi. 21.
6. “ Prophecy :” The word here means the gift of prophesying, that is,
of speaking in the authority of God and under divine influence. The idea
Cu. XII. 1-8.]
of roAAot bv o@ud éomev ev
Xpior@, 6 dé Kav cic dAAHAwY
Z ” \ ,
pédn. "Exovtec 0& yapiopata Ka-
Ta THY YapLy THY dodEtoay tury
Stdbopa* eite mpoprtetav, Kata
Tv dvadoyiay tig TioTEws’
elte dvakoviay, év TH Oltakovia °
elte 6 diddoKwr, év TH didacKa-
Aia* eite 6 TapaKkaddr, ev TH
4 e 7 >
TapakAnjoer* 6 jetadidovc, &v
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Christ, and every one members one
of another. Having then gifts dif-
fering according to the grace that
is given to us, whether prophecy
let us prophesy according to the pro-
portion of faith ; or ministry, Jet us
wait on our ministering ; or he that
teacheth, on teaching; or he that
exhorteth, on exhortation. He that
giveth, let him do it with simplicity ;
213
he that ruleth, with diligence; he
that showeth mercy, with cheerful-
arAoryTt* 6 TpoioTtduevoc, év
oTovdn* 6 &hewy, Ev idapornre.
of predicting future events is not an essential element in the signification
of the word. Prophecy may be prediction, or it may be nothing more
than instruction, declaration, exhortation, warning communicated under
divine direction and influence. The proper and probably the original
meaning of the word prophet is, one who speaks as God’s substitute or am-
bassador. Thus it is said of Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,
and Aaron shall be thy prophet ;” of which the language that precedes is
explanatory: “ He shall be thy spokesman unto the people; he shall be to
thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God:” Exod.
vii. 1, iv. 16. To the same purpose we read in Jer. xv.19: “If thou take
forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth.” The two
words anciently used for prophet by the Greeks, mpopjtn¢ and bropArne,
seem to be nearly equivalent, meaning one who speaks for, before, or under,
that is, in the place of another. This is undoubtedly the signification of the
term where it first occurs in the Bible, in the narrative of Abraham’s resi-
dence with Abimelech. The Almighty warns the king of Gerar in a dream
not to injure the Patriarch, adding, “ for he is a prophet, and he shall pray
for thee, and thou shalt live:” Gen. xx. 7. He is thus declared to be a
This is
A prophet is
a messenger of God, divinely inspired, directed and commissioned to com-
municate his will to men, to extend the knowledge of his character, and
thus to advance his glory.
“ According to the proportion of faith:” This clause, rendered, ‘accord-
ing to the analogy of the faith, has been supposed to convey this meaning :
‘so as to harmonize with the general scheme of religion as revealed in the
New Testament.’ Under the guidance of this principle, theological opinions
have been formed and moulded, and bodies of divinity composed, the au-
thors of which have been exceedingly careful not to introduce anything in
opposition to certain systems which they suppose to constitute the essen-
tial substance of Christian doctrine. Perhaps few principles have exercised
sacred personage, the interpreter of God, speaking as his agent.
also a very usual sense of the word in the New Testament.
214
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seor. XII.
9 ness. Let love be without dissimu-
lation. Abhor that which is evil;
10 cleave to that which is good. Be
kindly affectioned one to another
with brotherly love ; in honour pre-
11 ferring one another ; not slothful in
business ; fervent in spirit ; serving
12 the Lord; rejoicing in hope; patient
in tribulation ; continuing instant
13 in prayer; distributing to the ne-
cessity of saints; given to hospi-
14 tality. Bless them which persecute
15 you; bless, and curse not. Rejoice
with them that do rejoice, and
'H dydrn dvuTéxpitog* dtootu- 9
yowvrec TO TovNpOV, KOAAG@pEVOL
TO dyad@: ty piAadeAdia ei¢ 10
dAAndove didéoropyo.* TH THyLy
dAAjAove mponyotmevor’ TH 11
arovdy py OKvnpoi* TH TVvEb-
pate Céovtec* TO Kvpiw dovaed-
ovrec* TH Amide yaipovrec* TH 12
VAinber iromévovtec* TH Tmpod-
EVY]] ~TpookaptEepovyTec* Taic 13
xpeiaic TOV ayiwv KoLvwvodr-
Tec’ tiv dtAokeviav dioKovrec.
EdAoyeite Tove duaKkovrac buac* 14
evdoyeite, Kal pu} KaTapaove.
greater influence than this on scriptural interpretation. It has diminished,
modified, and added to revealed truth, at pleasure. Doubtless there is a
oneness in the New Testament revelation, all the parts of which not only
cohere, but are also in perfect unison ; so that an interpretation which shall
represent different passages as conflicting in doctrinal statement must ne-
cessarily be erroneous. But to assume the infallible truth of a system of
doctrine independently of Scripture, and then to bring the tenets of such
system as a criterion of the meaning of Scripture, is to set up an unau-
thorised rule of faith. Careful philological and exegetical examination
will prove that such a supposed safeguard is unnecessary, and experience
and observation show it to be injurious. Neither does the principle re-
ceive any support from the words of the text. “The proportion of faith”
is equivalent to “the measure of faith” in ver. 38, and simply means, the
degree of the divinely imparted gift. The reader may find some useful
remarks on this subject in Campbell’s fourth Dissertation preliminary to
his Translation of the Gospels, Section 13, Compare also Ernesti on In-
terpretation, Stuart’s Translation, Sect. 34, p. 17, and Morus, Par. 1, Sect.
i. xix. pp. 70, 71, and Sect. ii, Cap. iii. xvi—xviii., pp. 258-259, and Locke in
loc., note (h).
Olshausen agrees with Griesbach in reading kaip@ for kvpiw. He admits
that the latter reading, which is also the received, “ has by far the greater
support from authorities,” but still decides in favour of the former on the
ground of internal evidence, remarking that a charge sa entirely general as
‘to serve the Lord,’ is out of place among such altogether special exhorta-
tions.” Such an argument has no great force, for the phrase immediately
preceding, “fervent in spirit,” that is, ardent, zealous in mind, (comp.
Acts xviii. 25,) is of very general application; and indeed so also is the
exhortation which arises from the reading he prefers, “ serving the time,”
Cu. XII. 9-19.] EPISTLE TO
15 Xaipew pera yapdvTwy kai
16 KAaiew peta KAaovtTwy. TO
av7o sig dAAHAovE Ppovorvytec *
pn Ta bYnAd Hpovorytec, dAAG
Tol¢ TaTElvoig ovvaTayouEvot °
pu) yiveode dpoviuot map’ éav-
17 totic. Mydevi kakdv avti kakovd
dzod.dévrec* Tmpovoovmevot Ka-
Ad EvOrriov TaVTwWY dVOPOTWY.
18 Ei dvvarév, 76 && byov, peta
TaVTWY AVOPOTWY eipnvEetovTEC’
19 pe) Eavtodvs ExdiKovvTEC, dyaTn-
Toi, GAAG OdTE TéTOY TH Opy7R-
THE ROMANS. 216
weep with them that weep. Be of 16
the same mind one toward another.
Mind not high things, but con-
descend to men of low estate. Be
not wise in your own conceits. Re-
compense to no man evil for evil.
Provide things honest in the sight
of all men. If it be possible, as
much as lieth in you, live peaceably
with all men. Dearly beloved,
avenge not yourselves; but rather
give place unto wrath: for it is
written, Vengeance ts mine; I will
17
18
19
yéypantat ydo* éuot éxdixnotc, repay, saith the Lord. Therefore 20
which means, either yielding to uncontrollable circumstances, or, wisely
availing one’s self of any opportunity of Christian usefulness. Eph. v. 16
is not exactly parallel, as there the reading is, éayopagoyevor Tov Kalpor,
which appears to be borrowed from Dan. ii. 8. Olshausen allows too that
the phrase ‘to serve the time’ is not found in Greek before the second
century, though frequently occurring in Latin. The other, ‘to serve the
Lord,’ is very common.
14. Comp. Matt. v. 44.
15. The infinitive is used in the sense of the imperative.
16, first clause: Comp. Phil. ii. 2.— Condescend :” ovvarayépevor
literally, ‘ being led away along with,’ equivalent to, ‘allowing yourselves to
be associated or connected with, willingly yielding to”—To men of low
estate :” toi¢ tametvoic’ This may be masculine, as in our translation, and
the meaning will be, conforming to, associating and sympathizing with the
humble; or it may be neuter and express the duty of a willing acqui-
escence in humble and lowly circumstances. The antithesis with the neuter
“high things,” favours this view, but the compounded preposition ctv
agrees better with the other.
17. “ Providing things honest :” Literally ‘providing’ or ‘taking care
for good things.’ The meaning is, carefully and earnestly endeavouring to
do what is right. Comp, 2 Cor. viii. 21, and Prov, iii. 4.
19. “Give place unto:” We have the same phrase in Luke xiv. 9,
“ give this man place ;” that is, yield position or precedence to him: also in
Eph. iv. 27, “neither give place to the devil;” meaning, do not submit to
him. ‘The words never elsewhere occur in the New Testament. Analogy
therefore would suggest this exposition: yield to wrath, allow it to have its
rightful sway. In this case the wrath must be understood of God, as is
done by several commentators, both in accordance with the former clause
216 CUMMENTARY ON THE (Seer. XIT.
if thine enemy hunger, feed him; ¢y@ dvratodéow, Aéyer Kiptoc.
if he thirst, give him drink: forin "Edy obv recva 6 éydpd¢ cov, 20
so doing thou shalt heap coals of Yapuce avdrév+ éav dupa, morte
21 fire on his head. Be not overcome avT6v* TovTO yap Toy avdpa-
of evil, but overcome evil with Ka¢ mupd¢ awpetoerg ext tiv
good. Kkepadny adtov. M7) vwiKd b70 21
TOU KaKOv, GAAG Vika ev TH
dyad@ 70 KaKov,
of the verse, and also with the quotation from Deut. xxxii. 35, which fol-
Jows. The sentiment will then be this: Give way to the just anger of
God, and be not solicitous to vindicate yourselves by inflicting punishment.
Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 23. But the omission of God, the principal party, is un-
natural, and the first clause of the verse affords quite a sufficient antithesis
to the statement of the quotation.—If the wrath be referred to the offender,
the meaning may be, ‘ yield by avoiding it,’ and the direction will be pru-
dential.—lIf it be that of the injured person, the meaning of the phrase can-
not be as above given, for this would manifestly be the very reverse of
the Apostle’s intention, He cannot possibly exhort the Christian to in-
dulge in angry passion. Adhering to the literal meaning of the words and
yet applying them according to the nature of the injunction, we may inter-
pret the clause thus: Give room to, that is, space, opportunity to depart.
The exhortation is, not merely to defer the indulgence or exercise of anger,
but not at all to retain it; to give it free egress, to abandon it, and yield
our cause to the righteous God.
20,21. The quotation is from Prov. xxv. 21, 22. It is very like the
language in 2 Esdras xvi. 54: “God shall burn coals of fire upon his
head which saith before the Lord God and his glory, I have not sinned.”
The idea prominent in these passages is evidently that of severe penal suf-
fering. This is expressed by the words themselves, and the antithetic
clause in Proverbs, “the Lord shall reward thee,” which immediately fol-
Jows the quotation, confirms this result. The pain of penitence, arising
from a consciousness of having done wrong, is no doubt comprehended.
Such places as 2 Sam, xiv. 7, are wholly irrelevant, as they only show that
the figure of a coal may be employed in illustration of what is desirable
and valued. The authors of the Proverbs and the Epistle both refer un-
doubtedly to the proper punishment of the offender. But it cannot be
proved that either has in view the gratification of private passion in such
punishment. They speak of it rather as resulting in the repentance of the
guilty person, who, being suitably chastised, is converted through the kind-
ness of the injured party. And it may be well to note that this motive
appears even in some of the imprecatory Psalms. See Ixxxiii. 16, cix. 27;
and compare 1 Cor. y.5,and 1 Tim.i.20, And even if such should not be
Cu. XII. 20-X11.8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. yf
XIIL. aoa yur eovotiacg brepe- Let every soul be subject unto XIII.
yoboac brotaccéoSw* ov yao
éotiv éSovota el pe) ad Yeov, ai
dé ovoa [éovoiar| id Veov
Tetaypéval ciciv, “Qote 6 dvtt-
TacoomEevocg TH eSovoia TH TO
Yeov dvatayy avdéornkev * of dé
dvdeornk6tes Eavtoic Kpiwa Aj-
povrat. Oi yde dpyovtec ovK
clot poBog TOY adyad@v Epywr,
the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God; the powers that
be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resist-
eth the ordinance of God ; and they
that resist shallreceive to themselves
damnation. For rulers are not a ter-
ror to good works, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the
GAAd TOV KaKOv: VéXetc OE [L7)
goBetodae tiv éfovoiav; 70
power ? do that which is good and
thou shalt have praise of the same;
the result, nothing more can be intended than a degree of punishment
necessary to vindicate the divine law. From this passage no inference to
sanction private passion can be drawn which might not be drawn from the
former verse and also from others. Comp. Ps. xciv., 2 Tim. iv. 14, and
other similar places. The Apostle exhorts us to resign to God the office of
punishing, and to endeavour through love and acts of kindness to conquer
our enemies, and thus to bring them to repentance and a change of character.
xiii. 1, 2. The tendency of the Jews to rebellion illustrates the propriety
of these precepts, which were also calculated to show unconverted Roman
citizens, that the nature of Christianity was in no respect hostile to civil
government. Legitimate authority is of course intended. But neither our
Lord nor his Apostles ever determined what it is that makes civil author-
ity legitimate, further than a settled government. The established, recog-
nised government is authoritative, and it is in reference to such a one that
their precepts are laid down. What form such government may rightly
take or have taken, is one of the questions which the New Testament ig-
nores. Neither does it enter into the question of the citizen’s rights or
duty during the process of a revolution, when political and civil aflairs are
in a transition state.—Government is not dependerft on human will; it is
God’s institution; and whatever form man’s inclination and action may
give to it, is given under the permission of his superintending providence,
and therefore to be regarded as authoritative. All human authority, even
the very highest, must yield to that of God, whom “we ought to obey
rather than men :” Acts v. 29. But it is the duty of every man to satisfy
his mind by careful and conscientious examination respecting this highest
of all laws, before he presumes to place what he thinks to be demanded by
it in contradistinction to the legal enactments of the legitimate authority
of his country.
3. This expresses what the ruler ought and is presumed to be. The
Apostle rather describes the nature of the office than the character of those
18
COMMENTARY ON THE
for he is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he
beareth not the sword in vain: for
he is the minister of God, a re-
venger to execute wrath upon him
that doeth evil. Wherefore ye
must needs be subject, not only for
wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
For, for this cause pay ye tribute
also: for they are God’s ministers,
attending continually upon this very
thing. Render, therefore, to all
their dues ; tribute to whom tribute
is due; custom to whom custom;
fear to whom fear ; honour to whom
dyadov toiet, Kai ESeug Emavvov
é& adtijg* Yeov yao dudKovoc
fate aol ele TO dyadév: édv dé
TO KaKoVv Toye, poBov* ov yao
elkq Tijv pwadyatpav popet* Seow
yde didKovéc éariv, ExdiKoc el¢
épyjv TO TO KaKdv TpdooorTt.
Awd dvayKkn brordaceada, ov
povov dia tiv dpynv, dAAd Kai
dud Tv ovveidnow. Aid TovTO
yap Kat popovg tedeite* Aet-
Toupyo. yao Yeow eiavy eic avTo
TOUTO TpookapTEpovvTec. *ATO-
dote ovv mao Tac dpetAdc* TH
TOv dopov Tov Popov: TH TO
téhog TO TéAOG* TO TOV POGBov
(Sxer. XII.
who may exercise its functions. It is worthy of admiration that, writing
on such a subject and under such a government as that of Nero, he could
so restrain himself as to present general principles and abstract truths,
without saying one word in the way of limitation or restraint. It is diffi-
cult to avoid the conclusion, that he felt himself to be writing for the ben-
efit of mankind in all future ages, and under the influence of a superhuman
power.
7. Pépoc means tax or tribute; téAo¢ duties, property tax paid for the
support of the state ; @6Bo¢ and ti7, reverence and honour to superiors.
8. “Owe:” Some prefer the indicative translation of the verb: ‘you
owe’ &c., that is, the circle of your duties comprises nothing more than
love. But the meaning given by the imperative is more probable, as it
accords better with the preceptive nature of the context. The sentiment
is: Let nothing be due from you but love, always regard yourselves as
under obligation to cultivate mutual affection ; this debt can never be fully
paid. Fulfilled :”” Comp. ver. 10. The use of this word to express
sincere obedience, though it be imperfect, may illustrate the language in
viii. 4.
9. “If there be any other:” That is, whatever other there may be.
Comp. Eph. iv. 29, Phil. iv. 8.
11, 12. “ And this:” Most commentators suppose an ellipsis. Am-
mon adds, “ ye are the rather bound to;” referring to the duty just incul-
cated, Macknight understands, “I command,” making it the introduction
of another precept. Grotius and after him Rosenmueller render it, “ es-
pecially, so much the more;” Erasmus supplies, ‘‘ when ye know,” remark-
ing that it strengthens the appeal: compare kai tavra in 1 Cor. vi. 8
Cu. XIII. 4-11.]
Opa hac 70n && brvov éyepd7-
val’ vov yao &yyoTEpoy Tar 7
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
-
that now 7 is high time to awake
out of sleep: for now ?s our salva-
219
tov poBov: TO Tv TuyW7v THY honour. Owenomanany thing, but 8
Tynv. Mydevi pndév ddeidete, to love one another: for he that
el jun) TO GAAHAOVCE dyaTav- 6 lovethanother hath fulfilled the law.
yap ayaT@v Tov EtEpov vouov For this, Thou shalt not commit 9
metAnpwKe. TO yde: ov pot- adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
yevosic’ od ovevoerc’ ov shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
KAepercs odK éerudvunoerc* Kat false witness, Thou shalt not covet,
el tic étépa EvTOAH, év TobTw and if there be any other command-
T@ Adyw dvakepadaovTa, év ment, it is briefly comprehended in
T@* adyanhoewe TOV TAnotov cov this saying, namely, Thou shalt
10 @¢ éavtév. ‘H dydérn TO TAn- love thy neighbour as thyself. Love 10
ciov Kakov ovK épydgerar* TAj- worketh no ill to his neighbour,
11 pwua ovv véuov 4 dydrn. Kat therefore love is the fulfilling of the
Tovto, eidétec Tov Kaipév, bt law. And that, knowing the time, 11
Olshausen adds “so much the more.”—Here Koppe remarks that St. Paul,
in order to urge his readers to the practice of the Christian virtues, adds
this consideration: “that the return of Christ to earth was not remote, and
that it would be accompanied by the tokens of a better and happier life.”
He refers to his Excursus II. on Thessalonians* to show “ that the Apostles
themselves, through the wise permission of divine Providence, cherished
the opinion and hope of Christ’s speedy return.” Locke too expresses the
same sentiment. “It seems by these two verses, as if St. Paul looked
upon Christ’s coming as not far off, to which there are several other occurrent
passages in his epistles. See 1 Cor. i. 17.” In opposition to this opinion
the reader is referred to Whitby’s note on 2 Thess. iv. 15, and his “ Dis-
course by way of inquiry” &c. appended to his annotations on 2nd Thessa-
lonians. Neither this passage, nor any other in the Apostle’s writings, is
sufficiently definite to prove that he entertained such a view, while others
are not at all reconcilable with the theory. What he says in the 11th
chapter respecting the present condition and future prospects of the Israel-
ites, seems to imply that he expected a considerable space of time to elapse
before the consummation of the events there spoken of, which, neverthe-
less, must take place anterior to Christ’s second coming. And in his second
epistle to the Thessalonians he expressly guards them against such a mis-
construction of his sentiments. The view of Macknight and Rosenmueller
that “ salvation” refers to the doctrine of the Gospel, and that it has been
brought “nearer” to the mind, that is, is better understood and appre-
ciated by the advanced Christian than it could be immediately after
conversion, is feeble and improbable ; neither do the places quoted establish
* See pp. 115 et seq.
220
tion nearer than when we believed.
12 The night is far spent, the day is at
hand: let us therefore cast off the
works of darkness, and let us put
13 on the armour of light. Let us
walk honestly, as in the day; not
in rioting and drunkenness, not in
chambering and wantonness, not in
14 strife and envying. But put ye on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make
not provision for the flesh, to fulfil
the lusts thereof.
XIV. Him that is weak in the faith
receive ye, but not to doubtful dis-
2 putations. For one believeth that
he may eat all things: another,
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. XII.
owrnpia, i) Ore émvoretoaper,
‘H wdé mpoéxorev, 4 Se Huépa 12
yytkev* drodapueda ovv Ta
tpya tov oKxbtove Kai évdvao-
peda Ta Orda TOD dwréc. ‘Qe 13
év juépa evoynudvac mEepiTari-
OWLeV, [L7) KOoLE Kal WédaLC, [17)
Koitaic Kal doedyeiatc, p17) bpioe
Kai Gnaw* Gan’ évdboacd_e Tov 14
Koptov "Inoovv Xpiorov, Kal ric
oapko¢g mpovotav jun Troteiade elc¢
exidvpiac.
Tov dé dodenotyvta tH XIV.
miorer TpoohauBdveode, 7) ei¢
dvakpioetc Stadoytouov. “Oc ev 2
moTeve. payeivy mdvTa, 6 dé
such a meaning of the words. “Salvation” signifies here most probably
the happiness on which the Christian enters immediately after death, and
“night” in ver. 12, the present state of ignorance, sinfulness, and conse-
quent unhappiness. Although the figure of night and day is strikingly
descriptive of the condition of man before the reception of the Gospel and
after, yet it is equally applicable to the Christian’s present and future con-
dition. In this view it is here employed, and St. Paul is looking forward
to the hour of death, as that which introduces future felicity. Thus,
“nearer” will retain its usual meaning. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 6-8.
13. The Apostle refers to inordinate gratification of the appetite, to
licentious indulgence, and such passionate contentions as are their almost
invariable attendants.
14. “Put on:” The figure expresses the idea of being embued with the
character of Christ. See the note on vi. 8, p. 97.
xiv. In the Apostolic age, asceticism prevailed considerably among a
certain class of heathen philosophers, and also particularly among the Essene
Jews. This would, of course, exert an influence on the character and con-
dition of some of the converts to Christianity. The feeling which governed
weak consciences in reference to the right or propriety of using meats
which had been publicly exhibited for sale, lest they should previously
have been offered in sacrifice to idols, prevailed to a considerable degree.
See the Apostle’s directions on this particular point in 1 Cor. viii. x. 25
et seq. And, attachment to abrogated Jewish rites still lingered in the
minds of many. All these circumstances were doubtless in view when the
Apostle prepared the directions here embodied; and which apply, in a
greater or less degree, to the various classes concerned, while they will
Cu. XIII. 12-XIV.6.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
221
Se
3 dodevév Adyava éodiet. ‘O who is weak, eateth herbs. Let 3
éodiwy tov pa eo8iovta 7} not him that eateth despise him
étovdeveitw, Kat 6 py éodiwy that eateth not; and let not him
tov éadiovta pi) Kptvétw* 6 which eateth not judge him that
Yedc yao avrtov mpoceAdBero. eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Sd tic el 6 Kpivwv dAAdtpioy Who art thou that judgest another 4
olkétnv; T@ idiw Kvpiw oTAKec man’s servant? to his own master
j) ninter* oTadhoetae dé* dv- he standeth or falleth. Yea, he
vatoce ydo éottv 6 Sedc otjoat shall be holden up ; for God is able
5 avrév. “Oc pév kpiver fépay to make him stand. One manes- 6
Sy le nt x v4 ~
Tap’ nuépav, O¢ d& Kpiver Taoav
juépav~ Exaotog év TH idiw vot
teemeth one day above another ;
another esteemeth every day alike.
6 TAnpodopeiadw. ‘O ppova@y Tijv
fuépav Kvpiw povet, Kai 6 ju7)
gpovav tiv juépav Kupiw od
dpover* Kal 6 éodiny Kupio
Let every man be fully persuaded
in his own mind. He that regard- 6
eth the day, regardeth z¢ unto the
Lord; and he that regardeth not
always remain to the Christian church in all future ages wise and prac-
tical principles directing its procedure in all indifferent matters. The
general tenour of his remarks, and the respectful manner in which he
refers to the class of persons indicated, prove that he has particularly in
view the weak and scrupulous consciences of pious persons, somewhat
under the control of education and former habits. Towards these he
directs that a kind, forbearing, and conciliatory course should be pursued.
His remarks are distinguished by a meekness and wisdom both admirable
and characteristic.
Ver. 1. “ Receive:” That is, with kindness and respect, not embarrass-
ing with difficulties, but rather helping and supporting. The same verb is
used in ver. 3 of God, and in xv. 7 of affectionate and friendly reception
of each other, and of Christ’s favour to us.—“ Doubtful disputations :”
Either, literally, “not to judgments of thoughts, that is, not so as to make
oneself the judge of their thoughts and scruples :”* or, ‘not to distinctions
of thoughts’ or ‘ discussions,’ that is, not so as to encourage nice discrimina-
tions and distinctions in points of opinion which in themselves are really
of but little importance. When will the Christian church learn to imbibe
the deep yet simple wisdom of this great and good man ?
4, What a depth of intellectual character and moral feeling is here!
You man, do you presume to pass sentence in the case of another’s servant?
What know you of its various circumstances? Have you taken the pains
to ascertain them all? Are you even certain that you have the ability to
do so? And if you have mastered the facts, can you put them all in the
right balance and weigh them all with the most scrupulous accuracy, so as
* Robinson Lex.
222 COMMENTARY ON THE
the day, to the Lord he doth not
regard it. He that eateth, eateth
to the Lord, for he giveth God
thanks; and he that eateth not, to
the Lord he eateth not, and giveth
7 God thanks. For none of us liveth
to himself, and no man dieth to
8 himself. For whether we live, we
live unto the Lord; and whether
we die, we die unto the Lord:
whether we live therefore, or die,
9 we are the Lord's. For to this
end Christ both died, and rose, and
revived, that he might be Lord
10 both of the dead and living. But
why dost thou judge thy brother ?
or why dost thou set at naught thy
brother ? for we shall all stand be-
fore the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith
the Lord every knee shall bow to
(Seer, XII.
éavier edyaptaret yap TO Yew’
kai 6 pr) eodiwy Kupiw ovK
Eadiet, Kal evyaplotel TH eq.
Ovdeig yao hav -avt@ CH, Kat 7
ovdeig EavT@ drodvjoxe: édv 8
Te yd Gomer, TH Kupiw Coper,
édv Te drodviCKwper, TO Kvpiw
drodvioKopev’ &av Te OvY CaLeEV,
édv Te GTOUYHOKWILEV, TOD KUpLoV
éonév. Ele tovto yap Xpiorog 9
3 4 Ss Pe »
dnédave Kai dvéorn Kai &naev,
iva Kat vexpOv Kai Covrwv
kupteton. Xd dé, Ti Kpiverc TOY 10
ddeAdév aov; 7) Kati ov, Tt eov-
Yeveic TOV ddEAdov aov; TavTEC
yap tapaotnobmeda TO Bhware
tov Xpiorov. Téypanra yao: 11
GO éyd, Aéyer Kipioc, Gre euot
kdpper av yovv, Kal Ta0a
~ > 7 ~ ~
yA@ooa &ouodhoyjaetat TQ Bea.
uv og o e~ s
Apa ovy eKkaoTog muwy TEpt 12
to bring out the right result? It is possible. But the Apostle intimates
the only sensible course. Yield the decision to God. “Judge not, that
ye be not judged.” Each man’s own conscience must, after all that has
been said, influence him. Of course, his conscience must be rightly taught,
regulated and directed. Then the divine precept applies: “ Let every one
be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
7-9. Here we have the reason of the directions before given, namely,
that every true Christian, in imitation of his master, is devoted to the
welfare of his fellows. It is not his own gratification, but their good, which
he seeks.
11, 12. The quotation is from Isa. xlv. 23, and agrees very nearly with
the Septuagint. The prophet is speaking of the dissemination of true
religion by means of the Gospel. He predicts the approaching period
when all mankind will reject the worship of idols, and acknowledge and
adore the only true God. St. Paul applies the text to the concluding act
of Christ’s mediatorial authority, the exercise of his judicial office. This is
comprehended within the prophet’s more general idea of submission and
allegiance, which are ultimately to be universally rendered to Christ.
13. The word “judge” is here employed in different meanings ; first, in
that of censuring, condemning, and then of resolving. The figure is called
antanaclasis, meaning, a repetition of the same word in a different sense.
See Glassii Philologia Sacra his temporibus accommodata a D, Jo. Aug.
Cn. XIV. 7-18.]
éavtovd Aéyov dooe TO Ved.
13 Myxére ob dAAHAovE Kpiveper *
GAAG TOvTO KpivaTE PAAAOY, TO
NN 4 Zz ws 9 ~
jun) TWWEVAL TPGOKOUUA TH GOEAPO
14 7} oxdvdadov. Oida kat rréreL0-
frat &v Kupiw "Inoov, dre oddév
\ ? 0 ~ ? \ ~
Kotvov Ov avTov, él 47) TO Aoyt-
Couév@ Te Kolvoy eivat, éxeiv@
15 xowvov. Hi dé did Bpadpa 6
3 4 ~ Sis A
adeAdog cov Avreitat, ovKETL
kata aydnny TEpiTatelc’ [7 TO
Bpdwart cov éxeivov amoAdve,
16 drép ob Xproro¢g aréSave. Mz}
BAaodnpeiodw odv bu@y TO dya-
17 36v. Od yde gor % Baotdcia
TOD YEov BpGote Kal TOaLC, GAAG
dikatoobyvn Kat eipivn Kal yapa
18 év mvebpate dyiw* 0 yao év
TovTog dovAeiwyv TH XploT@
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
228
me and every tongue shall confess
to God. So then every one of us 12
shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one an- 13
other any more; but judge this
rather, that noman put a stumbling-
block or an occasion to fall in his
brother’s way. I know, and am 14
persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that
there is nothing unclean of itself;
but to him that esteemeth any
thing to be unclean, to him it is
unclean. But if thy brother be 15
grieved with thy meat, now walk-
est thou not charitably. Destroy
not him with thy meat, for whom
Christ died. Let not then your 16
good be evil spoken of. For the 17
kingdom of God is not meat and
drink; but righteousness, and peace,
and joy in the Holy Ghost. For 18
Dathio, Lib. Il. Tract. II. Cap. iii. Tom. I. pp. 13842 et seq. Compare also
8eiper and Peper in 1 Cor. iii. 17, and the xpetat with deexpidyre in
James ii. 4.
14. Comp. Tit. i. 15.
15. “Destroy :” That is, do not set such an example as may tend
to the ruin of one whom Christ died to redeem; do not expose him to
the danger of destruction, by leading him to do what his conscience
condemns.
16. “Your good:” Either the Christian religion which you profess ;
according to many both ancient and modern expositors: or, the right
freedom of Christian character which you have attained; according to
other weighty authorities. Either exposition gives a good sense, and agrees
with the context; although the latter is perhaps to be preferred. Compare
1 Cor. x. 29, 30, where the sentiment is the same: ‘Why should I so use
my Christian liberty as to expose it to censure and condemnation by another
conscience than my own? Why should I injudiciously expose myself to
calumny on account of what I am thankful for ?
17. “The kingdom of God ;” This phrase—which generally denotes the
religious dispensation as established by the divine Messiah, limited occa-
sionally to its imperfect condition on earth and occasionally to its glorious
condition in Heaven, but frequently comprehending both these states—is
sometimes, as here, employed to express the character of the dispensation
he that in these things serveth
Christ, is acceptable to God, and
19 approved of men. Let us there-
fore follow after the things which
make for peace, and things where-
20 with one may edify another. For
meat destroy not the work of God.
All things indeed are.pure ; but
is evil for that man who eateth
21 with offence. Jt 7s good neither to
eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor
any thing whereby thy brother
stumbleth, or is offended, or is
22 made weak. Hast thou faith?
have 7 to thyself before God.
Happy ts he that condemneth not
himself in that thing which he al-
23 loweth. And he that doubteth is
damned if he eat, because he eateth
COMMENTARY
ON THE (Secr. XII,
evdpeatoc 7H Ye Kal dbKipo¢
toi¢ dvdpwroic. “Apa oiv Ta 19
Tie elpnync StOkopev Kal TA TIC
olxodonng tie ele dAAHAovG. M7) 20
Evexev Bp@pwatoc Katddve TO
épyov tov Yeov. Ildvta pév
Kkadapa* GAAd Kakdv TG) avdpo-
TO TO Ola TPOCKOpLATOC EdVi-
ovtt. Kadov 70 pi) payeiv Kpéa, 21
nde tueiv olvov, unde &v @
adeApo¢ cov TpookdrTet 7) CKaV-
darigerat 7) dodevei. Ld riot 22
&yetc* KaTa CeavTov eye EvaTLOV
Tov Yeov" paKdptoc 6 117) Kpivwv
éavtov év @ doxiyudger, 'O dé 23
Svakptvopevoc, édv ddyy, KaTa-
Kéxpitat, btt ovK ex TioTews*
Trav dé 0 obk ék TioTEWws, dwapTia
éoriv.
not of faith: for whatsoever zs not
of faith is sin.
as spiritual, and consequently removed from whatever is essential to
material and temporal existence. Hence our Lord says: “The kingdom
of God is within you:” Luke xvii. 21. The characteristic of Christianity
is chiefly internal, consisting in righteousness and its accompanying divine
satisfactions. The lesson conveyed by these passages is all important, and
its truth and deep meaning will be appreciated and felt just in proportion
as we learn to understand the sublime elevation of Christianity.
20-23. “The work of God” expresses the Christian character wrought
in the soul by divine agency. ‘“ With offence :” dvd tpookduparoc’ The
preposition expresses the idea of along with or notwithstanding. Comp.
ii. 27 and note there, pp. 41, 42. It is bad for a man to eat, if by so
doing he places a stumbling-block in his brother’s way.—* Faith” is
equivalent to sound conviction of a Christian mind. The Apostle’s diree-
tion is given to the Christian who is not embarrassed by scruples respecting
matters of indifference. He is not to use his liberty so as to endanger the
religious character of a weak brother, by setting him an example which he
may be induced unlawfully to imitate. ‘Although indeed all kinds of food
may properly be eaten, yet if by so doing a man induces another to eat
against the suggestions of his weak conscience, he becomes the occasion and
in some sense the cause of sin; and whoever eats in opposition to his con-
victions, sins and subjects himself to condemnation.’
Griesbach and a few editors, led by some ancient authorities introduce
VG
Cu. XIV. 19-XV. 6.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
'OdeiAouev dE tsic ob
‘ NN | Be 7 ~
dvvatot Tad dodevnuata THY
ddvvdtwy Baordgery Kat jr
éavtoig dpéoxetv. "“Exaotoc¢
225
We then that are strong ought XV.
to bear the infirmities of the weak,
and not to please ourselves. Let
every one of us please Ais neigh-
2
quay Tq TAnoiov dpeckéTw el¢ dour for his good to edification. For 3
TO dyadov mpd¢ oikodomyv. Kat even Christ pleased not himself ; but
yae 6 Xpioro¢ ovy EavT@ 7jpecev, as it is written, The reproaches of
aAAd, Kado yéypantat* of them that reproached thee fell on
dvetdtowot THY dvEerdigdvTwY o& me. For whatsoever things were 4
énémecov én’ éué. "“Ooa yde written aforetime were written for
Tpoeypagn, sig tiv dpeTépav our learning, that we through
diackahiav mpoeypddn, iva dia patience and comfort of the Scrip-
THC UTOMOVAC Kal THC TapakAj- tures might have hope. Now the 5
sews THY ypadav tiv éArida God of patience and consolation
éyapev. ‘O d& Sede Tij¢ brouo- grant you to be like-minded one to-
vag Kat tig TtapakAjoewc On ward another, according to Christ
vuiv 76 avto dpoveiv év GAAH- Jesus; that ye may with one mind 6
Aotg Kata Xptorov "Inoovy, iva
and one mouth glorify God, even
opodvpadov év Evi orduate dog- the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
the doxology in xvi. 25-27 at the end of this chapter. From the circum-
stance that it is found in these different connections in certain ancient
manuscripts, and also from supposed internal evidence, and its similarity
to the doxology which terminates the Epistle of St. Jude, some doubts
have been expressed respecting its genuineness. But the objections are of
little or no weight, and the best critics agree that its proper position is at
the end of the Epistle. The hypothesis of Semler, that the 15th and 16th
chapters were not a part of the Epistle as originally written by St. Paul,
nor intended for the Romans, but addressed to other persons by the Apos-
tle, and afterwards connected with this Epistle, is examined by Koppe in
his second Excursus. As might be supposed, it is wholly destitute of any
historical and critical foundation, and depends almost entirely on surmises
and conjecture.
xv. 2. ‘In endeavouring to gratify one another, let each aim at mutual
improvement.’
3. See Ps. lxix. 9, in the Sept. Ixviii. 10. The Psalm has an ultimate
reference to Christ and his enemies, and is therefore not properly accom-
modated. The quotation belongs to the third class. See the Commentary
on Hebrews, pp. 25, 26.
4. “Of the Scriptures:” That is, arising from the views of religious
truth which they present to us.
5.. “To be like-minded ;” to agree together: Comp. Phil. ii. 2.—‘ Ac-
cording to Christ :” Elliptical for, according to the will of Christ. Comp.
viii. 27.
15
226
7 Wherefore receive ye one another,
as Christ also received us, to the
& glory of God. Now I say that
Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God,
to confirm the promises made unto
9 the fathers; and that the Gentiles
might glorify God for his mercy ; as
it is written, For this cause J will
confess to thee among the Gentiles,
10 and sing unto thy name. And
again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles,
11 with his people. And again, Praise
the Lord, all ye Gentiles ; and laud
12 him, all ye people. And again
Esaias saith, There shall be a root
of Jesse, and he that shall rise to
reign over the Gentiles, in him
13 shall the Gentiles trust. Now the
God of hope fill you with all joy
and peace in believing, that ye may
abound in hope, through the power
of the Holy Ghost.
COMMENTARY ON THE
[Sxor. XII.
dgnre tov Yedv Kai ratépa Tov
kuptov juav’Inood Xprorov. Aw 7
mpocdauBdveade GAAjAovc, Ka-
9a¢ Kal 6 Xpiorbce tposeAdBero
ipac ele ddtav Jeov. Aéyw dé, 8
"Inaovv Xpiarov didKovov yeyev-
jodar mepitoure bree dAnsetac
Seov, ele TO BeBaoa Td¢
érayyesiag TOV Tatépwr, Ta 9
dé £9vn b7é0 éA€ove Sosdoat TOV
Sedv, Kadac yéypanta: dia
rovTo ékouodoyfoowat ao év
f9veot, Kal 7TH dvduaTi gov
warG. Kat mddAw déyer* ev- 10
gpdvdnre *9dvn peta TOU Aaov
avrov. Kai mdi: aiveite Tov 11
Kiplov mavra Ta evn, Kal éxay-
éoate avtov mavtec ol Aaoi.
Kal mdAv ‘Hoaiac Aéyer* Eorat 12
7 pita Tov "leaoai, Kai 6 dviora-
pevocg apxyev edvGv* éx’ avdT@
é9vn EAmuovew. ‘O dé Bede tij¢ 13
tAridog tAnpwoat buac mdonc
xapac Kai elpnvng év TH TLoTED-
evv, elg TO TEplocevery buac ev
Ty éAmide év Svvduwer tvebparoe
ayiov.
6. “God, even the Father:” Or, ‘the God and Father.’ See Eph. i.
3, 17.
8 et seq. “Of the circumcision :” Meaning, of the Jews, as in iii. 30.
The Apostle represents Christ as sent, first for the benefit of the Jews, in
order to establish God’s fidelity by accomplishing the promises made to
the patriarchs; and also, in order that the Gentiles should become united
with the ancient covenant people, and both join harmoniously in praising
God for his goodness in sending the Saviour. The divine purpose of
extending Messiah’s kingdom among the Gentiles is a prominent idea in
his mind. The quotations, which agree very nearly with the Septuagint,
are from Ps. xvii. 50, Deut. xxxii. 43, Ps. exvil. 1, and Isa, xi. 10, accord-
ing to the notation of Breitinger. In the last passage the general meaning
of the Hebrew is preserved, although the version is not literal.
14, 15. “In some sort:” Literally, ‘in part.’ The Apostle tells the
Roman church, that, although in some parts of his Epistle, he has very
freely urged right views of Christian truth and duty; yet, he regards their
Cu. XV. 7-18.]
14 Tlérrevopar 0é, ddeA dot jrov, Kat
abroc &y@ Trept bur, dT Kai av-
Tol wecTot ETE Gyadwovrne, TE-
TAnpwpévor Taong yraoewc, dv-
4 re 9. 7 ~
vajevot kat dAAHAoVS VouUdeETeELy.
15 ToAunporepov d& é&ypara wpiv,
> 4 > X\ 4 ©: BJ
adeAgot, a0 pépove, wo éETava-
uluvnoKkwr tudc, dia TY yYapLv
thy dodetody jot bTO TOV Yeov,
16 ei¢ 76 elvai we Aevtovpyov *Inood
Xpiorov eic ta Evy, tepovp-
youvra TO evayyéALov Tov Seod,
iva yévntat 4 Tpoohopa THY
edvOv evr pbadeKtoc, Hytaopévn
17 év mvetuatt ayiw. "Eyw ovv
a bd tom et | ~ XN
Kavynow ev Xptot@ *Inoov ta
18 mpdc Tov Yedv~ ov yap TOALHOW
Aadeiv TL OV ov KaTELpydoaTto
Xpioto¢g Jv gov ei¢g braKonyv
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
227
And I myself also am persuaded 14
of you, my brethren, that ye also
are full of goodness, filled with all
knowledze, able also to admonish
one another. Nevertheless, breth- 15
ren, I have written the more boldly
unto you in some sort, as putting
you in mind, because of the grace
that is given unto me of God, that 16
I should be the minister of Jesus
Christ to the Gentiles, ministering
the gospel of God, that the offering
up of the Gentiles might be accept-
able, being sanctified by the Holy
Ghost. I have therefore whereof I
may glory through Jesus Christ in
those things which pertain to God.
For I will not dare to speak of 18
any of those things which Christ
pany
1
religious state as worthy of high commendation. Comp. i. 8,12. St. Paul
had never been at Rome, and this circumstance, together with his well
known principle of not intruding into the ministerial sphere of others, might
prompt him to express himself in terms explanatory, at least, if not some-
what apologetic. See 18-20.
16, “The minister—ministering :” These words do not express the full
force of the original. The former Aectoupydy, is indeed a general term
denoting a person who performs public services whether civil or ecclesias-
tical, and both the noun and the corresponding verb are frequently used in
the Septuagint of the priests and their services. The latter /epovpyovvra,
means nothing else than offering a sacrifice, acting as a priest. The whole
declaration is a striking and beautiful figure. St. Paul represents himself
as a priest of Jesus Christ, acting in this capacity in respect to the Gospel
for the benefit of the Gentiles, whom he offers up as an acceptable oblation
to God. He employs the same figure in Phil. ii. 17: “If I be offered upon
the sacrifice and service of your faith;” that is, ‘if I be poured out as a
libation upon the sacrifice of your faith and obedience.’ The reception of
the Gospel by the Philippians, their dedication of themselves thereby to
God, is regarded by the Apostle in the light of an acceptable oblation, and
his death on account of his efforts in the cause of Christ, as a libation or
drink-offering poured out upon it. Isaiah had employed the same meta-
phorical style in reference to the conversion of the heathen, and it is very
probable that our author had his mind upon the passage. “They shall
bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations to
228
COMMENTARY ON THE
(Seer. XII,
hath not wrought by me, to make
the Gentiles obedient, by word and
19 deed, through mighty signs and
wonders, by the power of the Spirit
of God; so that from Jerusalem,
and round about unto Illyricum, I
have fully preached the gospel of
20 Christ. Yea, so have I strived to
preach the gospel, not where Christ
was named, lest I should build upon
21 another man’s foundation : but, as
it is written, To whom he was not
spoken of, they shall see, and they
that have not heard shall under-
22 stand. For which cause also I
have been much hindered from
23 coming toyou. But now having no
more place in these parts, and hav-
ing a great desire these many years
24 to come unto you; whensoever I
take my journey into Spain, I will
come to you: for I trust to see you
in my journey, and to be brought
on my way thitherward by you, if
first I be somewhat filled with your
25 company. But now I go unto Jeru-
salem, to minister unto the saints.
26 For it hath pleased them of Macedo-
nia and Achaia to make a certain
contribution for the poor saints
which are at Jerusalem. It hath
pleased them, verily; and their
debtors they are. For if the Gen-
27
~
b0vOv, Abyw Kal tpyw, év dvvd- 19
fet onueiwy Kal Tepdtwr, &v
Svvduet Tvebjatoc ayiov, Gore
pe drd "lepovoaAnu Kat Kbnrw
peypte TOD "IAAvpiKod TeTAnpwK-
évat 70 ebayyédtov Tov Xptorov*
ovTw d& didoTimotpevov evayye- 20
Aigeodar, ody brov wvoudodn
Xptoréc, iva pu ex’ dAdObTpLov
VeuedLov oiKodon@, GAA Kada¢ 21
yéypanrat* aig ovK dvnyyéAn
Tept avTov, dorrat, kai ot obk
dknkoact, ovvijcovar. Ato Kai 22
évexonTounv Ta TOAAG TOD £A-
Veiv Tpd¢ Dudc. Nvvi dé unkéte 23
Torov Eywv év ToI¢ KAipaat TOd-
Tole, erimodiav J& éywv TOV EA-
Veivy mpdc tudo dnd TOAA@V
éT@v, oc &dv Tropedwpat ele Tijy 24
Lraviay, éArigw dvaTopevomevog
Vedoao9a iac Kai dd’ duov
mpotreupdjvar exel, av Duov
Tp@Tov ad pépove éuTAnodo.
Nvvi d& tropevouat ei¢ ‘Tepovaa- 25
Ane Ovakovov Toi¢ ayiow. Ev- 26
doxnoav yde Makedovia Kai
*Ayaia Kolvwviay TIVa ToLhCaAO-
dat cig TOG TTWYOVE TOV dyiwY
TOV év lepovoadnp, Evdéxnoav 27
yao, kai dperdérac adtov slow:
el yap Tol¢ mvEevpaTiKoic avT@v
éxowvovncav Ta ESvN, ddeidAovat
kai &v Toi¢ oapkiKoi¢ AEiToup-
my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring
an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also
take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord:” Isa. Ixvi. 20, 21.
The priest and the offering are alike figurative, and the idea conveyed is
that of entire dedication of both to the service of God.
19. “ Have fully preached ;” This is the proper translation of the word
meTAnowKévat. It is derived, however, from the context, as is the case in
several other instances. See the note on viii. 4, p. 128.
21. See Isa. lii. 15, Sept.
24. This passage expresses St. Paul’s intention to go to Spain; but
that he accomplished this purpose is uncertain. The supposition that he
Cx. XV. 19-XVI. 2.]
28 yjoat ad~-oic. Tovro ov érited-
éoac, Kal odpaytoduevoc adtoic
TOV KapTSv TOUTOY, dTEAEvoouaL
29 dV ipayv ei¢ THY Xtaviav, Oida
dé, Ott Epyomevog mpoc¢ buadc év
TAnpopmare evhoyiac Tod evayye-
Aiov tov Xprorod éAevoouar.
30 Ilapaxadd dé buac, dderdot, dia
TOV Kupiov Tua@v ‘Inoov Xprorov
kat dua TI dydrn¢ TOD TrEbpa-
ToC, ovvaywvicaddat jot ev Tai¢
mpocevyaic brép euov mpo¢ TOV
31 Jedv, iva pvo9G azo TOV areEt-
Sotvtwy év TH lovdaia, Kat iva
7 Stakovia jov 7 ic ‘lepovoadArju
evTpbodextog =yévntat = Toi
32 dyiowg: iva év yapa tA3w zpo¢
duacg dia YeAnuatog Yeov Kat
33 ovvavaratowna tyiv. ‘O dé
Seoe TIC elpivng wEeTa TAVTWOV
DUaY. Gun.
XVI. Svviornue dé tpiv Poi-
Bnv, THY deAdijy judy, ovcav
dudkovov tig ExxAnoiacg Tio év
Keyxpeaic, iva avtiv mpoodéé-
nove év Kupiw akiwe TOV dyiwv
kal TapaoraTe att év @ dv
DuaY Ypnsy Tpdypwate: Kal yao
avTi TpoaTatic TOAAGY éyevi On
to
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
229
tiles have been made partakers of
their spiritual things, their duty is
also to minister unto them in carnal
things. When, therefore, I have 28
performed this, and have scaled
to them this fruit, I will come
by you into Spain. And I am 29
sure that, when I come unto you, I
shall come in the fulness of the
blessing of the gospel of Christ.
Now I beseech you, brethren, for 30
the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and
for the love of the Spirit, that ye
strive together with me in your
prayers to God for me; that I may 31
be delivered from them that do not
believe in Judea; and that my ser-
vice which ZI have for Jerusalem
may be accepted of the saints;
that I may come unto you with joy 32
by the will of God, and may with
you be refreshed. Now the God of 33
peace be with you all. Amen.
I commend unto you Phebe XVI.
our sister, which is a servant of the
church which is at Cenchrea; that 2
ye receive her in the Lord, as be-
cometh saints, and that ye assist
her in whatsoever business she hath
need of you: for she hath been a
succourer of many, and of myself
did, assumes the theory of a second imprisonment at Rome, and rests
chiefly on a passage of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 5. The
theory is doubtful, and the text of Clement obscure.
28. “Sealed to them this fruit:” In other words, secured this benefit to
them.
xvi. It may be thought extraordinary that St. Paul should send so
many salutations as this chapter contains to individuals in a city which
he had never visited. But it must be remembered that Rome was a place
of general resort, and several of the persons here mentioned may not have
been permanent residents of the great metropolis, and have become known
to the Apostle elsewhere; and also that several were, in all probability,
not personal acquaintances, but known to him solely from their Christian
character.
?
230 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxor. XII.
3 also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, «at avrov éuod. ‘Aondoacde 3
4 my helpers in Christ Jesus; who Ilpioxay nai ’Akddav, trode ovv-
have for my life laid down their epyovg pov év Xprat@ “Iqaod,
necks: unto whom not only I give (oltuvee bree tic wWexijg pov 4
thanks, but also all the churches of Ov éavT@v tpdyndov i7édyKaY,
5 the Gentiles. Likewise greet the ol¢ ox éy® povocg edyaploTa,
church that isin their house. Salute dAAd Kai maoa ai éxKAnoiat
my well beloved Epenetus, who is T@v é9v@v,) Kal tiv Kat’ oiKov 5
the first-fruits of Achaia unto adT@v éxxAnoiav. *Aondoaode
6 Christ. Greet Mary who bestowed ’Eraiverov, tov dyamnréy pov,
7 much labour on us. Salute And- 6¢ éortv dmapy7 Tij¢ ’Aciac ei¢
ronicus and Junia, my kinsmenand Xpiorév. “Aondoaode Mapidp, 6
my fellow-prisoners, who are of #jtTi¢ ToAAd éxoriacev eic¢ nudc.
note among the apostles; who also “Aotwdoaode "Avdpévixov Kal 7
8 were in Christ before me. Greet “Iovviav, rove ovyyeveic pov Kal
Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. ovvaryyadwtove pov, oltivéc
Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ; elow érionwor év toic dxoot6-
10 and Stachys my beloved. Salute Adovc, of Kai mpd éuov yeyovaoy
Apelles, approved in Christ. Salute éy Xprot@. ’Aomdoacde "Au 8
them which are of Aristobulus’ mAiav, Tov dyatnTév pov éy
11 household. Salute Herodion my kupiw. ’Aordoaode OvpBavov, 9
kinsman. Greet them that be of TOv ovvepydv quay év XpioTq,
the household of Narcissus, which
Ss 4 \ ’ 7
Kal XLTayVY, TOV GyaTnTOV [LOv.
’"Aotdoacde ’ATeAATY, TOV d6K- 10
yuov év Xpiotd. *Aondoaade
Tove &k TOY *AptoTroBodAov.,
’Aordoaade ‘Hpwdiwva, tov ovy- 11
3. Comp. Acts xviii. 2, 18, 26, 2 Tim. iv. 19.
4. “Laid down their own necks:” A figure denoting exposure to great
danger.
5. “The church that is in their house:” Either, their Christian family ;
or, more probably, the body of Christians that habitually worshipped at
their residence. In the larger cities where the number of converts was
considerable, they would be compelled to meet for religious services in
private houses, until circumstances allowed them to unite in some one
convenient locality. — Achaia :” The true reading is probably Asia, mean-
ing proconsular Asia, as the word is used in Acts ii. 9, of which Ephesus
was the capital. Thus the statement here made that Epenetus was the
first Christian convert of this province will not conflict with that of 1 Cor.
xvi, 15, where “the house of Stephanas” is called “the first-fruits of Achaia.”
7. “Of note among the Apostles :” Some explain thus: ‘Who are of
high estimation with the Apostles, greatly honoured by them.’ But, as
Tholuck remarks, St. Paul would probably have expressed this idea by
some such phrase as, “ throughout all the churches.” See 2 Cor. viii. 18.
Cu. XVI. 8-18.]
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS.
231
yevn ov. "“Aandoacde Tove éx
t@v Napkisoov, tov¢ dvtag év
Kupiw. *Aotdoacde Tptparvav
kat Tpvd@oar, tag KoTLdoac év
kupiw. ‘Aotdoaode Tepoida,
THY ayanynrTHy, ijtl¢ TOAAG éxo-
13 miaoev ev Kupiw. ‘Aotdoacde
‘Povdor, Tov éxAextov év Kupio,
kal TV pnTépa adTov Kal euod.
14 ’Aomdoaode ’AovyKpitoyv, Aé-
yovra, ‘Epuay, ILatpéBav, ‘Ep-
unv Kat Tove odv avtotc dded-
15 dotc. “Aordoacde PiAddoyov
kat “lovAiav, Nnpéa kai tiv
addeAdijy avtod Kat ’OAvurav
Kat Tov¢ odv avtoic TavTac
ayiove. “Aotdoacde aAAnAove
év didnuatt dyiw. ’Aomagovtat
tudo ai ekkAnotat maoat Tov
Xpiatov.
Ilapakaa® d& duaic, ddeAdot,
okoTEiv TovG Ta¢ dLyooTactac
kal Ta oKdvdaka Tapa THY dL0a-
xnVv, Hv vusic Euddete, ToLovy-
Tac, Kat éxkAivate dm’ adtov.
18 Oi yde ToLvodvToL TO Kupiw Tuov
Xpiot@ ov dovdsiovay, dada
12
16
17
~
are in the Lord. Salute Tryphena
and Tryphosa, who labour in the
Lord. Salute the beloved Persis,
which laboured much in the Lord.
Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord ;
and his mother and mine. Salute
Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Pat-
robas, Hermes, and the brethren
which are with them. Salute Philo-
logus, and Julia, Nereus, and his
sister, and Olympas, and all the
saints which are with them. Salute
one another with an holy kiss. The
churches of Christ salute you.
Now I beseech you, brethren,
mark them which cause divisions
and offences contrary to the doc-
trine which ye have learned ; and
avoid them. For they that are
such serve not our Lord Jesus
Christ, but their own belly; and
12
16
18
The usual translation gives the meaning of the Greek, and probably these
persons were apostles, though not in the highest sense of the word. It was
certainly applied to others besides the twelve. See Acts xiv. 4, 14, where
it is used of Barnabas as well as of St. Paul; also 2 Cor. viii. 28, Phil. ii.
25, and Rey. ii. 2. Compare Bishop White’s Lectures on the Church
Catechism, Dissertation X. pp. 488-440.
15. “ His mother and mine :” This is expressive of deep affection, pro-
duced probably by proofs of maternal love shown to the Apostle by the
parent of Rufus. Comp. Matt. xii. 49, John xix. 26, and the Iliad, vi.
429, 430.
16. In the primitive church the kiss was a token of peace and mutual
Christian affection. Its use was not indiscriminate: but, as we read in the
Apostolical Constitutions, “ the men saluted one another, and the women
those of their own sex.” Lib. II. Cap. 57 ad fin. Edit. Coteler. Ant. 1700,
vol. i. pp. 264, 265.
19. This suggests a motive to comply with the preceding direction, and
thus to maintain the reputation for obedience which had already been
232 COMMENTARY ON THE [Sxer. XIL
by good words and fair speeches Ti favT@v Kotdia, Kai dia Tij¢
deceive the hearts of the simple. ypyotodoyiac Kal ebAoyiag ééa-
19 For your obedience is come abroad tat@ot Tag Kapdiac TOV dKadKwr.
unto all men. Iam glad therefore ‘H yde dydv iraKo7 ele mdvrac 19
on your behalf: but yet I would ddixeto* yaipw ovy 70 é’ byiv,
have you wise unto that which is éAw dé bude aopod¢e pév eivat
good, and simple concerning evil. el¢ 7d dyad6v, dxepaiove dé el¢
20 And the God of peace shall bruise 7d Kaxdv. ‘O 68 Yedc¢ Tic elpf- 20
Satan under your feet shortly. The vy¢ ovytpinper tov oaravay id
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be rode wédac iuOv év raéyer. 'H
with you. Amen. xapic TOD Kupiov Fpuav "Inood
21 Timotheus my work-fellow, and Xpiorov pew budv.
Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my ’Aordlovrat tuac Tynddeoc, 6 21
22 kinsmen, salute you. 1 Tertius, who guvepyéc¢ pov, kat Aotkioc Kal
wrote this epistle, salute youinthe "Idawv kai Xwoirarpoc, ol avy-
23 Lord. Gaius mine host, and of the yeveic pov. ‘Aomdfouat buac 22
whole church, saluteth you. Erastus éye) 'Téptioc, 6 ypdyacg tiv érto-
the chamberlain of the city saluteth toAjv, év Kupiw. "Aondgerat 23
24 you, and Quartus a brother. The dyuac Tdioc, 6 tévoc pov Kai Tij¢
acquired.—* Simple :” Or, inoffensive, “harmless,” as the marginal read-
ing is.
20. This is figurative for, ‘will speedily give you victory over your
spiritual foes.’ Some have supposed an allusion to Gen. iii. 15, which is
very probable. If so, the Apostle’s mind must have dwelt upon the
Hebrew and Chaldee meaning “ bruise,” rather than the Septuagint transla-
tion ‘ watch for.’
21-24. It has been thought strange that St. Paul, after having brought
his salutations to an apparent close in ver. 16, and invoked a blessing on
the Roman church in ver. 20, should resume the salutations; and that
Tertius his amanuensis should interpose his own between two of the author’s.
Some critics have inferred that these verses are an appendage not written
by the Apostle; others that they were added by him, with the exception
of ver. 22, to fill a vacancy in an additional piece of parchment which con-
tained the doxology of vs. 25-27. It is impossible to arrive at any
certainty on such points. Some trifling circumstances, unknown to us,
may have caused the author to append certain salutations here which would
have been more regularly incorporated among the others. It has been
conjectured that Tertius was the author of the whole portion from 21 to 24
inclusive. But even then the insertion of his name between those of others
still remains unexplained. His salutation may have been originally written
in the margin, and at an early age transferred out of place into the text.
Or, while writing under the Apostle’s dictation, Tertius may have intro-
On. XVI. 19-27.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 238
éxkAnotag GAnc. | Aomdetat grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be
tuac "Epaoroc, 6 oikovduocg THC with youall. Amen.
méAewe, Kat Kotaproc 6 dded- Now to him that is of power to 25
24 hdc. “H ydpig Tov Kvpiov 7juGv establish you according to my gos-
*Inoov Xptotov peta mdvTwv pel and the preaching of Jesu
buov. amv. Christ, according to the revelation
25 Te dé dvvapévw bude ornpigae of the mystery, which was kept
kata TO evayyédév jov Kai TO secret since the world began, but 26
Kipvywa *inoovd Xptorov, kata now is made manifest, and by the
dmokdAvyy jevotnpiov ypovorg scriptures of the prophets, accord-
26 alwviowg ceovynuévov, pavepw- ing to the commandment of the
Sévtoc dé vov, did TE ypadGyv everlasting God, made known to all
mpoontiK@v Kat’ émutayiyv tov nations for the obedience of faith;
alwviov Yeov el¢ brakoiy Tio- to God only wise, be glory, through 27
tewe ele Tévta Ta EYVN yvwpto- Jesus Christ, for ever. Amen.
27 Sévtoc, pdvw copa Ved, Jia
"Igoov Xptorov, © 7 ddga ei¢
Tove aldvac* awh.
duced his own name on account of being, as Tholuck suggests, connected in
some way with those just before named.
25. “My Gospel :” Comp. ii. 16 and note, p. 88.-—“Since the world
began :” Locke, who is followed by Macknight, attempts to explain this
phrase of “the times under the law,” referring for proof to 2 Tim. i. 9,
Tit. i. 2, Luke i. '70, Acts iii. 21, 1 Cor. ii. 7, x. 11, Eph. iii. 9, Col. i. 26,
ard Heb. ix. 26, not one of which is to the point. Dr. Samuel Lee of
Cambridge also refers to some of these texts in order to sustain his extra-
vagant interpretation of the phrase “ before the foundation of the world” in
1 Pet. i. 20, and some other similar places, which he regards as equivalent
to “before the Jewish polity had a being,” before the establishment of the
Hebrew church or the exode from Egypt. Thus he says the call and
choice of Abraham, meaning the historical event in the patriarch’s life, did
“in the style of Scripture precede the foundation of the world.”*—The
literal meaning of the above phrase is ‘ from eternal times,’ that is, from all
past ages, which our English translation expresses, and which appears also
in some of the references above given.
26. “By the scriptures of the prophets:” Partly by means of them,
and partly in accordance with their attestations. Comp. iii, 21.—“ Obedi-
ence of faith:” The same phrase as in i. 5.
27. The English translation, following Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva
and Beza, omits the @. The omission certainly frees the doxology from an
embarrassment which otherwise attaches to it. But the external evidence
* See his First Dissertation annexed to his Six Sermons on the study of the Holy Scriptures, Sect,
viii. pp. 56-60, Lond, 1830,
234 COMMENTARY, ETC. [Szer. XII,
Written to the Romans from Corinthus, Ilpdc¢ ‘Papaiove typagn dard Kopividov
and sent by Phebe, servant of the church did boinc, rig Staxdvov rig ev Keyxpeai¢
at Cenchrea, éxkAnoiac.
is altogether in favour of the reading. The verse resumes what had been
begun in the 25th. If the relative be retained, however, the sentence
appears to be incomplete, as the translation will be, “to the only wise
God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever: Amen.” The
Apostle seems to commence a doxology to God, as in Eph. iii, 20, through
Christ, and then to ascribe it to Christ himself. Some authorities substitute
av7@ in the place of @, or regard this as an anacoluthon* and translate zo hum.
Olshausen accedes to the view of Glockler, a late German critic, who
understands the verb ovviornju. ‘The verse will then read thus: ‘To the
only wise God Z commend you through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory
forever; and the doxology will relate to Christ. The reference in it to
making known the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the statement that this
accords with the declarations in the prophetic Scriptures, are strikingly in
harmony with one prominent thought which pervades the whole Epistle.
* This is a Rhetorical term meaning, want of sequence. It is applied to clauses where, through
the mode of construction or the choice of words, some grammatical inaccuracy bas occurred. It is
derived from the negative a and dxoAouVéw, to follow
THE END.
AP DE Ns Ee Be es
NOTE.
THE following questions have been prepared with the view of
assisting the reader of the Commentary in acquiring an accurate
knowledge of its contents, and thereby of the meaning and fulness
of a most important portion of the inspired volume. A careful
examiner of the questions will be able to determine, whether the
answers to be found in the work do, if satisfactory, contain impor-
tant Christian and theological information. The author cannot but
think that they may be made useful, not only to exegetical classes
in theological seminaries, but also to Christians generally, who
read the Bible, not simply to get through with it every year, but
also to “mark, learn, and inwardly digest” its truths. The more
intelligent Bible classes also may find in the answers to these ques-
tions elucidations of scriptural doctrines and facts, which are of the
highest importance and deepest practical influence. I acknowledge,
what has been remarked in a Review, that I have “ written for the
benefit of those who really wish to understand the sacred volume,
and are willing to this end to take the trouble of thinking” and
studying. And I will cherish the hope that among educated Chris-
tians there will always be found some, who are willing to take such
trouble in order to gain a competent acquaintance with the word
of God. That a very few portions of the Commentary require a
knowledge of the Greek text, need not deter the merely English
reader from a general study of it. In almost all cases, he will be
able to ascertain the meaning.
GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
December 20, 1853.
APPHNDYX.
QUESTIONS ON THE PRECEDING EXPOSITION.
The reader is requested to observe that the page is noted immediately after the questions founded on it.
INTRODUCTION.
Wuar was St. Paul’s native place? family condition? early training ?
standing in Jewish learning and character? Is it probable that before his
conversion he knew anything of our Lord’s claims, teachings, acts, and re-
ligious system ? ix.—Did his religious and intellectual training prepare
him in any degree for the course to which he was afterwards called? Is
there any reason to think that he felt the spiritual inadequacy of the
Jewish system, before his miraculous call? x. xii—Give some account of
the origin of the Church of Rome.—Does the address of the leading Jews
to him on his arrival at Rome prove that the Christian community in that
city was then unknown to them, or in itself unimportant ? xi.—Is there
sufficient reason to think that in the church of Rome two antagonistic
parties then existed, Jewish and Gentile; and that the main object of the
Epistle was to reconcile their doctrinal differences ?--State who probably
introduced Christianity into Rome.—Mention the circumstances which
made the church of Rome and its condition known to St. Paul. xii—Of
what classes of converts did the Roman church originally consist ? xiii,
—Who was the bearer of the Epistle, and what ecclesiastical character did
she sustain ?—How may the Epistle be divided ?—What are the leading
topics of the doctrinal parts?—Is there sufficient evidence to prove its
genuineness ? xiv. xv.
Secrion I.—Cuap. I. 1-15.
How far does the first section extend ?—State in general its contents.
po Lt
What does St. Paul mean when he speaks of himself as “ separated
to the Gospel” ? p. 19.—Does the true exposition of ver. 4 determine the
origin of Christ’s sonship, or state its publication 2—What is the best con-
nection of the words “ with power” ? 20.—State the leading expositions of
238 QUESTIONS ON THE
the phrases “ spirit of holiness—grace and Apostleship—obedience to the
faith—for his name—called” : 20—22.—Is a “Spiritual gift” necessarily
miraculous ?—What is the meaning of “to have fruit ?”—Why does St.
Paul particularly specify Rome as a place where he would be willing to
preach the Gospel ? 23.
Section I].—Caap. I. 16-82.
State the general subject of this section.—What reason is given for
glorying in the Gospel ?—What does it contain ?—What is said of the
works of creation? p. 1—How did the Heathen regard them ?—Why
does the Apostle describe Heathen wickedness? 2.
What is the meaning of not being “ashamed of the Gospel” ?—W hat
reagons are given therefor ?—Explain the general meaning of the phrases
“righteousness of God” and “from faith to faith”: 24-26.--What is meant
by “truth” in ver. 18? and of “holding it in unrighteousness” ? 26,—
State the meaning of ver. 20; of “when they knew” in ver. 21.—Ex-
plain the words “they became fools.” 27, 28.—What is the “truth of
God” equivalent to?—State the condition of the Heathen world as de-
scribed by the Apostle—Are the charges here brought intended of every
individual ? 28-30.
Section II].—Cuap II.
State the leading topic of this section—Why does the Apostle here
censure the Jews ?—How does he represent God’s judgment ?—On what _
ground will the future award be made to each one ?—What is necessary
in order to become acceptable with God ?—What is said of Heathen who
endeavour to live agreeably to the divine Jaw ?—and of Jews who disregard
it 2—How does the author represent the respective conditions of Jews and
Gentiles ?— What description does he give of a true Jew? 2, 3.—What are
the meaning and connection of “ therefore” in ver. 1? 30, 31— Wherein
lies the Apostle’s antithesis ?—State and illustrate the meaning of “ judge
—according to truth—riches of goodness—not knowing,” in ys. 1, 3, 4:
31, 32.—What is the logical connection of “ for” in ver. 12? 32.—How
are the words “sinned” and “ without law” used ?—In the 12th and follow-
ing verses is the Apostle speaking of the scriptural ground of justification ?
or does he meet any errour of the Jews? What is it that he here asserts ?
Does he introduce a supposed case ?—Show from the context that he does
not: 33, 84.—What is the meaning here of the word translated, “shall -
be justified” ? 34, 35.—What does the phrase “by nature” in ver. 14 ex-
press ?—What does St. Paul mean when he speaks of Gentiles doing the
things of the law? 34.—Show that his representation is consistent with
that made of the Heathen in the first chapter: 35.—Can the word Gentiles
here be understood of those who had been converted to the Gospel ?—Ex-
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 239
plain the phrase “work of the law”: 36.—What is the meaning of the
words rendered “the mean while—one another” ?—Show the connection of
ver. 16: 37.—Explain the phrase “my Gospel”: 38.—State the two read-
ings of the first part of ver. 17, and the general thought that follows : 38,
39.—Does the Greek which is rendered “approvest the things that are
more excellent,” admit of another translation ? 39.— What does “ commit-
ting sacrilege” here mean ?—Is any particular text of the Old Testament
referred to in ver, 24 ?—What general thought is contained in vs, 25-29?
—What does circumcision here mean ?—Does the Apostle speak of a hy-
pothetical or sincere though imperfect obedience? 40, 41.—Explain the
phrase “ by the letter and circumcision”: 41.—Give the meaning of vs.
25-27.—W hat is meant by “spirit and letter” 2—State the leading thought
in the two last verses: 42. .
Section [V.—Cuap. III.
What does the Apostle do in this section ?—What does he state to be
the chief advantage of the Jew ?—How does he show that the faithlessness
of a part of the nation cannot affect God’s fidelity ?—In reverting to the
subject of justification, what is the bearing of his question, and how does
he reply ? 3.—How does he prove the Jews to be grievous sinners ?—
From what he has just said and what he had before shown, what is proved
of all mankind 2—W hat follows ?—How is justification now made known 2
—What is declared and secured by Christ’s sacrifice ?—What general con-
clusion is then drawn ?—And how is God made to appear ? 4,
Show the connection between this and the preceding chapter.—Is the
language in ver. 1 that of an objector ?—Which translation accords best
with New Testament usage, “ unto them were committed,” or, ‘they were
entrusted with’ ?—What is the meaning of “ the oracles of God” ? 43.—In
what sense is the word “faith” used in ver, 3 ?—State the two meanings of
the word translated “art judged,” and its meaning here : 44,—What is the
meaning of Jewish “unrighteousness commending the righteousness of
God” ?—Explain the phrases “taketh vengeance—speak as a man.”—
Where and how does the Apostle fully meet the Jewish objection ? 45, 46.
—What is the simplest mode of analysing the Greek text ?—Is the verb in
ver. 9 best explained in a passive or middle or active sense 2—What sort
of advantage is it that the Apostle here denies ? 47._Is “ proved” the best
translation of the Greek verb in ver. 9 ?—What is the meaning of being
“under sin” ?—Are the texts that follow all quoted from one portion of
the Old Testament or several ?—For what purpose are they quoted ?—Are
the specific charges here made applicable to every Jew?—If not, how are
the quotations relevant to the intended purpose ?—Explain the figure “ open
sepulchre”: 48, 49.--What is the meaning of “law” in ver. 19 2—Is the
240 QUESTIONS ON THE
conclusion which is drawn in the latter half of this verse confined to the
Jews or is it general ?—How is the term “ law” employed in vs, 20, 21?
in the sense of moral or ceremonial ?—How is the knowledge of sin by
law ?—What is the bearing of “now” in ver, 21?—Explain the phrases
“ righteousness of God—the law and the prophets—witnessed” : 50, 51.—
How is God’s method of justification more particularly stated in ver. 22?
What does “faith” here mean ?— What difference is there between “ unto”
and “ upon” ? 52.—What is meant by “the glory of God—redemption—
freely” ? 53, 54.—‘“ Set forth” : show why this translation is preferable to
‘ ordained.’—* Propitiation”: Does this allude to the idea of “merey
seat,” or “sacrifice” ?—What is meant by “ faith in Christ’s blood” ?—State
the various forms in which the object of faith is expressed in the New
Testament: 54, 55,—What is the most probable meaning of “righteousness”
in ver. 26? 56.—How is the believer expressed in the Greek ? Give one
or two similar expressions.— W hat is the force of the words “ at this time” ?
—In ver, 27, what is “law” equivalent to? 57.—What are “ circumcision
and uncircumcision” put for in ver. 30 ?—How does the New Testament
doctrine of justification sustain moral law ? 58.
Section V.—Cuap. IV.
How is justification by faith here proved and applied ?—What law
has the Apostle’s preceding course of argument in view? Does he con-
tinue to limit the discussion to moral law? 4.—What confidence gives
occasion to his remarks ?—On what ground does the Scripture put the
justification of Abraham ?—How does David describe the condition of the
justified man ?%—Does this condition belong exclusively to Jews ?—Was
Abraham justified before or after his cireumcision ?—Of what then was it
an attestation ?—Of whom did he therefore become the spiritual parent ?—
In consequence of what was the great promise given to him ?—To whom
is this promise secured? 5.—How does the Apostle describe Abraham’s
faith 9—Why was this recorded in the Old Testament? 6.
Mention the different meanings which the first verse will bear accord-
ing as it is variously pointed. State the connection and meaning of “as
pertaining to the flesh :” 59, 60.—What reply is given to the question in
this verse? 60.—In the phrase, “counted unto him for righteousness,”
what is the meaning of “for? righteousness? counted unto?” What
other equivalent terms to the last'are employed in our translation and in
theological discussion? What is said to be thus counted or reckoned or
imputed to?—What language does the Apostle here use in speaking of
justification ?—Give the sense of the various expressions.—Is there any
difference in the general idea conveyed by each? Is the term righteous-
ness or justification best adapted to express the Apostle’s meaning? 61,
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 241
62.—What general principle is laid down in verse 4%—Explain the
- phrase “worketh not.”—Does the language of the Itomily on Salvation
agree with this?—What is the full signification of “him that justifieth the
ungodly” ?~-What state of blessedness does the quotation from the Psalm
denote? What are the necessary conclusions deducible from the passage
as here applied ?—Illustrate the second by other language of St. Paul,
—State his idea of justification——Prove that the Homily contains the
same view: 62-64.—“‘ What does the author show in vs. 9-12 ?—Has
the phrase, “for we say,” a logical connection with anything previous ?—
Was Abraham’s faith available to his justification before his circumcision
or after 2—If before, in what light is his circumcision to be regarded ? 64.
—Explain the terms “ sign and seal—sign of circumcision.” What is the
antecedent of “ which” in ver, 11 ?—Which is the more probable transla-
tion, “ that” or so that “he might be”? Of whom was Abraham to be-
come the spiritual parent? What is the force here of the Greek prepo-
sition expressed by the English word “ though”? After the words “ father
of circumcision” in ver. 12, what is the meaning of the remainder of the
verse, and whom does it describe? 65.—Show the logical connection of
“ for” in ver. 13.—What is the meaning of the word “ seed” ?—Explain
the parallel place in Gal. iii, 16—In harmony with this explanation de-
velop the full signification of the phrase “heir of the world.”—Is the last
clause of the verse’ applicable to Christ ? 66, 67—Who are meant by
** they of the law” in ver. 14 ?— What general principle is now laid down?
In what other parts of this Epistle is it again stated? Explain “all” or
the whole “seed” in ver. 16: 68.—How and why do the words “ of the
law” in ver. 16 differ from the same words in ver. 142—Where is the
quotation in ver. 17 taken from ?—Show its relevancy to the Apostle’s
purpose.— What is the connection of “before him” ?—Illustrate the de-
scription now given of God: 69.—What sort of a quotation is that at the
end of ver. 18 ?—Explain the 19th verse both with and without the nega-
tive reading— Why is the efficacy of Abraham’s faith recorded in Serip-
ture ?—What is implied in the belief which is spoken of in ver, 242
70, 71.
Section VI.—Cuapr. V. 1-11.
What consequences are traced in this section ?—What is justification
followed by ?—State the condition of the justified man.—How is the love
of God set in contrast with human affection 2—W hat follows from the fact
that God gave his son to die for sinners? 6, 7.
What is the most accurate translation of the first Greek word? 71.
—‘ Rejoice :” does the original term occur elsewhere in this connection
differently translated ?—In what does the Apostle represent the Christian
242 QUESTIONS ON THE
as rejoicing ?—-What is probably the true meaning here of the word ren-
dered “ experience.” —Explain the phrases “ hope maketh not ashamed,” and
“the love of God.”—Does the effusion of the Spirit here spoken of refer
to his ordinary or extraordinary influences ? 72.—Illustrate the phrase “in
due time” by a parallel one in Galatians—What do verses 7 and 8 ex-
press?—State the meaning of the words “righteous” and “good,” and
show the connection of the two clauses in ver. 7: 73, 74.—What is the
meaning of “ justified by his blood,” in ver. 9, and what doctrines are therein
implied ?—W hat Jife of Christ is referred to in ver. 10 ?—Quote one or two
parallel texts.—Explain the words, “received the atonement”: 74, 75.
Section VII.—Cuapr. V. 12-21.
What is the general train of thought in this section ?—What does the
Apostle now proceed to show ?—How was sin introduced into the world?
—What followed 2—How extensive were the results ?—How does it appear
that death was the consequence of Adam’s transgression ?—State the
Apostle’s representation of the correspondence between Adam and Christ,
and the points of dissimilarity: 7.—For what purpose was moral law in-
troduced? 8.
State the design of St. Paul as in harmony with the scope of the Epis-
tle: 75, 76. What is the connection and meaning of “ therefore ?”— Who
is meant by the “ one man,” and why is he specified ? 76.—What does the
word sin generally express ?—What else does it here denote ?—State the
meaning of the Apostle’s first proposition.—In what sense does he here em-
ploy the word “ death” ?—State the meaning of the second proposition.—
What repetition is contained in the latter half of the verse ?—State and defend
the true meaning of the words “for that”: 77-79.—Mention the three
leading expositions of the phrase “have sinned”: 79-81.—What objec-
tions may be urged against the first ?—Can it be allowed that the author
makes his statement without regard to infants and idiots? 79, 80.—
According to the second exposition what will the statement be ?—Does
this sense correspond with that of any other in this context ?—ls it
sanctioned by similar scriptural language? 80, 81.—According to the
third leading exposition what does the statement comprehend ?—May
then the degree and extent of the death alluded to vary ?—Has this Jast
view been objected to ?—How does the context bear on this sense? 81.
—How does scriptural analogy ?—Does this view militate against the
comparison drawn by the Apostle between Christ and Adam ?—In what
does this comparison consist ? 82,—What is the Apostle’s general state-
ment? 83.—Is the construction of the verse clear ?—Give the views on
this point of some of the most distinguished commentators :—Is
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 243
“during” or ‘until’ the better translation ?—Are the Apostle’s declara-
tions in vs. 18, 14, merely independent propositions ? 84.—If not, how are
they logically connected, and how stands the argument? 85.—Can a
sufficient reason be given for the limitation of the period “ to Moses”? 86.
Is the application of the words, “even over them that had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” necessarily confined to infants and
idiots?—Who is meant by “him that is to come”? Is the Greek term
the one commonly used for the Messiah? 87.—Explain the meaning of
“figure” or ‘type’: 87, 88.—What points of dissimilarity does the author
now proceed to note ?—What is the proper meaning of “the many” ? 88,
—In the first clause of ver. 16, is the true Greek reading a participle or a
noun ?—How did the latter reading probably arise? — How may the
ellipsis in the first clause of this verse be supplied ?—State the difference
in meaning between the Greek phrases rendered “by one” in our transla-
tion ;—the bearing of the word “ receive” in ver. 17: 89;—the idea con-
veyed by “ abundance of grace.”—Does the Apostle teach that the benefit
derived through Christ exceeds the evil entailed through Adam ? 90, 91.
—TIn ver. 18, which is the better translation, “the offence of one—the
righteousness of one,” or ‘one offence—one righteousness’ ? 91.— What is
to be supplied in the two clauses of this verse ?—State the meaning of
“were made” in ver. 19: 92.—Is the promise in the latter clause abso-
lute, or does it imply some condition 2—In ver. 20, is “the law” limited
to the Mosaic ?—What is the full force of the word translated “ entered” ?
93.—Where and how does the author explain more fully the meaning of,
“that the offence might abound” ?—What are the contrasted expressions
in ver. 21? 94.
Section VIII.—Cuap. VI.
What is the practical tendency of the doctrines before explained 2—
What is the baptized Christian’s condition, and what connection has it with
a life of holiness ?—How is our future glorious resurrection a result of
our present moral one ?—What influence should Christ’s death and life
in heayen have on us?+—Why are we enabled to live a holy life?—How
is the Christian’s condition contrasted with his former natural one 2—
State the two leading thoughts in the chapter: 8.
What practical errour does the Apostle now guard against ?—State his
two important considerations :—What sort of language is “dead to sin” ?
95.—In explaining figurative language what caution is necessary? Illus-
trate the figure here employed.—State the difference between John’s bap-
tism and Christ’s: 96.—What is real Christian baptism ?—Recite St.
Peter’s definition of baptism.—How is the figure of clothing used in the
Bible ?—What is meant by putting on the Lord Jesus 2—Give some illus-
244 QUESTIONS ON THE
trations of the phrase-—How does this view accord with that in our cate
chism ? 97.—How does the Apostle speak of baptism and of the baptized ?—
Does he carry out the figure with which he begins ?—In ver, 4 does he
allude to the mode of baptizing by immersion ? 98,.—What does ‘ planted
or grown together’ imply ?—Has the author a twofold resurrection in
view ?—Explain the phrases “old man—new man—body of sin—freed
from sin.” 99,—Can the living with Christ which is spoken of in ver. 8 be
limited to the present state ?—Explain what is meant by Christ’s having
“died unto sin,” and “living unto God ;” also, “ once”; 100.—On what
is the exhortation begun in ver. 11 founded ?—Why is the Christian’s being
under grace and not law a reason for sin’s not ruling him? 101.—Can you
assign any reason why some transcribers haye rejected the words “ unto
death” in ver. 16 2—What is the meaning of “ righteousness” ? 102,—Ex-
plain the last phrase of ver. 17: 103.—In ver. 18 et seq., how are sin and
righteousness represented ?—What idea is conveyed by the phrase “ in-
iquity unto iniquity” 2—What verbal antithesis is stated in vs, 21, 224%
104 ;—And contrast in ver, 23? 105.
Section [X.—Cuap. VII—VIIL 17.
What does St. Paul intend to show in this section ?—What use does
he make of the analogy drawn from the marriage relation ?—Is it the Jews
or the law that he represents as dead?—How is the influence of law on
sinfal nature depicted ?—What two conditions are described by the words
“IT was alive once without the law,” and “ when the commandment came
I died ” ?—What character does the Apostle proceed to personate ?—How
does he describe its perceptions and feelings ?—How does he represent
man’s reason and conscience in opposition to his sinful nature ?—What is
the natural result of the struggle ?—How is deliverance to be obtained?
—In his Christian condition, can the man obey God’s law?—Is he as be-
fore, in a state of condemnation ?—What does the Gospel effect which the
law could not do ?—What are the respective results of submission to tho
carnal and the spiritual principle ?—What is said to be the ultimate blessed
effect of the indwelling of the Spirit ?—What is the test of true filiation ?
9, 10.
The connection of what two doctrines is here implied 2—What is the
meaning of “ know the law”? 105; and to whom does the Apostle ad-
dress himself ?—Does the word “liveth” relate to the man or the law ?—
Explain the phrase “law of her husband.’—For what purpose is the
thought in vs. 2, 3, introduced ?—What is the general idea of the illustra-
tion? 106.—How does the Apostle apply his comparison ?—What is
meant by “the body of Christ” ?—Apart from the figure what is the
thought ?—What two contrary states are expressed in vs. 5, 6 ?—Explain
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 245
the phrases “in the flesh, 107,—passions of sins—by the law—members.”
—What is the phrase “ to bring forth fruit unto death” contrasted with?
108.—What is the,true reading of the Greek which is translated “that
being dead” ?—Explain and defend the meaning of that reading. —What
do the phrases “newness of spirit and oldness of letter” denote ?—Why
does the Apostle put the question, “is the law sin”? 108, 109.—In what
follows does St. Paul speak of himself’—Does he intend to represent a
regenerate or ante-regenerate condition ?—Can this point be determined
by the sense which some phrases will bear ?—What is the best clew to
his meaning ?—What state of mind does he describe ? 109, 110.—In the
whole representation extending into the next chapter, what stages of de-
velopment are distinguishable ?—In ver. 8 what is the meaning of “sin” ?
What is the best connection of the phrase “by the commandment” ?—
What is the meaning of the words “I was alive”? 111, 112.—In what
sense is the word “commandment” employed 2—How is it here said to
come ?—What is meant by “I died”? 112, 113.—To what does the
word “ deceived” appear to allude ?—What is here said to slay ?—Is the
same elsewhere asserted of the law ?—Explain the meaning in each case :
113.—State the different modifications of meaning, and that which is the
most probable, of the 13th verse after “God forbid.”—What does the
particle “for” in the beginning of verse 14 imply? 114.—What does
the word “spiritual” denote ?—Explain “carnal, sold under sin.”—
What is described in vs. 15-20? 115.—Explain the phrases, “I allow
not—consent unto—now—no more—I—my flesh :” 116—What is here
the meaning of “to will” 2—Give the general sense of these verses.—
What is “ the law” spoken of in verse 21 ?—What is it elsewhere called ?
117.—With what is it contrasted 2—‘Show the scriptural meaning of the
phrase “inward (or inner) man”: 118.—State and refute certain objections
which have been urged against this meaning: 119.-—What is the force of
the word rendered, “I delight in” ? and what idea does it express ? 119, 120.
—What result is denoted by the phrase, “ bringing me into captivity” ?—
Explain what is meant by “ the body of this death” : 120.—What does the
first clause of ver. 25 express ?—What reading of the Greek is the best ?
Recapitulate certain particulars contained in this chapter, either by
direct expression or necessary implication: 121-123.—Who is intended
by the words “I myself” ?—-Explain the terms “ mind—flesh—serve.”—
State the more prominent expositions of the last sentence: 124, 125;—
the force of the particle “now” in viii. 1 ;—the meaning of “in Christ
Jesus,”—Is the remainder of the verse genuine ?—Explain the phrases
“the law of the spirit of life—the law of sin and death.” -—With what
does the latter stand in contradistinction ?—Illustrate the Greek which is
translated, “ what the law could not do” : 125, 126.— What does “the flesh”
here mean ?—How does the phrase “ sending his own son” bear upon the
246 ' QUESTIONS ON THE
doctrine of the sonship of Christ ?—Explain “likeness of sinful flesh” ;—
the Greek rendered “ for sin ;—condemned ;—in the flesh.”—What other
thing does the author now point out which Christ did? 127.—What sort
of fulfilment of righteousness is intended ?—Confirm the true meaning by
some other phrases.—State the force of “in.”—-What character does the
latter part of the text describe ?—State and illustrate the meaning of
“mind.”—What is the meaning of the noun translated “to be minded”
and “ the mind,” taken actively and passively ? 128.—Which is to be pre-
ferred 2—How is the same word employed in our 19th article ?—What
are the respective results of the influence of the two principles ?—How is
the enmity of the carnal mind to God shown 2—What is the meaning of “in
the Spirit”? His indwelling ?—* Christ in you”? 129.—Is there any dif-
ference between the meaning of Spirit in ver. 9 and in ver, 11 ?—Ex-
plain the phrase, “the body is dead because of sin” in ver. 10;—the
meaning of “righteousness”; 130.—In verse 11, what is the true reading
and translation of the Greek rendered “by his Spirit” ?—Give the sense
of the whole verse; 130, 131.—Explain the phrase, “ deeds of the body”
in ver. 13; 182;—also “spirit of bondage—Spirit of adoption” in ver.
15: 182.—What is the thought in the latter part of this verse ?—Explain
the difference between the form of expression here and in Gal. iv. 6.—
What is the scriptural test of filiation?—What is the proper force of the
Greek preposition here employed? 133, 134.
Section X.—Cuap. VIII. 18-39.
In this section what are compared?—Are mankind in general repre-
sented as waiting for a happier condition ?—Is this true also of Christians ?
—What are the trials of life intended to promote ?~How is the opera-
tion of God’s eternal affection towards the subjects of it represented 2—
What appeals does the Apostle now make ?—What persuasion does he
avow ? 1], 12.
Show the connection of this portion with what immediately precedes:
134,—Give the correct translation of the word rendered “ manifestation”
in ver. 2.—Explain the sense of “glory.” — What is the meaning of
“the revelation of the sons of God”? 135, 136.—State the three lead-
ing expositions of the word here rendered “ creature” and in verse 22
“creation”: 136-138.—Defend the last of these expositions: 138-140.
—Explain what is meant by “ vanity—bondage of corruption”: 140, 142.
—Show the meaning of and contrast between “not willingly” and “ by
reason of him who hath subjected”: 140, 141.—TIllustrate the best mean-
ing and connection of the first word in ver. 21.—Give the thought in
ver. 22: 142.—What is meant by “ first fruits of the Spirit ?—adoption
and redemption” ? 143.—Which is the better translation, by or in hope ?—~
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 247
What is meant by “saved” ?— What is the force of “ likewise” ?—the full
sense of the word rendered “helpeth”?—What is meant by the Spirit’s
interceding ? 144.—“unutterable groanings”” ?—Explain the language of
ver. 27.
State the propositions contained in verse 28 et seq. 145.—How often
does the noun and verb “ purpose” occur in the New Testament, as bearing
on the subject here brought into consideration ?—Give the places.—W hat is
its meaning in ix. 11 ?—What does it comprehend in Eph. i. 11 ?—Explain
the words “things in heaven and on earth”; 146.—What is said to be in
accordance with the purposes of God ?—When is this predestination and
choice represented as being made ?—Are they limited to outward and
temporary blessings ?—Does God’s purpose mentioned in Eph, iii. 11, relate
to the union of Jews and Gentiles:in the church of Christ? 147.—Is this
union all that it had in view ?—Has it not a bearing on angelic beings 2—
Explain the meaning and bearing of 2 Tim. i. 9. 148.—State now what
God’s purpose embraces :—Is it a necessary consequence that the intended
result shall take place ?—-May God’s will as represented in Scripture fail
of accomplishment ?—Does the Apostle speak of God’s will in close con-
nection with his purpose ?—Does this connection illustrate the nature of
each? 149.—Who then are the “called according to his purpose ” ?—
“ Foreknow” : can the meaning be limited to a simple previous knowledge ?
—Does it mean a foreknowledge of a disposition to embrace the gospel ?
Does it express the same idea as “ predestinate” ? 149, 150.—State and
defend another more probable meaning of the word :—What is the na-
ture of that conformity to Christ’s image which predestination has in view ?
—To what is the expression “ first born” equivalent ?—What is expressed
by the terms “ called? 151, justified? glorified” ?—Explain and illustrate
the last.—In all this portion of whom is the Apostle speaking? 152,—
Can the calling &c. here spoken of be limited to the enjoyment of the
present blessings of the Gospel ?—What is St. Peter’s language on this
point?—Is any difficulty removed by supposing St. Paul to be speaking
of communities ?—Does the Apostle here teach any thing of those who
are not Christians? 153, 154.—What does the word “all” in verse 32
recognise ?—W hat is the best punctuation of the following verses? 154.—
What does the word “ elect” express ?—Illustrate its meaning from the Old
Testament and the Apostolic fathers: 155.—Does the phrase “love of
Christ” mean ‘our love to him’ or “ his to us” ?—Do the following verses
sustain the doctrine of final perseverance 2—How does the language in
Phil. i. 6, illustrate their meaning ?—How are the expressions that follow
to be understood? 157,
248 _ QUESTIONS ON THE
Section XI.—Cwnar. IX. X. XL.
Mention the general topics of this section.—Why does the Apostle ex-
press his grief so deeply ?—What privileges of his nation does he display ?
—What constitutes the true spiritual Israelite ?—How is the author’s senti-
ment illustrated in the patriarchal history ? 12, 138.—How does God act in
favouring and punishing ?—What cases are mentioned in illustration ?—
What Jewish objection is stated ?—Give the Apostle’s reply, both gener-
ally and particularly : 13, 14.—What application does he make of certain
passages from the prophets?—What general conclusion does he then
sum up ?—To what is the failure of Israel owing ?—Wherein was their
zeal for the law shown to be erroneous?—How is Christ the end or ob-
ject of the law 2—How may legal justification be expressed ?—What does
God’s justification offer?—Is this offer general?—What must be done in
order to enjoy its blessings ? 14,—Was it to be expected that some would
reject the Gospel ?—Could the Israelites know that it was the divine purpose
to extend it to the Gentiles ?—Does the rejection of unbelieving Jews im-
ply the final rejection of the nation ?—How does the case of Israel in the
time of Elijah coincide with their condition as stated by the Apostle ?—To
whom are the seven thousand analogous ?—What is the condition of the
remainder ?—What has been the result of the rejection of the Gospel by
the Jews as regards the Gentiles? 15.—And what might be expected from
their conversion ?—From the character and condition of the patriarchs and
early converts, how does the Apostle represent the whole body ?—How
does he warn the Gentile?—Does he seem to expect a future conversion
of the Jews as a nation?—How do God’s plans evince his intention of
showing mercy to all? 16.
Are these chapters without connection with the preceding ones ?—Why
does the Apostle introduce them with such strong expressions of attach-
ment to his nation? 158, 159.—Explain the phrases “ in Christ,—I could
wish,—accursed” :—W hat is meant by becoming anathema from Christ ?—
State the Apostle’s general meaning.—Why is the word “Israelite” here
selected ? 159, 160.—Explain the terms here used to express Jewish pri-
vileges.—Is the received reading of the last phrase in ver. 5 correct? 161.
—Can the punctuation be altered, and the words be regarded as an ascrip-
tion of praise to God 2—What is the invariable scriptural construction in
such ascriptions ? 162, 163.—What is meant by “the word of God” in
ver. 62?—State the different significations of the word “Israel” in the
same verse: 163.—What is the idea which the Apostle expresses ?—Ex-
plain the phrase “children of the flesh—of the Spirit—according to the
time of life.’—Does the 8th verse contain a merely accommodated sense,
or does it convey the true meaning of the phrases? 164.—Why does the
Apostle introduce the case of Rebecca after that of Sarah ?—What is
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 249
nere meant by “God’s purpose according to election” ?—J]rom what did
this purpose result? 165.—Are the individuals Jacob and Esau here in-
tended, or their descendants ?—Explain the antithetic expressions “love”
and “hate”: 166, 167.—What would the Apostle’s Jewish readers infer
from what he had said ?—Explain the origin and meaning of the word
Moses: 167, 168—What is the thought of which the particle “for”
in ver. 15 is illative?—In what connection does the quotation from
Exodus occur ?—Explain the terms “ willeth” and “runneth.”—What does
the case of Pharaoh stand in contradistinction to? 168.—What principle
do both illustrate ?—Translate the Hebrew and Septuagint words for that
here used by the Apostle.—State the principal translations which have
been given to his expression.—Why does he substitute the first person for
the second as employed in the Septuagint ? 169, 170.—Illustrate the mean-
ing from the connection in which the quotation stands in Exodus.—Ex-
plain the phrase “ he hardeneth”: 170, 171.—On what is the objection in
the 19th verse founded?’—Give in detail the Apostle’s general an-
swer: 171.—What is his direct answer to the Jew ?—“ Power over the
clay”: Illustrate the Greek phrase.—In ver. 22, is there a suppression of
the sense, or an ellipsis 7—Explain “ vessels of wrath—of mercy” : 172.—
State the difference between the expressions “ fitted for” and “ which he
had afore prepared unto.”—Mention the probable connection and bearing
of the words, “that he might make known”: 173, 174.—“ Afore pre-
pared”: Illustrate and defend this meaning of the Greek word: 175, 176.
—Give the leading train of thought from ver. 14: 176, 177.—Who are
meant “by the vessels of mercy” as here stated by the Apostle ?—Of
whom is Hosea speaking in the passage here quoted ? 177.—What is the
meaning of “in the place” ?—How is the quotation applied 2—Explain the
full sense of the remnant being saved: 178.—How is the quotation from
Isa. i. 9 to be explained? 179.—In ver. 28, what is the best translation of
the word rendered “ work” ?—Explain the whole verse connected with it.
—What does Isaiah express by it? 180, 181—How does St. Paul apply
it _—Which is the best construction, that which regards vs. 30, 31, as the
question, and what immediately follows “ wherefore” as the answer; or
the usual one, which limits the question to the first clause? 181.—What
bearing have these verses on the interpretation of the preceding part of
the chapter ?—What is meant by the Gentiles not following after justifi
cation ?—Explain the words “law of righteousness” or justification —Ex
plain the particle rendered “ as it were”: 182, 183.—Where is the quota
tion in ver, 33 taken from ?—State its general meaning: 183.—Explain
the phrases “ stumbling-stone and rock of offence”; also the difference
between the translation “ shall not be ashamed” here given, and “shall not
make haste” in the Old Testament.
How may we account for the introduction of “Israel” in x, 12 184,—
250 QUESTIONS ON THE
“Bear record”: State the different meanings of the word, and that here
required,— Explain and illustrate the phrase “zeal of God.”—What is the
illative force of “ for” in ver, 4?—What is meant by Christ’s being “ the
end of the law for justification” ? 185, 186.—In ver. 5 does St. Paul im-
ply that justification can be of law? or that Moses meant to describe it ?
186.—How are the quotations here made intended to be applied —Ex-
plain the sense of “ that is” in vs. 6,7: also of “going up to heaven, down
to the abyss, and over the sea,” 187 ;—and other similar phraseology.—
What is the thought which St. Paul expresses ?—Explain the phrases “ in
thy mouth and in thy heart”; also, “ the word of faith”: 188.—What is
meant by “Jew and Greek”?—What does the word “rich” imply ?—
What is “ call upon” equivalent to ?—Who is the object of prayer here in-
tended?—Explain the meaning and connection of the quotation from Joel:
189.—W hat is implied in being “sent” to preach the Gospel? 190, 191.—
Are the quotations in vs. 15, 16, accommodated ?—How is that in ver. 18
applied ?——Explain the difference between the word “sound” here used
and “line” in the Psalm: 191.—State the course of remark from ver, 13:
—What is the purport of the question, “did not Israel know” ?—How do
the quotations afford the affirmative answer 2—What is meant by exciting
the Israelites to jealousy by no people? 192, 193.
What does the Apostle proceed to do in the 11th chapter? 193.—Is the
phrase “his people” to be limited to those Israelites who had embraced the
Gospel, or does it comprehend the nation as a body ? 194.—Why does St.
Paul speak here so particularly of himself? 194, 195.—W hat bearing on his
representation has the case of Elijah here stated ?—Sustain the view given
by subsequent verses : 195.—How does the conclusion arrived at harmonize
with some prophecies, and with the preservation of the Jews as a people ?—
Explain the obsolete word “wot.”—Is “of” or “in Elias” the more literal
version ? 196, 197.—Is Baal feminine or masculine ?—W hat does the lan-
guage, a “ remnant according to the election of grace,” mean ? and to what
does it refer ? 197.—W hat sentiment is expressed in ver. 6 ?—How does the
statement here made differ from that in ix. 31 and x. 3?—Explain the
word “election” as here used.—What is the general meaning of vs. 9, 10 ?
—For what purpose are the texts here quoted ?—Show the connection of
the clause “unto this day”: 198, 199.—Explain the phrase “spirit of
slumber.”—Give the general meaning of vs. 11, 12. 199.—Explain the
words “stumbling, falling”; also, the phrases “provoke to jealousy,
riches of the world:” 200.—Instead of “diminishing,” what is the mar-
ginal reading ?—What is the meaning of the Greek word? 200, 201.—
What is denoted by “fulness” ?—Explain the words, “I magnify mine
office,” in harmony with the context.—What is the force of the expression,
“my flesh”? 201, 202.—What is meant by “life from the dead” ?—To
what does the language in the first clause of ver. 16 allude ?—Does the
PRECEDING EXPOSITION. 951
term “first fruits” refer to the patriarchs or early converts ?—What are
meant by “the root and branches” ? 202, 203.—In ver. 17 who are intended
in the words “among and with them” ?—Explain the illustration from in-
serting grafts of a wild olive into a good one: 204—What word would
most naturally supply the ellipsis in ver, 21 ?—How is the divine readiness
to receive repentant Jews expressed in ver. 242 205.—What is the
general meaning of the word “ mystery” in the New Testament ?— With
what is “in part” best connected ?—What does the clause “ until the ful-
ness of the Gentiles be come in” express?——What is meant by “all
Israel” ? 205, 206.—What is to be said respecting the quotations in vs.
26, 272 207, 208.—State the meaning of vs. 28, 29, as given on p. 195.—
To what does ver. 30 refer ?—What is the best punctuation of ver. 31, and
the meaning of its latter half? 209.—What is meant by “concluded in
unbelief” 2—Recite a similar passage in Galatians —How is God said to
do this ? 209, 210.—State the meaning of ver. 33 in the English transla-
tion, and also in that which substitutes and for both.—Give the sentiment
in vs. 34, 35; also the idea in ver. 36: 211.
Section XII.—Cuars. XII-XYVI,
How may this part of the Epistle be characterized in contradistinction
to the former ?—What does St. Paul urge upon his readers in the 12th
chapter ?—What in the 15th, and what motive does he employ ?—State the
general contents of the 14th.—How does he there present the example of
Christ 2—What does he say of himself?—What does the last chapter
chiefly contain? 17,
Give the sense of “ prove” in xii, 2? 212.—What is the general signi-
fication of prophet and prophecy in the Bible? 213.—Explain the phrase
“analogy of faith”: 213, 214.—What is meant by “providing things
honest” ? 215.—Explain “ give place unto” : 215, 216.—State the promi-
nent idea in vs. 20, 21 : 216.—What sort of authority is intended in xiii.
1 et seq. ? 217.—Explain the motive to the practice of Christian virtues
which is employed in ver. 11: 219, 220.—What idea is expressed by the
words “ put on” ?—How is the quotation from Isaiah applied in xiy. 11,
12% 222.—What is the sense of “destroy” in ver. 15?—What is meant
by “ your good” ? 223.—Explain tne phrase “kingdom of God” : 223, 224.
—What is meant by “ work of God” and “ faith” 2? 224.—Is there suffi-
cient reason for placing here the doxology of xvi. 25-27 ?—Is the quota-
tion in xv. 3 properly accommodated ?—To what class does it belong ? 225.
—In vs. 8, 9, for what purpose does the Apostle represent Christ as sent :
226.—Is the representation in ver. 16 to be understood literally or figura-
tively ? 227.—Explain and illustrate it by other similar places: 227, 228.
—In ver. 19, from whence is the translation “fully preached” derived ?
. 228,—Is there reason to think that 9 Pa Paul ever acibnipiiabied his purpose of | =
going to Spain ?—Substitute some expository phrase for “sealed to them
4 this ‘fruit : 2” 228, 229.—Explain the figure in xvi. 4.—What is meant by
“the church that is in their house” ?—Reconcile the statement here made
- with 1 Cor. xvi. 15.—Explain the words “ of note among the Apostles” :
230, 231.—How was the kiss of peace used among the early Christians ?
r 231.—Explain and illustrate the figure in ver. 20: 282.—Vindicate the
true meaning of the words, “ since the world began”: 283,—Explain the
relative pronoun in the Greek of ver. 27: 284.
THE END.
4
:
:
of Else
a ¥ “Jieds mt é
7” ee
; . yt ma
' bes " ny
tii ‘pal?
; ‘ie wy
\. ah
i Oy ad
ce pes:
7138. OY Jy
wi any y ie
rip ents
td an Pin | mie ‘ye
m6
ba oA ‘9
-
_
7
;
LAN vin
2 01356
coor ray
Me A Oetah dine
lege oh
re Soe
at's
Ly Pe
diosestansere
Bee nsadeenses
af 4 ome
PU et
Pare
Carrer)
ne iat tte
Patere al ie
Athen
ere eer.
CAS eayce ates,
Wheto tne re
*
tierert.s
tte
ve
whew ges 4OF8 Geteta ny
tetas oe aie 9
ee
Pat ober star)
Fens 8 te
e he